Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive200

125.164.161.204 and 125.164.161.33

It all began when I severely warned 125.164.161.204 earlier today for blanking text of Wikipedia articles and creating categories that do not exist usually over a category that does, which also constituted to removing a link or section of an article without any apparent reason. It took me quite a while to revert all of the unconstructive edits of 125.164.161.204 using popups. About half an hour ago, I noticed that 125.164.161.33 began doing almost the exact same mistakes as the former which lead me to believe that it was the same anon. IP user. Again, I had to take up about half an hour (maybe less) to revert almost the exact same edits as the first IP did. I wasn't exactly sure what to do afterwards, so the tagged the second IP as a possible sock of 125.164.161.204. Perhaps using CheckUser would be best here, but I'm so exhausted (and its 3 am in the morning in Florida now) I suggest an immediate one week block for each IP until I could get a CheckUser going first thing when I log on Wikipedia in the morning. I apologize for not showing any links of proof because if I were to do that now, I wouldn't finish in a long while. But, if you were to look at each one's contributions and compare them, you'll find that they're about exactly the same, here's 125.164.161.204 and 125.164.161.33. I hope this was enough evidence to get these anonymous IPs blocked for about a week or two, maybe two seems better here. Really, its not fun doing this reverting for half an hour. IP addresses shouldn't even edit the encyclopedia anymore (unless they create an account) since they're the ones that usually disrupt Wikipedia... Power level (Dragon Ball) 07:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser isn't required here, as all the relevant info is in IP addresses. I'd recommend a soft block (anon only) for the two IP addresses and any other address in the 125.164.161.* block involved in similar activity. Eli Falk 09:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

195.194.74.75 actively vandalizing

Is continuing to vandalize numerous pages, including the Featured Article Chasingsol 10:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 5h by El C. In future, use WP:AIV. Thanks for your help. yandman 10:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo blocked

Continued personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith and accusations of harassment and admin abuse have gotten RunedChozo blocked for 10 days. I suggest we lengthen it to indef. Opinions? -- Steel 20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that sockmaster notices should be forced onto a user's user page if they object - in the same way that if a warning is placed on their talk page, they are allowed to remove them. It's a form of scarlet-letter harassment. That being said, Chozo was being a jerk to Itaqallah (one of the more mild-mannered editors on Wikipedia) after coming back from numerous blocks for similar stuff, so I support an indef. - Merzbow 21:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold with the indefblock due to Chozo's actions on his talk page. -- Steel 21:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this discussion while looking at CAT:RFU. I have no qualms with an indefinite block (and I would have declined the unblock request had you not beaten me to it) as long as indefinite does not mean de facto permanent. In other words, if, at some point, this user expresses a commitment to civil behavior, I think that at that future time, an unblock should be be considered. --BigDT 21:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not care for the block one way or another. I just find it odd that part of their out burst was brought on by the "scarlet letter" that was being forced onto their page. They were not behaving perfectly, but above border, until that point. If the scarlet letter set them off, then they were prodded and it should be noted. Is there a set policy regarding sockpuppet notices or notices on pages of those who have been allowed to once again edit? Feel free to point out if I am missing anything as I mainly been reading happenings here. --NuclearZer0 21:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You've locked the userpage, the talkpage, you yourself (Steel) were one of the complained-about admins. This looks like YOU taking out some frustration on someone and deliberately trying to drive them into a reaction.

The fact that you (Steel) now went back and removed the unblock request, too? Shame on you.

BigDT, how is the user supposed to "come back" later and express a commitment to "civil behavior" when all he's received from the Wikipedia community is incivil behavior and scarlet letter harassment, and when the talk page any everything else are locked? Merzbow complains he was "being a jerk to Itaqallah" and claims Itaqallah is "one of the more mild-mannered" editors, which isn't the case; the two are obviously antagonistic toward each other and Itaqallah's been involved in any number of edit wars. RunedChozo at least kept it out of article space, leaving it to a not-unreasonable demand that Itaqallah promise not to edit war on the page. I'll make a note that rather than simply saying "sure, I promise not to edit war", Itaqallah took it on himself to say some mean things about RunedChozo.

Nuclear, it's obvious this was a campaign to attack RunedChozo - for speaking up here against The Epopt (arbcom/cabal member), for speaking up on the slashdotted Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_failing's talk page. This thing stinks like yesterday's fish catch. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.7.35.200 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

• note: refer to 129.7.35.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is a confirmed sock of RunedChozo as shown by checkuser Dmcdevit (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo). ITAQALLAH 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused reading all this, I've only seen RunedChozo's edits on the PSP page and I thought they were fine. Why would you go around trying to piss someone off? PSPMario 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A little worried here. Not only did we not investigate User:RunedChozo's complaint fully, we incriminated him before this happened. Isn't it a legitimate complaint if someone complains about me telling them to stop spamming them on their talk page? If I didn't spam, I have nothing to worry about; and if I did, then why raise it here and risk incriminating myself?

The indef block is a different matter - but I was kind of hoping that when a user raises a complaint, he doesn't get blocked for it.  :-/

I don't want to cause any problems, but... I am kind of worried. x42bn6 Talk 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't blocked for raising a complaint. He was blocked for personal attacks and grossly uncivil behavior. He was, by far, a net negative to the project and a lengthy block was fully justified. ChazBeckett 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not directly - but indirectly. He rose a complaint and instead of his complaint being looked at, he was blocked for something slightly unrelated. x42bn6 Talk 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment, I looked back on this and it looks like someone's deleting comments from this discussion, that's not right. It looks like you all were being just as incivil towards runedchozo.PSPMario 13:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Spam link, possibly to child porn

Just a heads-up - I just found a spam link (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny&diff=prev&oldid=107067679) added to the disambig page at Jenny, with a misleading edit summary. The target includes a few porn links, but I got the impression from the text it was child porn. That IP only made that one edit, but it's possible that the link was added elsewhere under other IPs. |Mr. Darcy talk 22:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No child porn fortunately (yes, I looked). I trust the IP is blocked and the domain added to the link blacklist? --Edokter (Talk) 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block the IP, since the edit was made four days ago. I have to admit I don't know where the blacklist lives. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

m:Talk:Spam blacklist x42bn6 Talk 23:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so anyone can report. Shouldn't there be a link in the help pages somewhere? --Edokter (Talk) 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned (at Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming with bots) but under a bot-only heading. Also, the blacklist is for spammed links only - it doesn't censor things that are illegal (in fact, I think the Foundation may be able to get into trouble if they put, say, a child pornography link into the blacklist because, ironically, it makes it available to the public). Such things are probably best Oversighted. x42bn6 Talk 11:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought - say "8teen" out loud. 8teen. eight-teen. eighteen. 18. while this is clearly linkspam, the suspicion that it's child porn seems unfounded. --Random832(tc) 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because porn links are always logical? I saw "teen" and figured it wasn't worth the chance. Even viewing those images may be illegal in the U.S., and I was on a work computer when I saw the link. No reason to take that risk, and I think that from Wikipedia's perspective, it doesn't matter if it's child porn or adult porn - we're not going to link to it. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban evasion by starwars1955

Per this discussion, user UCLA2007 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet continuing to make edits - please block. Thanks, PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

INDEF'D! Oh, and if anyone had doubts about his ban, this edit should help you sleep at night. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

PSUMark just suggested on my talk page that we look at an IP range block. I haven't done one of those before, so I thought I should post it here to see if anyone had suggestions on duration. Starwars1955 appears to have always edited from IPs in the 4.245.120/121.x range. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would obviously support such a ban, if it also prevented those IPs from creating accounts. –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, over the past two months Starwars1955 has been associated with edits from the following IP addresses and probably more:

Those are just the addresses that have edited Brett Favre and WP:CN - I'd wager that additional IPs from that range have also been responsible for removing comments and discussion over this issue on the talk pages of the user's various identities. I'll provide specific diffs if necessary, but I think a very quick glance at the contribs will be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Would a six-month to a year block on these IP addresses work? A lengthy ban like that might work to end the sockpuppeting. Acalamari 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those IPs have been used more than once, and I wouldn't be surprised if they've used dozens of other similar IPs while logged in under their multiple personalities. If you're talking about a range block of 4.245.120.* and 4.245.121.*, then I think that length of a block would be sufficient. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PSUMark2006's analysis of the IP addresses is correct. Oh, and MrDarcy - that incest edit gave me a chuckle. Thanks. =) –King Bee ^{(T • C)} 00:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for completeness, I added/sorted some additional IPs from that range that had edited talk pages of the socks. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 00:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

My question here is whether any other user has edited from an address in the 4.245.120-121.* range, to make sure we're not trapping innocent users. Also, I wouldn't start with a six-month block - I think that's a very long time to block an IP range, even if it's only 512 addresses. Maybe we can start with a month or so (if that's acceptable for a range-block) and see what happens. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to differ: Starwars1955 has caused so many problems, especially for you, King Bee, and Aviper2k7. Not only that, but he has created more sockpuppets than any other user I've encountered. He has used multiple personal attacks, and blanked his talk page several times. He has evaded his ban, and continued to vandalize and attack. A six-month block would ensure this doesn't happen for that length of time. After the block, we'll see what happens then. Acalamari 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Throwing in my 2cents here, being a nuetral editor and looking at all the evidence, i think a 6month block is needed. If not this user will continue to vandalize pages and cause many editors much stress. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for a rangeblock on 4.245.120.0/24 and 4.245.121.0/24. To find out if it is safe to block these ranges, post the question in the IP Check section of WP:RFCU. Thatcher131 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just going to suggest that. It is a Level3 IP range and possibly there are non-Favre obsessed fans out there who may possibly be editing, but if not I would say a 3-6 month range block isn't out of the question based on this guy's behavior and the fact that I've noticed him employing some more "advanced" trolling techniques lately. Time to nip this in the bud if we can.--Isotope23 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a request for IP check here. My first one, so let me know if I did anything wrong. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at it. May as well consider 4.245.122.0/24 also. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If the registered users are showing up under that range, I'd be in favor of that. We didn't discuss it previously because none of the user's anon edits came within that range. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser request is complete. jpgordon identified 25 other usernames that are likely socks (because they are variations on multiple editors including myself, aviper, acalamari, and isotope). Recommend rangeblocking 4.245.120.0/24, 4.245.121.0/24, and 4.245.122.0/24. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All three range-blocks enacted. That is some list of socks. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Aren't you wishing you had your very own starwars1955 sockpuppet imitator? :-) Thanks for your help in getting that block in place. Hopefully it'll do some good. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked both 4.425.120.0/24 and 4.425.121.0/24 for on-top contribs, and few minutes ago, and found only these: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. Looks like these ranges are currently used by -- at most -- two people. Some of these edits to comics-related pages stand out from the rest, but I'm not familiar enough with the user in question to know for sure whether those are made by the same person. Whatever the case, it doesn't seem like there will be very much (if any) collateral damage involved in a range block. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that only a checkuser can determine if there are any other legit registered users in that range. For example, there are no IP posts from my current address. Jp seems to be good with the rangeblocks, though. Thatcher131 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:HAR serious issue: Gene Poole and Gardener of Geda (again)

Please see here for evidence. Despite recent warnings, Gardener of Geda is still supporting Gene Poole's misbehaviour, terms used by both users include: "idiot" "He sounds paranoid" "nutter" "the guy obviously needs medical attention" "Medical attention indeed; I'm thinking a retrospective abortion" "hysteria" "COI noticeboard nonsense" "He's probably never been paid so much attention in his life". The problem is not, 'can the dispute be resolved?', but, 'can these editors be persuaded to behave appropriately?'.Dr. Who 14:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:216.135.28.176 "scouting" users to come to another wiki

216.135.28.176 (talk · contribs) (see contributions) has put 4 messages on 4 user talk pages, usually to people who have been subject to warnings or people who disagree with some of Wikipedia's principles or guidelines. They all link to what I suppose is his own wiki. Is this appropriate? x42bn6 Talk 12:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He's spamming, but it is inconsequential.--Doc^g 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

A specific editor has been insisting on inserting original research "conspiracy theory" type information to Fox News Channel. He has been told several times by several editors why this information is not appropriate for inclusion, however he has repeatedly inserted it (ignoring 3RR). Can we get a temp block? Thanks.

• Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Benjiwolf (talk · contribs)

/Blaxthos 13:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

CroDome

Can someone please deal with CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an aggresive pusher of The Truth™? Being a Serb Genocidal admin ostensibly involved in an edit dispute, I'm reluctant pressing the buttons myself. Duja► 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dora the Explorer

This page is being vandalized by anonymous editors nearly every day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=108239930&oldid=108230632

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108230527

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108221309

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108137401

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dora_the_Explorer&diff=prev&oldid=108112857

I'd like to recommend that the page is blocked from edits from anonymous editors. Thanks! Steve8675309 14:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Semi'ed for a week. Please make such requests on WP:RFPP in the future. >Radiant< 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Cia123454321

I would like to request a review of my indefinite block of Cia123454321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). That account belongs to RexJudicata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) aka Agwiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and his IP address seem to be 67.191.71.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). His original accounts were indefinitely blocked for off-wiki death threats against SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), after being blocked by Linuxbeak for 1 month for "Legal threats, disruption, impersonation, sockpuppet activity, POV pushing, user-baiting, etc.". --cesarb 15:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - how do you know that it's the same user? Even so, I don't see any evidence he's here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and his tone ranges from strident to threatening. The block looks OK to me; I'm just curious whether you had a checkuser or something along those lines. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He created again the article about himself, and edited the closed VfD on it (the things he says on that edit also show it's him). The edit patterns tell the rest of the history. --cesarb 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry at Jung Myung Seok

Following at request for third opinion that was taken by Cyrus XIII, two new editors, User:HJen and User:SteelFeather and registered and began to support the position of User:QCA. HJen has two posts to date, the first to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection asking that page protection on Jung Myung Seok be removed - a rather amazing first post for a brand new user. HJen's second posting was to Talk:Jung Myung Seok, as have been all four of SteelFeather's four postings to date.

Cyrus XIII's comment at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Jung Myung Seok in response to HJen's request that page protection be removed was:

Given that the HJen account has only been used for this unprotection request and to provide another (apparently never requested) "third opinion", I'd rather suggest to compare the IPs of QCA and HJen to rule out sock puppetry.- Cyrus XIII 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

He also mentioned sock puppetry in this edit, and noted that the QCA account is a SPA, editing only this article and its talk page.

QCA has denied that he is HJen. The two are, at minimal, clearly connected - in his/her second edit, in the edit summary, HJen said As Requested By QCA. Moreover, in that edit, HJen said With that being said, I have read the before and after edits that QCA has made. - again, remarkable that a new user understands diffs.

I request admin review of these two new accounts, including checkuser if necessary. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't my request taken care of?

According to this, only one person commented on the anon IPs and neither one was blocked by an administrator. I request that these two IP users be blocked for 1-2 weeks immediately since they were damaging the encyclopedia! Block also the ones in the same block as 125.etc. Please block them NOW! Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

HELLO?!!!!!! THEY"RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOCK THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's User:125.164.161.204, User:125.164.161.33, and any others that are identical to them that need a soft block NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If they have hit level 4 warnings, then you get faster responses at WP:AIV. x42bn6 Talk 17:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know. a long term block of User:125.164.161.33 would probably be a bad idea. There are many good edits from this ip, including some categorizations and sub-categorizations. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

BOTH IPS ARE BEING DENSE AND ARE REMOVING CONTENT FROM THE ARTICLES, SUCH AS PLACING A CATEGORY THAT DOESN'T EXISTS OVER A CATEGORY THAT DOES. THEY ARE CLEARLY COPYING EACH OTHER;S ACTIONS AND ARE RUINING MORE THINGS THEN THEY ARE FIXING, BLOCK THEM NOW!!!!! I HAD ENOUGH OF THESE EXCUSES!!!! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The person even made a Category:Dragon Ball villains for some of the characters for no reason when there is Category:Dragon Ball characters. I mean, c'mon!, can't you see it? Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE BLOCK THEM AND ANY OTHER IDENTICAL ONE'S IN THE SAME BLOCK. Thank you. Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

←I am going to highley reccomend that you calm down a little. They will do no damage that cannot be reversed. I have not seen any horribly blatant acts of vandalism. I will peruse them again but i saw several good edits that would make me uncomfterable with a long term block. I am going to highley reccomend that you stop "screaming in caps" for somebody to do something. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I cant really block them. They have several good contributions (i am assuming it is a shared ip). And neither of the above lsited IP's has edited in the past 10 hours. I will not enforce a punitive block, and the so called vandalism is not currently on going. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and might I add that showing up at WP:AN/I demanding that someone else be blocked for everal weeks in all caps doesn't really incline anyone to act here. WP:COOL down.--Isotope23 17:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Young Adult Fiction

Nearly the entire article was deleted and replaced with some stupid statement. Anyway to revert back to a former version or does it need to be written again? User:Million Moments

Someone reverted it and I left a message on your (logged in) user talk page explaining how to revert. —Dgies^t c 17:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by "The Epopt"

I put my userpage up for deletion yesterday, just like I had asked for its deletion previously.

Instead, "The Epopt" came and deliberately put an insulting harassment sign that another user had been using to harass me, then left a lying message about me.

I protest this harassment and request that my page be put back the way I like it, I need no "user page", my talk page is perfectly fine as is. I have stayed out of wikipedia longer than the block was in place and despite being harassed by a bad faith user earlier I am working hard to help within the bounds of the rules. RunedChozo 16:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

RunedChozo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a lengthy block record for a pattern of incivility, edit warring, and block evasion.

The 'harassment' sign that RunedChozo is complaining about is a notice that he has operated sockpuppets. While I don't think we should be using these banners as a 'scarlet letter' for editors who haven't gotten themselves permanently banned, RunedChozo is certainly not the aggrieved innocent that he's painting himself as here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Look. I stayed out long past the bad faith and unsupported by the rules "block" that was placed in bad faith on my account. I've put up with lies and harassment behavior, and no I've never used "sockpuppets" despite what the liars say. I want one thing, to make this a better encyclopedia. You can look at my contributions since my return, I'm staying in the rules and have every intention of doing so. But if you want to call me names, fine. Go ahead. I really can't stop you. That seems to be what wikipedia is for to you people, beating up on anyone who comes in good faith to make a better encyclopedia so you can feel powerful.RunedChozo 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In what way are your actions, such as here and here making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? ChazBeckett 17:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I was mad at being harassed and insulted. I sent emails. I don't know what "spams" these two are talking about, because the only emails I ever sent were to the wikipedia mailing list. As for the "block log", that's a joke of how the wikipedia system is messed up, a bunch of Muslim POV writers have admin rights and decided to harass me, and Asterion near as I can tell was a friend of someone else who wanted to get me. I'm not going near any of them, and I've already served warning to some of the writers on a page that's nothing but propaganda that I'll be suggesting corrections but I want their promise first that they won't make an edit war again like they did last time. If they won't make that promise, I won't bother with anything other than keeping the disputed and unencyclopedic tags on that page, because that is what it is, completely disputed and unencyclopedic. I have NO desire, repeat NO DESIRE WHATSOEVER, to get into a major conflict with anyone, because I've already seen how the administrators here will just use that as a tool to beat someone up for their own sick amusement. RunedChozo 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself. -- Steel 17:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Steel has now placed the insult back on my user page and locked the page down. I protest this harassment. This has no basis except to insult and harass me. RunedChozo 17:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: It does seem rather bad to say such a thing on a talk page. I could go to a random user and accuse them of spamming me - and this would cause ire. On the other hand, RunedChozo, chill...

Since User:Timwi has not released his email on his userpage, it has possibly been sent through Special:Emailuser (but would it be legal to check?). x42bn6 Talk 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The email was not sent through the emailuser thing. The only emails I have sent were through the wikipedia mailing list. I still protest the obvious harassment behavior from "The Epopt" that Steel has now done as well. RunedChozo 17:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then cool it. If you are being wrongly harassed, this page is the correct place to raise it. But until then, take a deep breath. It doesn't make your case any stronger by blowing a fuse. x42bn6 Talk 17:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

When I report it and the first thing back is more harassment, and the second thing back is more harassment from someone I'm now sure is one of Epopt's friends, what else am I supposed to think? Regardless, I'm going to stay within the rules, even if Epopt and Steel feel like breaking them and harassing me. RunedChozo 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you got blocked, it's because you did a bad thing. Abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks are usually considered bad things. Rather than wasting space here at ANI I courteously recommend amending your behaviour so that it becomes amenable to the community. In this manner, you will not be blocked again. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used sockpuppets, those are vicious lies. As for "Personal attacks", equal things were said to me, but I'm the only one they went after because they get off on beating people up. I'm already amending what I can, I'm editing in good faith as before but I refuse to get into any more disputes on any content page and am keeping to that. You can look at my edits after my return and see for yourself. RunedChozo 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• please do look at his contribs since he returned, as i believe he has been behaving in a rather disruptive manner. ITAQALLAH 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, demanding that you promise not to edit war before I participate in an article is SOOOO disruptive... gee, is there a reason you refuse to promise to FOLLOW THE RULES? Gee I wonder. RunedChozo 17:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's an exercise: Take a look at what you've written in this section. Assume that someone is completely unaware of any of your actions outside of this page. Do you think what you've written reflects well on you? Do you believe that you're likely to persuade others? Have you conducted yourself in a civil and courteous manner? ChazBeckett 17:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this shows me pretty much why I'm being beat up so much, they all want to suck up to a powerful jerk who gets his rocks off harassing people. RunedChozo 17:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is imperitive that everyone read the above presented diff and consider what utility it provided the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Still following me, thought I got rid of that homing tracker by now? Damn you batman!!! --NuclearZer0 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm done for now. I've nominated a terrible article for deletion as per policy, and that's that. I'm taking a break as was suggested. RunedChozo 18:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't look like you're done at all. you've simply resumed your uncivil remarks again ([12][13]). ITAQALLAH 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I had my lunch. Back off. You're the one who is openly refusing a simple request that you promise to follow the rules. I wonder why you might refuse such a simple request? Are you opposed to following the rules? Do you, like last time, feel that you and your Guild are above the rules because you have admins as members? I wonder why it is that you cannot simply promise to follow the rules, as I have done. RunedChozo 19:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

you are demanding other editors to make "promises" to you that they won't violate policy, else you won't co-operate with them. that is tragically ironic, and as such i see little value in making any 'promises' to you. you have already broken your 'promise' to abide by wikipedia policy, several times already, yet demand that other editors play along in this charade. if you cannot edit without issuing ultimatums to other editors, you may wish to reconsider your role here. ITAQALLAH 19:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I have already promised to follow the rules. If you are not willing to do the same, since you started edit wars in the past, then I am unwilling to work with you, because all you are showing is your intent to cause an edit war, something I am unwilling to be involved in. I am stating this as fact, because I am not going to give you any chance to start some big problem, much though I know you want to do so. You want to lie and claim I broke the rules? Be my guest. RunedChozo 19:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

page move and other vandalism - not sure what to do

Over at Anthrax, a user has been vandalizing, then moved the page, and has been vandalizing some more. I'm not really sure how to fix this - can I just move it back and then revert? Natalie 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have taken care of it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of figured someone would have. What do you have to do to fix this sort of thing? Natalie 19:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Being somebody recreated the page after the move (without the history), i had to delete the re-incarnation and remove the old one back to the new one. I also had to revert the specific vandalism. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Jun Choi

A few IP's, notably 63.211.67.127[14], have been vandalizing the Jun Choi article by repeatedly reverting to a version with slanted, politically motivated information filled with POV, OR, and unreferenced facts. I had reported this earlier at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Protection from anon users at Jun_Choi but I was told there wasn't enough reason to implement partial locking, but the vandalism has picked up... there have been 4 or 5 edits by anonymous users reinserting slanted information in the last day. Jolb 19:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a second user who's vandalizing in the opposite direction, taking away balanced, referenced information in favor of Jun Choi, with the IP 69.115.147.56 [15] Jolb 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief ...

CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was a troll I had a good deal of trouble with a few days ago - with an attack userpage etc. He got into an "argument", which I, well, won, and then took it into his head to nominate Kubura (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for adminship. He badgered Kubura into accepting the nom statement by saying this (please note he hates Serbs, see [16], for example). I was about to speedy close the RfA before realizing that would not be the most tactful thing to do. Yuser31415 20:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've offered User:Kubura a deletion of the RfA since he has refused the nom an apparently had no participation in this whatsoever.--Isotope23 20:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am proposing to community ban CroDome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for blatant POV-warring, disruptive RfA creation, attempting to force users to accept his RfA by saying that otherwise they will be "Serbs", ... etc. The list goes on. Yuser31415 20:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the background here to really comment on that, but I'd suggest posting a proposal over on WP:CN along with evidence diffs.--Isotope23 20:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, proposed on WP:CN. Yuser31415 20:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is here for the wrong reasons. Wikipedia does not need more disruption in an already controversial range of subjects. I find very difficult to assume good faith in this case. Not sure though whether a community ban is premature but I will also keep a close eye. --Asterion^talk 22:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for block of blatant sock

Planetary Chaos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a blatant sock of indef blocked Piratesofsml (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and has been edit warring on some manual of style issues, using IPs to circumvent the 3RR. Checkuser was declined as unnecessary given the evidence. I'd rather not do the blocking myself because of my history with the editor. I had been waiting until someone gets around to closing the case on SSP, but the editor has now taken to vandalizing from one of the IP addresses named in the report, reverting the vandalism with the account, and citing those edits as evidence that he is unrelated to the IPs, claiming to have run across the vandalism while on rc patrol. Friar Will tells me otherwise. -- Vary | Talk 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The content of article Dingity had been mostly deleted by 207.233.122.189

The content was deleted with insulting comment, and the irrelevant material added. Please revert the content. I wrote to the talk of 207.233.122.189 to stop vandalism. I wanted to restore it myself, but didn't know how. Abuhar 21:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

See Help:Reverting. —Centrx→talk • 22:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's taken care of, and I left a message on the original poster's page. Jeffpw 22:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Child with personal info posted

Jacob valliere (talk · contribs) presumably his real name is indentifying himself as 9-year old.--BirgitteSB 22:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked apparently for posting WP:NFT stuff. I've removed the year of birth from his userpage for the time being. Sandstein 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Several "hoax" AFDs

Quibbvlw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mariegisellerafferty1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Carlawhitnash1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) nominated famous books for deletion as hoaxes. I closed them as speedy keeps. They should probably be blocked to prevent the creation of more sockpuppets. --NE2 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Done Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need a reversion with personal info deleted.

I never manage to do reversion deletion correctly, so if someone else would do it I'd appreciate it. Need this this dif deleted. JoshuaZ 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've pushed that revision out of the way for now. request for oversight gives the details on contacting users with oversight privileges to delete these out of history in the clean way. --pgk 23:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think oversight is necessary. That should be enough thanks. JoshuaZ 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

3 sockpuppets

Here are three users i suspect of being sockpuppets but i am not sure who:

• User:Elainegmarshall1978
• User:Mariegisellerafferty1
• User:Quibbvlw

The reason i suspect them is that they have placed deletion tags for no apparent reason, some the same, and all within minutes of each other.

For evidence:

• here
• here
• here
• and here

The above are just examples. The results of the AfDs were "speedy keep - not a hoax" and "speedy keep - bad-faith nomination". Simply south 23:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCU ..................... Yuser31415 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)l

In the meantime I indefblocked all of them. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - personal attacks and incivility

Can an admin please look at WikiTony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's received two warnings regarding civility and personal attacks, but has responded with more incivility and personal attacks. Please take a look and warn/block. I also do not appreciate his dictating me to stay away from Portal:Current events. Major WP:OWN problem he has, and he needs to learn it or be shown the door imo, especially with such a hostile attitude. – Chacor 10:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my supposed "personal attack" on him? Telling him to read WP:OWN. If that was a personal attack far too many people would be blocked presently. – Chacor 09:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him to be nice. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at his (rather uncivil) "olive branch": "i just suggested you learn how to properly write a current events blurb (including proper grammar)", "If you want to see how current events "should" be written, explore my contribs", and best of all "If you have any further problems with me please approach me directly so we can handle it like mature adults (if you are one)."

I see no reason why after being told to be civil he veils it in an "apology". Can someone please do the necessary? – Chacor 01:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, please look at his further uncivil comments to Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and Capitalistroadster. Seriously, should we be condoning this? – Chacor 01:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• As an aside/FYI - he blanked his talk page after Sir Nick's warning. – Chacor 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Another selective blanking. Can an admin please have a look? – Chacor 06:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been made aware that Teke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked one weekthree days. – Chacor 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

*Keeping section artificially alive for an unblock-en-l request. – Chacor 01:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I protest the closing of this discussion

None of the questions of the admin behavior here, or what actually happened, have been answered. I posted my concern yesterday nd yet someone comes along and closes the discussion with no answers? This is not proper. PSPMario 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel

Wondering what to do about this editor: he seems to be behaving unacceptably. He keeps making bad-faith accusations of vandalism, personal attacks, and harassment, which he claims to come from experienced editors.

Bad-faith: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Incivility and lack of calm: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

And that is all from the last 5 days. Nor is it all of it.

He also has a history of incivility, POV and attitude problems: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]

I would note that this editor has been registered since last May, and has a consistent and predominant range of edits which are of the same style as those above.

I admit freely that I, and a number of other editors are in content dispute with him on the discussion page for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That is not the issue here. If that particular issue can be solved by talking, it will be, and if it can't, more appropriate action (e.g. mediation) will be taken. I certainly don't want to prevent de Fanel from contributing there (although he wants to prevent others from editing, having threatened to prolong the edit-lock for the next five months [56]). But his attitude makes him impossible to work with, and is profoundly unhelpful to wikipedia. I want an admin to take notice, and to persuade him - either with words or actions - to behave appropriately. No more than that. I don't care if he sticks around. But his attitude and behaviour are intolerable. Michaelsanders 12:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution? PeaceNT 12:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The above link takes me to the reference desk - do you mean WP:DR? Michaelsanders 12:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, it was merely a typo ;) PeaceNT 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be appropriate - he's been making accusations against a number of editors, and the main issue is his behaviour and attitude, rather than the content dispute. The problem is not, 'can the dispute be resolved?', but, 'can this editor be persuaded to behave appropriately?'. Michaelsanders 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As I have said earlier to Michaelsanders himself, I have nothing against him, I don't want him to be warned or anything, and I'm not upset because content disputes on a HP article. However I will not let him spread lies about me. So I'm going to rectify every insidious lies he has written here, and for the last time, ask him to leave me alone. Because, my dear Michaelsanders, your current behavior will never make me leave Wikipedia, or force me to adopt your point of view about the content dispute (no, you do not force others to agree to your opinion. Either you convince them, or you fail, and if you fail, just stop, otherwise you're going to create a lot of problems of which you'll be the only one responsible).

First lie: bad faith accusations

If you look to my talk page history in its globality (and not only the little bits Michaelsander has shown), you will all be able to notice that I merely removed from my own talk page, comments that I found inappropriate or undue.

Just to be clear, as per Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism , "on a user's own talk page this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion".

That's merely what I did, I "removed comments at my own discretion".

However, Michaelsanders has shown a certain insistence in reinstating comments from him and from other users on my talk page, threatening me of being banned from Wikipedia if I removed them, in an extremely authoritative tone, certainly not appropriate for a mere user without any administration right ("Revert - read the rules. That is not vandalism, and your talk page is wikipedia space, which you hold only by submission to the rules. Obey them, or leave")

He has reverted my talk page 12, 3, ignoring me when I told him about the "at the user's own discretion" principle.

That there was bad faith from his part makes no doubt. When I finally warned him for what I concidered Talk page vandalism, he just started going mad with his "bad faith assumption" thing, will I was merely warning him for his violation of the rules (and of my rights to manage my talk page as I want).

I have not assumed any "bad faith", his behavior was just obvious, and I just tried to make my opinion clear to him (because after 3 reverts he still wouldn't let me remove comments from my talk page at my own discretion).

Second lie: Incivility and lack of calm

Well, no need to explain anything here. his claims are perfectly ridiculous, and he is nitpicking over everything I said just to try to harm me.

There is absolutely no incivility in my speech, or lack or calm.

Third lie: history of incivility, POV and attitude problems

I have had no history of incivility, POV and attitude problems.

Perhaps Michaelsanders would like to be reminded of his own attitude problems, when he was involved in an edit-war and POV dispute ? Or that he was accused of not being willing to let other users alone - a form of harassment ?? Which leads us to something interesting, as Michealsanders has been blocked twice for violation of 3RR and edit warring. I can also mention several examples of incivility of which I was the victim ("self-righteous and conceited", "pathetically juvenile" and "behaving like an ape dancing in a judges robes")

Fourth lie: me, wanting to prevent others from editing, having threatened to prolong the edit-lock for the next five months

One can only wonder where he could have seen that.

Obviously Michaelsanders doesn't know what the word "threat" means. As I have noticed earlier, he is merely screaming on everything I would say, and distorting the meaning of my words in order to be harmful towards me.

What I have originally written is pretty clear: "There is no possible consensus. I think it's best for the article to stay blocked for the remaining 5 months. In this way we won't have any edit wars, we won't argue for weeks about which speculations should be added, etc. We will wait for the book to be published, and finally we will reach the perfect consensus since we'll have all the answers we're waiting for, there'll be no need for speculations and no disputes about it. Currently we have nothing more to add to the article, and actually, we won't have much until the book is published (except perhaps an extract from the book, later on, or the covers). So it's better to wait the book, which will end any debate about those speculations. It can be avoided if we can find a consensus, but as I see it, it's not possible. We're only repeating the same things all over again. Folken de Fanel 16:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC) "

Again, where does he sees threats or anything ?

Fifth lie: "But my attitude makes me impossible to work with"

Well, that he hates me because I don't have the same opinion as me is one thing. That he utterly failed to convince me and 7 other editors of the relevance of his point of view in yet another thing.

But saying "it's impossible to work with me" is an all-together different thing. Wouldn't it me more realistic that it's impossible to work with Michaelsanders ?

