Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive229

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

Noticeboard archives



This fellow's behavior is troublesome. He is mocking User:Bhadani, copying his user page design, all in a style that is reminiscent of User:BADMINton who was the Rajput vandal if I recall. He's also conducting a commentary with himself on a blocked user's page Johnny's in the basement 07:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef block the obove user as a sock of Johnny the Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Feel free to unblock if you think I have got it wrong. ViridaeTalk 07:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think his user name gives away his intentions - *Doh*! ;) Spawn Man 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Johnny the Vandal has been idef blocked for a while and is known to spawn socks like breeding rabbits. I blocked Johnny's in the basement because 1. the similarity of the name 2. the contributions showed a familiarity with wikipedia unusual in a new user account and 3. one of the first 4-5 edits was a personal attack. However I would like this reviewed. ViridaeTalk 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
You can not block me in this way unless you listen to the view point of Bhadani. If I copy his lay out - is it the reason for block? I am not mocking him or any one. Unless you institute a checkuser on my IP or have other cogent reasons, you can not block me simply because a user with few edits complain here about me. Thanks. --Masterbobo 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Argh, this is confusing - you havent been blocked and are not about to be blocked from what I can gather. ViridaeTalk 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Erm, maybe that's Johnny's in the Basement as a new user account? Just prodding in the dark here. Spawn Man 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to add the following but edit conflict arose. I am adding now: Moreover, you will have to give me few days time before you block me. A user comes to my page with one or two edits and then land here request blocking me gives out his intention. You will have to see all my present edits to decide a block, and if the reason is exchanges with Bhadani or mocking Bhadani, you will have to take his point of view or/ and the totality of the position whether I violated any of wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can not block perhaps a user who has inked a red link on India Portal on the first day of his presence here. Thank you. --Masterbobo 08:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My request to Bhadani: Please help me. --Masterbobo 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterbobo is one of the many abusive socks of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Here is another one to push his favourite Hindutva POV User:Legaleagle. Indian admins know him to be Nick and they are laughing up their sleeves. That explains why he is not still blocked, whereas another troll who flirted with Bhadani was summarily blocked by Aksi. These Indian admins are trying to troll Dbachmann who is on a rampage against Hindutva POV brigade.Mistermasher 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is taking the piss, here. Mistermasher, I suggest that you behave yourself. Everybody else go back to editing. Nothing to see here, move along. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. We should stop playing and concentrate on editing. As regards Masterbobo, I do not find in him any pattern and he appears to be an independent user. Unless a checkuser is instituted and he is found to be a sock, he should be allowed to do edits. As regards, flirtations and such things, I have found great editors stooping very low in civility and personal interaction - killing the new editors with potentials shall kill everyone. I found that Masterbobo in two days has done better than I had done during my first two days or most of us on the first towl days. Let us allow him to flourish. You can not block him simply because he is a Hindu. --Bhadani (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I add my request to that of my good and faithful friend, my fellow Wikipedian Bhadani. Let good editing flourish. I have asked Samir to consider unblocking. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your opinions. I see some truly specious ones (such as this disambiguation of Nordic to the Nordic racial superiority theory), as well as the previously mentioned insults to Bhadani, Hornplease and Dbachmann, and the rude captions to photographs on the user page (see below). I'm willing to assume good faith, but this user crossed my good faith barrier, and I still think an indefinite block is appropriate. I've corresponded with Bhadani off wiki and he's in agreement. -- Samir 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings[edit]

I have previously raised this regarding a warning this user gave to me, and following that have seen that this user has a long history of issueing bad faith warnings for edits that are not clearly bad faith, and for where the user has had no prior warning.

