Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some guy with the IPs: User:209.250.162.237 User:209.250.163.105, etc is vandalising the article. I am hoping that the Wikipedia admins can help me, if that is possible. FellowWikipedian 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block them. Thanks for your input. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, please let me know when you have blocked them. FellowWikipedian 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Embryoglio (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of someone, being somewhat trollish and disruptive, but done with enough skill, it's difficult to deal with.

See threads in Talk:Breast, Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society, law, and sex --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 08:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just came to this board to report Armadillo, as well his allies Atomaton and others, but I see that Armadillo has already made an entry of me here. Apparently Armadillo believes that if oneself is the first person to report the dispute, then people will think that oneself is in the right, even when the evidence shows otherwise. It doesn't work like that, Armadillo... or at least I hope it doesn't.

I have extensively catalogged many of the policy violations of User:Atomaton in an entry that I made to this board. That entry was disruptively deleted by the admin User:Ryulong, who, not surprisingly, is known to have a long history of disrupting wikipedia. Look at the edit history of this page to read the deleted entry.

In addition to Armadillo's above lie (which can be seen to be a lie simply by following the links that he/she has provided), he has also made uncivil false accusations and threats against me on the pages that he so conveniently linked to.

Embryoglio 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I won't comment or reply on Embryoglio's rant. I've been reminded several times recently to not feed the trolls. Anyone who desires to know what is going on here can best make up their own mind by reading recent comments on the talk:breast. Also useful might be Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard for user:embryoglio. Reading those will indicate that several people have complained about Embryoglio, and that my role has been marginal.

As for the breast article, civil discussion between the other current editors of the article on the talk pages and elsewhere, including user:MotherAmy, user:RexImperium, user:Xyzzy n, user:I already forgot, user:Honeymane, user:ArmadilloFromHell, user:.V. and user:Jpgordon have led to a discussion of what images are desired on the article. We've pretty much resolved any disputes and have moved forward while user:embryoglio seems to have become mired in arguments with every person that has disagreed with him at some point. Apparently that list now includes Daniel.Bryant and User:Ryulong. My approach, as is likely the approach of the other editors listed above, is to just ignore future comments from Embryoglio and proceed onward to improve the quality of the article. I have full confidence that Embryoglio will someday be a constructive and positive adition to Wikipedia. Several users,including myself, have recommended that he get familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:CIV, WP:EQ, WP:CON, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:DR and WP:RFC Atom 16:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

For precision’s sake, I did not actually participate in the image debate. All I did was talk to Embryoglio (and that got me added to his user page). —xyzzy_n 19:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also for precision's sake, I'm not "mired in arguments...with [Embryoglio]", as Atom stated - I just saw an inaccuracy with this post, and mentioned it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What I say above is that Embryoglio is mired.

user:embryoglio seems to have become mired in arguments with every person that has disagreed with him...

" That doesn't imply that others are mired. That is, I didn't say that you were mired in arguments with Embryoglio. It is true that he had nothing negative to say about you (Daniel.Bryant). At any rate, the user has taken someone (not likely me) and has settled down. So, this is all moot, for the moment. Atom 22:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Great. I just caught a vandal bot. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody have any idea what "MWPush.pl" is? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it: [[1]]. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-edit conflict: yep, that's it. A Perl script that enables bots to make regular edits to pages, if they need to. Intended for good-faith use. See User:KeithTyler/mwpush.pl. (The page is more or less screaming, "Don't shove beans up your nose!") This, if anything, is an argument for the usefulness of real time IRC, although in this case, admins seemed to not be watching the channel. 40 edits passed on #vandalism-en-wp before I realize that I had to alert an admin, and Zoe promptly blocked it. Gracenotes^T § 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And only because I caught the edit summaries on the Recent Changes page and noticed the User name. Next time they probably won't be so nice as to leave us a noticeable name. Maybe we should get Keith Tyler not to put automatic edit summaries in so that we can see the garbage the vandal is adding? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the idea was that the automatic edit summary would make it easy to see that the script was used. FTR it was originally written for use in a private MW installations, but in the spirit of the commons I figured others would find it useful. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing the WP:BEANS. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the page only screams WP:BEANS if one is a troll.

I mentioned WP:BEANS because having this page on Wikipedia might make mischief more accessible to those of malicious intent. WP:BEANS does refer to how forbidding the exploitation of a weakness can cause that exploitation, but vandals and trolls that actively search for such weaknesses may find the presence of this page an invitation. The invitation is not made by saying "do this" (black-hat hackers "helping" fellow trouble-makers) or "don't do this" (WP:BEANS), but made merely by the existence of that page. I hope my thoughts are somewhat more lucid to you now. Someone might not go through the trouble of writing a script themselves, but having one readily available requires less skill on the behalf of a criminal.

This is not to say that the script can only be used for bad things. You made it available because it's useful for things, e.g., establishing infrastructure in a newly-installed wiki. It may be better suited for a page on meta, though.

Perhaps I'm simply delirious with disaster fever: the mindset that "Hm, something went wrong, so something must be done about it to prevent it from ever happening again." For example, I might suggest captchas, but then there would have to be exceptions, such as User:AntiVandalBot, and thus begins instruction creep. Going through all of the above (moving to meta, etc.) is a nice gesture, but if someone wants to use this script to exploit Wikipedia, an indefinite block is warranted. End of story. While this course of actions is regrettable, I suppose that there really is no remedy. With privilege comes responsibility, etc. Gracenotes^T § 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that (i.e. taking down the page) would be very un-open, and thereby rather un-Wiki, especially given WP:NOT. (I thought it was on meta, too, but I guess I was wrong.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not so bad, User:KeithTyler/mwpush.pl is a very simple and blind script. Just block it and it stops, nothing fancy. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, This bot has not been approved for bot in Wikipedia, first If some wikipedian wants to own his/her own bot, they need to make request for bot, then they can create the bot if the bot is already approved. Anyways, I found this on [[2]]. Daniel5127 <Talk> 01:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

FTR mwpush.pl won't by itself do what the vandal is doing. It's a one-off. It is being run in a scripted loop of some sort. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You need approval to run it, not just to show the code. The person using it to vandalize was violating WP:BOT but that was the least of the violations hehe. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As a note, vandalbots should probably get reported to WP:RFCU. Mackensen (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Having never filed an RFCU request, what situation is covered by vandal bots? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - [3]. FreplySpang 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And now we have User:Vandalbotfriend and User:Vandalbothelper. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What was the result of the checkuser check? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Completed IP checks get moved to WP:RFCU/IP. Mackensen blocked the IP. Thatcher131 17:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, but all it says is "done". What does that mean? User:Zoe|(talk) 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That he identified and blocked the underlying IP. Thatcher131 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Venu62 is persistently reverting copyvio tags from Image:Wallajah.jpg, Image:Wallajah2.jpg and Image:Wallajah3.jpg without basis. It is pertinent to note that the first and the third images are the same.

I warned him [4] not to make baseless reverts like this [5] saying that it could be construed as vandalism.

He gives me bogus warnings in return - [6], [7] and [8].

This user has a history of reverting copyvio tags from images - see this still unresolved issue [9]

Thanks ­ Kris (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can do, I will give a Good Faith warning. Arjun 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this editor is acting in Good Faith, but you should monitor his/her behavior, and be careful not to edit war. Arjun 04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

These aren't copyviolations. The artwork in question is clearly PD, as clearly noted in the image summaries. The source should not matter, as a photograph of original artwork is not copyrightable due to the fact that there's no original content to distinguish it from the original (if it was, then anyone could walk into an art museum, photograph all of the paintings there, and then claim copyright on them). If the paintings themselves were copyrighted, then you would have a problem, but they're Public Domain. The copyvio tags are misplaced. TheQuandry 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you say its in the public domain years when you dont know the source and the artist who created the work? Even if that be so, this image contains border frames, which constitutes a modification of the original image.

Also see #User removing license tags and replacing them with no license messages ­ Kris (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do know the artist and the source. At least in regards to the first one, it was provided. Click the link provided in the summary. [10]. And I don't see any border frames here, I see the original artwork and an empty white box in back. This doesn't constitute an alteration. As for the #User removing license tags and replacing them with no license messages complaint link, how are these copyvios or breaking the rules? The first image was printed in 1909, which means it's out of copyright. It's Public Domain. I really don't see what the problem is here. I guess you could make a case that he's removing administrative templates, but from what little I see, it looks like he's removing copyvio tags from images that have been improperly tagged. TheQuandry 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User Foundby had his RfA failed, and is disrupting other's talk pages, RfA, etc. saying that closing his nomination early (at 0/15/1) is vandalism, when it is clearly in therules. He has since violated WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT and neds to be dealt with. even his talk page shows some violations. --Wizardman 18:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go easy on him... he's clearly upset and probably feels the world is ganging up on him. I can remember when I thought that 600 edits was a lot. He's mightily provoking some very well regarded editors, but it'd be a shame to drive away a potentially useful contributor with an overly harsh reaction. I know, you admins are very experienced in dealing with disruption, so please don't be offended by me speaking up like this. --Dweller 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If nothing more happens, I don't see that anything "needs to be done". He's just indicated that he will take a break- let's leave well enough alone. Friday (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - I agree with Dweller and Friday. Although his behaivour is completely unacceptable, I don't think that now, after he's indicated that he'll be taking a break, any block will serve a purpose, especially after so many admins have already spoken to him. Martinp23 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Endgame1. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might help out with something. I have placed a tag for a replaceable fair use image at Image:Theocracyband.jpg and added the tag to Theocracy (band). E tac (talk · contribs) has removed the tags twice now. I would like to revert these again, but due to WP:3RR, I won't (something this E tac had been banned for in the past). Also, for further discussion on this users view of WP:FU, he clashed with me last night, as evidenced at User talk:Moeron#Dave Mustaine and User talk:Moeron#Stop removing my fair use images, where the user accused me of WP:POINT and WP:STALK. I felt I have been more than cordial, but I am looking for another opinion. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned E-tac, and we can see if he takes heed. Martinp23 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A little late with comment but I wish to second Moeron's request for assistance. I too noticed many discrepancies in the user's uploads. And also the users very uncivil defence of his policy violations. He has refered to any users trying to comply with image policy as "Wikinazis" [11] and also breached WP:NPA on User:Moeron's talk page.[12] The user has a long history vandalism and policy ignorance and has been blocked several times already. Recent edit history seems to show multiple edit wars and WP:3RR vios on several articles including the images mentioned in Moeron's report. Some intervention would be appreciated at this time. Thanks Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Spent some time considering this, and have blocked E_tac for a short period based on personal attacks and disruption (block is open to review here). Martinp23 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked after email promise to avoid PAs (personal attacks, not assistants) Martinp23 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This member vandalized the Albuquerque page, which I reverted. After looking at his talk page, I see that someone told him that if he vandalized one more time, he would be blocked. I request that this be done immediately. PerryPlanet 20:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Check WP:AIV. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Thanks! PerryPlanet 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Somemoron is back, see Special:Contributions/Sf49rox. — coelacan talk — 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Admitted sock, indef. blocked for block evasion and for this edit summary. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Zoe. — coelacan talk — 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the article Periyar is protected. I am concerned that large sections of the text in the article are copy-pasted from this article on countercurrents.org, which is a copyright violation. Specially the sections Periyar#A_Freedom_Fighter_as_a_Congress_Party_Leader,Periyar#A Committed Rationalist and Rebel, Periyar#Leader of Justice Party: 1939-1944 and all the sections below up to the Periyar#Criticism. Since copyvio is a very serious thing and supercedes protection, I ask that it be removed. Thanks. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Plus, the title has to be changed from the epithet "periyar", to E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker, which was his name and the way he always called himself. Periyar is actually a river that runs in Tamil Nadu, and therefore this title is actually the name of the river and not of E.V.Ramaswamy Naicker ­ Kris (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked Ekkenekepen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His entire recent contribution history here consists of complaining about the German Wikipedia, where he was apparently banned, mainly on User talk:Jimbo Wales. This wild accusation is the final straw for me. He's not even making a pretense of being here for the encyclopaedia - he has a history before that but nothing particularly useful.