The thing is, Michaelsanders seems to regard any divergence of opinion as a crime and a sin. He failed to convince me and others, and seeing this, to avenge himself, he has resorted to a personal crusade against me, first attempting to vandalise my talk page, and then tracking me down everywhere on Wikipedia, using every occasions to spread lies about me and to say to the world that i am the devil ( and he has already shown an obsessive behavior when involved in a POV dispute, as proven by his 2 blockings for 3RR)...

He wants "an admin to take notice, and to persuade him - either with words or actions - to behave appropriately". However, as I have undisputably proven, the one how has behavior problems is really Michaelsanders and not me, and the only problem that Michaelsanders has with me, is in fact that I don't agree with him in an opinion debate about the content of a Harry Potter article.

Which means that he "wants an admin to persuade me, either with words or actions, to agree to his opinion".

Really, where does he think he is going with this...

However, I'm really wondering if Michaelsander could be persuaded to leave me alone...because actually, he is the only one stirring things up, making false accusations on this notice board and all...He is really drawing unnecessary attention on him, and his attitude can only prolong any dispute that exist between him and me.

I have asked him several times to let me alone, and just not to talk to me anymore, however he has proven to be really insistent in NOT letting things calm down by themselves, and in challenging me perpetually...Folken de Fanel 01:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Covering tracks

I notice that a person I was in conflict with some time ago - a person with an academic career, by the way - is now going to extraordinary lengths to cover his tracks, hiding some very intemperate remarks that he made. I will refrain from mentioning his name, but I question the ethics of these "concealing" edits. As one of the parties involved in the (past) dispute, I am mentioning the matter here, and suggesting that someone may want either to revert, or to make some indication on these talk pages that considerable matter has been cut. Please note that I am avoiding linking the material that is liable to reveal his identity: that is, I am not linking to where a username was related to his actual name.

• [57]: Throwaway account changes a name (which was already changed from his own name) to something else unrelated.
• [58]: Another throwaway account then removes massive material without archiving.
• [59]: Similarly, on another (related) article, after his original name had earlier been changed to something innocuous, a throwaway account now removes massive material without archiving.

There are two reasons I have a particular problem with this (beyond general principles):

• Several remarks of mine were removed in the process
• Other remarks of mine are left hanging, so that my annoyed but temperate response to his vituperation now appears to be directed at other people.

- Jmabel | Talk 06:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? Yuser31415 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the editor is leaving Wikipedia. If so perhaps no action is needed. -Will Beback · † · 12:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I do have issues with them removing their own statements (at least without context). They can of course exercise their RTV and remove their user pages, rename their accounts, and retroactively go back and reattribute their comments, but to my knowledge they're not allowed to remove them outright. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviving this discussion

Reviving this discussion, which was archived.

If you examine the edits linked above, he's not even just removing his own remarks (nor is he marking the pages to show that anything is removed). He is also removing mine and others'.

I am reviving this discussion because I now see that he also, as Usrdltd (talk · contribs) removed someone else's comments about him - and, again, he had earlier changed his name here, so that was already long since covered - on one of my archive pages. Unlike the other cases, I have reverted this, since he clearly has no right to remove a third party's remarks from my archives. That same account was used to remove other discussion (see, for example [60], which was discussion of, among other things, his own sockpuppetry).

What do I want done? I'd like to see these edits reverted, but I don't think I'm the appropriate person to do so, since I was involved in the dispute. Failing that, I'd like to see at least a clear notation as to where material has been deleted from talk pages, even if that material has not been restored. And possibly someone may want to check IPs to verify (what seems to me to be obvious): that all of these one-edit throwaway accounts come from a single place (sock puppetry supreme) and see if someone who is still an active editor appears to be doing this. Because the "right to disappear" does not include the right to hide your past and keep participating. - Jmabel | Talk 17:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You absolutely have the right to revert deletions of postings on article talk pages; removal of postings (not archiving, just removal) is a violation of WP:TP and WP:TPG. This isn't a matter of opinion; removal of talk page comments (exceptions - vandalism, personal attacks, wikichat, rants about the subject of the article - none of which apply here) is absolutely wrong.

I've reverted one of the article talk page (massive) deletions, and I noticed that another editor had (I believe) reverted another large deletion. If we've missed something, please feel free to handle this yourself (or post a note on my talk page; I'll be happy to do more cleanup if you're still unwilling to do so.) I've also posted notes on the talk pages of two editors, informing them of policy regarding this. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mexico123

Sorry to bring this back here, but he seems to be back uploading unsourced images. He's been blocked for a week for this before, and I warned him back in January, and I warned him back in January. Perhaps it's time for a lengthier block. David Mestel^(Talk) 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad has now given him a final warning. Sandstein 23:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I plan to look in on this again in a couple of days, but in the interim please let me know if there is any more of this from him. Newyorkbrad 02:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mortigi tempo

Sorry to bother, but there are about a dozen different IP contributors infesting this article (if you can call it that) right now. I've tried tagging it as a db-attack page a few times to no avail. (jarbarf) 23:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, it's already gone? Yuser31415 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The {{db-attack}} worked, the article has been deleted. --Edokter (Talk) 23:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Mortigi tempo" is also a bad butchering of Esperanto grammar; "mortigi tempon" means "to kill time" and has the noun in the accusative case. (But ignore this comment if you're a normal human rather than a grammar-nazi like me.) Michael Hardy 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User going around removing every single "the late" expression (as it applies to dead people) in sight

User:Booshakla is going around, and removing every single iteration of the expression "the late" he finds in Wikipedia to describe people who have passed away, to the annoyance of editors on several pages. Please see his contribution list here, which pretty much speaks for itself: [61]. He's been getting in 3RR trouble at least over the PETA article that I know of. Can someone explain to him that his crusade is needless and in many cases unwelcome, and that he should at least stop long enough to get proper feedback on his deletions? Thanks!--Ramdrake 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes are that way and 3RR violations should be reported over there. But I will admit that I think using "the late" in and article is just bad form. --Farix (Talk) 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That's something for a magazine, not an encyclopedia. Write as if you're writing for posterity, not for today. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at Booshakia's contributes to PETA and while he does skirts close to violating WP:3RR, he still didn't go over the line to fill out a report at WP:AN/3RR. I would insist that you both continue to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid where a discussion over the phrase is already in progress and not engage in a further edit war on PETA or any other article. --Farix (Talk) 03:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, not everybody is going to know what "the late" means in that context. Instances of this phrase should be replaced with clearer language, and maybe sparingly, as the person's death might not be relevant to the text in which their name is mentioned in brief passing (no pun intended). — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry if I've caused any problems, I was just trying to help improve the articles. I've made a lengthy statement at the PETA page (which I still hope will be improved/trimmed) about why "the late" should not be added, so I won't say much here. I guess this hasn't been an issue tackled here on a wide-scale (although at WP:PW, we did make a conscious effort to remove that phrase from wrestlers). Hopefully, something can be made concrete soon and we can know what to do. Thanks for all the input.Booshakla 04:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Booshakla, I'm very concerned by your statement No, I will make sure that will be removed permanently. You cited WP:OWN in your comments on that talk page; you should read that policy more carefully yourself, because the comment I just quoted is a very strong example of page ownership. You've expressed your opinion on the matter, but you're getting significant pushback from other editors. In the short term, cease making these edits and discuss the matter with the objecting editors. If the consensus goes against your edits - and you can add me to the list of folks who don't see your logic - then you need to accept it and stop deleting "the late" until and unless consensus changes in the other direction. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just on a little power trip. Consensus has not been reached on that page yet, and personally, I feel that my arguments are stronger than their "bookshakla is a jerk/saves a click" theory. It's not done yet, and there are discussions going on several places with all sorts of opinions/views. Booshakla 23:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

doesn't your userpage need a bit of a revamp to reflect reality? --Fredrick day 23:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think "the late" is just plain silly to add to encyclopedia articles (and it always males me think of the white rabbit from Alice in Wonderland). Further, at least one of bookshakla's deletions was grounded in common sense: in his edit summary, he points out that "the late" Peter Jennings wasn't actually dead when he narrated a documentary the article was discussing. Jeffpw 23:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Booshakla for removing "the late" from all of these articles, a needed improvement. (jarbarf) 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No prob, appreciate the kind words. Booshakla 02:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do remove it from articles, it is stylistically not useful, and it implies fairly recent death, thereby uselessly dating all articles that include it. Go for it, please do. KP Botany 03:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User reported at WP:COI/N has vandalized my talk page with personal attacks

Following my detailed report at WP:COI/N, Dr. George Cruikshank, also blatantly known as User:Gene Poole (compare his photos at his site and the one at his user page, not mentioning his whole history of contributions), has recently vandalized my talk page with a spurios warning that shows incivility, personal attacks, unsupported accusation of eccentric opinions (????) and edit-stalking, harassment, posting of personal abuse, multiple sockpuppet abuse and wikilawyering. The user has a long term story of similar harrassment towards other users, and has been once temporarily blocked. Please advice.Dr. Who 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I put a {{uw-npa2}} warning on his talk page. Hopefully this will put a stop to it. PeaceNT 11:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like so, but if the doesn't stop contributing to such articles strictly related to his business(es), he should be indefinitely blocked, or blocked each time he attempts to edit articles relevant to his business.Dr. Who 11:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm have no authority over blocking, and as I see it, the case isn't serious enough to get an editor indefinitely blocked. Please use dispute resolution PeaceNT 11:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of dispute resolutions only, his general behaviour and his userpage are blatant violation of many Wikipedia policies.Dr. Who 12:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How does his user page violate every Wikipedia policy? PeaceNT 12:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm rephrasing, I meant: his userpage violates mostly WP:COI, his general behavior is often in serious conflict with many WP policies.Dr. Who 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind that i re-edited, :). Dr. Who 13:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be perfectly fair, I can understand his frustration; you have been particularly aggressive in the Ultima Thule Ambient Music AfD (including posting to my talk page with an obvious "this should be deleted" attitude when I started to open an AfD, but then decided against it), and even added a speedy deletion tag on the article while the AfD was going on (which was a poor choice on your part, though I believe you understand that now).

It doesn't excuse his behavior, but it does provide at least some explanation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I haven't had enough time to explain my point: I believe that that article had (has) to be deleted becouse of WP:AUTO, such episodes are slowly seriously damaging Wikipedia. After deletion, the article could/should be recreated by a different, indipendent editor. His harrassment began a few days ago after I posted questions at Talk:Ambient music and talk Space music. He's almost notable, and should definitely stop editing such articles, though he's welcome to explain his point in talk pages. Dr. Who 17:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why the article, of a notable subject, should be deleted and then recreated; what's the point? Why reinvent the wheel? EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

An unjust 3RR accusation and block for Daizus

I have recently been blocked by InShaneee for no real reason. On 13th February as I logged to Wikipedia I first noted I have a message on my talk page. Going there I saw a 3RR block message signed by InShaneee. I knew I had some reverts on that page regarding a controversy related to WP:NC but I remembered I had avoided falling under the incidence of 3RR rule, hence my first reaction was to protest with a reply in my talk page. But then immediately I checked the page history for the article on Albert Wass and I noticed I had 4 reverting edits in a 24 hour interval (11 February 20:48 - 12 February 16:45; I'm using server time as reference) and then, in good faith, I thought I rushed in denying the accusation and withdrew my reply. Amazed by the difference between what I knew I had done and what I saw in that first glance, I proceeded to analyze the situation. And I discovered my 4 reverts were actually about two different things:

11 Feb, 20:48 - revert names

11 Feb, 21:12 - revert names

11 Feb, 21:19 - add tags

12 Feb, 16:45 - revert names, revert tags

As such, I was not under the incidence of 3RR rule and I requested an unblock. However, my request was denied by Arjun because apparently, my block was registered for another article: Burzenland. This can be seen in my block log and in the first edit InShaneee performed in my talk page, a edit which he later corrected. And here I want to mention I couldn't find a 3RR report issued on me (and thus the evidence for the accusation and the block). True, I have performed a lot of edits in the article on Burzenland, but there were not even 2 edits reverting the same content. Furthermore I protested in my talk page and I requested evidence for the 3RR accusation. I have not received responses or apologies, though both administrators were active since then, as easily anyone can see in their contributions history.

