Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive213

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Magonaritus and sockpuppetry 2 Ivan Kricanci 3 Someone tried to change my password 4 Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - Some help needed 4.1 Ivan Kricancic 4.2 Report on Emir 5 Uncivil userbox? 6 I wish to discuss an issue 7 Pete_K (talk · contribs) 8 User:Wolfgang Mozart doesn't want to change username 9 Single-purpose troll? 10 Vandalism incident: two edits, First Red Scare 11 Continuous Problems with User:Rollosmokes 12 User Theandrewdotcom adding lots of chess openings 13 Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 14 Glyphosate 15 User:Vintagekits' bad faith PRODing & spamming 16 copyvio on Atlantis 17 Edit war on placement of names 18 Malfunctioning Bot -- User:MetsBot 19 Violation of privacy 20 Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - vandalistic, nationalist troll deserves a ban or indef block 21 Please help 22 Edit warring over removal of talk page comments 23 Block of Jooler 24 User:R9tgokunks step accross the line 25 Gene Nygaard's probation 26 White people article 27 Abuse of Admin privileges by Yannismarou 28 Very-very-speedy deleting of an article 29 Essjay controversy 29.1 "Mob consensus does not equal collaboration!" 30 Block on User:John Kenney‎ 31 Get rid of this vandal! 32 (anon. only, account creation blocked) 33 85.102.53.191 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) 34 Database scrambled/ Missing edit histories 35 Block evasion by SndrAndrss (talk · contribs) 36 Sock puppet accusations. 37 comments 38 Posts being removed, server issue? 39 Enayzeeeye 40 John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) 41 protocols of Zion 42 Covert deletion of "Turkic alphabets" article 43 User:Paul venter 44 Danny's Direct 45 Template:Db-meta 46 User evading block 47 User 66.93.144.171 48 User:69.132.198.252 49 Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please 50 Jonty Rhodes 51 Vote fraud on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet‎ 52 Extremely harsh, uncivil editor (possible sockpuppeteer) who won't allow contributions and makes veiled personal threats 53 User 71.139.27.85, Griot - Vandalism 54 Race under attack 55 Trolling 56 User:Fou-Lu0014 57 Admin help needed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) please 58 User:Virgil Vaduva 59 Jonathunder's admin abuse 60 Goguryeo 61 Counter complaint against Will3935 62 Wikistalking by annoynmous/anon IP 66.227.137.56 63 User removing image tags, after multiple warnings 64 64.56.112.199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) 65 Money 66 User:WikiLoco 67 User:superaids 68 216.20.13.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) 69 paradocks3 (talk · contribs) 70 New Zealand Crown Copyright 71 Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi 72 Delarion97 (talk · contribs) 73 Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn 73.1 POV parole 73.2 attacks on editors from User:Dahn 73.3 Monopol on some pages (User:Dahn's pages) 73.4 RfC against User:Dahn 74 Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry 75 Faznar (talk · contribs) marketing/spam 76 Troubling technical glitch on AN/I

[edit] Magonaritus and sockpuppetry

The person who registered the Magonaritus (talk · contribs) account has been causing disruptions, on and off, at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. He/she has used a series of both IP and registered sockpuppets to influence the outcome of discussions on article content and format at talk, generally in an abrasive, uncooperative manner; all-together violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the page being locked. Evidence strongly points to sockpuppetry; such evidence and connections have been outlined here. A request for checkuser was already deemed unnecessary. Could an admin please look at this case and decide whether the relevant accounts should be blocked? --G2bambino 00:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Kricanci

Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by AnonEMouse. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he hates Bosniaks, and makes funny of them. So his "ethnic Bosniak" account was blocked and he was warned. I noticed similar behaviour on Bosniak-related topics:

• 58.165.126.167 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

Here are some examples about his Bosniak-image obsession, when he was logged in:

• [1]
• [2]

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [3]

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [4]

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [5]
• [6]

and when he was logged in:

• [7].

There are so many examples, but the best thing is to look again the evidence here Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet when Ivan was blocked earlier. Emir Arven 00:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone tried to change my password

I got an email from Wikipedia, saying someone had changed my password. The text is (removed - standard text Quarl ^(talk))

I've changed my password, just in case, but I wanted to report this in case others have been affected as well. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is located in the e-mail notice:

If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you.

This happens fairly often, especially in disputes. Just ignore it. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - Some help needed

Hello people. Can I please get someone to help me with Emir Arven? Myself and this user have had disputes in the past, and both of us have been blocked as a result of personal attacks against each other. Our last dispute was a result of this edit summary. I then calmly started a discussion with the user about why they would falsely accuse me like that, but he just turned hostile straight away. The user then started provoking me some more, and that's when we started an exchange of personal attacks. I was blocked for 72 hrs for personal attacks, and he was blocked for 2 weeks, as he is a repeat offender. After his block expired, things cooled down, and I haven't heard anything from him so far. But, not ten minutes ago, Emir Arven has restarted with his provocative and offensive edits/behaviour (see here, here, and here. I am asking if an administrator (or maybe more) could step in, and tell the user to stop falsely accusing, stop provoking, and maybe tell him to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like all the personal attacks this user has made against me on his talk page and elsewhere be removed, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please help, because when I'm in situations like these, I can't help but retaliate, and that would just result in bad results for me. Anyway, help! —KingIvan 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to say this is totally false. This user, Ivan Kricancic was warned earlier by AnonEMouse because of his sockpuppet past. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets.

Here is conclusion about that

Case proven. Besides common interests, origins, and residences, they both edit the exact same deletion disputes minutes after each other, with the same opinions, and even same misspellings (it's). If they aren't the same person, they are brothers editing from the same computer.

• 04:52, September 28, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 * 04:58, September 28, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 27 [4] * 00:33, September 29, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 [5]
• 00:37, September 29, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 September 29 Note their identical rationale for keeping fair use images.
• 11:40, December 1, 2006 Ivan_Kricancic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [7]
• 11:43, December 1, 2006 Rts_freak Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petula Shaw-Dennis [8] Note that this was Rts_freak's only edit for 3 days before and 6 days after - he logged on, wrote "Delete - Per nom. I mean, come on." in an AfD, and logged off for six more days.

Blocking Rts freak, strongly warning Ivan Kricancic not to do that again. --AnonEMouse (squeak)

I have found new evidence that he still continues his sockpuppet behaviour, so I told him that I would report him if he continued:

He told me once: Whenever I see an edit made by a fanatical Bosniak user, I will be sure to include your user name in the edit summary., and immidiately he went to Srebrenica Genocide and Alija Izetbegović articles to provoke. He didn't read the articles, but he reverted it immediately in order to provoke. I asked him about IP address and he didn't answer me. But continued to provoke. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit58.165.126.17.

There he goes again - twisting people's words and taking it out of context to try to turn the argument in his favor. The edit where I said the above can clearly be seen as a response to him not aplogising, provoking me some more, and if I acted on my words, it would have been me doing to him, what he has done to me. As for teh IP address, I was the one who even gave him the WHOIS link above - he did not start with a question about the IP - I started that discussion with this edit, where I sarcastically tell him that the anon could not be me, as I live hundreds of kilometers away from where it's IP is lcoated. Emir either did not notice this, ignored it, or just plain and simple, does not understand English. Even after answering his "question" numerous times, he still does not seem to understand or does not want to understand. Emir has only come to the English Wikipedia to provoke, attack and spread his POV - that's what I hate about certain non native English speakers who edit en.wikipedia; a lot of them only come here to spread propaganda and lies. —KingIvan 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Kricancic

request links: view edit links history watch Filed: 11:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ivan Kricancic (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• Ivan Kricancic (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser)
• 58.165.115.192 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

• Code letter: C

So he came here, as he did before to talk lies about me, because I found more facts about his sockpuppet role: 58.165.126.167.I said I will report him if he continues, I didn't insult him. And the others will decide about my accusation. Emir Arven 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report on Emir

Now I must say, creating sockpuppet pages with absolutely no proof or evidence is in very bad taste. These pages must be deleted until your unfounded accusations that came out of nowhere prove true - which won't happen because you are a perennial liar. This whole thing started because of a provocation by Emir, and now Emir just will not stop with the attacks, lies and falsifications. I am yet again asking that a good admin step in, and remove all the personal attacks/falsifications/provocations directed against me by User:Emir Arven. He cannot hide under the guise of doing good for Wikipedia with personal attacks like this - which translated means

Ustašoids in action

I want to warn you, that user Ivan Kricancic, look at his user page,in his mad fanatism goes from one picture related to Bosnia to another, and suggests their deletion. Often he does that unsigned: 58.165.115.192. I know it is hard to deal with assholes, but the moron is sick and in this manner he had deleted a lot of articles about Srebrenica also.

This is insulting and provocative beyond belief - yet this, and many more attacks like it, have not been removed, and he has not yet been warned or punished for posting the above message numerous times.

Also, notice his block log.

• 00:32, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks (3RR violation, several personal attacks, longer block as this user has been blocked for PA multiple times.)
• 00:30, February 12, 2007 Nishkid64 (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (Extending block.)
• 11:20, February 11, 2007 Aksi great (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR on Alija Izetbegović)
• 03:26, September 11, 2006 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (personal attacks)
• 21:48, March 6, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (need to defuse)
• 22:11, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (reblocking)
• 22:09, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) unblocked Emir Arven (contribs) (had earlier been given shorter blocks)
• 21:47, February 28, 2006 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 72 hours (Mandatory cooling-off period)
• 18:53, February 26, 2006 Sam Korn (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Stephen II Kotromanić)
• 23:37, November 25, 2005 Chris 73 (Talk | contribs) blocked "Emir Arven (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Petar Petrović Njegoš and other articles)

Seven blocks for heavy edit warring, many personal attacks, and rampant incivility.

Now, let's examine some of his edits and edit summaries:

• Claiming an edit which has stood for ages as "false" without any evidence, and of a generally provocative nature.
• Here, where his racist tendencies are shown - he claims a source is invalid purely because it was written by a Serb.

• A page move which is provocative in many ways to people involved in the article (those who are not "on his side")
• 2nd edit after his most recent block. Immediately jumps straight back into edit warring, and removes a huge section about a war crimes investigation on the man.
• A regular victim of his warring. With this edit, he reverts a version that was a compromise version between warring parties, and shows that he is unwilling to compromise.

Also on the same article, this edit which he writes "this is ok", which it simply is not, because he has removed all references to the man being Serb - another example of his racism.

• 7th Muslim brigade. Another article in which he removes sourced information and edit wars in, so he can try to paint a rosy picture of "his side".
• This one! Imagine begin the anonymous user, and BAM, out of nowhere some guy just reverts your edits, then goes "Ivan, is that you?".
• I don't need a link for this one, as the edit is what you see up above there written by him. Reproducing the same attacking and provocative bullshit that he has written about me elsewhere - if that's not an insult, then you can also blow up the Western Wall and expect teh Jews to be happy.