Despite pointing this out to her on several occaisions, she persists, even reverting my level 1 warnings and re-replacing with level 3, as per their latest edit. I don't see any chance of the situation improving, especially given that whenever I point any of these out to them, they claim I am either harassing or stalking them. Please can someone advise whose actions here, mine or Miss Mondegreen's are the correct ones? If anyone needs to see edit diffs of previous level 3 first time warnings from this user, I can provide them on request. Many thanks, and apologies if ANI is not the correct place for this. --Rebroad 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could another admin please look into this entire situation (I have very limited access today) and issue whatever admonitions or whatever are appropriate to either of these editors? Rebroad has been critical of Miss Mondegreen for weeks, and my suggestion that they stay away from each other seems not to have been sufficient to resolve the matter. See also thread started by Miss Mondegreen, above. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say keeping the users apart is the most sensible option, perhaps we should look at enforcing this by some sort of community backed block or ban should they keep niggling away at each other. -- Nick t 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Nick, thanks for your feedback. At the moment, I'm not sure if my issue with Miss Mondegreen is an issue to the community. If it is, I should hope someone would let me know first before any sort of ban or block is implemented. I would certainly change my behaviour if I am told to do so or risk being blocked. Is there any sort of wikipedia policy which says that I'm doing something wrong please? If there is, I've not yet been made aware of it. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the difs and this situation is a bit weird, to say the least. You're always free to question someone about the levels of their warning, but reverting them and complaining about their re-revert is taking it a bit far: I don't understand why you're so involved in this. My two cents on the warning level are that this kind of vandalism can't be seen as good faith: this user was introducing false information (the birth year) that I just corrected a few minutes ago, because somehow the vandalism 'stuck' after multiple reverts. That's pretty damaging to the quality of our articles, and not in the same league as 'harmless' testing like 'hey, can I edit this'? All that said, Wikipedia is a very big place and it's really not hard to stay away from each other, so I suggest you do so if you can't work it out together. --JoanneB 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments JoanneB. I admit that if I was complaining about the re-revert then that would be weird. I'm not. I'm just asking for advice on whether there is an issue here. If there isn't, then as far as I'm concerned it's the end of the discussion. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The irony of this situation is that if the time that was spent on this edit warring over warning levels was spent on checking out what was going on in this article, this misinformation might not have been in the article for 10 days. I know that when vandal 'fighting' and reverting, this stuff happens, but I think it's pretty ironic that it happened in a situation when you were both disagreeing about how bad the vandalism actually was. --JoanneB 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
When I got to the article, the changes in birthdate etc. had me so confused, for so long, that I had to go back through and find edits where the user just wrote stories to realize what was happening--edit summaries like "added info about a new deal KKR is doing, don't worry it's all true" did tip me off" and so I warned the user, but when the edits were reverted, and then some of the information kept coming back in from other users, or not complete reverts, I thought that there was a possibility that some of the information might be true and so at that point, I figured that if he edited again, they'd see the warning, and revert his edits and someone who knew about the article could sort it out. I just couldn't believed that the user hadn't been warned before. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether there's a legitimate concern of wikistalking, the only problem I have with a level 3 warning for something like this explicitly designed to shoot under the radar of vandalism patrol is that it's not severe enough. A user who is doing that is an experienced Wikipedian who isn't "experimenting" such that he needs a test1, and I'd issue them a blatantvandal tag myself. -- THF 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have realised it wasn't just the birthdate that was wrong. There was a whole bunch of wrong information introduced. I just reverted to the version before this vandal started messing things up. --JoanneB 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree, that's a {{bv}} tag. They know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at this case at all, there's nothing wrong with giving immediately level 3 warnings. SWATJester On Belay! 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if common sense tlls a test3 warning is warranted, so be it. Remeber, result is more important than rules. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Miss Mondegreen:
Since this discussion is apparantly happening in multiple places, I'd appreciate it if any of you could weigh in above. We tried avoidance, which as you can see from this post here, clearly didn't work, and I'm willing to go back to that, but that's obviously up to Rebroad. I have faith in my edits, and I don't mind explaining them to another user, or users, but being constantly on the defensive is getting really tiring--as is constantly getting warned for by the book edits--some of them really minor. Rebroad hasn't responded so far to my question about what he would like to do, so in the meantime, I'd certainly appreciate opinions from others. Thanks much Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice stands that Rebroad should leave Miss Mondegreen alone. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And conversely, Miss Mondegreen, please don't post to User talk:Rebroad any more. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Content removed per request... those who need it know where to find it.  ALKIVAR 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked after AIV report. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block after full gamut of warnings (most recent vandalism edit made to Royal Grammar School, Newcastle three minutes after final warning issued by User:Wimt). I hope this is the right procedure? Thanks for your time, Tyrhinis 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quickest and best way to submit an IP for blocking if they have vandalised after a final warning is at WP:AIV. I've submitted the IP there now so they should be blocked soon. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting defamation by IP and Admin's indifference[edit]