He's already had one week's block for legal threats, and has a long block log on deWiki, including an impressive four indefinites (the ones marked unbeschränkt), the one before last for "massives Stalking (Benutzerdiskussionsseiten, Artikeldiskussionen, Zusammenfassungszeilen, Emailbelästigung, persönliche Belästigung, Klarnamenveröffentlichung)" - "massive stalking (user talk pages, article talk pages, edit summaries, email harrassment, personal attacks, publication of users' real names)". Do we want or need this person here? No we don't. Posted here for review etc. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if he was trolling in the end. This seems like a genuine problem – [13] (I can't understand German, but are they asking for donations for something else, other than Wikipedia?) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo's page is any indication, sounds like he thinks wikimedia donations are being used inappropriately. Syrthiss 14:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The user appears to be asking for donations to himself, yes. The notice has been there for a while, out of interest I'm going to see if there's anything on his talk page about it. However, the German Wikipedia is a big boy and can look after itself. I'm fairly certain that if there is a problem, a banned troll disrupting talk pages on a completely different wiki with no jurisdiction over what he's complaining about is not the solution. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Penta's donation notice was added on 19th December, and as far as I can see there's nothing about it on his talk page. If you want to ask him about it, he speaks advanced English. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Also would support removing content on his user and talk pages, to reduce soapboxing. Syrthiss 14:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for dynamic IP addresses evading the block, he's used dynamic IPs in the past. – Chacor 14:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the user page with {{indefblockeduser}} - I don't see a pressing need to remove what's currently there on the talk page, but if he decides to use it to continue his soapboxing I'll probably protect it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Accusations are baseless. He said some kind i do not know exactly what was going on. Good block. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting following an unblock-en-l request by this user. Seems like there's a little more going on, here, than a simple open-shut case. But it looks to me like there's been a good amount of disruption, without much in the way of mitigating contributions to the project as a whole. All else aside, if he's banned or blocked from de.wikipedia, bringing the same issues over to en.wikipedia hardly seems appropriate, no? I feel like I may be missing something, but not sure what. Luna Santin 00:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If you figure out what you're concerned about, I'll try to set your mind at rest. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oden (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be on a crusade against the use of fair-use images. He doesn't give reasons for removing them from articles, beyond a vague gesture to WP:FUC. When I challenged him on one of them, his reply was that it served only a decorative purpose,apparently on the grounds that it was in an infobox, though what grounds he had for that claim was unclear.

Could someone who's familiar with this issue look to see if his actions are, as I strongly suspect, unsupported by policy? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking through a sample of Oden's edits, he is correctly identifying images which probably fail WP:FAIR. Usual practice has been to tag those images as being {{Replaceable fair use}}. The image would then be deleted after a week. Reference to the deleted image would then be removed from the article. By removing them first, Oden is also tagging them as orphaned, when he is the one who orphaned them. Although it does seem against the usual etiquette in these areas, its hard to see a policy violation on his part. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 19:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those edits are correct, while others are questionable. I've suggested to Oden that he discuss removing infobox images on talk pages before simply doing so: it is only his opinon that they serve a merely decorative purpose there. Mangojuice^talk 20:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; he seems to be following normal procedure now. (WJB: I didn't suggest that he was violating policy, only deleting material without the support of the policy that he claimed to be following.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience has shown that such images invariably will be deleted, so leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. Also, the uploader in question has uploaded over 50 copyrighted images in a short period of time. Since there are so many images, and they will all without a doubt be deleted (see the last paragraph of {{Promophoto}} and WP:FUC criterion #1) then there is no need to keep them in the article. The alternative is that OrphanBot does the job in seven days, but my experience is that users do not appreciate multiple warning messages (see User:Jtdirl). In the same manner I only post one warning on the user's talk page, even if I have tagged multiple images. If the deletion is contested I have no problem with the image returning to the article, but then the tag {{subst:refu-c}} has to be attached to the caption. --Oden 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

leaving them in the article will simply created many red links at some point in the future. If people actually made sure an image wasn't in use, and removed links BEFORE deleting, as they should reasonably be expected to, that would not be a concern. I have found, without even looking, at least 4 cases where this happened in the last week, and shouldn't have (all of which just happened to be {{Replaceable fair use}}, which seems to land itself to this by sheer value of removing a need to post a notice in the article, as is often request for IFD). Circeus 00:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm speaking up here because if Oden is guilty, I almost certainly am also guilty. In my case, I will remove a fair-use image being used in violation of WP:FU solely to depict a living person immediately upon noticing it if the image was newly added. On images which have been there a while, I'll leave it for the full seven days. On an image that is a blatant violation of WP:FU, there's no reason not to remove it immediately. Note that there's nothing in policy that demands the image stay the full seven days. In fact, at least one of the bots if I remember correctly (and I may not) will remove images after four or five days of the image being marked. Anyway, I haven't taken a look at Oden's recent log but every time I've checked his removals in the past, they have been of images which obviously violate WP:FU. In my opinion, it is a good idea to remove obvious violations of Wikipedia policy as soon as they are discovered. Mel Etitis, an editor I have a great deal of respect for, may not be up-to-date on WP:FU and the problems with using fair-use images to depict living people. Jimbo Wales has spoken up on this topic several times though of course, that shouldn't be taken as a dictate from a deity. Note, though, that an image in an infobox does serve merely to depict the person. I wouldn't say that such use is purely decorative but it is a clear violation of WP:FU to use a fair-use image there. --Yamla 01:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We've got a serious ongoing vandal issue at this article. I'm concerned since nobody has stepped in and it has been about five days. Velten 00:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you try warning him and then sending the IP to WP:AIV?--Wizardman 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IP vandalism. Article has now been semiprotected by User:Bucketsofg. Newyorkbrad 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I semi-d it and Wind It Up (Gwen Stefani song), which this IP was also vandalizing. Since the Love… page has been protected and recently unprotected it may be that this semi may need to be recurring. Bucketsofg 01:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The above website is clarly taking the mick out of wikipedia for posting Rock Slope, and myself for requesting it be speedy deleted. My userpage has taken a hamering today since the aobve page has been in existance. Could somebody please look into speedying the original page asap, salting the page and protecting my userpage temporarily RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rock Slope has been salted by Aaron Brenneman and your userpage has been semi-protcted by User:J.smith. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoax is not a speedy criterion but *shrug* if I'm wrong and any real source shows up I'll cop the trout whacking. - brenneman 02:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I semi-ed your user page... let me (or some other admin) if the problem comes up again. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick resolution, I can go to bed now - It is must appreciated RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"elastic clause" page has an obscene comment posted at the beginning of the Interpretation section. I can find it in "view source" but when I try to delete it it reappears.

Jennifermckenzie 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The same user who added it [14] immediately removed it [15]. We get a lot of edits like this: a newbie testing us out, who immediately removes their damage. It should be all right now. Antandrus (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:68.195.132.253 just left a profane comment on the talk page for Axis powers of World War II [16]. This user has been blocked before for doing the same thing. Cla68 08:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The comment was reverted out by ArmadilloFromHell (talk · contribs), and I've added it to WP:AIV given this user has been warned/blocked/warned again/continues to do it. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Next time I'll use WP:AIV. I wasn't sure if it should go to AIV or not since it was left on the talk page, not the main article page. Cla68 04:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am writing to report a pair of inappropriate edits by User:Fambo on January 9 on the page of Jim Abbott, a former Major League Baseball pitcher. The changes appear here. I recommend that you review this user's contribution history, and warn him, or temporarily block him. YechielMan 03:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a one time vandalism account, I doubt the user will ever sign in again. --Wildnox(talk) 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User User:76.210.181.53 vandalized the Heroes talk page [17], and was reverted. The same vandal returned with a new IP,[18], I reverted and warned him[19]. In this edit he then replied with clear hostility. [20]. I'm requesting an intervention here and a block? ThuranX 04:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

while I wrote that up, he did this [21] to the policy page. ThuranX 04:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked. Next time post on WP:AIV. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Obviously, such concepts are beyond the comprehension of a fanatic with an obsession against India Hindus.It is clear that you are a Hindu hater and bigot and I have nothing more to say to you. Just keep your views in your blog and out of wikipedia. Thaa." [22]

My experience with this user has been generally frustrating. User:Rumpelstiltskin223 has been disruptive in the article 2002 Gujarat violence.

His edits violate WP:NPOV by excluding the notable views of human rights organizations and international publications. The article where conflict began involves the alleged complicity of the then Indian government in a massacre which resulted in the deahts of 2000 people. I made the case that the recollection of information from notable third parties, including newspapers, human rights organizations, and governments, need to be considered with the official statements of the same indian government. Everything I added has been repeatedly deleted in an edit war. Him and those sharing his view have simply dismissed all my sources and suggested sources by deeming their actions as being anti-Hindu (on the talk page, this includes the US State Dept which cancelled an Indian politician's diplomatic and visitors visa due to his involvement in the massacre).