Now consider his editing patterns, his mannerisms and his block log, then take a look at my block log. I was blocked once for vandalizing a real life friend of mine's user page [8] (which was wrong, but in retaliation to this). And my other block was as a result of me making personal attacks against Emir Arven after he provoked, harassed and attacked me. Now make a judgment over which editor is more trustworthy. I will ask again, please delete/remove his personal attacks/provocations/insults, warn the user not to do it, and possibly block him - in my opinion (judging by the numerous blocks, edit wars, slander, personal attacks, insults, provocations, and racism from this user) an indefinite block would suffice, but one of you admins may be more tolerant than I am, so a one or two month block would do if an indef is not made. Please read this, and do something about this vandalistic troll. Thank you. —KingIvan 05:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your report is irrelevant for the case and you are wrong. After you were strongly warned by AnonEMouse: Ivan Kricancic - proven sock puppets, because you pretended to be an ethnic Bosniak in order to push false information about Bosniaks, your second account was indefinitely blocked. Your second "ethnic Bosniak" account which was blocked I just said I would report you if you continue to do this. P.S. When I edit I provide sourceses, my edits are valuable, I don't pretend to be an ethnic Croat in order to push false information about Croats (I am not interested in Croats), and you as a Croat, pretended to be a Bosniak, which was very low, rude and pathetic. Let me remind you what you wrote in your second blocked user page: [9]. You said: Also, articles of particular interest to me are ones concerning Bosnia, as I am an ethnic Bosniak. But, being born and raised in Australia, I suffer from "the curse of the English speakers", that is, It's really hard to learn another language even if you reall want to.. And according to your "interests" and "thoughts" in your original user page it is obvious that you, as a Croat, hate Bosniaks. I think this is not good for your health, because you are young and should enjoy life, not spend your life in lies and hatred. Emir Arven 10:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

LOL at you talking about lies and hatred. You're obviously a racist bigot. And every single one of your edits has actually been disruptive to Wikipedia. Stop propagating your lies. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ivan's userpage may violate WP:USER, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox and WP:NPA (is "muslimani" an ethnic slur? I cannot tell). As a personal comment, I would like to point out that that bit about Alexander the Great being "non-Greek" just demonstrates a blatant ignorance of history.--Domitius 10:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he is one of the modern Slav Macedonians - we all know that is false; I'm saying that the ancient Macedonians were different people than the ancient Greeks. But we don't need to start a discussion on him here. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, see the Muslims by nationality article. Speaking 'bout WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA; someone should take a look at User:Ancient Land of Bosoni. --PaxEquilibrium 12:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

HRE, you have to know, when you pretend to belong to an ethnic group which you don't belong, just to take advantage in promoting false information about that ethnic group, because you hate it, then you cannot talk about WP:USER, WP:NOT and WP:NPA. And Ivan's second account was blocked because of that. I think, it was very dishonest act from him. And he continued to do that again although he was strongly warned not to do that. Emir Arven 13:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Emir, grow up. Please learn how to speak English properly or restrict your activities to the Bosnian Wikipedia. Your childish games, personal attacks, rampant incivility, and blatant lies have no place on the English Wikipedia. We both know that you falsely accused me just for the sake of harassing me. Your edits and your mannerisms show that you are a bigot, and even though you have been blocked seven times for your disruptive behaviour, you still don't understand that what you are doing is wrong. The best thing for you all of us is for you to just leave the English Wikipedia. —KingIvan 00:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat the summary of this whole situation: Ivan's second account Rts_freak was blocked indefinitely and he was strongly warned by AnonEMouse. You can see that here: Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet. Ivan had second account which he created in order to nominate Bosniak-related pictures for deletion providing false information about the authors. He is an ethnic Croat, so he created the second account presenting himself to be an ethnic Bosniak who doesn't speak Bosnian, because he is from Australia. According to his user page (original user page) he hates Bosniaks, and makes funny of them. So his "ethnic Bosniak" account was blocked and he was warned. I noticed similar behaviour from the above IP addresses on Bosniak-related topics. Here is another earlier case that proves this, just compare his address 58.165.126.17 and his edit 58.165.126.17 in his original user page.

About his Bosniak-image obsession, here are some examples when he was logged in:

• [10]
• [11]

(It should be noted that he first nominated those pictures for deletion)

And here is an example how he put false information when he was not logged in, about the Bosniak-related picture in order to nominate it for deletion:

• [12]

And here is an example when he promoted his ideas using his second blocked account, Rts_freak:

• [13]

The worst thing is that he wrote lies about other users who donated pictures to Wikipedia. He said:

This image was unlikely to have been taken by Asim Led. He has a history of providing dubious sources, and lying about source info. Impropper licence. Since the image is probably unfree, it is also missing a fair use rationale.

Now, I want to show you few edits, just about Bosniaks and Bosnian language, he really hates them, when he was not logged in:

• [14]
• [15]

and when he was logged in:

• [16].

There are so many examples, but the best thing is to look again the evidence here Ivan Kricancic - sock puppet when Ivan was blocked earlier.

Regarding my behaviour, I didn't break any Wiki rule recently although I was provoked by Ivan. Emir Arven 00:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is what I'm, talking about - you have, and you still are, accusing me with absolutely no proof/evidence of any kind. You are the one who originally provoked me. You are the one who has been continually using personal attacks against me. You are the one who continues to harass and provoke me. You are the one who has broken numerous Wikipedia policies. You are the one who keeps on bringing up these false accusations. Furthermore, you were not invited to this discussion here because you have proven unable to contribute to a discussion; but ever since you came, this discussion has gone without any admin action because you started behaving in your trade mark fanatic manner, so know one even bothered to look into it. I suggest you just leave me alone from now on. And if you do not stop with your unfounded wild accusations, I will have no choice but to start making these claims against you. —KingIvan 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncivil userbox?

I came across an entry on a babel userbox that I'm a bit curious about. Which states: This user does not wish to speak or hear dumbass, but is resigned to the necessity of at least understanding it in an environment of massive collaboration.. To me it seems a bit off to be be referring to all your fellow community members as potential dumbasses. It seems to have been put in the template with this code: :UBX/du-1 but I have no idea where to find that. Can anyone offer some insight?--Crossmr 17:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the userpage which it is on UBX, is in existence simply to host userboxes. The userbox you refer to, I assume, is here: User:UBX/du-1. The account is an alternate account of METS501. You might try asking that editor about the box. IrishGuy ^talk 18:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually more interested in whether or not anyone else finds that that type of wording is uncivil, or even a personal attack. It seems to me that it might fall under an improper use of humour.--Crossmr 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As it is, it is not a personal attack, but just uncivil. Now if you dismissed a user by referring to the userbox, that would be another story. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, personally. It's not actually saying that any one person is a dumbass, and I think that most of us would agree that we all have to deal with some dumbasses on occasion (though we would never call them that, of course — but we all think it ;). I don't know, just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. (ec) Oh yeah, definitely agreed with HBC's second point. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

that is kind of the point of civility. Whether or not I think editor x, or the editors who work on article x, or wikipedians in general are dumbasses, I shouldn't be advertising that.--Crossmr 06:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not saying any of the things you listed, though, it's saying: "Wikipedia is huge, and occasionally you'll run across a dumbass." In my opinion that's not an example of incivility, it's an example of speaking the truth. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. :) I really don't think David was trying to say that Wikipedians in general are dumbasses. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Princess/pea encounter. Possibly an effective filtering mechanism for anyone who feels personally attacked by what amounts to the statement 'there exist Wikipedians who are dumbasses'. Opabinia regalis 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

And don't worry, if you haven't had to try and make sense of someone speaking Dumbass yet, you'll be there soon. (We won't even get into my thoughts on leetspeak...) In all reality though, I don't even see effectively saying "I don't like dealing with dumbasses" as terribly uncivil. Who does like to do that? If the userbox said "This user thinks Someotheruser is a dumbass", it'd be a problem, but it's nothing like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I wish to discuss an issue

This issue contains a situation of potentially utmost importance. It you visitthis userpage, you'll get a sense of this...predicament I have trouble describing.HarryisScary 18:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) — HarryisScary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There's nothing wrong with the article this. What is your problem? Sandstein 19:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Account is a prank, only contribs are one to the userpage and this AN/I. It's a sock of someone, no doubt. ThuranX 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pete_K (talk · contribs)

This user's behavior has been under review in an Arb comm hearing for some time, but in the last few hours is on a rampage and I believe there is urgency now, and he warrants an immediate temporary ban to stop this deliberate disruption which violates all kinds of WP policies. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education/Review A review of his edits in the last few hours shows that his disruptive editing is very deliberate. Special:Contributions/Pete_K Venado 18:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn. WP:User:Pete_K has received 1 week ban from WP:AN3 notice.Venado 03:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Wolfgang Mozart doesn't want to change username

Thread retitled from "I Love My Name, Please Let Me Keep It".

Im posting here to "beat you to the draw" if you will. My name obviously shares the name of a famous person. But that famous person is now dead. Since I cant be confused with him in real life, Id like to keep this name, as the name Wolfgang is quite common here in Germany.Wolfgang Mozart 23:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Would WP:RFCN be more appropriate for this? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that nobody would have noticed it, as long as you weren't editing classical music topics. In any case, you could always add a middle initial—I can't imagine any objection to a User:Wolfgang Q. Mozart.

I'm also a bit surprised that you managed to come here – to WP:AN/I – on your very first Wikipedia edit.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the consensus on RFCN in the past has been for something like a 20 year rule on famous names anyway. The rule itself says "well-known living or recently deceased people", so this is an absolute non-issue considering that 5 December 1791 is by no measure "recent". --Random832 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been allowed Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It was never in question, enjoy your name, I like it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added a middle initial to my username, now theres no reason I cant keep itTerry Q. Schiavo 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Above user has been blocked indefinitely as an obvious troll. --Coredesat 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflict, you beat me. Newyorkbrad 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT. Twice. Ryanjunk 00:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the original question, I don't think there's any danger of someone thinking the real Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart rose from his anonymous grave more than 200 years after his demise for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. If that's a problem then I'd better change my own username because Nadezhda Durova expired only 141 years ago. Durova^Charge! 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

All of my similarly-named relatives have been deceased for 500 million years or so; am I in the clear? ;) Opabinia regalis 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Single-purpose troll?

Please take a look at User:Rainbowwarrior1976's contributions:

• Created his userpage
• trolling
• nominated Wikia for deletion
• blatant trolling

Tha'ts all his edits to the date. Sockpuppet? MaxSem 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef, as troll, possible sock of banned user User:Rainbowwarrior1977 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism incident: two edits, First Red Scare

I'm reporting two cases of straight-forward vandalism, at: First Red Scare

I'm also asking for information: what is the procedure for reverting multiple edits? Can both be reverted at once? Must they be reverted separately?

What's the simplest procedure? thanks! Richard Myers 05:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can revert any number of edits - see WP:REVERT. Actually, there was only one case of "vandalism" - an IP vandalized, and another tried to remove the vandalism, but did not revert all of it :P. Yuser31415 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous Problems with User:Rollosmokes

User:Rollosmokes seems to have a problem with working with other Wikipedia users, He has been making unwaranted reverts and then when questioned about it he becomes very aggressive and eventually gets into long edit wars and leaving aggressive messages on user talk pages including my own (see here) which includes:

"Unless you want to get administration involved once more, stop making the nitpicky changes to the Metromedia article, as you have been doing for the past two days. I promise you that every time you revert to your changes, I will undo them. They aren't necessary, and as I have stated before, the article was FINE before you decided to FIX WHAT WASN'T BROKEN. Rollosmokes 07:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)" and

As a result User:Rollosmokes was suspended for a 24h period by User:Firsfron effective 15:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC), His request to have the ban lifted was denied by User:Sandstein on 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC). Following the expiration of he posted another aggressive message on my talkpage which stated:

"Since you insist on making these needless and redundant changes to the article (and are trying to prove a point by doing so), I have once again asked Firsfron to interject. I am also requesting that the Metromedia article be locked and protected from editing until this crap dies down. Rollosmokes 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)"

Following that post he was edit blocked again, this time for 48h by User:Sandstein starting on 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC), User:Sandstein's explanation for the edit block was as follows:

"You are blocked for 48h for editwarring on Metromedia; see revert 1, 2, 3, 4. Please note that neither you nor any group of which you are a part owns any particular article, as you seem to assume judging from this comment. Please engage in discussion on the talk page about why the format you prefer is better, rather than editwarring about it."

and following the expiration of that edit ban he started making aggressive reverts on the article Soul Train, When User:TMC1982 asked User:Rollosmokes to stop reverting people's edits on the Soul Train article User:Rollosmokes again became aggressive and posted the following message:

"First of all, I never labelled any changes on the Soul Train article as vandalism. Secondly, the extra subsectioning in your version messed up the continuity of the text, and is otherwise unnecessary. That was my reason for reverting back, and I will reiterate again that I did not label your edit as "vandalism". When my block is lifted, I will change it back. Rollosmokes 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)"

In response User:TMC1982 posted

"What you call "messed up continuity", I call breaking the article down in sections for easier reading. You don't exactly "own" the Soul Train page!!!TMC1982 2:28 p.m., 10 March 2007 (UTC)"

Clearly User:Rollosmokes has some anger and aggression issues that he needs to deal with and the fact that he feels he has the right to revert any article in Wikipedia without question because he deems them not up to his own personal standards instead of Wikipedia's standards. I would like to recommend that he be edit blocked for a period no less then 14 days after which he will be required to have a Wikipedia mentor who will look after him and guide him along on what he should and shouldn't do and what is proper and what is not proper. They call me Mr. Pibb 07:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Theandrewdotcom adding lots of chess openings

User:Theandrewdotcom has begun mass-adding a lot of chess openings with no real attempt at articles. It's spam and possible vandalism. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it "spam" or "vandalism". Certainly, at least some chess openings (the ones with names) are notable, though I'm not sure I'd consider all the numbered openings to be separately notable. That user is using some atrocious coding syntax, however, with malformed HTML instead of wiki syntax, though Mediawiki is great at making a valid XHTML document out of whatever the users throw at it. *Dan T.* 21:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody run a bot on these articles and make them redirect to List of chess openings? They seem to have little potential as articles, but some navigational value. —xyzzy_n 21:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've usernameblocked him, as "Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address" are prohibited per WP:U. Sandstein 22:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, Theandrewdotcom seems to be a chess themed weblog--VectorPotential^Talk 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does. I noted the possible conflict of interest in my original message on the user talk page.

