Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive201

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks.[edit]

User fys has been abusive towards me:

So I left him a warning using the standard template.

He removed it [4] saying "revert new user test". I made it clear it was not a test "rv deletion of warning re multiple personal attacks by this user on me. User has been told not to make personal attacks, and knows perfectly well this is not a 'new user test'".

He has now removed it again with the edit summary "m (fmt)". Nssdfdsfds 12:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to remove anything from a talk page. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
That's not what it says here [5]. While some people on the talk page argue that users should be able to remove warnings immediately, as to remove them they must have read and hopefully understood them, in doing so saying "revert new user test" and "(fmt)" doesn't demonstrate good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talkcontribs) 20:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
"What it says here" (Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Removing_warnings) was a proposal, not a policy or guideline. It was not adopted. A note at top now clarifies this: "This proposal was rejected by the community. It has not gained consensus and seems unlikely to do so." On the talk page, please note the comment: "Several proposed policies to forbid warning removal were defeated. As such, people remain allowed to remove things that they don't like from their talk page, and that includes warnings. Revert warring to replace a warning is bad form. One may assume that a user removing a warning has read said warning".... -- Ben 13:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying he shouldn't remove it, I'm saying that when a user removes a warning by saying "revert new user test", it is quite reasonable to add it back saying "it was not a test". He can remove whatever he like, but in saying revert test and "fmt", he is showing a deliberate deceit which does his cause no favours. Nssdfdsfds

I've left a note on his talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Pretty standard behaviour for Fys. You need to realise that Fys is absolutely right about absolutely everything and therefore any warnings are necessarily invalid. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Might have known you'd show up in your usual provocative way - not actually arguing that I'm wrong, just insinuating that I must be. I might remind you that I still have my 100% record: whenever I kick up a fuss, it always turns out in the end that I'm right. If I'm not right, I don't kick up a fuss. That simple enough for you? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • This being the admins' noticeboard, and me being an admin, and one of the more active ones at that, I didn't "show up", I was here all along. "Revert new user test?" How about "I have read your comment and do not wish to engage in debate" or some such? And "fmt" (minor)? What's that if not a misleading edit summary? Has it ever occurred to you to be anything other than aggressive and provocative? Oh, and hey! You're edit warring on Anne Milton again! You need to chill. Why not ask your man Cameron if you can bum a spliff? ;-) Guy (Help!) 23:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You didn't have to interpose yourself in this section, you chose to, in what is a fairly blatant provocation. I was a better admin on an off day than you've ever been, with your personalising of everything. You should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Fys, you were being blatantly provocative, and you are edit warring on a WP:BLP political article again. You don't want people to notice and comment on this behaviour? Try not doing it. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • David Cameron's on the other side. I don't think he'll be giving him any spliffs. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It appears he's trying to fix things by removing his edits about calling the other user an idiot [6], so hopefully things have calmed down. Cowman109Talk 16:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless he's actually apologizing, that's not fixing things, that's covering his tracks. His last edit indicates that his sense of self-righteousness remains intact. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a textbook example of a personal attack. From an editor with a significant block history and past ArbCom sanctions for disruptive editing. It's also very obviously a violation of WP:STALK. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I am rapidly running out of patience for this user, continually involved in incidents similar to this. I would support an indefinate time out. ViridaeTalk 11:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
See also [7] with its rude edit summary, and [8], vexatious use of a standard template warning on an established editor, which by common consent is rude and provocative. I think Fys is often a good editor but is very very combative and his reaction to any challenge is frequently rude and obnoxious. He's a political activist and a Usenet veteran so this is pretty much as expected. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, who's "stalking" whom? This started out not involving JzG, then he leaps in to revive a dispute long considered settled, and misused his admin rollback button in a content dispute. And the corollary to "don't template the regulars" is that you use a specific individual message: when I do this, he removed it. The reason I have learned to be combative with JzG is that he is a personal, vindictive and combative person who pays no regard to logical, well constructed arguments. He is unsuited to the role of admin. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You will note that when I removed your comments on my Talk I acknowledged them with civil edit summaries. The second was redundant anyway. But please don't try to change the subject. You have been rude and obnoxious with your comments and edit summaries, and this is part of a long-term pattern of rude and obnoxious comments and summaries. You should urgently consider changing this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think JzG ought to remove himself from this debate–I have a hard time seeing how this addition [9] merits the use of rollback. I also don't see how it's appropriate to bring up past sanctions against Fys as a justification of one's own behaviour–as we all ought to know by now, items in a block log do not speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was a mistake; I immediately made a null edit to add a summary (which was: taking it to Talk, which I did), but it did not show up for some reason. No big deal, I think, given that I gave justifications for the original edit in the summary and I took it to Talk. This is a sideshow which should not distract from the original topic. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make up. Also, I definitely think from [10] that Fys should use more moderate language, as a lot of his edit summaries seem to be provocative. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nssdfdsfds (talkcontribs) 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC).
Ok, I just read that as "I think Fys and JzG should kiss and make out." Not a pleasant mental image... AecisBrievenbus 12:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute (and one, I might add, that JzG has involved himself). If the worst thing here is Fys calling someone an "idiot" (probably over this edit [11]), then I daresay contributors in this thread have said a good deal worse. Our focus ought to be on the article, which actually has on an active talk page. This doesn't require administrative attention, and I'm shocked that people above are seriously calling for a community ban. Mackensen (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is one of a long string of incidents involving fys and and his absoloutely uncompromising POV. There has to be a limit. ViridaeTalk 12:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a case of POV editing. You have caught this disease of JzG. I want this blog mentioned because it makes the article better, not because it accords with my POV. Withdraw that unfounded allegation. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I assume that was directed at me. I wasn't reffering to your editing, I was reffering to your interactions with other users, your uncompromising position that you are always right, as clearly demonstrated in my past dealings with you. You never seem to have learnt from any of the disputes to which you have been a party and consequently you seem to be rapidly running out of chances for redemption. ViridaeTalk 13:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks in edit summaries in the last 50 edits today: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Many many users have been blocked for much less. What is it going to take for you to be civil? ViridaeTalk 13:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, if I wasn't already involved in this discussion/had a history with you and I came across that lot I would have blocked you on the spot. Unacceptable. ViridaeTalk 13:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, Mackensen, with respect, it's not a content dispute. Fys has changed the subject, and that happened because I mentioned that one of the articles involved is Anne Milton, the article where I blocked Fys for edit-warring before, but the problem is not the edit warring (although that is part of the problem), it's Fys' repeatable use of insulting comments in text and in edit summaries. As Viridae says, it's a long-term issue with this editor.
I'm not going to press this further because I am "involved" (in the sense that one who does something to prevent Fys from doing what he wants is immediately "involved", since he seems entirely incapable of taking no for an answer) but you will see that the edit summaries and comments linked above use terms like "liar" and "idiot". He removed abusive comments instead of striking them and apologising (did he apologise for his rudeness? I didn't see it) and he posted blatant personal attacks, including evidently trawling through my Talk to find a disgruntled editor and stirring up dissent there.
In short: Fys is a troublemaker. His reaction to being called a troublemaker is precisely as one would expect from a politician and Usenet veteran: deflection and denial. Seems that's what's being tried again here. "Look at this horrible admin abuse, see this terrible edit warring". How about "Sorry, I should not have called this editor an idiot?" Or "sorry, I got carried away?"
Sooner or later we (for values of we which do not include me) are going to have to deal with this. Fys was desysopped for unapologetically edit warring on a political biography, and overall the one word that I think characterises Fys' behaviour generally is unapologetic. Like most politicians, he is entirely convinced of his own rectitude and he seems, from my limited interactions with him, to be absolutely unwilling to accept even the suggestion that he may be in the wrong. He is also not prepared to drop it, as we see form the fact that he is still evidently beating the dead horse of his 3RR block months ago. Of course the project can live with bullheaded and opinionated people, if it could not then I'd be out of here, but when they refuse to countenance the possibility they may be wrong, then we have a problem. WP:TIGERS. Guy (Help!) 12:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to waste time drawing attention to JzG's blatant personal attacks and reference to off-wiki behaviour above; merely to point out that he says on his user page "If you act like a dick, I'll call you a dick". I'm merely doing the same, and "they don't like it up 'em". If this editing dispute has become heated, then JzG's contribution has been to bring much of the petrol. Where I am right I stick to my guns. Where I am wrong, I back down. The wiki would be rendered useless if editors backed down when they were in the right. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a whole world of difference between telling someone hey are acting like a dick and posting egregious personal attacks, which is what you did. Plus, the events whihc started this thread had nothing to do with me, you were insulting and attacking another editor entirely. Oh, and you're acting like a dick. Again. Like the man says lower down, put down the stick and back away from the horse. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the utter and intense irony that it was Fys who claimed my Conservatives Userproject was POV-pushing... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an organised attempt to recruit Wikipedians by POV. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing. Articles I have written are NPOV. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 13:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I think it's rather silly to claim everything you've written is NPOV. Everyone has their own political opinions and leanings, and while you certainly don't write articles to say "David Cameron is a Tory idiot", edits such as this [18] unquestionably demonstrate that you have a POV, as the edit is slanted against Gilligan and in favour of the government, certainly reading the evidence from the testimony you linked, it's not consistent with the slant of the article. Neturality is a lot more subtle than bald political statements, and the presentation of evidence and summaries which appear to be balanced prima facie, but actually slant the reader towards a certain conclusion is actually rather more insidious and effective han overt bias. Of course everyone will do this, nobody is without opinions and bias, and to claim that you are an impartial observer, infallible and completely without bias is just silly. This is consistent with other recent edits of yours to the effect that you are always right, and doesnt' do you any favours. Nssdfdsfds 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No it wasn't and you know damn well it wasn't. I even offered you the chance to act as an NPOV checker. No article I have ever written has contained POV either, so your insinuation that I have is a fallacy. I have never been sanctioned for POV editing - you have been desysopped for it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This thread has wandered far afield from "User Fys removing warnings about personal attacks" (removing warnings is not an offense, by the way). As a non-admin, may I suggest it be closed here? And may I ask the disputants find some other way to settle their disputes than by bringing them to ANI?