If his edit warring to exclude WP:RS isn't enough, his justifications for his edits and his responses in edit summaries and talk pages have been extremely and repetitively offensive. He has accused me of being "Hinduphobic","racist", "indophobic", he has called me a "bigot", a "fanatic", described me as "ignorant", etc. [23] [24] [25] [26] My comments in regards to the subject matter may seem hostile to one who doesn't consider that the matter in question revolves around an incident where over 2000 people were massacred, several hundred women raped and mutilated, etc. My criticisms on talk pages are limited to the government involved at the time, and the local political figure directly involved in the massacre (the US state dept even banned his visa due to his involvement in human rights violations). There is no justification for the charge of racism or religious hatred whatsoever. I have said nothing that could be twisted to imply a dislike of Indians or Hindus, and for the record I have no feelings against them. I have been hostile in response to these allegations, as anyone would charged with bigotry. In I have not used partisan sources to support up my edits though. Rumplestiltskin has repeatedly deleted content I added that would add the findings of internationally highly regarded (ie Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Guardian newspaper), which WP:NPOV suggests are essential to give ALL NOTABLE VIEWS voice in the article. His latest violation includes deleting a comment I made on the talk page and adding a warning template to my own talk page alleging 'defamation'. Please do something as I've already lost patience with this person too many times. Note: I have already been threatened by an admin for responding to this character, but no action has been taken in regards to his instigating behavior (ie his REPEATED allegations of anti-India hatred and anti-hindu bigotry) Falcon2020 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: He is now harassing me with warning templates on my talk page, and deleting talk entries from the article in question. Falcon2020 06:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to leave him a warning, however, I see that you have not been very civil yourself. — Nearly Headless Nick 06:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Above rant is a retaliatory post to him being blocked for abusing wikipedia by filing a false report against me. See the following diffs and a chronology of events:

1. Falcon revert-wars and behaves in an incivil manner on 2002 Gujarat violence
2. Admin warns Falcon2020 for incivility[27]
3. Falcon2020 responds with defiance [28]
4. Admin warns him again [29]
5. Falcon2020 files a false 3RR report [30]
6. I explain that he is gaming the system and lying about copyedits being reverts [31]
7. Admin blocks him for abusing system and doing 3RR himself [32]
8. Falcon2020 commits WP:LIVING violation in 3RR report against living person [33]
9. I warn him [34]
10. He then commits WP:LIVING violation in Talk page [35] where he defames a certain B.Raman, author of this article [36]. As I understand it, WP:LIVING applies to all parts of wikipedia. Please excuse if I am wrong.
11. I formally warn him[37]
12. He makes this post above
13. Makes an incivil remark to my talk page [38].Rumpelstiltskin223 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, my report of this users actions so far is complete, signed and dated. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I ask that an admin analyze this post of his[39] to see if it, a response to my post [40], violates WP:LIVING against the subject of the discussion. If I have misread the rule, then I apologize ahead of time and will undo my deletion of his post personally. Admins please respond with your assessment in my talk page. If admins agree that I have gone against wikipedia rules or philosophy then I will take warning to heart and apologize. Thaa. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:Vandalism: "Talk page vandalism Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

Now see: [41]

Falcon2020 07:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

He is harassing me on my talk page even NOW. No warning will be sufficient. How can you ask me to be civil when he gets away with anything? Falcon2020 07:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how he is harrassing you NOW. He hasn't made an edit on your page after your report here. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

His latest addition of that ugly warning template was at 7:07. I will ask that another admin consider this ANI entry instead of you, I'm having trouble believing you're actually serious. You are ignoring that his deletions of my talk page entries are acts of VANDALISM as defined in WP:VANDALISM. His record suggests his only desire here is to be disruptive. Falcon2020 07:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In my view WP:LIVING precedes over all other rules in this case. Again, if I am mistaken then admin with more knowledge may contact me and I will re-insert the statements that I removed. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP issues are dealt here – Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 07:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You are not even reading- there is no PERSON involved in my edit. Falcon2020 07:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

RPSS has provided the diffs. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his most recent allegation. I do not think he is allowed to remove warnings unless an admin decides otherwise. As of this moment I have not been contacted by admins regarding this particular matter. Therefore, I will assume that my warnings are legitimate and take steps to make certain he does not illegally remove them. If an admin disagrees with my position then please contact me in my talk page and I will follow instructions. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While both of you have been rather harsh to eachother, I must say that after reading the talk pages and the article's disscussion, it appears that Rumpelstiltskin223 is removing acceptable content based on his own opinions, and then attacking Falcon for putting up the other side. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV. I may be wrong, but whether I am or not comes down to one question, does Wikipedia consider the HRW to be a reliable source. "Plus, HRW is not neutral or reputable. See Criticism of Human Rights Watch.Rumpelstiltskin223 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)". Can you really use a criticism page to determine a group uncredible. The New York Times has one too, but Wikipedia allows that doesn't it?--Danielfolsom 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for such a discussion. Please look at Talk:2002 Gujarat violence for my responses. Rumpelstiltskin223 07:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I request again that another admin address this issue anew, User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington is listed as an "Indian Wikipedian", as the article in question revolves around the Indian Govt's association in a massacre, and Rumplestiltskin's charge against me all along has been "Indophobia", his curiously partisan approach to this entire issue is suspect. He is instead giving the person causing all the disruption here advice on how to combat me User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-PorpingtonFalcon2020 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, this user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user BhaiSaab on confirmation by checkuser Dmcdevit, on his talk page and due to similarity in editing. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of "high-risk templates" in here with requests to change them, with at least one (Template talk:Cite encyclopedia) several days old. May I ask that someone either take care of these or unprotect the templates? Thank you. --NE2 09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

So I'm not the only person who complains about CAT:PER backlogs? I just added {{adminbacklog}} to it when it reached 10 entries. --ais523 12:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

How these people dare complain about me tagging their articles for deletion and then call it a WP:POINT violation is beyond me. When I tell them about they call it incivil. Incivil? Here are some diffs and quotes from the WP:GUNDAM talk page.

• Vicious attacks, the obvious target is myself and the other nominators for deletion.
• And yet more attacks, against presumably myself.
• And yet more in exactly the same vein.
• Unfounded accusations of "bullying".
• A clear assumption of bad faith.
• Patent incivility. If I'd said that to one of the Musikfabrik lot ArbCom would probably have kicked me out.
• Incivility so bad it equates to trolling.
• Attack by implication.
• Staggering personal attack. Since when did that become acceptable? We put Giano on civility parole for far better than this lot. I lament his lot, if this selection are now acceptable.
• More incivility and attacks.

• Choice quote, out of the whole bundle:I "have decided not to do anything for now, there are stuff that I wanted to merge and clean up anyway. Spending time with those irrational deletionist is just wasting my time, that is what they are seeking: editors in this project ending up with no time to improve the article and at the end making them able to try to nominate desembling this project itself. They do not even want to follow rules in WP:FICT that minor characters should get a list. (The most unreasonable nom would be the RX-78 which is already a list) They can shovel WP:ICANBULLYYOU all they want, the articles can be recreated one by one as long as we can create a process of deciding which should be kept and what should be in a long list(also what lists should there be). All the articles go through this project's editor's inspection, rewritten to a point where any of those AfD is just going to make them look more irrational and vandal/troll like. Join me, let them have their small victory over old and outdated cruff, and we will gain back a larger ground later and laugh at their short-sightedness. For the admin up there, would you kindly try to be the closing admin of RX-78 Gundam and let them know what is the realistic side of the world they do not understand.".

• While I understand that ANI is not a forum for dispute resolution, and I do not wish to see anybody blocked, I must request, if this has not been done already, that User:Mythsearcher and User:HellCat86 are given firm warnings from a neutral admin for personal attacks and incivility. Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• The behavior coming from many of the parties to this dispute—and yes, I do mean people on both sides—has been quite disgraceful. Everyone needs to step back and stop with the attacks, the mockery, the hysterical proclamations, and the provocation; we are all Wikipedians here, and presumably that says something both about our shared purpose—to create a great encyclopedia—and the kind and thoughtful way we approach disagreements with our fellow editors. Wikipedia is not a game that we "win" by fighting with each other. Kirill Lokshin 20:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have recently found out about all the warring on the gundam articles from WPANIME, and i have to point out these 2 pages [42] and [43], it appears to me that numerous editors have made it their life goal to rid the site of any gundam related articles. An admin def needs to step in here and settle this. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And that is in itself another assumption of bad faith. "Rid the site of any gundam related articles"? No, that is not true in the slightest. There are numerous valid articles that could be written about Gundam, just not these ones about obscure fictional weapons. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, if you're feeling under attack as it is, it's hard to find another interpretation of "To Do: Nominate every single article in [6+ categories] for deletion." (And yes, that was not Moreschi, to be clear.) I'm thinking it's something of a personal joke, myself, but if I were heavily invested in the articles, I might not see it that way. Regardless, after taking a quick look, I'd suggest tea all around. Shimeru 23:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Quit bogarting my tea! Kyaa the Catlord 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• (reply to Kirill Lokshin) Heh. Weary irony. I know this isn't a war. I'm not trying to beat anybody. I have not been incivil or violated any other policies. This is simply about a load of articles that I think need to go - the community agrees, judging by the votes at AFD thus far - and some individuals' reactions to the attempts of the community to get rid of these articles. That reaction has been often unacceptable. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• MythSearcher's language is somewhat, er, confrontational, but it's clear that he's willing to accept some reasonable changes:

"Ditch the detail spec, list only the height of the unit and main weapons types, link to mahq and Gundam wikia so that readers can find those specs." [44]

"I am all for merging and deleting things like R-Jayja and such" [45],

Meanwhile, Moreschi has nominated several Gundam-related articles for deletion, but he's voted keep on RX-78 Gundam. Hopefully, that should send a message to Gundam supporters that there's no massive campaign to wipe every mention of Gundam from Wikipedia. If everyone toned down the language just a bit, I'm sure a fair agreement could be reached. Comments like "ignorant arrogant deletionists" are not helpful at this time. Neither are comments that a user plans to "nominate every single article" in 6 Gundam categories for deletion. Quack 688 01:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a case study in how not to deal with "the community" as a whole. Moreschi, whether your tagging / cleanup campaign is appropriate under Wikipedia rules or not (and at a quick glance, I agree that it is), if you stir up a previously calm situation into a largescale, many hostile responses hornets nest, that's an indicator that your tactics and approach to what you did were inappropriate. It's percieved as hostile intent of high order, nigh-on blatant bad faith vandalism, by many subsets of Wikipedia's contributors if you go in and make widespread nominations like that, even if the articles are by all rights deletable by wider community standards. Go more slowly and talk to the editors in that sub-area more before you make such widespread change proposals next time? A crisis avoided is a lot more happy beers. Georgewilliamherbert 07:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a competition to see how many violations of WP:AGF can be made on a single issue? Here's another example from only a few hours ago [46]. That sort of personal attack has just got to stop. And remember, none of this would have happened if WP:GUNDAM and associated editors had tried to follow WP policies in the first place.--Folantin 09:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please keep in mind that WP:GUNDAM, which is getting all the heat for this, only was "created" less than a month ago in its current form. It is NOT TO BLAME for the articles it has inherited with histories going back to 2004 and potentially earlier. Want to argue AGF some more? Blaming those who are innocent for creating craptastic articles, calling for the project to be burnt to the ground, taunting of the Project on its discussion page.... This is a freaking mess period. Kyaa the Catlord 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I was aware of that. That's why I mentioned "WP:GUNDAM and associated editors". It doesn't change the fact that the WP:GUNDAM Talk Page is rife with incivility and members of the project continue to ignore WP:NPA.--Folantin 10:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly though, why do are you escalating the drama? Do you want Mythsearcher blocked? This wasn't drama on the WP:GUNDAM page, this took some searching to find.... Do you have a goal in finding these "incidents" and reporting them? Moreschi is being generous and is working with the Project in this matter, Myth's outburst is unfortunate, but honestly, what good is done by bringing up every instance where a comment in placed in the heat of passion? Kyaa the Catlord 10:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've taken a better look at where you linked to, I find you went to ned scott's page. Ned Scott has been nothing but neutral, civil and a good example in all this.... I'm not sure what is going on, but damn man, it doesn't look nice. Kyaa the Catlord 11:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Read what I actually linked to. This has nothing to do with anything Ned Scott has done. I quite clearly linked to Mythsearcher's comment on Ned Scott's talk page, which goes like this: "It is just impossible to assume good faith in the actions taken by the deletionist. What is currently happening is just like the dark ages, burn them, its something we have never heard of before, it must be heresy. With people making up rules, saying nothing counts as sources, and trying to blame people who have just a little more than a month to work on hundreds of articles, they are being dicks themselves. Especially the one who nominated dozens of articles during another AfD process saying that one is nominated as a precedent to delete others..." If that doesn't violate WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, I don't know what does. This user has already had ample warning. If this continues, admins should take action. --Folantin 11:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I point out that describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack. Calling them "dicks", is... I'll refactor that away, per WP:NPA. This is what is supposed to be done in these cases, not calling for blocks or bans. Kyaa the Catlord 12:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"...describing the actions being taken by others is not a personal attack" sounds like hairsplitting to me, but I'll let that slide for now. Blocks and bans are for repeat offenders, which Mythsearcher will be if he doesn't knock it off. He's had fair warning. If he stops now, then fine. The whole atmosphere of incivility and failure to assume good faith at the WP:GUNDAM talk page (and elsewhere) has got to end. I'm glad you seem to be working through an improvement campaign with Moreschi. Keep it civil and get everyone else to keep it civil and this shouldn't be a problem any more. --Folantin 12:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the use of the word "dick" in the quoted reference was a response to Ned warning Myth that he should cool down. Things are hot and Myth's venting. He's been warned, he's made constructive edits and not made further heated statements since this one. He's actually taken steps to work with Moreschi to better handle the crapload of bad articles the WikiProject inheritted.... This seems, to me, to be a non-issue at this point. Kyaa the Catlord 12:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Just had the following posted at WP:RFCN..