This IP has added grossly defamatory content to certain articles. It looks like some of the IP's edits have not been reverted promptly. An extremely vicious instance was removed by me after it remained in the article a day. I reported this to an Indian admin who could watch these articles and make judgments better than non-Indian editors. I reported it almost half a day earlier. The admin to whom I reported has been active since. But he has not cared to look into the matter. Obviously, the gravity of the crime couldn't have been lost on him. Such obscene and venomous calumny against Sonia Gandhi can create a political storm and even Wikipedia maybe drawn to the vortex. Then why didn't User:Bhadani even issue a warning? Maybe, the gross defamation added by the IP is in keeping with his POV? It looks like he has been busy in petty discussions with a trolling user who created a new account solely to insult a senior Wikipedian. I am referring to User:Masterbobo. The abusive (dabba aimed at User:Dbachmann and religiously sensitive captions (Suwar ka Baccha) he gave to the pics on his user page should have been enough reason to block him at sight. however, User:Bhadani is busy protecting him and cuddling up to him for obvious reasons. Why should such men be entrusted with admin tools? Rajamankkan 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are never obligated to act on any situation. There is nothing stopping you from warning the user yourself, as you did. There is nothing stopping you from reverting the users edits. Sure, it's a bit easier for an admin to revert a lot of edits, but there weren't that many. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I don't think there is one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, looking at some of the edits, they are at best childish petty vandalism. Annoying and in bad taste, but nobody will take them serious and hence no defamation has happened. Just deal with it as with any other kind of vandalism.--Stephan Schulz 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is obligated to do anything here, is she?. But if an admin seeing this chooses to ignore it, he is no good to wield the tools. The case here is defamation, calling a national leader whore. (Since when did it cease to be libelous?) There is no two way to approach it. Rajamankkan 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, nobody is obliged to do anything. And in many jurisdictions, especially in the US, an insulting statement has to actually harm someone's reputation to be actionable. Since no-one will reasonably believe the allegations, they are not libel. They are, of course, stupid, insulting, and certainly in bad taste. --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked Masterbobo indefinitely for trolling. He has interspersed a variety of seemingly useful edits with a number of egregious actions. His user page contains captions of profanity in Hindi, purposefully placed there with literal translations. His edit summaries are mocking of User:Bhadani. I don't see how this user is going to be productive -- Samir 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with the indefinite block of Materboo unless a proper checkuser test is carried out. In any case, he should not be indefinitely banned but if he committed some misconduct - a smaller ban of few days may be given. offensive captions to the pictures should be removed and he should be placed on a parole of a week or two as requested by him. I am assuming good faith as enshrined in our policy guidelines. --Bhadani (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the trolling is pretty obvious, Bhadani. Here are some sample diffs from the past 2 days: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The picture captions are all profanity in Hindi. The edit summaries mock User:Dbachmann (calling him Dabba, or box) and User:Hornplease, calling him Horn, as well as the Guru references to User:Bhadani, which also pokes fun at his edit count. This editor has clearly been around, and is just here to stir up trouble. The best thing to do in my opinion is to block and ignore. This disruption is independent of CheckUser -- Samir 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine Samir. I was assuming utmost good faith about that user Masterbobo. However, I now understand fully the silly things he did. I think in the hindsight that you are right perhaps. In case, he wants to be really serious editor, he may always create a new user name, and start a life afresh here. I withdraw my request for unblocking that user. --Bhadani (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: A banned user evading his block and vandalizing pages[edit]

The banned User:VinceB is openly using IPs of the range 195.56... to evade his block.[9] [10][[11]] He has engaged in several revert wars,[12][13] repeatedly vandalized a request for checkuser,[14][15] and needs to be stopped. His actual IPs are,,, and Tankred 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked,,, —Centrxtalk • 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI reform?[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This WP:ANI should be turned into a subpager thing. You know: New problem? Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/headline of problem - for example this section would be in {{Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:ANI reform?}}-- 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Then we get thousands of subpages, most of which consist of about three comments. -Amarkov moo! 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention anons wouldn't be able to create threads anymore--VectorPotentialTalk 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
This thread was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see the thread above. I urge any admin here to block him. Banned users are not allowed evading their bans by using sockpuppets. Tankred 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that certain titles would likely be duplicated (how many sub headings are there on AN/I entitled "legal threats" or "block review", or "administrator abuse" etc. SWATJester On Belay! 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good idea. Transcluding each and every thread would put large amounts of strain on the Foundation's servers (as if AfD didn't mess with them enough already). // PTO 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A user harrassing another user[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by JzG — ERcheck (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[This] looks like harrassment to me as does [this] and [this]. Can we have an admin intervention please, SqueakBox 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Self-evident sockpuppet, blocked. What are the chances of any username including the word "truth" turning our to be an asset to the project rather than tendentious and disruptive? It could happen... Guy (Help!) 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
About as likely as a user who includes "pwned" in their name turning out to not be a 12 year old boy. Natalie 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Handled by JzG. — ERcheck (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I am bringing this up here as an admin, who blocked this user for 30-some hours has asked me to. I returned to wikipedia, after dealing with some real world business, to find this user at it again. I have, as many admins/members know, had personal issues with this user in the past. This user is obviously CineWorld, who has a repeat history of abuse against <name of a notable minor redacted>. That is secondary. Today, I discovered this off-wiki diff:

<redacted - see below>

connecting this IP to what appears to be a known internet con artist and convicted sex offender. I'm not sure what to do here. It is possible (albeit WILDLY possible) that this is a different person using the same IP, but it would seem about as possible as one of us getting hit by lightning after winning the lottery.

Ispy1981 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This extremely serious allegation and situation should not be discussed further on-wiki. Please send an e-mail to a member of the Arbitration Committee, or to me as a clerk for forwarding to the arbitrators' mailing list, explaining your concern. Thank you for your attention to and follow-up on this important matter. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV[edit]

Moving this from AIV, seems like a more complex issue.Luna Santin (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it's become apparent that I need to step in and defend myself: Craxy, along with another user, have an irrational feud towards me over edits I've done in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and have created a series of sockpuppets to further harass me; Craxy, in particular, has about 4 blocked puppets. Also, consider this: how would a "new" user know how to request adminship, let alone know where the page was? I didn't even know how to sign my messages when I became a member; go check his contributions. That was the very second edit he made. Also, consider consulting these:
Ptpgta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Markello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Craxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GtaXl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Beussery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