I've also left a message on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess with the intention of starting a discussion as to whether these 200 chess openings merit individual articles. My opinion being that they are unlikely to be notable enough and should probably be merged with List of chess openings.

Would the next step with regards to this issue be to go to AfD? I'm not sure whether it would be feasible to add a link to the AfD on each page as per "How to list multiple related pages for deletion". I guess this would be fairly straightforward for a bot to do though. Adambro 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to, I have already redirected the articles to List of chess openings, there is no need for these articles. — Moe 23:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably mention to them that the block was based on their username, and that they're perfectly welcome to contribute to other chess related articles as long as they pick a non .com name--VectorPotential^Talk 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he has the {{usernameBlocked}} message on his talk page, which should be clear enough. Sandstein 07:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we consider this issue resolved now all of the 200 articles created have been changed to redirects? Adambro 12:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

has a huge backlog, and now has links to even huger backlogs. I've done my small part, but I must leave and now all of you should carry on the good fight. By the way, there was once an idea to have some sort of automated template at the top of this page telling us when there's a large backlog at CSD... Whatever happened to that idea? Grandmasterka 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My word...makes the Titanic look puny. The template sounds like a good idea. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Just add {{User:Dragons flight/Category tracker/Summary}} to your user page. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 00:03Z

I did that... I don't know about you, but I rarely look at my own userpage anymore. A template here, that would be added by a bot when the backlog tag on CSD is un-commented, and removed when the backlog tag is commented out, would do the trick nicely. Personally, it would remind me that there are sometimes more important things at hand than wikidrama. :-) Grandmasterka 00:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, though then other people would say "what about WP:PER backlog?" and "what about X, Y, Z backlog", and eventually we'd have the entire contents of that bot-updated template on this page :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 03:02Z

Yeah... Maybe a drop-down version of the backlog template? A veritable backlog menu? :-/ Grandmasterka 08:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glyphosate

Hi there,

Anon Ip User:83.78.136.13 has started making massive POV edits to Glyphosate, it is highly likely that this is a sockpuppet of User:Benjiwolf who has been blocked before for disruptive editing in general as on this page - see [17].

Note that their massive edit [18] removes some useful info, adds some useful info, but mostly seeks to push a particular POV on the article e.g. at the most basic it is not a discussion of Glyphosate anymore but of Roundup. From the their contributions [19] it can be seen that this editor is obviously experienced with Wikipedia, e.g. of trying to bait me into a WP:3R - [20].

I suggest an outside user please comment on User:83.78.136.13s actions, maybe semi-protection of the page is in order, and an investigation into the sockpuppet issue. Cheers Lethaniol 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Note this edit [21] also - where the Anon Ip reverts all their work??? Cheers Lethaniol 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

accusations of baiting for a 3RR are patently false, the editor was warned several times clearly in several ways, including on his talk page about nearing a third RR...83.78.136.13 00:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about Benjiwolf. As stated on the sockpuppet report, I would be happy to pass out any blocks/page protections required but I believe there is a conflict of interest as I have dealt with benjiwolf directly on several pages. Read the user's talk page and you will see he/she is determined to evade any block placed. If I could get another admin to review Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd), it would be very helpful. auburnpilot talk 01:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This IP user has also been trolling the Ann Coulter talk page at a level I've never seen before and our patience is wearing thin. He also accused me of something I didn't do on Talk:Cannabis (drug). All I did was add citation tags to a few sentences. --Ubiq 08:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vintagekits' bad faith PRODing & spamming

User:Vintagekits is engaged in spamming by placing PRODs on everything related to the British peerage or Honours recipients as "non-notable" or "nn?" or "nn??" He was engaged in abusive spamming on a massive scale, and it is directly related to the user's pro-PIRA bias.

See below a partial list:

• 19:14, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot, 3rd Baronet
• 19:13, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Arbuthnot-Lane, 2nd Baronet
• 19:12, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Frederick Arthur
• 19:11, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 3rd Baron Avebury
• 19:09, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) John Lubbock, 2nd Baron Avebury
• 19:08, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Bernard Waley-Cohen
• 19:07, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Ian Frank Bowater
• 19:05, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) David Brewer
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir David Baird, 3rd Baronet
• 19:02, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Alexander Baird, 1st Baronet
• 19:01, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir William Barber, 1st Baronet
• 18:59, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gilbert Barling
• 18:58, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Thomas Erasmus Barlow
• 18:57, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Sir Thomas Barrett-Lennard, 2nd Baronet
• 18:54, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Henry Benyon
• 18:31, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gladys Hartman
• 18:30, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Maureen Brennan
• 18:29, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Gillian Pugh
• 18:27, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Daphne Purves
• 18:26, 10 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Una Pope-Hennessy

O'Donoghue 01:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: All the bad faith PRODs were converted into requests to expand article by User:kittybrewster. Regardless, User:Vintagekits' edits need to be reviewed given his history on Wikipedia and his blatant biases.O'Donoghue 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Vintagekits is currently blocked for an alleged 3RR violation that is under review. He has indicated on his talk that he will respond to this thread as soon as he is in a position to do so. Newyorkbrad 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Vintagekits has made some very offensive comments in the past week regarding British people. On Talk:Celtic he said, "Aside from the fact that term British actually makes my skin crawl" [22]; then later said "it was not for the IRA I would not be rule a free country and it would still by under Britsh imperialist sectarian rule. Thank god for the IRA"[sic] [23]. He has also been attempting to discredit good faith comments made by several editors in 2 AFDs on articles similar to the ones he has been targeting above. [24]

• So is anyone going to do anything about this hatemonger (User:Vintagekits), whose grammar appears to be at early grade school level, polluting Wikipedia? Also - the person who made the very useful comment directly above mine should return to sign off on it.O'Donoghue 12:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio on Atlantis

User:Karohatch pasted the text of a National Geographic article into Atlantis: [25]. That diff includes about six revisions; I've reverted to a previous version, but should those edits be deleted from the page history? The author helpfully provided the url of the story in his edit. I haven't had a chance to look closely at Karohatch's other edits, but this one also looks like potential copyright trouble: [26]. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule we don't have to delete copyvios from the page history. Just not having them be the active page is ok. That is not true for images, where we outright delete them. Georgewilliamherbert 06:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

But regardless of it is text or images, if the user is posting copyright violations galore, just block the account. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They'd only posted one copyvio that's clear and evident, on Atlantis, and that one had credit and source info right in it so it was clear what they'd done. The Milesians one could be, but I don't know where it came from... someone have time to look at it?. They stopped (went to bed?) before the warning was put up. They just returned to editing a couple of minutes ago, and re-did one noncopyvio segment that was reverted out on Atlantis, but haven't done anything else yet. I'm going to engage more on their talk page to make sure they understand the policy. Georgewilliamherbert 07:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him and an IP 24 hours for reinserting the material twice more, once after the two warnings were obviously on his talk page. Last insert was exact same material as an IP address, transparently the same person. Georgewilliamherbert 07:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war on placement of names

User:Taalo is repeatedly reediting the introductory sentence (putting the German name, though it is one of the two official names, after the non-official Ladin name) of the articles Bolzano and Merano inserting his POV (contributions: [27]. I warned him on Talk:Bolzano#Warning: Vandalism). I really don't like it, but there is a kind of edit war, including personal attacks, between "pro Italians" and "pro Germans" on South Tirol and Trentino-South Tirol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhJ (talk • contribs)

Both edit warriors on Bolzano are now blocked for WP:3RR, and the page is protected until they get consensus about the order the names of the city should appear in. No further admin action required at this point. Sandstein 08:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Malfunctioning Bot -- User:MetsBot

This bot is apparently fixing links to relocated user boxes and/or relocating the boxes. I have a user box that links to the box's subject (User:UBX/Monty Python). The bot changed the link to the box and also changed the link to the subject, Monty Python, so the box on my user page now links to UBX/Monty Python. --Butseriouslyfolks 08:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of privacy

User (and Admin) [[28]] had posted on Talk page what he thinks is a real name of an editor he is fighting against. I believe this act violates the WP privacy rules that safeguard editors from potential threats that exist in repressive societies and other environments adversary to open expression, and the spirit of participation in WP. I believe this act was willingly done in order to intimidate an editor [[29]]. Barefact 08:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hint! Hint!: Go here and report all of the instances (with links provided) of this user's real name being shown upon wiki [done by e-mail, of course], because it is a violation of the the privacy policy. Real96 08:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emir Arven (talk · contribs) - vandalistic, nationalist troll deserves a ban or indef block

Thread moved to WP:CN, proposes a community ban. MER-C 09:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Ideogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is making personal attacks on Wikipedia talk:Good article candidates. I apologize if this is not the right place to bring this. --NE2 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per various talk pages, I have asked Ideogram not to make personal attacks, NE2 not to delete them, and both to avoid 3RR arguing over it. It appears to have stopped. Georgewilliamherbert 10:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Indon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is now claiming to apply style guidelines, while actually not applying them: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) says that "Good places for link duplication are often the first time the term occurs in each article subsection." but he removed a link a section and a number of paragraphs down from the first use. --NE2 10:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this an ANI issue? Have you followed any of the lower steps of dispute resolution, asked for anyone else to discuss it with them...? Georgewilliamherbert 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring over removal of talk page comments

--Ideogram 10:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please intervene here. --Ideogram 09:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of Jooler

I was recently blocked for 72 hours by Jayjg. The incident that led to this block can be seen on Talk:Gillian McKeith. I am not very happy about what happened here. I don't believe I did anything wrong apart from breaching 3RR and even here I was trying to correct broken links and got caught in edit conflicts. I certainly resent the accusation of "acting dumb" and I also take issue against the claim that the material that I was restoring (I was not the original contributor of this material) constitutes original research. I also believe that Slim Virgin's bullet point explaination of the so called "original research" (posted after I was blocked) is flawed. Jooler 09:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:R9tgokunks step accross the line

From december 27th 2006  : we have 12 reversions on the article Alsace :

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=97199675&oldid=96775376
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=103146509&oldid=103084985
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=108528666&oldid=107984416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110519656&oldid=110212911
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110931743&oldid=110910812
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=110959682&oldid=110942643
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=112421058&oldid=112408060
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113720175&oldid=112733464
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113966990&oldid=113962954
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113972840&oldid=113971905
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=113995579&oldid=113976390
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alsace&diff=114253683&oldid=114106515

and he does not want to have a serious talk on his talk page (section Vandalism on the article Alsace)... I'm a bit fed up of his behavior. Can you do something? Sincerily user:Paris75000 13:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Nygaard's probation

I would like to be clarified regarding the current status of Gene Nygaard's community probation. Quoting Gene himself about it, "the page (...) has a big notice a the top: This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest". Does the fact that the community sanction page is now tagged as inactive mean that the probations contained therein are void? Gene's probation clearly states that "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves until further notice". If the ban is still active, then Gene has been constantly disrespecting it, according to his move log. Namely, Gene's been moving articles with the well-known purpose of wiping diacritics off their names. Recent examples of this are Wanda Gág to Wanda Gag[30], Eggert Jónsson to Eggert Jonsson[31], Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic[32], among others. Particularly interesting is Šuligoj Roman to Roman Suligoj[33], where Gene states that the reason for the move was "order per naming conventions", not forgetting though to deface the name by removing the diacritic in the process.
I reminded Gene of his probation [34], but unsurprisingly Gene replied with his typical strategy of launching random accusations. I kindly request a review by the community regarding Gene's actions and current status of his probation.--Húsönd 03:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Wanda Gag for an example of Husond's shenanigans here.

Furthermore, the previous discussion dealt with only moving articles which didn't have the proper redirects from the English language spelling. I have not done that since. Instead, I point out to the editors of those articles the need for creating such redirects by using the maintenance Category:Articles needing redirects.

Note also that Husond tries to deceptively hide the fact that he is perpetually pushing the inclusion of diacritics where they do not belong, as he did here in the case of Arpad Elo who spelled his name that way for 80 years as a U.S. citizen, and for whom the only evidence of any other spelling he may have used was not the Árpád Élő spelling he was pushing, but rather the Arpád Éllő spelling used on the ship's manifest when he came to America as a kid. Gene Nygaard 04:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Shenanigans, ooooh. Why do you keep bringing up Árpád Élő, the one and only move proposal that pleased you (and solely because nobody could find reliable online records of his Hungarian name)? Should I cast tens of examples of move proposals where you fought an uphill battle and lost after wasting everybody's time and patience? Not here.--Húsönd 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable records of his Hungarian name are irrelevant, and you know it. There was oodles of evidence that "Arpad Elo" was the name always used in his publications, and always used in reference to the Elo rating system in chess for which he is famous (except for places corrupted by Wikipedia). That rating system is the reason he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place. Note that even the rabid diacritics fanatics like Husond have never tried to move that to Élő rating system; in fact, even they realize that there is absolutely no need for even a redirect from that, because it is never used, just as Arpad Elo never used any other spelling for the last 80 years of his life. That is one of tens or hundreds of cases where bad moves have been reversed. Our article is at Ho Chi Minh and not at at Hồ Chí Minh (which is of course a redirect). You are just a sore loser, Husond, because you argued unsuccessfully for retaining improper names in cases such as Amer Delic and others.

