Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive257

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

Noticeboard archives


Block evasion by banned user[edit]

These articles are being plagued by sockpuppets of permabanned user:Dimror (& his checkuser confirmed sockpuppets, User:Vlug etc). He has been adding original research on the number of Muslims in Albania (changing the figure from 70% to 10%) with sources which needless to say don't support his claims. Before he was indefblocked he revert warred with his main username (e.g. [1]). After he was indefblocked, dynamic anon IPs from AlboTeleco Networks have continued his activities (e.g. [2]) and have now escalated to numerous articles. He was banned in early April but the anon edit wars have been continuous until the present day despite having been reverted by numerous users. Can an administrator please take a look at this and do something (watchlist the articles and block the dynamic IPs as they appear, give the articles a couple of weeks of semi-protection, something, anything). The affected articles are (just check their poor histories):

Thanks.--Ploutarchos 10:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)[edit]

New issues include going onto checkuser cases and making personal attacks [12] YA ARE LIARS!LIARS!LIARS , [13] stating his extreme anger for the checkuser "I'm angry because is unfair that already two people are banned for wrong acussations...memeco, and platanogenius..ya are being to narrowminded over here" and his amazement of his own listing [14] "WHy am i relisted in the top???Why is my name written on top?I'm going to be acussed a sock puppet too???this is crazy here!are ya going to block the whole wiki Population jut to get what ya want?" . He has continued with non-civil behavior referring to people as "dumb ass" [15] refering to other users as idiots [16] and telling banned members (platanogenius) to get a new account [17] . He has continued on with uncivil behavior by stating that talk page convo and sockpuppet issues were "dumb shit" [18] . He has been given a final warning concerning his behavior but continued with this [19].. He has had at least 8 previous warnings on his talk page for this behavior. [20] Please take a look at this and consider that this user should be blocked. This is his second major report of unruly behavior on wikipedia. [21] [22] YoSoyGuapo 02:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Please adjust, agree, disagree, discuss. Grandmasterka 05:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
ignoring the block which using his (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) . He has been blocked reblocked and continues to go around his block EdwinCasadoBaez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) . I believe it's time for a permanent ban. YoSoyGuapo 11:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


Loureid (talk · contribs · block log) is a high school students who attend my school. Recently he and other students have been causing trouble, both aimed at me and at Wikipedia in general. This is often because of my status as an administrator. However, a few of them have either created or co-created a "political party". Earlier tonight (AEST) Loureid created an article on National Louis Party, which was deleted twice, once under the patent nonsense CSD (G1) and the other under the notability CSD (A7). When I tried to explain why the article was deleted via MSN, he refused to accept it, stating that Wikipedia is "corrupt" and is a "bureaucracy". Around 21:45 UTC, my userpage came under attack by two IP addresses, revealing personal information in the process. I added semi protection to the page and Loureid began to vandalise my page. I added full protection. He then began vandalising other pages. I subsequently blocked him for 24 hours. User:Chacor had suggested a block, just as I was applying the block. Loureid stated he wished to be unblocked, claiming that "HarryBoyles has been on my account hacking into it, he made those changes on my account, i didnt know of them, i wouldnt dream of damaging the good reputation of wikipedia, i belive that harryboyles has an alterior motive to getting me banned, you should concider taking action against him". [23] Charor contacted me afterwards, suggesting I bring the issue here for wider input. I'm planning to talk with the deputy principal at school when it resumes to discuss issues such as this, as well as other incidents. Harryboyles 13:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. We'd rather trust you than a group of trollsocks. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to mention was Chacor's intention of an indefinite block, which is what I was really asking about. Harryboyles 14:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yamla took care of that after unblock template abuse. – Chacor 14:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe instead of posting here about your problems, you should go outside and get some fresh seems you spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, no?