I have added this complain also in a RfC opened on his behavior. Daizus 13:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You've apparantly already been unblocked. · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I might not have been very clear about my motives. Of course I am unblocked. But it was an abusive action with apparently no justification, an action which frustrated me. Isn't power abuse a worrying thing here? Can an administrator block someone for no reason and then simply all things continue as nothing ever happened? Didn't I deserve at least an informal apology? Doesn't that administrator deserve at least an informal warning? Daizus 05:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

page move vandalism of Decompression sickness now living at Arie Waz here

I'm not sure I know how to fix this vandalism. The article has been suffering page move vandalism. Now the article exists under its proper name, but the edit history is attached to the vandal version. Please help! I'm sorry if I made things worse in trying to fix it, but now I see I am in over my head. MKoltnow 02:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Bbatsell, can you explain how you did it to MKoltnow so he can do it next time? Cheers :P, Yuser31415 03:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless something has changed in MediaWiki (which is entirely possible, I haven't kept up), he can't, because a redirect will exist at the correct location that has to be deleted first. Just tap an admin on the shoulder to take care of it, or tag the redirect (the correct location) as a speedy candidate and then anyone can move it back once the redirect is deleted. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Mumble mumble ... It's all very well asking a sysop, but, well, you know, doing so is kind of hard when you all go off to have a coffee ;). This morning, one of my AIV reports stayed for about 20 minutes before being taken care of :P. Yuser31415 03:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and MKoltnow, from what I can tell you did all you can do; someone else copy/pasted the text into the redirect (that was missing the history) and tagged the page with all of the history with a db. That is very much the wrong way to do it :) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the reason that the page couldn't simply be moved back. Any user capable of moving a page can move a page back to its original name, assuming that the redirect has has no other edits made to it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha :) Thanks for the correction; I don't think we could do that back when I didn't have the mop. If we did, I have an awful memory. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Bradles 01

Bradles 01 was blocked indefinately for hoaxing and as a likely sockpuppet of Jane 01. Afer several unsuccessful requests to have the block lifted Bradles 01 appears to have created a further sockpuppet Bradles 02. I posted a message at Suspected sock puppets/Bradles 01 describing the situation. I posted a suspected sockpuppet notice on Bradles 02's userpage and advised Bradles 01 via his/her talk page. Bradles 02 has since removed the sockpuppet notice [62] and placed an abusive message on my talk page [63]. Gimboid13 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User Fadix

I left a message about user Fadix here - it is second one. Insults and threats are continued [64] Fadix threatens with edit revenge ("Anyway, you've got interested me in contributing on Heider Aliev article. Which I will be doing as soon as possible. Fad (ix) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)") Another user Fedayee also embarked on assaults - his language is also self-explanatory. They accuse me of lack of knowledge ("Read the history Fadix showed you and stop playing dumb") (before they called me stupid, now it seems they refined the language). Fadix was reported several times by other users - no action taken against him. --Dacy69 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More targetted harassment and threats

Hi. Some may remember I reported a set of incidents about 11 days ago about anons giving me some really bad harassment (threats which considering my Northern Irish background are incredibly serious), see [65]. Well this evening I checked my mail to discover I'd received this email through Wikipedia.

YOU FUCKING NORTHERN IRISH BIGOT PROTESTANT BASTARD...WE HAVE OUR EYE ON =

YOU...YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A CUNT..A BIGOT DISCRIMINATING GAY BASTARD...GO =

FUCK YOURSELF...')

The mail was seemingly sent through the account of User:Perdy80 from the headers (email and addresses etc available on request). Now this is too similar to the Brazilian based IP abuse I was getting in the above mentioned incident and I have no choice but to take this seriously given my Northern Irish background and the kinds of people that could be involved in that sort of matter. Any thoughts, suggestions, advice? Ben W Bell talk 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how effective it would be, but if there is an IP in the headers, you could try and report it to the abuse-at-ISP.--Isotope23 18:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, considering some of the edits to User talk:Perdy80 while he is currently on a 1 week block, I've extended this to 1 month. I was wavering between that and an indef because I see very little in the way of non-vandalism from this editor.--Isotope23 18:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You can try checkuser. If Perdy80 is editing from the same range in Brazil that might be enough confirmation to block his account. Thatcher131 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the circumstances I would say an indef block is more appropriate. It doesn't solve the problem though. - Kittybrewster 18:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I received this email today, and since he hasn't edited anything to do with Northern Ireland I'm inclined to believe him and leave it at the appropriate block.

I just want to take the time to say how sorry i am about that. I copied and pasted something that someone else had said to you before that i thought would anoy you because i was annoyed at being blocked, i should have known that you would find the cut and pasted comment to be insensitive.

I just find it's so easy to go a bit overboard on this site when someone blocks you for what wasn't that bad. I think it best if i leave this website to people who really have a passion for it, i feel that there are to many cat fights and arguments. Once again i apologise for cutting and pasting what i did to you, it was in very poor taste. I came to this website with good intentions but have found there is to much bias involved in articles and to many arguments and subsequent personal attacks on people which are really not called for {mine included}. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me and i wish you luck with this site, i think i get a bit too worked up to contribute again. ps: i'm actually from English/Protestant heritage myself and can see why it upset you.

regards

Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Dora Nichov

User:Dora Nichov posted a death threat on an anon talk page [66]. This is bad, right? --- RockMFR 05:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is bad, and I just gave him a {{uw-legal2}} warning for that action. PeaceNT 05:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems that this user has been doing similar things to other anons. [67] [68] [69] [70] Completely unacceptable behavior. I am going to block this user for two weeks. It is the very least I could do.--Jersey Devil 06:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering the threat perhaps this should be expanded to an indefinite block. I'll let other administrators pass judgment.--Jersey Devil 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Extended to indef. Viridae^Talk 06:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Next time, everyone, just block users indefinitely on sight when they make death threats. No questions need to be asked. Yuser31415 06:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical request

I received a rather technical request for assistance here. Could someone more knowledgeable than I try to fix it, or, failing that, tell me how it's done? yandman 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it. Duja► 10:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ta very much. yandman 12:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

194.90.125.208

I was wondering if someone could look into 194.90.125.208's edits. I came accross this IP editor after [71] this edit popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at the user's contribution list, and almost all of this users edits are to some sort of link section (extrenal links, sources, etc.)

These edits look suspicious--they all go to the same website, but I can't tell whether or not they are spam because they are all in Hebrew.

Here's 194.90.125.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for your convience, because even though I'm fairly sure there's another IP something that provides info that doesn't label the person as a vandal, I have no idea what it is. Thanks ~~Miss Mondegreen 09:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

66.244.194.186 Vandalism IP

The user User:66.244.194.186 is using his editing privileges for nothing but vandalism. See his Contribs for more information.

Some most recent examples: 1 2 3 Nemilar 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

http://66.244.194.186/. It's a school. Makes sense, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:AIV for such requests. Conscious 10:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

functioning Bot

D6 is adding a Living people category to people seemingly based on birth dates. There's already one error report on the user's page before I went to add Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), I think blocking it might be best for now. One Night In Hackney 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked it based on its edit rate ( more then 14 some edits per minute at some points), especially since the bot is not flagged. If the bot needs a flag, please bring it up at WP:BRFA. Regards —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the categorization of Michael Gaughan (Irish republican), it had the year of death category missing. Most of the 160000 articles in Category:Living people had been added in the same way. BTW the bot is flagged, it's listed at Special:Listusers -- User:Docu

Yes, and if you look at the other bots listed, virtually all of them have "bot" in their name. (Also, would you mind signing your postings correctly?) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

More Starwars1955 socks?

I recently blocked Mr. Dercy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet of the recently blocked User:Starwars1955 (see WP:CN for ban discussion). In particular, SW'95 has repeatedly caused trouble at Brett Favre and harassed User:Mr. Darcy -- this user seems to fit that description like a glove. We've recently put out some range blocks to stop SW'95 from editing, which indicates either that I've made an error, or the blocks aren't quite as effective as we anticipated (they could be using another web connection, of course). Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I caught a couple earlier. Apparently the rangeblock is working from what I've been told... he just had/has more socks that have not been detected yet. Seems his new MO is to change numbers in article by 1 as some sort of protest WP:POINT per what is happening at the original article.--Isotope23 15:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Francis Escudero which potentially violate WP:BLP

Because an article from the Philipine Daily Inquirer (link to the story) mentioned that some candidates for local elections have their own WP articles, the Francis Escudero received some edits that are potentially in violation of WP:BLP (sample diffs):

• [72]
• [73]
• [74]

The first two diff shows edits that were unsourced and potentially in violation of WP:BLP. Although the edit made is, in itself, not libellous, the edit is trying to make a link between Francis Escudero and former president Ferdinand Marcos (through Escudero's father), and in the Philippines, that could be taken to mean that since Escudero's father and Marcos know each other, it may be assumed that the Escudero family may have profitted from what is regarded as the fruits of massive corruption on the part of Marcos and his cronies. I am not in a position to judge whether that is true or not, but as it stands, the Marcoses are facing several lawsuits which remain unresolved with finality (because of the endless appeals and counter-appeals).

The last diff, now with sources, might be deemed as either NPOV pushing or as a violation of WP:BLP. The source mentioned was, in fact, an editorial, not a news report or a magazine feature report. Near the top of this source's page, it clearly says "Opinion", which, in the context of where the edit was made (i.e. in the Biography) section, was out of place.

Since tomorrow is a Saturday (Manila time), I'm expecting that there could be more similar edits made to the article. I'm also on the look-out for other articles about Philippine politicians. If similar edits were made to these articles, I'll file separate reports here. --- Tito Pao 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cs

I deleted this RfC page, which after 48 hours had been certified only by the one who started the debate (User:KazakhPol), plus a comment "User has already responded and one outside view has already been provided." It turned out that this uncertified RfC was added to the certified section of the RfC user disputes page by KazakhPol directly [75] , removed by Cryptic [76], and then readded to the approved pages list by KazakhPol [77] [78] two more times after it had been properly removed (although, by the subject, User:Cs). Review of the situation is requested. Mangojuice^talk 14:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

How RunedChozo was and should be handled

First, I did read the sockpuppet log on runedchozo and basically what it says is that RunedChozo edits with an IP that comes from the University of Houston, so saying that other users using that IP are him is pretty hard. There doesn't seem to be away to confirm that RunedChozo is a sockpuppet through IP.

And Itaqallah, the note pointing out that someone had responded to the discussion on blocking RunedChozo with a similar IP. RunedChozo was severely less calm and level headed about this then the user who made that comment. So either RunedChozo really calmed down and completely changed how he was writing, or it's someone else. Either way, the comments are valid. I fail to see how this user can come back with a locked userpage and talk page, and the investigation that the user submitted seems to have come to a halt--the speedy deletion request has been reverted and the sockpuppet notice is back up. The page obviously can't be deleted while the user is indef banned, but this seems to be a problem with user and I understand why. This user may not be the best behaved, but this user also has legitimate complaints and attempted to go about handling them properly, and wasn't treated neutrally. This user doesn't respond to conflict well, but the user was also provoked, in what the user probably sees as an ongoing thing.