And then you have the gall to come here and try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people here, trying to falsely imply that when a name is or was sometimes written with diacritics that the version with diacritics is always the proper one to use, and that if it is written with a varying number of letters with diacritics, the version with the most diacritics is the proper one. Why in the world are you so hell-bound on eliminating the use of the English language on the English Wikipedia in any case? Why you consistently claim that there is some error in using the English alphabet when writing in English? We may choose to use diacritics in many of the names here on Wikipedia, but we do not do so because it is incorrect not to do so in English. Rather, we are choosing among legitimate alternatives.

Note also that Husond was the one who unblocked User:Darwinek when he was blocked for personal attacks against me at the same time as Darwinek make the improper block against me to gain advantage in a content dispute, which was reversed as discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. Husond puts his blinders on when it comes to abuses of admin powers as well as the violations of the rule against personal attacks by his fellow admin who has helped out with many of these undiscussed, unreferenced and improper moves, but for some reason has a vendetta against me. Gene Nygaard 15:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The community-imposed probation holds no matter where the discussion occurred. Just because WP:PAIN does not exist anymore doesn't mean that personal attack complaints/reports posted there in the past were not legitimate and now void. I remark only on the procedure, not the dispute itself. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, User:Husond, maybe you'd like to discuss this improper, unreferenced and unexplained move by you of Pal Benko to Pál Benkő, which was of course later reversed and moved back where it belongs without the diacritics, in a requested moves discussion which didn't even need my participation or even any awareness of it on my part to come to the proper conclusion. I haven't ever edited either that article or its talk page. Gene Nygaard 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe you both should step away from the issue (and each other), as all of this is turning into a bit of a war. I'm sure the diacritics will work themselves out without the two of you for a short time until you can both cool off.

That said, I do find that moving a page over another Admin's block as User:Jonathunder did, or in spite of a community probation against such activity, as User:Gene Nygaard did, is not a particularly productive way to ensure that we all have the best Wikipedia we can. Just a random editor's opinion. Ryanjunk 21:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If, as Husond claims, he was merely reverting on the basis that I had violated the earlier discussion (which I totally dispute), then what in the hell cause does he, or you, have to complain about an independent determination to move it on the basis fo the facts of the case, whether it is by User:Jonathunder or any other editor whatsoever? If User:Husond wasn't making a determination to revert on the basis of the facts of the case, then it remains an open field.

Furthermore, if instead Husond was indeed basing his move on the facts of the case, then in light of the fact that it had already been pointed out that the previous move was unreferenced, undiscussed, and controversial, then it was incumbent upon User:Husond to engage in that discussion, to cite his reasons and see if anyone else agreed or disagreed, before making the move. Husond did not do so. He can't have it both ways. Gene Nygaard 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene, please knock it off. You're skating along the ragged edge of wikilawyering and violation of the probation.

Husond, did you AGF and post talk page comments for all of this before coming to ANI, or did you short-circuit the normal process? Georgewilliamherbert 06:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I no longer assume good faith when it comes to Gene Nygaard, but I did leave a friendly reminder of the probation on his talk page, which he promptly refuted.--Húsönd 15:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people article

Please have a look at user Lukas, in the white people article. You can clearly see his irrational position. He argues with almost everyone else and is ready in engage in any edit war if it does not suit his POV. He is treating that article as if it was his own private one and his POV the only absolute truth. Veritas et Severitas 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else might be LSLM: IP, User:65.3.245.190 [35] looks similar to his other sockpuppets, [36] [37], especially given the similarity of their post history and posting times. Lukas19 19:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

THIS GUY THINKS THAT WE ARE ALL THE SAME. HIS ARGUMENTS ARE ALL OF THE SAME NATURE. NOW HE HAS VIOLATED THE 3REVERT RULE. vERITAS65.3.245.190 20:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You have just confirmed that 65.3.245.190 is you which is veritas which is User:LSLM. And I was reverting Vandalism. You were deleting sourced material without explaining and without writing on talk page. Lukas19 20:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lukas has a 24h timeout. Oters involved should take a step back and consider whether they are looking for an acommodation or a victory. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes sign in and sometimes not and anyone can see my IP address. On the other hand Lukas position in the white people article can be seen by everyone. Veritas et Severitas 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Admin privileges by Yannismarou

[edit] Very-very-speedy deleting of an article

I created Notable usages of the phrase "I love you" with content MOVED from I love you. It took me only the time to go back to the original article and delete that content, to see that the new article had been tagged for speedy deletion with reason "content COPIED from another article". Since I believed that reason was not correct, I put in a hangon on the article and started writing the explanation on the Talk page. When I saved the explanation, the article had already been deleted. From creation to explanation, the whole process took less than half an hour.

I don't want to discuss the merits or demerits of the deleted article and of the killed contents, but I'm very, very annoyed at some overzealous admin who couldn't wait another minute to see my explanation and who thus made me waste my (voluntary and good-faith) time.

Even if this is an acceptable behavior under admin guidelines, it still shows lack of respect for other people's time and efforts and the guidelines should probably be readdressed. Thank you (but still annoyed). --maf 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD, editors are supposed to allow time for article expansion before tagging it. Unfortunately, that is ignored a significant amount of the time and considering the backlog CAT:CSD normally has, it's usually not an option for the admin deleting it to check to ensure that enough time had been allowed. Responsibility rests with the tagger, in my opinion. I'm not at all a fan of an admin deleting a clearly good-faith article that is speedy-tagged with a {{hangon}} without giving enough time for a discussion on the talk page (in this case, less than 3 minutes from {{hangon}} to deletion by NawlinWiki). From start to deletion, less than 16 minutes. I agree that we can do better than this — the question is what needs fixing. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that responsibility rests with the tagger. I believe responsibility rests with the writer, to take the time outside of main name space to create something that will stand up to scrutiny from the get-go. Good faith or no, a half-baked article is still only half-baked, nd there are few guarantees the article will be improved after it hits namespace. If people don't want their articles deleted, it is up to them to put something credible in place in the first place. Denni^talk 07:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is people want to tag now, rather than having to put "go back and check article X" on their calendar. A solution may be to use {{delayed}} (which I created recently). For example, {{delayed|2007-03-16|2={{db-talk}}}} can be used on a talk page so that {db-talk} will appear on 2007-03-16. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:10Z

Oooh, very intriguing template right there. My concern at first blush, of course, is adding it and then not checking the article again, so that if, for example, the article is significantly expanded, it would still end up being tagged. Obviously in this case one would hope that the admin wouldn't delete, but I've certainly seen lots of speedy deletions that have gone pretty clearly against policy. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It would help to notify editors of the article by using the "else" clause of the template to display a warning of the "scheduled" automatic tagging, and also to state in the db reason that {delayed} was used, such that the deleting admin should check to see if it still applies. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:21Z

I have undeleted the article and changed {db} to {prod}; it may merit AFD instead. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:05Z

Good call. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Same thing happened to me. Selective entry schools was deleted within minutes of creation and the topic merits an article. Sfdasfr 02:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That article was also speedy deleted too quickly and tenuously. I undeleted it but then realized it's a duplicate of Selective school, so I just redirected it there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-11 02:51Z

I dislike the attitude that some new pages patrollers have that it's about "skimming the shit" that gets submitted (as Denni put it in response to maf's concern). If that's the attitude one has while watching new pages, that you're just "looking for shit to skim," then you can't help but pull the trigger too fast on needy articles that require assistance to grow. Leebo ^T/C 04:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I offer you this challenge: spend one evening on New Pages Patrol. My experience is that ten to fifteen percent of articles submitted are of such poor quality or are so frivolous (Damon Edwards is a l33t n00b and chicks dig him; The Wanking Shaggers are an up-and coming band...; Hamilton Heights School is a school in Prince Edward Island) that any reasonable editor would move to speedy-delete them. I read all articles on New Pages, and appreciate the fine quality of articles I often see. But I have no hesitation at all about nominating articles for speedy deletion that have nothing to contribute in terms of noteworthiness or serious intent. Please do not forget that I nominate them, but it takes a second editor to delete them. Please also do not forget that Wikipedia recieves literally thousands of articles an hour, and if there were no watchers at the gates, Wikipedia would quickly reach 15 million articles, most of them not suitable to line a bird cage. In the case of I love you, the article was in fact copied. I don't care that the author claims he wrote the original piece, fact is, the breakout poage was an exact duplicate of what already existed in a very short article, and no breakout was necessary. Claims that it needs "assistance to grow" are frivolous - it is the main article that needs time to improve, not some clip-out copy. As far as Selective entry schools goes, I tagged it as a speedy because it was about two sentences long and contained nothing to assert notability. Criticising me for ignoring a {{hangon}} is kind of odd, because only the deleting editor would have seen that, and that was not me. Bottom line: if authors do not want their pages deleted, they need to put in the time outside main articlespace to create an article that will withstand initial scrutiny before submitting it. I do not believe this is too much to ask. Denni^talk 07:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this article, all I said was I dislike the "skimming the shit" impression of it. I'm a new pages patroller too. Leebo ^T/C 13:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happened to creating an article in userspace before posting? That would eliminate most of the problems right there. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep. The best way to not get your article speedied is to not create speediable articles. Not even if you really are going to add more stuff, Real Soon Now, you promise! Write it in userspace, or write enough in your first mainspace draft that its merits are apparent. Opabinia regalis 05:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. New page patrollers are not mind readers and cannot assess the intention of the author. I've been around here long enough to see very feeble pages linger long after (I assume) the author has lost all interest in Wikipedia. It takes no more time to create a good article in userspace than it does in main namespace, and odds are the rresults if done so will stand much better in a speedy review. Denni^talk 07:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, it couldn't possibly be that people are tagging and deleting articles improperly. No, never. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I respond to your sarcasm by saying "not very often". I occasionally run across speedy delete nominations which are improperly tagged, but it's usually the category of tag that's incorrect, not the speedy nomination itself. Once in a while, articles for speedy should better have been prodded (I'm guilty of that myself on occasion) but for the most part, I think new pages patrollers do a good job at an onerous task. Denni^talk 19:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Notable usages of the phrase "I love you" should have never been created in the first place, that is way to vauge info for the I love you article (how can you tell the phrase is extremely notable, and there is so many uses of I love you that it would be unmaintable anyways), so it should have just been removed from the article without creating a subpage. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Essjay controversy

Serious Questions:

(I mean, look what happened to Essjay, I feel bad for him). Gwen Gale 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Are editors who are strong supportors of Essjay are allowed to edit the Essjay controversy article? Currently the quotes are gone from the Wales response and Essjay's response and there is an abnormally huge Reactions section. I could fix the clutter and improve the article. First, the quotes should be put back in the article. Second, the reactions section should be divided into two sections because it is undue weight to have such a long section. Third, someone recently changed a sentence that is now factually false in the Essjay letter's section. Fourth, a link to the offical "My response" of Essjay is of historical significance that belongs in the article. Fifth, many editors already wanted the images to stay in the article. Sixth, this is becoming a story within a story. Some editors want to delete the article. Since deletion is not possible. Then, they want to make the article cluttered, unreadable, and short as possible. Removing the images and the internal link is just some examples to shorten the article. The huge reactions section is just one example of clutter and improper structuring. I do not know what is the next step is this kind of environment. Currently they are trying to suppress pictures of screenshots and images of Essjay's for no valid reason. A few minor cosmetic changes, organization, and direction will dramatically improve the article and flow of reading. It is amazing to try to edit in an environment which a group of editors have made their support for someone who is now retired.

I do not know how to reason with a group of ediotrs in this kind of climate. Assistance and oversight is needed. What is the next step for this situation when the talk page will accoplish nothing. QuackGuru ^TALK 01:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Dispute resolution? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As to your first question, a) that's hardly "strong support" — I don't support what Essjay did, but I still feel bad for him..., b) yes they are. As to your second, the location for this discussion is on the article's talk page (or at WP:DR if you feel so inclined, but uh...), where editors have been attempting to engage you in discussion all day but for the most part you have refused. Please take it there and actually discuss first, thanks. Nothing here requires administrative intervention. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No amount of controversy should affect an article, short of it being protected or deleted. If you require further assistance, you should contact the AMA who may advocate on your behalf. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel bad for him, too. Feeling compassion for someone who's managed to get himself into such a predicament doesn't indicate that I condone his deception. I'm sure many of us feel like that. Metamagician3000 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What 'on bigotry's flying worms' asses the heck happened?