RE: Yuske Uramishi (talk · contribs), Heie Austin (talk · contribs), Kevin Austin (talk · contribs), and Bully Austin (talk · contribs)

Not certain that this is the place for this, as I dont find the usernames offensive, but it seems that these user's userpages are being used as faux articles for small time wrestlers. I'm not sure what should be done, but I hardly think that this constitutes appropriate use. —damnreds (☠|☠) 20:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As each user listed above seems to pretty much only have edits to their own "faux article" on their respective userpages, would a {{db-nouser}} tag be appropriate, or should it go to MfD? Crimsone 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't use {{db-nouser}} as the users do exist. It's for if I created something like User:ThisUserDoesNotExist and saved. I noticed Yuske Uramishi blanked the talk page of Kevin Austin after he had a 'welcome', so something strange is afoot! I'd concur with MfD. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 09:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks. I've just listed all four at MfD under one nom. Crimsone 11:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Users Nadirali,Szhaider, and Siddiqui have been blocked for a week by admnistrator Ramma's arrow based on false accusations.
Nadirali was accused of making insulting remarks and false accusations,which he requests a chance to disprove.
User Nadirali requests to be unblocked to present evidence to disprove Ramma's arrow's accusations.
User Nadirali,was neither given a chance to request an unblock,nor even reply on his own talkpage.
Nadirali also states that the blocks against Szhaider and Siddiqui are also based on false accusations and requests an unblock to testify against admnistrator Rama's Arrow.
Seriously. Admins abusing their powers are getting annoying. We know Indians on Wikipedia seem to have a real problem with Pakistanis, and since most of you have already proved you are not willing to discuss, why not leave us alone? Unre4LITY 05:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The blocks were in accordance with Checkuser results. See – Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui and User talk:Dmcdevit#Siddiqui. Please assume good faith. — Nearly Headless Nick 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You dont understand. This is not the first time, and Pakistani users keep getting the sack for editing when they are correcting articles instead of mindlessly putting down information without sources. I am requesting for these users to be given the chance to explain the situation. This has happened to me before, and I know something is wrong here. Articles have been hijacked by certain members, and editing them, even with sources provided can get you banned.
--Unre4LITY 07:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:SOCK? They are blocked for a reason, a reason which is not up for dispute. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sanghak has already received three blocks for uploading images without any source information [47] [48] [49]. As you can see from his talk page, he has been asked many times to study Wikipedia's policies and clean up his act. His most recent block ended today. Since then he has uploaded one of his images that was previously deleted due to a lack of source information. This time he has provided a source URL (the correct URL is actually http://roonba.50webs.com/nonfifa.htm), but is still claiming to be the creator of this image when obviously he isn't (the site at roonba.50webs.com appears to be operated by someone called Mark Cruickshank). He also removed the no_source template and OrphanBot messages from another of his images [50] and reinserted it into at least one document [51]. I've spent a lot of time trying to get this user to mend his ways, but he hasn't responded once. My patience is pretty much exhausted now. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 10:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone please check this out User talk:Cwiki - feel free to unblock if you think it's the right thing. Guy (Help!) 03:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• That looks a tricky one. No edits for ages then not long after a block pops back in again. I've declined the unblock request, I can see how you drew the conclusion, and I tend to draw the same conclusion myself. The user indicates they have no desire to edit Wikipedia, so it seems a little bit like a point being made here. Hiding Talk 11:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is still demeaning and discourteous to keep the user blocked merely because they indicate that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. It could be that the user actually still wants to edit Wikipedia, but would rather not admit it (I have been in a similar situation before), or that the user merely wants not to have such a strike against their name. I'm rather inclined, despite my lack of significant knowledge of the Joan of Arc vandal, to think that Cwiki is not the vandal. Cwiki's IP address puts the connection as being from Australia, not Virginia, which is consistent with the user's userpage. The user's bias seems to be quite different from that of AWilliamson, and there are many style differences between the two users. Essentially, it seems to me that they are either completely different people, or Cwiki is a sock puppet of AWilliamson for the purpose of either subtly inserting pro-Catholic/French bias while purporting to be inserting anti-Catholic/French bias or aggressively asserting an anti-Catholic bias in order to stir up those with AWilliamson's bias. These sock puppet ideas seem overly complex and unlikely to me, though I will admit again that I am not very familiar with the case. As a side note though, what happened to Cwiki's capitalisation!? Also, in response to Hiding, is it not possible that Cwiki was using the account for reading Wikipedia, but not editing, and then was greeted one day with a New Messages notice that led to the block notice? --Philosophus ^T 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Philosophus, if you want to lift the block, feel free to do so. I reviewed it and weighed it all up and decided not to. I may well have been wrong. The block is still reviewable. I do take objection to the notion that I have refused the unblock request wholly on the grounds that the user indicates that they have no desire to edit Wikipedia. But please, review it yourself and make your own decision. I did note it was a tricky one. And you're right, it is possible that the user has been reading all this while whilst never editing. I've merely attempted to act in the best interests of Wikipedia. I would ask, though, that you note whichever decision you choose to make at the user's talk page to aid future reviewers of the request. Oh, never mind, I've just checked your user page and I see you are an alternative account, so it's unlikely you can unblock. I really can't stand much more of this, to be perfectly honest. I feel like smashing the fucking computer in. I'm sorry. Hiding Talk 14:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was open-and-shut, I would not have posted here. My IP is currently in Phladelphia, so that can't possibly be me (I edit from one of two static IPs in England). Or can it? Anyway, it was the long period of inactivity followed by edits to Joan of Arc articles just when a block was active that roused my suspicions. I am a nasty suspicious bastard and I could be wrong, hence the post here. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw my review. It seems I don't have the nous to make a decent review. Hiding Talk 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Could please tell someone this admin the difference between open proxies and IPs his tool does not know? Several of his blocks are against regularly registrated IPs [52]. Thanks --ST ○ 17:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (deAdmin)

...and I have to leave now. Please check the 14 open requests. Thank you. Kusma (討論) 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Gnetwerker indef block. Anyone with experience of Gnetwerker should probably add their $0.02. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of bureaucratic instances within Wikipedia, I found the Association of Member's Advocates (AMA) as an apparent example of overcomplexity. It has an elected coordinator, three elected deputy coordinators, rather formalized meetings and an apparent strong reliance on the letter of policy. I'm not sure how effective the AMA is, but perhaps debureaucraticization would help? >Radiant< 15:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, both the co-ordinator and the deputy co-ordinators were basically co-opted into their positions. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the role of the co-ordinators in the AMA is merely to co-ordinate. We've never had (and, I hope, never will have) any sort of veto on anything, or any powers over and above those of others - it seems that our role is more to advise and deal with queries to the association than to decide things in closed meetings (Esperanza) or to exercise any kind of special veto. I believe that we used to have our meetings on IRC, until timezones got in the way, and now use a Wikipedia page, which, depsite its apparent complexity, does serve the job of discussion well. Finally, as we advise on policy as "advocates", we do ned to try to stick to it and have at least some procedures in place :) (I should say, I am strongly opposed to overbureaucraticization, and would immediately leave the AMA if it went in the direction of Esperanza. Fortunately, we're very open). Martinp23 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems to be beating a dead horse, but thoughts on the readdtion of "co-ordinators"? [53] is of interest. I can tell you, if that "special veto" comes back, this whole thing will get MfD'ed quick smart. I wouldn't have worried, but [54] kinda makes me suspicious that this is still very heirachal. Thoughts on the "co-ordinators"? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the users keep doing this. Geo should be warned and strictly reminded of what WP is and what it is not. – Chacor 00:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Special veto will not return. Geo. 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of those mottos concern me - I don't know how many people actually read that page but some appear to be come-ons to trolls/vandals - something we should avoid. --Charlesknight 19:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Qwertybambino (talk · contribs) is in dispute with me over the creation of All Time NHL Transactions. I marked it for an AfD, and thusly he created another page--NHL transactions, which I marked for speedy. If you take a look at his contribs, you'll see a comment along the lines of HERE IVE DELETED 4 U, U FUKIN LOSER...R U FUKIN HAPPY NOW...WAS MY PAGE BOTHERING U THAT FUCKIN MUCH...FUCK U, U FUCKIN FAG. I gave him a warning about personal attacks, but would someone else like to chime in? Thanks. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for personal attacks. Syrthiss 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that this is a sock of Querty (talk · contribs) (based on username). There's something really odd going on at the Qwerty page. An admin first deleted the person's user page, then blanked the user page, then protected the user page. [55]. Anyway... Qwertybambino looks like some kind of sock to me. TheQuandry 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

TrentJones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left several personal attacks at my talk page, even after a final warning. Request block. John Reaves 18:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, but I have to say that some of your replies to him were a bit of gasoline on the fire and may have exacerbated the situation. When confronted by someone who is obviously trolling you it is better to stay WP:COOL instead of feeding the WP:TROLL. The account you pointed out below User:JJohnReaves should be indef blocked as an attack account and if you feel this may be User:TrentJones I suggest you submit a Checkuser on the account. socking to attack is a big no-no.--Isotope23 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reaves 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

JJohnReaves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing my talk page. User is most definitely a sockpuppet of User:TrentJones. John Reaves 18:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Has been blocked indef. Arjun 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

The first line of the Dark Matter article appears to have been subject to racist vandalism, and a dubious link installed.