This user has an inappropriate username employed as spam for the trademark described in a spam article he created, Special:Undelete/Beussery. However, the report on WP:AIV was delisted with the comment "Take it up with the user him/herself" Since the user himself admits that his username is a trademark that he owns, it is obvious that this username is inappropriately promotional, and should be blocked on sight. John254 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since, despite that advice, you still have not taken it up with the user him/herself, Nardman1 has done so. -- BenTALK/HIST 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
As a note, the person's name is "Brian E. Ussery". That he has a commercial site and tried to create an article Beussery is certain. I have to wonder about the required result... Shenme 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I see no need to force this user to change their name at this time. -- Nick t 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur, I think, with Nick; there doesn't appear to be any particularly pernicious promotional use at present, and unless subsequent editing reveals the user to be here for a single, non-encyclopedic purpose, I don't think username policy would counsel blocking. In any event, whilst AIV or AN/I would be an appropriate venue for the levelling of an objection to a plainly impermissible username, inasmuch as there appears to be some disagreement amongst the community here, the issue ought probably to be taken to RfCN in order that a consensus might be divined. Joe 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

tiring attacks[edit]

For the last week, I've had to deal with attacks of various degrees by Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) (only a taste: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]). He's already been warned about his conduct once ([24]), and has been blocked for 3RR for his seemingly unending crusade to get a template on each of the individual notability guideline. He's been reverted or told he's incorrect by many people, although I'm the primary battler at this point, but I am beginning to lose my patience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And you want us to warn him, block him, or...? —210physicq (c) 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what people think they should do. But I'd rather not do what I would like to do, so perhaps some administrative intervention would be of use. Am I supposed to make a request on how to handle this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No, we just needed clarification. Thanks. —210physicq (c) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I'd like something done. What that should be shouldn't be up to me to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I've posted a final warning on his talk page. Anything else from him and he gets 24 hours. Just let me know on my Talk page. FCYTravis 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to register a counter complaint against BDJ for ongoing accusations and incivility in the same range of pages. While my statement(s) have been more direct, his mendacity and incivility test the edges of WP standards. While subtly avoiding a specific breach of 3RR, his behavior has collectively crossed the line into disruptive behavior. I don't seek a block, but suggest that he receive some counseling on his behavior. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please? —210physicq (c) 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not a wiki-lawyer. The investigation to put together "evidence" would be cumbersome, and as I said it is more subtle. I'll just deal with it, and hope that this behaviour will be visible to others. Sorry to have been disruptive and cause you extra work. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Um, no, providing evidence is not considered wikilawyering. It is actually standard procedure so that we can have something in our hands to work on. But you are free to not act on it, of course. —210physicq (c) 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help moving an article[edit]

Resolved: Death Vader is no more--VectorPotentialTalk 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone moved Darth Vader to Death Vader and I can't move it back. Can someone take care of this please? // DecaimientoPoético 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a temporary fix as Death Vader now redirects to Darth Vader but all the history is in Death vader and needs fixing by an admin, SqueakBox 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, someone needs to delete Darth Vader so the history of the page can be moved back to where it should be--VectorPotentialTalk 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, someone already did--VectorPotentialTalk 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it is done now. But disturbing that such a thing can happen, SqueakBox 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone should probably move protect it--VectorPotentialTalk 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...damn, everyone beat me to the "it's taken care of" bit. Bah!

Also, I indefintely blocked the user who moved it. Pretty obvious case of "vandal-only account". EVula // talk // // 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

need a rangeblock[edit]

I don't know how to do a rangeblock yet and I'm still figuring this out... someone please block the range that has been vandalising these pages: [25] [26] coelacan — 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to range block AOL's dynamic IP range?--VectorPotentialTalk 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh lawd, is that what it is? Well, then of course the answe is yesss. =P I guess we'll just try to do damage control instead. coelacan — 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a precedent for range blocking AOL, however in this case, it may be better to report them directly to AOL and see if you can't get their DSL/Cable shutoff for abusing AOL's TOS ( :VectorPotentialTalk 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I am seriously asking for someone to do a rangeblock. This is not going to stop. user talk:janejellyroll, user talk:coelacan, and any user who reverts this guy is getting hit, always from a new IP. coelacan — 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case you'll want to get in touch with The Anome (talk · contribs) or Pathoschild (talk · contribs) both of whom have prior experience dealing with AOL IPs, see also {{AOL ranges}}--VectorPotentialTalk 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User who insists on asking inappropriate question on the talk page[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-adding a question to the reference desk, removed by at least 3 editors (including me) who felt it was soapboaxing/trolling. The original version is here [27] and the latest version while a bit better still seems to be the same thing [28]. I'm not sure if WP:3RR applies to the reference desk so I didn't report it there, but if it does, this definitely violated it. See [29], [30] & [31] too. Nil Einne 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Naruto: Ninja Council 2[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but there has been an edit war going on at Naruto: Ninja Council 2 for some time now. The edit war is between me and an obsessed IP who continues to add game guide-ish info to the article. I told him repeatedly to discuss his edits on the talk page (which he finally did after I started the discussion), yet continues to ignore everything I say. It would be helpful if an administrator, or at least a user who has very little knowledge of the subject, could read the information he continues to add and decide whether it should stay or go. Hopefully, getting somone's opinion on the matter when they know little of the subject might help us end this edit war. Also, I'm well aware that I have violated 3RR (the IP has as well, but I have decided not to report him for now) and am ready for any disciplinary actions that an admin must bestow upon me if necessary. Thank you for your time. // DecaimientoPoético 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 24 hours, as I don't think blocks are really necessary. But if the edit warring keeps up, I may have to issue temporary ones. Shadow1 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent re-adding of Spam links[edit]

