Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive254

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by User:MaxSem. Pants(T) 19:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please block Sugarkisser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The user has created a bunch of hoaxes just like the other likely sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants(T) 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot going crazy[edit]

Resolved: No problem with bot

The Bot that adds a date to the Citation Needed tags seems to be messing up an article I'm working on. See this version right after the Bot hit it. [1]. All the refs in the article are messed up. Before the Bot did its thing, all the refs were fine. For now, I've deleted the Citation Needed tags. Wonder what's going on. TimidGuy 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the bot. The references in the article were...unorthodox. I'm working on fixing them up some. --ElKevbo 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much. Glad to know that the Bot is fine and that it's the editors who messed up. : ) TimidGuy 19:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Could somebody take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Taylorluker/sandbox? I do not think the editor intended to start that page after investigation. I have placed the csd tag, it has however been removed. Thanks in advance, Navou 19:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Neil  20:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

about the username Sinepgib[edit]

Resolved: Block seems appropriate and endorsed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

recently, the admin. Anthony.bradbury blocked the user Sinepgib for being inflamatory because it reads backwards, bigpeniS. I feel that this is going slightly out of control on the rules because I know people with the last name Fruck and there are plenty of people with the name Dick. That does not mean that they can not have usernames like that so why block Sinepgib. This username could mean millions of things and picking out an innapropriet is slighty out of hand. I feel that they should not be blocked for having an inflamatory username and should be unblocked. There has to be a limit to what is inflamatory. --Salnjm 20:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gosh what an interesting edit history for a new editor. --Fredrick day 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fairly clear the username is inappropriate. There are over a billion possible usernames... please chose another. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser extremely flawed[edit]

The checkuser is extremely flawed. My roommate is over 1000 miles away from the location of a known bad apple. Yet the checkuser claims they are using that bad apple's IP.

I am not mentioning which case because I don't want to get involved (happened within the past week). They will just accuse me of being the same person as the bad apple. There is a certain gang mentality in certain parts of wikipedia. This is bad.

I expect to be blocked but a reasonable administrator would look into the matter unless they have a gang mentality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtfulmind (talkcontribs)

<Quack quack> Well, logically, if someone's first edit is to ANI complaining about checkuser, they are highly likely to be someone blocked because of checkuser. Moreschi Talk 21:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be related specifically to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anacapa. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet checklist, let's see: New account's first edit is to complain about someone else (such as their roommate) being blocked. Check. Mention of corrupt admins. Check. Acknowledgement that people will suspect he's the same person as the blocked user. Check. Statement that a good admin would investigate instead of blocking this new account. Check. ChazBeckett 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
User blocked, for obvious reasons. Block log message: "Goodbye". Moreschi Talk 21:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL--channeling Anne Robinson, Moreschi?--Blueboy96 23:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an easy case to solve. Anaconda is in the University of California, Santa Barbara. Is that complainer near Santa Barbara? If not, checkuser is flawed. If so, checkuser is correct. Feddhicks 21:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's already been solved. Checkuser was "likely" ("same location"). Editing patterns were conclusive. A violation of WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. Next. MastCell Talk 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Analyzing just the logic, not the specifics of the case, it's not been solved. The hypothesis was if the person is really 1000 miles away and the checkuser flawed or is the person in Santa Barabara. Whatever!Feddhicks 22:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC) "When it absolutely, positively has to...."
Hmm, just so all know, I'm a student of UCSB, too, and also sometimes edit from UCSB computers. Just so everyone knows there are legit users there. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting very messy. user:Hotpotatoes was banned for trying to avoid scrutiny by creating a sockpuppet account. They have evaded this block and trolled the Anacapa discussions using User:Thoughtfulmind and User:71.212.90.90. Either the checkuser is wrong or a meatpuppet is being employed - but its still trolling. I was the user who monitored Anacapa's behaviour and Hotpotatoes doesn't match the pattern - the language is wrong. On top of that the furthest IP away from UCSB I have for Anacapa is Glendale, CA, not Denver, CO. Hotpotatoes is a sock account by their own admition, whether of Ancapa or not I don't know. However they, and Thoughfulmind are in clear breach of WP:SOCK and 71.212.90.90 was used to block evade. If the checkuser was wrong Hotpotates should have emailed the blocking admin about it - trolling WP:AN and Community Sanction Noticeboard is out of line. Perhaps checkuser should look into User:Thoughfulmind's IP and put this issue to bed--Cailil talk 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's the end of the ballgame for Anacapa, I take it.Blueboy96 23:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Contribution history[edit]


Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack on fellow editor[edit]

I'm a disinterested third party in this. User:BrianGriffin-FG, at Talk:Family Guy#Meg's biological father, is hurling F- you's at a fellow editor, in boldface yet, and that's at the end of a long back-and-forth of his inappropriate arguments. It's an extreme lack of civility that someone might want to address. --69.22.254.111 22:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted the attack and make a stab at an explanation on the users talk page. -Mask? 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Salmoria[edit]

Can action please be taken to block this User for a small period of time. They have become involved in a revert war,been told off the WP:AN/3RR rule,and has ignored. They have vandalised my discussion page with fake vandal claims and repeatedly ignored advice given to them by other admin persons on their discussion page. Refer Tina Turner for the history of edits and reversals.Maggott2000 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a fairly clear-cut WP:NPOV problem turning into a disruptive edit war. You can leave a message at WP:AN/3RR for 3RR violations. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is much more that that. This is clear misuse of the vandalism template, page blanking, probable sock puppet, vandalism of detail to the sbject and references, and offensive behaviour by the User. Please look into this. My talk page is a mess of this Users misguided and irrational behaviour Maggott2000 04:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How about some diffs for the admins and us rubberneckers? ThuranX 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Summers95926[edit]

I am having some issues with User:Summers95926, Nora Greenwald's self-proclaimed biggest fan. He has been vandalizing the article by removing large chunks of it, saying that "Nora requests for it to be deleted." All the information is from interviews and articles already published on the internet, and if she wanted to keep her "private life private" like he claims, then she shouldn't have said anything in the first place. Anyway, he also keeps adding tags to the article, claiming it needs clean-up, it is unencyclopedic, and he also tagged the entire article as unreferenced. Clearly it is not, or it would not have been made a good article.

  • The talk page where we have been debating: Talk:Nora Greenwald
  • He also threatened me here (Read the edit at the top of the screen)
  • Examples of adding inappropriate and un-neccessary tags: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], among others
  • Example of blanking sections: [7]
  • Example of deleting sourced info [8]

It should also be mentioned that he has a Conflict of interest as he knows her personally and is deleting information (which I should mention is in no way libelous), thus conflicting with WP:POV and WP:NPOV. He is also a known self-promoter, which one can see by all the articles and pictures about and of himself listed for deletion here. He made his own page and page about his wrestling promotion, which have also both been deleted. Nikki311 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Given a little notice about WP:COI and WP:BLP, keep us updated on what is going on. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. I also left him a note on his talk page telling him to tell Nora Greenwald to contact Wikipedia if she wants. I also provided the link to the e-mail address for him. Nikki311 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007[edit]

Blanking of editor's comment by User:Someguy0830 at Wikipedia talk:Village pump. first instance Badagnani 00:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What the heck is your problem? Nothing was blanked, you were not hurt, and if anything he helped your message by not making it look like some newbie made the post. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see, this is another page. The page you posted to was not a discussion page, that is all. -- Ned Scott 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Dang it, now I'm confusing myself. -- Ned Scott 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Second instance Badagnani 00:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Post it to Wikipedia:Village pump, not Wikipedia talk:Village pump. The talk page is only for talking about the village pump page itself. Phony Saint 00:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn non-functioning contribs list. I would have commented sooner. It's like he said. Spamming that notice everywhere isn't productive. It didn't take me long to see you're heavily invested in this particular issue, so I'd suggest doing as you've already been told and calming down about the whole thing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Misuse of Vandalism Template[edit]