I'd normally suggest to delete those revisions but the personal information is only your first name, and you actually made your username out of your real first and last name. But then dealing with him in high school is a problem (offline when he'll harass you there). The vandal says (italics used as quotes) Firstly i said "I am way cool!!!, anyone who disagrees is wrong. So Naa Naa Na Na NAA" and "HAHAHAH. I changed it back "[real name removed]", if that is your real name. I am cooler than you! Naa Naa". Maybe you can print these diffs out and embarass them as this makes them sound 10 years old. SakotGrimshine 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has received several warnings about vandalising pages since this March, but has refused to stop adding Kennywood / Re-Animated nonsense to pages. The IP has never been blocked and his/her edits are sporadic. On top of that, the IP might be, who was blocked for ten days on March 20, 2007 for similar vandalism. Pants(T) 15:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edits, it appears to be a static IP attacking the same articles over and over. I gave him a 24 hour block for now. IrishGuy talk 17:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced_lemon (talk · contribs · logs) and WP:Point[edit]

Western Sahara articles I would like some assistance; this editor is disrupting Wikipedia by insisting that a particular issue is POV without resorting to talk or mediation. For instance, he insists on changing a flag template to include a map, thereby breaking its functionality. If you see his edits, he is doing a similar thing on several templates, breaking their functions and creating redundancies in articles. I would be happy to discuss the issue at the appropriate venue with this editor (i.e. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara, and consider mediation/arbitration, but all these template edits are basically a proxy for this one dispute as best as I can tell. Please assist. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juiced Lemon has done just the right thing. Western Sahara is a disputed territory that the UN is yet to solve the issue. Actually it is arranging for direct negotiations between the conflict parties: Morocco and the Polisario Front. What Koavf has been doing as a fervent militant activist for the Polisario, is to anticipate the result of the conflict and use the flag of one of the parties (guess which) to the conflict as the official Western Sahara flag, whereas WS has no flag as a disputed territory. Therefore, WS should not have a flag template, while the SADR, the government-in-exile of the Polisario has one, and can be used in the SADR articles, but not in Western Sahara articles. The French Wikipedia for example uses exactly the map outline that Juiced Lemon has been using here. So, Koavf's complains are baseless. Needless to remind that Koavf has been so disruptive about the Western Sahara articles that he was indefinitely blocked for more than a half year. He was allowed to edit again as a gesture of goodwill from the community, and here we are again after just one day from being unblocked.--A Jalil 19:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The changes I have made don't break any functionality. Western Sahara is a disputed territory. The so-called Flag of Western Sahara is in reality the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and it symbolizes the opposition to occcupation of Western Sahara by Morocco. Any use of this flag in association with Western Sahara have an obvious political meaning.
So, I replaced the flag by a map of Western Sahara. I go to post a request for comments in the village pump. --Juiced lemon 20:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not the place for this These arguments belong somewhere else (e.g. Talk:Flag of Western Sahara); the germane issue is the persistent blind reversion and template-breaking and controversial edits on articles with POV tags, etc. I tried to be conciliatory, but you didn't seem interested in listening or discussion, so I've asked for someone else's intervention to mediate, arbitrate, or whatever is needed. One thing that we can't continue doing is changing flag templates to maps so that we have abominations like this and this. Again, to reiterate: you're breaking the template's functionality. Lastly, could you please not use inflammatory language like "fervent militant activist," even if you think it's true? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is not abomination. Let me have a different opinion.
Template talk:Country data Western Sahara#Request for Comment: Western Sahara and the SADR --Juiced lemon 08:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i ask you about one thing Justin? Do you know that the ANI is not the appropriate place to sort out edit conflicts? You are already discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting where many admins and the project contributors have explained to you why you are not correct. So what do you want exactly from admins to do for you? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Even if that is true, he's now definitely disrupting Wikipedia with unilateral and controversial moves that have no consensus or discussion. See Foreign relations of Western Sahara, which he has moved twice without any discussion. The talk of that page has an extensive discussion on the page name, and he apparently didn't even reference it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Disrupting? Who? Lemon? No. He has never set a foot on the article you are talking about. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Huh? What are you talking about? He's moved it twice today. Did you even look at his logs? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
In Wikipedia, the government of Western Sahara has been broken up since 2002. So, this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore.
I have not yet read critical comments regarding my last edits. I wait for Justin (koavf) argumentation in the appropriate talk pages. --Juiced lemon 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sigh "Juiced" all "government of X" articles redirect to "politics of X" articles. What does that have to do with anything? I don't even understand what the comment "this government don't deal with foreign affairs for Western Sahara anymore" is even supposed to mean. Why should it be that you make the contentious moves (twice, once after it was moved *back* by me) and then expect me to justify myself on talk? Aren't you the one who is supposed to justify moves? And why did you move it to two separate names? And why did you leave behind double-redirects? And why did you chose "legal status of" instead of "political status of"? These are a few of a host of questions that should have been resolved before a unilateral and contentious move that, in my opinion, shouldn't have taken place (cf. with all previous attempts to move that article on its talk.) You either ignored prior consensus, didn't care about it, or both, and that's not exactly ideal editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Here, you'll find a lot of "government of X" articles which are not redirecting to "politics of X" articles. What I said means that Western Sahara have no government, therefore don't deal with foreing affairs, and a subject like Foreign relations of Western Sahara cannot exist. Such title in an Encyclopedia has not more sense than Foreign relations of the Statue of Liberty.
So, I had two options:
  • either to request the deletion of Foreign relations of Western Sahara which dealt with an inexisting subject
  • either to rename the article with a name matching an encyclopedic subject
I have choosed the second option. Now, if you can suggest a better name than Legal status of Western Sahara, do it! --Juiced lemon 12:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Another option Or you could have posted on talk and requested comments. That would be the way you should work on a collaborative encyclopedia, and you know that. Consequently, you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
There was enough comments in the talk page, and no permissions are required to improve articles in Wikipedia. You didn't use the talk page for your argumentation neither: you prefer to complain in the ANI. --Juiced lemon 21:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I see the contentiousness of this issue; frankly, if you ask me, it would be best if all interested parties developed a common way they can all agree on on how to deal with Western Sahara-related articles on Wikipedia, possibly by way of mediation or something like that. This issue comes up quite regularily, and it shouldn't be too much of a problem to develop a neutral, objective and standardised way of treating the Western Sahara issue while fairly representing both Morocco's and the SADR's points of views. —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. There is a general issue regarding numberous confusions between Western Sahara and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic in Wikipedia. Example: In List of circulating currencies (Western Sahara), Moroccan dirham is associated with the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (due to [24]). Use of new templates have aggravated the situation. Such confusions are a godsend for Polisario supporters. I understand they work to keep them. --Juiced lemon 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediation I'd be all for mediation if it will stop this incessant template-breaking, reversion, and unilateral moving. This is ridiculous and it can't go on for long. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The templates koavf refers to were mostly done by him at the time none of us was around. With the problems risen by the naked POV that polluted the Western Sahara articles is becoming a problem for the community and causing tensions, the need for a neutral point of view is necessary as Nightstallion wrote above. How can the flag of one of the parties of the conflict be forced to be adopted in Wikipedia as representing the disputed territory which has no flag, and how come two completely different things as "Western Sahara" and "The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic" be used interchangibly?. The solution could look easy and there would not be a problem correcting the templates and neutralising the wording. Only if there were no stunch activists around. This is the problem that Juiced Lemon is rightly trying to correct, and which is discussed extensively elsewhere like in Dispute_about_the_wording_scope_of_a_stub.--A Jalil 21:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant The exact features of the dispute are irrelevant, Jalil: my statements still stand. These moves and edits are disrupting, confusing, and should not have taken place, regardless of your personal convictions about the subject matter. He should have discussed prior to make a contentious move, and that is true regardless of whether the contentious move is some propaganda that supports my or your or his or no one's political agendas; that is irresponsible editing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor making personal attacks in edit summaries[edit]