I hope this has been posted to the right place, but the instructions on reporting such matters did not make a blind bit of sense, and the article itself didn't seem to have any way of informing the original authers.

Many Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.152.154.6 (talk • contribs)

Balbers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) already fixed the vandalism.--Isotope23 19:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here. Same user also vandalized the AFD discussion, but that kind of pales by comparison. Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I blocked the user indefinitely. Johntex\^talk 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am being accused as a sockpuppeteer and Bowsy is being accused as my sockpuppet. Llama man and Metros232 aren't using reliable evidence. They are accusing us because we have similar beliefs, userboxes and share a computer. This is not very good evidence. By accusing us for having similar beliefs and intrests, they may as well say it is illegal for any two humans to have similar beliefs and intrests. He is trying to use the edit war as an excuse, but Bowsy only contributed once and then tried to resolve it in a civilised manner. I however, continued to edit and was uncivil while doing so. Llama man has also rejected Bowsy's defence saying they are lies when he has no proof. We live in the same household so we share a computer. This is also why Bowsy created his account shortly after mine and why we edit in regular intervals. Please can you resolve this false accusation before we are unfairly blocked as the sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer we aren't. Henchman 2000 19:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, just to make that clear. Anyway, I thought I'd make a comment here since I'm mentioned in this comment. I now believe you, for the most part, that you are not sockpuppets. As for a reply to your comments: You had virtually the same layout to your userpage. This is quite unlikely unless a Wikipedian asks another user on their talk page if they may use the same layout, or the users share computers. Metros and I didn't know that you and Bowsy are, or claim to be, sharing a computer, as you didn't mention it before the sockpuppet case. I accused you of being sockpuppets because you had similar layout to your userpages and were strongly opposed to WP:CRUFT (which isn't really much in itself, but the fact that Bowsy !voted four minutes after your nom, and it is highly rare for that to happen, it was likely you were the same person), and I had no knowledge that you shared a computer. This does not mean that I might as well have said that it is illegal for two people to have similar interests; rather, because so many things were similar about you and Bowsy, that it seemed you were sockpuppets. –Llama man^{sign here} 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:86.42.159.149 is a single purpose account engaging in edit warring at Plastic Paddy which is up for AfD. His /her edits mirror User:Vintagekits' edits, and I suspect it is the same user just not logged into their account so as not to violate 3R. User:86.42.159.149 has already broken 3R, and I have put notice on the user's talk page. The user then left this on my user page:

Why do you insist in putting silly pov into the article. The term is only used by the odd journalist, and you know what they are like. I have never heard the term used once here in Ireland, and the article does not reflect that truth. I have a dynamic IP address, so am not at all concerned about being blocked. 86.42.159.149 17:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC) diff

This overlaps into so many things, I am uncertain how to proceed. - WeniWidiWiki 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I made the article better and I pulled out all of the POV, yet WeniWidiWiki insists in reverting me back to the old POV version. Unfortunately, WP has to sometimes suffer as a result a peevish few! I have edited 3 times, so no rules broken ;-))Thanks. 86.42.159.149 18:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd that a single purpose account with less than 15 edits knows wikipedia policy and nomenclature so well, and apparently keeps an eye on the admins' notice board as well. - WeniWidiWiki 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I am on the office computer today and cannot leave a footprint. Sorry. 86.42.159.149 18:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you have only 50 edits in total to your credit. You seem to know a lot about socks. Are you an ex-sockpuppet? I guess that you might be just that! 86.42.159.149 18:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just seen this - its not a sockpuppet of mine!--Vintagekits 19:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

User admits to using IP edits for disruption - compare the above post by IP editor User:86.42.159.149 to this one by User:86.42.146.214:

Why do you insist in filling WP with silly pejoratives that only comedians use. These terms, like "Miserly Scotsman" etc should only be in the WikiDic!! 86.42.146.214 00:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)diff

After a few exchanges on my talk page, I post this response in which I give diffs of user's disruptive edits on other articles. He responds with an admission that he only uses his screen name "when sober" and edits under the IPs at other times:

I have a user name, and you are not getting it. I only use it when I'm sober, HeHeHe. diff.

I then warned him about the WP:SOCK policy against using "Good hand, bad hand" accounts: diff, and posted the warning on his talk page as well: diff. If you look at the history, this user was also warned by an admin to cease disruptive edits: diff and: diff. After the sock warning he became scarce for a while, but is now back repeating the same pattern. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

CommentYou should go to talk page, and discuss things there. I don't have the foggiest what you are talking about.86.42.159.149 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I cant read many of those links you added and they are "secure" - is he still accusing me of having the sockpuppet or has someone else owned up to it?--Vintagekits 19:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

86 is not a single-purpose account. He's been editing for a long time, at least since April 2006, through a whole host of Eircom DSL addresses, which is why I think of him as my anonymous Eircom fan. Whether he's been editing longer than that depends on whether he has, as claimed, another active account. If he has, I don't know what it is. Jerricco (talk • contribs) was probably him, but that account is inactive now. Not being vindictive, and seeing no reason why anonymous editors should be persecuted, I'll leave it at that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This particular IP is a single-purpose account. Look at the contributions. Since the person is editing without creating a username, how do you know that the other IP from the same block is even the same person? Furthermore, this IP has voted in an AfD and then admitted that he /she uses multiple accounts. Did his /her registered username also vote in the AfD? - WeniWidiWiki 21:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to work till late tonight. I see a bunch of editors' accusing two other editors of being socks. And all I can see are hysterical accusations being made. Really really sad. All I can say to you is this, go and deal with POV and fix things on WP. It's obvious that your POV is being questioned, and it reveals much. 86.42.159.149 21:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• To recap, I did three edits, I have never seen such a stir. 86.42.159.149 20:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

False - any competent editor can look at your contributions and the edit history of Plastic Paddy to refute this. Furthermore, I ask you to cease and desist removing references in the entry until there is consensus on the talk page.You are not editing in the spirit of consensus. - WeniWidiWiki 21:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Those references were stuffed into the article today,seemingly without much thought, and they are quite meaningless. They don't relate to the sentence or the <<citation need>> quest. They also broke WP:EL rules on some points. Two of them are still there and one of those is modified to WP standards. 86.42.159.149 21:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:86.42.159.149, please do not misrepresent the positions of other editors by altering their comments. I have reverted your alterations to WWW's statement. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Kathryn NicDhàna what are you talking about? I made 4 incremental edits and reverted 2 times. The article is much improved now, and I and other editors are happier with it. And I hope you are too. 86.42.159.149 21:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment struck, misread the diff. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: this was copyied from above. [56]

Check page history and you'll see what I mean. It is pretty obvious that these IPs are from the same person. FellowWikipedian 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please tell us what you mean. We shouldn't have to perform an investigation to find out what it is that you're referring to. —Psychonaut 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, some guy with the IPs: User:209.250.162.237 User:209.250.163.105, etc is vandalising the article. I am hoping that the Wikipedia admins can help me, if that is possible. FellowWikipedian 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's been going on for a while, I was reverting them back in December. Needs an IP range block. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Please block them. Thanks for your input. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, please let me know when you have blocked them. FellowWikipedian 23:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to do a checkuser. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE NOT HELPING ME!!! I AM NOT AM ADMIN or Bureaucrat ON WIKIPEDIA. THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR HELP ON THIS PAGE, BUT YOU DON'T EVEN CARE. Whatever... FellowWikipedian 22:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Responding in all caps helps nothing. Please remember this is wikipedia, not a live or die situation. Essentially what he told you was to go to checkuser, he can't use the checkuser tool either. In the future, please use WP:AIV for simple vandalism reports, the response there is quick. --Wildnox(talk) 22:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry for typing in all caps but this vandalism was getting out of hand. Next time I will be calm when responding. FellowWikipedian 22:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Also you may want to look at WP:VANDAL, it has some tips and the template messages usually used to warn vandals(much easier than typing a message to a vandal like you did). --Wildnox(talk) 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. P.S. I am an admin on Wikinews. FellowWikipedian 23:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for now. Hopefully they'll get bored and play elsewhere by the time it's undone. Bucketsofg 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks. At least you did something about it. FellowWikipedian 22:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the lame edit war on WP:PI (see above), Herostratus (talk · contribs) is now threatening with a "war" [57]. I'm not sure why he gets so worked up about this, but I find this comment wildly inappropriate. >Radiant< 09:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Judging by another comment of his at the bottom of the page I would say he is NOT threatening war, but commenting on the current situation as a war. Viridae^Talk 09:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

And that comment is possibly even more inappropriate, in that he accuses those people who disagree with him of "sterile, useless, energy-wasting, ... childish contention, ... find[ing] edit wars and wheel wars exciting or amusing ... gaming the rules ... [and] childish small-mindedness". Almost makes me wish WP:PAIN was still around. >Radiant< 09:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What is really inappropriate here is you reverting to your favored version five times in a row with no argument but blithe assertions that "we" have decided that this is the way it should be. That you made yet another revert and then came whining about your own edit war on ANI while misrepresenting everyone else's positions is absurd enough, but congratulations you succeeded in getting the page protected on your version. You can stop now - there's obviously no threat on Herostratus' behalf as Viridae points out. Haukur 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that both you and Heros immediately resort to ad hominems indicates that you really don't have a good argument. As I recall, I asked you on the talk page what the deal was, and you said it was a dislike for {{essay}} ([58]). Since nobody agreed with you that that was a good reason, and Jeff agreed with me, there was no consensus for your removal of the tag that had been in place since October 6th. Heros came in afterwards talking about "the reason this has no essay tag" when in fact the tag was there for several months. >Radiant< 17:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hate to sound patronising, but guys, dispute resolution is that-a-way.--Doc^g 17:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. This is not a subject for ANI and I won't make any further reply here. Haukur 22:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Vinaixa67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours for continuously posting information without sources. The user doesn't speak English so communication has been difficult (many, many thanks to Patstuart who helped in some of the communication voids!!. Basically the user adds information about upcoming albums for musicians or rankings on singles charts for songs without providing sources. The most recent one is this. I post this here for review. I'm not quite sure if 24 hours is too little or what. The user has 3 previous blocks for uploading copyright images time and time again. Metros232 17:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I did specifically warn him several times about posting unsourced information, and said he would be blocked. He claims that he gets his information from television and a locked site on the internet, and has been a bit unresponsive (e.g., saying "don't worry about it", but continuing to do so). I'm not quite sure how to handle this any further. -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Though, upon closer inspection, this specific addition doesn't look as bad as the others. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/BryanFromPalatine (4th) --BenBurch 20:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He continues to use this sock puppet to evade his two week block. Can we please get his block timer reset to two weeks and the sock and IP address blocked? Thanks! --BenBurch 19:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE - This is the same IP address which was the subject of a positive checkuser finding. --BenBurch 23:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it legitimate for User:PBurns3711 to write things such as [59]? Or is this abusive of Wikipedia? 82.28.43.244 23:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It neither here nor there. What's important is if the article is neutral and with reliable references. Thanks/wangi 23:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No one likes a tattletale. Blogspot.com is not part of Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a pretty blatant case of soliciting outside supporters for collective revert-warring (he isn't asking them to contribute constructively, but to help him re-insert exactly his version of a single article), and as such potentially highly disruptive and a breach of WP:SOCK#Advertising and soliciting meatpuppets. A stern warning would be in order, and if the article should indeed get swamped by single-purpose meatpuppet accounts, there should be swift administrative action. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Asterion^talk 00:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You may well get more helpful replies than the above if you were to alert the Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights to be on the lookout for meatpuppetry at that article. Jkelly 00:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also warned User:GWP, who seems to be the primary reverter of PBurns' edits, not to engage in personal attacks. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is significant sockpuppetry occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Donnelly (author). The author of the article isn't too happy that his article is up for deletion, and at the time of this writing 6 SPA's have been created to vote "keep" on the article. Several of these accounts have edited comments by other accounts, and one of the latest one has added a "keep" comment and signed it as the original article author Celtic 0106. Could use some help with this... thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• One of the SPAs has a really interesting edit. JuJube 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - if that's not proof of sockpuppetry, I don't know what is. Dan, in the future, just tag single-purpose accounts as such with {{spa}}, then if the article isn't deleted and you believe the socks are the reason, file a checkuser request. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm doing the tagging, but it's getting a bit annoying. Isn't this blockable? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If they're changing others' comments, warn them per normal vandalism and list at WP:AIV, imo. – Chacor 00:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