I'm very disappointed in the administrators who continued to put the sockpuppet notice back when this issue had been raised here. A user came here asking for assistance, and this somehow got turned into an investigation of the user and the user's behavoir, becuase the user got upset when instead of responding to the query here or providing help, the "offending" warning was placed back on the user page and a user was kept from editing his own page. The discussion here then lapsed into a he said/she said about the users's previous and current behavoir which was really a completely separate issue. The past behavoir is kinda irrelevant, and if people are having a seperate problem with the user, they should post something seperate here or warn the user on his talk page. Not take over the user's complain and keep him from being helped.

Keeping the sockpuppet notice up on the user's page now is just rubbing salt in. The user wasn't banned for sockpuppetry this time, and user's aren't supposed to be forced to keep these notices on their user pages, so this notice should be deleted. Also, the user needs to be given some place to edit--the talk page if the user page is too volatile an issue, so that the user can express interest in coming back to Wikipedia.

I am more than disappointed in the way this has been handled. Miss Mondegreen 12:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I posted above and will repost here since it seems this discussion should not have been closed. If someone is complaining about the scarlet letter, I would think the proper response would have been to just cite the policy, or at least that would have been a better way then what was undertaken. I think this leaves me with some questions:

1. Are users allowed to remove sockpuppet notices if they are being allowed to edit again? This is not a question of opinion, I am asking if there is policy on this.
2. If the user is being allowed to edit after X behavior, at what point is there past behavior left in the past?
3. Is it standard practice to negate a complaint, with another complaint? Am I allowed to be harrassed by Joe, if I vandalized a page last week?

I was under the impression that most warnings and notices on user space could be removed, especially since for admins there is a log of the block, so admins can see relevant information and so can anyone else who looks at the block log. What is the purpose of keeping a notice on the users page? I think the whole situation could have been handled better and I think poking and prodding users who are upset is not the route. Wikipedia is not paper seems like a good example, had the user written 10 times asking for help, who does that hurt? The page goes up 3 kilobytes? I would think that instead of telling the user to calm down, which didnt work after the 2nd time, those responding would have recognized the user felt help was needed quickly. Not that they had to jump, but telling him to relax a third and fourth time, then posting WP:COOL, was not going to result in a cool headed user. This seems to be more of a failure or relating and apathy, then anything else. I hope someone can actually answer the questions above, if there is no policy regarding the sockpuppet notice, then I think we should pull a rollback and forgive the outbursts them stemmed from a mistake and let the user edit again and everyone just walk away and forget. --NuclearZer0 13:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being much too nice to this user. Speaking as an outside observer that's not been involved in any of his arguments or fights (but someone who HAS been noting his behavior), your suggestion, especially the part about "letting the user edit again and everyone just walking away and forgetting", doesn't seem in the best interests of the project at all. Besides that, I think he IS editing again under the PSPMario sockpuppet, given that all that user's edits have identically picked up just where RunedChozo left off. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it disruptive editing? I think if its not, it just goes to show further that they are a useful member of this project and can edit civily. I really do not see why people rather chase down sockpuppets, until they turn into vandals, then chase down vandals. Would some then be satisfied since they can say "I was right all along", knew he was a vandal ... Driving people to the point where they have an outburst and then bannig them for it, makes little sense. We have had admins curse eachother out here on this very page, we do not drop the ban hammer because its understood sometimes we as human need a release and a moment to cool. Again, I never said the editor was perfect, but as mentioned above, coming here because they feel they are being harrassed, and then being investigated, is not normal. I will point out though that I am partially not surprised, as taken from my comment above that disagreeing with a current/former Arbcom member will only end badly. Which no surprised, it did. --NuclearZer0 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have a grudge against PSPMario, though I cannot fathom the reasoning. You characterize RunedChozo as driving off an "fantastic editor" ZakuSage in the other discussion below, yet ZakuSage left right after being caught wikistalking, which doesn't speak very well for your friends, but does speak to the fact that RunedChozo had a legitimate complaint about being systematically harassed by people. You and Trebor in the discussion below utterly dismiss a good-faith question brought by PSPMario, and instead are trying to have him brought up on charges of being a sockpuppet. This seems to be very typical on WP:ANI, one party brings a question or concern and instantly are attacked for bringing it to someone's attention.

The only places PSPMario has edited appear to be the PS3 and PSP pages, and no controversy exists about those edits. The number of people here who are willing to make ad hominem attacks and very incivilly try to game the rules against other editors rather than civilly discussing matters is breathtaking. CountPointercount 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a waste of time guys. I'd never think twice after indef blocking someone w/ an extensive blocklog (especially, especially and especially for incivility and personal attacks issues). RunedChozo has been incivil to everyone whom they disagree w/. This trend was never limited to a set or group of articles but far beyond that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You may think so, but others disagree. Trying to stifle debate is, additionally, a very rude thing to do. CountPointercount 15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

First i'd say Welcome to Wikipedia. Second, please assume good faith and never accuse people of stifling debates especially when they'd talk about facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 15:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been editing for a long while, even though I just decided to get an account, but thanks for the welcome. As for your words, if they weren't intended to stifle the debate, then I wonder what "this is a waste of time" means? CountPointercount 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read my first comment carefully, review the blocklog of RunedChozo carefully (blocked a dozen of times by several admins since a relatively short period- since November 9, 2006) and the conflits they've been into w/ a dozen of contributors than you'd agree that it is a waste of time especially that the main discussion was closed above this section. If some people think that users such RC are not be indef blocked, than who would be? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 16:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have suspicions that CountPointercount and PSPMario are sockpuppets of RunedChozo, explained in the thread here. Could you take a look? Trebor 16:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users agree that closing the debate was improper, first of all.

Second of all, that the incidents involving RunedChozo involve deliberate provocation from other involved users. I prefer to think that most people on Wikipedia can be rehabilitated, especially if they have made good edits, and RunedChozo has obviously made good edits, edits that have been replaced and supported by multiple other users as well. If you cannot see this, then I must wonder if you may have some ulterior motive for trying to close off this debate.

I must also question your logic of "a dozen" blocks, as reading the log, there are multiple times where administrators appear to be playing games, lengthening/de-lengthening blocks, and you are trying to read each alteration as a "new" block. Plus, we have the additional problem of administrators who are deliberately using lengthened blocks as a method of provocation.

If you say that you think the indef is justified that's one thing, but as I noted about another user below who was mischaracterizing things, you appear to be deliberately trying to paint this user as an evil and vile person, and that is simply not supported by the record.

Additionally, the continued trying to tar and feather anyone who disagrees, such as Ex-Nintendo and Trebor are doing, is most distressing. It is hardly a fair proceeding when they are using these tactics and trying to kill the messenger. CountPointercount 16:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• considering RunedChozo's tendency to engage in extensive puppetry, PSPMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/CountPointercount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s rushing to the scene to provide the ruse of a concerned third party (CPc appears on this page defending RunedChozo 30 mins after creating his account, PSPMario was an account created and active during RunedChozo's week block, editing on the same article as RunedChozo, then reappearing on this page when RunedChozo was again blocked), and the checkuser case, it seems that both of these accounts are indeed sockpuppets of RunedChozo. ITAQALLAH 16:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You really should pay attention to people's edits. You aren't blameless in these events by any means. CountPointercount 17:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please stop using apocalyptic words such as stifling debates, tactics, kill the messenger and evil, etc...? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am speaking of what I see. If these tactics weren't being used, I wouldn't have to point them out. CountPointercount 17:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 17:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See Trebor's constant attacks below, it is hard to assume "good faith" when the goal is obviously not a civil discussion, but to get people banned for disagreeing with them. CountPointercount 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor, it all makes sense now. Both PSPMario and CountPointercount were determined that yes, they are sockpuppets of RunedChozo. Accusations of "killing the messenger" aside, what I see (and what I have commented on) is this: a user with an extremely long history of very, very bad behavior and a large blocklist (VALID blocks, I might add, not "playing games"), and two brand-new users who pop out of nowhere to support this user who have extensive knowledge of Wikipedia's workings. I'm disinclined to believe that CountPointercount is simply some previous IP-user who just coincidentally happened to pop out of nowhere to suddenly begin to give his unerring support to RunedChozo at the exact same time that PSPMario did. The fact that a checkuser came back with a positive confirms my suspicions. Bear in mind that I've not gotten myself involved in any of the edit conflicts that RunedChozo has participated in- I'm only stating what the record shows. Even the quickest check of RunedChozo's history shows that each and every block of his is valid, starting all the way back with his actions in November of 2006. I'm not being mean about this, I'm just stating what clearly is fact- RunedChozo has a very, very long history, starting from the very beginning of his Wikipedia editing, of ignoring the most basic rules that are in place here. He even got into a fight with Aecis, who is in my opinion a very level-headed and rational person. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I should examine the characterizations you're making, since you go to all that trouble.

1. Let's see, a "fight" with Aecis? It looks like a disagreement, but no more, according to the talk page record here.
2. I didn't question the validity of most of the blocks, but the number of them which FAyssalF quotes is both wrong and misleading. Blocks which are the result of an administrator tweaking the timing should not be "counted" twice.
3. There is an ongoing problem in Wikipedia in which administrators take a user who is in a conflict, block them, and then use harshly worded unblock requests as an excuse to be punitive and block longer. This is not good because it directly contradicts Wikipedia's policies that blocks are not supposed to be punitive, because it is itself incivil conduct on the part of the administrators, and because it is equivalent to throwing gasoline on a fire: it does absolutely nothing to calm the situation down.
4. My support is not "unerring", but I make no bones about the fact that I believe administrator conduct in this case has been woefully inadequate, if not unprofessional, incivil, and detrimental to the encyclopedia.

1. As to edits, you can look at my edit history and judge for yourself. I have no relation to those articles; indeed, I usually just wander around with the Random Article button trying to do cleanup to articles that need some small edits or grammatical fixes. What I have a problem with is administrator misbehavior and the tactic by which you and others are trying to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with you. Someone earlier mentions "Scarlet Letter" harassment, and I think this is a very good description of what you are trying to do. It is incivil behavior on your part and serves no purpose to improve the encyclopedia, because if the edits were bad they would be reverted, and if the edits are good then who cares where they came from? I am sure that PSPMario, if a checkuser on the other two came back negative, would be more than happy to apologize to the two, but you're not giving them the chance, you're calling for their head on a platter which isn't exactly fair given that they appear not to be logged in to defend themselves at the moment. CountPointercount 17:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please could an admin review this; there's strong evidence of sockpuppeting. Trebor 17:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As my final statement on this, I've stated my observations regarding this matter Trebor- and anyone can check the edit history to note- despite my being labeled as a "messenger killer", a "tar and featherer" and other dramatic derogatory attempts to sully my character, I have refrained from doing the same. RunedChozo and all his various and sundry socks are free to attack me, to call me "incivil" for stating my observations as such. To call him some sort of derogatory name would certainly be incivil, but that I have not done. Stating the facts as I see them- that I have done. In the end, we have what we have- a user with an extensive history of rule-violation that stems back from the very days he created his accounts, a plethora of proven sockpuppet accounts and a headache for any and all administrators that have to clean up this mess. I wash my hands of it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've in bad faith continued to try to claim I'm a sockpuppet, and you've not bothered to address any of the questions and concerns I raised; your whole goal seems to be to try to get people banned. I consider that "killing the messenger", yes. CountPointercount 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does not mean that everyone should ignore the blatant sockpuppet of a blocked user. It's the height of hypocrisy to complain about the tactics used by others and then abuse the system to avoid the consequences of your actions (i.e. being blocked). Please, give it up, RunedChozo. ChazBeckett 17:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a "blatant" nothing, please stop trying to kill the messenger. You can see my edit history for yourself. I have no relation to any of the pages these others edit on, and my only point here is that there has been bad behavior, a point to which multiple other users agree. Calling me "RunedChozo" does not make it so, nor does fudging CU evidence. CountPointercount 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no fudged CU evidence. It came back with a result of "likely"; that, combined with your very new account, sudden interest in this particular case and large amount of background knowledge of the matter is a very strong sign that your are a sockpuppet of RunedChozo. Same for User:PSPMario. Attempting to disguise yourself by making numerous minor edits to random articles does not discount any of that evidence. Trebor 17:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at your edit history? Are you sure you want people doing that? That's some pretty damning evidence there.