Fizbin (talk · contribs) is verging on 3RR re-adding massive amounts of spamlinks to the Pink Floyd trivia article. The article contains a huge/unencyclopedic list of tribute bands of which only 5 are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. The rest are either dead links or simple entries that include an advertising link to the artists personal webpage. Any attempt to cleanup the article section has been rv'd by User:Fizbin. A warning was issued on the user's talk page but his response was to blank the page and then rv the linkspam with an uncivil edit summary. The article itself is borderline PROD. The huge number of spamlinks in the tribute bands section are certainly not helping. Some assistance please. Thank you. 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At least I have logged in so that can voice his/her concerns on my talk page. The article in question has a list of Pink Floyd tribute bands. I have no idea who most of these are, but I assume that since they have been included for some time that there is some legitimacy about them. Anonymous objects to the fact that some either have a link to a personal web site or no link at all. In my opinion this does not make their inclusion any more or less relevant. But whatever. And I do not take kindly to warnings (uncivil from my standpoint in this case) from anonymous posters, period. And I guess I don't know the secret handshake - have no idea what 3RR or PROD are supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talkcontribs)
If you are going to complain about anonymous editors, you could at least sign your posts. :) IrishGuy talk 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's what I was going to point out, but the edit window is already open, so I'll also say this: PROD means proposed deletion, more details are here; 3RR refers to the three-revert rule, which is discussed here. Natalie 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If I can get an edit in here edgewise, another apology for an unsigned statement.--Fizbin 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:August 2 2005rps[edit]

Resolved: The AfD page was deleted

User:August 2 2005rps, a supporter of Encyclopedia Dramatica, as evidenced by his post on Jimbo's talk page recently attempted to nominate Dramatica for deletion as a disruption of Wikipedia process. I've warned the user, they've only made 4 edits (2 edits to Dramatica, the AfD page, and Jimbo's talk) The deletion page should probably be deleted as listing properly will most likely result in a Speedy Keep per bad faith nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

requesting block[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized article DeMoulas' Market Basket, also vandalized article Tewksbury, Massachusetts (where DeMoulas HQ are located). Has an axe to grind against said company and uses articles as a medium of doing so. Rob McDougall 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue a fourth-level warning (see WP:WARN) and if said user persists, report it to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


RexxCrow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) I am requesting a block of this user for incivility, personal attacks, and repeated disregard for requests to C&D:

Thanks. /Blaxthos 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:ReyBrujo got to it before I could. For future purposes however could you not outright called for a "block". I only say this because I see it happen quite often and user's to often seem to not understand that AN/I is suppose to be for reporting incidents and once reported it is up to reviewing administrators to decide what to do. In this case, a block was most certainly warranted. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for a block[edit]

Resolved (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a school's IP address; it has been blocked four times, and someone claiming to be a pupil there (and an "administrator", though I'm not sure what that means here) – Elnerdo (talk · contribs) – left the following message on the Talk page:

==Please ban us==
If an administrator sees this, please ban our IP address from all editing of Wikipedia. We are a highschool in Northern New Jersey, and we have absolutely nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. Anyone who has anything important to add to wiki already has an account. elnerdo 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that such a request would need to come from someone in authority at the school, not a pupil, and that even then I doubted that we'd be prepared to block an IP indefinitely. I just want to confirm that advice here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC we have blocked indefinitely such IPs in the past, but as you say as a result of formal requests from a responsible party (probably via OTRS) --pgk 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence gives me pause. I have to wonder if this really comes from a position of authority. Part Deux 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have my doubts (although he does say that he's a pupil with some position; the equivalent of a prefect?). We'd certaibnly not block it on his say-so.

On a related but different matter — I've just received this:

== i'm Sorry, but please block my IP address. ==
Hello Mel, I have tried every trick in the book to get booted from wikipedia editing and now i would just like to be blocked. This is my last request, so please consider this so that i'm not able to edit pages on wikipedia.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talkcontribs) 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that he has been living up to his User name, and couldn't have been far off being blocked anyway. Again, what's the correct response please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks, you aren't supposed to be able to request a block for yourself. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
That said, if you wanted to block him for something unrelated (which came to your attention after you started investigating the initial request), I think that'd be kosher. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, so the question's now moot. (I've always wondered why self-requested blocks aren't allowed; in this case, certainly, it would have mede sense.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably just to avoid confusion. I can think of a situation where someone would request a block, and then someone else would miss the request and get all hysterical (He didn't do anything wrong! How dare you block him?!). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that that could happen — but f we forbade everthing that might be misunderstood, we'd have little left that we could do. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia is Communism[edit]