K i'll try that approach. Think it's worth the effort of tagging all the accounts with sock/sockmaster tags and opening a case too? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And speedy deleted.[60] Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AbsolutDan: no, code D at WP:RFCU (the applicable one) says "Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome". They didn't affect the outcome. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The Mystic Battle Trilogy needs to be deleted, too. JuJube 00:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was vague - i meant an entry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

SSP is fine, I presume. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done, thanks Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Celtic0106 --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Your recent edit to Great Rift Valley (diff) was reverted by automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either vandalism, link spam, or test edits to the page. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. Thanks! // VoABot II 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"

I've never even been to the Great Rift Valley page until accused of vandalism--when I checked the page to see what it's about. This computer belongs solely to myself and no one else has been on it recently.

• also, no one else in my little network updates or even uses Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.161.97.20 (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

24.161.97.20 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possible for the computer to belong solely to yourself, but for the IP address to rotate from one machine to another. This may be the case with Road Runner which appears to be your ISP. Since Wikipedia has no way of knowing which specific anonymous Road Runner user made the problematic edit, the message you received is going to show up for any contributor who logs in from that address. If this is a regular problem for you, you can consider registering a user account which will ensure that you receive only messages intended for you. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 01:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not necesarily the computer, it's the IP address, from which someone did indeed make such an edit. If it was not you, you can feel safe in ignoring the warning. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Consider this edit by DP121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In fact, all of his edits are there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For further clarification, the puppet master was indefinitely banned two days ago, per a previous discussion on this board after flouting a one year block by Arbcom with various socks. [61]. AniMate 03:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please someone take a look through the recent edit history of 136.159.32.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). There are many recent examples of personal attack:

• revert-A Ramachandran is not a Hindu, he has also vandalised the article "Backward-caste Hindu Saints"
• refvert-why do you neo-Buddhists feel that my work does not belong to this section-WHICH I CREATED?
• revert-unless you people posing as "Hindus" give me a reason as to why my changes are unnecessary, I will continue to revert back to them

This user has been identified as being the same as Maleabroad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by Nat Krause here, based on the content being restored. He apparently has a history of this, and has been getting longer and longer blocks, the last was a week. A Ramachandran 02:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

He has now changed IP addresses [62] to 136.159.248.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). A Ramachandran 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

On January 8, the IP address 204.102.211.115 (talk · contribs) was blocked for disruptive editing at Vladimir Lenin. Edit summaries and edits themselves are exactly in keeping with those of banned user Jacob Peters (talk · contribs). Today, Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk · contribs) made an edit to the same article that is very much like those of JP [63], removing the sprotect template in the process. I strongly suspect Hu!tz!l0p0chtl! (talk · contribs) is another JP sock. You can clearly see his history of contentious editing at Soviet-related articles. [64] TheQuandry 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems fairly obvious to me, especially given sock history (though I'll admit I didn't look too closely). Is this a case for WP:RFCU? Patstuart^talk|edits 21:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I belive there has already been an RFCU request regarding this user and JP. Essjay said it was unlikely there was a connection. --C33 01:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe an impersonator then? TheQuandry 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Just what we don't need! A legion of JP wanna-bes! --C33 03:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked the user to explain the uncommented removal, and got zero response. User:Zoe|(talk)

I was contacted by someone from Ephrata School District's Technology Department with the following message: "Mike,

I just wanted to let you know that 164.116.107.39 is the IP for the Ephrata School District. We have been blocked from editing content on Wikipedia. As we have hundreds of students able to submit changes to Wikipedia I ask that the block would not be lifted.

Thank you,

(name removed) Ephrata School District Technology Department (email removed)@ephrataschools.org"

The IP address has had a long history of vandalism and was blocked three times before. I was told by Cowman109 that I should post this here. I'm not sure if it would be the best to do a long term block on an IP because of the possible collateral damage. Maybe a soft block would be better? If you want me to send the whole email to you, please contact me. Thanks! Mike6271 03:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A softblock with account creation disabled would probably be the best way to go. Naconkantari 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no wish to inflame a situation, but this threat made on the Admin Noticeboard must be reported. The user called Husnock is at present the subject of a very heated Arbitration case, stemming from his having made a supposed death threat against another Wikipedia user. Husnock left this site about two to three weeks ago, but there have been reappearances of persons on various ip addresses, claiming to have known him or to be supportive of him. The evidence of these persons to the Arb case was all but dismissed, even though some of it was valid, with a group of 2 to 3 people charging Husnock with using different accounts. The ip addresses used by these persons are ranging from several spread throughout a particular region, some of them miles apart posting within minutes of each other, but all of them were being called Husnock simply because he had once lived in the area and that these addresses were giving support of him. In any event, things boiled over when a user called Pahuskahey was charged with being an alternate account for Husnock. Pahuskahey was openly called a liar about most everything he posted or said, which by the own definitions of this site qualifies as WP:NPA. Husnock himself apparently returned to clear the air, stating he did not want to edit on this site and that these persons over the past few weeks were not connected with him. This was immediately attacked by certain persons followed by a threat from Charlesknight that Husnock better “seriously think about what he was doing” or there would be “serious real world ramifications for you” and that Husnock should “think about your career and where you are”. Wikipedians, what ever you may think about Husnock, that statement I just quoted is a threat pure and simple. Husnock was dragged over the coals because he made a vague reference to someone watching what they said because he was in the military, this later being called a death threat. What was said by Charlesknight is much more blatant a threat than anything Husnock ever said or did. It references Husnock’s real life, his job, and then says that he better think about where he is, as if someone is going to come and find him. Husnock’s initial actions (which I cannot defend because they have been pretty low) does not give others the right to now threaten him and throw all policies of this website to the wind. Pure neutral people need to handle this and need to end this. The same group seems to be reappearing, over and over again, trying to attack and bring down this user with this spilling over to Pahuskahey who hasn’t done a thing wrong. This business about his son I cannot comment on, but I have recommended that he simply remove the offending picture. Thank you for your attention to this matter. –A concerned Wikipedian

User:Venu62 removed relevant external links from a host of articles placed by anon editors, without mentioning proper reasons. I see these as destructive edits - [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]

Admins please opine and warn the user not to indulge in frivolous and destructive edits. Thanks. Also see the same user's other edits that I've mentioned here #User_removing_license_tags_and_replacing_them_with_no_license_messages ­ Kris (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He removed them as linkspam. Is there any particular reason why this is destructive and needs to be brought up here (e.g., WP:POINT violation, POV-pushing, etc.)? Perhaps you two could use some time away from each other if not

. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How do those links qualify as linkspam? I dont see any spam. Those links contain a lot of relevant information and are pertinent to those articles. ­ Kris (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I had a quick scan at the first link - it does not seem to have any sources and any of the relevent information contained within should already be in a good quality wikipedia article. In addition, it's partly a tourist directory of hotels and where to stay - where's the encylopedic value in that? Maybe linkspam is a bit harsh but I can see why he removed it. --Charlesknight 12:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Of the 14 edits 59.92.112.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has made, 13 are the Spamming of tamilnadu.ind.in within the course of one half hour. Additionaly tamilnadu.ind.in has quite a bit of advertising and banners for the amount of content, which may qualify it as a Link normally to be avoided. Notably, the site is activly seeking promotional advertising see [72]. Seems to qualify as External link spamming.IMHO --Hu12 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the same owner of tamilnadu.ind.in with adsense account 9291737033108347 owns indiaandindians.com, with quite a history of abusing of Wikipedia.

Spam sock accounts

• 59.92.118.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.113.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.112.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 59.92.112.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Domain Name:TAMILNADU.IND.IN
Created On:08-Dec-2006 10:28:26 UTC <--- would explain the promotional additions
Organization:indiaandindians.com
--Hu12 13:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee, what a suprise, more by the same owner pub-9291737033108347, heres the list (I'm sure there is more).