If editors can't reach agreement (or at least agree to disagree civilly) on the talk pages, they can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as asking for a "third opinion", or requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Admins usually abide by agreements reached through this process. -- Ben 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should run for a while. Fys is very skilled at diverting discussion of his problematic behaviour down blind alleys, but he does keep on with the problematic behaviour and, as noted above, he has an unshakeable belief in his own neutrality, which is a pressing problem given that he is a party political activist; it is unwise in the extreme not to acknowledge even the possibility that you might have bias. Add to that the extremely unhelpful nature of some of his comments, and we have a problem editor. With a history of blocks, an ArbCom sanction and a desysopping behind him. Every time he diverts the discussion by poking sharp sticks at everybody who disagrees with him, we all say "oh, content dispute" and wander off. How many content disputes do you have to have, with how many editors, before it;s considered a problem? Fys will not accept criticism, even when it is seen by outsiders as well founded. Anybody who criticises him gets a shitstorm. Do we need that? Guy (Help!) 17:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Might I add that this particular incident report took not less than five insults by him calling me an "idiot", which I repeatedly asked him not to do (and which he ignored), and then two removals of my warning template about his abuse (which I only added after he had slapped a warning template on my own page about reverting (something, which of course takes two, and that second person was Fys) - in other words he wanted to warn me (and I responded), but refused to listen to my own warnings, firstly in the edit summary, then in the page itself, and then on his user page). In other words from the issue of whether or not this text
"In February 2006, Milton was among a minority of Conservative MPs to oppose exceptions for private clubs from the proposed Smoking ban in England. The next month, she was the first Conservative MP to sign an early day motion tabled by Labour MP Chris Mullin calling for fake fur to be used in the bearskin hats worn by some regiments of the British Army."
is notable enough to include in the article on Anne Milton, it escalated into this. This escalation took, by my count, NINE acts of abusive and/or arrogant behaviour against me by Fys. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] And this despite my requests to the contrary. I can't help thinking that it could have been stopped long before this. Nssdfdsfds 19:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And by my reckoning this is pretty standard behaviour for Fys, certainly not unusual or unprecedented. Which is why I think we ought to consider what, if anything, to do about it. It's the complete lack of openness to the idea that he is anything other than completely neutral in his editing that bugs me here. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
My last contribution yesterday before 4 PM, and then JzG and others come back several times later to jump all over my reputation and then accuse me of "flogging a dead horse" when I did not respond. This is unacceptable. What exactly is the 'horse' in question? Does JzG think it is fair for him and his allies to issue constant insults against me, including unworthy suggestions which have no supporting evidence, and then object that I have no right to disagree? JzG is unworthy of being an administrator and should resign. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I somehow see this ending in an ArbCom.--Isotope23 15:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will not participate but would welcome an ArbCom hearing which resulted in desysopping JzG. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I may say this, though: if JzG undertakes never again to make the claim that my wish to see the Tim Ireland blog mentioned in Anne Milton is derived from my own point of view on her politics, and agrees that I have not been sanctioned for point of view editing, then I will let the matter drop so far as he is concerned (and he need not apologise for having done so in the past). Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That blog is in no way a reliable source. It should be removed from the article.--Isotope23 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the blog as a source and all of the information sourced from the blog. Someguysblog is never an acceptable source. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been added back now by Fys and Catchpole, who reverted it saying 'rv attempts to whitewash criticism of Milton behind hysterical "attack blog" assertions'. This doesn't seem to be according with policy. See also the talk page.Nssdfdsfds 13:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, Hipocrite, blogs can be used as a source, like any self-published site. According to WP:V, Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. I don't know what kind of blog this was, but it's just not accurate to say blogs are not usable as sources 100% of the time. Jeffpw 15:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not in there as a source, as would be fairly clear if you knew the background. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Someguysblog is not the blog of a "well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist." If they were, they wouldn't be "Someguy." Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Mighty generous offer there: "If he will promise to surrender unconditionally, I promise to accept his surrender unconditionally also." --Calton | Talk 15:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh do come off it. I'm merely asking that he stop making unfounded allegations which he has never substantiated. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but if there is a problem with Fys's editing, then aren't the remedies from this ArbCom case still applicable (specifically, article probation - "Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Fys from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing... Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations.")? If this does not help, perhaps ArbCom would be willing to consider extenting the existing sanctions (with or without a new case)? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Would 'any page' include this one? Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually that's not article probation (article probation applies to articles) but a one year ordinary probation which expires in August. Please note the "for reasonable cause". Please note that it's been accepted that I can remove warnings from my userpage (which I note JzG does all the time). If JzG would accept the very reasonable offer made above, which merely asks him not to make unfounded accusations (something he should not be doing anyway) then this would be a big pile of nothing and everyone could go away. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, these issues would not blow up to such a degree if you would ever accept that you are wrong. Renoving warnings is accepted yes, but in doing so saying "new user test" and "fmt" was wrong. Perhaps I should have added a Wrongsummary3 template as well. :-) Nssdfdsfds 11:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Or everyone could just go away, and you could take it to dispute resolution. Tom Harrison Talk 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to go to dispute resolution. I have raised this issue with JzG many times but he removes anything I ask him on his talk page. An RfC is not possible unless two users are involved and I don't see him waiving his privilege. And I am definitely not going to Arbitration as the whole process is unacceptable. So what should I do to stop JzG making unfounded allegations? Because, let me make it absolutely clear, a great deal of my irritation with him (which may come across as disruption) is because of his continual unwarranted accusations. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Tom and ALoan... I would say 'any page' could indeed include this one, but perhaps that might not be the most productive thing to do. What I am seeing is a pattern of contentious behaviour from an editor that has been warned before and perhaps some community sanctioning is in order here... what would be the list of pages that we'd want to restrict this behaviour on? Do we really need ArbCom to sanction? Or could previously uninvolved admins just take care of this on their own? ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose we could make a list of pages and ban him from them under the existing remedy for disruptive incivility. But I'm not sure a focus on particular pages is what we need. The problem seems to be a pattern of behavior with other editors: unwillingness to be civil with people who disagree with him, to the point of interfering with his and others' work. As a disclaimer, while I don't follow these pages I have blocked Fys in the past, and he has called me an idiot. Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What in fact happened, a year ago this week, was that you blocked me for a totally fictitious 3RR violation. As I understand it no-one now believes that that block was justified. It did, however, lead indirectly to my desysopping when I self un-blocked at 1 AM: I was just about to finish an edit that had taken me an hour to work on. Just for the sake of full disclosure. I mean what I say about JzG accepting the deal proposed above, and that would be far, far simpler than anything anyone else has proposed. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

