Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Admin:Friday's alleged conflict of interest

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [1].

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [2].

The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [3].

The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You invent an artificial division of editors (ref desk "deletionists" and "inclusionists"), assign Friday to one of them, and then declare some conflict of interest? Exactly what is the "interest" being conflicted? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon has a very relevant point. Anyone categorizing users like that is a divisive and negative influence on Wikipedia, and should be cautioned or coached to avoid such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, that exact issue is the central point of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StuRat 2. Friday (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with the incident at hand, but I will point out that the usual grid of warnings encourages us to avoid mentioning blocks until about the third warning or so. Usually better to calm someone down, if at all possible, and yelling at them rarely accomplishes that. On the other hand, I remember the recall petition, so I'm sure a few users will have something more to say about this. Luna Santin 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Light has continually been extremely disruptive, and never seems to learn from previous blocks, and uses his page as a soapbox. Worse, I often get the impressions that he purposefully pushes the envelope in order to get blocked, so that he can play martyr - see WP:POINT, WP:DFTTish effect. Had multiple administrators not supported his previous block for the same offense, I could understand it. Please, stop this nonsense; we all want to see him be a good contributor, but this is not the way. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually shut down the misc reference (at the very least) - it's generally full of crap and is a honeypot for trolls. keep up the good work Admin Friday. (and I agree with the comments made by PS above in regards to Light) --Larry laptop 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

how was that a personal attack? A bit testy, but not a personal attack. I'm seriously thinking of writing an essay Wikipedia:Do not accuse of Personal Attacks every time you have a conflict, or something like that (or was it sarcastic?). Patstuart^talk|edits 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack? What are you talking about? Please don't strike other user's comments unless there is very good reason to (i.e., not here). —bbatsell ¿? 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly seemed more like a criticism of a page than a personal attack to me, and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a rule against saying, "This page is Teh Suck!" -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

just to conclude this subtopic, Yuser31415 and I failed to kick off in a manner that required admin intervention or resulted in a feud that crossed multiple pages and ended with one of us swearing to raise a tribe of children who would hound the other forever. --Larry laptop 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll point the readers of this thread to the relevant one further up this same page, where this block is already being discussed. See #Civility block for review. I blocked Light current a couple of days ago for persistent incivility; he returned to the same behaviour immediately after that block expired, prompting Friday to block him again. Light current has been spinning his wheels on his talk page ever since (just shy of one hundred talk page edits since the block began), and I'm very concerned he's going to self-destruct completely if he doesn't calm down.

Note that several admins and respected editors have both reviewed the recent blocks and attempted to advise Light current where his behaviour has fallen short of accepted standards. His response to that advice has ranged from disingenuous to flatly rude.

As to StuRat's point that there are other editors related to Ref Desk discussions who have been grossly and determinedly incivil...well, I have to absolutely agree. I have personally issued repeated requests to StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to be civil in his discussions with other editors; I have not, however, threatened to block him for it because it might represent a conflict of interest. He is the subject of two recent user conduct RfCs (one, two) the second of which I started because of his ongoing insistence on namecalling. In addition:

• I have also warned Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated incivility. If another editor would like to have a word with him, that would be dandy.
• THB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently taken to calling anyone who agrees with a Wikipedia administrator (and who disagrees with him) a 'sycophant', among other attacks. If an uninvolved third party would have a word with him about that, I think it would help to improve the tone of discussion.
• Finally, the anonymous remarks that StuRat is complaining about were made nearly a month ago, and ceased after a short period of time. I agree that they were extremely rude and entirely deserving of a block. However, the editor in question was obviously on a non-static IP somewhere in 87.102.0.0/16, and I wasn't going to block sixty-five thousand addresses to whack one mole that made only a few comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ten, you failed to mention that both of those RFCs filed against me had the majority supporting my position, not the positions of those who filed them. Thus, if you are using RFCs, filed by Ref Desk deletionists, as evidence that I am disruptive, they prove quite the opposite, that the Ref Desk deletionists are the ones being disruptive, by filing nuisance RFCs. StuRat 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that you think the majority on those RfCs agree with you is evidence that you have a problem, in my view. There is some trenchant and strongly supported criticism of you in especially the second, including your use of labels to avoid engaging in reasoned debate. I encourage others to look at the header of User talk:StuRat/redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Ten: incivility has made useful discussion about the ref desks more difficult. Friday (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here might be that there is a group of regular Ref Desk editors involved here. What you guys probably need is for one or two uninvolved admins or respected editors who have never been anywhere near the Ref Desks to come along and mediate. Let all the regulars go back to editing and answering questions, and when a dispute blows up, the uninvolved editors will step in and handle things objectively. Try this for a month or so, and then retreat and see if the Ref Desk disputes start up again (hopefully not). I'm not saying that things haven't been handled objectively so far, but at least having someone totally uninvolved handling things might make both sides realise how things look to an outsider, and then adjust their own behaviour accordingly. Carcharoth 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this good idea: First is that several of the ref desk regulars (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) have expressed derision towards the contributions and attempts at intervention of those without a history on the desks (and use the 'intrusion' of such editors as evidence of cabalism and cronyism); and Second, it's been tried already, and several (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) of the editors who are posting to this and the other thread about Light current were, at one time, uninvolved editors who'd had nothing to do with the ref desks. Anchoress 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Anchoress hit the nail on the head. Every time someone gets sucked into this debate (e.g., myself, who's never touched reference desk), it becomes obvious that incivility on the part of several pro-ref desk people is awful; thus we are labeled "involved" (keep in mind, I'm pro-RD, at least at the moment; I think it's a great idea). This has happened many times over, and we just get more and more admins sucked into the problem. To be blunt (I know this will get LC furious with me, but it must be said): this is not at all a reference desk issue. This is an issue of Light Current's (and sometimes StuRat)'s deep incivility issues. A perusal of the block log and the talk pages of LC (which I encourage any uninvolved admins to do) will show that this is extremely obvious. -Patstuart^talk|edits 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, because they edit heavily there, it becomes the Ref Desk's problem. I still think the best thing to do is to try one more time with another set of uninvolved editors, and see if that helps. Can anyone give precise details of how many times this has "happened many times over"? Carcharoth 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree with your suggestion that Ref Desk deletionists should recuse themselves from blocking Ref Desk inclusionists (and vice-versa, incidentally). New Admins are absolutely welcomed to come in and give their opinions on blocks, etc., so long as they don't pick sides and start promoting one side of the debate over the other, they need to remain neutral. When new Admins come in, decide they believe in the deletionist POV, then start blocking inclusionists, then absolutely they are no longer viewed as neutral outsiders, does this surprise anyone ? StuRat 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's right. If someone doesn't agree with your veiwpoint Stu, they are picking sides. Please. pschemp | talk 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If an Admin came in, joined the inclusionist side of the debate, then started blocking deletionists for the slightest offense, while ignoring all transgressions from the inclusionist side, don't you think that would be a problem ? On the other hand, maybe that's the only hope of getting any balance in actions from Admins (hoping we get an equal number which are highly biased towards each side), since it seems it may be impossible to get any truly unbiased Admins involved. StuRat 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's use an unrelated topic for clarity. Say one group of editors, including Admins, says that there were blue tribbles in Star Trek, and the other disagrees. They get into vicious battles over this issue. Then, the side that says there were blue tribbles starts blocking only those on the anti-blue-tribble side, completely ignoring the same, or much worse, behavior on their side of the battle. Would these be proper Admin actions, in your opinion ? StuRat 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the absolute crux of the issue. I am only a sometime RD contributor with no interest (or stated opinion) in the "deletionist/inclusionist" issue. Noting the disruptive tendency of labeling - against their stated will - other editors into arbitrary groups, I independently warned LC, StuRat and THB et al as an outside administrator. Over a week later I and I have been accused of being among a "lump of administrators" working against the "inclusionists", a "freshmen admin lacking judgment" and a "shrill deletionist". To paraphrase a great statesman, THB, StuRat and Light current appear to share the belief you are either with them or against them. Since I can imagine no administrator will endorse their recent rash of incivility, I don't see how any outside admin will remain neutral in the eyes of these editors for long. Nevertheless, I fully endorse this attempt by Durova and brenneman to step in. I guess it will either work, or the we should make more room for a few more admins pressganged onto the good ship deletionism. Rockpocket 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't focus this whole debate on Light current or StuRat. There is actually a triad of editors on ref desk that seem to be causing all the antagonism that includes THB (talk · contribs) (see User:StuRat RfC, StuRat talk 1 and StuRat talk 2 for examples). While there are other users sympathetic to their "deletionist" opinions (refers to those that disagree with them) the others do not disrupt discussions in the same manner. A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block. The response to this tendentious editing is then used as a foil for them to cry persecution. The real shame in this dispute is that all these editors make excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. However, there a problems on ref desk that include extensive debates, off topic chat, jokes bordering on offensive and responding to trolls. It is these latter things that they refuse to acknowlledge as a problem. David D. (Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I havent been replying to Qs on RD pages for about 2 weeks now. Neither have I been doing much on the RD talk pages. So why are you referrring to me in your post? Am i not allowed to comment on the RfCs now? You really must define how you are implicationg me in the 'trouble making'--Light current 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The vote on the RfC is relevent since above StuRat claims that most editors agree with his position. But only yourself and THB actually endorsed his opinion. While others on the RfC are sympathetic none endorsed the opinion that you three favor. i am not trying to imply there is a conspiracy, you are all quite open about your relationship. I did define how you are "trouble making" above. Are you saying you want difs? David D. (Talk) 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

While the majority did not support my statements directly, they did support statements sympathetic to my POV, in both RFCs. In the first RFC, my statement was added quite late in the process, so that would explain fewer votes there. Also note that very few people supported the actual complaints. StuRat 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I confirmed that some " did support statements sympathetic to [your] POV" above, but it was notable who endorsed your own opinion. So what is the tally you have for those supportive of StuRat vs not supportive? David D. (Talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah give me some examples of :

A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block.

--Light current 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No one said that. What we are saying here is to try to reach an amicable compromise on both sides without throwing clichéd and condescending labels with wild abandon. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

But you have been asking questions that appear to be testing the limits. I will add that Light current has been a valuable editor in trying to define a set of guidelines for the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Which Qs? On the RD talk pages? Pls illustrate.--Light current 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

THB

I've blocked THB for 72 hours. I tried coming in as "uninvolved" [4] but that went poorly, thus I had his name on my watchlist when he's calling Friday a "ball-buster" and an "asshole." (Noting that the second one was phrased as "If a guy acted like that he would be an asshole" which cuts no water with me.) The block is uncontroversial, and I tried again [5] to initiate dialog. As I did not personally issue any warnings, I'm happy if someone officious wants to lift the block without chatting to me. We all do things differently, etc.
brenneman 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems your second attempt went the way of the phonograph and the dodo. Either way, this thread is more than enough for me to endorse the block. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a major regular at the Ref desks, but I toddle by now and then when I'm in the mood for Wikipedia Lite. What's happened to you guys? The place is supposed to be fun - a nice little grab bag of questions to answer. I haven't been in conflict with anybody there but I'm concerned about the foot-in-mouth disease. That makes it un-fun which is why I'm there less often - if I'm going to put myself through the mill I'd rather cry aha! and block a small launderette of sockpuppets at the end. You've got multiple RFCs, multiple threads at this board, repeated blocks...you're on the road to arbitration or community topic banning. Users with your kind of edit counts shouldn't need to be reminded where this leads. Disengage. Durova^Charge! 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday

the place was fun until Friday (who is on record as saying that he believes the RD should be deleted) came in and started issuing orders, unilaterally deleting answers, and making blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not aware enough of the issues there to comment on it. It may very well be that Firday is harassing these users in a willful attempt to drive them from the encyclopedia, or that she desires for some reason to be the Lord and Master of the reference desk. But any chance to sort this out has to come after some cooling of the fires here. I love Friday like a brother from another mother, but I'll chase up any complaint on her with my usual terrier-like tenacity iff people can chill out.
  brenneman 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Im chilled ! %-)--Light current 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, Aaron, wouldn't "sister from another mother" be more apt? Picaroon 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Light Current

I've also issued a "warning" tantamount to a threat to Light Current. [6] I'm not at all used to playing the hard man, but I'm put in mind of Mistress SK. In the end even if she did not understand what the problem was, it makes no difference if it's "trolling" (a word I am on record objecting to) or "unable to adpet": it's a huge drain on time and energy and it must stop. - brenneman 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adpet? Did you mean 'adapt'?--Light current 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current's (once in a wikilifetime) offer

Are we just talking about the RD pages themselves here or the RD talk as well. I have mainly recused myself( painful) of answering Q s on the RD owing to extremely negative reactions to my light hearted replies. I have also reduced my input on Talk:RD as well due to misinterpretation of my messages leading to blocks. I have mainly finished my work on the RD guidelines.

A ban for me from those pages would be hard to bear, but I do edit elsewhere when allowed.

Im not sure about Sturat and THB. Why not just ban me to start and see if things improve (or not).

As an act of self sacrifice and as atonement for my previous sins (call me a sacrificial lamb or scapegoat if you like), I offer myself up to be banned from editing RD pages (and RD talk if you really insist) for say 2 weeks, to see if the situation in your opinion improves. How about it?--Light current 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be brilliant beyond belief. Really really thank you. I say again: The optimal solution os one where everyone can go back to having a good time editing, be validated for their contributions, and serve the long-term goals of the project. *pfft* adpet *snort*
brenneman 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edcon)

I really enjoyed contributing to the RDs and the talk pages over the last few months and thought I was contributing positvely to most things (OK maybe with a silly joke/pun or two). I thought I was helping in trying to lighten up peoples lives. I never tried to upset any one intentionally and Im sorry if I did. Obviously I was wrong in my judgement. 8-((.

I also felt I was doing something useful in helping create the RD guidelines so that people like me would know what was expected of their contributions.

However, with the repeated attacks on me from all quarters, I no longer feel welcome, safe or comfortable here anymore. Anyway... if most people would rather I wasnt here, I understand and I will go.

I shall be really sad to leave this place... it has been great fun for me. But all good things must come to an end, I suppose. And this is The end for me.--Light current 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I await the execution of my sentence. (BTW please tell me what you have decided to do to me) 8-(--Light current 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you need not wait for the people who visit this page to say yea or nay to your suggestion - just do it. Dewatch all the pages related, put this all behind you, and come write some articles. No formal ban needed, unless you consider your personal decision formal. After two weeks, people can reconvene to see what the changes (if any) have been. How does this sound? Picaroon 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. You are one of the few who did. I wanted to be blocked from those pages to remove any temptation but, using tremendous effort, I am going to attempt to leave alone the RD talk and the RD pages themselves until the end of this month (Jan 07).

I may still edit the RD guidelines though, as it is generally agreed that I have made positive contributions there.--Light current 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We cannot block anyone from editing a particular page. It is simply not possible in the current implementation of the software. While the Page restrictions table has a field for future support for that, it is not coded yet (and may not be ever coded), so the restriction has to be voluntary. The other alternative is an ArbCom restriction on editing the RD pages, but I think that is unnecessary, as any violation would remove your editing privileges of the entire site for a short period of time. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Someone said it was actually possible. It maybe a good idea to implement that though! In that case I must use utmost willpower to stop editing those pages!--Light current 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

We could go to ArbCom, or we could go for a community ban for a specified (does not need to be long) period. If we were to ban the worst one or two offenders from the ref desk for, say, a fortnight, to cool off and regain perspective, while allowing (encouraging) them to keep editing elsewhere, would that help at all? I don't think we can let this ride. At present StuRat aggressively asserts that he will not even admit the possibility that those he disagrees with have a right to dispute his position. Shades of WP:OWN apart, this does not augur well for any kind of resolution of the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I absolutely accept consensus rule. If those who disagree with me are in the clear majority, then I would accept what they want. It's only when a minority asserts the right to perform deletions without consensus, change the rules, block users who disagree with them and ignore abusive users who agree with them, etc., that I disagree. StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a temporary ban will do anything but give the boards a temporary respite after which those users will return and continue to behave in the same fashion as before. I'm not being overly cynical here, because that's exactly what has happened with the blocks of LC and StuRat and THB. (Though to give LC credit, he has shown ability to reform when StuRat isn't around.) What is needed here is a long term solution to what has been a long term issue. So far the fact that every admin or other editor who has attempted to mediate with these three has ended up blocking them or being added to their enemy list doesn't bode well for solutions other than 1. An arbcom case or 2. A standard of behaviour written by the greater community. pschemp | talk 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Pschemp, please don't misrepresent my record. I have never been blocked because I've never done anything even remotely "blockable". StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like #2 8-)--Light current 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither have I. Makes no diff 8-))--Light current 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Highways problem

I'm currently running into a problem with a user involving possible socks. This looks suspicious as taken in the context of my talk page. The other user informed about this (besides Vishwin60) is TwinsMetsFan who is on wikibreak. About a few months ago I was informed of a user Albertoneo10 (sp?) who kept making copyvio images and not adhering to the MOS. I and others left many notices on his talk page which he ignored. He received a few MOS blocks before he decided to leave. However, the user resurfaced as User:512theking. And kept editing the same articles and doing copyvio images. I talked to TMF about this. Finally, I get messages on my userpage that he has decided to give up and leave... however, another user posted the message, and he has reappeared as a sock again, and is promising to do more copyvios. Would a request for checkuser, blocks, etc. be appropriate on my part? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I recall the incident that involved an editor at Gribble Nation, where many of the copyrighted images were stolen from. I'll inform him of the incident. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He is also conducting inapproperiate redirects, as seen here. For instance, U.S. Route 422 (Ohio) was redirected to U.S. Route 422 (west) which redirects to U.S. Route 422. The state should be used within the brackets as an identifier. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See his talk page for future updates. I found one image, taken from state-ends.com, that "he created". I'll parse through other sites to see if they are taken, but my hunch is that all are copyright violations. And, what should I do to the aerials? I took his USGS aerials and applied the USGS template, but he most certainly did not "create it" either. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Every image thus far has been tagged with copyright violations. Instead of going through his entire history (who knows how far that goes), can one sweeping edit delete the images? Tagged every image for copyright violations. If you notice any socks, let me know. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was an appropriate redirect, since he had split US 422 into (west) and (east), a reasonable good-faith action (which we decided to revert after talking over). --NE2 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

512theking10 claims to be this person, but could just be faking it. Either way this new one should be blocked. --NE2 01:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I received a message, which he spammed to numerous other users --

"Game over you suck

Game over bitches, you've caught me i am User:albertotineo10, user:kingofpitching10, and user:512theking. But leave user:prisonbreak91 out of this because he had nothing to tdo with this. You all are very stupid assholes. I win this game because in the end you've never blocked me but i left first. You can stop your worthless investigation because i'll leave you guys alone. I mean common i didn't even know that it was illegal to steal those pictures. You guys suck, this place sucks, and goodbye onless you want to continue your stupid investigation because is a waste of your time. I am a sockpuppet like the ones you put on your hands mother fuckers. Ha ha ha ha!! -- 512theking10 hates wikipedia
Note:Leave Prisonbreak91 out of this he didnt do anythin

User talk:512theking has all the copyright vio messages posted, and all images should be speedy deleted. user:512theking10 is another sock, along with user:Kingofpitching10, and the original copyright violator, user:Albertotineo10. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, if any suspicious images crops up on any highway web-site from a new user, please run it by me on my talk page. I can easily double check it with the operators of Gribblenation, State-Ends, AARoads (and its other domains), and Steve Alpert's Roads. Much thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Effective immediately, I am blocking the following users and IPs for abusive sockpuppetry, trolling, image copyright violations, MOS problems, etc. With the exception of Prisonbreak10 and the IPs, all will be blocked indefinitely. The ones not blocked indefinitely will be blocked for 48 hours. However, with any further violations, the aforementioned accounts and any socks will be blocked indefinitely on sight. Let this serve as a final warning to the person behind all of these accounts:

• User:Prisonbreak91
• User:512theking
• User:512theking10
• 209.244.30.249
• 172.146.169.214
• User:Kingofpitching10
• user:Albertotineo10

If anyone has concerns regarding these blocks, please contact me on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made further blocks because the vandalism is continuing. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody paying attention? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone discusses this at your page. If you want to copy the discussions here, it may jumpstart more drastic measures, because this is getting out of hand. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I switched the templates to speedy delete from 'possible copyright infringement' on the images. I didn't know about the template until just now, so hopefully this will get them purged from the system faster and stop them from being copied into the Commons. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I just tossed a whole bunch on this wiki. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Copied from User talk:Rschen7754:

How Come?