He went through the Navajo encyclopaedia doing his usual dealie [32] - I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to say anything, but I don't speak Navajo. WilyD 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, did he do that to the main page? Yikes. I reverted it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hit the Rumanian wiki too: [33]. I'm reverting them now. Part Deux 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. WilyD 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
If anyone else would like to help, you can see the list of vandalized pages at [34]. I don't time to fix them all. Part Deux 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the Navajo wiki. --Golbez 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you see rampant vandalism on a small wiki, report to #wikimedia-stewards, we can fix this much easier with our tools. MaxSem 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly easier may be more appropriate actually. Prodego talk 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The Communism Vandal. He use to go around just blanking pages and putting the image of the Hammer and Sickle with the caption "Wikipedia is Communism". One of the better known habitual vandals out there.--Jersey Devil 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, does he have an agenda? Does he really belive that 'wikipedia is communism'? And if so... Why? ThuranX 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
There's a chance it isn't the original vandal but impersonators of him/her.GizzaChat © 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is Communism gave up around 2005(?) so it's probably an imitator. Oh, back when vandals were simpler and on wheels... Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood evading blocks via sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: block reset

Instantnood (talk · contribs) has just been confirmed as Pointe (talk · contribs). His block needs to be reset. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Natalie 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
THis was done within a minute of the checkuser being done.Rlevse 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The block of Pointe was done that fast, but Instanthood's block wasn't reset, which is what Penwhale was asking. Or at least I hope that's what he was asking, because that's what I did. Natalie 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
AH, but shouldn't Instantnood be indef vice one month as a known multiple acct sockpuppeteer?Rlevse 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Per an arbitration case, he can be sitebanned upon consensus of three administrators. I think it's about time to do that, he certainly doesn't show any hint of improvement. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I fully agree on an indefinite block, and if I understand correctly, Saraphimblade and Rlevse agree. So there do appear to be 3 admins now for the block. Shall I proceed, and block him indef?--Aldux 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK then, I'll ban Instantnood indef.--Aldux 16:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user block request[edit]

Rostov-on-Don (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a sockpuppet of community-banned user (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and is again edit-warring to insert his POV on one of Rms's favourite pages, Tim Pat Coogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint filed at WP:3RR regarding User:Demiurge's repeated violations of WP:3RR over the past 36-48 hours on Tim Pat Coogan page; block requested. Allegation of sockpuppetry patently false.Rostov-on-Don 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely; I was interested in Coogan following a comment he made last April (I guess I am not the only one), but which someone only recently showed me. When I checked the history I was curious as to User:Demiurge's unwarranted and unexplained rv, and I found that the rv was unjustified and I chose to re-add restore it as it was in toto. I have no idea if User:Glencolumcille is a sockpuppet or not but his edit was superb and encyclopaedic. Wikipedians remain innocent until proved guilty (which no one but User:Demiurge, who never requested oversight from an Administrator until I complained about him/her at WP:3RR, prior to his/her compalint complaint at WP:AN/I, has alleged). This sounds like there is some sort of an agenda on the part of User:Demiurge, who has appointed himself/herself prosecutor and judge. Rostov-on-Don 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
How does a newbie user who has been here only a few days know about the 3RR? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The old-fashioned way, by reading. Rostov-on-Don 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well that comment pretty much confirms it, "superb and encyclopedic", right. Can someone please block this blatantly obvious sockpuppet before he wastes any more of our time? Demiurge 12:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Why hasn't anyone noticed that of all the edits I made, User:Demiurge, who claims I am a sockpuppet, saw fit to revert only one, to which he/she apparently objects on a personal basis?. He or she probably will rv all now, anyway.
P.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott wonders how a "newbie" editor knows about WP:3RR, yet does not wonder how I also know how to cross out words using the markup tools?
P.S.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott also chooses to ignore another Wikipedia precept: "Don't bite the newbie"?
P.S.S.S.S. How does "Korn" taste?
You will, I know, pardon me if I feel less than fully respectful of this kangaroo court.Rostov-on-Don 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Robert, I've been dealing with your POV edits for almost two years now and I know your style by now - Alison 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock blocked. – Steel 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone block the latest sock of Peer-to-Peer (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) please? The editing interests are the same as RMS, English peerage plus the account re-instated two edits that the earlier sockpuppet made - [35] [36] [37] [38]. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 07:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, and back again as (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). One Night In Hackney303 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I block too soon?[edit]