Article for Joe Eigo has ostensibly been edited by the subject, contains zero citations, and is in need of a clean up. Made attempts to get citations for some statements, removed others, and tagged the article ([9], [10]). My edits have been repeatedly reverted, first by Naconkantari, then Starnestommy. I can no longer try to improve the article or I will be in breach of 3RR. I've also been given a vandal warning, which is obviously completely unwarranted. --81.179.113.175 02:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the objection that User:Naconkantari had was the number of cite-needed tags. I'm surmising this from the edit summaries, since no one's actually discussed any of their reverts at the talk page. Sometimes adding an overly large number of tags to an article can be a form of vandalism. In this case obviously it's not. Why not open a discussion on the article talk page? It sounds like User:Naconkantari was in favor of removing unsourced material, and just objected to the huge number of tags. I think you'll find common ground. MastCell Talk 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well I did attempt to discuss the changes on Naconkantari's talk page but didn't really get anywhere. --81.179.113.175
Generally if you need that many cite-needed temps, you should go with the cleaner messagebox "citations needed" temp. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As to the article, I note that, in one of the diffs you provided, you used the autobiography tag. This is used when the subject has extensively edited the article. An editor named JoeEigo has edited the article, but only twice. What would you define as ostensibly or extensively? Also, do we have/need proof that this is Mr. Eigo? He's a minor celebrity, but well-known to LazyTowners like myself and is as susceptible to pranks as, say Julianna Rose Mauriello--Ispy1981 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IP needing block repeatedly vandalising WP:AIV[edit]

  • Resolved: blocked for 31 hours

71.108.59.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was previously blocked, and unblocked earlier. Has continued to vandalise and is removing the AIV reprort. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Not exactly bright vandalizing the most patrolled place on the whole encyclopedia. --Haemo 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, he/she was removing a report made about him/her from the noticeboard. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And removing the report pretty much instantly, which is why I reported it here... I don't think most vandals know about [[WP:AIV]. Oh, well. Any bets on a return engagement in a bit less than 31 hours? Flyguy649talkcontribs 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?[edit]

190.10.0.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are constantly changing certain articles' infoboxes from hex color coded to other "named" colors and linking common English words, even after being requested not to, and after being explained why not to. Examples: ([11]) and ([12]). (Full discussion about colors here, although not updated, consensus was reached.)

At what stage, if any, does these persistant changes become vandalism? This user has at most 5 constructive edits.

G.A.S 06:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would just start escalating templates, and keep up trying to discuss it with him on his talk - hopefully he'll get the message. --Haemo 06:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

School children - vandalising[edit]

Earlier this evening I blocked Murlock (talk · contribs) for repeated vandalism including moving Indonesian Declaration of Independence to Fake Indonesian Declaration of Independence. He responded to the block with this in short claiming that they are at school and all login at the same time causing vandalism to be attributed to the wrong accounts.

the other accounts

Any suggestions on what to do with these editors/accounts. Currently I've blocked them for all for 24 hours Gnangarra 13:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi (talk · contribs) has responded here Gnangarra 13:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a more reasonable explanation is that the kid is lying. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some association - they have edited each other's user pages without any comments or discussions, before or after. See discussion here. Merbabu 16:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time for an indefinite block and a hard IP block of all involved. I've asked User:Ciell who's an admin over at Dutch Wikipedia to comment. Kermanshahi is currently indefinitely banned as a sockpuppeteer and a known troublemaker over there. I gave Kermanshahi the benefit of the doubt last time Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi, but from the looks of it, he's outstayed his welcome. --  Netsnipe  ►  17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is remarkably serendipitous - just yesterday, I made User:Neil/hmm because the above users' activity seemed hinky. They award each other barnstars, voted keep en masse on some very hoaxy articles (anbd I have a strong feeling a bunch of articles on medieval Frisian people are still floating around that are utter hoaxes with no references or references in Frisian). I would imagine we would need to checkuser the above users and also:
  • Mrlob (talk · contribs)
  • Ezza61 (talk · contribs) (note, I think this one is less likely to be a sock, but he edits the same articles, has the same barnstars, and edits 15 minutes before Murlock most of the time)
There also seems to be a raft of ropey walled garden articles that need going over. Neil () 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
School on a saturday? It is established with a dutch checkuser, that there are several accounts working from this (high)schooladress. I would advise you though, to contact User:Oscar, who did a cross-wiki check when I last requested a checkuser on Kermansjahi and his friends and told me he found more interesting stuff. Gebruiker:Blowland (user:Blow?) wasn't found to be a sockpuppet. The dutch policy about checkuser isn't that open as the english one, so I can't tell you what he found out. Ciell 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's pretty clear this is not a schared school IP these guys are using. I'll doublecheck User:Blowland's contributions but I think it's a pretty obvious sock. Neil () 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
At least one of the three adresses is a school IP. Ciell 22:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it's an open proxy? -- ChrisO 22:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, don't think so. RonaldB would have blocked them by now. I know someone else who edits from that adres, so am pretty sure. I'll alert Oscar, maybe he's up for it tonight. Ciell 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have talked with some Iranian users and they claim that there is absolutely no way Kermansjahi might be a Dutch schoolkid. He shows quite deep knowledge of Iranian history and culture that only Iranian or a professional researcher on Iran could acquire. He might be an immigrant from Iran but he must leave the country as an adult. This seems to contradict the sockpuppeting allegations. On the other hand, he obviously connected with Mrlob and some other members of the gang. I have asked Kermansjahi to explain his version of the events be Email Alex Bakharev 11:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, even if there isn't a link with Mrlob (which I am convinced there is) is a confirmed sockpupeteer and troublemaker aside from this one incident. Given that, the checkuser seems to confirm things. Neil () 11:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets wait for his side of the story Alex Bakharev 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil, do you want me (a Dutch admin with Frisian roots living 10 miles from Friesland) to verify the possibly hoaxy articles? If so, can you provide me with a list? AecisBrievenbus 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because of this new evidence I have decided to unblock Kermansjahi. I have an E-mail exchange with Kermansjahi and Gnangarra. The checkuser does not contradict Kermansjahi's version of the event, there are a few contribution history's edits suggesting that Kermansjahi might has some off-wiki connection to Morlock, there are other evidences that they are not the same. Kermansjahi himself denies that they are connected. I have assumed good faith and decided to unblock. Gnagarra agreed with unblocking if there would be doubts in the checkuser result that seems to be the case Alex Bakharev 06:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the "assume good faith" period has ended on Wikipedia-nl per june 19. See here for my addition in follow-up of what my colleagues Ciell and Oscar's information shared already. The Dutch file on this group of schoolboys can be found here and the reference on the main page is found here. As long as you keep the main account open the guys will keep up making new sockpuppets and be assured since school started they will again use them. Best wishes, MoiraMoira 15:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) (adm on wiki-nl)

Possible death threat[edit]

May be I am wrong, but this seems to be worth reporting. User:ellol recently asked me on my talk page using slang of Russian mafia[13] the following:

Do you understand Russian well enough to realize that "...it is better to come to an agreement than to be killed by knife" (Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок) and that "someone must be punished for making too much noise [in Wikipedia]" (Западло не отвечать за базар)? Of course, he told later that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia".