And he's *still* abusing me. (see bottom here: Talk:Anne Milton). Nssdfdsfds 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Thats enough, Fys has had huge amounts of leeway in this matter despite repeated and continuing personal incidents. This last personal attack (reported above) tips the balance that should have been tipped some time ago, and Fys has earnt himself a 31 hour block. However, I am at work and will hardly be on here so can someone keep an eye on his talk page for the unblock ntoice that will surely be coming. ViridaeTalk 22:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fys chose to respond without an unblock notice, but rather with more direct commentary, and I see you responded in turn. I hope the block, which I support, gives Fys a chance to reflect on how to more positively contribute in future, and I hope you don't get too drawn into sparring over the block with Fys as your reasoning is sound in my view. ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I see no point in further sparring with Fys, he is quite obviously just "spoiling for a fight". Thanks for the support. ViridaeTalk 23:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

More Abuse[edit]

Didn't take long: [28] Please see his other contribs for context. Nssdfdsfds 17:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an edit of yours. Bit of a stretch for me to have inserted personal abuse into something you typed, isn't it? Or have I acquired mysterious Svengali-like qualities all of a sudden? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edit is the bit right above where I responded. I highlighted my response because although accusing people of lying is unnacceptable anyway, I included my response to make clear what the problem was and to refute your accusations. Incidentally, you do also appear to be advancing similar insults to the ones I reported you for last time, and even since I reported this here. Your edit summary here: [29] is abusive. Nssdfdsfds 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


User: King_of_Hearts - Wikistalking and Personal Page Vandalism and Protection[edit]

User:King_of_Hearts protected my user page (and admitted to wiki-stalking me) because I wanted to BLANK my own, personal user-page. The user seems to have a complain against me removing homophobic hate speech from my user page. Please un-protect my user-page and allow me to blank it as necessary. The user has threatened that he/she is wikistalking me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see Wikistalking anywhere. I remember having to protect your page two weeks ago for the same reasons King of Hearts did tonight. There is no complaint against you removing anything from the user talk that belongs to the IP you use. I do not see any threats of Wikistalking at all, and was more than likely alerted to your actions through recent changes patrolling.—Ryūlóng () 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you have no penchant for the truth. The user King of Hearts says he will "watch my edits for vanadlism" (slander in and of itself) AND he has blocked me blanking my own user page. Call it want you want, but it seems to be homophobic bullying from power-hungry editors. Guess NPOV is a pipe-dream because the only NPOV is the one you enforce on all others. Guess that means no rooms for the gays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.64.214 (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are not blocked as you are editting this page right now. There is no slander. There is no homophobic bullying, just something in your head. No one is paying any attention to the content of the user talk other than you. NPOV doesn't really apply to user talk pages. The page also does not belong to you but the Wikimedia Foundation. Please, also, sign your posts with only four tildes, not five.—Ryūlóng () 08:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking over your edits, the only one being homophobic is you, Mr. Anony. JuJube 20:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ogoing block evasion and abusive behaviour[edit]

User:24.167.107.118 has been identified (see [30] and [31]) as User:Woodstock2010.

At 03:10, February 13, 2007, User:24.167.107.118 was blocked (48h) for "trolling" (block log). (S)he continued editing as User:Woodstock2010 until (s)he was identified (see links above), at which point that user was blocked (1wk) at 22:46, February 14, 2007 for block evasion and edit warring (see block log). User:24.167.107.118 continues to edit war (see contributions), and makes disruptive comments such as "its something that people like JAYJG or blue jay jay-z or whatever are JUST GOING TO HAVE TO LEARN TO LIVE WITH." and "Don't apologize to these people. They ARE BIASED. ... You're right 100% and AVI is just insecure."

I'm not sure whether sprotection or blocking the IP is the best approach here, but would appreciate some assistance. Thanks, Jakew 10:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe this user has also edited as ShitakiMan, who was blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry on January 9. Also, 24.26.237.251 has edits which are consistent with Woodstock2010's. --Onorem 11:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Jakew 11:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked permanently. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal with a grudge[edit]

On my talk page I have received another report about the infamous vandal with a grudge. Apparently, he contributes from the addresses 83.148.0.0/18 and 84.244.64.0/18, and there seem to be little to no construcive edits from these ranges. I have suggested blocking the ranges for a year, but I don't think that I should take such drastic action without agreement of other editors. What do you people think? - Mike Rosoft 18:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's an exceptionally broad range, Mike. The potential for collateral damage is huge. REDVEЯS 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Redvers that the collateral damage would be great. I'd personally recommend filing an abuse report instead. Cheers. Yuser31415 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism from Tom66909 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This person made some normal edits initially, but ever since has been inserting not-notable spam about himself and his friends into articles, and creating articles about not-notable films that he was in with his pals. He made this edit to Deerfield, Illinois, [32] where he added himself as a "famous resident". If you click on the link to Tom Cummings, it's a redirect back to his own userpage (it's already been speedied). He also created an article for a not-notable film (which has since been speedied) [33]. He also added more garbage here about himself and his not-notable pals [34]. Someone should have a discussion with this person and either make him understand that his random garage band and an unreleased film he made with his friends aren't worthy of Wikipedia articles. Or else block him for spamming. TheQuandry 19:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree the additions are inappropriate, but looking at this user's contributions I think we should WP:AGF and not label these edits as vandalism. Misinformed, yes; vandalism, no. —Doug Bell talk 19:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've placed a note on his talk page that will hopefully clarify WP:N, WP:V, and WP:Conflict of interest. TheQuandry 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Afd heading south[edit]

Anthony John Bailey has been nominated for deletion. There's already been 3 !votes from the same IP editor using 2 different names in the Afd, it might be an idea if someone keeps an eye on this one. One Night In Hackney 19:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconclusive Disruptive Editing RfC[edit]

Would someone please look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus, which concerns disruptive editing on Johannes Kepler and Scientific Revolution. The RfC was created at 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC) and Logicus was asked to comment at 14:07, 1 February 2007.[35] Logicus has not responded to this RfC, but he has also suspended his editing. I wouldn't like to let this just drift into limbo.

Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 21:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking by PageantUpdater[edit]

PageantUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Several days ago, a difference of opinion arose over the placement of a fair use image in the Kandice Pelletier article. The editor in question, PageantUpdater and I went back and forth about the placement of the image and the boxes. In retaliation, PageantUpdater went and singled out the image in question for possible deletion. I stand by the assertion that singling out the one image rather than the whole class of photos in Category:The Amazing Race contestants makes it hard to WP:Assume Good Faith

We've gone back and forth about this. Today, the disagreement escalated so I felt I should issue a 3RR warning.

With these last four edits:

  1. edit 1 - 1 minute revert
  2. edit 2 - 13 minute revert
  3. edit 3 - 6 minute revert
  4. edit 4 - 29 minute revert

I wondered if I was being wikistalked. Since I asked to stop this abusive behavior the following articles have been nominated for deletion by PageantUpdater:

Additionally, the nomination of these pages for deletion looks like a violation of WP:POINT. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_13#Amazing_Race_Contestants

There is a pattern here of disruptive editing. Whenever PU doesn'tget their way they start nominating things for deletion. It's happened repeatedly today and started with the image listed above. This is abusive. Finally, as I've been writing this PageantUpdater has left me notes accusing me of being harassing. Please help. --evrik (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you are violating WP:POINT evrik. Reality contest contestants aren't considered automatically notable if their only accomplishment is the actual show, yet after an argument about this on PageantUpdater's page, you go and create two very short stubs about it to see if there is any reaction, and then go and wikilink redlinks for non-articles which are traditionally held to not be notable, which is why they are left unlinked, much like failed politcal candidates on election pages. Looks like you've been blocked a lot as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as you have awarded PU a barnstar in the past, are you really being objective?
Actually, I have text for all of the candidates in this season as this is the All Star season. I was going to load the bio pages from the articles when PageantUpdater started reverting my edits. I went away for a couple of hours and then loaded the Mary Conley and David Conley, Jr. pages. PU nominated them for deletion within minutes. Stalking. --evrik (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that she did good work. It's not as though it was the other way around, like I've been the target of some kind of charm campaign. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My side of the story: Back on the 6th of Feb I noticed a fair use image in Kandice Pelletier and removed it, while adding a pertinent infobox. The image was re-added by Evrik at which point I removed it citing the fair use rules. For the past week there's been to-ing and fro-ing about the use of the image and the positioning of the two infoboxes in the article (see the Talk:Kandice Pelletier) and I clearly admit that I have "used up" my three reverts today. Regarding the image, initially I mistakenly thought that it was only used in the biographical article and tagged it as "rfu". Later, after lengthy debate and argument, I realised my oversight and removed the rfu tags from the image, and again removed the image from Kandice Pelletier. Evrik seems to have a real issue with what I have been doing but in my opinion at least I have been working to improve the article, for example by adding detailed references and expanding the article.