I always admired Essjay. --PaxEquilibrium 13:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay is a Saint compared to the behavior and tactics a few of the editors on the Essjay controversy article. I organized the sections for easier flow of reading and improved the style of the quotes. Now I am being treated as if I vandalized the article. The talk page is turned into a circus. The comments by other editors against me are personal attacks and disruptive. The real story is the problems how things are run on Wikipedia. Mob consensus is not consensus. I want to change policy to collaboration. Consensus allows a group of editors to impose their will. There is an inherent flaw to going along with so-called consensus. Collaboration creates a higher quality article. I want to organize the sections, include images, include an internal link, and have the Wales' response and Essjay's response in quotes. Currently, the article has a huge reactions sections. It would be best to divide that section into two sections. The article is cluttered with such a huge reactions section. If anyone has anymore suggestions on this matter it would be helpful. QuackGuru ^TALK 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mob consensus does not equal collaboration!"

This is an "incident" in as much as massive trolling seems to be going on. This article has potential of becoming our latest GNNA / Daniel Brandt surrogate. And like these, it is a WP-internal thing that masquerades as an encyclopedic article. It has no place in content namespace. dab (𒁳) 16:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Note: The article has turned into a circus. This is beyond a content dispute now. Read the talk page. A have been attacked. Wikipedia's policy does not address mob consensus against collaboration. Please help. QuackGuru ^TALK 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I support User:Doc glasgow's move to archive this content-dispute related discussion. (→Netscott) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot get on the page to make a point without being ganged up on. C.m.jones 19:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

C.m.jones, we've asked you to explain your reasoning for adding NPOV and "expert" tags several times, and you've probably now violated 3RR in your determination to have them there without really rationalizing them. This is a content dispute that needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. Thank you.Risker 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Block on User:John Kenney‎

John Kenney‎ (talk · contribs) left this edit summary and this Talk-page comment, both aimed at me. Remembering what I'd seen here about the acceptability of applying a block in such cases (that is, blatant personal attacks, even though one is involved in dispute with the culprit), I blocked him for three hours. I think that the behaviour probably warranted a longer block, but I was hesitant because of my involvement (and at the time of the block I'd only seen the edit summary). It seems to have had the desired effect, though, and John Kenney‎ has acknowledged (up to a point) the unacceptability of his behaviour.

I've brought it here because another editor has expressed mild concern that I blocked at all. Could other admins confirm that I was right (or tell me that I was wrong), for future reference? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Always better to ask for someone else to review and block if necessary; blocking someone you're engaged in a content dispute with, even if you don't gain advantage from that, is always bad. It looks bad, at least, and there's always the question of whether your judgement was clear when you did it.

In this specific instance, I would agree that a block was warranted. John Kenney knows better. John, you gotta go walk away from the keyboard and take a break when you find yourself typing things like that. Georgewilliamherbert 11:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, block justified, but I think we're all moving in the direction that it's better to get someone else to have a look if attacks are made on yourself. Metamagician3000 13:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That had been my understanding, but I'd somehow got the idea that earlier discussions here indicated a shift in that position; I must have been wrong. I'll act accordingly in future (which, incidentally, isn't good news for those being blocked, as the blocks will probably be longer). --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get rid of this vandal!

I made the mistake of posting the link to an article which I had written (Battle of Baia) in a Hungarian forum in order to get some imput from their members. I got some good imput and changed some of the things in the article, but along came this strange Hungarian who claims to be a Muslim, threatens with religion retaliation and now, joined Wiki to vandalize the article. He's been vandalizing the article at least four times and not a single admin lifted a finger! See the history. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we were supposed to know about it. Anyway, I've just made some small stylistic edits on the article and will watch out for it over the next few days. However, it's nearly bedtime for me, so maybe some other admins can take a look. Without expertise in the area, I can't tell whether the person you are complaining about is deliberately vandalising or just engaging in aggressive point of view editing. Metamagician3000 13:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thannks for watching over it! --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:DR. It does look slightly malicious - I have no expertise on this subject but I do think Moldova won just by reading - but on either case, some edits are grammatically bad and some do look malicious. Either way, stop reverting to avoid WP:3RR and seek dispute resolution at WP:DR. x42bn6 Talk 13:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that he's not here to dispute the content. The guy knows what had happened, but does this just to annoy me. If it were a dispute, we could've talked it through, examined the sources and perhaps compromised on the content. Also, it's Moldavia, not Republic of Moldova. Thanks! --Thus Spake Anittas 15:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (anon. only, account creation blocked)

I notice that there are still a disturbing number of rather harmless usernameblocks that are being issued with account creation blocked checked off. I realize it's the default setting, but it's almost certainly going to chase away new users if they're told to create a new username, and then find themselves blocked from doing so. Should we really be penalizing people so harshly for picking names like Wikipedian63 (talk · contribs) or Wiki=Great (talk · contribs) etc...? Or should we be assuming at least a little good faith and allowing them to create new usernames?--VectorPotential^Talk 15:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It is something we need to be careful with. I leave account creation blocked if the name is clearly meant to disrupt, but otherwise I always allow account creation. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 85.102.53.191 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

This IP has only recently begun posting to Wikipedia. It seems their sole purpose is antagonism/baiting. Please see Special:Contributions/85.102.53.191. Thank you. Vassyana 18:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Database scrambled/ Missing edit histories

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Edit histories temporarily scrambled?: Keeping the discussion centralized--VectorPotential^Talk 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion by SndrAndrss (talk · contribs)

Okay, the backstory of this case will not be easy to explain, but I will make a try. SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · block log) is a problematic user in many ways, but he also makes some useful contributions, which makes this case a little more difficult than other similar ones. To cite my first report to ANI from late last year, "[SndrAndrss] has a history of not wanting to answer messages left as the user's talk page (or he is just not understanding that messages there are directed to him), even though this has been pointed out to him on several occations (see his talk page)."

This has lead to several conflicts, mainly on a wide variety of templates where he has added parameters or changed the looks of the template without any consensus whatsoever, or has made incomprehensible edits (such as changing svg images to png, or removing borders around flags). After trying to initiate a discussion with him (either on the talk page of the template or on his user page), nothing happens, and a week later or so, he makes the same edit over again. A few examples of this behaviour:

• Template:Infobox Football club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Country data England (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:ENGf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Nordic skiing World Championships (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As noted in my first incident report, I blocked him 48 hours for disruption on 6 December last year, and everyone that reviewed it agreed that it was justified. I had of course hoped that the short block would be a wake-up call for SndrAndrss to start communicating, but was I wrong. Only five days later, User:Morwen blocked him for a week for the same disrupting behaviour, and reported it on ANI. Of course, a longer block didn't help either.

And as soon as he returned from the block, he had the same behaviour as before, and I blocked him for another week on 19 December. This time something actually happened. He promised to start communicating, and I assumed good faith, and unblocked him. Of course nothing happened. He made som half-hearted attempts at communicating at various talk pages, but never answered any replies he got.

I wasn't very active in January, so I didn't keep an eye on him during that time, but when I returned, there were no signs of improvement. He was as disrupting as before, combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves. So, I blocked him for two weeks on 18 February this year. This time, it was discovered that he created new accounts to evade the block. In the middle of all this, he asked to be unblocked, a request that was of course declined.

Since the first of his sockpuppet accounts were blocked, he started editing anonymously which was confirmed in a request for checkuser. All discovered accounts and IPs were blocked, but new ones keep showing up. They can be quite easily detected though, either as a variation on the form SndrAndrss##, or as IPs in the 88.88.xxx.xxx range. They are found by checking the waterholes, he almost exclusively edits articles related to football, the Olympics, skiing and rally. Sockpuppets and IPs include:

SndrAndrss15 (talk · contribs) SndrAndrss16 (talk · contribs) SndrAndrss17 (talk · contribs) SndrAndrss18 (talk · contribs) SndrAndrss19 (talk · contribs)

SndrAndrss20 (talk · contribs) 88.88.42.199 (talk · contribs) 88.88.45.213 (talk · contribs) 88.88.47.236 (talk · contribs)

His latest two week block has been restarted twice now as he has kept trying to evade it. I've run out of options now because I am not in the mood to play this game forever. Communication with SndrAndrss has failed, blocking him has failed, and I sincerely doubt that an RFC or RFAR will do any good since he would probably not discuss or read anything there. What to do next? Since I've not seen a single user that thinks I've gone on too hard, more like the opposite, I find it unthinkable to just let him go and revert whatever he does that is not good. And indefblocking him would just lead to more sockpuppet accounts and a just as hard time finding and blocking them.

Help...! – Elisson • T • C • 19:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly useful that he numbers his sockpuppets, which makes it trivial to confirm that he keeps evading his blocks. Persistently disruptive users such as he who show no inclination to communicate or cooperate with the community should simply be indefblocked, and their socks blocked and reverted on sight - which should be possible here given the vandal's narrow range of interests. He'll eventually go away. Accordingly, I'd support a community ban at this point. Sandstein 21:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that he is willing to communicate with others. He simply doesn't care of rules, warnings, blocks. Sockpuppetry is prohibited? Doesn't matter, he registers accounts with obvious connections to his main one. I support community ban against him, and recommend temporary semiprotection for his favorite pages. MaxSem 21:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin Darwinek has been a big supporter of SndrAndrss, despite his refusal to discuss anything, including protecting pages to protect SndrAndrss actions

• Gilberto Aristízabal history
• Damir Matovinović history
• Antonio Márquez Ramírez history

Gene Nygaard 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmm that looks like Darwinek protecting pages from being moved, by you, to titles without diacritics. Doesn't seem particularly relevant to this case. Grandmasterka 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I just didn't make my point clear. These remain User:SndrAndrss moves, part of what MaxSem talks about above: "combining a few good edits with the undiscussed template edits or page moves."

They remain unreferenced and undiscussed moves. Darwinek has done absolutely nothing to change that. He has added no discussion and no references whatsoever.

They remain moves to spellings different from the spellings used in the sources cited in the articles themselves.

They remain a part of the SndrAndrss legacy here on Wikipedia, every bit as much as the dozens of others in which Darwinek had no involvement. Gene Nygaard 19:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nygaard's "arguments" are as always not relevant. I am not a "big supporter" of SndrAndrss. In fact I have been many times a vital opposer of that user, reverting many of his wrong actions. - Darwinek 22:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

No Gene Nygård (:P just had to do that), Darwinek is not a big supporter of SndrAndrss. In fact, it was Darwinek who notified me of SndrAndrss latest sockpuppet, which was what made me write the above post. And your problem with SndrAndrss or Darwinek, or both, has nothing to do with this discussion, as Grandmasterka says. Take your problems to a more relevant place. – Elisson • T • C • 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original question, and ignoring the irony of Gene Nygaard's post, I think you probably should initiate a community ban discussion, either as a subsection here or over on WP:CN. Grandmasterka 08:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've initiated a community ban discussion on WP:CN. – Elisson • T • C • 21:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet accusations.

At Electronic voice phenomenon there has recently been editing from multiple IP addresses, and on the article talk page, editors User:Davkal and User:Martinphi have made the accusation that they are sock puppets of a registered editor. Most recently, Martinphi made the following comment: "I suggest that we only edit versions of the article which are the last by an editor who is not a sock puppet. Thus, all sock puppetry will be useless. Also, let several sock versions pile up, then revert or edit in the responsible version. The sock will be wasting his time." [73] While it's possible that there is sock puppetry going on, this seems like a bad way to handle it (particularly if it turned out not to be a sock puppet). As far as I know, neither editor has taken any action with a sock puppet report or checkuser. Could an admin look into the situation? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at this? Multiple editors have been reverting IP edits just because they think it's a sock puppet. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comments

(Quote) I'm not sure which dream world you live in, but its pointless to talk with you, as it always was. Believe what you please and do what you please. Demean me and Wikipedia on your private web forum - I don't care. I'm only here for knowledge, nothing else. P.S. - the controversy about Muhammad and pedophilia is a legitimate historical debate - criticizing Muhammad is free speech. But Baka's comments were meant as an insult to you, no doubt - I would have blocked him if I had seen that comment but I had not until much later. I don't know why the arbitrators didn't propose a decision against him - that's their business. Don't reply to refute this statement, as I already know that you don't respect me at all. Cheerio, Rama's arrow 01:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Unre4L/archive2" (End quote)

This user has blocked other for stating "160 million people have been denied their history".

His excuse:"Insulting a nation".