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

Is this the right place to mention this? Scott 110 has a history of insulting other editors, his last three edit summaries were removing moronic statement again, thats the most idiot thing ive ever read, and removed moronic, uncited statements. He has been warned about his behavious several times but he continues. I just happened to notice one of his summaries in an article I was looking at and I haven't seen edit summaries abused in this way before. 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's not particularly nice. Their edit history shows that to be their default setting. I've left a note on their talk page, so we'll see how it goes ... - Alison 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Such behaviour on the part of Scott_110 isn't appropriate all the time but isn't requiring of immidiate action. A note on the user's page is good. --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Not that I particularly care....but how is calling a statement, rather than the author of a statement, idiotic or moronic a personal attack on the author him/herself? Look up the word "criticism".Scott 110 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Look up the terms "courtesy" and "civility". " people are such nerds", etc, etc ... Plenty of examples out there. Like I said, focus on content and not on the person - Alison 03:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
stop de-valuing its importance, jerk. Yeah, that sounds like criticism of a statement. There are no "idiot statements", only idiot people. 01:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
To find that out you really must have done some must be nice to have that kind of time on your hands.Scott 110 20:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't take that much 'research' - your edit history is replete with examples. Please - take the hint and stop the insults and personal attacks - Alison 04:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation[edit]