How come you and that TMF guy talking about me stealing images. Listen i did you guys a great favor on a lot of Pennsylvania Highways that need help if you guys want to block me, be my guest. But next time say it in my talk page instead of talking to one of your friends about it first. What is this the Wiki:Police, don't make me laugh i'm leaving and never doing this again and by the way, i'm not albertotineo10 or the other guy. -- The King is done (512theking)

Additional info

Just to let you know, User:512theking told User:Prisonbreak91 to pick up where he left off. Also, if you check 512theking's page, it says that 512theking quit and never coming back. This was just a heads-up if you didn't look yet. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, WOW! Looks like we have a sockpuppet amongst our pages from the looks of it involving the users you mentioned in this section and in the Copyvio problem section above (obviously) And for sure - it looks like User:Prisonbreak91 is also User:512theking - (the former is the one that put this section in your page. :-Z. Why - and how - did he sign with the latter's name instead?) Are you guys having their IPs checked if possible to see where they're contributing from? • master_son^{Lets talk} 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

We have to run a checkuser for that- I'm waiting to see what WP:ANI (if they care?) says. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser...and possibly a block on both... V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have yet identified two possible socks. 172.146.169.214 added "Can someone help me create road maps" (look here) and contributed to PA Route articles. 209.244.30.249 has added the "I QUIT AND NEVER COMING BACK!" line (look here) and also contributed to PA Route articles. Just a little bit more research on the page history. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed all of those two - but didn't think about that. The guys were using the MTF Talk template on their pages as well. • master_son^{Lets talk} 05:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and even though he says leave Prisonbreak91 out of it, that user is as guilty as the rest of them IMHO • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rschen, block the users below NOW! You're the admin; you should do something about it (I hope what 512theking10 said was true)! V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed fully - I got one of these vandal edits myself - [7] • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to everyone for taking care of this issue. I've been busy lately, so I haven't been able to edit/monitor that much. Glad to see this is finally being resolved. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

Effective immediately, I am blocking the following users and IPs for abusive sockpuppetry, trolling, image copyright violations, MOS problems, etc. With the exception of Prisonbreak10 and the IPs, all will be blocked indefinitely. The ones not blocked indefinitely will be blocked for 48 hours. However, with any further violations, the aforementioned accounts and any socks will be blocked indefinitely on sight. Let this serve as a final warning to the person behind all of these accounts:

• User:Prisonbreak91
• User:512theking
• User:512theking10
• 209.244.30.249
• 172.146.169.214
• User:Kingofpitching10
• user:Albertotineo10

If anyone has concerns regarding these blocks, please contact me on my talk page. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rschen, I just removed trolling from the 209... IP. He just said that he'll create another account and vandalize more. So just as a precautionary measure, block his IP from creating accounts (and of course editing pages). V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually the IP is 209.244.30.229. Now block him indefinitely from creating accounts and editing pages. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the blocking policy, "Indefinite blocks should not be used on IPs; many IPs are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are re-assigned or have different users." Also, do we know that the recent ones are the same person? It could just be someone familiar with the case and wanting to stir up trouble. If you want to do a longer-term block on the IP, you should probably ask on requests for checkuser to ensure that they are the same person. --NE2 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think there's much doubt that these IPs are the same person as the users listed above. See their contributions for evidence. I'm not saying that a checkuser isn't needed - I'm just saying it's extremely likely that a checkuser would come up positive. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it's not clear to me that 512theking10 is the same as the other people. It's certainly likely, but could be a troll stirring stuff up. --NE2 23:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What other actions are available to deal with IPs? It seems that would be very difficult to block one because it's variable • master_son^{Lets talk} 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Special:Contributions/209.244.30.229 for one week. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked Prisonbreak91 and other IPs for a week as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Could this IP be a sock as well? Special:Contributions/163.238.61.156 --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Not again... User:Pahighways. Vandalized my page. Blocked 1 week. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What was I thinking? Reblocked indef. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Pahighways is a blatant vandal, modeled after Jeff Kitsko's PAHighways. Jeff uses the nickname online, such as on IRC, and this is not the same user (verified through direct communition with him tonight). As such, this user needs to be blocked ASAP; CheckUser first would be nice. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He was already blocked. I'm thinking of filing for a checkuser to see if there's more... looking into it now. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All the user contributions (images) are copyright vios. I am tagging them right now, but this is getting out-of-hand. More action may be necessary in the future. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And now the copyright vios are being posted on Commons -- [8]. Can these be speedy deleted? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it there (I'm not an admin at Commons). --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also found Image:I-81 va exit 3.jpg, Image:I-81 s near I-64.jpg, Image:I-081 sb exit 300 03.jpg at commons. They're probably here too. `Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

---

End of copied information

---

More socks

I know of an admin that is here and on commons. lar should be able to help us out. I'll post a message on his talk page. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'll talk to him via IRC. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about IRC! I'll get on too. I've worked with him with WP:SRNC... which channel? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A new sock (or impostor) has appeared. See the page history of my talk. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The same sock attacked my page as well - see its history • master_son^{Lets talk} 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

user:LetsgoPhillies is another sock, along with 172.128.9.102. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

172.128.9.102 has vandalized User talk:TwinsMetsFan and also User talk:Stratosphere's talk pages this morning - cleaning them. • master_son^{Lets talk} 17:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. But this is concerning. Have you considered semi-protecting your user (talk) pages? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I put the request in earlier today, and it was granted only for my userpage, not my talk page. then later today this happened [9] by 172.150.151.145 - after the response to the request. • master_son^{Lets talk} 02:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Posted RFCU here. Place it on you watchlist to see the status of this situation. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 23:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Something going on

Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an edit war fueled by Pizzaman6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who has sunken into personal attacks and off color comments) and 68.117.38.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as well as Shac1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has violated 3RR more than likely. Anyone want to have a look?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that IP Address 68.117.38.94 may belong to Capella University - which has been previously warned for vandalism (User_talk:68.117.38.94). Furthermore, attempting to take the discussion to the talk page have been futile due to the ongoing personal attacks. Reviewers will note that previous matters, between other users, have been handled appropriately. Shac1 05:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• comment: I did a lot of early work on the Capella article (among many for-profit college articles which I've started) and I've noticed that they sometimes (on rare but noticeable occasions) get re-written by anons with IPs matching the school itself. Capella has had some incidents like this, previously, once every few months and by an anonymous IP that would track on a WHOIS to the Capella Education Corporation (owner company). Things have become far, far more active in the past few months since the for-profit university went public on the US stock market. Please keep these facts in mind. I have a suspicion that some of the new user accounts are Capella anon IPs that have registered, but that's purely speculation. --Bobak 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Bobak. Things have really gotten out of control since Capella University has gone public. It appears as if anon users from Capella University are using Wikipedia as a forum to obtain free advertising and to create link farms back to their own web sites. A prime example concerns edits to the Capella article that were made yesterday in which a Capella user posted numerous links back to a large number of "articles" that were, quite literally, nothing more than press releases created by Capella University.

An examination of the Capella article's history will also reveal the rampling personal attacks against those that Capella Univerity (and their alleged anon users) disagree with. Even now, Capella's talk page displays the overt hostility towards users that Capella dislikes. Shac1 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Had Shac1 taken the time to personally look at the links he woul dhave noticed that only 2 or 3 of the articles were pless releases. Some were newspaper articles and television reports concerning.

Why is Shac1 allowed to post opinion articles from investorideas.com and paint a distorted picture that has NO reference to back it up?

Why is Shac1 able to post the assumption that Capella voluntarily pulled their APA accreditation because of the age of their program but can not provide any documantation supporting his notion?Pizzaman6233 14:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though

Hello all. Further to the previous notifications on the NLP article [10] [11] [12]: The most constructive effort now seems to me to be the encouragement of a civil atmosphere that allows editors of different viewpoints to get along [13] and to present an article that includes all relevant views “presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[14]. There are some problems remaining:

• Despite being reminded of the importance of civility for constructive editing - some editors (possibly the same one) are continuing to be uncivil by demanding blocks in edit summaries ([15] (under “serious examples”)) [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

• Editors ignoring suggestions to civilly discuss edits (diffs as above)

• Some editors (possibly the same one) persistently restoring argumentative phrasing [21] [22] [23]

• Editor trying to marginalize (ignore) critical discussion by using spacing [24] [25] [26]

• Continued obscuring of relevant science views eg [27] [28] [29]

On the positive side:

• Editors have stopped actually removing critical discussion from the talkpage:

• Concerning evidence for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: Some editors are editing using predominantly single use accounts [30] [31] [32] [33]: The recent COI issues on the article are perhaps more important [34] considering the cultic issues inherent in the subject. Apart from this I see no evidence of any sockpuppeting actually going on in the article.

• There has been some compliance with Cleanuptaskforce suggestions. Also - though they do tend to try to marginalize critical suggestions critical influence shows some effect and there is a delayed positive response towards some of those suggestions afterwards.

Overall things are slowly moving forward. Civility is clearly very important on Wikipedia (as I see it in a nutshell - to “Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally) and especially for articles such as the NLP article. None of the other articles I edit on have editors who persistently restore argumentative phrasing (WP words to avoid) into the text. It seems to me that as long as civility is properly adopted and reasonably maintained though - then all relevant views can be fairly presented and constructive article proceedings can be maintained long term. Again - if I inadvertently make any suggestion or action that is not constructive then I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thank you AlanBarnet 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been trimmed down considerably, which is major progress. When I was a mentor on that article, it was ridiculously large. Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Woohookitty. Yes there's definitely room to make the whole article more concise in criticisms and in the general presentation of the subject. Redundancy can be reduced and the style can be made more encyclopedic. Moving forward. AlanBarnet 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty for some positive remarks. As for AlanBarnet, the reason why he is sidelined and/or ignored by all the other regular editors is that they are all of the view that he is a sockpuppet of Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown [35]and therefore attempts to negotiate/discuss civilly or compromise with him are a pointless waste of time. Several of these editors lived through the previous mediation/arbitration marathon and therefore have experience of this. The major improvements in accuracy of citations and quotations took place in the teeth of his interference and major improvements in trimming have taken place since all editors agreed to ignore AlanBarnet as a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown thus enabling some constructive work to be done.Fainites 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. This is a good opporunity for you to try to get along with editors who hold different views from you. Some infrequent editors on the article seem to be in agreement with me concerning the need for civil discussion[36][37].. However, the prior assessments [38] [39] [40]: indicate that you seem to be part of a domimating group who encourages COI editing and the promotional obscuring of views. You seem quite resistant to reasonable admin suggestions [41]. According to policies on sockpuppetry [42] the dominating group in this case could possibly be considered meatpuppets when following the same NPOV non-compliance and can all be considered the same editor when voting about other editors. I'm not particularly interested in banning COI editors or rooting out all possible meatpuppets though - and I'm sure admin will deal with any sockpuppetry. The main solution is to encourage editors to get along civilly so they can present all relevant views in concise form without obscuring the most relevant. I believe that above all - admin suggestions and scrutiny have been helpful in improving the NLP article and I'll continue to make helpful notifications to encourage civility and constructive editing for as long as its needed. I believe its inevitable that at some time you will have to show that you can get along with editors of different views. For the sake of civil discussion and a balanced article of course - the sooner the better. AlanBarnet 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 4th effort gaming WP:AN/I [49] [50] [51] -- and his message is again overflowing with sugar-coated bait, arbitrary diffs, and flat-out lies. No-one has corroborated any of his stories and lies -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to all other editors indepedently deciding to ignore AlanBarnet completely -- enabling them to discuss and debate issues with sincerity. Even without an ear on the NLP talk page, AlanBarnet has nonetheless persisted in trolling both there and here. Please check out AlanBarnets talk page and you'll see his conflicts began with his arrival at wikipedia and have continued up to this date. Please, can an admin please review this situation? 58.178.97.116 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a quick note. It has been a pleasure collaborating with 58.* and Fainites. I believe these editors tend to be on the healthy skeptical side. Together we are working on NPOV. We have systematically worked through the entire article to checking facts and references. It has come a long way on the road to become a wikipedia feature article standard. We want to promote an atmosphere in the article and discussion so that more experienced wikipedians are willing to weigh in. --Comaze 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?

User:Mobile 01 just made statment:

====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page====

Carefull Travb, that statement could almost be libellous. [52]

Does this qualify as a legal threat, if so, where would I file this at? Travb (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. He's not threatening action or saying he'd act. You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. What good would it do you to show that a guy who says he works for bridgestone/firestone on his userpage has edited from an IP connected to bridgestone/firestone? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my concern, I apologize if you may have missed these edits:

1. "removed biased rubbish"[53]
2. "Both you and the other two admins are being hoodwinked by user Travb into thinking he is a good editor."[54]
3. The page has once again been vandalised and user TravB has gotten his edits into place and then had you protect the page. Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism.[55]
4. "Interesting to note that in the above section, you complained heavily about other people reverting your work. Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias."[56]
5. You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not. " "Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with."[57]
6. "Given the difference in our usual edit topics I think the general Wiki user can quickly draw conclusions as to who it is that is biased in there revisions." [58]
7. "Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism."[59]
8. "It seems this user has a passion for Conspiracy, Government Control, Corporate Abuse and Coverups which would explain his zeal in promoting his Anti Firestone Propoganda." [60]

Is there any concern from either of you that Bridgestone has been actively editing the both Firestone (which was bought by Bridgestone) and Bridgestone? Travb (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of those are focused on the edit rather than the person. The others accuse you of bias, vandalism, and edit warring, which aren't really personal attacks, they're comments on behavior. You may not like the accusations, but looking at the level of contentiousness between you two, it seems hardly worth taking action over.

As for editing by company employees, judge them on their work. Are the edits biased? The congressional edits were a problem because they were whitewashing records by removing well-sourced negative information; if he does that then we have an issue. If all you have is accusations of something he freely admits to (that he is connected to the company), then you have a potential WP:COI, but COI isn't an absolute ban on editing, and you shouldn't take it as such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I am confused, calling another editors edits "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" is acceptable under WP:NPA? That under WP:NPA I can state other editors are being hoodwinked into thinking you are a good editor, and that you have no respect for wikipedia? This is exactly what has been said to myself by this user, in the edits above.

This user has created content forks to avoid a page protection, creating a revert war on several other pages. Four admins had to get involved and protect those pages.

I requested a WP:Third opinion and the editor who was assigned the case stated that LucaZ and Mobile 01 where maybe socks. She also felt that the user should be banned from editing.

Mobile 01 deleted all referenced criticism to Bridgestone, in similar edits as Bridgestone employees, she has refused to abide by the page protection, in her own words making it a "a redundant orphan now" [61] and launched into a huge character assualt on me with the admins who protected the pages. I am actively compiling the checkuser evidence, and thus far I have found a lot. Travb (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that you're trying to have him run out of town, I think he's maintained a reasonable level of civility. I get the impression you're just wikilawyering around for an excuse to have him blocked. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you want out of this, a block, or a better article? If your goal is to stop the editing problems, accusations of NPA are not going to cool things down. You've given your evidence, and changes have been made. If there is a blockworthy problem, these comments aren't it. Don't keep pushing this case unless you have something much stronger, because it's just reflecting badly on you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I think my edit history on the article, adding almost all of the 17 references (including the first one), and this users behavior speaks for itself.Travb (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As does your edit history on this board. Proto::► 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proto, I don't think that is helpful unless you can expand on it - as someone who has not been monitoring travb's edits on this board won't really know how to take that.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, its over, I have more than enough evidence to already show that User:Mobile 01 has been using sockpuppets and has been lying about it. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

I won't hold my breath for an apology. When wikiusers justify comments like "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" as being acceptable under WP:NPA, I don't expect much. Travb (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I support you on the NPA claim - that statement is unacceptable but the vehemance with which you are going after this editor leaves something to be desired. One of the first stages of WP:DR is to take a step back and calm down. I'd suggest trying it. A clear head helps you focus and find what you are looking for easier.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Localzuk, your 100% correct. I appreciate your comments. As my temperature has risen, I have been getting off of wikipedia for longer and longer. I stayed off for the entire day yesterday. I apologize for my vehemance, which I am painfully aware actually hurts, not helps my points. Thank you. Travb (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive, oft minority POV attemps to own Martin Luther article, usually without productive discussion at talk page

Please note the following edits by User:Justas Jonas:

• Predominantly edits one article: [62]
• Labels welcoming messages on their user-talk page as clutter, spam and unnecessary material: [63] & [64].
• Makes unfounded personal attacks against another user [65] and criticizes other user's edits with an air of superiority. Please see various edit summaries at [66] and Talk:Martin Luther.
• May post under an IP address to emphasize User:Justas Jonas' point: [67].
• Resembles a previously banned user, per another editor of Talk:Martin Luther: [68].
• One recent edit war is over the size of and content of the article's opening image infobox. Please see [69].
• Claims that another user's edits cause formatting and/or layout problems, when no-one else experiences such problems. Please see [70] again.
• Appears to ignore input and request for correspondence from much more senior editors. Please see [71] and [72].