And now he calls linking Muhammed to pedophelia "free speech". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.44.184 (talk • contribs)

Diffs please ... Yuser31415 06:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If I am reading this right (and I may not be, the formatting is odd) our anonymous friend is complaining about Rama's Arrow. The problem is, as near as I can tell, Rama's Arrow has never been blocked for anything, let alone making a statement like that. So I'm not sure what is going on here. IrishGuy ^talk 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes he's complaining about Rama's Arrow but I think the block log you want is Unre4L's and a read of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive183#Block of Unre4L. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have any opinion worth expressing on the matter, this is the original diff. Gavia immer (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posts being removed, server issue?

My post under "Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please" above has been removed five times and restored four times, along with some others on the page. The last time it got deleted was in this edit by Sandy Georgia. I actually dare not try to fix the problem beyond re-posting my own post, I have seen too many odd things in the History for the past few hours, and will leave it to somebody more savvy. Please note that the other lost posts are missing still—click on the Sandy Georgia edit to see which ones. Bishonen | talk 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

See thread immediately above this one and link to the village pump. Allegedly has been resolved now. Newyorkbrad 19:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not that I don't see that, Brad. My point was, could somebody reinstate the lost posts please? Bishonen | talk 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Oy. Good point. Does someone have a comparison script? Newyorkbrad 20:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enayzeeeye

Name of (indefinitely blocked) Enayzeeeye is thinly-veiled spelling out of “Nazi” — “En·ay·zee·eye”. User talk:Enayzeeeye contains post-block userbox with swastika, declaring “This user is racist and identifies as a Nazi.” Enayzeeeye was blocked for blatantly racist vandalisms.

I suggest that, at a minimum, Enayzeeeye be blocked from editing his or her talk page. I believe that it would be better to as effectively-as-possible delete the account and make the name unusable. —SlamDiego 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In a Newyorkbrad minute. :-) —SlamDiego 20:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs)

User:The Gladius is used by two family members, according to his/her/its user page: [74]. The Gladius is also fairly transparently a sockpuppet of User:John Wallace Rich, as alleged at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/John Wallace Rich. Evidence includes:

• Similar Edit Summaries, With Every Letter Capitalized: [75] [76].
• The Gladius edits John Wallace Rich's user page: [77].

User:John Wallace Rich has now filed a "revenge" SSP case, imitating the wording of the case filed against him, in which he accuses User:Stillstudying of being User:PocklingtonDan's sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/PocklingtonDan. Could someone investigate this situation? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can someone please go and help user:John Wallace Rich to find a Clue, as he has resolutely ignored every attempt made thus far. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protocols of Zion

Can someone with a bit more knowledge of the area take a look at those contributions? This site looks pretty dodgy and while I'm trying to AGF, within the context of the contributions and the content of that site... --Fredrick day 20:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Who would have thought someone calling himself User:For Truth's Sake! would have strong opinions about the Protocols of Zion? Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

When a site has an entire section entitled Zionist Occupied Governments it is safe to say it isn't a reliable source. IrishGuy ^talk 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The site is inappropriate, to say the least. User should be warned.Proabivouac 21:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I stopped at the logo with the Star of David and Hammer & Sickle in the "C". The site looks... how shall I say this... unencyclopedic, to say the least. The contributions and username suggest an agenda. Maybe some educational material about WP:NPOV or WP:NOT would be useful, in the spirit of AGF and WP:DBTN? MastCell 21:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Any site called Jew Watch is unlikely to not have an agenda. Natalie 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to read our own article about that site: Jew Watch. -- Avi 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covert deletion of "Turkic alphabets" article

User (and Admin) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dbachmann is deleting article "Turkic alphabets" by redirect and merge manipulations, effectively preventing public scrutiny of the article and open discussion of its contents. In forcibly removing the article in its infancy from the public view, and shutting down the "Talk" discussion the User:Dbachmann is abusing his admin powers.

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

Barefact 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dab didn't use admin powers. This is a simple content dispute, and making redirects/merges is normal legitimate editing (and pretty good sense in the present case, because the article would otherwise have been a POV fork.) Dispute doesn't belong here on ANI. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Paul venter

This was raised above, and marked as having been dealt with. I followed up the message, went to Jonty Rhodes, and found that Paul venter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indeed insisting on a peculiar placing of a huge image (e.g.), despite the clear consensus at the Talk page (100% against his view), and the fact that his edit goes against common practice throughout Wikipedia. I added my voice to the debate, so can't take action myself, but he's still insisting, breaking 3RR in the process. Could someone review the situation and apply a block, in order to give him a breathing space to calm down and think about what he's doing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Paul venter is now asking for the image to be speedily deleted, as (he claims) he uploaded it under the mistaken impression that it had been given to him to use under Wikipedia's copyright regime. It's at Commons, so he's asking the wrong people, but this all seems more and more peculiar. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Danny's Direct

This article has been delete and recreated 5 times, although until today the last occurance was was back in Nov. It was deleted under CSD A7, but was now been recreated a 6th time. I slapped a {{db-corp}} on it (althouhh {{db-corp}} would work too). An anon removed the tab giving no reason. I imagine re-adding the the sppedy tag or trying to prod it would be fruitless at this point, so I'd an admin to take a look and speedy or salt as needed. 206.126.170.20 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-meta

Could someone please fulfil the protected edit request on the talk page? The template has been broken for long enough... -Amarkov moo! 23:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User evading block

84.x.x.x seems to be evading his/her block; see the history of my userpage. –Llama man^talk_contribs 23:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one of the 16,777,216 possible users do you mean? You mean 84.9.35.9 (talk · contribs) and 87.74.29.14 (talk · contribs)? --Edokter (Talk) 00:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User 66.93.144.171

The Administrators noticeboard post here relates to a cross post made by User 66.93.144.171. -- Jreferee 15:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up about this user. I was shocked a few days ago when a mild joke I made provoked a furious response from this person (including reporting me here for "personal attacks"), so I took a look at his/her past history. Apparently this person has a history of picking fights on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=113910925 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARay_Lewis_%28football%29&diff=70167104&oldid=68852342 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=111048360 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=98805165 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Make_Love%2C_Not_Warcraft&diff=prev&oldid=84020806 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=80872030 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:66.93.144.171&diff=prev&oldid=80502693

I'm not sure if there's anything that can be done about this, but maybe a gentle reminder that WP:CIVIL applies would be appropriate? SkipSmith 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This was not a complaint of personal attacks. This was a complaint of cyberstalking. This counter-"complaint" proves my point. I merely wish for this person to leave me alone. - 66.93.144.171 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusing someone of cyberstalking after one post directed to you is disingenuous at best, and likely violates WP:NPA. Please stop. SkipSmith 04:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.132.198.252

A copending incident is posted here. -- Jreferee 18:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This user has become quite a problem for several other editors on the board for Shelby Young. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shelby_Young He has now flat out called me a racist, TWICE. The issue stems from him PRETENDING to be Greek. You'll note on Ms. Young's talk page, him posting in very plain English, harrassing Ms. Young, then reverting to "comical" broken English, which I find to be racist, seeing as how my father is a German immigrant. The user Leebo has been kept abreast of this, but I've had enough. I'm looking for admin intervention here. This user is wikistalking/wikiharrassing a teenager as well as wikiharrassing me. He contributes nothing of value to Wikipedia. If an admin takes action in this matter, would it be feasible to have someone watch Ms. Young's pages as well as those of Hailey Anne Nelson, specifically for baseless attacks from users coming from the North Carolina area? Thanks in advance. -- Ispy1981 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the main concern is that this user is edit warring with the real Shelby Young on the Shelby Young page. They are uncivil, but I consider this to be secondary. Leebo ^T/C 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

And now he has made a revert to MY TALK PAGE. Also, he has reverted his own talk page to the comment calling me a racist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ispy1981&diff=prev&oldid=114203745 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:69.132.198.252&diff=prev&oldid=114204118

Edit: Added diffs

Ispy1981 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you make you first post my user page, not my discussion page and i try change it to my discussion page and you get bent. Anyone see you first post my page should be block you, you have told other people in talk page how you think I am stalker, con artist, you think me a bad editor and you say "How is someone who is greek know so much about Shelby Young."

Not think the internet all america okay?

Any my edit anyone here can see, they can follow all my thing wikipedia and see you follow right behind me.

You make fun because I am greek, I read only what you write, how can you say pretend greek?

http://www.babelfish.com is what I am useing to follow wikipedia. The comments you make me are very racist and hurtful, I do not know why you jump onto me because I made one edit and now you mad at me.

69.132.198.252 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"I think you should get off the sock puppet account. It's not listed on imdb.com, hell even the guy who brings david letterman is listed on imdb.com. Enough said. Fan sights don't count here. Shelby Young's own agent said she didn't do the voice, so why come here and use her name as your account just to bolster your own claim."

Sound like something Babelfish would spit out to anybody?

Ispy1981 05:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help on WP:ANI#Admin_help_needed_on_User_RfC_please

A few days ago, I sought to open an RfC on Justanother after attempts to come to an understanding failed. I was concerned finding a single neutral editor for a "third opinion" option and opted instead for the RfC to get as many different opinions as possible. I consulted with another editor about how to get one started having little experience myself. The editor I went to also had little experience too, so they in turn went to Bishonen who didn't seem to believe that two editors had made good faith attempts to address Justanother on his talk page. As it turned out, Bishonen felt the other editor's attempts were insufficient while I had not. Since I was making the RfC in good faith, I assumed the worst that could happen is that it would be rejected. It was not rejected, and the RfC was active as several editors had posted and others had planned to. I don't want to give the impression that I'm unwilling to accept that the RfC was incorrect. The problem I have is that either out of loyalty or perhaps a bruised ego, Bishonen acted unilaterally to delete an RfC he disagreed with at the request of the subject of said RfC. I apologize for having to take up more space here for the same issue. Anynobody 01:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do keep User talk:Bishonen on my short watchlist. And I saw her (not him, by the way) patiently describe *over* and *over* (to no apparent effect) that user RfCs need to show demonstrated attempts to come to a resolution, not just any old talk-page arguing -- or, yes, they get deleted. Also clearly explained. Ignoring her clear instructions, you went ahead and the expected, normal thing happened. And now you want to blame Bishonen and make it personal?? (Loyalty? Bruised Ego? See WP:NPA and Comment on contributions, not personalities, OK?) Get a grip, Anynobody. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Some links might facilitate review for those who don't have my talkpage watchlisted.[82] [83] [84] [85] [86] Bishonen | talk 16:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC). (This post has been deleted five times, i think due to some server issue--restoring it again.)

If I understand the situation correctly, when soliciting advice from an administrator one is required to take the advice in question whether it pertains to a POV issue or a procedural one? Procedure requires two editors make a good faith attempt at resolving the issue on the users talk page. If I posted the RfC by myself, I'd understand why disregarding the procedure would get it removed. Bishonen obviously felt that Smeelgova's attempts to address Justanother were not in good faith. I believe Bishonen said something like Smeelgova's attempts were nothing more than scolding and dropping warning tags. I have noticed most editors give feedback that way, the subject of the RfC Justanother appears to give feedback in this way. I have difficulty understanding why Smeelgova's behavior is considered an example of bad faith when it is so common. (Seriously, the first time I tried to create a username here I got an inappropriate warning and block without the admin telling me what aspect of the proposed username was inappropriate. Another time Justanother accused me of violating WP:CANVASSING by only referencing the tag. I've even caught myself doing it, despite my efforts not to.)

Even if I assume that I erred by submitting the RfC, the way it was removed seems unusual. Why would Bishonen ask a non-involved editor to delete the RfC on this noticeboard, and then delete it herself when none would? If she had just deleted it, I guess it'd be easier to understand. By asking someone else to do it it seemed like she wanted to avoid a COI. Respectfully, Bunchofgrapes I do have a firm "grip". As I understand it, places like this are the exact place to address concerns about personalities, whereas on the article pages it might be inappropriate. Am I mistaken on that too? Anynobody

Please don't take my questions as sour grapes or a smart-ass rhetorical question. I really would appreciate an explanation of my questions. Anynobody 00:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is saying Smee's warnings etc. weren't in good faith. We are saying they weren't dispute resolution. See the difference? If other RfCs have been accepted for bad reasons, that doesn't mean they all should. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the difference, but based on your comment I must respectfully ask if you know all of the details. I'll briefly summarize:

1. Justanother wants to delete the article Barbara Schwarz.
2. I expressed concern to Justanother that he may not be looking at the issue with a neutral POV.
3. Justanother was unwilling to discuss the possibility, and became a bit hostile.
4. Smeelgova attempted to explain to Justanother that his response was inappropriate, as well as his hostile attitude, see User talk:Justanother/Archive4#Personal_attack_on_User:Anynobody,User talk:Justanother/Archive4#/Personal attacks in edit summaries, User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#Be_nice.
5. Justanother ignored our attempts (mine to address the possibility of a biased POV and Smeelgova's attempt to get Justanother to temper his attitude in responding (how can anyone resolve a conflict with someone who becomes hostile and is unwilling to discuss issues another editor raises? Either a third opinion or RfC.)
6. Bishonen didn't think there was enough of an attempt made by two users (by suggesting that Smeelgova's attempts were insufficient or inappropriate) to set up a RfC... the rest I think everyone knows.