I need some advice on how to proceed with some allegations being made against me. Please see this user's contributions. Basically, I opened an informal mediation request here in March in order, to address this user's concerns and to provide evidence that I am not involved in a vendetta as the user alleges. I invited them to participate in the discussion here. The user has not participated, seems unwilling to consider my viewpoint, and is now calling me a vandal. The user openly admits to editing under another username and I suspect that they might be the user who wrote these allegations as Anniebelles. This statement seems to support that. I have tried to pursue mediation (I feel that I cannot remain objective about this person's statements) with a neutral 3rd party. The user seems unwilling to participate in any such endeavour. I'm reporting this because a kind fellow editor, who responded to a {{helpme}} request on my talk page here, recommended this as a next step. I have also notified her on her talk page here. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ringess, this current complaint is regarding your overall stalking of people like Sardaka, whose "good faith discussion" you removed from your talk page: [[ and about how you stalk people to remove their additions, and how you go into topics, remove all links and add an often lame dmoz link and a warning to not add any more links. TheRingess has most recently gone in and removed, without apparently any consideration, the very organized and useful link sections on the Bhagavad Gita page that had been well-pruned through the good work of many editors. Fortunately that page had an editor who knew enough to revert this destruction, but in other pages, many very useful links are lost. To see examples of TheRingess's wanton removal of links, you can look at TheRingess's contributions page and do a find on dmoz or external links, or look at the arguments she has had with other editors. I believe this editor is harmful to Wikipedia. And no, I'm not Anniebelles, and I'm a man (not that it matters, but just for the record). Ganesham 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ganesham, why have you rejected dispute resolution? You clearly have a dispute with this editor that needs discussion in a more proper forum. Instead of warning the world about what you think of TheRingess, why don't you discuss your issues with him/her directly? ~a (usertalkcontribs) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
As a further note, in order to emphasize my need for mediation regarding these allegations, I contacted the editor mentioned in reference to the Bhagavad Gita page. I asked this user to comment on my specific edits. My intial question can be seen here and his response can be seen here. I have notified the aforemention editor of my statement here.TheRingess (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, I agree to continue this conversation on the above mentioned mediation page. I'm hoping that we can address Ganesham's concerns that I am actively engaged in a destructive, hurtful, personal vendetta against the subject of a biographical article on Wikipedia (please see user's contributions for specifics, I don't wish to name the article here).TheRingess (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I don't have time to pursue this matter. If no Wikipedia editors or administrators are interested in checking TheRingess's actions in following innocent editors and deleting their works or in deleting all links from many topics, then Wikipedia will be the worse for it, but it is not my job and no longer my interest to engage with someone who is half cry-baby and half dictator. I'm signing off and no longer participating in Wikipedia as a contributor. Please don't leave messages for me here or on my user page, because I won't be checking for them. Best to all. Ganesham 21:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I was curious and looked to find that lo and behold, TheRingess and his thug buddy editor Buddhipriya went into Wikipedia today and removed every link they could find to the applicable free educational resources offered by the person that TheRingess is already on record as having a vendetta against -- he and Buddhipriya participate in a spiritual group (on and off Wikipedia) that has had a vendetta against the author because she wrote an unauthorized book about their path. This author, of whom I am a fan, is the one who created a website of completely free educational spiritual resources -- she's also the author of Spirituality For Dummies. TheRingess is on record as fighting to remove her wikipedia entry that was created by another fan from England, and which survived TheRingess's deletion attempts. I've added several appropriate links to her resources in appropriate topics, and other editors have apparently added others. Today, TheRingess even deleted two very useful links to her site without signing in, showing up with his isp# at: [[25]], and for good measure, TheRingess deceptivly welcomed himself on his own isp's welcome page: [[26]] (I've received email from TheRingess and know that this is his ISP#). Here is one example from Buddhipriya's rampage: [[27]], where he removes a page with the completely free and very useful text and audio of Rudram, with a note saying, "commercial linkspam selling products" -- something he knows is false if he even looked at the page. Here are a couple more attacks from Buddhipriya just today, each with an insult to the resource: [[28]], and [[29]]. I'm back to retirement from contributing to Wikipedia. Go ahead and let these people ruin Wikipedia with personal vendettas if that is fine with you other editors and administrators. Ganesham