I'm sincerely looking forward to hearing options on how this can be resolved. Most if not all other editors of the article are working together to gain FA status for this article. If I am indeed the only one in error here, or if you have some constructive feedback for me, please kindly advise. Keesiewonder 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Keesiewonder's analysis of the situation. This new user account is acting disruptively, and is obviously not a new user account. I agree with this new user that the article requires across-the-board condensation, and also that in the past things have gotten talked to death. However, simply coming in and slashing and burning is not the answer. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps another user to add to the set: [73].

So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:

• Special:Contributions/Justas Jonas
  
• Special:Contributions/75.37.215.34
  
• Special:Contributions/Johann Friedrich
  
• Special:Contributions/Ptmccain
  

I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a couple more: Special:Contributions/24.107.121.195 ; Special:Contributions/Bailan Keesiewonder 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's one of McCain's. He was also using AOL at one point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser anybody? Circeus 04:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I filed a checkuser request --Keesiewonder 13:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser outcome is declined with the statement "Unfortunately, we don't have records for Ptmccain, so there is no way to check if this is him." Can someone explain to me how this is possible, if 1) WP intended to indefinitely ban a user, and if 2)subsequent usernames were determined to be sockpuppets of Ptmccain? Thanks for your insight ... Keesiewonder 10:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is this AN/I receiving so little attention? Even if it is reasonable for records to no longer exist for Ptmccain, why was checkuser not run for the other 3 current usernames, checking to see whether they are all one and the same? Where else can I take this issue where it may receive some attention other than my own? Keesiewonder 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look, Keesiewonder. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, SlimVirgin. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please note the following as well, which I also added to the tail of the checkuser thread. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New material FYI

FYI, there is a new article name/article movement war regarding Book of Concord. One of the parties involved in this is Justas Jonas, who wants to move the article to Book of Concord - The Lutheran Confessions. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions is the title of a book displayed in the article Book of Concord. The primary editor of the book displayed is Paul T. McCain. Per statistics at Amazon.com, this particular edition of the book is at a sales rank of about 1,0555,477 and is un-reviewed by Amazon readers. (There is another edition covering this material by someone else that has 9 reviews by Amazon readers, with an overall rating of about 4.5 and sales rank of about 28,024.) Please closely evaluate whether you find a connection between User:Justas Jonas, User:Ptmccain, editor Paul T. McCain and 2006-2007 edits at the Martin Luther and Book of Concord articles on Wikipedia. Keesiewonder ^talk 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If anybody is paying any attention to this stuff, would somebody please tell "Keesiewonder" to stop harassing me? She has now taken to Wikistalking me and continues to accuse me of this, that and another thing. She launched this contining attack on me on this admin page without even notifying me or following any of the procedures stipulated in WP guidelines. A friend told me about the WP:Harassment guideline and it sure looks to me like this user is violating it with her harping on anything I do that she doesn't like and her conspiracy theories about my identity. I've posted a request to her discussion page asking her stop harrassing me. Can an admin take this up with her? It's just plain creepy. She's a fairly new user at Wikipedia and probably doesn't understand things like she needs to, but this behavior is just getting really out of hand and is weird stuff. Justas Jonas 15:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

She is making allegations in the appropriate place for doing so. However, I note that you have once again violated the personal attacks policy by once again make these frankly unsubstantiated attacks and insults against someone who is so far as I can tell acting in good faith and, as opposed to some of your own recent actions, in accord with wikipedia guidelines and policy. It should be noted that you have already removed a notice from your own talk page regarding your unacceptable conduct, and informing you of what wikipedia's policies are, three times today. Badbilltucker 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuing misconduct

The editor in question has also recently conducted a truly transparently and almost vitriolically serious of personal attacks against the above user and myself, generally on my user page, while at the same time criticizing her for being "new" (even though she has been an editor for two and a half months longer than he himself, who created his name in late December), and also displayed a rather remarkable degree of knowledge of at least some wikipedia policies, generally to insist that others cease treating him in what he sees as an incorrect way. I honestly think that some sort of action is required in this instance. Badbilltucker 23:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:FasterPussycatWooHoo again

A few days ago, a community ban was proposed for User:FasterPussycatWooHoo from Talk:Tokusatsu and all related articles and talk pages. There was unanimous consensus for the ban, though no one officially closed the discussion. Since then, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has continued to disrupt Wikipedia, harrassing User:Floria L on her(?) talk page while falsely claiming that the discussion of his ban was done in secret [74], personally attacking and attempting to defame me [75], accusing User:Naconkantari of malice [76], and making a rather dubious edit to Tokusatsu [77] (I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think it's a bit WP:POINT-ish). Not only does this community ban need to be formally closed, but I'm starting to think his ban needs to be extended to the User talk: namespace as well. jgp ^T_C 12:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only so many namespaces, if you catch my drift. Although it may be extreme now, it's verging on the point that a full community ban may become needed. Generally, users need user talk pages to communicate effectively; I wouldn't object to a community-endorsed (concensus) setup where any user talk page this user disrupts he/she is banned from for two weeks, at a concensus of three administrators. A blanket-ban on a whole namepsace seems extreme, and a setup where this user is banned without much fuss (three admins) from the problem pages, in my opinion, would work better. Discuss :) Daniel.Bryant 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be terribly opposed to that. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but the incivility does not appear extreme. I'm not sure that an indefinite block is warranted at this stage. El_C 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been a constant disrputive presence on Talk:Tokusatsu, has personally attacked multiple people many times, and impersonated the founder of a WikiProject. The thread in the archives shows a unanimous consensus that he's exhausted the community's patience. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see more efforts at dispute resolution on the user's talk page. I'll give it a try. El_C 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this user isn't blocked or banned at all. That AN/I discussion linked above appears to only include users involved in the content dispute on Tokusatsu (and its talk page), so I would say that it is completely invalid. However, I do find the user's behavior, including his continued claim that Nacontari's block was "malicious" (it was justified, and I only reverted under WP:AGF because the user hadn't been properly warned). If the disruption continues, the appropriate next step is a block. Save the talk of banning for much further down the road. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is emphatically not a content dispute. FP's edits consist solely of incivility, edit warring, bad-faith disruption, impersonation, personal attacks, and defamation. He is not here to improve the encyclopaedia. All he has accomplished is disruption. The number of outside users who supported the ban outnumbered the users who are involved. Elaragirl, bbatsell, Johntex, Cla68, and Rickyrab are all outside users. Interestingly enough, the one person who mentioned an indef block (as opposed to a topic ban) was an outside user. jgpTC 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is most definitely a content dispute at its heart. FPWH's behavior may be the issue requiring admin attention, but he's making a content-based argument (that appears to be incorrect, but that's another matter). He's been warned now about his actions. Jumping from a single block that was rescinded to a ban would be ridiculous, given how limited his actions have been. And while we're on the topic, removing his content as you did on the Wikiproject page by calling him a "banned user" was completely improper, as he is most definitely not banned at this time. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And this removal of FPWH's comments is also unacceptable. He's not banned or blocked. We get it - you don't like his actions. That doesn't allow you to run around removing his comments while claiming he's banned. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spambot?

Over the past few days, 71.248.42.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 69.137.60.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been adding spam to Template talk:Inheritance/, ranging from coupons to fashion to virus warnings. The random text in the article makes it seem as though they are operating some kind of spambot or random text generator. An IP check, a reverse DNS and a proxy check didn't give further information as to who is behind the IPs. Is further action required? Aecis^Bravado 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well 71.248 at least has been blocked 24 h by Xaosflux. CBL is down so I couldn't check the comprhensive block list, but SORBS says that it had a spam trojan back in mid november 2006...so I'd be willing to block for 6mo as a suspected open proxy. I won't override Xaosflux's block though. Syrthiss 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• They were both computers compromised as part of a botnet. I believe they are blocked now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And what about 87.242.117.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? This IP spammed Template talk:Theosophy (now deleted) and Category:Board games (diff 1 diff 2). Aecis^Bravado 13:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi

Has for long been revert warring in the article Treaty of Nöteborg.[78] That was a treaty in 1323 in which Sweden and Novgorod determined their border in Finland. Because the treaty concerned Finnish territory and the Finnish people and because it was the first time when a border between realms was determined in Finland and because it separated the Finns under the Western, Catholic, influence and under the Eastern, Orthodox influence, its importance has been great in Finnish history. And as I already said, the people who were influenced by the treaty were all Finns. This is why it is natural for the Finnish name of the treaty, Pähkinäsaaren rauha, to be mentioned in the article together with the Swedish and Russian names. It used to be, but then user Drieakko removed it on non-logical and poorly argumented grounds. I naturally reinserted the mention in the form of one sentence in brackets: (Pähkinäsaaren rauha in Finnish). But KhoiKhoi keeps removing it for poor reasons or no reasons at all. He keeps saying that it was a treaty between Sweden and Novgorod - yeah, so what? As I said the people who were primarily affected were Finns and it was an important event in the history of Finland. Also, it is normal to mention many names in articles: in Riga the Latvian, the Estonian and the Russian names are mentioned although it is a unilingually Latvian city in Latvia. There are many examples more, of treaties too. Still KhoiKhoi keeps revert warring which makes me ponder whether his motivation is racism. I know content issues should be discussed in the article's talk page and I have tried that, but KhoiKhoi doesn't like explaining his actions so most of my arguments there have gone to deaf ears. P.S. I have already been blocked for the old personal attacks in the article's history so don't block me again for those. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks very much like you are edit warring against the consensus of other editors on the talk page, and have been doing so for a month and a half. You should stop. Jkelly 20:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to laugh... That "consensus" is two (2) users: KhoiKhoi and Drieakko. They both seem to be more or less anti-Finnish so they are biased. They have failed to give proper arguments to those of mine. Wikipedia is not a democracy - just because two users think something should be in some way, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't be wrong about the matter. KhoiKhoi very likely knows nothing of Finland but still he thinks himself an expert compared to those who actually do. Check your facts and answer: why should the Finnish name not be shortly mentioned in brackets in an article concerning Finland and the people speaking Finnish? I will not be threatened and I will never give up when I am right. BTW, it takes more than one to wage a revert war... --Jaakko Sivonen 20:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're having a good time. Anyone who writes "I will never give up when I am right" about a Wikipedia article is in for a hard time. I hope you keep the sense of humour. Jkelly 21:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wise words!--Vintagekits 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here here. And keep up the good work, Khoikhoi. --InShaneee 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you support the racistic vandalism of "KhoiKhoi" as well. No surprise there. P.S. are you saying that user Vintagekits is "KhoiKhoi's" sock? --Jaakko Sivonen 15:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Even aside from the fact that you've given no grounds that anyone is anti-Finnish except that they disagree with you, I suggest very strongly that you not call anyone racist — that could lead you to be blocked from editing for making personal attacks. I also suggest that you read other people's comments more carefully; InShanee was implying no such thing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In an unrelated article, I made a dispute to the removal of the ru-sib: link for the Germanic Languages article (PLEASE, I'm not trying to get into anything there... my concerns were purely procedural), and explained my reasoning on the Talk page, and returned the link with an edit summary that specifically said that I was contesting the removal.[79] Khoikhoi then reverted this change just 30 minutes later, without any discussion or address of my concerns. In the interests of not starting an edit-war, I did not perform a revert, although I did place a message on Khoikhoi's Talk Page.[80], which has been by all appearances ignored. A number of users have already addressed my concerns, and my contention is no longer in place, so this is no longer an active issue, and this whole issue is really moot anyways. I just noticed a comment here about Khoikhoi making unjustified, or poorly justified edits over a contentious issue, and felt that I would add some context of an actual contested issue, where all Good Faith was given to other editors, and simply a request to get an explanation. To which, rather than spending any time on communicating, and resolving any controversy, Khoikhoi felt it was appropriate to simply just push ahead, and continue to assert a particular edit instead of attempting even a little bit of dispute resolution. No complaint here, just context, and background. --Puellanivis 02:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like the typical KhoiKhoi. He seldom explains any of his edits. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

None of you have been able to answer my points in this case. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, Jaakko has now been blocked for one month for his fourth violation of WP:NPA. See related thread further down the page. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions

An editor called my attention to an ongoing dispute at Srebrenica massacre. I've done some poking around, and I'm greatly troubled by what I see:

• Bosniak (talk · contribs) reverts any attempts to introduce neutral point of view terminology (for example, an editor changed the subheading "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" to "Critical views" to make it less POV-laden).
• he repeatedly introduces information in blatant violation of WP:BLP ("...accused of raping Bosniak women...") and has been adding this information despite warnings since August ("...accussed of participating in Serb-run rape camps..."). This information has no reliable sources and has in fact been widely discredited.
• Bosniak accuses editors of "vandalism" when they make any changes contrary to his POV, using edit summaries like "rv to Psychonaut - Jim Douglas, this is not your personal web page to vandalize. Your vandalism will not succeed." and "rv to Psychonaut -- Jim Douglas, read discussion page before attempting to vandalize article". It should be noted that the user in question was discussing the issue on the talk page.
• Anyone who disagrees with Bosniak is labeled a Serb apologist. Bosniak even goes so far as to compare their "destruction" of the article to the mass murders itself: an egregious violation of WP:AGF, to say the least.
• The user threatens to have another user blocked for asking him to cease making ad hominem attacks, violating WP:CIVIL.
• Bosniak persistently removes Serbophobia from the Anti-Bosniak sentiment article as part of an ongoing effort to make a point; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniakophobia, an AFD the user was blocked for disrupting (see also this edit, where he falsifies votes for his bad faith nom of Serbophobia.)
• The editor canvasses user talk pages, enlisting aid to preserve his POV within the article (characterizing the other editors as "genocide deniers"):[81] [82], [83]
• The editor's userpage is in itself a soapbox and clearly demonstrates his POV agenda.

The user had two previous AN/I reports, one in November and again in December. He was blocked for one week after the November report (in which he disrupted AFD processes). He lodged this complaint on AN/I against the admins who rolled back his soapbox canvassing, and it was suggested that he be blocked for two weeks if he acted again in this manner. It is clear that this user has not learned our policies concerning WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. I confess that I do not have much knowledge of the tragedy at Srebrenica, but it is very clear that this user is interested in promoting a very particular POV to the exclusion of all others. Attempts to deal with this user are persistently met with accusations of vandalism, allegations of being a Serbian apologist, and threats to have users blocked or banned. I would like to ask for other administrators' input on how to handle this situation. -- Merope 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend pursuing dispute resolution, starting with a Request for comment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That may actually work if the editor were to be interested on dispute resolution, but looking at his contribution history it is easy to realise he is "on a mission". As a matter of fact, there is an ArbCom decision on Kosovo (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo), which although not directly related was used in the past as rationale to block another user for disruption (Osli73). Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also add to the list of grievances that he's a serial and unrepentant copyright violator. He has a history of contributing text and images without permission of the copyright holder, and continues to do this despite conspicuous warnings on his user talk page. In fact, the most recent violation occurred just a few hours ago; see User talk:Bosniak#Congress of North American Bosniaks. For reporting such policy breaches I have been labelled a "Serb [who] defends Serb interest on Wikipedia", as have many other editors. —Psychonaut 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he may need another block, and quite possibly a community ban, given that he has not ceased soapboxing and violating copyrights. It's becoming clear that he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia and its community. I'm not sure if dispute resolution would work effectively in this case. --Coredesat 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As User:Bosniak has apparently decided there's no point in paying attention to my "Serb propaganda", I've asked one of his friends to have a chat with him. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My research

I, as a completely unconnected person conducted some research into the conduct of this user. I'm unable to make any judgements as to the quality or actuality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the topic, but the pattern of behavior is clear.