I wanted to ignore this incident, but ellol became very active recently and started making other outrageous claims, such as that I support Russian fascists (Movement Against Illegal Immigration [14]), and others, so it it might be a good idea if someone checked this. Of course, this is difficult to check because not every native Russian speaker understands well this criminal slang. Biophys 16:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are these users conducting whole talk page sections in Russian on the English wiki? It precludes a vast number of interested editors from checking the facts alleged in the citations. They don't provide translations or anything. Seems like that would be some sort of vio of OWN, since it ensures that many can't even discuss the matter. And in a section about citation, one guy states 'Here's what the cite said - big russian quote - , and that's what I put in. He didn't quote his edit, nor link the diff, and so on. Shouldn't most of the english wiki's discussions be in english, so as to make them most accessible tot he majority of the editing audience? ThuranX 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the point. He intentionally makes his threats using not just Russian, but Russian criminal slang, so few people can understand and block him. This is link [15]. This is his diff from my talk page where he came uninvited: [16].
  • This is one of his statements (Russian):"Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок)." My approximate translation: "Anything can be done for money". "I am not satisfied with Putin" "It is better to decide everything at the gangster's "court" meetings than to get a knife into the heart"
  • This is his another statement (Russian): "Западло не отвечать за базар". My translation: "Someone must be punished for making too much noise" [in Wikipedia] (according to the context)Biophys 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I should explain more. "заточка" means not just knife but a self-made knife, something more similar to a screw driver. Killing with "заточка" is a traditional way of killing "traitors" (like me) who betray secrets of the gang. "Cтрелка" ("распальцовки на стрелках") means a meeting of a gang (usually several gangs) where they decide who is guilty of violating "laws" of criminal world, and the person who is "guilty" is often killed immediately. That kind of nice message I have received.Biophys 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it means a shiv. I have asked Ellol to explain himself (and I would also like someone else to translate the above to confirm). I think a warning would be best if the translations are correct. Neil  17:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I've asked him to limit his comments about other editors on the english Wikipedia to english. That should make things easier moving forward. FeloniousMonk 17:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes of course, he explained me already that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia" - just as I told above. Biophys 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That excuse particularly bothers me, as it implies "If you can read this, you'll know i'm connected, and leave me alone to get my way, or else!" That sort of 'cryptic' (secretive) comment, one which only afew can read, is far worse. Making AN/I do all this extra work when 'Fuck off or I'll kill you' in english would've been sorted out with an indef immediately. If this all is shown to be legit translations, this user should be banned. ThuranX 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, these translations are correct (did he provided his translation?), although one should know this language of Russian criminal underworld to translate. But, as in any cryptic message, he did not tell "I'll kill you", and the message begins from a couple of nonsense phrases. Then, this threat goes. One important thing is his mentioning of Vladimir Putin just before the threatening sentence, as a reason why I deserved this, since I made many edits critical of Putin's administration and FSB, although I did not edit yet directly article about Putin himself (probably I should). Biophys 23:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC) I must tell that such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address.Biophys 23:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ask YOU if they are correct, I'm asking if another editor can confirm your translation. ThuranX 00:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Right. User ellol just provided his interpretation of this segment, which I disagree [17]. I can ask User:Colchicum or User:HanzoHattori to translate. Would that be O'K?Biophys 01:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I posted request for translation at talk page of User:Colchicum since he is a very neutral editor.Biophys 01:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is just crazy. The full text of the Ellol's entry was:

May I ask another question? How do you understand the following phrases: "Сколько метров у твоей видюхи?", "Меня прёт его гламурная тёлка и навороченная тачила", "Бабки рулят", "Путин меня не вставляет", "Пацанские распальцовки на стрелках -- всё-таки цивилизованнее, чем заточка в бок", "КГ/АМ", "Западло не отвечать за базар", "Дело ЮКОСа разрулили по понятиям, а не по закону", "Задолбал толкать фуфло"? I'm certainly interested to understand your level of modern colloquial Russian language. ellol 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you understand the following phrases (my poor translation): "How many megabytes has you graphic card?"(Meters some time colloquially are used as megabytes because of the M abbreviation), "I appreciate his glamorous girlfriend and expensive car", "Money rules", "I am not excited of Putin", "Underworld meetings are still more civilized than a zatochka (a sharpened piece of steel used as a weapon by prison inmates and obviously barely used outside prisons there are much more deadly weapons are available) in a body", "Креатифф - говно/автор - мудак" (Creative piece is shit, its author is a dickhead; from padonki language), "You should be responsible for your words", "The case of Yukos was solved according to the underworld customs rather than the written law", "You are exhausting us with your lies". Ellols also asked Biophys to calculate Probably testing if Biophys knows Kronecker delta and Einstein notation. He obviously asks a random test of modern Russian internet-business argot (and a very simple test BTW, I left Russia 14 years ago and still do not have problem with the test. If a couple of phrases came from the criminal slang so they are vaguely threatening but this was obviously not the intended effect. Ellol was trying to make the point that Biophys does not understand the life in modern Russia there the power abuse by FSB for the most of population is a very small worry relative to the street crime, corruption, inter-ethnic problems, etc. I see nothing threatening in this message Alex Bakharev 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Alex here. Biophys simply took his quotes out of context to make it look like a threat. If you actually read the whole sentence, there is absolutely nothing threatening in it. Ellol merely wants to see if Biophys have a sufficient grasp of today's Russian slang. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I believe that CIA knows who I am and my address, but that wouldn't stop me from commenting on Biophys's complaints along the lines of "such threat is very real since FSB knows who I am and my address". Biophys is advised to stop posting rants about кровавая гэбня, Russian mafia, and other urban legends on this noticeboard. This is a wrong place for spooking people. I agree that non-English posts are not acceptable in English Wikipedia, although some wikipedians think otherwise. I'm afraid they will be very frustrated once the suggestion is formalized into a policy. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So, you simply accepted the original explanation by ellol that he only "proposed this user [me] a simple test to check his ability to speak in modern colloquial Russia". If you think it is O'K to come uninvited to someones talk page and leave him a cryptic message on Russian criminal slang claiming that "it is better to decide everything on gangster's court of honor than to be murdered by shiv" and mentioning Putin and that someone must be punished for making "too much noise" in next phrases, I have nothing more to discuss.Biophys 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that User:ellol should be more careful in his use of language that might be misinterpreted, especially when communicating with those with whom he disagrees. Threatening language should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat[edit]

I like CyclePat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), I have been dealing with him on and off for ages, but his incessant campaigning in respect of AMA has gone well past the point of Pat's usual well-intentioned cluelessness and into trolling and disruption. I have blocked him until he gives an undertaking to leave it be. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he has taken it too far despite warnings, maybe you could reduce it down to a 24 hour disruption block so he can have a think about things rather than an indef? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the 72 hour block given previously hasn't had that effect, so I'm not sure why 24 hours would... --pgk 22:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, your right, he continued after it - agree we should leave it as it is pending CyclePat agreeing to leave the issue. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Not solving anything here; the discussion has become counter-productive, please let it go.

Request for admin action re confirmed sockpuppetry[edit]

Resolved

Emnx has been listed as a suspected sockpuppet here and has been confirmed by checkuser. This also confirms 3RR violation and block evasion as listed in the suspected sockpuppet report. As this user has been vandalising user pages and edit warring on Mandrake Press, I request that appropriate administrative action be taken. IPSOS (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The sockmaster is blocked for one month, obvious sock indef, his IP for a week. I see no point in blocking the dynamic IPs he used ten days ago. MaxSem 05:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That makes sense. I just wanted to make sure to list them in case he tries to evade his block. Now we have a record of the IP ranges he uses. IPSOS (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196, now using IPs[edit]

Resolved: Blocked one of the socks, and Yamamoto got the other one and the semiprotection. Riana 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

62.231.243.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 74.192.233.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looks like JB has run out of accounts, and is resorting to vandalizing my user page with IP's (probably open proxies). Someone mind blocking him and semi-protecting my user page while we get the proxies blocked? SirFozzie 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fozzie, I don't think he's ran out of sleepers. For the third day in a row, I had to protect his target articles a few hours ago. He began hitting them with IPs immediately after the protection expired, and I semi'ed them. Minutes after that, he then shifted to one of his sleepers, and I had to move to full protection. I don't think he has ran out of accounts, just saving them to hit said articles. Phaedriel - 03:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
We should really give him a barnstar for all the help in identifying open proxies. One Night In Hackney303 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
LOL! —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 15:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
He's using a new one, reported to WP:AIV. Vandalized his checkuser page with the IP, it's been added to that case. RJASE1 Talk 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, RJASE, and I think you may be right, Phadriel. and ONiH, I'd like to give him a Barnstar or two, as long as I get the choice of HOW to give it to him... (grins) SirFozzie 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I semi'ed the CU page for a day. And Fozzie, I've got one helluva barnstar for him... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! - Alison 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Now all we need is one of those airguns to deliver it at a high rate of speed ;) SirFozzie 03:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps this? One Night In Hackney303 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the article on the "star", it is thrown in a special way, sort of like a discus but as a weapon. Resurgent insurgent 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think showing a picture of a ninja star with the comment "I've got a barnstar for him" and subsequent comments about delivery of said ninja star might be construed as aggressive and threatening if you did not know that Phaedriel is (I hope) joking, as is everyone else, right? Neil  09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Given the amount of threads this guy causes on ANI per day with sock reports I think any offensive weaponry we can throw at him is welcome, frankly. Deserves it. Ye shall reap what ye have sowed, etc. This fellow is busy sowing plenty of grapes of wrath. Moreschi Talk 10:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course I'm joking, dear Neil, as everyone else is regarding the "star" - and I think our comments cannot be construed as anything but smirk. We're just blowing off a little steam aften chasing him and reverting his misdeeds for several days in a row. Mr. JBP shouldn't be afraid about his physical integrity while he's around us. However, I'd happily smash his computer... Phaedriel - 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