Gekedo (talk · contribs) is concerned that I blocked (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too soon. See User talk:Metros232#Blocked Could other admins please review this? It's my belief that he was appropriately warned (level 3 mentions that a user will be blocked if they continue vandalizing) and if you're vandalizing Jimbo Wales' user page, you know pretty well the consequences and everything else that goes along with it. Metros232 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No concerns here. -- Nick t 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns? My own concerns is that we spent too much time worrying about obvious trolls - good swift action on your part. --Fredrick day 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Blocking before level 4 at times is reasonable, especially with the obvious vandalism shown here. -- Avi 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no "right" to 4 warnings. This was an anonymous user with no useful edits, who has repeatedly been warned, and still vandalized. I think the block is fully appropriate. 31 hours means he/she/it can come back tomorrow as a productive user if he/she/it so choses.
To be fair, since anons can't actually see new messages, the number of warnings is sort of irrelevant, isn't it?--VectorPotentialTalk 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Anons can indeed see warnings. Visit Wikipedia from a public computer and discover that immediately. Anons with shifting IP addresses may miss the message; but most shifting IP addresses shift after being forced to or after a day or so.   REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The new messages bar hasn't worked for anons since December, it's a well known bug, and there are reports all over the place, the Village Pump, the Help Desk, even here a few times--VectorPotentialTalk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
That's news to me. Anyone have a link to the bug report/discussion? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly works for me at work, where IP addresses rotate through the company. Visiting Wikipedia last Friday morning before logging in brought up a message bar for a conversation someone else had been having overnight. A bugzilla number or discussion link would be helpful.   REDVERS  SЯEVDEЯ  09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
There's this one, this one, this one and this one to start with, it might take a while to find the original discussion as Village Pump archives aren't really organized in any particular way and are deleted after 7 days. Either way, it's easy enough to verify, just leave yourself a message on a static IP, for the first several hours the orange bar won't show up at all, then for the next several hours it won't go away no matter how many times you view your talk page. And finally, one of the bugzilla reports--VectorPotentialTalk 12:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

user creating subtle attack page (BLP concerns)[edit]

User keeps re-creating this attack page (the figure in the page is not notable but so it seems to be a run of the mill grudge). On first glance, it might not seem an attack page (it's been deleted twice) but he seems to be adapting with each delete and changing the language to try and get around this. The crux of the article is that this mean is creating face lotion out of sperm and he's doing with the help of his wife (in the first now deleted version, she was a prostitute), reading between the lines, he's testing it on her face. Can we delete and salt? --Fredrick day 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked. Naconkantari 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Back again --Fredrick day 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Campion School (Athens)[edit]

Per this OTRS ticket, the school has complained about repeated vandalism on their article, which they have reverted themselves. I think that protection of the page is unnecessary as of now but it would be nice if some of you could add the article to your watchlist. Thanks --Mbimmler 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist, and will be keeping an eye on it. Cheers, Jayden54 13:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


User:Freddieandthedreamers was warned back in February by User:Lucasbfr and User:Carabinieri for adding copyrighted content to History of the Jews in New Zealand and History of the Jews in Slovakia. More recently I noticed he created History of the Jews in Iceland with copyrighted content. After I deleted the article and warned him that he might be blocked for posting copyrighted content he created the article again, this time copying the content from a different website. He's been creating a whole series of History of the Jews in X articles and I fear there may be more copyvios lurking in his contribution log. I would appreciate some help with this. Haukur 09:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No takers here so I placed an indefinite block myself. Haukur 17:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Red Wolf" vandal[edit]

There's been a series of vandalism edits and article creations to various articles, (some pertaining to wolves), such as Red Wolf, Dingo, Scarpine, Max Zorin and others by User:Meiji Rit, User:Rufus Meiji, User:Rufus hattai, User:Rufus Lupus etc. These users are being blocked and edits reverted as and when the vandal spawns a new sock. Admins please be aware. I may request some page protections, as it's getting tiresome. --Dweller 09:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest incarnation. Have watchlisted the articles and if there's any further abuse, I will semi-protect for a short while. Bubba hotep 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I semi-protected Red Wolf for a couple of days. Bubba hotep 10:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect Your Republic Protest[edit]

An anon is repetitively adding {{citation needed}} tags to the article even when the comment is a direct quote. This seems to be the users only contribution - though users IP changes after a few edits so I am not exactly certain. -- Cat chi? 10:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand; are you saying that direct quotations don't need to be given sources? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "some critics argue that the government is inching the country towards increased religious rule.[citation needed]"[39]
I'm inclined to agree with the anon here. Anything starting with "some critics" is crying out for a citation. It shouldn't be hard to provide. Likewise for "Erdoğan's questionable political history[citation needed] has made people suspicious of his motives.[citation needed]". The statements might be true, but that's not the issue. WP:BLP is the issue. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"Some critics" is a direct quote from CNN. It is cited yet anon repetitively ads the template. I have rewritten the other comment today (merely expanded it). WP:BLP doesn't apply as Erdogan was convicted and jailed for four months for "inciting religious hatred" - which in my opinion gives him a "questionable political history". -- Cat chi? 11:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
"According to CNN, critics claim that...[cite]". Job done. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Doable. -- Cat chi? 11:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to ask a question: If CNN's webpage states something like this: Some critics argue that Mr. X is e.g a racist. It doesn't say which critics say this, It doesn't have any sources but the name of a reporter. Hypothetically. Then would it be ok to include THAT in a Wikipedia article just because CNN said so? --Anon mentioned.
That's nothing. I can point you to an article where one MP said under Parliamentary privilege that another living MP was responsible for the murder of 12 people, and it's not a problem apparently. One Night In Hackney303 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as we attribute it, and it does not seem to be the view of a way-out minority - e.g. Fox News :o) - we should be fine with the "according to X" formulation. The judgement of whether that view constitutes a significant criticism is another matter. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
By "way-out minority", I assume you mean David Icke claiming that the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are "bloodsucking alien lizards"? One Night In Hackney303 15:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User: persistent vandalism[edit]