Srebrenica massacre - edit warning

• 04:49, 20 January 2007
• 23:21, 19 January 2007
• 05:16, 19 January 2007
• 21:26, 18 January 2007
• 21:34, 17 January 2007
• 20:19, 16 January 2007
• 07:55, 16 January 2007
• 22:47, 15 January 2007

Soliciting help in edit war

• User_talk:Bosniakk - 17 January 2007

Incivility and personal attacks

• Ethnicity as an insult: (edit summary) "Duja is a Serb; stop reverting and deleting our comments. This is not your personal page. We have freedom of speech here." 17 January 2007
• Insulting labeling: (edit summary) "(rv. Is Hadzija new provocateur?)" - 07:55, 16 January 2007 (2 more with similar language: [84][85]
• Incivil edit summary: (rv. Jim Douglas is a Serb apologist) - 22:47, 15 January 2007

What I see here is the aggressive pattern of an activist... someone who is here to push a point of view. (every revert changes "criticism" to "revisionism", etc). I don't know if a short-term block will get the attention of this user or not, but it might be worth a try. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If a community ban is the only solution, then by all means. My problem is what would stop him/her of creating a sockpuppet. (Well, I guess these would be easy to spot anyway). --Asterion^talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think he's worse than Gibraltarian and/or Beckjord (although I do NOT condone the behavior of these two people either), so I think that if he were to be permabanned, his user talk page should also be locked to prevent him from soapboxing on it. Scobell302 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough he does remind me of User:Gibraltarian. --Asterion^talk 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sockpuppets should be easy enough to spot, given this user's behavior pattern. --Coredesat 20:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Truth be told, I'm hesitant to call for a community ban because I feel it would result in martyrdom and a plethora of socks, but they would be easily spotted. The user, however, runs a blog on this subject and would likely recruit meatpuppets to his purpose, which would be more difficult to control. -- Merope 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure whether meatpuppets would be a big problem - take Beckjord for instance: at one point he posted a notice on his website calling on his supporters to revert to his preferred version of Bigfoot, but with little success; the notice was eventually taken down. Scobell302 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything User:Bosniak does in retaliation for being banned couldn't be much worse than the situation we already have with pro-Bosniak POV warriors and policy violatiors. In the past month we've already had to deal with the likes of Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosniakk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. —Psychonaut 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a point of staying out of this discussion, but I didn't want to leave Bosniak's comments above unanswered. No, I'm not "on a mission". I explained how I came to be involved in that article here, in response to a suggestion that I was acting on some hidden agenda. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

<reindent> I've blocked Bosniak for 31hr for violating 3RR: [86]; [87]; [88]; [89]. His comments above further cement my assertions that he fails to recognize WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Any editor interested in this discussion can see that the above-named editors have in fact participated on the talk page of Srebrenica Massacre, explaining the WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but this user has failed to recognize their contributions. -- Merope 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that outburst removed any doubts I had about a long-term (not sure how long) or indefinite block. I would now support one since it's clear that he has no respect for policies or guidelines and is here to push a POV. --Coredesat 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen happening on Srebrenica massacre, a page that I've followed for years and where I sometimes try to mediate, I've come to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to conduct a discussion on Talk:Srebrenica massacre in User:Bosniak's presence and thus I fully support a long block. And I implore all people looking in the matter to watchlist Srebrenica massacre; my experience is that User:Bosniak's fear that Serb apologists will vandalize the page is unfortunately well founded. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today I did some minor reformatting of the Srebrenica massacre article, which consisted entirely of what I thought to be noncontroversial typographical changes: replacing hyphens with dashes, trimming whitespace, fixing indentation, etc. You can view the diff between my first and last edits today. User:Bosniak seems to have flown into a rage over this, accusing me of "deleting important paragraphs of the article", "total desecration of the facts", vandalism, and genocide denial. I asked him politely three times to identify the information he alleges I removed from the article, but he refuses to do so, instead responding with insults, further accusations, and personal attacks. See User talk:Bosniak#Srebrenica massacre 3 for details. —Psychonaut 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have increased the duration of the block to 1 week in the light of the evidence produced against this user; after seeking permission from the orginal blocking admin (Merope). (ref. WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Add WP:CIVIL to the list. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell wikistalking

• Note: comments moved from above discussion of Milo, to avoid muddying of issue

Yes, and I responded to you here. Please don't respond with groundless ad hominem attacks every time your behavior comes under scrutiny. MastCell 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet which you used only to comment at Barrington Hall, and I have left numerous articles to avoid you, as you aware. The WP:STALK evidence is very clear in your case, and I think you have gambled that I would not report you because you know I don't want to have anything to do with you, not even an ANI case reporting you for wikistalking. But I would do it at this point, and ask any admins who are paying attention to bar Mastcell from stalking me. (Especially because he has done so twice now in order to escalate disputes at Barrington Hall/is having a dispruptive effect on the article.) This should be clearly marked as a separate issue from Milo if it continues, and moved to a WP:STALK complaint against Mastcell.-Cindery 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Cindery, the "sockpuppet" situation you're referring to was reported (by me) at AN/I and received admin attention here. As far as my "disruptive" effect on the article, I invite any and all to review my contributions at Talk:Barrington Hall (I've made no edits to the article itself), and everywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Cindery, your claim to the moral high ground on matters of disruption and sockpuppetry is tenuous, at best, and since you've shown no lack of vindictiveness, I can only assume you haven't "reported" me because I have not, in fact, violated WP:STALK, WP:DE, or any other policy. MastCell 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reported you because you stalked me from Emergency contraception to Depo Provera. In November, I left all birth control articles, specifically to avoid you. (And I was an excellent contributor to those articles, so it was a loss for Wikipedia). You then stalked me to Barrington Hall, using a sockpuppet. When I inquired on my talkpage in general about who "Girondin" was, you admitted on ANI to being Girondin. Your "confession" was archived by JMabel, in case I wanted to make an issue of it. Barrington Hall is an article you have never made an edit to, and which you aware I will not leave. You crop up at this article only during disputes, to escalate them. You should be barred from stalking me to any articles, but Barrington Hall in particular.-Cindery 23:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a timeline for this stalking and diffs to back up your position? How recent was this? Spartaz 23:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Much of the evidence can be found here: [90]-Cindery 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Its nearly a month since then. Have you anything more recent to report? --Spartaz 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please actually click on the "diffs" supplied there, and judge for yourself whether I was in fact being disruptive. MastCell 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, but I just ignore him when he comments elsewhere. I will dig up the diffs. What I am concerned about is Barrington, because it really gives the creeps--he know he's "cornering" me at an article I'm personally committed to, and he shows up only to try yo escalate disputes. The recent diffs are all on the Barrington Hall talkpage. Someone else already pointed out to him "perhaps you are editing the wrong article," to which Mastcell responded with WP:OWN b.s, I think because he thought I wouldn't report him-- reporting him means having to be involved with him. For him, it's a win-win situation. I just want him to leave me alone, I already left all the birth control articles, and his presence at Barrington Hall is making things worse for everybody, not just me.-Cindery 23:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: here is a good example of him wikistalking, me just ignoring him. (Everyone else ignored him as well.) This was an ANI complaint started by J.Smith, in which J. Smith, Nick, and Guy were all involved, but dropped it for obvious good reasons. To their credit, they admitted they weren't unbiased, since they were all involved in the big You Tube/EL controversy at EL, taking the opposite position from me. Mastcell appeared at the end to try to continue the argument (and by doing so let me know that he was reading/stalking all of my contributions to EL, saying, in essence, "I am following every one of your edits, I read everything you write, and I will chime in if I think it will bother you, or make a situation worse,": [91]-Cindery 00:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC) And here is a link to the entire discussion, so you can see his comment in context:[92]

I started to respond, but since the above is mostly personal attacks and bad faith, maybe I'll just wait for diffs. It's all at Talk:Barrington Hall, if anyone cares. MastCell 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that if it has been well-estabished that you and so and so don't get along, so and so has left articles where they were a regular editor to avoid you, and asked to be left alone, you should try to stay away from them--not stalk them. That's disruptive in and of itself. As for your "de-escalation" absurdity, no, it does not de-escalate disputes if you join them when they are heated and unbalanced, and you join on the unbalanced side against someone who has already asked to be left alone and pointedly avoids you. Since you stalked the EL issue and the EL You Tube issue at Barrington Hall specifically, you were already aware that the side you were joining was the "EL" side--editors who are not neutral, and arguably not disputing the issue at hand. So, seeing a bunch of people disgruntled that the You Tube link was allowed to stay try to pick a fight about something else, and deciding "hey, this would be a good time for a stalker to join! That would de-escalate the issue, if I sided with the disgruntled EL people!" is ridiculous, and you know it. Now everyone else knows, too.-Cindery 03:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd refer the reader to the following diffs: [93], [94], which are my responses to her initial charges of "Wikistalking" and an attempt to de-escalate any conflict we had. Both were deleted by Cindery, with an edit summary describing them as "further harassment". I'd also suggest that my input at Depo Provera was not disruptive, and would note that you also "left all birth control articles" at a point where other editors (besides the two of us) were getting involved and a consensus was developing against some of your more strident edits. Perhaps most importantly, I'd invite anyone to review my input at Talk:Barrington Hall, which was aimed at de-escalation. But isn't this more appropriate for WP:DR? MastCell 23:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: and if you read what I wrote to him in those diffs, hopefully the irony of him providing a message in which I asked to be left alone, which he refused to honor, as evidence that he is not wikistalking me months later to is not lost.-Cindery 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that my contributions to Emergency contraception. Mifepristone. amd Depo Provera were stellar. You have wikistalked me, and I consequently left all those articles to avoid you. Then you created a sockpuppet to stalk me to Barrington Hall, to escalate a dispute with baiting, uncivil language. Now you have returned to Barrington Hall, and are doing the same thing. You should leave me (and the article talkpage) alone.-Cindery 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I really have nothing else to say about this. For every further personal attack you make, just assume that I respond by disputing your charges, noting that others at the talk page don't agree with you ([95], [96]), and referring any interested parties to review your behavior on Wikipedia. It will save time and space, and I can move on to more productive things. Think Ford Prefect asking Prosser to lie in the mud in front of the bulldozer in place of Arthur Dent. MastCell 04:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's very clear that you should stop stalking me. If you do it again, I will note it immediately at the location with a link to this page and make another report. -Cindery 04:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU need to stop assuming bad faith. Someone uses an alternate account for a legitimate purpose, and you immediately jump on it and start calling it wikistalking. You have no proof for your claims. Therefore, stop calling it such unless you have much, much, more proof than flimsy speculation. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that he only used the sockpuppet to make inflammatory uncivil comments to me. (And he admitted they were uncivil.) That's a nice story--I invented this sock puppet for some noble purpose, but then I accidentally only used it to harass you?

• Let's also note that I left all the birth control articles/Wikipedia entirely for a month, and when I returned, it was to Barrington Hall. Mastcell's first edit ever to Barrington Hall talkpage occurred then, after I left all the birth control articles--since he could no longer harass me there. Thinking I would ignore/avoid him, since I was actively avoiding him, he used a sockpuppet.-Cindery 05:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the stalking continues in spite of this complaint:

Per WP:STALK, you should not be here. [9]. Cease your disruption at this article. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 04:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) It almost feels like you're trying to bully me (and Localzuk, and J.smith, and Milo) with ad hominem attacks and accusations of ulterior motives. There is actually constructive discussion going on below about the issues which got this page protected. Why not contribute to it? MastCell 04:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) You're a special case all by yourself of WP:STALK. Why are you harassing and stalking someone who completely avoids you? It's not helping the article. As Astanhope said "you are editing the wrong article." -Cindery 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note I am the author of most of the "constructive discsussion below.") -Cindery 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So, he makes admittedly incivil mistakes a month ago, and now you make accusations based on events way long past? Ludicrous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And the quote you give us is a great example of irony: You say that you won't discuss with him because he violated WP:STALK (a flimsy pretext in itself), and when he asks you to stop, you continue with accusations of WP:STALK and hound him wherever he goes. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, I completely avoid him,l eft all articles I previously edited, and did not even make the prior ANI report I should have made about stalking because I didn't want to interact with him; I just want him to leave me alone. He's fixated on me, he has been for some time, and it gives me the creeps. "A month ago" shows a pattern--he has been stalking me for a while. If he doesn't stop, I will point out that he's doing it every time he does it, with a link to this page. -Cindery 05:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am of the opinion that Cindery is disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Cindery - let it go. if someone really is wikistalking you, someone will notice, especially after this AN post. You're only digging yourself into a hole here, really - for if an admin is to take any action in this case, they would have to consider the actions of both parties, and your actions have been less than stellar. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

AStanhope has noticed. I haven't advertised that I have a stalker, because I hoped he would go away if I ignored him. but he should leave me alone. "If you find that you can't get along with someone, perhaps it is best to avoid them," per Wiki--not stalk them after they leave all the articles they used to edit in order to avoid you.-Cindery 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof that he's doing it right now? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit conflict):::::I posted above what he posted to the Barrington talkpage during this discussion. (Around the same time he said he had nothing more to say on the subject, and I said I would point out his stalking in the future if he did it again, he posted to Barrington talkpage. While this discussion was/is ongoing.) There's no benefit to Wikipedia in him stalking me; there are a million other articles for him to edit, etc. Again, I completely avoid him and left articles to which I was a significant and productive contributor just to avoid him--there's no need for him to stalk me to articles he doesn't edit at all, let alone to join disputes, use sockpuppets to make inflammatory remarks, etc.-Cindery 05:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see him stalking you; I do see, however, you harassing him. Unless you will provide convincing diffs instead of futile rhetoric, I will hold this opinion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Less rhetoric, more proof, please, Cindery. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Following people --who leave articles to avoid you and ask to be left alone-- to articles you don't edit is stalking.-Cindery 05:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not proof, that's rhetoric. Proof in the form of diffs, please, or your complaint will be dismissed as frivolous. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting from when? (To establish that I contributed 60 citations--half the research--to Emergency contraception, while he contributed only to the talkpage, in comments addressed only to me, I could provide diffs, but there would be hundreds. It's boring research, too. A glance at the edit history of the article and the talkpage will give you the overall picture. I'll give you a diff which shows a clear personal attack on me which I did not report, [97] and includes a statement from me that I would report him for harassment, and points out that I had already asked him not to address me on my talkpage because he was overly emotionally engaged with/fixated on me. I never reported him--I just left. The story is: after a fairly minor disagreement at Emergency contraception, he stalked me to Depo Provera, so I left Depo Provera, after expressing concern that he had imported anger from the EC dispute directly to Depo. He was very emotionally overangaged on my talkpage, so I asked him to disengage/leave me alone, stick to articles. He then devoted all his time to harassing me on the talkpage of Emergency contraception until I left. After I left, he stalked me to Barrington Hall.)-Cindery 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• And here is a recent diff of his response to User:Astanhope, who told Mastcell, "perhaps you are editing the wrong article. I think you are needed elsewhere.":[98] -Cindery 06:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I see no personal attacks by MastCell, but I see instances of incivility by you. Though minor, you are now only serving to discredit yourself, not the person you are disagreeing with. I find your post of "Sorry, you just have no case" particularly interesting. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Cindery, you keep saying you "left articles to avoid me" and that I "harassed you away from articles". It seems a little incongruous that someone who dishes out as much abuse as you is so thin-skinned as to be chased away by our relatively mild (in the grand scheme of things) content disputes at emergency contraception or Depo Provera. So I just took a look at the chronology. Your last edit to Emergency contraception was Dec. 1. Your next edit was to post a Wikibreak notice. You then returned early from your break specifically to fight about YouTube and managed to accrue 3 blocks in rapid succession. After which you wrote that you would no longer contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and would limit your involvement to a campaign to de-sysop someone you had a disagreement with (and for good measure, went after Essjay, who had run a checkuser case on you). And now here we are. So to claim that you left emergency contraception to avoid me is convenient for you at the moment, but it seems equally likely that the above sequence of events, which had little or nothing to do with me, was responsible. MastCell 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, look, I'm fairly thick-skinned, but Cindery's now made dozens of edits today calling me a "stalker". You've presented your case. If you want to add more diffs, do it. But further unsupported accusations are really just personal attacks, and at this point I'd ask that they be treated as such. MastCell 06:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is about you, and the fact that you are stalking me, and that it serves no good purpose for Wikipedia. (Anyone with the patience to read your 40 pages of nitpicking harassment on the Emergency Contraception page will want to leave that article too.)

But I will address what you have said, for the benefit of readers, with the caveat that it does not mean I will allow you sidetrack focus off of your stalking.

• 1. I had a sterling rep prior to the block--which was one extended block, and if I wasn't already disgusted enough by you to have left all the articles I used to edit, I would have contested the blocks, as the first, for "npa" was extremely weak. The block was for a draft of an RfC against Nick on my talkpage. The next person to make a draft saw their draft deleted and protected from recreation. There was definitely concerted interest in preventing people from organizing transparently to file an RfC against Nick. If I had intended to "personally attack" Nick, I would have left a message on his talkpage. Putting together an RfC is not a personal attack.

• 2. User:Mumblio is not a sockpuppet, he is a human being. His unblock request and his letter to Essjay were ignored. No one "went after" Essjay--it was pointed out that he ignored an email in the hope that he would reply. Mumblio, incidentally, interviewed a lawyer this week, in his capacity as a journalist, who turned out to represent a member of the Foundation. (They traded stories and gossip.) He does idly sometimes want to contribute again--about some guy named Gene Savoy. He thinks the lawyer will help him. I told him just to create another account and stay away from me (his home IP is not blocked.) He likes the name "Mumblio," though. He was blocked after making a single comment re the Barrington You Tube dispute.

• 3. Yes, after you, and then that, I was completely disgusted, and I still am--I agree with a lot of "Why Wikipedia is not so Great." Nevertheless, I followed through on the Nick RfC, and the EL issues (I felt somehwat better about Wikipedia at the Foundation level after the Foundation's comments on that, but still feel there are too many people-with-problems.) I also massively improved Rheingold Beer--it's hard to resist improving articles sometime, even if one agrees Wikipedia is not so great because of the people.

In closing, maybe I haven't made myself clear enough about your stalking: you give me the creeps. Leave me alone. I will never like you. You crossed the line when you stalked me to Depo Provera and then refused to stop posting on my talkpage after I asked--your emotional over-engagement was the creepiest thing that has ever happened to me on Wikipedia. There is no chance I will ever change my mind and want to have anything to do with you if only you stalk me enough. I know that you feel rejected. That is not my problem. Invest emotionally in something in the real world. What part of stay away from me don't you understand? The "dispute resolution" that you desire/keep asking for, where I end up liking you is never_going_to_happen. The way to resolve this is for you to stay away from me. I left all the birth control articles--you can stop stalking me.-Cindery 06:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of contributions

Out of curiosity, I've tried to compare the contributions of both of these editors. I don't promise that this is all correct, but I've tried to match pages that both have edited in their past 1000 edits, to see who was 'first'. None of this proves or disproves anything, but just in case its interesting to anyone.

First instance of each user editing at the same page:

1. Depo_Provera

   2006-11-03 23:01 MastCell

   2006-11-16 02:49 Cindery

2. Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:11 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:50 Cindery

3. Mark_McClellan

   2006-11-11 01:38 MastCell

   2006-11-11 19:32 Cindery

4. Mifepristone

   2006-11-11 22:02 Cindery

   2006-12-19 18:49 MastCell

5. Talk:Barrington_Hall

   2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery

   2007-01-17 06:43 MastCell

6. Talk:Emergency_contraception

   2006-11-02 19:03 MastCell

   2006-11-11 01:57 Cindery

7. Talk:Mifepristone

   2006-11-12 03:34 Cindery

   2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell

8. User_talk:Cindery

   2006-11-07 05:28 MastCell

   2006-11-13 07:42 Cindery

9. User_talk:Milo_H_Minderbinder

   2007-01-17 19:49 MastCell

   2007-01-19 20:30 Cindery

10. User_talk:William_M._Connolley

    2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery

    2007-01-17 19:44 MastCell

11. User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon

    2007-01-18 00:22 MastCell

    2007-01-20 05:44 Cindery

12. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

    2006-11-21 19:49 Cindery

    2007-01-15 18:32 MastCell

13. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

    2006-11-28 23:44 MastCell

    2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery

14. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

    2006-12-29 17:12 Cindery

    2007-01-04 21:54 MastCell

Checked MastCell back to 20:34, 26 October 2006. (1000 edits) MastCell was 'first' 8 times.