Just for the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (carrying out a personal vendetta against the subject of an article on Wikipedia) I have preferred to keep all communication with this user public. I will continue to do so.TheRingess (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that Ganesham does not agree regarding the removal of spam links. He has crossposted the same complaint [30]. The web site is a commercial site that advertises books and audio products (see: [31]). For information on spam guidelines, please read Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. As a member of Wikiproject SPAM, I routinely follow the procedures given there, which say that once spam is found, one should look for other occurances of the same spam site. Here are the recommended procedures: "Check for similar links: ... This step involves finding all of the articles that contain a link to a particular site. If a link to were discovered and removed in steps one and two, the next step is to use the linksearch command to find all articles that contain such links." That search feature shows that there are probably more spam links to the same site that still need to be removed.
The spam link on the Bhagavad Gita article was removed after specifically getting agreement from another regular editor there that the site should go: [32]
Regarding the claims that I and User:TheRingess are members of the same spiritual community, I am not aware of what that might be. In fact my first significant editing experience with that user had to do with fact-checking an article on Siddha Yoga which I had never heard of prior to reading that article (See: [33]). I subsequently found the editor to be a very balanced contributor. Please avoid making personal attacks in the future and try to comply with WP:CIVIL while assuming good faith on the part of others. Buddhipriya 23:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish to comment that I have edited a number of articles which TheRingess has also been working on. I think he is a fine editor. He has been supportive of all edits, even to his own work, reflecting valid citations and references. He has fixed a number of my own sloppy edits and politely informed me on elements of style, etc. He has encouraged my contributions on my talk page and engaged in discussion on articles talks pages. I believe the current dispute in largely a misunderstanding. I sincerely hope that Sardaka will engage in mediation to get an outside opinion on why some of his contributions are being edited by others. -Vritti 07:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check please[edit]

See further up the board (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:M.V.E.i.). I indefinitely blocked User:M.V.E.i., a Russian user, for hate speech and repeated severe racist comments (such as the following), directed variously towards the French, Israelis, Estonians, Germans and Balts. And this is just a selection:

He has been blocked before, with no effect. He has been asked to stop multiple times (see User talk:M.V.E.i. with no effect). He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets.

I thought this was a clear and obvious indefinite block. However, Alex Bakharev overturned my block and reduced it in length to a month. I've restored it and consulted with Alex, but he is still defending the user ("... if some edit can be interpreted as a racist hateful speech, might be it is worth to ask the author if the interpretation is correct? M.V.I.e. is not a native English speaker ...", "I have strong doubts that he meant something racist in his speech"), and I am wondering if I am going mental, because as far as I can tell the racism and intent is obvious. Was this a valid indef block? Neil  14:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Looking at his block log [34], I'd say some drastic action is needed. I'm not going to unblock, and if no-one does the ban is effective. Failing that, block him for a month, and warn him that next time it is three months, then he's out.--Docg 14:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • We have a separate noticeboard to discuss community blocks. The user is certainly problematic but I see no particular "racist" connotations in his comments. Estonians and Russians are supposed to belong to the same race, for a start. Perhaps he's mad about the Holocaust denial on the part of the Estonian government. A month-block was warranted, but indef block looks to have been motivated by off-wiki considerations. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    Describing the French as all gay isn't racist? Describing all Estonians as having SS members for grandparents isn't racist? Really? And I don't understand your comment about "off-wiki considerations". Neil  14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    It is an extreme form of xenophobia and nationalism rather than racism. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. Are you sure that the Russians and the French belong to two distinct races? --Ghirla-трёп- 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You're thinking of races too narrowly. The race taxonomy that was generally accepted in the heydays of racism (but most of which has become forgotten by now) is not a desk with Three Big Drawers. Instead, it was a tree, allowing the Nazis to hate the race of Gauls, even though both French and Germans (whom the Nazis generally didn't hate very much) are both of the Caucasian race as a 'main race'.
In general, any idea of ethnically comparative supremacy or inferiority is a manifestation of racism. That with the fall of racists from the power position, the more common categories used are bigotry or chauvinism does not nullify the racist aspect of these ideas. Digwuren 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is normal english usage to say "The Dutch Race" or "The Irish Race" - race is a very poorly defined word - see racism for the subtleties. WilyD 14:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

    Race: I. A group of persons, animals, or plants, connected by common descent or origin.