• You created your account less than four hours ago, yet have commented extensively on a user that was blocked yesterday,
• Within 25 minutes of account creation you began commenting on RunedChozo in several different locations.
• Nearly a third of all of your edits have dealt with RunedChozo.

Saying your are not RunedChozo, when you quite clearly are is rather silly. ChazBeckett 17:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP! You dont really have to, but I would like it if the persons points were addressed instead of crying puppet. There was points I made and the editor above me did as well that seem to be ignored because an editor may or may not be a sockpuppet. I never understood the idea that someone who wants to contribute so badly that they would go get another IP, is a bad thing. They are asking for the ability to edit this encyclopedia. Many people go through Arbcom hearings and are put on probation, why not just enact a probation of sorts and give him an admin that will make sure he doesnt cross the line, but also that he is not baited or harrassed. Also again, banned editors can comment on Arbcom hearings so I do not see why they cannot defend themselves here. And please the back and forth AGF'ing and the like is making everyone look less then mature. Can we stop the back and forth and have a discussion? --NuclearZer0 17:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing about sockpuppets is that they'd never be discovered if they didn't immediately revert to the behavior that got them blocked in the first place. If RunedChozo had created a sockpuppet that simply went about his merry way editing the encyclopedia, he never would have been spotted. Instead he chose to continue the ruckus that got him blocked. ChazBeckett 18:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. CountPointercount has now been blocked. Trebor 18:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I think the points went completely ignored. He wants to edit the encyclopedia, keep blocking him and he will keep cycling his IP and making new accounts and eventually just become a vandal as opposed to someone who had a complaint. It seems some people are perfectly happy with perpetuating the cycle of vandals. If he wants to edit, let him, put him on probation. The truth is if he wanted to just vandalize and curse people out, he would not be here fighting for his ability to edit, he would be out vandalizing since he can obviously get around blocks easily. Does noone recognize the painfully obvious? --NuclearZer0 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

As said above...If he only wanted to edit, he could have and very likely would have gotten away with it. If CountPointercount was truly RC, then he chose to come back to this page and start up the argument again. I think that is also painfully obvious. I don't agree with hunting after sockpuppets that are only making positive contributions to Wikipedia, but then again...that doesn't seem to happen very often...at least not that we know of, and that's kind of the whole point. --Onorem 18:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bosniak resuming disruptive activity

Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly blocked, most recently on 21 January for "disruption, revert-warring, trolling, [and] incivility". Immediately following the expiration of this latest block, he returned to much of the same behaviour:

• continued POV edit warring and revert warring (against the established community consensus) on Srebrenica massacre [79][80][81][82][83][84]

• continued POV edit warring on Serbophobia [85][86][87]. (He had previously tried to have the article deleted, and tampered with other users' votes. Here he tried to move and retitle the article.)

• making comments or judgments about editors and their contributions on the basis of what he believes to be the editors' ethnicities, or imputing anti-Bosniak sentiment to other editors [88][89][90]. This includes posting WP:ANI complaints against "Indian" administrators who blocked a user for 3RR and personal attacks [91][92][93][94][95].

• canvassing for votes from partisan editors, and instructing them on how to vote [96][97][98][99][100][101]

Other questionable behaviour which may or may not be made in bad faith or constitute policy violations:

• allegedly improper use of a "you have new messages"-style box (see User talk:Bosniak#Improper use of "You have new messages" box; now under discussion on the Village Pump and elsewhere)

• possible WP:POINT violation with his creation of the neologistic Bosniak Canadian (AfD)—he had previously created neologism-based articles, such as Bosniakophobia (AfD), out of indignance towards Serbophobia.

• advising other users not to heed warnings unless they come from an administrator [102]

I won't propose any specific remedy as I've been the occasional target of this user's edit warring and personal attacks. However, I would like the community to consider how to deal with this problem. —Psychonaut 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Tried RfC? Take him to ArbCom. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 15:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider that option if the consensus here is that the above-noted behaviour doesn't warrant another (longer) block. There's no point in bothering the already-overworked ArbCom if it's simply a matter of enforcing existing policies. —Psychonaut 16:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As the editor who first noted the "message box" issue, I believe that it may not warrant consideration in regards to this matter. When I became aware of the box on Bosniak's pages, I asked him to adjust it and he did so quickly and without complaint. The discussion on Village Pump was not initiated on the basis of his actions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, he started (slowly) being more constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre, and regarding the accusations re "Indian administrators", he acted as a proxy for 2-week blocked User talk:Emir Arven, who has an enormous cabal against him. And, yes, he does hold a grudge against Psychonaut (I did exchange few, mostly friendly, e-mails with Bosniak ). I'm not saying he's a model wikipedian, but I believe that he's corrigible. Alas, there is a lot of WP:ABF on all sides in the wider conflict. Balkans, y'know. Duja► 16:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he was becoming more polite and constructive at Talk:Srebrenica massacre. However, at the same time he was continuing his edit warring on the article proper. —Psychonaut 16:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come here from Bosniak's Talk page where I found out this was going on. I'm not going to speak for or against him though some of the people whose names I've seen here know very well on which side of the fence I stand. I was told to "watch my conduct" when I gave up the struggle to remain "civil" in the wake of yet another onslaught at the article by people whose good faith I doubt - and even if I'm banned for saying that it's what I believe. Editing and administration have moved the article towards a position where people who have worked very hard in the past to assert the truth of what happened at Srebrenica in the face of overt mistruth and more subtle manipulation have become increasingly upset and less happy about pseudo-objective discussions and actions that those familiar with the situation at the article recognise as wilfully provocative. The specific reason why I'm intervening here is that I'm angry to see a reference to "POV edit warring and revert warring (against the established community consensus) on Srebrenica massacre". This so-called "established consensus" is just the new status quo that has emerged in the wake of this stepping up of the campaign of revision. What is referred to now as "POV edit warring and revert warring" has often consisted of attempts to restore parts of the article to a former "consensus" (if that word is ever appropriate to the article given the concerns and motives of the participants), that existed before the onset of the recent campaign spearheaded by a complicated and controversial character who I still believe whatever else is said has not been subject to the same restraints as other people. Bosniak, myself and Emir Arven have attempted to stem this tide of change at the article. I maintain we were justified not just in terms of ensuring a reasonably true account of what actually happened but also in terms ultimately of defending the credibility of the article. Personally I've found this a pretty disillusioning experience and I can't say that I'm bothered any more by the threat of sanctions here. I'm still very angry so I'd better not say any more, not because I'm concerned by what the administrators here might now threaten me with but because I'm unhappy enough already at having let myself get provoked into losing my calm. People here have deleted me in the past and may well do so now, but at least I've had my say and unencyclopaedic as it may be to say so at least I don't feel that Bosniak, Emir Arven or I have betrayed our duty to the truth. --Opbeith 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi friends. I was invited to come and state my side. Psychonaut was blocked in the past for disruptive behavior. He has been reverting Srebrenica Massacre constantly. There is no established principle with regards to disputed terms @ Srebrenica Massacre article. Disputed terms include: "alternative views", "controversial views", "revisionist views", and more recently "dissenting views". We are attempting to improve the article, but disruptive users are constantly reverting article to their Point of Views which is (I believe) wrong. User Psychonaut does not assume faith. This is probably 10th or 11th time that he is complaining against me. He seems to side with revisionist views @ Srebrenica Massacre, and he wants to get rid off me and other progressive editors who want to improve the article as opposed to constantly disrupt it. User Psychonaut is using old tactics by pointing out to my old edits, etc. Administrators should take notice that he is not assuming good faith and that he is constantly complaining. He treats wikipedia as his own personal page and he is complaining against people who he does not agree with. As you can see from my contributions, I have slowed down my editing at Srebrenica Massacre article and even compromised with disruptive editors (Osli73) that we should not focus on Gen. MacKenzie, as he is not a central player in the massacre (you can read this at Srebrenica Massacre discussion page). I call upon administrators to stop Psychonaut from his fully biased approach, constant complaints, and him not assuming good faith when it comes to users he does not agree with. As I said -- Srebrenica Massacre article is slowly, but steadily becoming improved. We are using compromise and good faith as the best approach to improve the article. Things are getting better and by working together, we can achieve much better results. Thank you for your time, and I wish you peaceful day friends. All the best, and assume good faith at all times.

Update: User Psychonaut does have a grudge against me and I don't appreciate his constant complaints, constant reverts (he is starting edit wars and reverting "revisionist" to 'whatever term he sees appropriate', even though there is no concensus which term to use). His goal is to achieve "moral equivalency" with respect to the Srebrenica Genocide article (which is wrong and biased). I would like to thank user (admin) Ckatz, user Duja and user Opbeith for their opinions. Psychonaut should learn to assume faith and stop using old tricks and old edits as an evil tool to block me. He is starting revert wars, he reverts my good faith contributions, and then he comes here and complains against me. Unfortunately, user Psychonaut is not constructive. Don't fall for his tricks. This is not his first time. Bosniak 05:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Update 2: It is not legitimate to describe anything as an "alternative" view when it's been contradicted by legal findings (that was the relevance of the MacKenzie discussions), and that's exactly what user Psychonaut does with his constant disruptive behavior, edit wars, and reverts. He is trying to maintain and enforce his point of view in the face of interventions that the administrators have been very reluctant to respond to and he is making me appear the guilty / aggressive party because of the way the ground has been moved by other people's changes. Bosniak 05:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not sure what opinion of mine Bosniak is referring to, as I'm not involved in the AN/I. If it is in regards to my earlier note about Bosniak's user page message, please note that the comment should not be taken as a complaint against Psychonaut. It was merely to clarify what I thought could be an honest misunderstanding with regards to a very minor issue. (Oh, and while it's a nice compliment, I'm actually not an administrator - not sure where that came from.) Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To give some background on my involvement with the articles under discussion, I wish to point out that I have no interest in anything remotely related to the Balkans. Contrary to what Bosniak has stated in the past, I am not a Serb, and do not have a pro-Serb or genocide-denial agenda. I became involved in the articles rather accidentally, probably through an AfD or from tracking down vandalism in a related article. My only involvement in the Srebrenica massacre article has been minor formatting changes and attempting to defuse POV issues. I have no horse in this race, and in fact didn't even know about the Srebrenica massacre until I stumbled upon it on Wikipedia.