Checked Cindery back to 01:50, 11 November 2006. (1000 edits) Cindery was 'first' 6 times.

Regards, Ben Aveling 09:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your diffs don't make any sense--at Depo Provera, for example, I was a long-time contributor--Mastcell showed up there 30 minutes after the dispute at Emergency contraception (and a day after I sent a message to another editor saying that article meant something to me). After he was (and admitted he was) "more argumentative" than he should be, I left. His knowledge that I edited that article didn't come from the article. At emergency contraception, I returned after a long break and didn't even notice him until he fixated on me/began responding directly to me. Your Barrington diffs don't take into account his sockpuppet, Girondin, in December...and so on.-Cindery 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

...and your diffs for Milo's talkpage, William M. Connelly's talkpage, and the admin noticeboard refer to instances in which one or the other of us was discussing something completely unrelated/wasn't aware of the other. (But the idea of "first" leaves out the concept of "repsonse"--so while you have included two completely unrelated comments we made on ANI, you have left out his responses to me on ANI.)-Cindery 10:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is looking only at the fact of editing. For example, it 'shows' that MastCell was first to your talk page, which clearly isn't true. It's just that in his past 1000 edits, he has some edits on your talk page that are older than any of your past 1000 edits, so he appears to be 'first'. Regarding Depo Provera, all my report says is that he too is a long time contributor. That doesn't mean he wasn't stalking, it just provides an alternate explaination for why he might be at the page - he probably already had it watchlisted. I guess I could list all of your edits at each page, would that be more useful? It might be quite long. What about I take this to your talk page? Anyone interested can follow us there. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is an example of a meaningful comparison: I left on Dec. 1. I returned on Dec 20--to the Barrington Hall talkpage. (an article I have edited for a while, far away from birth control articles.) Mastcell made his first appearance there on Dec 21--as a sockpuppet.-(How would he know I was back if he weren't stalking me, etc.)Cindery 10:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He might have seen your edit at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. More likely he may saw that you had edited your own talk page. What I can say is that you didn't edit any other pages that I would expect him to have on his watchlist, based only on his last 2000 edits. Below are all the edits from either of you on pages that you have both edited, from when you left to when his sock appeared at Barrington Hall. At a complete guess, he either followed your contributions or the link on your user page. And I'm going to log off. Back tomorrow. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: thanks, Ben. I would like to point out that there was no link to Barrington Hall on my userpage at the time. As you have noted that I didn not return to any articles I previously edited/that might be on his watchlist, I think it is safe to guess that he was stalking my edits.-Cindery 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• • No, that's not what I said. He edited your talk page in November, so it's quite likely that he knew you were back as soon as you edited it. I'll annotate below. For me, there are two issues here, of which I'm only looking at one, but you should consider them both. The issue I'm not looking at is what did he say, was it valid? The issue I am looking into is why did he say it? Was he following you, and why? There are valid reasons for following people. For example, I'm following you both around at the moment for what I hope is a valid reason - to try to help you both contribute better to Wikipedia. But rather than you and I guessing, let's just ask him. MastCell, I assume you're reading this. What took you to Barrington Hall? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 2006-12-07 06:55 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
2. 2006-12-07 06:57 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
3. 2006-12-07 07:06 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
   • Last edit by Cindery
4. 2006-12-08 05:27 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
5. 2006-12-15 18:20 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
6. 2006-12-17 00:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
7. 2006-12-18 23:25 MastCell Talk:Emergency_contraception
8. 2006-12-19 19:40 MastCell Talk:Mifepristone
9. 2006-12-20 18:21 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
10. 2006-12-20 18:22 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
11. 2006-12-20 18:32 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
12. 2006-12-20 18:43 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
13. 2006-12-20 18:58 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
14. 2006-12-20 21:57 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
15. 2006-12-20 21:59 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
16. 2006-12-20 22:02 MastCell Talk:Depo_Provera
17. 2006-12-20 23:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • Cindery returns
18. 2006-12-20 23:46 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
19. 2006-12-21 00:18 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
20. 2006-12-21 00:30 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
21. 2006-12-21 01:14 Cindery Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
22. 2006-12-21 01:23 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
23. 2006-12-21 04:01 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
24. 2006-12-21 04:59 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
25. 2006-12-21 06:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
26. 2006-12-21 07:02 Cindery User_talk:William_M._Connolley
27. 2006-12-21 07:29 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
28. 2006-12-21 22:58 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
    • Cindery edits her own talk page
29. 2006-12-21 23:08 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
30. 2006-12-21 23:16 Cindery User_talk:Cindery
31. 2006-12-21 23:34 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
    • 36 minutes later, the puppet makes its first edit
32. 2006-12-21 23:35 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall
33. 2006-12-21 23:42 Cindery Talk:Barrington_Hall
34. 2006-12-21 23:49 Girondin Talk:Barrington_Hall

• Note that his reapperance at talk:Barrington Hall was January 17th, and his mea culpa about the sockpuppet harassment was Dec 25 (and the long notes re his previous wikistalking, in which I stated "I completely avoid you.) There's nothing innocent about returning to the page three weeks later.-Cindery 11:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Girondin? I'll check, see what I can see. Just let me do the washing up first. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if there was a way to get a count of the mainspace edits I made to emergency contraception vs. the mainspace edits he made (and a count of his talkpage edits) for November. Is that possible?-Cindery 11:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the mainspace for that page in November, you made 220 edits and he made 48. On the talk page you made 159 and he made 88. Why do you ask? Do I want to know? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unwanted attention

I looked at the contributions from Girondin and can't relate this to stalking. Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. It looks like a normal content dispute to me.

evidence of bad faith ...mimsy-whomever [Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington] was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#Barrington_hall Cindery 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Clarification: Nearly Headless Nick and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington are the same person, so to say they are close allies is an understatement. If you click on Nearly Headless Nick's signature above, it takes you to Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's home page. The names are based on a character from Harry Potter. Girondin 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Now can we get back to more self-congratulatory reminiscenses about how great Barrington Hall was, and how lame the youth of today are? ...it doesn't really change anything/make a difference if NHN is a sockpuppetesque rather than meatpuppetesque. Cindery 23:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC) sockpuppetesque? meatpuppetesque? I don't understand. They are A SINGLE ACCOUNT. It's just that the sig says "Nearly Headless Nick", while the account is at User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. There's some way to change your sig so it doesn't say your name, even though it points back to your account. unsigned by girondin

In this interaction above girondin is trying to explain to Cindery the ins-and-outs of wikipedia. It borders on being helpful!!! Closer to a mentor than a stalker. David D. (Talk) 22:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He found this page by stalking my edits, used a sockpuppet to make comments he admitted were uncivil, during a dispute. (And clearly was not much of a "mentor" as WP:SIG doesn't advise having a username and sig which are not obviously the same to the casual reader--it can be considered disruptive. There's no reason a user couldn't apply right now to register the username "Nearly Headless Nick," as it is not registered to anyone, but the sig of Mimsy.) Let's also note that you are currently involved in the Barrington Hall dispute.-Cindery 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIG is not policy as far as I am aware. Many users have signatures that differ from their user account. The fact he was trying to point this out to you was quite helpful considering your first post in that section. The only uncivil bit is the "self congratulatory" part which is not exactly OTT given what you have on your user page, re: the "Barrington six" . [99]

My involvement in the Barrington page is due to the arguments overflowing on to this page. There is no reason why i should not edit the page and give my opinions on whether your sources are reliable, or not. David D. (Talk) 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that 1) WP:SIG states: "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents. Signatures that obscure an account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive" and 2) I edited my userpage to note Barrington six, etc two days ago 3) please keep content dispute on the page of the article. Noting that you are involved in the content dispute is helpful here, in my view. Let's not confuse the issues. This is about a clear case of stalking.-Cindery 23:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just discovered it was a recent edit (added link to my original comment for clarification) but still the fact you wrote still shows it is not an OTT observation. I repeat WP:SIG is not policy, I know what it says. Look around you and note how many other users do not follow the guideline. It is no crime, although I personally would not recommend it. [100] Also it is quite normal for people who are involved in a dipute to comment on WP:ANI, this is a place for community input. To be frank you probably need to learn a little more about how things work in wikipedia. It seems that all your disputes involve people trying to help you understand how to sucessfully contribute to wikipedia. If you refuse the advice from others on what can be considered a reliable source then you will be in many more disputes. Please listen to what other have to say, believe it not, many are trying to help your write an article that will be stable. David D. (Talk) 23:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perception is reality

Stalking should involve some form of harrassment. --David D.

Remember though, that unwanted attention is itself harrassment. Suppose a colleague kept giving you gifts, even after you asked them stop. It's important to look at what was said, but it's also important to look at other things as well. I've looked though both users contributions at some length. I have not checked the quality of the contributions, but they do match the pattern Cindery is complaining about. At Depo Provera, Emergency contraception, Depo Provera and Talk:Emergency contraception Cindery was editing regularly, then MastCell started editing, both of them edited for a while, then Cindery stopped editing. At Mifepristone Cinder was editing then stopped, and MastCell is now editing. At Talk:Barrington Hall Cindery was and still is editing, and MastCell occasionally drops by. Let's just say that if MastCell were to show up at any more pages where Cindery is editing, I'd look badly on it. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you look at the "quality of contributions", then. I stand by the fact that I've improved both Depo Provera and emergency contraception, and not disrupted either article. I explained what should have been obvious with a basic assumption of good faith here (which Cindery rejected as "further harassment"). I don't see why I need to check to see if Cindery's been at a page before I edit it, so long as I contribute constructively and don't disrupt/attack/violate policy - and I think that's a really questionable precedent to set. MastCell 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is "Because it would make the universe a happier place". It doesn't take long to check the last 50 edits once and it would save a lot of stress for a lot of people. Right or wrong, Cindry is convinced that you are still following her around. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a dangerous precedent to set, though well-intentioned. Should we cater to Cplot because he perceives there is a pro-government cabal on Wikipedia? No! Doing so would be absurd. Likewise, doing so here would be akin to acquiescing to disruptive forces on Wikipedia, though I do not equate Cindery to such undesirable elements. We are not here to make everyone happy, warm, and fuzzy. If we are to edit peacefully in this world, we either must swallow what bitter medicine others force down us or we grow a thicker skin. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I do not think it is necessary that he check the last 50 edits of every new article he edits to see if I have edited there. What I would like him to stop doing is harassing me at a specific article, and following my contributions in order to make inflammatory comments, like the one at ANI regarding the You Tube/EL dispute. He doesn't need to check every article (I edit so few anyway) what he needs to is stop adressing me directly in a hostile way.-Cindery 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That does not explain why your sockpuppet appeared at talk:Barrington Hall a half hour after I edited my talkpage after a long break (you did not answer Ben's question about that) and it especially does not answer why you would return to the same talkpage after I pointed out that I was purposely avoiding you. There was nothing "innocent" about returning to the Barrington Hall talkpage after you used a sock there, and after I explicitly told you that I completely avoid you. That was clearly stalking and harassment, not accidentally stumbling on a page you merely hadn't noticed I had edited before--you were aware I edited that article because you had already harassed me there with a sockpuppet. -Cindery 00:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I suggest we all try not to repeat ourselves. Let's try to find the things that haven't yet been said. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben, it is not harrassment to correct people who are not willing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:V. It is common for editors to try and limit the damage that such individuals bring to wikipedia. To suggest it is stalking and protect editors such as cplot flys against reason. Not supporting Mastcell now is a bad precedent to set and is the wrong thing to do, in my opinion. David D. (Talk) 13:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for the admins

Since this is being discussed here, could an admin persuade Cindery to stop bringing up her stalking accusations at Talk:Barrington Hall? We're trying to edit an article there, and repeated "go away, you're stalking me" messages just sidetrack the discussion. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I feel a little ridiculous even continuing this, but if nothing else, look at WP:STALK. It defines Wikistalking as "following an editor to another article to continue disruption... the important part is the disruption." Look at emergency contraception, Depo Provera, Barrington Hall, or at any of my contributions - can anyone (besides Cindery) say that I've been disruptive, there or anywhere on Wikipedia? The User:Girondin edits are here, and were made to correct a misunderstanding in a debate I wasn't involved in. Judge for yourself if they're disruptive. The situation was reported, by me, to AN/I and discussed here. Finally, when I've said anything about Cindery here, it's been backed up by diffs. On the other hand, her posts (this one in particular) consist mostly of personal attacks and abuse. Like I said, I'm thick-skinned, but aren't there some standards, even in a dispute? MastCell 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Is defined as:

"Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor."

That means that if on Dec. 25th you admit to using a sockpuppet to harass someone at an article you have never edited before, after they have left previous articles to avoid you, and you are aware of that because they write:" I completely avoid you. For you to then create a sock account and use it only to make inflammatory comments on the talkpage of an article where I returned as a regular editor and you have never before made a contribution appears to be very clear use of a sock to harass/wikistalk in the worst faith possible. What is creepy beyond-the-pale to me is that you were harassing/wikistalking someone who left articles in order to avoid you/was very actively avoiding you." [101]--returning to the same article only three weeks later is very clearly wikistalking (and harassment).-Cindery 19:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I haven't been disruptive there or anywhere, a fact that others at Talk:Barrington Hall agree with ([102], [103], [104], [105], etc). These are continuing personal attacks by an editor who's been blocked for the same in the past, occurring on WP:AN/I no less. I'm asking you to stop. If you don't, I'm asking that someone put a stop to your constant, unsupported personal attacks. MastCell 19:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, the regular editors at Barrington Hall do not agree with you: [106]. As for disruption, you are not only wikistalking/harassing someone at an article where only three weeks ago you used a sockpuppet to make inflammatory remarks/tried to inflame a dispute, but you are doing the same thing again: you returned to Barrington Hall precisley when the You Tube/EL people picked a fight about something else (a dispute that has no lack of contributors, and is now an extremely long thread completely out of proportion to the importance of what is being disputed.) As your ANI stalker comment [107] made apparent that you followed the You Tube/EL dispute, you aware of exactly what you are doing.-Cindery 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• What you need to do, which I have repeatedly pointed out, is stop stalking me, if you don't want me to point it out. There are a million articles for you to edit, and it does not serve Wikipedia for you to stalk anyone, i.e., return to any articles where you have used a sockpuppet to harass someone whom you are aware completely avoids you, as I explicitly told you I completely avoid you, and left all the articles I used to edit.-Cindery 20:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you see a distinction between "regular editors" and other editors is a perfect example of the attitude of ownership you and Astandhope have over the article. I have seen no disruptive behavior by Mastcell there, and based on the lack of action taken by admins it looks like they don't either. However, your continued accusations there are off-topic and becoming disruptive, please keep the whole stalking thing here and not at the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't stalked me there in the last 16 hours or so--he stopped last night after I began pointing it out (at the article, but after this report). Hence I have not pointed out on the talkpage that he is stalking me during that time. There is a distinction between the regular editors of the article, and a small group of people leftover from the You Tube/EL dispute (and then there is Mastcell, who is in a WP:STALK category all by himself, who opportunistically joined them.) As I have just made a complaint against you, Milo, for blanking a section against consensus instead of discussing--when the consensus included all parties, even the YT/EL crew--I do not find that you are an impartial judge of whether Mastcell is wikistalking. Clearly he is. Again, he created a sockpuppet to harass me on the talkpage, was aware that I completely avoid him because I explicitly said so, and then returned to the talkpage only three weeks later, to inflame a dispute.'-Cindery 20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that he's stalked there in the past month. You're not saying that you plan to respond to every post of his on the talk page with a stalking accusation, are you? And you're still insisting on that "blanking a section against consenus" thing, even though at least three other editors have removed that same passage and more have agreed with the deletion on the talk page? Who exactly do you feel is part of that "consensus" besides you and Astandhope? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) editing there at all is stalking me (perhaps you are confused that Girondin=Mastcell).-Cindery 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That statement shows a blatant misunderstanding of wikistalking. "Following an editor to another article to continue disruption" is the definition you provided yourself. Now you insist that if he edits the same article as you it's stalking, even if there's no disruption? --Milo H Minderbinder 21:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to reread the definition--wikistaking is itself disruption, and is defined as following abother editor around.-Cindery 21:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an important part of the definiton that nobody has pointed out: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful." Cindery has shown disregard for WP:RS and WP:NOR at the article in question (not to mention WP:OWN) - I hope someone is keeping an eye on the articles she edits. It seems like there's some circular logic going on here - it's stalking because it's disruptive/it's disruptive because it's stalking. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Redux

It seems to me that this entire thread (or rather, these threads) boil down to Cindery complaining that some other users are nearly as argumentative as she is. Can we please archive this and send it to dispute resolution? Guy (Help!) 21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about stalking. ( Let's note also that you were majorly involved in the You Tube/EL dispute, and are in no way impartial. You probably shouldn't be commenting at all without noting that--unless you're trying to derail the subject?)-Cindery 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Editing there at all is stalking me?" That's interesting, but not what WP:STALK actually says ("...disruption is the important thing") and seems to fly in the face of "anyone can edit any article at any time." You've "settled" disputes in the past by bullying those you disagree with - Severa comes to mind [108] - or accusing others of harassment. That's generally not a productive way of settling disputes. But Guy is right - no one seems inclined to block me for "Wikistalking", nor to block you for your constant, unsupported attacks, so why not go to dispute resolution? It wouldn't be the first time you've filed an RfC to try to settle a score. MastCell 22:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to derail the issue with false accusations will not work. Wikistalking, again, is: Following an editor to another article to continue disruption (also known as wikistalking) The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. As you admitted to using a sockpuppet to harass me at Barrington Hall three weeks ago, returning to that talkpage is very clearly stalking. There is no dispute to resolve: what you need to do is stop stalking me. It's very simple.-Cindery 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, my edit has diffs; yours has accusations. Here is what I "admitted to", which you keep misrepresenting [109]. My point was that you use accusations to bully editors with whom you have content disputes. A question to any masochistic admins who are still reading this thread: Cindery's now made nearly 75 edits in the past 24 hours containing my name and some variation of the word "Wikistalking", without providing any convincing evidence. Is there some point at which these become personal attacks that warrant preventive action? I'd like to move on, but it's hard to do so with a constant drumbeat of unfounded accusations. MastCell 22:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made no edits to Barrington Hall pointing out that you are stalking me, since you stopped. It's very simple: do not stalk me if you do not want me to point it out. You shouldn't be stalking anyone, period, whether they are forced to point it out or not. Do not stalk other editors.-Cindery 23:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

ENOUGH. You have not substantiated your claims, Cindery, you have merely spouted off groundless accusations on this thread. If you have definite proof, lay it out for all to see; if you don't, stop whining and avoid MastCell (MastCell, also avoid Cindery). Further harassment of MastCell (yes, I am now calling it harassment now) will be seen as disruption, and will result in a block. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There should also be a ban on Cindery ever using the word "stalk" again, since she's used it here enough for one lifetime (71 72 73 by my count). ^_^ JuJube 23:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Resolution?