The latest is that I noticed that Evrik had wikilinked some names in the Amazing Race episode articles which I reverted because I couldn't see the point of having redlinks. In my final revert I noted that that these articles, if created, would fail on notability. My edits were reverted, the articles were created, and I nominated them for deletion. Evrik then removed the afd tag on one of the articles [36] which I replaced. Creating the afds and my reverts to the episode articles has led to me being accused of wikistalking - which is ludicrous. The articles were all on my watchlist prior and had any other editor tried the same thing I would have reverted and dealt with it in the same fashion.

I probably have more to add but am due to leave work for the day soon so want to get this posted in the interim. I will just add that I prior to this ending up on here I suggested that Evrik launch an RFC if he continues to harrass me in this manner, because I am sick of it. Clearly, for reasons I cannot fathom, he chose to address it here. I have already attempted to extend an olive branch and call in other editors but this hasn't met too favourably with Evrik.

PS Evrik has basically challenged me to deal with the other images yet chooses to revert my action when I do so -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 03:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


My side of the story (part 2): Ok back home now. Not going to add a whole lot right now but to say that I am frustrated by the accusation that by not immediately dealing with other Amazing Race related images at the time I removed one from Kandice Pelletier I have somehow acted in bad faith. To be honest at the time I didn't care a hoot about any other articles or images, but only the one in the article I was dealing with at the time (Pelletier's). When I was challenged on this I decided to go and have a look at the others, which I edited in a way I felt was appropriate, tagging some [37], moving those I thought were okay under the fair use guidles to appropriate places in articles [38] [39] and nominating whole articles for deletion because I did not think they complied with the notability policy[40]. Yet Evrik still accuses me of singling the one article out. As outlined above when I finished up dealing with the images some of my edits were reverted.

I admit that I have been mildly rude to Evrik on one occasion this afternoon when I just couldn't stomach this any longer (see [41] [42]) but I feel that it is I who is being persecuted here, not Evrik. I have been transparent and open throughout the whole ordeal and quite frankly I am sick of it, as I indicated to him here -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 03:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment of mine has just been deleted from his talk page as "abusive". -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 03:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
PS if I was truly wikistalking him, wouldn't I be messing with all his edits, rather than just those we share a common interest in? Lol -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 04:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that anyone can make edits on an article. You shouldn't be taking it personally if someone changes or removes your edits. The fact is, most of those contestants are non-notable outside of the Amazing Race. --Madchester 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

  • While I agree about the editing, as evidenced by the back and forth prior to Feb 12, the fact is, that PageantUpdater has a pattern of nominating articles and images for deletion to make a point, and it is this that is abusive. -evrik (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Evrik you are violating WP:POINT by the creation of those stubs, if you keep on creating more stubs I will block you Jaranda wat's sup 05:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • In Evrik's defense (and I may not be objective), PageantUpdater had never edited the four articles she initially reverted (until Evrik did) she then revertd him in the name of Wiki Quality. It seems to me that she must have been monitoring what he was editing and then edited right after him. This is clearly a violation of WP:STALK. PageantUpdater seems to have caused by this whole mess and Evrik has merely defended himself. --South Philly 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
    • South Philly I would respectfully request that you be more careful when making accusations such as this and actually look at the facts. Such as these: edit to Amazing Race 5 01:35, 25 March 2006 , edit to Amazing Race 10 00:53, 24 July 2006. And although I'm 99.9% sure that TAR 3 and TAR 11 were already in my watchlist, surely when you notice random wikilinks being added to Amazing Race episode articles it is only natural to check some of the others? -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 19:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is really scary[edit]

Not only has PU started another edit war, on an article I started today, but now I find that she is keeping a diary [[User:PageantUpdater/Evrik conflict]] --evrik (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at that, Evrik, and it seems a rational response by someone who feels she is being harassed. Document document document--you never know when you'll need the stuff in a hurry. Jeffpw 22:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Evrik, considering the (false) accusations you have made against me and your persecution and harassment of me, this was, as Jeff put it, a rational response, not to mention stress relief. It was particularly warranted because you were claiming things were done in an order that they were not, and seem to ignore the fact that I did in fact deal with the articles in Category: Amazing Race contestants. The page is far from complete but I will continue to work on it. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
PageantUpdater is keeping a journal on the issue in userspace, you're in essence documenting the conflict here. How is one inappropriate if the other is not? Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 22:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not normally that detail oriented. I find it disconcerting that someone is tracking me that closely. --evrik (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I am also tracking my own edits and those of other editors related to the conflict. You are at the heart of it, but are not the only one who's edits are being documented. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 22:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
She's keeping ajournal of the whole interaction. As I said, I think it's perfectly justified. If this ever goes to arbitration, all of her prep work is done and ready to submit. It's what's recommended during employment conflicts, and I think it's perfectly appropriate here. Jeffpw 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a comment from an outsider's view. Should this go to requests for comment first, and maybe arbitration later, if there's a need for it?? Keeping documentation on conflicts seems appropriate as evidence, and Jeffpw's point above says it all.

--sunstar nettalk 23:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I plan to take it to RFC (unless Evrik gets in first) but have been busy at work all week, carrying on this mess has been hard enough and I don't have the time or "headspace" needed to plan the RFC nom. I plan to do it tonight or tomorrow. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 23:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Let her bring it to an RFC. The fact is that she took a dispute over the content of one page and one image and expanded it - stalking me and harassing me. She repeatedly found articles that I was editing and started reverting me, even on an article that was brand new. While it may be good to document a dispute - her current obsession is unhealthy and scary. --evrik (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to give you a reality check, evrik, I fail to see what you are seeing, and your words here are bordering on WP:NPA violation. Jeffpw 21:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I have started an RFC in relation to Evrik's conduct. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

more webcomics stuff[edit]

An individual claims to use unfair means in order to get a webcomic article deleted:

http://www.halfpixel.com/2007/02/15/delete-wikipedia

Geni 14:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the socks mentioned in the article

Salby (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Incredulous (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Banalzebub (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Hammerabbi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
LKeith30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Repromancer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Expiwikist (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Floxman (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
YothSog (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
66.27.212.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It’s not so great that nobody (myself included; I participated quite a bit in the AFD) noticed this and quite a reminder to pay more attention to both sides of an AFD in the future. Does anyone see the need for DRV? (The article didn’t have much potential, but given the circumstances, the deletion was not necessarily within the usual process.) —xyzzyn 14:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If admins did not view AfD as a vote, this sort of activity would bear no weight. Kyaa the Catlord 14:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I never viewed the AfD as a vote. I applied common sense and policy. The artile explicitly failed WP:N. Take it to WP:DRV if you dispute this. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't addressed at you in particular. Just a general comment, gomen for any misinterpretted aggro-ness. Kyaa the Catlord 15:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:DRV discussion has been initiated, someone needs to fix it though – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 15#Starslip Crisis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talkcontribs) 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Based on the admission, does anyone have a big problem with a sock-block?--Isotope23 15:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Worse yet, the author says he spent time fixing "punctuation outside of quotation marks", which is just wrong. Αργυριου (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it wrong? The author says "even I couldn’t resist fixing punctuation outside of quotation marks and errant apostrophes." - surely this is the kind of minor edit that very many people make very often, and is to be welcomed? DanBeale 18:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:MOS, punctuation should be outside quotation marks unless it is part of the quotation. Doing otherwise is… just wrong. —xyzzyn 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood the author to be saying that he was fixing punctuation that was not part of quoted text. DanBeale 21:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a RFCU. Do I have to add it to pending myself or is there a bot to do that, it's not clear from the instructions and I don't want to mess it up --Random832(tc) 16:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if this is true (as checkuser will hopefully determine), textbook WP:POINT. --Random832(tc) 16:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

oh CRAP. I didn't read correctly. I've crossed out your line in the CU, but it's still listed under your name. What should I do? --Random832(tc) 16:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Someone fixed it. Anyway, it was confirmed. --Random832(tc) 18:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington blocked quite a few as SPA trolls and I blocked the rest as confirmed WP:SOCKS.--Isotope23 18:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've checked all the other contributions, none of these contributed to any other AFDs. Sigh. GRBerry 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll point out the user does in fact believe the webcomic is non-notable: "Starslip Crisis honestly isn’t notable." He was trying to point out that he could get it deleted for spurious reasons, but he did believe there were valid reasons to delete it.