It is correct to say that I do not assume good faith for Bosniak, at least for certain incidents. For example, he states above that I have been blocked for disruptive behaviour, which he knows to be a lie as it was repeatedly explained to him that the blocks on my account were mistaken (and at any rate had nothing to do with the sort of behaviour he ascribes to me). He also has chosen not to read the diffs I posted, because they are not "old edits" as he falsely claims, but rather those made only after the expiry of his latest block.

With respect to breaching consensus, since the expiry of his block Bosniak has been the only editor on Srebrenica massacre to change the term "alternative views" to "revisionist views" or "genocide denial". To my knowledge no other editor has made such changes, but other editors (besides me) have reverted them. These events are at odds with Bosniak's characterization of this problem as my POV-pushing against the rest of the editors. —Psychonaut 13:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say that Bosniak's edits to Srebrenica massacre are "against the established community consensus". The issue on whether to call it "alternative views" or something else was discussed here, but in my opinion no consensus was reached. For the rest, my opinion matches Duja's description (except that I'm not familiar with the situation surrounding Emir Arven). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was indeed a consensus regarding the section now titled "alternative views" since Bosniak was last blocked. The section was originally titled "Critical views", and the first paragraph referred to the views as "alternative views". It had remained as such for a long time. Bosniak then began editing the article, and repeatedly changed the title "Critical views" to "Genocide denial" or "Revisionist views". This was disputed and discussed on the talk page, as you indicated. [103] Bosniak was blocked on 21 January, and on 23 January I proposed that we title the section "Alternative views", since that was how the views were referred to in the section, and since no one (including Bosniak) had taken any issue with that description throughout the edit warring.[104] Throughout Bosniak's block, this proposal was followed, and no one changed the title of the section or disputed it on the talk page. I therefore considered the editors involved to have reached a consensus. However, immediately upon the expiry of Bosniak's block, he began changing the title of the section to "Revisionist views" or "Genocide denial" again. I am quite sure that he was the only editor to do so. Other editors, including me, reverted these changes. Again, I took this as evidence of a consensus. —Psychonaut 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"With respect to breaching consensus, since the expiry of his block Bosniak has been the only editor on Srebrenica massacre to change the term "alternative views" to "revisionist views" or "genocide denial"". This statement gives a false impression of the existence of a consensus. After a simple exposition of the temporal relationship between MacKenzie's cited statement in July 2005 and the International Criminal Tribunal's (Krstic) finding in 2001 establishing the fact of genocide at Srebrenica and its confirmation by the Appeals Chamber in April 2004, I was obliged to continue arguing - with people who among other things maintained that the man in the street's understanding of genocide and hence MacKenzie's had equal validity with the wording of the Genocide Convention and the findings of the ICTY - that the "alternative" view being advanced here was in fact a denial of genocide. I did not go silent because there was consensus. I shut up after I was driven to exasperation by the constant refusal of other editors and administrators to accept this situation and their deletion of my comments and contributions. When I expressed my exasperation I was warned to mind my conduct and so I chose to keep silent. This was not the achievement of consensus, this was the outcome of a war of attrition. I don't think it is purely self-obsession that leads me to the view that there is a one-side enforcement of "discipline" at the Srebrenica Massacre article. --Opbeith 15:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"didn't even know about the Srebrenica massacre until I stumbled upon it on Wikipedia." Extraordinary. If so, this is an example of one of the inherent problems with Wikipedia. If administrators have no idea of important issues in the real world it must be very difficult for them to understand what is legitimate debate and what is illegitmate revisionism. --Opbeith 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. I think that places these editors in an excellent (i.e., neutral) position to assess articles' claims with respect to WP:NPOV, and also WP:N (to the extent that WP:N is to be assessed on objective criteria). —Psychonaut 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, edit warring.

User:Top Gun who has a history of blocks and edit warring has recently been blocked for one week due to repeated copyright violations. [[105]] however it seems that he has decided to deliberately flaunt the block, using a Ip address confirmed by check user to be a sock of him[[106]] under it he has continued to reinsert the disputed content and engage in constant editwaring in direct defiance of administrators rullings [[107]]. Marshalbannana 01:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

See [108] for a fairly clear example. —xyzzy_n 17:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I see a sockpuppet

Users SynergyBlades and Bladestorm, both edited on PS3, both removed information that I think is relevant to the PS3 public reaction. I replaced what was removed from the last time I saw the article.

I do not know if they are the same but it is funny that their edits are all very similar and that they seem to be working together on the same article at exactly the same time many times. I think this is likely, their names are very similar as well.

The requests page said I should list this here, I can't really call it vandalism but if they are same person they were avoiding three revert by doing this. PSPMario 01:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry seems very unlikely: both SynergyBlades (talk · contribs) and Bladestorm (talk · contribs) have over 500 edits. However, it is possible that User:PSPMario is another sockpuppet of the indef blocked User:RunedChozo due to identical additions of info [109] [110] Trebor 02:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Trebor I saw the info when last I looked at the page and I put it back when I saw it was missing. There is nothing wrong with that. I asked for a check because it seemed like I should when I looked at the history. PSPMario 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

But they are acting in completely different ways. User:SynergyBlades oppose the addition of the information [111] [112] whereas User:Bladestorm reverted once because the information was poorly written but then can be seen improving the information you added. Your actions are far more suspect, however, as you are adding back the same information of indef-blocked User:RunedChozo, and show up at a discussion about him. I'd like an admin to have a look at this. Trebor 11:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RunedChozo was that bad, he added good information to the articles I've seen. All I did here was ask a question about something I saw that was suspicious and you're attacking me, that is not very good manners. PSPMario 12:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm just pointing out similarities and asking an admin to take a look. Trebor 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the infractions RunedChozo committed while he was allowed to edit the project, and the fact that it was proven that he used multiple sockpuppets in the past in order to circumvent blocks, I really must note that if its even suspected that a RunedChozo sockpuppet has appeared that a checkuser should immediately be done. This user has done an immense amount of damage to the project- one result of which was the loss of a fantastic editor named ZakuSage. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. See what it turns up. Trebor 14:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You're deliberately mischaracterizing things. I looked back in ZakuSage's talk history and he left after being caught wikistalking. This looks like an effort to tar and feather someone for raising questions.CountPointercount 14:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another user less than a half-hour old suddenly commenting on this. Trebor 14:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I just got an account, but I've been editing for ages. You should see a therapist about that paranoia. CountPointercount 14:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Care to share the IP you were editing under then, so we can see your contributions? Trebor 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where was I at the time? Sometimes it's Starbucks, sometimes at home, sometimes anywhere I have wireless. I finally decided it was a good idea to take a username so that issue doesn't come up any more. CountPointercount 14:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've added you to the RfCU to see what that brings up. If you are unrelated, my apologies. Trebor 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vengeful, are we? You seem to have quite an agenda here. CountPointercount 15:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any agenda or reason to be "vengeful". I find it odd that a couple of pretty new users would comment on this situation with such a degree of background knowledge and also in very similar ways (for instance, both you and PSPMario add comments unindented, rather than the usual progressive indenting used in discussions). The CU will hopefully confirm or deny this. If you are unrelated, there's no reason to worry. Trebor 15:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The CheckUser came back as "Likely"; given the other evidence, I request that an admin block User:PSPMario and User:CountPointercount as sockpuppets of indef-blocked User:RunedChozo. Thanks. Trebor 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What does "Likely" mean? When did we start using weasel words as the result of what should be a yes or no result? CountPointercount 15:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Likely" means what it says; it is not always technically possible to definitely confirm these things. Trebor 15:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser should be a yes or no thing. "Likely" is a weasel word meaning "I have no evidence, but don't care enough to report the true result." If it could not be confirmed, then you can look at my edits and see for yourself. I have no stake in this beyond serious problems with a tendency of wikipedians to attack the messenger for bringing questions. CountPointercount 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, CheckUser is limited by technical restrictions. "Likely" means that the technical evidence suggests that you are the same person, but it's not certain. Combined with the similar editing patterns and arrival here with a very new account, I think there is enough evidence to conclude that you are sockpuppets, and repeat my request for an admin to take a look. Trebor 16:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously paid no attention to my edits, have you? CountPointercount 16:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bismarck State College and copyrights

I have been having a very difficult time this evening dealing with a new user who keeps copying material from an external website and putting it into a Wikipedia article. The article in question is Bismarck State College. Bjork53 keeps taking material from this page at the College's website and pasting it into the Wikipedia article. I have reverted the inclusion of this material and have tried to explain to Bjork53 that we can't take material from external websites and paste it into articles on Wikipedia. Take a look at his talk page to see the comments I've left for him and then look at my talk page to see the comments he has left for me. I would not be trying to get an administrator to help me, but my warnings to Bjork53 don't seem to be doing the trick. I continue to preach to him that he can't take material directly from the schools website and he continues to do it anyways. Right now, the Bismarck State College article reads like an ad and is almost entirely ripped from the school's website. I will say that, while before it was a verbatim copy and paste, now he is changing a word here and there to make it be "in his own words". I think an administrator needs to at least look at the article and the website that it is copied from and perhaps leave a message on his talk page to let him now how important copyrights are on Wikipedia and that "in your own words" doesn't mean just changing a word here and there. The College's article clearly needs expansion, but Bjork53's method (copying from an external website, changing a few words, and then pasting into the article) isn't the way to do it and he needs to understand this. --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have done an excellent job with this one on your own. Jkelly 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki vandalism?

It appears that some clever, helpful person has changed whatever bit of the MediaWiki stuff creates the icons at the top of the "Editing" page so that instead of the usual redirect icon we have a Nazi-era German flag. I don't know where this is stored. The redirect icon seems to be regularly tampered with, so an idiot-level explanation of how to undo this would be nice. Seems more likely that this will get a rapid response here than at VPT. Thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be ok now, I don't know what happened though. Proto ► 12:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you must be using IE or something. Still looks the same with Firefox2/MonoBook and Firefox2/Classic. IE6 shows the usual #R icon. It is en.wp specific; no prob on fr.wp. Paint me anti-wiki, but this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the UI widgets that anyone can edit. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Go here - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c8/Button_redirect.png - and then hard refresh (press ALT and F5), see if that solves it. I found the applicable mediawiki page where those buttons are, and nobody's messed with it as best as I can tell. Proto ► 16:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, a few months ago we had an almost identical problem with it being replaced by a pornographic image and again it wasn't clear how it was done. JoshuaZ 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, though like you I can't find anything here or on commons to show that this has been changed in a long time. It's disappeared several times recently. Weird shit happens I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hacking in article "Trail_of_Tears"

In the article Trail_of_Tears#Georgia_and_the_Cherokee_Nation, someone has inserted the text "FOOD RAWRS I AM UBER-733t AND I PWN U CUZ U R TEH UBER SUCK!!!!!" This text is not visible when I am logged in, and not visible in the edit window. --MaxMad 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Try logging out, viewing the article, and bypassing your cache. The article must have been vandalised and reverted, and your browser cache is still holding the vandalised version; bypassing your cache (Ctrl-F5 on IE and FireFox) will sort it out. --ais523 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Another good way of getting around your cache (at least as far as seeing if it is your cache) is to go through the history, comparing diffs (find when the vandalism took place, and you can find if it was removed). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Publicroutes

This users account is being used to spam a website around the public transportation articles. This site has shown up from other users to include:

• 71.247.72.12
• Back2Ape
• Future2010

This site has been added to numerous pages within the last 45 days. Its caught fairly quickly, however this current user has a substantial number of spammings. First batch conducted in december 2006 and user was warned. Now user has 12 edits today alone. I will be initiating a RFCU to see if these are puppets as well. If an admin can look into this, it would be great! Rob110178 17:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)