I honestly think that these discussions are "dispute resolution", (User talk:Justanother/Archive4#Personal_attack_on_User:Anynobody,User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#/Personal attacks in edit summaries, User_talk:Justanother/Archive4#Be_nice.) since Bishonen deemed it to not be "dispute resolution" it seemed like she was saying Smeelgova was acting in "bad faith" based on her description of Smeelgova's efforts. (If Smeelgova wasn't trying to resolve anything by addressing Justanother's behavior, wouldn't that be acting in bad faith?)

I understand that Bishonen and some others may see it as a poorly executed attempt at dispute resolution, but it's important to note that the requirements do not say "Two WELL EXECUTED attempts at dispute resolution", merely that two attempts must be made.

I'd honestly like to know how to deal with an editor who not only spends a majority of his time editing articles related to his religion but trying to remove information which could any way be interpreted as negative to said religion, even though it may be appropriate. Further, the editor refuses to discuss concerns of a possible conflict in his goals and those of Wikipedia. (I'm not interested in editing Scientology articles on a regular basis, and personally don't care about the CoS any more than I do other religions, if anyone thinks I have a COI I'm happy t discuss it. Justanother will not even discuss his negative attitude let alone a possible COI). I'm not saying I am correct, that's why I wanted a RfC because I assume if I was incorrect that would have come out with the resolution of the RfC.

Which goes toward what Bunchofgrapes was saying about bad RfCs. I would never advocate a bad request get through just because others have. I just expected if it was a bad request an uninvolved administrator would say so. By Bishonen deleting it and essentially saying "I told you not to because not enough of an attempt was made to resolve the dispute" without suggesting how to make attempts or pointing out previous RfCs with attempts Bishonen thought were more worthy, I'm back where I started without a real explanation (by real I mean details about WHY the attempts don't work for Bishonen. I honestly don't mean to disrespect Bishonen, but saying the arguments are "no good" leaves the reason open to interpretation. Anynobody 03:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonty Rhodes

This was raised above, and marked as having been dealt with. I followed up the message, and found that Paul venter (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indeed insisting on a peculiar placing of a huge image (e.g.), despite the clear consensus at the Talk page (100% against his view), and the fact that his edit goes against common practice throughout Wikipedia. I added my voice to the debate, so can't take action myself, but he's still insisting, breaking 3RR in the process. Could someone review the situation and apply a block, in order to give him a breathing space to calm down and think about what he's doing? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote fraud on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnon Katz‎ and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinnernet‎

Looks like user:Israelbeach aka Joel Leyden is enlisting sockpuppets and or meatpuppets again to protect his favored articles from deletion. See also his own website: [www.israelnewsagency.com/kinnernetinternetwikipediabarhillelwoolwalescensorship47030807.html], [www.israelnewsagency.com/internetkinnernetyossivardiisraelhitechconference4888030707.html], [www.israelnewsagency.com/kinnernetinternetisraelconferencevarditechvardi4877030607.html] (complete with gratuitous mentions of Brittney Spears and Madonna.) I don't think there's any point in conducting checkusers, as he obviously has access to several IPs, and I think he sometimes enlists friends to post on his behalf. But the behaviour is classic sock/meatpuppetry, as evidenced in the contributions. And it's a pattern that repeats over and over. I've taken a lot of personal heat just for standing up to this user, so I'd appreciate another, possibly more impartial administrator getting involved, or at least expressing an opinion here. He's already under a community ban - is there any reason not to go ahead and block all the suspected sockpuppets? See: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach --woggly 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody read my posts here? --woggly 07:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely harsh, uncivil editor (possible sockpuppeteer) who won't allow contributions and makes veiled personal threats

[edit] User 71.139.27.85, Griot - Vandalism

User 71.139.27.85, Griot, "stalking" articles by contributor since content dispute with Ralph Nader. Deleting sourced material. See User history and article history for details. Please assist. Thank you. 76.166.123.129 21:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a disinterested user, I see nothing wring with 72.139.27.85's recent editing history, although did only look at a few edits from the recent week. Are there any instances in particular of stalking articles that you could provide? Kntrabssi 22:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to quote the following from WP:HARASS: "[Wiki-stalking] 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." In this case, I think any editor would certainly be well within their rights to check regularly on 76.166.123.129's contributions, given such factors as his/her repeated uncivil edits to my user page and his/her attempt to OWN Talk:Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race under attack

The article on Race has been serieally modified by an anon user. I won't have time to follow this up, and one more change and I'll break the 3 revert rule. P0M 01:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalism, all good faith edits, all looking to improve the article. Suggest you work with the editor in question instead of accusing them of vandalism. -- Nick ^t 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. Original edits had a colon on the left margin that my small screen wasn't showing clearly enough. P0M 01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling

Attempting to impersonate a real individual for the purposes of defamation:

• User:Anti_Newberry
• User:Antioch_Newberry

User account created with the stated purpose of harassment:

• User_talk:Atom_Newberry

Image uploaded under fraudulent pretext, Ray Lopez does not own the image.

[87]

Stirling Newberry 01:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All three accounts were already blocked indefinitely. Do people think we should blank or delete the pages? Newyorkbrad 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As they are now indef blocked and they were creating with ill-intent, I think they should be deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as they're still there they can't be re-created. Anchoress 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the source for the image ? -- Nick ^t 01:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Fou-Lu0014

this user did not break the 3rr, because it was on HIS userpage, this user is very angry and would like to be un-banned

"He" can post {{unblock|reason}} on his userpage if he'd like to be unblocked. Oh, and could you also tell "him" he doesn't own "his" userpage and that he shouldn't try to evade his block via sockpuppetry? Thanks. Picaroon 01:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR does mention that a users own space is "usually" exempt from the policy, but that certain actions can still be seen as disruptive. I have not looked into the details of this case though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for 3RR, he was blocked for an incredible amount of move vandalism. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous comment, apologising and requesting to be permitted to return, has been posted at User:Fou-Lu0014. The same IP also restored the userpage content (userboxen, etc..) this has now been removed; the comment remains. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

(Moved anonymous comment originally placed in different section of this page, as it is about the same issue and can't be archived otherwise: no new action is needed, the case is still resolved. Fram 09:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ) "05:35, 25 February 2007 Ryulong (Talk | contribs) blocked "Fou-Lu0014 (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Oh god what the hell is going on?)"

I only broke the 3RR rule on MY userpage!!! (Why did I even get banned?)

[edit] Admin help needed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) please

Hi. I can use a bit of admin help over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), please. User:Anynobody is injecting an extensive counterpoint into the middle of my signed comment that I opened the AfD with, diff. I originally moved his counterpoint to what I felt was a proper, and prominent, position at the end of the current discussion, diff. Anynobody continues to edit war with me over placing the counterpoint in the midst of my comment, which, IMO, detracts from my continuity to the detriment of my comment, history. I am pretty sure that sure Anynobody's placement is inappropriate but I would appreciate some help and input on a proper resolution. I did ask Anynoboy to self-revert and discuss on talk, here, but he did not respond to that request. Thank you very much! --Justanother 04:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that User:Stebbins commented thusly: This was the longest AfD comment I had ever read... until I read the archived discussions from the first 3 AfDs. With all due respect to you argument, Justanother, might I advise that you try to be a bit more concise in future AfDs. Also, you don't need to vote on your own AfD (although I would recommend signing your comments). - With such a long comment from the nominating editor, it does seem appropriate to have a counter point directly below the nom's comments, or better yet have an Admin step in and drastically shorten the nom's commentary. Smee 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I would like to ask a related question: Is there a maximum size for nomination text in an AfD? This issue may not have ever come up before but it seems to me that there may be concerns about a nominator starting an AfD with an entire screen's worth of text, in no less than four separate sections, and accusing of "rude and inappropriate action" anyone who tries to respond to one of those sections before the nominator has said everything he wants to say in all his sections. It seems to me that dominating an AfD in that manner may itself be the "rude and inappropriate action". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (To place this in perspective -- my word processor says that Justanother's nomination text is 1063 words. The article under discussion, including all references and all [x] links to references, including all headers and their duplicate appearances in the table of contents, including all [edit] links, is only 1260 words. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to give a count. Total words in AfD as of this edit: 7441 word; My total opening statement (with some overhead) and including hidden sidebar: 1180 words; My opening statement without hidden sidebar: 707 words; Anynobody's interjection into my reasoning: 276 words. I do not think 707 word is excessive but I can lose the sidebar and cut it to 500 words if that is appropriate. Just seems a bit late in the game for that. The length of the article is irrelevant. Thanks. --Justanother 05:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to bed. If an admin thinks that my original request has basis and would please move the material to a more appropiate position in the AfD I would appreciate it. Thank you and good night. --Justanother 05:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the comment out of the middle of the nominating statement to follow the nominating statement. I also replaced a comment from Justanother that was deleted by Anynobody. I will leave a comment on Anynobody's talk page asking them to stop being disruptive. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the future I'll add relevant comments above the voting section, but below the nomination. I apologize for my mistake, I thought it was more appropriate to list notable/not notable arguments together. As long as the notability points aren't buried I'm satisfied. Anynobody 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just for chuckles, we should keep in mind that, when writing an academic paper or business presentation, the rule is 250 words is a page. Therefore, the nomination was 20 pages. It's probably best, if you're going past a "page," to put your arguments on a page in your user space and then say, "See pagename for arguments." Otherwise, the long slog that is AfD becomes endless. Geogre 10:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point for the future, Geogre. I don't know if the comment I added falls into the nomination. Whether it does or not if Justanother follows your advice on this AfD, I'll do the same. I don't mean to sound contentious, but in a situation where one person adheres to the rule and the other doesn't I think it creates an unfair "advantage", especially in this case. Anynobody 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Virgil Vaduva

This is a seemingly blatant meatpuppet/sockpuppet case. I'm a bit loathe to wade in the middle, as I have been acting as a neutral party, but it appears to be a fairly obvious case. I am not taking a position as to whether this is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet case, as Wikipedia guildelines explicitly treat them equally.

Virgil Vaduva (talk · contribs) has been very active on Brian McLaren/Talk:Brian McLaren. Frank Thomas (talk · contribs) has very recently joined in the fray. I provided a third opinion at the posted request of Will3935 (talk · contribs). I have been intervening since as a fellow editor/informal mediator, trying to cool things down. I have repeatedly asked that they take a breath and focus on the article. Just explaining how I got involved, now to the crux of the matter.

Frank's contributions are very suspcious. Warning flag #1, checking his contributions, you can see his 5th-8th edits show an intimate understanding of Wikipedia that are unusual for a new user.[88] [89] [90] [91] Such an early familiarity with Wikipedia rules is one of the primary warning flags for meat/sock-puppetry. Virgil was editing the same article, during the same time period.[92] [93] [94] [95] [96] After a final edit to Talk:Preterism on 00:51, 7 January 2007[97], User:Frank Thomas did not return until 11 March 2007 to make a minor edit[98] before launching into the current edit war.[99] You can see from Virgil's edit history and Frank's edit history (not going to exhaustively link all the recent edits made), when the most recent edits were made by Virgil Vaduva and Frank Thomas on Brian McLaren/Talk:Brian McLaren and the striking similarity in tone and POV.