• tamilnadu.ind.in

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

• indiaandindians.com

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

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

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

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

• ooty.ind.in

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

• kodaikanal.org

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

• srirangam.co.in

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

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

• trichy.ind.in

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

--Hu12 14:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hu. I suppose you found these out because probably you are an admin? Thanks anyway. ­ Kris (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not an admin.--Hu12 07:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NEMT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user, while being a productive editor most of the time, is given to occasional bouts of deliberate and pre-meditated vandalism. There are many examples of this if one cares to trawl through the contribution history (here's the most recent one, which occurred today). The user's talk archive and block log show the extent of the problem. I'm not sure what the next step would be. Judging by the talk archive, the user does not seem to care about his actions as he feels that his productive edits should "allow" him a bit of mischief now and then, and reasonable requests to stop receive combative responses and, it seems, are ignored. Zunaid©® 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've noticed this as well. RfC is probably the next step. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The user's combative response and wiki-lawyering when asked politely to behave leads me to believe RfC won't work. Read the type of responses he gives on his talk page. This person obviously disrespects the rules and loves taking the mickey out of anyone who engages him, playing with semantics and such-like. To go to the effort of Arbitration may be more trouble than it's worth as he will very likely repeat the pattern of non-response and obfuscation. The most frustrating thing is that he is a constructive editor most of the time, just given to a childish streak. I say slap him on the wrists with a 31 hour block, and increase it every time he repeats his dubious behaviour. It is clear-cut premeditated and deliberate vandalism. Zunaid©® 15:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless, RfC is probably the next step. You can't go to ArbCom without evidence of having tried to resolve the dispute, and RfC is a standard part of that. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• RFC strikes me as a waste of time. I don't think we need one to establish that vandalism is against policy and is frowned upon by the community. Nor do I see that the ArbCom is needed, this is a problem that can be resolved with the stadard response (i.e. blocking). Christopher Parham (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree and am ready to just block him at the next instance of vandalism or of silly incivilities, such as this from his user page. Sandstein 20:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I see he has archived your warning on the same day it was posted and he continues to wiki-lawyer in response to your post. Anyway, next time he vandalises I'll report him on WP:AIV. I agree with User:Guinnog (on NEMT's talk page archive 2), it is tiring and an unnecessary waste of time to have to police his edits. Cheers. Zunaid©® 06:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this belongs on the user name page or here, because it's a bit complicated. There is an open AfD now for John Vanderleest, an article that contained some attack text and a personal phone number until recently. The article was created by User:WikipediaSucs, who was blocked; shortly thereafter, User:John Vanderleest appeared and edited the article, removing a prod and otherwise leaving the attack text. Therefore, it seems unlikely that this user really is John Vanderleest, although s/his user page clearly claims so. Should something be done about this? --Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Constantly adding a POV-tag to Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945, where the consensus on talk page has agreed that the article title is OK. It seems to be hopeless to agree with those 3 users, since they fail to give any sources that Wikipedia could accept - and still find the article 'biassed'. Grafikm fr is unfortunately using name calling instead of replying or commenting his own actions [73], biting newcomers [74]. There probably wouldn't be any use of giving him a warning, since he removes notifications he doesn't like [75]. Perhaps admins can suggest something? Advocatus diaboli 08:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There has been a long discussion on the talk page, with a number of concerns raised and unfortunately none of them answered, although it's still in progress. And as per WP policies one cannot remove a POV tag until a reasonable consensus has been reached on the talk page.

User:Constanz, who incidentally, was blocked for a 3RR violation on this very page, has been removing this tag repeatedly, with numerous slandering and personal attacks going with it. He did not present a single argument, simply dismissing his opponent's arguments as "propaganda".

As for the IP, a newcomer using a perfect edit summary with "revert to version XXX" and so on? It sounds more like someone who forgot to logged in in the best case - and an evasion of some sort in the worst.

It must also be noted that User:Advocatus diaboli removes vandalism warnings from other people's talk pages [76] which is again forbidden and finally, that the message I removed was not a "notification" but a simple personal attack that one has every right to remove as per WP:RPA. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Radiant! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added three categories to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working in the deletion section even though the renaming had already been processed: [77], the result of which the three categories are now empty. This behaviour seems outrageous, and all help is welcome in undoing this act. Tim! 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to consider Radiant's comments here:

Per the CFD discussion above, these three were renamed from "actors" to "cast members", to exclude the many one-time guest actors and focus instead on the actual cast. However, 90% of the members of the cats are in fact those one-time guest actors. So it would be easiest to have a bot depopulate them, and repop them from the existing articles on the series.

In this context, I think it does make sense to empty the articles and restart them from scratch, making sure that only regular cast members are listed. The category for Murder She Wrote had over 500 articles in it; anyone who had ever appeared in even one segment in a single episode! That doesn't seem notable enough for categorization into a cast member category. --Cyde Weys 18:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

A bot can easily depopulate a category, but it cannot repopulate it with the required items. It should be left to editors to select the members of the category through normal editing. I had already pruned the X-Files category down but now it is empty. Tim! 18:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the X-Files stuff then, but for the other two categories, it's less work to empty them out automatically and just add in the ones that really need it than to remove it from the hundreds of pages that don't need it. It's not like cast lists for TV shows are hard to come by. Also, I don't think you should be labeling Radiant! a vandal, so I'm fixing the tag. --Cyde Weys 18:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I was taken aback at seeing Radiant! acused of "abusing" anything. -- Donald Albury 19:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hell yeah! I couldn't imagine myself using the word "abuse" and "Radiant!" in the same sentence. — Nearly Headless Nick 09:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I'll go and add myself to Category:Rouge admins now. This is a really problematic tendency of WIkipedia: far too many editors start screaming "OMG! Abuse! Vandlaism!!!1" whenever something doesn't go their way, and far too many editors believe that disputes are best resolved by vehemently attacking those who disagree with them. We are way too tolerant of both. >Radiant< 09:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we are too tolerant of the general lack of tolerance? :) I've edited the header again, because I think abuse is a bit strong too, made me jump out of my seat too. Hiding Talk 10:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same language is still in the deletion log: [78]. Tim!, not only should all admins use descriptive summaries for log entries, at the very least you should know that using log entries to attack another administrator you disagree with in such a way that the attack can never be removed is very poor behavior from an administrator trusted to exhibit good behavior in such matters. Dmcdevit·t 11:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I see Radiant! has totally ignored the substantive issue, that he "used badly or wrongly" the CFD process to empty categories. Tim!

You may want to consider the policy Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This allows us to circumvent procedural flaws when doing so aids us in building the encyclopedia. That addresses the substantive issue. Hiding Talk 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Are you alleging that Radiant! damaged Wikipedia, or are you just complaining that Radiant! did not follow your interpretation of what the process should be? A lot of us think that 'process' is subservient to 'doing the right thing' for Wikipedia. That's what ignoring all rules is about. If 'process' is getting in the way of improving Wikipedia, then do the right thing outside of 'process'. Of course, if enough contributors disagree that the action was for the good of Wikipedia, there will be consequences. But then, that can happen even when everything is done within process. 'Following process' and 'improving the encyclopedia' often overlap, but not always. -- Donald Albury 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IAR only applies to improving the encyclopedia, not massive deletion because he disagrees with the existence of certain categories and does not want to go through them to check the articles individually to see if they should be members or not. Other people are willing to do such tasks, and it was hardly so urgent that if they stayed there a few days the world will end. Tim! 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with your characterisation of Radiant's actions. I think Radiant acted in good faith. His actions in emptying the categories fall within the scope of being bold. I'm unclear where the massive deletion occurred, I'm now unclear what you believe the substantive issue is, and I'm unclear as to how this is a matter for consideration here. It now appears to be a content dispute. Your frustration perhaps stems from the fact that you have different opinions on how the end result should have been achieved. That happens on Wikipedia sometimes, I think it is inevitable on such a collaborative project with often contradictory guidances and practises where the goal of producing an encyclopedia of a neutral point of view is enshrined as the most important consideration. There are many different ways of dealing with such frustration, see the tips offered at meta. Also, have a look at the dispute resolution process. Anyway, I hope some of that helps, Hiding Talk 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) The actual text of WP:BOLD in Exceptions is:

• "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold in updating articles."
• "Although it is generally fine to be bold in updating articles, being bold in updating or creating categories and templates can often be a bad thing." and the text continues to explain the possible harm. DGG 19:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um, the outcome had been determined by a discussion so the exception doesn't apply. There was a consensus that a large number of articles were to be removed from the category, and Radiant was bold in his method of achieving the outcome, and the guideline is summed up as being "If in doubt, fix it." But I retract the link to the bold guideline. Frankly, I'm going to withdraw from this part of the discussion which is becoming utterly removed from the original point. Hiding Talk 20:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It could hardly decribed as "boldly updating articles" as Radiant! took not a single step to repopulate the articles or tell anyone what he did, or even mark that the categories using {{popcat}} or similar. He basically left the mess to be cleared up by others. Tim! 19:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, you're really clutching at straws here. First you call me a vandal, but it turns out that WP:VAND proves you wrong. Then you say I abused CFD, but that's also wrong since I used the CFD process for the outcome of a CFD debate. Then you accuse me of acting unilaterally, but that is wrong again since consensus was reached through discussion. And now you allege that I wouldn't have helped clean up, which is once more wrong, and I would have cleaned it up by now if there hadn't been a certain person demanding a response to a plethora of spurious accusations. Now do you have any other wild accusations or can we get back to doing something useful? >Radiant< 08:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's you who are wrong, you did not you did not use the Cfd bots to process the outcome of the CFD debate, you used it to empty out a category which had already been renamed. The result of the Cfd was to rename and that had already happened. If it was so urgent to clear the category using a bot, how comes it was not urgent to repopulate the category? That's a nice handy defence, btw, oh I would have got round to doing it... but now I'm upset so won't do it. Tim! 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• False, and more clutching at straws. The CfD outcome was to rename and prune. Neither the clearing nor the repopulation is or was urgent, and neither have I said so. We're not on a deadline here, you know. It's simply one of those tasks that can easily be automated. >Radiant< 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim! Why did you post here, and not ask Radiant! directly on his talk page what he was doing and why? I find Radiant! to be a pretty agreeable fellow, and he usually responds to questions on his talk page (though recently he's been ignoring mine). -- Samuel Wantman 09:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on Radiant!'s talk page but he just removed it without replying... infer from that what you will. Tim! 17:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that you posted that to his talk page only six or seven minutes before you accused him of 'abusing' CfD here. -- Donald Albury 22:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed (and just before posting similar accusations in the deletion log). >Radiant< 09:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tim! is reacting negatively to the deletion of some TV actor categories... hmm... why does this scenario sound vaguely fucking familiar? —freak() 10:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been spending roughly an hour a day since Christmas cleaning up after a prolific vandal who uses dozens of throwaway accounts. I've been documenting it here but there's a backlog on the page and I would really like my hour a day back - any chance of a block? Please? Vashti 12:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, this user has a confimed sockpuppet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits

It has been canvassing for a mediation discussion that User:Vintagekits is involved in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage), and commenting on this as well, as if it were a seperate user. Reading Wikipedia: sock puppetry, I see it states that:

"If an account has been shown to be a sock puppet used for policy violations, then it may be identified as such, by adding [SockpuppetProven] to the user page and [sockblock] to the talk page of the sock puppet account" (Wikipedia: sock puppetry)

I have added this to the sockpuppet (User:DownDaRoad), but can you confirm I did so correctly? Also, I attempted to add "Sockpuppeteerproven" to Vintagekit's user page in line with:

"The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with {{Sockpuppeteer}}. If the sockpuppeteer has at least one proven sockpuppet, tag the user page with {{Sockpuppeteerproven}} instead." (Wikipedia: sock puppetry)