User:, a probable sock puppet of M.deSousa, is persistently vandalising the pages Pretender and Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, introducing proven false information regarding Hilda Toledano, a claimed adulterine daughter of king Carlos I of Portugal, and a supposed sucessor of hers, a certain Rosario Poidimani, presently under arrest in Italy, as has been reported by several European newspapers (in fact the same newspapers User: presents as source). This clearly is an hoax and User: should be blocked. Thank you. The Ogre 12:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Please[edit]

There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.

Southluver 13:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

First, we see no proof of what you're claiming. Second, what i see is that User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90 and you are probably the same person (at least you know eachother). Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiTerrorists was created by Bobbybilly90 (i'll delete it soon) and edited by Glfootball92. You are also a member of that weirdo project. Aren't you? Don't you use the same templates on your userpages?. What we'll do is block everyone for trolling and disruption. Do you agree? ;) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Good call, FayssalF. These morons have been on ANI before. See here. I'd suggest (if they haven't been already) indef blocking the whole lot of 'em--they're only here to disrupt the project. This first edit by Southluver (talk · contribs) is interesting... — Scientizzle 15:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Indef blocked all of them. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What to do?[edit]

After a little bit of searching, I think there is a connection between the post two up from this one ([40]) and this WikiProject. If we look at what links to it, there are three accounts in particular (User:Glfootball92, User:Bobbybilly90, User:Southluver) which (IMHO) engage in harmless to borderline disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. I am not too concerned with the accounts at this time, but what to make of the WikiProject? Inclination seems to be to delete on sight, but would be better to check with the rest of the community if this is something actionable. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: about 3 minutes after this post, this issue regarding the WikiProject has been taken care of. Thanks. --HappyCamper 13:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
All the 3 trolls have been indef blocked. See above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 13:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Unaware of this thread, I declined an unblock request at User talk:Glfootball92 earlier. Just for the record &c. --kingboyk 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User RexxCrow again[edit]

RexxCrow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

After this ANI report user was blocked for 31 hours for incivility. User has issued another scathing personal attack and shows no intent of stopping. Per request above, I will refrain from suggesting appropriate administrators' response. /Blaxthos 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have protected it until the block expires. // Sean William (PTO) 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I extended his block to 48 hours... Looks like he needs some longer cooldown time.--Isotope23 14:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request requiring knowledge of IP configurations[edit]

User talk:Einarsen bears an unblock request which I think needs specialist TCP/IP knowledge, if somebody with that knowledge could please oblige.--kingboyk 14:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Hosting companies do provide proxy-like connections but based on user's assurance that this is his office PC, I replaced the hard block with a soft block. He can edit, but anon editing is still disabled in case his IP is assigned to someone else in the future. Thatcher131 14:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for your prompt attention. --kingboyk 14:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassing and Intimidation using profane language[edit]


I was directed here by admin Durova (talk · contribs), [41]. User vandal, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked by admin Durova (talk · contribs) for abusing profusely, swearing constantly and vandalising articles [42], [43]. Now this person is back and again has started cursing to intimidate me and push his POV. Check this: [44], he refers to me as "f***er*". Suggest a block. Thanks,Mudaliar 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Claims by User:Vlad fedorov[edit]

Can someone take a look here: [45]? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Example of false translation:
"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.[1]
Please see the original of Russian text
"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".
Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You also may take a look here: [46]Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. SWATJester On Belay! 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Wikipedia as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: [47]. I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Wikipedia should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Wikipedia.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government [48], his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation [49] and [50] and [51] and [52]? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit [53] sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. SWATJester On Belay! 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. SWATJester On Belay! 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of E104421 and Tajik. I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I agree on Wikipedia:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.
As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.
Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.
I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. DurovaCharge! 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.
If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Wikipedia runs on California servers, Wikipedia should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Wikipedia, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. SWATJester On Belay! 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Wikipedia WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Wikipedia community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

  • (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
  • (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
  • (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
  • (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
  • (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
  • (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
  • (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
  • (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
  • (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
  • (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
  • (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

  • (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
  • (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

  • (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
  • (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

  • (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
  • (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 (Talk)
  • (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
  • (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

  • (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
  • (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
  • (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
  • (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Wikipedia definitions)
  • (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
  • (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
  • (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
  • (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. DurovaCharge! 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzyn 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see [54]) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: [55].Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [56]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Wikipedia would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: [57]. I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see:[58] It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". [references].Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Wikipedia "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on[edit]

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

  • 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
  • 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
  • 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
  • 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
  • 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
  • 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
  • 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
  • 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
  • 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of