RodentofDeath edit warring in Angeles City[edit]

RodentofDeath (talk · contribs) (again), along with two other editors who may be sockpuppets (my last request for a CheckUser was declined) are making specious arguments on Talk:Angeles City, and have resumed edit warring in Angeles City (again). I'm about to give up on this for the night because I'm about to hit WP:3RR, and anyway their Edit summaries are including (specious, insultingly so) reasons for which they will claim good faith edits.

Example argument:

remove "became known as center for prostitution" as article already states it became known as culinary center.[18]

rv. angeles has prostitutes. unless you wish to argue that point and that the population increased after WW2 then please stop revert warring.[19]

There are five (5) reliable citations for this article. This has been discussed repetitively on the talk page for that article. >150kb in the archives since this edit war began, and that's just for this article. (He does in several places.)

AN/I hasn't demonstrated an interest in this situation that I've noticed, but this has gone on for over a month. RodentofDeath has been entirely destructive, and the fact the he even bothers to make excuses (however incredibly lame) on Talk pages now qualifies this current period is his charm offensive. / edgarde 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reveryed the most recent edits, since this appears to be POV removal of sourced statements, and asked for more input on the talk page. --Haemo 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Like we needed more talk page input. Counting all the archives we have >300 highly repetitive kb of specious arguments against this sentence, and attacks on the editor who initially inserted it. It's really beyond discussion now. / edgarde 04:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It's just a formality - if he can't bring any new, substantial arguments, then we can revert his edits wholesale. --Haemo 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
well that doesnt sound very much like a neutral point of view but since we are pointing out comments please notice who wrote "(→Destroying Angeles again - There's been enough "talk". Put up or shut up.)" on the talk page history. RodentofDeath 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
if you are going to summarize please do so accurately. there was definitely not 300k of arguments on this one sentence. this article started out as an attack by one editor intent on destroying the reputation of a city she despises. most of the discussion successfully argued for the removal of the "welfare" section along with other false information used to distort the image of angeles. at no point have i attacked anyone other than to point errors they have written. meanwhile you are accusing anyone that disagrees with you of being me. RodentofDeath 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Block by Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

I have an issue with a block made by User:Rebecca. I have tried discussing it with her but she does not seem to feel it is inappropriate in regards to the to issues I feel are most important.

  1. It was not preventative
  2. There was no communication prior to the block

Here is a basic time line of what happened:

  • Sometime around May 25 I saw a notice on the Community portal to Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and I was shocked that the backlog was so large that Articles tagged in Dec of 2005 where being worked on. I started to help out. Note: I never sign up for these things even though I have pitched in with several, like the Biography Unassesed Article Drive, in the past.
  • Most of what I did in the following days was retag articles which had {{unreferenced}} with {{refimprove}} or {{primarysources}} working through various letters in the categories.sample contribs The large majority of articles in these categories did actually have at least one source. However I also actually read through many articles and did other things as needed. I assesed articles, removed unsourced accusations of killing people, redirect to alternate named article on same subject, tagged copyvios, outright removed ref tags, etc. Basically I made several 100's of edits to these articles tagged for a year or more, with the idea they have generally not been given attention in areas besides referencing. I watchlisted all the artilces I edited and when I see a good, significant, non-IP edit come up I unwatch them figuring that if there were concerns with my actions something would have been said by then. I was not looking out to mass-delete articles, although going through these categories I certianly saw the necessity for some deletions. I was editing responsibly; improving Wikipedia.
  • As I was going through these edits, I was leaving truly unreferenced articles alone. I was thinking to first clean up the category then deal with articles that actually belong in the category. Other people taking part of the project quickly cleared out the true unreferenced articles from Dec 05-May 06. None of these where even close to the monster that is June 06. A good number of articles from those categories where run through prod. Maybe 20 or so, I can't link to them of course. I looked over those articles as they were in the waiting period and felt I understood which sort of non-notabilities or violations of WP:NOT would be appropriate for prod.
  • I was hesistant to start putting article through prod because of the situation on my watchlist. I decided I should start an alt account with a clean watchlist so I would not miss any concerns over articles I prod, and would be able to watch for any recreations. I created User:Birgitte-prod and left a note explaining why on my main user page.
  • On two days (May 31 and June 2) I tagged about 27 articles with prod. I notified not only notified the creator, but also any other significant contirbuter I noticed in the history.diff diff While looking through the history I dilgently checked previous prods and altered any I found to AFD. oops needs afd. I responded to remarks made on the talk page questioning my actions with a calm civil explantionNotability - reply. Of course I cannot show diffs for the articles I first checked the discussion of to find a previous AFD Keep/no consensus notice which I didn't prod or the many more articles which have been unreferenced since June 2006 that a simple reading of the article clearly convinced me that it was notable. On May 31st I read all these things as I went, spending a few minutes on each article. On June 2 I first checked articles and discussion pages making a list before tagging anything for prod which let me edit about once per minute (still hardly bot-speed). The point is I was editing in a careful and responsible manner and not like a bot. In all the alternate account has less than a hundred edits total over a three day period and only 27 prods. Obviously after seeing Rebecca concerns I understan that they were not all the uncontroversial deletion candidates as I believed them to be at the time. I understand that my judgement was in error in some cases and I am happy to readust my criteria due to the concerns she has raised. I have no desire to prod articles which are contraversial, I was simply mistaken. After Rebecca reviewing my edits, I still have 14 active prods and one AFD with no oppostion.
  • Based on the prods Rebecca disagreed with she blocked User:BirgitteSB-prod indefinately, with IP blocking, reasoning "Mass-prodding pages at random for being unreferenced, many indisputable notable." She left a note on my talk page stating she had blocked your User:BirgitteSB-prod bot account for mass-prodding pages on the basis that they were unreferenced. . . Please find some other means of handling unreferenced articles. She also uses rollback to revert about 7 of the prods I placed, despite the fact that my edits are not vandalism. Of course I think it is clear that my account was 1) Not a bot (<100 over three day, sometimes at 1 edit per minute) 2) Obviously not "prodding pages at random" 3) Proding articles on the basis my belief that they were of non-notable (plenty of non-refernced articles were not prodded and I mention the non-notabilty in my reason) 4)Obviously going to be on the same IP address as my main account. 5)I was also "handling unrefeernced articles" by other means, as shown above, only prodding where I truly believed it to be appropriate. On top of the unsoundness of Rebecca's reasoning and her technical incompetence she blocked me A)Without first addresing any of her concerns with me B)Without any preventative purpose (indefinate block on an account not editing at the time still left standing). The mistakes I numbered show a lack of dilgence on Rebecca part, but the ones I lettered show a completely unacceptable use of adminstrative power. Rebecca needs to understand that disscusion before a block and blocks as preventive messures are an absolute neccessity when dealing with established contributors.
  • Eventually despite there being confusion and my auto-unblock request being declined someone unblocks my IP, but doesn't notify me. Or maybe I was unblocked first and then had the auto-blocked declined. Anyways, I leave some messages on my talk page to explain the truth of the situation and outlining why the block was inappropriate asking Rebecca to respond. OK you blocked an account that was not a bot, was not actively making edits at the time, without adressing the issue with me personally, AND you blocked my IP so I cannot edit at all. I expect you to seriously change your blocking procedures. The above block was completerly out of line and is quite an inconvience since I can't edit at all now. Just to be clear (clarify issues) . . . I am signing off for the night but someone please copy this to Rebecca talk page. Rebecca, you seriously need to think about what you are doing with the block button. You need to be certain you resoning is sound and you need to know how blocking actually works regarding the IP.
  • Rebecca responds with I did not realise that it was a manually-operated account . . . How on earth did you get to the conclusion that they were "uncontroversial deletion candidates"? There is not a chance in hell that any of those I've listed would have even passed AfD. Which is certainly less civil than anything I have written, and she is the one blocking me! She does not lift the improper block or address any of the issues I raised with her actions.
  • I leave her note with the explantion she asked for and reassuring her I will readjust my criteria based on her concerns. And asking her once again to adress my concerns about the inappropriate block.
  • She responds critizing the same prods again despite the fact I have already reassured her that I change my behaivior based on her concerns. She apologizes for the IP block, but stating If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.