Am I ok in doing this? Vintagekits has reverted my edits tagging this page, so he obviously disagrees with this. Thank you. Logoistic 22:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I was not canvassing from my alternate account - a NEUTRAL messege was sent to approximately 50 users - approx 50/50 with opposing views - the reason I sent it to them was to raise awareness of the mediation and to get others involved as it seemed that the same 4 editors were the only ones posting on the issue. the is a big idfference between a legit and illegit sockpuppet - you should know as you have now admitted to have over 5 of them. A little balance and perspective please--Vintagekits 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The tags on User:DownDaRoad have also been removed. Logoistic 22:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see this archived AN/I discussion about the puppetmaster tag. The puppetmaster tag is only used on an indef blocked account according to this case. Jefferson Anderson 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting case. Would not apply to User:DownDaRoad's page though (if it is confirmed that the tags I placed are correct), just User:Vintagekits' page. Surely these serve as warnings to other users. Of course it "brands" a user - just as warning messages should "brand" them in order to indicate that they have been warned of such things in the past, so should expect harsher action if they do anything else wrong in the future (as they should know better). This SHOULDN'T affect how the user operates, or how other users operate towards them, as editors should comment on content and not on (any perceived) character. Logoistic 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the sockpuppet. As far as I am concerned the sockpuppet was being used abusively outside of the alternate account policy. Whereas someone has to commit very major violations for their primary account to be be blocked indefinitely, it takes only a moderate level of abuse for the same treatment to be delivered to their alternate accounts. The only way I could've possibly let this slide was if the alternate account was clearly marked as such, but since the user has demonstrated his continued intent to deceive by trying to remove the tag, I have effectively removed the account, thus making any issue over the tag irrelevant. I would also encourage my fellow administrators to deal more strictly with alternate account abuse cases in the future, as there is no reason someone who is misusing them should be allowed to have any of them. --Cyde Weys 23:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but where do we stand on the issue of placing a "sockpuppeteer" tag on User:Vintagekits' page? Logoistic 23:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anymore; the sock is indefinitely blocked. In my experience it is very unproductive to try to force anything upon a user, whether it be on their userpage or on their talk page. As long as a user is not blocked he has free will to edit his userpages as he sees fit, so long as they are within the guidelines of WP:USER. --Cyde Weys 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okeydoke. Can I suggest that the guidlines at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry be adjusted, as this seems to oppose this view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Tagging_identified_sock_puppets

"The original or best-known account of a user that operates sock puppets may be tagged with Sockpuppeteer. If the sockpuppeteer has at least one proven sockpuppet, tag the user page with Sockpuppeteerproven instead."

Logoistic 23:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Cyde, I would like to protest about blocking of DownDaRoad - from that account a neutral messege to approximately 50 users - approx 50/50 with opposing views. The reason I sent it to them was to raise awareness of the mediation and to get others involved as it seemed that the same 4 editors were the only ones posting on the issue. I sent it from an alternate account because I did not want them be swayed by MY opinion on the issue and wanted them to see it through fresh eyes. As you can see from the messege I sent I did not try to sway or push any POV. I would really like to keep the DownDaRoad account and as you can see I used it in a legitimate manner. Where do I go from here?--Vintagekits 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Where we go from here is basically what you were doing before you made a sock: editing solely with Vintagekits. It's unacceptable to make a sock account to be used in canvassing operations. Why do you think you need multiple accounts? Just edit under your normal account. --Cyde Weys 01:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Cyde Weys, I mean where do I go to get the DownDaRoad account turned back on and my name cleared. I really think that I did use the alternate account in a legitimate manner. Of those the were sent the messege which was in a completely neutral tone and content was sent to equal numbers of those with opposing views and of those that were sent the messege voted both in favour AND against my POV. Again I would state that I sent the messege from another account so that the recipients wouldnt not be swayed by my opinion and see the issue from fresh eyes and bring something new to the debate. Finally, I would really like the DownDaRoad account turned back on so that I can have that account to do my edits on Irish sports and this account for Irish history and politics. Users was allowed keep his sockpuppets and had them deemed legitimate. I would just like to have the same treatment. I have over 2000 edits and have started over 50 pages and do not deserve to be treated like this and would like this black mark against my name removed. Regards--Vintagekits 12:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

As have I told you on several occasions now, I had "sockpuppets" because I could not access my old account due to me forgetting the password. I was editing from unregistered IP adresses whilst I sought to get access back. I have now created a new account as a result. This is why my "sockpuppets" (I still don't like using that name for what I was doing - sockpuppet implies I was pretending to be someone else) were legitimate, and I informed users on the mediation page who I was. Yet you continued to put 'suspected sockpuppet' tags on them, despite the fact I made it obvious in the mediation discussion. You, however, do not have such a reason for 'sockpuppets', and I question whether the users you asked were not likely to support your cause. Also, you edited the mediation page as if you were a seperate editor here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2006-12-02_IRA_%27Volunteer%27_usage&diff=98472436&oldid=98468028). You also edited other articles relating to your interests, including the Provisional Irish Republican Army here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army) (which Vintagekits also edits), Sinn Fein here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army), and The Troubles in Crossmaglen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Troubles_in_Crossmaglen&action=history). You had no reason not to perform these edits under your Vintagekits account. Logoistic 14:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I accepted that you had those sockpuppets in good faith but only bad faith is assumed on my behalf!??! I did not continue to put sockpuppet tags on your pages - once it was explained and taken off I left it - again acting in good faith. As for the edit - they are hardly cross edits or sockpuppetry to add a wikilink! Finally the single edit to the mediation cabal was a mistake as I explained I didnt realise I was logged in as DownDaRoad - and thankfully I did not give an opinion of anything. It is clear that I was not trying to sway the vote with the messege I left or the editors I sent it to. I just want that cleared up and the account reinstated. I had already put a tag on the DownDaRoad userpage to state it was a legit sock of mine (like Logistic did on his) and I would be happy for that to remain if/when the DownDaRoad user is reinstated--Vintagekits 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, both of you guys, enough arguing. It's not accomplishing anything. Vintagekits is limited to one account for now, so stop worrying about it. Can you tell me what exactly this dispute is about? Maybe I can help. But leave the accounts thing in the past. --Cyde Weys 00:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to post from one account only but would like that other account turned back on as I do not think I was trying to sway the vote - I have shown this, Also Logoistic is using the fact that you have banned the account against me in arguements to make a point.--Vintagekits 02:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that this user is continuing various edit wars on Irish related articles- therefore the sockpuppet tag should be re-instated as he could be using his other accounts to beat 3RR, or other vandalism activities. Astrotrain 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

See this link here and the talk page to see why this editor is upset.--Vintagekits 13:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place to report this situation. There’s been a dispute between four editors about the redirect of an article which had its contents moved to several other articles – the original article, now empty, had to be preserved for the 2 year old edit history.

• Result of AfD
• Redirection of Wizard (fantasy)
• Redirect discussion continued

One editor (User:Jc37) believed the redirect should go to a “lists” or “disambiguation” page, while the other three thought the article should be redirected to the main name article where the most relevant content was moved to.

In the middle of the dispute, the one editor (User:Jc37) took pre-emptive action to move the old redirect article under dispute to a new article, then created a new article with the old name.

He did this over the objections of one of the disputing editors, (User:Goldfritha) and during a holiday Wikibreak of another disputing editor (me!). This completely contrary to spirit of the AfD findings, the talk page discussion on the redirect, and bypasses the entire dispute resolution process.

The original article was Wizard (fantasy), which was moved to List of wizards in fantasy, which is one of the articles we asked that it not be redirected to! Then he created a brand-new Wizard (fantasy) article with no edit history [79].

I’d like to see User:Jc37 warned, so he doesn’t ignore the dispute resolution process again, and if possible have the changes he made reversed until we all come to a final decision.

Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 01:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There are misrepresentations of the truth in this post (which I note you've cross-posted elsewhere). Though in re-reading now, perhaps some are either typos, or an oversight on your part. I'll wait, and give you some time to fix the errors before responding. - jc37 10:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute to me. I can't see anything that needs the attention of people with administrator access. I suggest you follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration. My suggestion is that you take it to RFC if you need a neutral venue, setting up a subpage of the appropriate talk page to summarise either side, and linking to that from RFC. And looking at it, I think you should consider getting a mediator in as well. This looks like a content dispute, and needs to go through the dispute resolution process. It's regrettable that pages aren't where you would like to see them, but I think at this stage it is more beneficial to solve the dispute than deleting pages and moving everything back. I can't see anything which suggests Jc abused his admin tools, as opposed to moving pages which any editor can do, and I think if that's the case this isn't really a matter for the admins. We aren't referees and we don't decide instances where users may or may not have ignored policy. Note that there is a policy, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which allows us to ignore policy, but I'm not sure the problem is best served at this moment by sorting out the finger pointing. I think the best thing to do is work out where you would like to see content placed, and ask people to comment on that and build a consensus on where the content should be. I think mediation should be sought so that everyone feels their voice is heard, and I think after all that you can consider the other issues. But I think the most important issue is the content. It may be that once you get the content issue discussed, it will be easier to discuss and accept other issues. I hope that helps. Hiding Talk 16:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Hiding, the one thing I wanted an administrator to do was to reverse the merges and changes performed by jc37. I think this can only be done by an administrator. The other was to have an administrator give an official warning to jc37 so he doesn't ignore the dispute resolution process, which includes the mediation you recommend! Dreadlocke ☥ 17:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the merges and the like should be undone until a consensus is decided. Think of it as a page protected in the wrong version. It doesn't ultimately matter, what matters more is that the dispute is resolved and then we will know where to move stuff. Admin's don't really do warnings for failing to follow the dispute resolution process, that's a matter for arbitration. I suggest you ask if Jc will accept mediation, and if he is willing, find a mediator. If you can't agree to mediation, then you have to read through dispute resolution and see what the next step is. Hiding Talk 19:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that jc37 has clearly defied a consensus: the AfD was absolutely uniform in agreeing that "Wizard (fantasy)" had to be preserved to maintain the edit history. By relocating the old article to "List of wizards in fantasy" and creating a new, historyless "Wizard (fantasy)", jc37 has done an end-run about the delete consensus and gotten rid of the article's history. An editor could only find it if he knew where to look already.

The other merges and changes are a matter of content dispute, but that one -- furthermore, I don't see how it can be undone without admin intervention. Goldfritha 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's still a dispute, and it's still a content dispute. The issue is that the page history is located at a as opposed to b. The afd only ended in keep, this makes no binding decision on the location of a page. On numerous instances an afd can be closed as keep and then a day or a week later the information is merged or moved. No abuse of admin tools appears to have occurred here, it's a content dispute, use dispute resolution. I'd note that people were pointed to dispute resolution at the time of the afd. Maybe at some point the matter will be taken through that process. Forgive me, but per the note at the top of the page "Dispute resolution: This page is not part of our Dispute Resolution process." I hope that clarifies why this isn't a matter administrators can do anything about. I'd suggest both sides agree a truce, get a mediator in and take it from there. But this page isn't the place to sort the dispute out. Hiding Talk 13:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. It occurs to me, belatedly and I admit this shamefacedly, that maybe, if the issue is moving a page back, you should set up a requested move. The move is, I hope you will agree, controversial, but it looks to me the best way to solve the issue. The move you desire will be performed by an admin if there is a consensus for the move. Maybe that might help. Hiding Talk 13:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cplot has now taken to harassment on talk pages of users who were affected by collateral damage of his range blocks, such as User talk:Sadler@d50.org and User talk:Sdedeo. Can people help watch those and similar pages? Latest accounts: OtherwiseTheTouristsWin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), InSearchOfTheGreatJWails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TheGreatWhiteWails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Before seeing this notice I'd blocked his SaveTheWails (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AnAllVolunteerArmy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sockpuppets for the same thing. --CBD 12:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)