Also, I have a hard time thinking of any way he could have argued this without trying it. I think we all know that for someone to merely say his criticism would not be nearly as effective. Ken Arromdee 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting case-study and he makes some good points: Don't look to wikipedia for personal validation. Just block the socks, re-do the AFD and carry on with no hard feelings. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A final salvo from Jefferson Anderson - request for uninvolved admin[edit]

Jefferson Anderson has apparently left Wikipedia, but the content of what he has left on his talk page and done on his user page violates quite a number of WP policies. His userpage now hosts a series of "what's wrong with WP and particular editors", which if not a borderline violation of SOAP, is pretty close to violating NPA, or may qualify as polemical content. Jefferson has also removed all negative comment made about his edits, and has left only those that, when taken as a whole, make him look like a martyr of sorts, unjustly hounded by Wikipedia users, when looking at other evidence clearly shows otherwise. The problem is, one has to look for that. I'd like to see the talk material restored, the new user page content cleared, and both pages protected. I'd also like to see the account locked to prevent further usage, frankly, because a currently banned user is a known "friend" of his. However, as a named party, I don't want to lend credence to the claims by rm'ing the material myself, putting it up for MfD, or doing anything else to it or with it. Could an uninvolved admin look at the user and talk pages and come to a decision? MSJapan 20:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that bad to me. He's whinging, and it's basically pointless, but there's no policies being broken, there's no personal attacks, there's no polemics. If you've been in a dispute with him, maybe you should just let it go. Proto  22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As another named party (and one who has not had a dispute with him), I do have an issue with his subpage... User:Jefferson Anderson/Evidence. Shouldn't an unfounded sockpuppet accusation be considered a personal attack? If he thinks I am a sock of someone else, he should have requested a checkuser to verify it. To place unverified "evidence" on his user page seems like an "attack" to me. Blueboar 13:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hm...so stating and naming users as controlling articles without proof isn't a violation of WP:NPA? Particularly where the policy states "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views"? Jefferson claims that because we're Masons, we all know each other well (which is funny, considering Arbcom statemnts about himand his friends), and that we are controlling articles. He cites Jahbulon, which after we stopped his nonsense, was rewritten totally and is as decent as it is going to get.
As for "debating content and not contributors", we have unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry - he claims he was accused unjustly by particular users, yet leaves out that he has done the same thing (as noted by Blueboar). The same with the "meatpuppetry" accusations - he was accused unjustly, but we are actually doing it. Where is this "debating content and not contributors"? I'm not going to respond to it, but I shouldn't have to stand for it, either, especially from a disingenuous user who is distorting facts to make the perpetrator into the victim. Also, given that he was only here for just over 2 months (supposedly; I have doubts given his early contribs), how does he have any basis on which to comment on anything? This is more or less allowing WP and its users to be lambasted by anyone who decides they want to, baselessly. MSJapan 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Suppression of Notification to Users Whose Edits are Subject to AfD/DRV[edit]

This AN/I entry concerns directives I have received from admin TenOfAllTrades on February 14, 2007 in which I was told to not provide notice to users whose work was threatened with deletion under the AfD process. The exchange was played out on our respective talk pages which are found here and here . The AfDs involved in this matter are found here and here.

Background and Discussion: I periodically review AfDs and DRVs looking for articles with significant merit. If I find such an article that has had substantial participation from users who are not involved in the discussion I have at times provided a notification to all editors who have contributed to the article. This practice is motivated by concern that fair and complete process requires that those editors whose work may be destroyed by deletion are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Simply put they are entitled to have a say in the matter. They can't participate if they don't know about it. I can not participate often as this notice procedure is somewhat time consuming. I have been selecting well less than 1% of articles in AfD/DRV. Again, I try to select article with merit and multiple editors.

I have received somewhat inconsistent direction from admins on this matter. Here I received advice from the closer of an AfD that it was permissible to contact article editors to participate in the DRV. Here I received advice that notice is proper providing all sides are contacted (This was an DRV and although AVI felt contact was permitted he would not provide names of underlying editors in article, record of which had been deleted). It has become my practice to clearly indicate in the AfD/DRV when I notify edits. Here and here are two examples of DRVs in which I announced posting notices. The admins who closed these DRV must have been aware of the notices and they did not see any reason to even comment to me. Now for the same conduct TenOfAllTrades has indicated I will blocked if I continue to provided such notices.

I have been an editor of WP for 16 months and have made a little over a thousand editors. I know that is not much by admin standards put it is enough for me to care about. I have never been blocked. I know many, including admins, confuse what I am doing with "canvassing" or "aggressive cross posting" I have tailored these notices to conform with WP:CANVASS. I am acting in good faith, out of legitimate concern for the work and rights of other editors.

Some of those who receive notice may be mildly inconvenienced. But the interests of editors who are able to participate because they receive notice greatly out weighs any trivial burden on those who don't care.

Finally I know that many of the users receiving these notices appreciate them. I have seen notified editors participate in discussions. I have seen them help form consensus to keep articles. Most importantly I have seen editors improve articles, as is encouraged in the AfD process.

Requested Action: I request that the admins reach and articulate a clear consensus concerning notifications to editors whose work is subject to deletion in AfD and DRV matters. The lack of this consensus subjects the would be providers of such notices to the limits imposed by the most restrictive admins or subjects the provider to blocking and loss of reputation.

Note: I will provide TenOfAllTrades with notice of this AN/I entry.