Clearly Rebecca is not going to see that blocking in such a manner is inappropriate through discussion with me. I am not contesting that the disputed prods should be deleted as I am more than willing to accept her judgement that I was mistaken there. I have made it clear I will be more strict with which articles I tag for prod in the future. I don't think I can do anything else beyond these things. I am not at all saying she is wrong about {{prod}}, and that my edits were correct. I am saying that my edits were not blockable offences. Obviously if I had continued to edit in this fashion after someone shared their concerns with me, it would merit a block for disruption. However this was not the case. Please can someone else help her see that her adminstrative actions were inapropriate, because I don't believe I can get through to her.--BirgitteSB 04:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The account concerned had been making dubious edits at a rapid speed. From a look at the edits, some of which were very strange (a good number of these would have obviously got either a unanimous or speedy keep had they been taken to AfD), I assumed it was tagging articles upon some sort of formula-gone-wrong. I was apparently wrong on this matter. I thus made the block of the seperate account (mistakenly hitting the wrong button when I did so and blocking his main account, which was promptly fixed), and explained why I had done so on Birgitte's talk page. Birgitte has stated that he will be more careful about his taggings in future, and I see no reason why this dispute need continue. Rebecca 05:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My experience with BirgitteSB (on WikiSource, for example, where she is a long term contributor to very great effect) has been that she is uniformly thoughtful and helpful, even when I do not agree with her, and always open to reason and discussion, and someone who works hard to benefit the projects she is involved in. This is behaviour to be strongly encouraged (it sounds like she was tacking a thankless task that was woefully backlogged) and I am not sure that blocking was the appropriate course of action to take here. I'd note that Jimbo himself has pointed out that sometimes summary deletion of unreferenced articles is the best approach, as "no article" is better than a "bad article". ++Lar: t/c 10:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Lar. That was a poor block. It would appear that the mistake has been put right now and I'm sure Rebecca will be more careful in future. --John 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since my above posting has convinced you to undo the block, I have no desire of continuing the dispute. I will say that I really do hope you have had a change of heart in regards to the statements: If you or anyone else behaved in this manner again, I would block you in a second . . . If I had known it was not a bot, at the speed the account was going and with the edits it was making, I would have blocked it for disruption.. Even if you will not publicly retract this, please do not block good-faith editors without first alerting them to your concerns in the future.--BirgitteSB 16:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I would like to complan about the single track narrow mindedness of this user. The user is unilaterally deleting images and postingh copious ammounts of articles for deletion claimg they are biographies, when they are murder articles and also restoring to their version and closing AfD reviews when they were inherntly involved in the original deletion. I think the user needs to be more civil and think about what they are doing before being single tracked and doing what they want as if they own wikipedia.--Lucy-marie 10:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Kindly take a ticket and stand in line. I would suggest first trying to discuss the issue with the admin in question (if you haven't) you also have WP:DRV, WP:RFC and this arbitration case that he is currently involved in relating to similar actions to those you are complaining about. Other avenues of dispute resolution exists apart from those listed - I would suggest reading WP:DR. ViridaeTalk 10:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like he's doing a good job of getting rid of NN articles - thanks for shining the spotlight on those NN articles, I'll be over to them to make a delete case on most of them. --Fredrick day 10:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There is an arbitration case currently open dealing with this entire matter, and the several editors who are involved in it. There is no reason to have mini brush fire discussions about it on the administrators' noticeboard. I'm closing this discussion. Uncle G 10:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Deletion by editor of hundreds of external links; failure to discuss; edit warring[edit]

The detailed background to this can be found at [20]. It has been suggested that this is the appropriate forum, so I turn it over to you.

My first problem is that this editor deleted of hundreds of external links without discussion, rather than discuss the deletions on a talk page as I suggested at the very beginning of his deletions, and instead engaged in edit warring. This is evidenced by the diffs at the above. The editor denies it to be the case. Checking the diffs shows that this is in fact what happened.

In short, the editor has deleted hundreds of baseball statistical and biographical urls that were external links in baseball player bios because of what he understands is the directive for him to be bold, and due to his subjective view that the urls should be deleted. I believe his deletions are not only substantively wrong-headed, which is being discussed now at the above url, but that they are doing damage in the interim. If he wishes to challenge such links, in my view, Wiki policy is clear that rather than delete the urls, he should post a template. See [[21]]. It will be difficult if not impossible to restore links once the matter is resolved, if that does indeed happen.

The editor originally claimed that the urls were deleted because they constituted link farms, and contained identical content. This was subsequently disputed by a number of editors, including two whom I contacted immediate to help -- Wizardman and Nishkid64 -- the two admins in the baseball project. Their comments are the first two that you will see other than mine and his. Even now, days later, the editor has just deleted more urls, as one can see at [22] -- with slightly different rationales, such as "removed sites with nearly (emphasis added) identical content, sites that didn't need to be in their (sic)."

It would be appreciated if: 1) appropriate action could be taken vis-a-vis the editor for his having made hundreds of deletions while initially ignoring the request to discuss, and then concurrent with discussion; and 2) action could be taken to have him RV his deletions pending the finalization of the discussions on the above url. If need be, though it is not clear to me that this is appropriate given that fact that there is an ongoing discussion, he could tag the articles once he has RV's his deletions, and untag the articles upon conclusion of the ongoing discussion. Thanks. --Epeefleche 10:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at London Metropolitan University[edit]

Could an administrator intervene at London Metropolitan University? This looks like a severe edit war. Dr. Submillimeter 13:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I've talked with Crewsaver on his talk page about the issue. He's a pretty new user, but he seems open to working through dispute resolution on the issue (talk page discussion, maybe an article content RFC). As a good faith gesture, he's re-added some aspects of the anonymous editor's additions that he doesn't find particularly objectionable. Now, we just have to see whether the anon is willing to do likewise. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Political succession boxes (large scale removal without discussion)[edit]

Emerson7 (talk · contribs), who was blocked just a month ago for similar behavior, is going through various political bio articles and removing succession boxes. S/he claims that the succession boxes are "deprecated" but gives no evidence that there has been any discussion to support that claim. Attempts to engage in discussion results in him/her ignoring me and/or telling me s/he is correct per WP:SENSE and/or adding the article to WP:RFPP. S/he already has one article locked in the inconsistent state (Romualdo Pacheco). WRK (talk) 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Emerson7's disruptive reverts are continuing and have also been reported at WP:AN3. If you look at his/her contribs, everything lately is reverts. WRK (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have asked that emerson stop removing the boxes pending discussion and or a link to a community decision or other discussion depricating the succession boxes. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


in my own defense (realizing this may or may not be the correct forum), this has be ongoing for several days...WRK has not refused to act in good faith and has accelerated and expanded 'war' see yesterdays 3RR requests. --emerson7 | Talk 14:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue goes much deeper than Wp:3RR. Unless you can show a consensus against the succession boxes, it would appear that they are a very common practice included use in the presidents of the united states. What I see is you trying to make changes against consensus then hiding behind the WP:3RR rule to get them to stick. Try to get a consensus against the boxes if you dont like them, dont just remove them. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I am acting in perfectly good faith in simply keeping the California governor articles consistent with the governor articles of every other state. I've also attempted to engage you in constructive discussion only to be called immature and told that I am not using WP:SENSE. You are making large-scale changes with no hint of discussion or consensus. WRK (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets remeber to keep cool. It'll all get sorted out! Dont stress about it! -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Molag Bal sock[edit]