I have a proposal for both of you. MastCell, you agree not to edit Barrington Hall or any page that Cindery is editing, excluding the birth control articles. Cindery, you agree never to mention MastCell again. MastCell, you agree never to mention Cindery again. Both of you take each others' talkpages off your watch lists, as well the other pages I've proposed you agree not edit. How does that sound? Regards, Ben Aveling 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is all I want.-Cindery 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• (Note: his talkpage is not on my watch list; never has been.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

• Since part of the problem appears to be Cindery's WP:OWN issues regarding Barrington Hall, encouraging that idea and seeming to reward behavior which enforces it seems like a lousy "compromise" to me. --Calton | Talk 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All compromises are lousy. It's in the nature of the things. But it seems the best tradeoff to me. Most, maybe even all of MastCell's edits on that page are not about the Hall itself, so I suggest that it's an acceptable loss. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not own Barrington Hall, I am a significant contributor to that article. I think the unfair compromise (to Wikipedia) was that I left all the birth control articles already, to avoid Mastcell. It's not much to ask that all he do is desist from following me around elsewhere, esp. desist joining/inflaming a dispute against me at the talkpage of an article he has never edited, and where he has admitted to harassing me with a sockpuppet. I think Ben's suggestion was extremely balanced/fair-minded.-Cindery 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said ppreviously, not an admin, just a watcher, generally. However, I do agree with Calton. It seems that your solution rewards Cindery for assuming someone's out to get her, and raising a stink about it. Even worse, your solution is one sided, because it says MastCell can't edit anythign Cindery does, but not vice versa. Thus Cindery could easily use this restraining order to ruin his wiki-life, by editing his more usual haunts, and then run for admins when he goes to them. While I'm sure the admins would see through it quickly, why set up for more AN/I filings about this? I think Cindery set herself up for most of this by giving the statements about her personal relationship with the subjects of the article, and it came back to bite her. ThuranX 01:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not one-sided, as I already avoid all articles he edits/avoid him entirely, and will be happy to state that I would never go near any article he edits--I have clearly stated since late December that I want nothing to do with him, nor have I edited any articles he edits. (Thanks for claiming I "set myself up"--nobody deserves be stalked/harassed; there is no possible justification for it.) If he's truly interested in "conflict de-escalation," the very simple thing to do is stay away from me. It takes zero effort.-Cindery 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with Calton as well. The article has serious ownership issues, and I don't think using stalking as an excuse to make people who aren't "regular editors" go away just encourages it. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A few things:

• I haven't violated any policy or guideline. I've been civil and content-focused at Talk:Barrington Hall, and I've been as civil as possible here. Every claim I've made here is backed up by diffs. (Compare my behavior here to Cindery's). Therefore, I don't see why I should be constrained, every time I'd like to edit an article, to first make sure Cindery hasn't been there first.
• I cited the diffs above to indicate that Cindery has a history of responding to content disputes by bullying editors she disagrees with. That's what's happening here, and I think your suggested resolution only rewards such behavior.
• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall, because my concerns (which had to do with WP:V and WP:RS) are shared by a number of other editors there and are being addressed by them, and contrary to Cindery's assertions, I really don't enjoy dealing with her. But at the same time, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively there, or anywhere on Wikipedia. If, as Cindery suggests, she considers my very presence on the same page as her to be "stalking" and a policy violation, regardless of the content of my contributions, then I'd suggest that the issue here is primarily Cindery's and not mine.

Here's my proposal for resolution:

• If Cindery has a problem with me, follow WP:DR. Isn't that why it exists?
• In the meantime, further unfounded, unsupported accusations against me should be treated as personal attacks. Is this an acceptable edit anywhere, under any circumstances (much less on WP:AN/I, from an editor with a long history of disruption and personal attacks)? I'm patient, but 70+ edits calling me a "stalker" in 24 hours, without any convincing evidence, seems to me to cross a line. MastCell 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly seconded • Giving in to unfounded abusive claims of stalking is counterproductive and promotes a negative environment on Wikipedia, where if one yells loud enough people will get their way. This is in no way desirable, and should be avoided. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note: I think the sockpuppet and Ben's diffs are evidence aplenty. But, as I state below "I avoid you; you avoid me" is perfectly acceptable, and not unilateral.-Cindery 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have any plans to comment further at Talk:Barrington Hall--that's good. As long as you continue to have those "plans" and do not respond directly to me anywhere else, we're done here. I avoid you; you avoid me.-Cindery 01:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to avoid me; you're welcome anywhere on Wikipedia (including any page I edit) so long as you're civil and not disruptive, as everyone should be. That was my point. And as I said above, I reserve the right to comment civilly and constructively anywhere on Wikipedia. If I hear my name and the word "stalking" or "harassment" in the same sentence from you again, it should be in an WP:RfC, WP:RfM, WP:RfArb, or other form of WP:DR. Those caveats aside, like I said I have no plans to involve myself further at Talk:Barrington Hall, so hopefully we're done here. MastCell 01:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first 2 steps of DR are Talk and Disengage. We're doing the first, and I think we're close to agreeing to do the second. If by "have no plans" you mean "plan not to" then yes, I think we're done. I assume you've removed Barringon from your watchlist? And Cindery's homepage? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made it very clear that I want nothing to do with you, intentionally avoid you, and that the DR contact you want with me is never going to happen. If you stalk me again, I will report it to ANI again. The solution that's best for Wikipedia is: I avoid you; you avoid me. Goodbye.-Cindery 01:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stalk you "again"? Sigh. I'll let that (presumably) final completely unsupported personal attack slide. It might demonstrate a commitment to disengagement if you changed this, but that's your call. I've said my piece above. Good night. MastCell 04:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stay away from me. Disengage. Start by not reading my userpage.-Cindery 06:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd caution you both that if this becomes a game of "can't touch me", you're likely to both be blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack page needs speedy delete

[Stirling Newberry] Clear libel, attack page and multiple sock meat puppets. Stirling Newberry 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the libel is clear, how it is an attack page, or the multiple sock "meat" puppets you state. It does not seem to personally attack you, however, it provides your POV and your critics POV. Remember WP:AUTO. 63.20.137.49 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it either, even after reading the deleted pages. However, diffs are difficult to construct on deleted pages, so there may be some subtleties I'm missing. I've contacted the (first) deleting admin for details. If I don't hear anything, expect a request on WP:DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, there's already been a DRV. The upshot of it was: a troll got blocked. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 19. -- Steel 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage move vandalism

There seem to have been several incidents of userpage and usertalk-page move vandalism directed against admins within the past hour or two. At least one move vandal account has been blocked, but admins and other high-profile editors who are comfortable with their userpages and talkpages where they are may wish to move-protect them. (And would someone please do the same to mine?) Newyorkbrad 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Pre-emptive protection is nothing something to do lightly. How many cases of pagemove vandalism have there been? --Deskana (request backup) 01:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

One account that was blocked a few minutes ago did at least ten today. In general, I agree that preemptive protection is nothing to do lightly ... but that's to make sure that anyone can edit. Why would that apply to move-protecting a userpage? If an editor isn't changing his or her username, what possible valid purpose could someone else have for moving that editor's userpage or talkpage? The only reason that would occur would be vandalism. Newyorkbrad 01:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You do raise a valid point, but I personally am unwilling to do it en masse, simply because I'm falling asleep in my chair! I was, however, going to move protect your page per your request until I saw it had already been done. --Deskana (request backup) 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing is suggested to be done en masse, just mentioning the issue. Regards, Newyorkbrad 01:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I move-protected my user page as a test of using move-protection when I first got the mop. Did I do wrong? (And I considered move-protecting a user-page where he just wanted to be known by the new name, without requesting a user name change. I don't recall whether I did it.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a question: when is it ever necessary to move a user page (barring subpages) unless the user has changed his or her username, which is done automatically when the bureaucrat working the WP:CHU board changes that user's name (which will be unaffected by the move protection, as all crats are admins and all admins can move moveprotected pages)?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not, but if your account is around long enough to trigger the move button, you can move any page. Which means sleeper accounts can do en-mass userpage moves using a bot, tool, manually, or just a couple for fun. (edit: I know I answered, but I do assume that Ryulong was being rhetorical and didn't need to be answered. Replying for those unfamiliar).

I don't think move protection of userspace is inappropriate at request because it is a threat. Protecting userspace does not hurt the encyclopedia, userspace vandalism is an annoyance. Pagemove vandalism can be extraordinarily subtle in subpages. Teke ^(talk) 02:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and accusations of fraud

I came across this note on another's users page referring to me, which I find quite disturbing [110]. NazireneMystic refers to me here mockingly as Y-h, in what is clearly a religious context. Apparently, this user is saying that I put myself in the place of G-d. Invoking the name of the Deity in this flippant way is extremely offensive to Jews. This has happened several other times. I request that it be stopped. Ovadyah 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a mocking tone or any other sort of personal attack. It seems to me that the user in question is using "Yah" as an abbreviation of your username. Do you have any proof that he is using this nickname specifically to disparage your religion? Keep in mind also that using the name of the God "flippantly" is common practice in English. A majority of people aren't going to change their day-to-day language use for the benefit of a small number of highly religious people who consider it offensive. —Psychonaut 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is where all this Y-h business started [111]. Please don't tell me there is no evidence of a personal attack here. It is clear enough from the context that this is being done intentionally. Ovadyah 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I want to report an accusation of fraud by the same user, see edit summary and diff [112]. This personal attack against the RFC is ridiculous and discourages editors from participating in the RFC process. It also can be considered a legal threat. Please administer some kind of block proportional to the offenses. Ovadyah 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dreamcast and GD-ROM

Both pages have been the target of multiple attempts to add a rumor from Dreamcast Scene at [113] and [114] which claims that Sega is going to stop producing GD-ROMs. This rumor is spreading around Dreamcast web sites like wildfire, but there's no actual source for this other than the Dreamcast Scene petition and forum, and other web sites that merely link to it or repeat it. In the forum, people claim that they have a very good source for the information but just can't reveal who it is or anything which would let anyone verify it. I don't feel that this is a good enough source for Wikipedia.

The rumor is by now widespread enough that multiple people are adding it, and if I keep trying to revert it all myself, I may end up breaking 3RR. Is there anything that can be done short of protecting the page until the rumor dies down? Ken Arromdee 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection. You aren't breaking 3rr if you are removing unfactual, untrue or unsourced information. Viridae^Talk 05:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the page in question, its not getting enough edits to warrant semi protection in my opinion. Someine is welcome to disagree though. Viridae^Talk 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the exception for unfactual/untrue/unsourced information applied only to biographies of living people. Ken Arromdee 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Applies to vandalism in general. Of course, vandalism can be a bit 'in the eye of the beholder'. So it's usually better not to revert more than 3 times. It all seems quiet now. But rumors like that can be commercially damaging - which is one reason some people try to start them. I suggest if it starts again seek semi protection. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes at List of Irish people

The anonymous ip has changed the wording in the introduction to what I believe doesn't reflect the articles intent and to reflect his misinterpretation of our discussion. During this process he has been very uncivil (see edit summaries [115]), hostile and has used personal attacks[116]. I can't revert for fear of a 3RR violation, so I'm unsure of what course of action to take. John Reaves (talk) 05:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have reverted the article myself. If the IP reverts again, he will violate WP:3RR and will be blocked. I would encourage him to move on to dispute resolution. Yuser31415 05:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:CIVIL, the edit summaries warrant a block, although I would request admins to refrain from doing so at this time. Yuser31415 05:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, 86.17.247.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) violated the WP:3RR on List of Irish people: see page history. I suggest 24h block. Yuser31415 06:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP continues to violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, making ad hominem attacks. View his most recent contributions to my talk page and his talk page. Yuser31415 06:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this IP is continuing to blatantly edit-war and violate WP:CIVIL in the manner the other two folks are saying. (I'm not an admin - rather, I'm supporting that this needs admin attention) Reswobslc 06:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Other users involved, such as User:John Reaves, have violated the 3RR as well. Let's not all point fingers at the IPuser when it is clear that no one has sought a compromise through the dispute resolution process. I left a note on the main talk page for the article; let's hope they come to a compromise or at least go to the cabal. And to note, I see no 'ad-homiem' attacks anywhere, perhaps a differing opinion but not an attack by any means. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but if I was the first to make a change (after no response to my question in the discussion page) and later backed it up with reasoning (whether you agree with it or not), how can I be the one guilty of "3RR"? Surely it is John Reaves who has done the muliple reverting? I have been accused of the "3RR" - wrongly in my opinion; told I am a vandal (unjustifiably given I have replaced the text with a more clear and understandable definition); and falsely called a liar when I protested the "rvv" accusation. Aren't these uncivil personal attacks? Why hasn't Reaves been reported? What happened to "assume good faith" in relation to my edit? 86.17.247.135 07:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The text in dispute is unclear and cannot be accurately defined, so how can it conceivably alter the intent of the article to speak of Irish people as being those who, amongst other things, have actualli lived there? Is that contentious? "Adopts an Irish identity" - what does that mean?: no-one can tell me. Some of the examples given to justify that text only justify other text that was not deleted, and go into the issue of Irish ancestry which is covered by other articles (such as the "Irish-American" list). I thought the "intent" of the article was to list Irish people (it is the title after all) not a list of people with Irish ancestry or people who just call themselves Irish (did you read the Kerry anecdote? it illustrates my point well). I argue my edit is MORE relevant to the point of the article (again, look at the title: no mention of ancestry or cultural links). And then there is an edit which says the list is for those with ancestry - so why have an "Irish-American" list separate to this? 86.17.247.135 07:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If anybody looks at the history, they'll notice that I haven't violated the 3RR, I only reverted twice (mainly because this user has a suspiciously comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia policy for an "anonymous user" *and I figured he would call 3RR immediatelyAdded 07:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)). The "vandal" comment was explained to this user a few times already, I'm not sure why he keeps ignoring my explanation - it was a simple issue of an accidental extra 'v' (i.e. "rvv" instead of "rv"). I haven't been reported because I've done nothing wrong. John Reaves (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I would have take the explanation if you were not so quick to call me a liar and did not post such an extremely arrogant, rude and condescending response to my politely worded initial question: you should have investigated first and been more civil - you are the experienced account holder who keeps quoting the rules to me (I know of some rules because I click the links and read the articles just like you expect when you post them to me, simple as that, so you can't then accuse me of being more experienced). I'm afraid I do not believe your explanation: that is my right a san individual. Why do you expect higher standards from non-account holders than you do of yourself? You were uncivil to me, made a personal attack, and then cheerled a report about me doing those things and are trying to get me blocked. Isn't that bullying? 86.17.247.135 07:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, I give up here: you win. This has been a nasty experience and it is not worth the effort. Do what you wish to the article but you should stop acting like having an account gives you the right to walk all over occasional visitors and permits you to apply the rules more strongly to them than you do to yourselves. 86.17.247.135 07:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop using the fact that you haven't registered as a scapegoat. I didn't attack you, I've explained this several times already. This isn't a playground, no one is "bullying" you. Though, I do encourage you to get an account and continue to contribute constructively. You're actually more anonymous when you register. Right now anybody is able to search your location and IP source. I do agree that there is often a considerable bias towards IPs, but is warranted as they are a constant source of disruption (not all of them though, many are constructive). I agree that I was hasty, but not out of line, as I've explained. John Reaves (talk) 07:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am, to be quite frank, a bit disturbed by this whole incident thread. I had a look over the incident in question, and here's what I've found:

• The anonymous user has approximately a two-month long contribution history [117], and hundreds of edits. I'm not sure how knowledge is "suspiciously comprehensive" for such a user, I imagine I knew things decently well after that amount of experience. The statement that such knowledge is "suspiciously comprehensive" in an anonymous editor seems to rule out the possibility that an anon could ever be a long-term contributor, which is simply false.
• The anonymous editor is not necessarily the very model of civility, some of h(is|er) edit summaries have been quite combative, as are some of the messages (s)he left today. ("What is wrong with you?!" [118], "Very silly" [119].) However...
• The anon did not violate 3RR, that I can see. An initial change was made, followed by three reverts to it (not even exactly it, though things similar enough that all three likely would be counted reverts). Pushing the bounds, but unless I missed something, not crossing them.
• John Reaves claims to have inadvertently hit an extra "v" while reverting, resulting in an accidental edit summary of "rvv". In presuming good faith, I'll presume this true. However, he did subsequently issue a warning intended for vandals [120], declined to "explain anything" [121], and in general seems to presume that anonymous contributors can do little or nothing valid. (In all truth, the anon has a pretty good point, though (s)he could've done better at getting it across.) In general, I would encourage everyone involved here to examine h(is|er) behavior, and not just the anon. The anonymous user certainly was frustrated and less than civil at some points, but I'm very disappointed to see the way experienced editors reacted to that. Seraphimblade 08:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That warning was just to alert the user that I reverted, which is more than most editors do for IPs. If you'll read the various conversations (and above) you'll see my reason for not immediately explaining. I have also stated above that I believe that IPs can contribute constructively/long term, so don't twist my words. John Reaves (talk) 08:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seraphimblade - thank you, I am grateful for this fair and objective analysis and accept your conclusions without argument. At times I should have chosen my words more carefully and I should have ignored certain things rather than reacted to them. (Incidentally, I am using a shared computer so some of the IP history is not mine - I live in a house with several fellow students.) 86.17.247.135 08:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Random section break 1