Respectfully Edivorce 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that it is not merely acceptable to notify the creator and major editors of an AfD, but that it's encouraged. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that Edivorce is working in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I am, however, concerned that he has misunderstood our policies and practices on Wikipedia with respect to cross-posting. (Part of the confusion may stem from overgeneralizing the applicability of some specific advice he may have received.)
To clarify, I believe that there is a broad consensus that sending out a templated notification to every single editor of an article when it is nominated for deletion is considered an inappropriate level of cross-posting. Further – as far as I can tell, at least – Edivorce has never received advice to the contrary. I initially approached him after I noticed his posts (two in the same day) on another editor's talk page that I happened to have watchlisted.
The specific cases (cited above) where Edivorce has received advice are somewhat different situations. In order of the diffs above:
  • [43] Edivorce was advised by CharlotteWebb that when DRV sent an article back for a second AfD, it would be appropriate for him to notify the participants in the original AfD. (Note also that CharlotteWebb is not an admin. Not that non-admin's opinions should carry less weight, but it's worth correcting Edivorce's impression.)
  • [44] Avraham provided essentially the same advice—that is, that advising everyone who participated in the original AfD that the article had been renominated was acceptable. This is the same case as the first link.
  • In the third instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revolutionary Anarchist Bowling League, Edivorce cross-posted a message to all editors of the article at some point after it was nominated. A few other editors suggested on the AfD that this probably wasn't a good idea, but there wasn't actually any administrator intervention. Edivorce appears to be interpreting silence as consent.
  • The final link is to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123 Pleasant Street (2nd nomination), which is the renommed article from the first two links. Again, this isn't a parallel situation as notifications went to all editors of the original AfD, and not to all editors of the article.
I have little doubt that for nearly every AfD, there will be some editor who thinks that the article is "with merit" and has "multiple editors". If notifying every editor of every article nominated for deletion is deemed an acceptable practice, I fear that all of us will be overwhelmed by talk page spam.
I advised Edivorce that a reasonable and acceptable compromise would be to notify "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions", with the proviso that "If you're sending a notice to more than two or three people on any given AfD, then you're probably casting too broad a net for 'substantial'." Notifying the eight IP editors of an article as well as editors who've made a single spelling correction or removed a redlink is overkill. In general, I believe that editors with a strong interest in an article's welfare will use their watchlists, and that articles with more than two or three major contributors are likely to have no difficulty clearing through AfD without extra canvassing.
Have I badly misread common practice? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, that seems reasonable. JoshuaZ 19:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you have, or the page needs a rewrite, or somewhere in between. It specifically states on the WP:AFD page "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the article and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter." We fall into the middle if he was notifying people who added periods, but if the people being notified made contributions beyond "minor" edits then its actually the practice reccomended by WP:AFD, which does not put a cap on how many to notify. --NuclearZer0 19:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that if the person simply added a period they are pretty likely not to care about the article and so it doesnt matter if they are notified, its not like we are working with paper. --NuclearZer0 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not object to not notifying bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor" This can be seen on the history page (where I get the info anyways) and is not burdensome. In fact it would save work. I only notified these in an effort to be fair and diligentEdivorce 19:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's not for edits not marked as minor, it specifically says main contributors. To me, that's a group of maybe 5 editors that, from looking at the history, clearly have the article watchlisted and have contributed significantly to it. If I've, for example, rewritten a paragraph that I stumbled across through random page or whatever, then I simply cannot mark that edit as minor, but I do not expect to be notified if the article is on AfD. If I care, it's in my watchlist. —bbatsell ¿? 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe you interpretation to be correct. The fact that you fall back on "if I care, it't in my watchlist" would actually remove the need to notify anyone, surely the articles creator has it watchlisted. Main contributors really depends on the articles edit history then. If I put an article up for deletion should I look through the 80 pages of edit history and measure the ammount people added or removed? I simply think the blanket approach allows for no bias. If I was to pick 5 editors who contributed, I can pick 5 editors who deleted tons of content and be done with it. Again, "if I care" surely fails in this case, cause if that is what was meant, then you would not be asked to notify anyone, cause someone "who cares" would see the AfD added. --NuclearZer0 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that that statement on WP:AFD is prefaced by, "It is generally considered civil..." Nowhere does it say it is required, nor does it even say it is recommended. In other words, it is saying that it won't be viewed as talk page spamming or canvassing (as it might in other instances) to notify the creator and the main contributors that you can identify from looking at the history. You're right, I don't think anyone needs to be notified; that's the entire purpose of {{afd1}}. —bbatsell ¿? 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I state your opinion seems to be different from that of the community, or at least writer of that passage that snuck by =) I do think giving notice to anon's, at least those who do not seem to consistently edit anonymously is overboard. I also think excessive noting may have happened, but due to the small number of contributors, it probably did not seem like it would hurt to inform everyone, when everyone is 30% of the total anyway, had it been 5 editors on each article that is. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your point; I said that that passage does not imply that notification is required or even suggested. I'm not opposed to notification (as long as it's done responsibly), but I don't think it's necessary. That, in my opinion, is entirely in line with the statement in question on WP:AFD. —bbatsell ¿? 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think "the main contributors" is stronger than "not bots or editors who have designated the edit "minor"". If TenOfTrades's comment "In the last few hours, you have sent out at least sixty copy-pasted (or templated) notifications about a couple of AfDs." is correct, that does sound a bit more than just "the main contributors". I can't imagine an article than has 30 main contributors! I think "a page's original author, and authors who have made substantial contributions" is a good paraphrase of "main contributors". That may amount to more than 2-3 on large and/or important articles, but surely not 30. By the way, my compliments to Ten for civility. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Are those 60 people from the same article? I guess that becomes an issue. You can see the fluctuation between 2-5. I think it really depends on how large the article is. Again I really do not see the issue, its not paper and its not bias notices. Encouraging debate before removing content from Wikipedia should be encouraged and noone seems to be complaining about getting a notice. --NuclearZer0 20:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The roughly sixty notices were for two articles, both about minor political blogs. I encourage readers of this thread here to read the discussion that I had with Edivorce on his and my talk pages, to provide context. In total for the two articles Edivorced posted 68 notices on February 14. (Some editors received two notices, as they had happened to edit both articles.) 24 notices were posted to the talk pages of IP addresses. Many, many notices went to logged-in editors who made single, very minor changes to the articles in question: changed linkback to a different choice of main article, narrowed a cat, unlinked a couple of redlinked names, Added the AfD notice(!).
To tell the truth, I didn't expect anyone to treat my suggested three recipients as a hard ceiling; I figured that there would be a little bit of fudging around that guideline number, and as long as Edivorce reined in a bit then I wouldn't kick up a fuss. I just know that thirty messages for an AfD is too many—how many major contributors could there possibly be to a five-paragraph article about a minor political blog? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I took my guidance from Wp:CANVASS not WP:AfD. I have read this caveat just now. It places a civility floor on contact to creator and major contribs. Not a ceiling. It is disallows bots and "minors", which I have no problem with. BTW a whole lot of AfD are not civil by this standard. No affirmative notice at all is typical.Edivorce 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess the idea in the future is to avoid notifying anon's and possible very minor article contributors. An easy way to guage this now is that you can see how much content they added in an edit, dont think its a mod I have, but standard now. While I think the ceiling can go pretty high in some cases, which is why I oppose a cap of sorts, seems others do as well, I think some basic restrictive ideas can work here. --NuclearZer0 21:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand the prohibition on annons. I have successfully corresponded with annons using talk pages. I have seen annons participate in AfDs. It is a Wiki-Axiom to treat annons, as far as possible like everyone else. Why not treat them like others here?Edivorce 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The simplest answer is that a very large majority of IP addresses are shared and dynamic; leaving a message on an IP's talk page that at one time contributed to an article has a very, very low chance of actually being received by the editor you are attempting to write to. —bbatsell ¿? 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was making the point of simplicity, I am not enacting any rules against you. Just making suggestions, how about checking the anon's edit history to see if they have participated in multiple articles in a coherent way, will tell you if its a dynamic or static IP basically. --NuclearZer0 00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for 3RR decision review[edit]

I am requesting that the admin decision of this 3RR report (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:No_block.29) is reviewed. User :Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (a.k.a. Nearly headless Nick) has closed the report as "no block" claiming that "It's not clear anyway." I believe that a clear 3RR violation has occurred. The first three reverts were identical 21:07 Feb 15 02:02 Feb 1606:06 Feb 16. Please look at line 41 of these diffs. In all three reverts, the words "right given to slaves" (in red) were added. Now please look at the fourth revert 06:26 Feb 16, line 40 at the very top of the diff. Same here, the words "right given to slaves" (in red) were added. Thus, this is the fourth revert and an unambiguous 3RR violation. I am asking that an uninvolved admin look at this report again. Beit Or 19:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was 12 hours ago, right? Has the reverter reverted since then? If not, why, after 12 hours, are you seeking a block? Are you seeking the reverter be punished? Coz we don't do that. REDVEЯS 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Um Beit, I suggest you read the blocking policy. Even if he had violated 3RR, blocks are handed out because of imminent danger, none of which appears to exist. Cheers and sorry for the confusion, Yuser31415 20:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal attacks shoved at me aside, I requested to comment on the substance, rather than on my motives. It doesn't hurt to assume good faith, Redvers. Beit Or 21:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nobody was attacking you, or meaning their comments in that way. I was just giving you a friendly reminder. Cheers :)! Yuser31415 21:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In lieu of a total block, Sir Nicholas requested the user to avoid editing the subject article for a period of time. As I have written elsewhere, that is a sensible solution to many 3RR disputes that I frankly think should be used more often. It has the positive effect of putting a halt to the edit war while allowing the contributor to channel his or her efforts into other articles, rather than losing them completely for 24 hours, and also avoids the side effect of disaffecting the blocked editor completely. Newyorkbrad 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What about disaffecting those editors who have to deal with his edit warring on one page over another? Beit Or 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Users Pokemaster1234 and FlavaFlav789[edit]