Hello, I think User:Rugbyman 5000 may be a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. Just yesterday User:Martinp23 blocked User:81.154.110.210 as it was a Molag sock and had reported both me and User:Cometstyles to WP:AIV because we were apprently socks of Molag ball, he was blocked for one month and his unblock request denied after he requested it, a discussion on the IPS talk page then went underway between me and him and he began to get abusive and threatened to kill himself, his user talk was then semi-protected to prevent further abuse, the at 16:08 (GMT); User:Rugbyman 5000 was created and he immediately nominated me for adminship (I've now requested speedy deletion of the page for the reasons listed on the {{db-reason}} tag. He then edited my userboxes page adding two of the {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} twice onto that page, which transcludes in a green format onto my userpage, however if you look their was a userbox their saying This user is is not a Wikipedia administrator and does not wish to be one currently, when I edited as Tellyaddict I had said several times that I did not want an RfA at that time and despite this, it was created and regretfully I accepted that nomination but the RfA for my new username (The Sunshine Man) I have declined. It just seems odd that a user would create an account just to nominate for adminship. Any thoughts. Regards --The Sunshine Man 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's severe enough file a checkuser. If not, wait for more contributions of this user to determine if the edit pattern is similar to the accused party. Miranda 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor out of control[edit]

Gryffindor keeps on moving Meran to Merano against the consensus and WP:NCGN. (see also the above report by Pmanderson).--Supparluca 17:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he has protected the page abusing his admin powers.--Supparluca 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to work this out with Gryffindor. On first sight, it does look like rather questionable use of the admin tools to me. Fut.Perf. 18:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Please consider that this isn't the first time at all. He started to abuse his powers in 2005, always with his strong point of view, and always (for what I know) on articles related to that province, usually with subtle and bully behaviours.--Supparluca 18:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly a complicated situation with possible mis-steps on both sides. See [23] for questionalbe accusations of vandalism. Gaff ταλκ 02:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Gryffindor made one controversial move in a questionable interpretation of the results of a straw poll he had himself initiated and voted in. On being reverted, he today repeated his move three times within few hours and then protected his version. I've reverted his move to the status quo ante and kept move protection on that version in effect. Fut.Perf. 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your celerity, though I obviously think that's not enough.--Supparluca 18:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch List on Project Space[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=135583956

An editor issued me a fake warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

The watchlist in project space was a keep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&diff=next&oldid=135581510

However, an editor(s) is trying to speedy delete it after it was kept. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

An article can still be speedily deleted after an MfD, so long as it meets CSD requirements. Passing an XfD does not give an article immunity against further deletions. Phony Saint 18:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
what confuses me is that the stated reason for the XFD is reposted material - but what's it a repost of if it survived it's MFD? --Fredrick day 18:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking at it again, it's not a repost, but QuackGuru didn't state that in his edit summaries or here. After the original article - this article - was moved to project space, someone recreated the article in mainspace, and that was the article deleted. I was about to revert myself when I saw you already did it. Phony Saint 18:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Cool. This sounds settled then. Mr.Guru, in the future don't remove an AfD template, but rather follow the "hang on" instructions contained within. Removing the AfD template as you had done [24] is considered vandalism. Hence, my warning to you. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
According to Levine2112, he still believes my edit was vandalism when it was not. He knows it was not a repost. He voted in the MFD.[25] He knows it was a keep. It can't be a repost in project space when it survived the MFD. Levine2112, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with your unfounded warning. Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 has issued me another unfounded warning. This time, I made a single edit to an article and he has dumped on my talk page a warning of edit warring.[26] This is harressment and uncivil behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing an AfD is considered vandalism. Separtely, your involvement in the editing of Coral calcium constitues edit warring. In each case, the warning template I placed on your page was appropriate. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed an inappropriate speedy delete tag. It did not meet the criteria for speedy delete. You do not believe it was vandalism because you have not reverted back to the tag.[27] Making a single edit to an article is not edit warring. Please stop with your incivility. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 21:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing an AfD tag from an article which you created is considered vandalism. I didn't revert because of the discussion here which I believe cleared up the situation. Next time you are presented with an AfD tag on an article which you created, rather than removing the tage, consider following the "hang on" instructions in the AfD notice, as removing the tag can be construed as vandalism. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not remove an AFD tag. I removed a speedy delete tag. You knew it was not a recreation. You participated in the MFD. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Same deal. Removing a speedy deletion tag from an article you created can be considered vandalism. Next time, please consider following the "hang on" instructions in the template, if you wish to contest the nomination. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
From WP:CSD: Any editor who is not the author of a page may remove a speedy tag from it; the author may not do this, but instead should place a {{hangon}} tag on the page. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No wikilawering. You got it backwards, again. You knew in advance it was not a repost. How could you consider it vandalism when you participated in the MFD and knew fully well it was a keep. You can't repost a watchlist when it was never deleted in the first place. I consider it uncivil for any editor to put a speedy tag when they know the article's detailed history. The key is that you knew it was not a repost and yet you accused me of vandalism. Rubbish. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 cannot explain away the fake warning for alleged edit warring when I made a single edit to coral calcium.[28] Very odd behaviour. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place to make uncivil accusations. I did not know that it was not a repost or whatever it is your are claiming. What I know is that you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page which you authored. This can be considered vandalism; hence the warning on your talk page. All the warning was meant to be is educational to you so next time you would know not to remove such a tag from a page which you authored. Please assume better faith. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please do not attribute vandalism to my name again or you will reported for your disruptive behaviour. You still can't explain the ficticious warning for edit warring when I made a single edit. A single edit is not edit warring. Your warning was not educational. It was harrassment. You did not AGF with me and you continue to contrue vandalism to my name. I do not vandalise and it was not edit warring. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know what other way there is to explain that removing a Speedy Deletion template from an article which you authored can be considered vandalism. It isn't about whether or not I agree with the template. It's about following the policies. And the policy is: "If you are the author of this article, don't remove the template." That's all there really is to say. I am sorry that you are turning this is into something personal between us. I assure you that is not the case. I have warned many users for doing the exact same thing which you did. No one else has reacted like this. This is fairly routine practice for the VandalProof team members such as myself. Again, nothing personal. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not work like that. Levine2112 knew in advance it was never a repost. He knew I was the original author. He participated in the MFD. The MFD was a keep. He commented on the talk page after the resulting keep.[29] He knew all this and he still thinks it was vandalism. No. It was not. He tried to delete it as a repost but it did not work this time around. He also knows I did not edit war. He can't talk his way out of that one either. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have spoken my mind on this issue and see no need to continue on this until if and when an Admin responds here. In the meantime, I would appreciate that your discontinue your bad faith accusations about me. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 has not provided a reason for the harrassment warning[30][31] of edit warring when I made a single edit to the Coral Calcium. That speaks volumes. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Please see the next posting [32] where I explicitly spell it out for you: "This includes removing an AFD template". -- Levine2112 discuss 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. In the beginning, I created an article in mainspace. It survived deletion and was subsequently moved to project space. To make a long story short. I did a lot of work and made considerable changes to the article and posted it back and mainspace. It was not a repost. It was deleted as a repost. It was a logical fallicious argument made by some Wikipedians. Of course you know how things can get on Wikipedia sometimes. I opened a deletion review. I have provided proof it was a different article with substantial changes to the text of the article. After it was moved to project space I did a lot of work on it. A new and changed article was posted in mainspace. They are trying to delete it as a repost again when they know it was never a repost in the first place. It was originally moved to project space by consensus. After I worked on it in project space, I posted it in mainspace in accordance with policy. It is very different from the original article and it was voted to keep in project space. After I did a lot of work on it and posted it in mainspace it was tagged as a repost which was not true. Now, they want to delete the watch list from project space for no reason. Again, it was voted to keep in project space. The key is understanding the MFD was a keep. There is a long complicated history of moves with this list. In the confusion they were succussful in deleting it as a repost in mainspace. I want many experienced administrators to overview. Per deletion review policy any administrator can undelete and overtrurn deletion. If you agree, it may be possible to return this article back to its proper place in mainspace. Thank you very much. Please advise me if there is any options for me left. A good article deserves to be in mainspace. I have provided proof it was a different article. This article is a great resource tool. A library of information. And belongs in mainspace. Please return this list to mainspace and explain on the talk it was not a recreation. In fact, it was a substantially different article. All in all, we should not reward people who take advantage of Wikipedia's openness who misrepresent the quality of an article just because they don't like it and who pretend it was a repost. Godspeed and hooray to Wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts&oldid=99780515