If needed, I will provide diffs. first IP edit, reverted by John, reverted by IP, reverted by John, reverted by IP (very uncivil edit summary), reverted by myself, reverted by IP (violates WP:3RR), "compromise" by John. Diffs of rude, uncivil comments include, [122], [123] (with ad hominem attack, "but you seem to be making a habit over over-reacting today, as I see on your talk page (I saw the slapdown about your attitude and knee-jerk reaction, so please don't lecture me today)", [124], [125], [126], and [127]. *Takes deep breath*. Yuser31415 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agred with Seraphim. It's very grating when two users in an edit dispute template each other and refer to each other's edits as vandalism, and when one side of a conflict refuses to engage the other. What's more, responding with comments like "I don't need to respond to your allegations" is not at all helpful. However, to the IP: knock it off, you can't get away with being rude just because you're anonymous, any more than you shouldn't be ignored in an edit dispute because you're anonymous. Patstuart^talk|edits 23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix

I would like to draw admins attention to the personal conduct of Fadix. This person together with Eupator completely removed all of my edits from the article about Paytakaran [128] and kept it at their preferred version, despite all of my edits being supported by references to reliable sources, such as Strabo, Buzand, Hewsen, Iranica, etc. I tried to resolve the issue by discussion on the talk of the article, but lengthy discussions ended up with nothing. This person refused official mediation and I filed an AMA Requests for Assistance. However, this person resorted to insults and personal attacks on me during the discussion of the issue. He used the phrases like “Choose either play the innocent cynic or the dishonest manipulator, but don’t ever try mixing those with me”, which I don’t think is an acceptable way of discussing the issues here. I would appreciate any help in resolution of the issue and observation of civility during discussions. Regards, Grandmaster 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried a WP:3RR report or simply requesting blocking for the attacks? John Reaves (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR rule was not violated, and I have not reported him for attacks anywhere else. Is there any place to report personal attacks?Grandmaster 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Right here, I would just be more specific about the personal attack, supply diff links. John Reaves (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. PLease see here: [129] This person has repeatedly been blocked for similar offences. Grandmaster 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time this editor comes up, I keep thinking people are talking about me. *breaths sigh of relief* --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster is using this Administrators' noticeboard as a device for his content dispute issues when it is strongly adviced to not do that as can be seen on his above introduction. I will not defend my incivility, the way he defend his edit warrings and 3RR blocks. But just to place things in context Grandmaster explaination of the situation in his introduction being an accusation, he keep claiming innacurate things on the reasons of my reverts, as if he knows better than I why I reverted, I considered his answers as manipulation for those reasons. I edited the article he was refering to only once. Since Grandmaster uses my prior blocks, I will stress out that Grandmaster has leveled similar charges against various editors during his edit warrings and multiple blocks for those edit warring, while I never was blocked for 3RR or things involved with article content. Fad (ix) 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of recently closed ArbCom case

In the recent changes channel, I found that Evanreyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was moving several episodes of the series My Name Is Earl to disambiguated titles, which recently is found to violate the arbitration committee ruling on naming conventions. I originally reported to AIV, but this is something that should be posted here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is currently one page that I cannot move back due to the editor editting over the redirect, Stole Beer from a Golfer should be at Stole Beer From A Golfer (it seems that every episode uses capital letters in each title).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Were they a party to the arbitration? If not then there seems to be no reason to believe they would be aware of the situation and may indeed have been acting in good faith so diving in with a block would seem harsh. I've posted a warning to their talk page. I would guess the right place for these would actually be arbitration enforcement --pgk 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the arbitration case when I made the moves, and apologize for what I now see is a blatant disregard for a standing policy. I've fixed all the disambiguation changes I've made. However, the capitalization changes I've made should stand. Regardless of how the producers wish to name the episodes, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which overrides the show's conventions. Therefore, Stole Beer from a Golfer is correct, as well as all of the other naming changes I made. Evan Reyes 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

thejps being abusive to me

Hi, i hope you can help me. Im having a big problem with an administratorcalled thejps. When i joined i didnt know what i was doing and broke a few rules. I wasnt abusive but went about changing articles the wrong way. I was banned for 2 weeks which i completely agreed tp. Since i have come back i have followed all the rules, discused everything, have not edited 1 article and been overly polite to everyone. Wherever i start adiscussion on the discussion page thejps keeps following me and telling everyone to ignore me,that my POV is wrong and calling me a trol! All i want to know is how do i report him and warn him off. I enjoy reading articles and have only started a few discussions, yet i feel i am being taunted to react so he can ban me again. He has really taken it peronnaly, how do i stop him? Iwould appreciate any advice, thanks a lot. My email is hidden cheers Daveegan06 10:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed your email, it can still be seen by bots. We can use the email this user link from your userpage if you have an email set for wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you want to indent like I have here, use a : at the start of the sentence, spaces just put the text into an endless box. The more of them you use, the more indented it is.

Like.

This. Viridae^Talk 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Onto the actual issue. I saw the talk page comments you made/The JPS made that tipped you to making this report, and have to agree that The JPS was being a little over the top in his critiscism, I believe you being perfectly civil and not trolling at all, I would like to hear from The JPS as to why he took it that way. Viridae^Talk 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The JPS has been notified about this thread on his talk page. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for what could be interpreted as being over the top. I will continue to monitor the user in a less vocal way. My concerns about the editor are based on the fact that most of his edits are ideologically motivated. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:TSLcrazier

User:TSLcrazier, has been causing a lot of trouble lately with Disney Channel articles. He constantly uploadeds images with no copyright info, or a source. He is also mass producing episode articles with little to no information, having only a sentance saying its an ep from what ever show, and an infobox, occasionally it contains the same summary SENTANCE that is on the list of episodes. He also has a habit of removing deletion tags from any article/image he creates. ([130] & [131] for example) His contributions have been causing a lot of editors much grief trying to fix all of his work. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(originally started as a seperate thread, this was merged when I noticed this thread)This user is being a bit of a problem editor. He's uploading lots and lots of photos without fair use rationales (though they can be used under fair use), and seems to ignore rules as he sees fit, such as removing AfD tags, which he's done before and been warned for, if I remember correctly, and has done it again today. He generally seems to have the attitude "Screw the rules, I'll do what the hell I want", which is a dangerous attitude for someone without knowledge of the rules to have. What can be done, here? I was tempted to block him but that seems way over the top. --Deskana (request backup) 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody going to comment on this? We could use an outside opinion. --Deskana (request backup) 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:LetsgoPhillies

LetsgoPhillies (talk · contribs) This user admits to being a sock puppet for evading a ban here, and the user's talk page states it's a revenge account for the purpose of vandalizing. -- Kesh 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is listed in "Highways problem". V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

European country maps

There is an ongoing discussion on the introduction of an alternative style of country maps for European countries featuring the European Union as a whole. This has been opposed for various reasons. Nonetheless there seems to be a low level edit war going on, with some editors reporting each other for 3RR in order to stop "the other side"[132] and calls for tag-teaming[133]. The maps keep been reintroduced, sometimes with a complete disregard for comments in the article talk pages and previous edit summary comments. What appropriate measures should be taken to minimise disruption? I am also of the opinion that any systematic change would need to be consensuated in advance. regards, --Asterion^talk 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Superman.1984 not here to work on Wikipedia

User:Superman.1984 does not appear to be here to work on the encyclopedia. See the past versions of his user page before he blanked it. I request that his userpage be deleted, and all the images he uploaded be deleted as well. (Warning: Some adult content can be found on past versions on his pages and images). Is there a standard "warning" template for something like: "Hey, please don't use Wikipedia for anything other than working on Wikipedia? Thank you. --MECU≈talk 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the guy. No single contribution except uploading images of his penis and displaying them in his userpage. If anyone want to review this, I am open to suggestions. --Asterion^talk 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The images should be deleted, and so should the history of the userpage. --Majorly (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions of the page, apart from Asterion's edits. All the images uploaded by him are in process of deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Asterion^talk 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Large amount of Vandalism from 68.163.27.43

Had a large amount of vandalism coming from IP 68.163.27.43 who is adding nonsense/violation tags to the radio and TV pages for Pennsylvania....I have correct this problem as quickly as possible but may need a little assistance if the vandalism continues. Am keeping an eye on recent changes pages. I did add a "Vandalism Warning" tag to the talk page as well.

Thanks....SVRTVDude 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please report this at WP:AIV, thanks. --Asterion^talk 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

71.234.9.178

IP editor was blocked for three months by Kchase02 on Jan 18 and has since been changing his/her talk page to change the signatures of users that warned him/her. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Jaakko Sivonen

Often banned [user:Jaakko Sivonen] is at is as usual. [134]. This user is frequently targeting Swedish and Russian users with his attacks, usually because these users disagree with the nationalist-motivated edits that Jaakko Sivonen constantly engages in.JdeJ 17:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked one month. That's his 12th block overall and at least his fourth for NPA violations. I think that any future violations of NPA should be met with an indef block, and if someone wants to indef him now, I won't object. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. --InShaneee 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of User:William Mauco and User:MariusM by User:Robdurbar, explained on Talk:Transnistria#Marius/Mauco

It's the first time I see an admin blocking two users that were discussing on pretty much opposed positions, but in a civil way. Is this normal? Dpotop 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rob's decision. Both users had apparently been breaking 3RR for the n-th time again (see mutual reports on WP:AN3), and I agree that sometimes it's better to block left and right so as to not punish uninvolved outside editors who might actually work constructively on an article. Reacting to all big revert-wars with protection is not always good because it gives the edit-warrers too much prominence. Incidentally, I made a similar decision on Afghanistan just today, blocking three instead of protecting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

sock vandalism on dwarfism article

Looks like User:SneakySoyMeat, who was just blocked a little over an hour ago, is returning to vandalize Dwarfism as User:Morgasmic and User:13.8.125.11, judging by by their contributions. — coelacan talk — 19:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Morgasmic blocked, IP still open. Sock is now on article Van as User:HolyMoley. Image:White Van.jpg can be speedied, as it is only used in these vandalism posts at Van, Rapists and Kidnapping. — coelacan talk — 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Still recommending block of HoleyMoley. This is clearly the same user, and is certain to engage in the same behavior again. See the history of Talk:Turtle where the 13.8.125.11 makes trolling comments and then HolyMoley chatters back. — coelacan talk — 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Bruinpena10

User:Bruinpena10 has been blocked twice before for uploading copyrighted images. He was last blocked on November 15 for a week witha warning that if he continued he would be blocked indefinetly from editing wikipedia. Since then he has recieved seperate notices about fifteen images he has uploaded on his talk page. I found his user page because of a copyviolation I found that he put up in November in which he left the copyright notice from the website in the text [135]. This user has been on wikipedia long enough to know better and I believe he may need to be blocked indefinitely from editing the Wikipedia. --Banana 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've dropped a note to him about how fair use images need a rationale. ALso, I don't see anything uploaded after he received the warning, so right now I'm weary about blocking. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

66.174.93.101 repeated vandalism

User:66.174.93.101 has vandalized Ravenswood: The Steelworker's Victory and the Revival of American Labor. This user repeatedly vandalizes articles (see the user's talk page). - Tim1965 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That was almost three weeks ago. You've reverted the vandalism, but since no one at that IP address made a single edit from the 2nd till the 19th, I don't think any further action is required. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility from User:SqueakBox

The article Brown people was recently nominated for AfD. The version nominated was a poor attempt at an article and potentially just vandalism. User:Uncle G completely rewrote the article into an academic discussion of the term as part of an outdated race classification system that still has some limited usage today. SqueakBox (talk · contribs) continues to attempt to insert non-reliable sources and original research (may have even broken 3RR at this point), but more disturbing is the lack of respect being given to others' contributions. The page history is full of incivility, including characterizing the edits of others as "rascist", "idiotic", "trolling", and "crass". This is not the first time this user has had issues with their approach to editing (at least 1 mediation, 1 arbcom decision, numerous blocks and unblocks) and while I respect their veracity, I don't think they respect opinions that do not agree with their own and continually edit war when they don't get their way. Can someone please help out and how many chances does someone like this get? Thanks. ju66l3r 19:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Bad situation. SqueakBox appears to be a decent editor with a bee in his bonnet, I've left some messages. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with your assessment. What concerns me is the manner in which he handles these situations and the continual pinballing between 3RR, incivility, unfounded arguments, and user blocks because he chooses to put the bee inside his bonnet in the first place. He seems to step into race-related articles looking for an NPOV fight and then loses civility. The ArbCom decision he is under includes personal attack parole until June 2007 but he continues to act in opposition to the decision. ju66l3r 21:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, that is a valid point. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned User:Idris Ginger Beer evading block

This user has started blanking their own talk page. They are under indefinite ban. Regan123 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing his own talk page isn't block evasion, if that's what you mean. And what use is it insisting on keeping that talk page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. This sort of thing happens all the time :). Yuser31415 21:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Hornbeck and Ben Ownby

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this or not, but... These two minors have been the subject of various national news stories after allegedly being abducted by Michael J. Devlin. There has been a slow moving edit war involving how much personal information should be included in these articles. The Hornbeck article recently survived an AFD and is currently protected. There are definite concerns about WP:BLP, and I think some administrative input would really help formulate the future of these articles and help keep the participants calm. As it is, I'm not sure if these boys even warrant having articles written about them, and think the utmost care should be involved in handling them. AniMate 22:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

These articles should be merged into a single article about the incident. They are only notable in relation to that incident, and there are not enough reliable sources to make a separate encyclopedia article about the persons themselves. This would also solve a lot of BLP problems, aggregating the contributors into a single article and refocusing the article. If a living child is independently notable, multiple reliable sources have already disclosed any contested information. —Centrx→talk • 22:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but some other editors are very strident about including any and all information about the boys. I've requested page protection on the Ben Ownby article, but I really think some administrator guidance would be helpful. Outside of the abduction, neither of these kids have done anything notable yet. While I'd like to see these merged, I'm more concerned about the edit war and accusations of vandalism right now. AniMate 23:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps combining the lot in a single article and redirecting all the names is the way to go. Deleting them as I saw suggested probably isn't. Even if a source mentions it, I would recommend not to include information that risks them getting kidnapped again (School name, name of town of residence if it's a relatively small place, stuff like that). - Mgm|^(talk) 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that I have removed both of the instances of their birthday's per the biographies of living persons. Cbrown1023 01:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Rfwoolf

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs) has not made many contributions to the encyclopaedia, but one of these was a re-creation of Anal stretching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was deleted and endorsed then endorsed again. At one point he asked me to userfy the article so he could rework it, which I did, but he simply reposted it minus a small amount of text, and it was deleted as WP:CSD#G4 - its third deletion under G4, by my count, so at that point it was WP:SALTed. Ever since then, Rfwoolf has been making louder and louder disgruntled noises, largely against me, as the last deleter and salter (although the previous G4s were by other admins). I have tried to be fair to him at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf but he appears unwilling to accept that this is anything other than a personal vendetta against an article which, presumably, he considers to be of vital importance to the project. He has now started causing disruption at [136] the Village Pump (is it a natural law that mis-spelled accusations of "hyopcrasy" are baseless?). Would somebody mind having a go at calming him down? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why does he say he has more than 12 trillion edits? JuJube 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Funny ha-ha userbox. Teke ^(talk) 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oof... okay, question: does he have a copy of the article in user or article talkspace anywhere? It looks like he's trying to recreate/fix it up in the article's talk page but it's rather disorganized right now. I'll do my best to help; it's pretty clear he just didn't understand policy and now is so worked up over it he's refusing to let it sink in. I think we can fix this, it'll just take some work. —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] It was recommended by a) Deletion Review and b) the AMA Request for assistance and c) [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] himself -- that I recreate the article in my user talk page, then show it to [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] (or another admin) and if it was up to scratch they would re-instate the article. So I spent a few hours begrudgingly recreating and reresearching the article all by myself to make peace and I put on the talk page of Anal stretching only to find that your precious hypocritcal Guy has deleted all my hard work without warning and completely unilaterally. So the answer to your question was yes and now it is now no! Please encourage him to put back all my work. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. He reposted the thing all but identical, twice. That is not "not understanding policy", it's obsessing over a truly dismal subject for an article. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] Guy, if you have heard me at all in all these proceedings, you'll finally understand what I've said a thousand times: I didn't know what G4 was, I thought deletions took place in AfD debates, and I was trying to fix up the Anal stretching article, yes, by reposting similar content twice but in the same hour because it kept on being G4d. You then salted the article. That was over a month ago. Even though you should now understand that I won't abuse privilage by reposting the same content without templates this time, you still refuse to unsalt the article! So stop accusing me of malicious disregard for policy. If you were a bit more open and reasonable it would really help! Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left some advice on his talk page, though looking over his activities I'm not optimistic that it will do much good. Nevertheless, I'll continue to try to settle him down. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] FeloniousMonk, I have tried my best to be completely open to reason -- and continue to do so. I remain fully reasonable. Your pessimistic comment is either because Guy has completely misrepresented me in the above, or because you don't have a solid understanding of this dispute. I have tried recreating the article -- which was G4d and salted (even though the article should exist) -- then I tried Deletion Review which didn't help -- then I tried Request for Assistance, and my Advocate (User Talk:dfrg.msc) has thanked me for being civil and encouraged Guy to be more civil and supported my attempt to rewrite the article on the talk page of Anal stretching -- which Guy didn't object to -- but subsequently deleted my hours of work and its history without warning, unfairly and unilaterally, going against his own recommendations. So, I don't think I need to be settled down. I think if anything, Guy has done a lot to provoke me and prevent solution to these problems. It's him that needs to stop throwing his weight around and get some admins with balls to talk to him. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, agree to disagree here. I think he has a clear lack of understanding of policy (as shown by his insistence that since he only recreated the deleted article three times, it should not have been SALTed and the SALTing should be deleted to make room for the recreated article again). I'll do my best to explain things, but I need an answer to my question — is a copy of the article residing anywhere in user or talkspace? Thanks —bbatsell ¿? 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about User:Kingpr0n? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am being grossly misrepresented. Guy has defiled my userpage by removing some harmless Userboxes and removing some constructive criticism on Wiki Deletion Policy without reasoning with me (and he cited WP:SOAP which has little/no bearing on userpages) -- his actions were unilateral and I have support from at least 1 admin that his actions were too harsh. Guy has further disobeyed the recommendations of Deletion Review the AMA Request for assistance recommendations and his own recommendations -- that I recreate the Anal stretching article on a talk page -- because he has since deleted my hours of work on the talk page of Anal stretching and deleted its history. He is being more than a dick. I'm considering arbitration if he doesn't come to his senses.