These users are both immature and persistent vandals. Their contribution histories [45] [46] show an interest in vandalizing the same articles [47], and I do not see any good faith edits from either of them. I'm guessing they're either the same person or friends. I gave them both final warnings, and they've both continued their vandalism. I'd like an administrator to look at the situation and either ban or block them. AniMate 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them are exactly "active" now, so I thought this was the right board to come to. AniMate 22:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If neither of them are "active" now, then a block would be punitive, not preventative, which is against the blocking policy. If they start up again, warn and list on WP:AIV. Trebor 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked indef as fully warned vandalism only accounts. ViridaeTalk 23:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Scythians[edit]

Editors eager to improve on the Scythians article have to face a group of supposedly Iranian nationalists with a malicious reverting behaviour. Arguments in Talk:Scythians ([1],[2],[3]) are ignored or defiled ad hominem. The most vocal opponent to any change is definitely Ali doostzadeh (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)). Reasoning with him is rather useless since he does not listen and he limits the quality of his comments to repeating his repertoire of ridiculous accusations (like sockpuppetry, not being a scholar, teinted views). He doesn't bother WP:AGF, even though warned at third opinion. His bullying and disregard of respectful reasoning shows troll-like behaviour, as he attempts deliberate and intentional to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors by senseless reverting and edit warring and does not show any interest in the usual concerns of Wikipedians, being accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. Please stop this guy, so the edit protection to this unscientific and seriously flawed article can be lifted. Rokus01 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually the above user does not want to mention what scholars agree upon. He believes that his opinion which has no scholarly support should count as hypothesis. This clearly violates OR. The user has shown his fair of bad language and personal attacks. Note the above user wanted to delete reference to Encyclopedia Britannica whereas Britannica did not contradict any of the sources I mentioned. Another administrator named DAB has totally taken my side on this issue. The above user quotes from a very non-scholarly site [www.turkicworld.org] where Sumerians, Scythians and every ancient person is considered a Turk. Also I believe the above user a sock-puppet of [48]. The reason is simple. We had a debate with the same user before on the topic. As soon as Rokus01 created his i.d, he refers to [www.turkicworld.prg] which is the site of barefact. I believe the admins should do a check on this. --alidoostzadeh 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
A clear example of this users hypocrisy. He removes the Britannica link from Scythians and yet calls it source info here and puts it back in another article. [49]. Unfortunately this ideological users have a problem with Britannica 2007 and tens of other scholars who have clearly stated Scythian is Iranian. The user does not like the words of scholars so he tries to either dilute it or subvert it with phony words like unscientific , flawed..--alidoostzadeh 16:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Let me also mention that RFC was held in Scythians [50]. This user clearly thinks that wikipedia is a discussion board where he can put any sort of opinion even his own non-scholarly one. Also here is one more link where the user simply again inserted a Britannica link: [51]. Yet he wants to remove from Scythians when 14 other references besides Britannica were provided by published and world recognized scholars in the field. --alidoostzadeh 16:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please verify his "defense" carefully, because it will give valid information about his slander and pathological lies:

  • Not any of my edits quote [www.turkicworld.org] and neither involve Sumerians
  • Not any other people opposing his POV are my Sockpuppets
  • "What scholars agree upon" obviously refer to some superficial synoptics given undue weight, but still mentioned (and as such not removed).
  • Sourced nuance is not an opinion, even less OR. My patience to explain is overdue and has never been awarded by WP:AGF. In fact, WP:AGF was not his from the start
  • My edit never removed Britannica and other tertiary sources from the references, I indeed moved those sources from footnotes giving undue weight to mere synoptics pleasing his POV, to the reference section.
  • DAB actually agreed on my explicit quotes being valid and also agreed on a correction to his edit, all of which disruptively reverted by this user Ali doostzadeh.
  • The Kurdish people article mentioned by Ali already depended heavily on Britannica to advocate their heroic deeds all over history, but "forgot" to quote Britannica considers the Kurdish ethnic origins to be uncertain. Such misleading quotes from tertiary sources will make any article unscientific and flawed, not only Scythians.

In the meanwhile Ali choose to extend his trolling on the Scythian subject by this revert. Again without supplying any sourced indication to sustain his POV about the Scythian linguistic evidence being abundant, or even conclusive. Wikipedia is not for nationalists writing about their dreamt reality. Even less for trolling nightmares. Rokus01 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a matter of fact linguists classify Scythian as Iranian and too many sources have been brought in that article. That is why 14 scholars were quoted in the Scythian article. The user who is not a linguistic made very funny linguistic claims even claiming the scythian word anar (effeminate) is related to the word anus! This shows his seriousness with regards to comparative linguistics. The user had a problem with this statement since it did not fit his agenda and thus tried to water it down or remove it without providing absolutely no evidence. He does not have the necessary academic credentials to make judgements about Scythians. When I asked him to quote some serious scholars, he mentioned a site www.turkicworld.org which considers Sumerians as Turks and wanted to mention a book by unpublished nationalist tatar scholar claiming scythian is Turkish. And the user keeps repeating mere synoptics pleasing his POV whereas with Brtiannica, I have offered 14 other sources as well and the user has absolutely no right to remove it just to reference section. The user DAB also agrees with the scholarly viewpoint that Scythians were Iranian.[52]. Note the first comment from this user is about www.turkicworld.org a laughable website which claims Sumerian, Parthians and many other groups even portions of Slavs were Turks. We have asked this user instead of deleting or manipulating quotes, bring forward another scholarly (a scholar who is well known and published in peer-review journals with matters regarding to Scythians), but he failed to do so. Instead he wants to remove Britannica links. Note his explicit removal of Britannica here: [53], whereas in the above edits I just discussed, he inserted Britannica quotes. Thus this user when Britannica 2007 does not fit his agenda, removes it from wikipedia enteries and when it fits his agenda, inserts it. Note the level of hypocrasy we are dealing with. The user claims: Since this article pretends Wikipedia:Verifiability (V) and NPOV truth, and considering the amount of primary and secondary sources already drawn upon, all references to Britannica should be removed asap.[54]. And then removes Britannica from the link! At the same time he inserts Britannica links in to other wikipedia enteries!(see above). Unfortunately this is what happens when ideological users join wikipedia. The problem with this user is that he can not offer a single source from a reliable scholars published in peer reviewed journals claiming Scythians were something else. That is what me and user Dab asked for. But he faild to so and thus wants to remove Britannica 2007 and 14 other scholarly references and at the same time he inserts britannica in other links and then repeats his opinions as if they are facts. Again to be clear on the users varying viewpoint on wikipedia depending on what suits his POV just check his differing views on Britannica 2007 in word and action: [55][[56]]

[57]. I have no further comments and actually the discussion has nothing to do with noticeboard and incidents. -[User:Ali doostzadeh|alidoostzadeh]] 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope you two realize this here page is not exactly the best venue to throw piques at each others?Circeus 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Further discussions can take place in Scythian. --alidoostzadeh 01:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User talk-page question[edit]

Users are generally allowed a fair amount of leeway in editing their own Talk pages; they're not, though, allowed to edit other editor's comments in order to misrepresent the nature of a discussion. Skyring (talk · contribs) has effectively been doing this by deleting my final comments from a discussion on his Talk page, apparently in an attempt to make it look as though he had the last word, to which I wouldn't or couldn't respond. What's the position with regard to this sort of behaviour? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally ignore him, but that is rather petty of him. Ral315 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I know — I should be able to do "ignore" better. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Where is the ignore button? I cant find it? Do we need to put in a request for a new button called the ignore button? (it could be similar to the easy button for staples). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking his block log, he has a ton of blocks. Maybe an indef is in order. JuJube 20:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. Proto  00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIV issue at edit summary[edit]

  • User:JAF1970 has reverted my edits at Space music [58](it took hard work to merge and mediate between previous versions) addressing "my" revision as "vandalism". His/her behaviour is very inconsistent becouse he/she admits that the article has been there for years, indeed it stated clearly the differences between NewAge, Space and Ambient music, but now this user restores the same version that User:Gene_Poole created, and that now just say that Ambient music=space music. I suspect it is a sockpuppet case. I already reported User:Gene_Poole also at WP:COI/N a few days ago.--Dr. Who 01:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


User:Tonguebutcher likely sockpuppet of User:Nomenclator[edit]

User:Nomenclator seems to be using sockpuppetry to evade a 3RR block. Nomenclator was blocked earlier due to 3RR violations at Veganism. A new user, User:Tonguebutcher has appeared and is making contentious edits that are nearly identical to those make earlier by Nomenclator. This guy has raised some fairly bad karma on Veganism and Talk:Veganism - I'd appreciate it if an admin could look into it. Thanks! Skinwalker 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate deletion?[edit]

I notice that the Progressive Bloggers page has been deleted, as a result of the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressive Bloggers (2nd nomination).