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience/List_of_skepticisms_and_scientific_skepticism_concepts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_1

Sincerely, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 20:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the main problem was that the article's talk page wasn't moved when the article was moved, so nobody really knew the article's history; I fixed it and it now resides at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pseudoscience/List of skepticisms and scientific skepticism concepts. I suggest closing this thread since there isn't any necessary admin action needed. Phony Saint 00:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Its time (mainspace)[edit]

All allegations it was a repost have been summarily debunked. Now then, to the mission at hand. I recommend it be put back into mainspace right now, because the article has gone through a major transformation and the text of the article has considerably changed. Any thoughts. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 01:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What part of moving this article requires admin intervention? Take it to the talk page of the article or the WikiProject. Phony Saint 01:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't. This article has repeatedly been deleted from mainspace. You already took it to DRV and lost. If you repost it is mainspace, it will be deleted again as a repost. The way, the truth, and the light 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The old version was deleted from mainspace. This one is the new version. This requires administrative assistance and approval. Also I moved the article before. It did not work properly. The talk page got left behind. I forgot about it. It would be easier if an experienced administrator would go ahead and review. After a determination has been made it can easily be put back in mainspace. I hope administrators can offer their assistance. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The AfD and DRV comments were against having any article based on this concept in mainspace. The talk page has been fixed. The way, the truth, and the light 02:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It was based on an old version. The new version is organized and different. This requires administrative oversight to sort this out. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 02:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't, you're trying to circumvent consensus by bringing it here. Take it to DRV again or the talk pages; AN/I is not deletion review, or article review for that matter. Phony Saint 02:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
How can I take it to DRV again? Where is the policy to open a second DRV when the article has been updated? There is no policy covering this matter at hand. The talk pages are not for this matter. I am asking here for administrative guidance on the path never taken. The first DRV was deletion as a repost which was unfounded and easily debunked. Again, there is no specific policy on this. We are breaking new waters. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 03:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_articles_related_to_scientific_skepticism&diff=next&oldid=104740040 According to Levine2112 the article met the criteria for speedy deletion. He charged me with reposting deleted content. Nothing was further from the truth. This kind of misrepresentations should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. The text of the article was considerably different and the enitre article was reorganized. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 17:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I charged you with nothing more than removing the speedy delete template. So I simply reverted the edit and warned you that it is considered vandalism to remove a speedy delete template from an article which you authored. I really wasn't think about the MfD from five months ago. I was just going about my usual anti-vandalism business. -- Levine2112 discuss 03:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Levine2112 has also charged me with edit warring on the Coral Calcium which was a lie. I made a single edit and he harrassed me with a warning. The allegations have no merit or validity. Levine2112 is unable to provide any evidence of edit warring. He made it up. Levine2112 can't cover his tracks by explaining his way out of this. Levine2112 has presented a false picture, please stop. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 04:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article. You teamed up with another editor with whom you have an alliance and joined in a edit war to help prevent that editor from breaking 3RR. It should be noted that the editor with whom you teamed up with dropped the same edit warring warning on another editor who only made one reversion as well. Like you, that editor promptly deleted the warning. Unlike you, that editor recognized that the warning is just a warning, stopped his edit warring and moved on. I suggest you do the same. Finally, it should be also noted that the edit which you reverted was changed back. It was discussed on the talk page and it appears that you and your edit warring "teammate" were in the wrong policy-wise. -- Levine2112 discuss 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks after being told repeatedly to stop, using various IPs[edit]

An editor complained at the help desk about something in the article on Labrador Retrievers[33] calling another editor "delusional" or, rather, suggesting another editor might be delusion (I suppose if they didn't write an article that exactly agreed with this editor's opinions). This editor was asked politely to stick to the topic and post on the article's talk page, and to not discuss the other editor there. This editor then posted a comment on the article's talk page calling the other editor "paranoid." I removed the edit, and warned the poster on his talk page, with a level 3 warning, in light of the name calling, and having been asked not to continue in such a manner. The poster is using an IP address, and is changing IP addresses to repost the same comments, which I removed again from the talk page.

My question is, can I now ask for this user to be blocked, who is posting from a range of IPs, and how do I got about it? Should I give a final warning, and where do I give it since the user is changing IP addresses within a range of addresses? KP Botany 00:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you try request for page protection? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, no, hadn't thought of that. It's for a talk page, will it be done for a talk page? I guess I don't see why not. Thanks. KP Botany 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Looking over it, it seems as if its just one individual doing the same edits. Your RFP will probably be denied (unless it was from a lot of editors), however, the last edit by the IP received a L4 warning (continuing from the others). If it continues, apply for help at WP:AIV and cite the other IPs. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I made the mistake of talking back to them a while back, so quite obviously I'm the editor this person is so intent on speaking out against. I made comment about them on this board a few days ago, which is archived here. In case of future reference, it has a list of the IP addresses the person had used, though I did not include edits to the talk page. I am concerned about possibility of having to report them to WP:AIV some time, because of, among other things, the fact that putting warnings on their talk page is rendered useless by the constant change of address. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Short term RFsP was granted, and the admin removed the personal attacks. However, when requesting semi-protection I did not realize that this page had been granted a short term semi-protection before and that the IP returned and continued with precisely the same behaviour (I also lightly scolded and complimented User:Sarranduin for so politely tolerating the obnoxious behaviour--there has been no return on the personal attacks, so the situation has not escalated, just stayed the same, one IP editor spewing incomprehensible venom at another editor). I will request that the IPs be blocked when it returns, unless someone has a more useful suggestion. The IP is not reading the article, in addition to not reading any warnings or comments, and is simply intent on reposting the same personal attack. KP Botany 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Article History[edit]

On 6/2/07, I created the article Allison Stokke, not realizing that it had already been created and deleted. There is an ongoing, very active DRV, but I wish to raise a different, more serious issue: my edits to that article no longer appear in the article history. There are edits before mine, and after mine, but looking at my own User Contributions page, my edits have simply disappeared. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be an outrageous abuse by some Admin, unilateral censorship *way* outside the bounds of Wikipolicy. I want my edits back in the article history and my User Contributions, whatever the result of the DRV. Bete Noir 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct - your edits were deleted out by User:Sean William. If the article remains, then this is a violation of GFDL which will need to be resolved. If it is deleted, all the other edits will be deleted, and there will be no problem. Neil  17:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not admin abuse. He stored one version of the article instead of all the versions. The article was deleted a few times and recreated a few times. Sean Williams chose to restore one particular version (the one from around May 31) instead of the one that you recreated after that one was deleted. It is not abuse, just choice of what version to restore for consideration during the DRV. Further, it is not a GFDL violation because the article was not built around your edits. Your edits were deleted, the full article history was later restored, then someone added the DRV template and more edits were made related to the DRV template, then Sean Williams deleted your version and the other version leaving just the May 31 version plus the recent DRV template edits. None of this violates GFDL since your edits are not in any version of the article that currently exists. Metros 17:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, maybe I read it wrong ... are you sure they're not in the article? Neil  17:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the only edits that exist are the May 31 edits of the article and the June 4 additions of the DRV template. BeteNoir's edits were on June 2 and remain deleted. Metros 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In that case, apologies on my part to Sean William. Doh. Neil  17:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
But please explain why my edits are gone from my own editing history? My own User Contributions? Bete Noir 17:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Because deleted edits do not show up in a user's contributions. Metros 17:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
When The Cunctator restored that article, he sloppily restored every edit ever made to that article, which included two irrelevant re-creations. If I had let it be, then the history of Allison Stokke would have logs of the individual page creations, which would be confusing. Instead, I decided to delete the two stubs in favor or the larger version that is being debated at DRV. This is neither abuse nor censorship. Sean William @ 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard is treating contested/controversial proposals at Wikipedia:Requested moves as uncontroversial, and moving pages without consensus[edit]

Yesterday, an unregistered editor added two proposals at WP:RM to the Uncontroversial proposals section. I happened to notice that one of these proposals was contested, so I checked and noticed that this IP editor had recently started making name changes to Ftr which were then reverted by different editors here, and here.