1. He should immediately undelete my hours of work on Anal stretching and restore it to the Anal stretching talk page
2. He should immediately unprotect my Userpage

These are two perfectly 150% justified requests -- and you admins should be assisting me with this.

Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• That would, you know, wrong. From the DRV page:

Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated.

You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.

Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already, so unprotecting your user page before you're willing to promise not to use it as a soapbox isn't going to fly, either. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His issues are not just with SOAP but WP:POINT as well: [137], [138], [139], [140] I'm saddened that he has failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears he's trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page:[141] He gives every indication that he is refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I've urged him to reconsider both my advice and his method, but I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a troll, considering the source of all this concern on his part is over a deleted article on "Anal stretching"... FeloniousMonk 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tried really hard to resist this conclusion, but I have to agree. The combination of the subject, the obsessive nature with which he pursues it, and his very limited prior contributions, looks very much like one of our recurrent trolls. This edit in particular [142] is deliberately provocative, inserting his editorial comments into my statement on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent trolling by User:193.219.28.146 on Talk:Ass to mouth - 3RR violation?

I submitted a 3RR violation report concerning anonymous User:193.219.28.146 persistent re-adding an unconstructive and inflammatory comment to Talk:Ass to mouth, because he objects to the existence of the article rather than suggesting improvements (the article recently survived an AfD). His comment has been removed by 5 different editors (including one admin) over the past few days, and the anon editor has recently re-posted the comment a 6th time today. He has been warned multiple times, and claims on his talk page that (a) his talk page comments are meant to improve Wikipedia; (b) he is not doing any reverting, others are reverting him and they shouldn't be deleting talk page edits; and (c) there isn't a precedent for reporting 3RR violations on a talk page.

My question is, is this appropriately reportable as a 3RR violation, or is there a better place to report persistent trolling? Details of the incident are documented in my 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:193.219.28.146_reported_by_User:Axlq_.28Result:.29. If there is a better place to report it, please let me know. =Axlq 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're within your rights to remove the comment (within 3RR), but my advice would be to leave the comment in place and answer him. Or leave the comment in place and ignore him. He's wrong, but he's within his rights to ask the question, so long as he doesn't 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, I agree with the anon - not about the substance of his comment, but about the fact that you shouldn't be deleting a reasonably civil talk page comment. He writes that this article is one of the differences between the Wikipedia and Britannica. Well, in that, he is absolutely correct. I personally believe that makes us more useful, but that's just an opinion. In any case, it is less disruptive to just let it stand. Trying to delete those three lines of text has already wasted ten times the effort of writing them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second this. Viridae^Talk 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me. He was answered repeatedly on his talk page, civilly. =Axlq

I had blocked the IP for 24hr for disruption, and then saw this (and then 3RR). Feel free to alter the block. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Endorse the anon's right to ask the question again after the block expires. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What question? He didn't ask any. He posted a comment about how articles like this devalue Wikipedia. =Axlq 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly places the same message on some one's talk page that they have acknowledged (deleting a message is the same as acknoledging that you read it) then it becomes harassment and incivility. The only time you should -ever- force a message to stay on a page is if a user is currently acting to vandalise the pedia and an easily accessible log needs to be there for a WP:AIV note. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda irrelevant - we have been removing a trolling comment from an article that has had a lot of scrutiny recently. The comment is completely non-constructive and its removal is in line with WP:TALK (ie. the second sentence, namely 'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.') Also, as I have stated elsewhere, 4 editors agree that his comment is inappropriate for that talk page and have removed it.

I disagree with the earlier editor who said it is wasted time removing them. If they stay it leads to other users adding similar comments which are also pointless (for example just prior to this silly incident there was another anon who went on a bit of a rant about it being anti-christian). Keeping a talk page tidy and on topic is just as important as actually working on the article in my opinion.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of control AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WebAPP has completely gone out of control, and should probably be closed. There is consensus to delete, but User:Monty53 (who, interestingly, said he would stop arguing with people earlier) has been harassing and launching attacks at pretty much everyone who presents a delete argument. He has also been screaming conspiracy and pushing POV, and is pretty much over the line of WP:POINT. A block may be needed here, as it's clear from his contribs that he is a single-purpose account. I can't close this AFD since I've argued in it. --Coredesat 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Closed, deleted, salted, blocked. -- Steel 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Are comments on this IP's talkpage considered worrying to the community? Personally, I don't care about the farcical accusations that the IP is leveling at me, but I do wish an outside person to give some perspective on the matter, as I don't seem to have a clear head on the matter anymore. Constructive criticism welcome. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant references to the "Dear Reader" of the talk page is very Victorian, and very trolling; it's a recognized invitation of the audience to draw conclusions prefaced by the author. I say leave it alone and walk away. Teke ^(talk) 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I say just semi the talk page and leave content on it; he can't complain he was "censored", but he can't keep trolling. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie consistently deleting warnings on own talk page and other problems

I recently left a warning on Lucy marie's talk page in about her recent conduct.

Her recent conduct including creating multiple disputes on one article, deadlocking the article and keeping it at a factually inaccurate version (incorrect quotes and references) for a month, a duplication article split, and carrying her dispute to other articles. [143][144]

She deleted my warning, and left me a rude note on my talk page, saying that she had deleted my warning because she had stopped editing the various person articles a week before.

I replied to her explaining why I felt the warning was important, but not to worrry about it, that it wasn't a big deal. I then restored the warning on her talk page and left her a slightly modified removewarnings template warning.

She took this as her cue to hide the warnings instead by taking them off of her short talk page, removing them from her short talk page and instead adding them to her 38 kb archive page.

I replied to another comment she left on my talk page explaining that the removewarning note on archiving did not mean that she could archive warnings she disagreed with or to hide them and referred her to the Help Desk.

When she didn't unarchive the warning, I did instead, and left a note about the archiving on her talk page. She responded to that by deleting the warnings yet again, and asked me what authority I had to leave a warning on her talk page (she seems to be under the impression that only administrators can warn users).

My warnings on Lucy-Marie's talk page

Lucy-Marie's comments on my talk page

I would appreciate assistance in handling this situation. I got in way over my head. I'd read a few of Lucy-Marie's comments when editing the various person's articles, so I knew that she had a habit of continually reverting people's work and was a POV pusher and it didn't really matter if she was presented with evidence that what she was saying was incorrect, but she'd never been particularly hostile (I thought) and was at least sorta attempting to discuss things with people, even if only to tell them that they were wrong. I thought a gentle warning from an outside party showing her that she'd gone so far in her edits as to tred on quotations and references might pull her back a little.

I didn't expect her to be rude and hostile from the get-go, to ignore all authority and show no respect for anything offical or the person she's currently disagreeing with. I kept trying to get her to take her problems with the warning to the helpdesk, but she seemed to think that it was easier to simply constantly revert warnings, and for the moment at least, it has been. She has no warnings on her talk page, and instead I have comments on mine with her complaining that I'm harrassing her. I haven't had any interaction with her before this, but I've read her comments on the person articles' talk pages and her talk page and I don't think any amount of "fact" I could point her to would help, because it would be coming from me. I've also now seen her get angry (vandalism), and I'd like to avoid escalation. She obviously does good work on Wikipedia when not getting into fights with people, so I'd really appreciate if someone could step in.

I think she needs to be warned--looking back at her edits she not only edited quotes and references (which she may not have noticed), but she changed the intro of the article (to avoid using the word personhood) which is having consequences now as the future role of the article is debated, and put in other POV pushing lines which couldn't be taken care of because of the deadlock. It took three separate people to revert her edits on non-person. She reverted back giving "no reason for revert" as her reason for reverting back, even though a reason was provided and there was an ongoing Rfc about whether persons was a word where even the dictionary definition she gave for people used the word persons 5 times to define people.

Which is why I warned her originally. And her subsequent behavoir, removing multiple warnings multiple times also I feel needs warning. This isn't a case of a newbie not knowing something (for example, if I'm screwing this up completely, or this is the wrong place, let me know), this is someone who's been warned multiple times but doesn't believe that they are valid or that other people are right. This is someone who has NPOV and a million other Wiki policies linked to her in talk pages reglarly and ignores them anyway. Thanks for any help you can provide.TStein 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I were an admin, I'd probably have asked for a block based on her behavior related to this. JuJube 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you'd have been told that blocks aren't punative.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is really best to avoid putting warning notices on the pages of users whom you are in dispute with. They seldom help, and mostly tend to inflame the situation. And the user is perfectly entitled to remove them. If civil discussion is failing, I suggest you try one of the approaches at dispute resolution e.g. mediation or an RfC. This is not really a matter for admins.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't in a dispute with her at all. I had zero contact with her until I warned her--our only contact and dispute has been about the warnings and her violation of Wikipedia policy in removing them. I wouldn't have had a problem with her going to the help desk or somewhere else, I had a problem with her deleting them--making a uniform decision that she was right, and I was wrong and it didn't matter what wikipedia policy or convention was, she could do what she wanted. This was especially problematic as it was exactly the behavoir I was warning her about.
  • When I came to the persons article and saw the dispute, I originally never intended to warn her or anyone else about what I saw as a content dispute on the person article. I came to the article when it was deadlocked over the "persons" v "people" issue and over the "personhood" v. "being a person" issue--the article was deadlocked because everyone who had commented before was seen to have a bias. I had no prior edits on the article or any associated articles and unlike the Rfc debacle, I didn't know anyone on the article beforehand. I provided sources and fixed the problems. In the following days, I found that what was going on was much bigger than a content dispute, and I saw to what extent Lucy_Marie had knowingly violated Wiki policy to POV push. I looked carefully at edit histories and comments, and saw that there were points where she had blatantly lied to other editors, and when she was told that her edits had changed quotes she still deadlocked the article leaving quotes and references incorrect for a month to push her POV.
  • I saw what I felt was a fairly serious problem, and was probably the only person who saw the extent of it and couldn't be considered biased--I'd had no interaction with her or any of her articles. I left what I thought was a fairly mild warning, which spiralled quickly out of control.
  • There's nothing that we need additional comments for, so an Rfc is entirely inappropriate. I wasn't leaving a comment about a content dispute on her talk page, so we don't need dispute resolution or mediation. There was a dispute on the person article, between herself and everyone else, and she's apparantely no longer interested in editing the article and the dispute doesn't exist anymore. I wasn't involved in the article when the dispute did exist anyway, and the dispute was about the correct pluralization of the word "person" something that can and has been looked up several times. I really can't help someone if they can't understand or don't want to listen to every dictionary, including the one that they cited.
  • Also, if users can simply delete warnings if they don't like or disagree with them, why is there a template warning about removing warnings? Does that only apply to certain warnings? Can only certain users use this template? I'd appreciate some clarification, especially as I thought that user talk pages (and their archives) were supposed to be records. TStein 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rix

There has been a tremendous amount of vandalism going on at the Chris Rix article with several IP's, and one account created under the name Creiree (merely to remove any negative comments about Rix [145]), continually vandalizing the article. Several editors have reverted the edits and left warnings on the user's talk pages to no avail. Attention and a checkuser of the new account name Creiree would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. —Mets501 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The check user is minor though as the user has done 2 edits thus far, the constant vandalism is the issue. Quadzilla99 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected. This was rather annoying though as he/she created an account to avoid 3RR. Oh well... the problem has been solved for now. MartinDK 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and should stive to be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are also other IP ranges, such as the following:
  • 71.56.0.0 - 71.63.255.255
  • 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
• Both of which are utilized by the city of Dekalb, Illinois, home of NIU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 71.70.92.135 on Waccamaw Page

I'm a Waccamaw Indian tribal council member and viewed the current page on Waccamaw. There were three incidents of vandalism on November 15, 2006 for the page showing the same user at 71.70.92.135 IP address. I will try to undo edit to correct, but I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia editing. Also, is there anyway of finding out the source? If this is possible, please email to </email removed/>. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.139.40 (talk • contribs).

The IP you mentioned resolves to Road Runner Holdco LLC. Crimsone 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Daybreak Community

There are an IP only accoutn and 4 registered users are hammering in the smae links to Daybreak Community and connected entries (like Daybreak and Utah and property entries) - you can see the talk page for a list of them and the history for the back and forth revisions over the last month. As more accounts have signed up and got involved and this happens a number of times a day now I was wodnering if someone could look into this in more depth (check if they are all sock puppets that kind of thing and it maybe that the link they are trying to add should be blocked). There are a few of us working on reverting the vandalism but it is getting to be a pain. Warnings have been issued but they tend to spread across accounts so it takes longer for them to reach critical levels and the only banning so far has been temporary. (Emperor 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Looks like a pile of socks to me. Since you appear to have an IP to work on, how about filing a WP:RFCU case "A"? In the meantime if the vandalism is getting too hard to deal with, you might wish to request semiprotection on the articles. Yuser31415 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over and the tip. I'll get on that now. (Emperor 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Cool, I see you've filed a WP:RFCU. I added the code letter for you. Cheers! Yuser31415 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another one (Perpetualmachine) -- the one that deleted your comments above and also re-added the spam links. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and spotting another account. They have also taken to blanking their user page too. (Emperor 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I blocked them all except the anon, per the confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#151.118.128.232 (not that there was really any doubt: they don't get much more obvious than this). Have we blacklisted the spamlinks, or do you think we should? Antandrus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend blacklisting the spamlinks, and at your discretion blocking account creation for the IP. This is the kind of thing we can do without. Yuser31415 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sasfatpogobsqalt

Sasfatpogobsqalt (talk · contribs) is constantly removing the speedy tag from the article he/she created, Edy Syquer. He/she has been warned to stop and refuses to. Heimstern Läufer 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This sound like a job for WP:AIV. To the Wikicave! JuJube 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries now, the article's been deleted. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Kannambadi and his elitism

Mr.Kannambadi (with his loyal friends) is removing the cited info at chalukya and rashtrakuta with other articles. he wants to push the POV of historians of his region and deleting my Marathi language and even English language citations. He is framing his own rules and bullying me by inventing new rules that google books and regional language books cannot be used in wikipedia. he has two books which I have quoted yet he is removing the info from those books as well also from the reputed source of Britannica encyclopeduia. I have given details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting . He is harassing me by asking ID no. but the book which i have (and he had claimed he has located them) are of 1924 AD which obviously dont have Id noes. Please help.Sarvabhaum 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

defusd timebomb

I just blanked, and deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death

We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying: Not a single reference.

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or keep. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.

So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.

Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it. -- Drini 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• So if people want to reconstruct it, references are easy to come by for 90% of the names there at least. It's a kinda dumb article, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Deletion If it's recreated with references than yes, it could be a decent article, but as it was, it could have been a liability to the project. Canadian-Bacon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletion. Humongous BLP liability, not to mention being an entirely ambiguous and unproductive list. Who qualifies as "famous"? What constitutes "responsibility" for a death? Does it only included people convicted of murder or manslaughter, or anyone alleged to have "had a hand" in someone else's death? Seems silly to me. —bbatsell ¿? 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is worth noting that WP:V puts the burden of evidence on those seeking to add content or readd it, and that if this burden of proof is not satisified, it may be deleted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call, of course, and we should be embarassed it was sitting around this long. Jkelly 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting sourcing issue. Every item listed on this list had a wikilink to an at least one other article (usually a biography, sometimes an article about the incident itself). I haven't checked them all, but those linked articles I did check did have sourcing for the death incident. So they are sourced on Wikipedia, but not on this particular list article, where each incident is just briefly mentioned. Are we now going to require sourcing of an incident in every article in which an incident is mentioned, even just in passing, or is linking to an article with proper sourcing adequate? We could have a field day if every list must be sourced on the list itself. Who wants to delete List of Australian criminals and the dozens of other related biographical list articles? Perhaps we could start using footnotes on wikilinks that say "information sourced in the linked article." NoSeptember 11:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is a very bad idea for an article, open for all kinds of sneaky POV and vandalism, and bound to fail to give adequate context. Being responsible for something can mean anything from failing to call the cops during the escalation of a dispute to actually pulling the trigger. The subject is too fraught with difficulties. And I don't see an encyclopaedic subject "famous people being responsible for a death". Guy (Help!) 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Community ban for Haham hanuka

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#haham hanuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A community ban was proposed for this user previously, with many people endorsing either the ban or an arbitration case instead. He has a very extensive block log for edit warring, disruption, evasion, etc. That was two months, and since then, neither happened, but has continued his disruptive behavior. He just violated 3RR yet again at Adolf Hitler [146], and persists in calling those he disagrees with "vandals". Previously, it was brought up that he is banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia, with his user page saying he was a troll. I'm not inclined to give him any more of our patience. I've gone ahead and implemented the ban, but this is up for review, of course. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse permanent ban. Was only recently edit-warring on Adolf Hitler; also looking at all those blocks, I think the community has given him enough time to reform. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Has been a fairly disruptive force in Wikipedia, and he hasn't changed his ways. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer account - created on behalf of a website

Mad gamers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has consistently added links to the MadGamers website in many computer/video game related articles. See Half-Life 2, CS: S, Half-Life, CS: S again, RTS, CVG. The same message, with links, posted to the articles. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more Primetime

Yes, it's tiresome. Looks like Primetime (talk · contribs) hasn't given up: his newest sockpuppet, Ad astra per aspera (talk · contribs), like a previous one, has once again nominated Panaca, Nevada (an actual town) for deletion. He also moved the previous nomination here, so someone will have to fix that by reverting the move, too.

(Officially, the previous Panaca troll was Justin322 (talk · contribs), whom I now assume was a Primetime sockpuppet, but even if he wasn't it's still abusive sockpuppetry, just by a different puppeteer.) --Calton | Talk 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the last version of the original nomination by Calton and moved the new nom to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada (2nd nomination). Obviously, should be dealt with as seen fit? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)