My reading of this situation is that there was no clear consensus one way or the other, and I wonder if the deletion may have been made with undue haste. Could someone please review the matter? CJCurrie 02:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV. —bbatsell ¿? 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
You can request a review a Wikipedia:Deletion review yourself. —Doug Bell talk 02:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comments about requesting a deletion review if you feel the deletion wasn't appropriate, but I'm not sure where you don't see a clear consensus. There was only 1 keep !vote that actually included an argument, and that argument was addressed. The linked mentions about Progressive Bloggers were only in passing. --Onorem 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The question is what we think AFD is about, and what the closing admin's role is. When I !vote in an AFD (as I did here), my role is to express an opinion and, sometimes, give an argument to try to make others change theirs. In this AFD, I made no argument. But with or without one, my expressed opinion should be respected as part of the consensus process. What is the closing admin's role? They are there, imo, not to decide who won the argument, but instead to determine what the consensus was. In this case, there were 4 deletes, 2 weak deletes, and 4 keeps. If it had been me that closed, it would have been "no consensus". (I also note that the article was closed one day after relisting.) Take it to deletion review? I don't care enough about it to bother, really. But I am concerned to be told that my opinion, and the opinions of three other editors--two of whom are admins--somehow does not count. Bucketsofg 04:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting immediate semi-protect[edit]

Request being made for XM Satellite Radio due to a severe rash of vandalism by an individual. Such vandalism is being done at such a rapid pace that editors have been having difficulty keeping up. Any assistance is appreciated! -- Huntster T@C 05:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No need to semi protect. Vandalism is by one IP account. Had received no warnings. Check out WP:UWT for warnings you can give to vandals and instructions on how to use them. I've given the IP a final warning. If it continues it can be reported at WP:AIV and blocked. WjBscribe 05:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite familiar with the warnings, I suppose that I hadn't noticed that the anon had only been warned by you. I only took note that he had been warned. -- Huntster T@C 05:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I apologise if the advice on warnings was a bit patronising (I've struck it). However, I actually went and made the first warning after reading your post here :-). WjBscribe 06:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Then I have no idea what is going on ;) I think the lack of sleep must be playing with my mind... -- Huntster T@C 06:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I reported the IP editor at WP:AIV after continued vandalism and they have now been blocked by Gogo Dodo. Problem appears solved, though I will keep the article on my watchlist... WjBscribe 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-consensus removal of joke banners[edit]

This revival of the UI spoofing argument has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/UI_spoofing#Non-consensus_removal_of_joke_banners, seeing as it's not a request for admin intervention, but instead an argument between admins and whoever else might pass by. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So the discussion is taking place in three separate places now? Wonderful. Warning: incidentally, extreme caution is advised in clicking on the links in my own page banner. Bishzilla is waiting to give you a Swedish massage at the other end. Bishonen | talk 19:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
I count two. But even that's too many. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Why again are we discussing this at all? Aren't there userboxes to delete or something? Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It's that bout of stupid that's going around. -- Steel 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
That does seem to happen every February...Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL? --Onorem 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm a fan. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, but are you a fan or a fan? >Radiant< 09:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You forgot about the most important fan. Hbdragon88 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal threats from anonymous IP[edit]

Hi, I have been persistently harassed by an anonymous user (I presume it is one and the same) using different IP addresses but all based on Sarajevo. Looking through just the most recent examples it is quite clear that they are all from the same same source (89.146...). Is it at all possible to block the entire source or must each IP address be blocked individiually? The IP addresses in question with examples of vandalism and/or threats are listed below:

I'd also like to have these two IP's blocked for personal threats (in Swedish):

Regards Osli73 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Per whois, the range is 89.146.128.0/18. Thatcher131 15:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher131, I'm sorry, I don't completely understand your answer. Do you mean to say that the range of IPs is from 89.146.128.0... to 89.146.128.18... ? Regards Osli73 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

89.146.128.0/18 identifies the range of addresses between 89.146.128.0 and 89.146.191.255, about 16000 addresses. Whois indicates that this entire range is managed by the same ISP and so may be available to the user in question. Range 89.146.128.0/19 would cover 8000 addresses between 89.146.128.0 and 89.146.159.255, which seems to be his practical range (he hasn't used the high end, maybe those servers serve a different geogrpahic region, for example). If an admin thought the comments were serious enough to warrant blocking, those would be the appropriate ranges for a short-term anon-only rangeblock. I myself do not have the time to determine whether this is harassment or a legit content argument, but I offer the range info if another admin wants to block. Thatcher131 17:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly harassment or worse. However, a range block would probably cause a lot of collateral damage. A better way to stop the 89.146.xxx.xxx editor is semi-protecting Talk:Srebrenica massacre. However, seeing that this editor hasn't touched the page for half a week, I think it's better to wait and see whether s/he returns.
The edits by 84.217.xxx.xxx were all in December. We don't mete out blocks so long after the act. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User Reversionist[edit]

User:Reversionist (a possible sockpuppet of User:Maleabroad and User:HinduDefender; checkuser request filed) is recreating deleted articles [69], making POV edits to others (see edit history) and leaving uncivil edit summaries. Can someone look into this ? Also, is Maleabroad's block up ? Abecedare 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, the "Reversionist" account should be usernameblocked. szyslak (t, c) 01:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If this user is a sock puppet of Maleabroad (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), then the previous AN/I case is relevant to this one. Also, he's been editing without logging in from the following IPs:
136.159.32.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
136.159.32.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
136.159.32.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
136.159.32.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
136.159.32.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- that's just in the last four days. His edits continue to follow the previously observed pattern of outrageously POV edits, continual revert warring, no discussion, and blatantly uncivil edit summaries. His response to the previous blocks was editing from an IP as soon as the block was placed, and his response to article semiprotection was registering shedloads of new accounts. Orpheus 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Reversionist (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is now indefblocked by Sir Nick. Sandstein 11:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Devout Christian again[edit]

Indef-blocked Devout Christian (talk · contribs) is back at one of his IP addresses, 212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs), making the same old anti-consensus edits. --Ideogram 02:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That appeared to be a pretty clear case to me; also, he/she appears to have had the same IP address for several months, so I blocked for a month. Not knowing much of the history beyond what I read on talk pages and by checking contribs, though, someone can review and adjust as necessary. I turned off the AO block for the same reason — appears to be a static IP address, and it has been unblocked for several months, so who knows how many sleeper accounts exist. —bbatsell ¿? 03:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Might I suggest requesting a checkuser to confirm that the indefinitely blocked user has used that IP in the past? If the checkuser confirms this, then the IP can surely be banned from Wikipedia, provided that it's not a network IP gaillimhConas tá tú? 03:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Far too much time has passed for a checkuser; we have to rely on editing evidence, which is pretty clear-cut. Unfortunately, no IP address is guaranteed to be forever static, so as a matter of policy we do not indefinitely block IPs. —bbatsell ¿? 03:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you block 127.0.0.1 indefinitely, but then again that's technically not an IP address, or is it.... but it does remain static forever (the exception to the rule mentioned above!) However, 127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked before!

But as bbatsell says above, it's true, IPs cannot be blocked indefinitely, it's unlikely any will remain forever static. --sunstar nettalk 10:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

IT Service Management[edit]

Can I request that someone cull the external links at IT Service Management and keep a watch on it for spam? I can't, I'm gainfully employed by an IT Service Management software vendor and this would be too much like POV pushing for some (and fair enough, too). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll cull and watch, half of the links are products anyway--Steve (Slf67) talk 11:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers Steve. I am a little concerned about the rest of the links... are they really that important to Service Management? Certainly they don't seem to be significant, and they look linked to the Axios linkages. However, I can't be sure. Full disclaimer here: Axios Systems is a competitor to Infra, who I work for. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Clashwho[edit]

multiple failures of WP:AGF, accusations of bias, dishonesty, cowardice, etc. Andy Mabbett 11