This IP editor also started making name changes to BMI Baby, which were reverted by different editors here, and here, and here, and here. This IP editor knows these page move proposals are clearly not uncontroversial and should never even have been added to the uncontroversial proposals.

I went back to WP:RM to move these to the contested proposals section, but Anthony Appleyard had gone ahead and moved the pages, even though the edit history showed this would be contested (another IP editor even added a comment opposing this move, which was ignored).

So I moved the pages back to their original title, including detailed edit summaries why I was doing so, but the proposals were re-added by the same IP, to the uncontroversial section again, even though they were clearly contested). Unbelievably, Anthony Appleyard has again ignored the dispute in the edit histoy and moved both pages, apparently just because they were in the uncontroversial section. In the case of Bmibaby, User:The Gannet, User:Trident13, User:Gandoman, User:MilborneOne and myself, all dispute that BMI Baby is the correct name (the Civil Aviation Authority and the airline's own website, and many other reliable sources, refer to it as one word; "bmibaby"). Ironically, I have little interest in these subjects or their correct names, the main problem is this admin is being over-zealous and apparently moving any page that is added to the uncontroversial proposals, even if they could be contested or controversial. Crazysuit 18:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered speaking to Anthony about this first? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the all back, as it appears to be a case of not paying attention to the history of the page, but I will pop a note at his talk page. The Evil Spartan 18:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
They were proposed as uncontroversial because:
  • They are supported by the naming conventions and the manual of style (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
  • The proposed formats are supported by the references, as well as the rules of English (and therefore are backed by community consensus)
  • When proposed on the talk page, no dissenting opinion was put forward
Therefore, I cound only conclude that the moves were consensual, and in the absence of any overwhelming evidence to overturn the strong consensus reposed in the NC and MOS, the reverts were contrary to that consensus. Hence they were put forward a second time for speedy reversion (as a result of User:Crazysuit's deliberate sabotage of the resulting redirects). 81.104.175.145 22:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A comrade does not tolerate GDP map[edit]

I am almost embarassed to report this bizarre incident. This may not be vandalism per se but certainly Cold War POV.

This editor has reverted (exactly once daily) this apparaently harmless bubble map of gross domestic product in 2005 based on IMF data. The map was a simple replacement for colour-coded map to resolve accessibility issues faced in old computer screens.

This editor strongly believes I am pushing America-centric POV.

Also see related discussion here

What action, if any, would be taken? Anwar 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll first note that I strongly disagree with characterizing this dispute, however obliquely, as "vandalism". It's a content dispute that ought to be more fully hashed out on the talk page. That said, I concur with Elk Salmon and Giandrea that the original image is superior to your replacement. The "bubble map" leaves most countries with no data at all and is more difficult to comprehend. — Lomn 19:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Is 'comrade' meant to imply that they are socialist? —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Aside from this being purely a content dispute, the map currently in the article seems to be a lot better than yours, if only on the basis that yours says nothing at all about half the countries in the world. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Chris. Upon seeing your map, my first thought was, 'why dots, instead of ust coloring in the nation?' I see such a map is available nad in use. Let's use it. ThuranX 02:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Status report? (User:Night Gyr)[edit]

Resolved

I was emergency desysopped last friday over a misunderstanding of something I said in the Allison Stokke drv, which someone interpreted as a threat to leak deleted revisions to the press. Now my intents been clarified, the article has had a history undeletion (so the revisions are visible anyway) and arbcom's been dragging its feet for the last couple days without giving me a single word on what's going on. Does anyone know? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest leaving a note at the bureaucrat noticeboard for resysopping. -- John Reaves (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Right - but it will bear more weight if someone else asks for him. That's called DefendEachOther. I asked at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#User:Night_Gyr. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I saw on another talkpage the other day a comment from an arbitrator to the effect that the matter was still being discussed on the arbitrators' mailing list. I assume that the 'crats would wait to hear from ArbCom before taking any action, although the time is coming when hopefully some sort of more official update on the situation will be posted. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course I forgot that there is are people who are 'crats and arbitrators—Raul654 has posted that he has resysopped Night Gyr. Newyorkbrad 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, it turns out the crats aren't arbcom, after all. The bit has been restored. Friday (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As I just noted (we must have just missed ec'ing), this particular crat (Raul654) is both. (UninvitedCompany is both also, actually.) Newyorkbrad 21:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Threatening messages[edit]

Resolved: User Mehudson1 warned not threaten other editors with violence.

Mehudson1 (talk · contribs) needs at least a talking to about leaving threats of physical violence on people's talk pages: [34], [35]. I don't personally feel intimidated, but not all Wikipedians have skin as thick as mine. A review of the user's own talk page and the very low talk pages participation in the user's contributions demonstrates an uncommunicativeness, that suggests the user may only respond to other editors when a temper threshold has been crossed and the urge to lash out can no longer be resisted. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a warning. Anything further and I'd be willing to block them (let me know or bring it back here). MastCell Talk 19:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot[edit]

As User:Future Perfect at Sunrise doesn't feel like taking on another of these disputes, maybe some other admin can have a look at this Admin talk page edit in which User:Rex Germanus states "User Matthead is, once again, looking for trouble ... because that idiot want to irritate people". Please have also a look at his recent (and numerous past) edit summaries in which he calls me "German nationalist" several times. He also continues to maintain User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale where I just have added two links to show that an edit of mine and my talk page are meant. Also, Rex had filed Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No one, with a capable intellect, will deny you're a nationalist. If they do, they should look at your edits. You were inactive for quite a long time and then suddenly reappear ONLY to undo several of my edits, with no edit-summary whatsoever. That's looking for trouble (seeing this 'reporting' it would seem you're still looking). Those aren't personal attacks. Those are valid observations for everyone to check. Rex 19:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you want an admin to do? Play nice, and don't let it get under your skin. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Red Star Over China[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation and encouraged to utilize the talk page.

82.196.168.156 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has made five reverts to the above article restoring a quote critical of the book. Asdie from edit warring and 3RR concerns, the quote itself doubles the size of the article giving undue weight to two people's criticism, and is also so long as to probably violate fair use. Anyone want to step in? – Steel 19:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've blocked the IP for edit-warring and 3RR violations for 24 hours, and left a note asking him/her to discuss concerns over the proposed addition at the talk page once the block expires, rather than re-adding it. They seem relatively new (although IP addresses do change), so perhaps they'll come around. MastCell Talk 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! – Steel 19:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Darwinek - Block review needed[edit]

Resolved: User unblocked by Phil. EVula // talk // // 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today, established user (and former admin) Darwinek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 24 hours by Phil Boswell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for "edit-warring and incivility." Darwinek has requested an unblock review. I posted to Phil's talk for input, but he appears to have been offline since the block. Note that Darwinek is on civility parole per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. Posting here for comments and consensus on the unblock request. Newyorkbrad 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks resolved now, unblocked after apologizing. Newyorkbrad 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked now, after he apologised nicely and promised not to be so silly again. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to object, I noticed this (the suggestion of unblocking) discussed on IRC so the outcome must be evil . --pgk 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(Guess I should clarify that I'm kidding just in case anyone takes it any other way). --pgk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:SteakNShake[edit]