My apologies for throwing my hat into the middle of the drama on this page between the users. This is not an endorsement or condemnation of the POV or edits made by User:Virgil Vaduva, User:Frank Thomas or User:Will3935. This is just what I have noticed about the strong appearance of sockpuppet/meatpuppet involvement in this dispute. The atmosphere at Brian McLaren is already downright poisonous and if meatpuppets/sockpuppets are involved, that's just far too much to tolerate. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this matter. Vassyana 06:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you requested for checkuser yet?--TBCΦtalk? 07:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion on that. I have been told in the past that RFCU is not the appropriate place to start, but rather where to go when the case is unclear, in relation to another existing case brought before the administrators. Also, it has been made clear to me that RFCU only verifies sockpuppets, but that meatpuppets are an equal violation which usually cannot be verified by RFCU. The RFCU page itself states: Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases. So it seemed appropriate to raise the issue elsewhere first, particularly given the apparently obvious nature of this case. Vassyana 07:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Just some thoughts from someone who has dealt with (way too many) sockpuppet cases. First of all, Vassyana, you are correct about CU. They want you to explore other avenues first. In fact, they will reject cases based on it being obvious that someone is a sockpuppet. They will just say "too obvious. Block" or something to that effect. Secondly, it does look like a pretty strong possibility that this is a sock/meatpuppet. What stands out to me is the gap between edits and the single minded nature of Frank Thomas. Yes, there are users who edit one article much more than others, but it's usually not that exclusive. And it's quite odd for someone to come back after 2 months and hit an article that hard. On the other hand, I do see that Frank and Virgil are editing around the same time. I.e. you do not have Frank editing from say 7 pm to 9 pm and then Virgil taking over. There is some overlap. This suggests a meatpuppet, though I've seen cases (User:HeadleyDown being a prominent example) of people switching off between sockpuppets in a debate. But it's more likely to be a friend of Virgil. I am going to go ahead and block Frank's account indefinitely. It looks pretty clear cut to me. I'll also label his account as a sockpuppet of Virgil. It is obviously a meatpuppet or sockpuppet. As for Virgil, I think for now I'm going to warn him about sock/meatpuppet use. I don't see any warnings for sockpuppet use on his page. It's always best to warn first. If he uses another sockpuppet, let the board or me personally know and we'll go from there. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathunder's admin abuse

[edit] Goguryeo

For the last few weeks, I've been (I thought) trying to moderate two warring sides at Goguryeo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) to reach a NPOV compromise. I think I am failing to do that; moreover, I've been accused myself of many things on Talk:Goguryeo. This might not sound like an appetizing situation for anyone to get in, but I'd like to ask for some help here in trying to resolve the situation. The article cannot remain permanently protected, but as soon as it is unprotected, another edit war will surely erupt due to the parties' inability to compromise and inability to be even civil to each other. Help would be greatly appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I will try to join the discussion. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter complaint against Will3935

[edit] Wikistalking by annoynmous/anon IP 66.227.137.56

After I had a disagreement with annoynmous (who is also IP 66.227.137.56 as this diff clearly shows [101]) on Kurt Nimmo and another page, he/she has started wikistalking me. Over the last couple of days, the editor followed me to the following articles I have edited recently: Six-Day War and Islam in the United States (both articles the user had never edited before, where he appeared shortly after I had made an edit there), systematically reverting my edits on those pages: [102] [103] [104] [105] I have warned the editor about wikistalking, but he persists. Isarig 04:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Previous block on the user was just a week ago, so re-block should not be a problem. However, the warnings on his talk page does not seem to include the recent wikistalking, but only his questionable contribution to Kurt Nimmo. Maybe you should warn him about his recent wikistalking to see if he responds. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User removing image tags, after multiple warnings

User:Hatto continues to remove {{Replaceable fair use}} tag from images he uploaded ( [106], [107] [108] [109] ) despite multiple warnings ( [110] [111] [112] [113] ). Recently, an anonymous ip removed the warnings from 3 of his uploads ( [114] [115] [116] ), raising suspects of sockpuppetry. He also removed a {{no rationale}} tag once. --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

After I left a message explaining this user why a I believe "Discography" section in an artist's biography shouldn't consist only of a gallery of unfree album covers, he replied in my talk page asking me to f* myself.

Could someone help me in communicating with this user? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

24h. We generally have less tolerance for those who drop the F-bombs quickly; and add to that he was repeatedly warned for removing the template. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User have long history of disputed behavior. If he is willing to communicate, things should be fine. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 64.56.112.199 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This user keeps adding unsourced information to Brigitte Gabriel and elsewhere on Wikipedia in direct violation of WP:BLP. This user has been repeatedly warned about this but is not getting the message. (→Netscott) 04:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

User contributed to Brigitte Gabriel only, I don't know what you mean by "elsewhere", or is it simply an emphasis? It seems that the user have stopped re-inserting dubious information ten minutes before you made this message, and have tried to express his opinions in the talk pages since. The user is seemingly willing to communicate, but did not know how. I think you are in too much of a hurry, and is biting a little. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this user was warned by not only myself but another editor and despite these warnings continued trying to re-add the info. I'll concede though that they did finally straighten out after I further explained that personally experienced information could not be added to the article. The other areas that this info was being added was on their talk page and the Brigitte Gabriel talk page. (→Netscott) 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All the warnings were issued within an hour, so expecting a newbie just started editing to understand it is a bit tough. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(e/c - was going to tag as {{resolved}} myself) - It appears to be resolved at this point. I'll take the biting counsel more into consideration in the future. Thanks for the helping hand with that. (→Netscott) 16:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Money

An anonymous vandal who was vandalising several articles including money was just blocked. It (the money article) iswas now being vandalised in concert by at least new three registered users, leading one to the obvious conclusion that they are the reincarnation of the anon editor. Maybe some block on account creation is needed: this seems a little complex for WP:AIV. Notinasnaid 12:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• The nest seems to currently contain

DDDee92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Btr2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Djb2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Nateisthestuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Tyfoof40 is a pimp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) joerocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Some have been blocked, some not. Notinasnaid 13:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

They are now all blocked. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 16:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:WikiLoco

This user is continually making changes that are inappropriate. He has been warned on several times. This is the second posting to ANI, Previous posting resulted in 0 replies on the issue: [117] McKay 14:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:superaids

Inaproppriate user name Bloddyfriday 14:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Already on AIV--VectorPotential^Talk 14:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 216.20.13.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

Edits from 216.20.13.226 (Merrimack Education Center and may be shared by multiple users of an educational institution); seems to be vandalizing pages. Example: Page "Jet Engine": changing "History" to "the history daaaaaaaaawg".

See Special:Contributions/216.20.13.226 for other pages vandalized.

83.52.24.18 15:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked 6 months by User:Yamla. --ais523 15:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] paradocks3 (talk · contribs)

Obvious and self-admitted block evasion.[118] Vassyana 17:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack page deleted as CSD G10, and user indefblocked as sock of blocked user. -- Avi 17:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand Crown Copyright

There's been quite a bit of talk at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 March 7 (see primarily Image:Ct4e.jpg section) and Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems (see New Zealand Crown Copyright section). I nominated a few New Zealand Crown Copyright images for deletion, as Crown Copyright has long been recognized as too restrictive, and no claim of fair use had been made. No fair use claim could be made, either, for a few of these images, as there are free alternatives already available on Wikipedia.

Quite a few users, however, are arguing that we overlook the "ideological" restrictions, or that we start a new category of images with "[l]icenses that aren't free, but won't be subjected to either the fair use rationale test or the replaceability test." There's not really a grey area for this — either images are free, which we'll allow, or they aren't, for which we'll argue fair use (though there's not much of an argument for a lot of these images) or delete. Anyone with a bit more "credibility" than me have a better way of explaining this to them? Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of Phi Kappa Psi

The article on Phi Kappa Psi is being vandalized by multiple accounts to remove referenced material:

• corruption by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona)
• deletion by 150.135.187.89 (University of Arizona; warned)
• deletion by SCollie76 (warned)
• deletion by 155.247.166.31 (Temple University, Philadelphia)

(The section involved reports a conviction and an on-going investigation of a gang-rape.) —SlamDiego 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Update:

• deletion by 70.233.137.158 (SBC Internet Services)

—SlamDiego 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

File a request for protection at WP:RFP.--TBCΦtalk? 05:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a request for semi-protection, and it was granted. I hope that this action will prove sufficient, but I fear that as soon as the semi-protection expires the section will again be deleted in the same manner. If anyone has a thought as to what should, in that case be done, I hope that it will be offered here. —SlamDiego 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delarion97 (talk · contribs)

I'm a little confused by the form to submit sock puppets, but I suspect this is one case. In any case, the user is engaging an agressive behaviour towards other editors (and admins) based on the fact that his page was speedy deleted.

In any case, he appears to be using multiple accounts:

• The capitalization pattern between Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) [119] [120] [121] [122] is similar to Delarion97 (talk · contribs) [123] [124] [125]

• In all three accounts, 172.163.78.145 (talk · contribs) Jay-G7 (talk · contribs) and Delarion97 (talk · contribs), there's a strong assertion that Over The Hedge 2 was announced.

• Consistant edits among accounts: Jay-G7 has [126] while 172.163.78.145 has three diffs restoring the same edit. [127] [128] [129].
• This diff seems to be clearcut proof where the user sort-of admits to sockking.

While this is on the early side for posting this request, I'd like to prevent any disruption as soon as possible. --Sigma 7 20:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Per Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of The UPN Vandal, Delarion appears to be a sockpuppet of the UPN Vandal per his choice of username. Jay-G7 appears to be a sockpuppet of Delarion, due to their similar patterns on contributions. The 172 IP falls into the UPN Vandal range. Logical2u_{Review me!} 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so if someone could look into this...? Logical2u_{Review me!} 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

He's the UPN vandal, alright; due to his name similarities and how he's writing is similar to the other socks. Looks like he/she is doing something new. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 00:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn

[edit] Indef blocked User:Pogsurf sockpuppetry

Hi, the indef blocked User:Pogsurf (vandalism only account) is evading their block with a sockpuppet, User:Lobster blogster. Both users demonstrated a high level of Wikipedia skill immediately after registration, and have demonstrated the same MO by editing a very narrow range of articles (especially Paul Staines and Claire Ward, who is the current MP for Watford, a page Lobster blogster has also edited) and repeatedly linking to the same Guardian article. Also, a quick google confirms the link between "Pogsurf", "Lobster blogster", and Watford, however I won't post the links as it's poor wikiquette to reveal peoples' real names online unless they volunteer them. I raised this first on User:Majorly's talk page, but moving it here to go through the official channels. Could an admin deal please? Cheers, DWaterson 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add more proof, see [132], User:62.136.198.105 appears to be the same as User:Lobster blogster. User:Pogsurf had an anonymous alter ego, which was User:62.136.238.65. A quick comparison of their edit histories shows this, and [133] shows Pogsurf thanking another user for a comment left on 62.136.238.65's talk page - something he'd only do if they are the same. Note that 62.136.198.105 and 62.136.238.65 are the same ISP, and both perform the same kind of edits. This shows that 62.136.238.65, 62.136.238.65, Pogsurf and Lobster Blogster are one and the same. Note as well that Lobster Blogster has also edited the Watford talk page, with a very similar comment to one Pogsurf left on articles before he was banned. And Pogsurf was often editing Claire Ward - who is the MP for Watford. Nssdfdsfds 16:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

--

I have just added this back from the archives, as the user is still here, should still be blocked, and is still inserting libellous material into Talk:Paul Staines. Could *someone* please block him - this process doesn't seem to be working.

Thanks Nssdfdsfds 09:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

-- I have restored this incident report again, as nothing has been done the previous two times. The user has admitted to being a sock of the blocked vandal, saying [134] "Just a small point to add here, that it was Nssdfdsfds that repeatedly undid revisions of mine both here on the discussion page, and on the article itself." The article has been protected since February 19, but Lobster Blogster's account was created on 3rd March - he's clearly referring to his previous vandalism as the permabanned user Pogsurf. Nssdfdsfds 22:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see Nssdfdsfds getting in a tizzy and telling tales out of school here. It's perfectly true that after Pogsurf was blocked by Persian Poet Gal as a "Vandal Only Account" I created the "Lobster Bloster" account. However I object strongly to the label "Vandal Only Account" which I assume is being used perjoratively, and not as an obscure reference to my Germanic ancestry. If Nssdfdsfds bothered to discuss prospective changes via talk pages I don't think so much hot air and wind would be generated. Please feel free to ban me again if you feel that is the right thing to do. There are many more names and IP addresses I could adopt, should the need arise. --Lobster blogster 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are now blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If only you'd stop trying to reference known libellous material, there wouldn't be a problem. Nssdfdsfds 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there would still be a problem. Indefinitely blocked users shouldn't return under new names. As such, I blocked him as a sockpuppet. IrishGuy ^talk 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faznar (talk · contribs) marketing/spam

2 years here, and his few limited contributions seem to be solely to promote a couple of websites. I'm restoring this comment because it was for some reason deleted yesterday along with several others. [135].--Crossmr 00:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to not have been warned up until the report was filed, and has not edited since being warned by two people. If he comes back and continues, list on AIV. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Troubling technical glitch on AN/I

I just received a very troubling query on my talk page. I made a simple post here a few days ago, but it now appears in the diff as if multiple other posts were deleted when I made my post. [136] I have sporadically seen something similar result from edit conflicts, but some of this text appears to be on AN/I before my post, and gone after my post. Since it's not a good feeling to be accused of blanking, I hope someone can help get to the bottom of this. Sorry if this is a dumb question with a simple explanation; it's troubling. Thanks in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:VP/T#Edit_histories_temporarily_scrambled.3F--VectorPotential^Talk 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whew, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That diff [137] shows a lot of deleted text; is there anyway to restore it here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just paste it in. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-13 10:02Z