    In the widest sense the term includes all descendants from the original stock, but may also be limited to a single line of descent or to the group as it exists at a particular period.
    — Oxford English Dictionary (Online Edition
  • Then perhaps we should stop using vague, fuzzy terms in block summaries. Once upon a time, I was told on this very noticeboard that speaking about racism between Jews and Arabs is technically incorrect and so better avoided. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Now you're engaging in demagoguery. If you're unsure of what 'racism' means, you should read the article on racism. But a Wikipedian with your edit count would have known of this option already anyway, right? Digwuren 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
This semantics discussion is pointless, there should be no real difference if person says "jews killed by nazis were subhumans" or "balts killed by soviets were subhumans".--Staberinde 18:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you refer me to a specific edit where M.V.E.i. referred to Balts as "subhumans"? If you can't, Digwuren's pontification indeed borders demagoguery. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't said that he said exactly that, I just brought it as good and simple example. But in reality he said something very similar: "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people)". What would you think if someone said "Besides, Nazi Germany never killed Slavic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Slavic Stalinists killed, there not considered people)"--Staberinde 18:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Why are you arguing semantics? That's not at all the point here. His comments are clearly absolutely inappropriate, whether you want to call them racist, xenophobic or otherwise.--Atlan (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      Because "racist" is a stronger term than "nationalist" or "xenophobic". A person indulging in racist remarks should be blocked indefinitely, while a person who makes nationalist remarks is just that... a nationalist; we have plenty of them in the project. Nobody defends the guy's comments; they indeed deserve a month-long block, but he should be given the last chance to repent and reform. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, i don't make any distinction. Racist, xenophobic or my mamma name calling are all meant to make others feel like s**t. Calling someone a donkey, stupid arab, zionist israeli/jew or a supermacist american are all the same. I still don't fathom Wikipedia stance on this matter. All personal attacks of any nature should be treated w/ the same degree. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
All personal attacks are bad, but some of them are worse than others. In other words, not every PA deserves an indef block. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Both "nationalist" and "xenophobic" are self-relative terms. M.V.E.i has, in general, not displayed a consistent nationalist, or xenophobic attitude. However, he has repeatedly made racist claims, noting that racism does not require self-relativeness. In other words, if an Irishman believes that the Yukagirs are inferior to the Bantus, he's being racist but not a nationalist or a xenophobe. In order to be a nationalist, he would need to think that the Irish people are superior to either Yukagirs, Bantus or both. In order to be xenophobic, he would need to have a phobia regarding a foreign ethnicity. Your ideas of "stronger claim" are nothing but a social stigma, caused mostly by the aftermath of WWII; in reality, all of these three ideas are manifestations of the same ur-idea, and their absurdity stems from the same logic. Digwuren 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • One month was enough to see if he'd cool down. We won't lose anything if we test their behaviour change. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fayssal. Please restore the block to one month. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Neil's comment that "He is evading his short term blocks with IP sockpuppets" appears to have been overlooked in the above discussion. Is this editor currently evading this block? --ElKevbo 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Define "currently". See, for example, [35] and [36]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd define "currently" as "is this editor evading the current block". --ElKevbo 15:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If consensus is leaning toards reducing to one month being an appropriate time out, then I have no problem with this. I would be delighted if M.V.E.i. would spend a month away thinking about his actions, without violating this block through the use of sockpuppets (which would be a first), and return as a civil and valuable contributor, no longer engaging in harassment, racism and hate speech. I am cheered that so many admins believe this will be the case. I really hope it is, too. However, I wouldn't bet one penny on it. Happy for anyone to reduce User:M.V.E.i.'s block to a month if and when a clear consensus is arrived it. Neil  16:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
And note that I would appreciate anyone else's thoughts for a little while longer yet (he's blocked either way for at least another 29 days, no need to rush here). Neil  16:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll be reducing it to a month w/in 15 minutes. Any objection guys? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I just asked you to wait to ensure there's a good consensus (ie, not you, Alex and Nick). It will make no difference if you wait a few hours. Neil  17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Please refer me to a relevant passage in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN which leads you to discard my opinion as null and void. If you can't, I consider your action rather incivil and would welcome apologies. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Not incivil, just an oversight on my part. Apologies. Neil  20:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sure. No rush. Let's wait. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Has M.V.E.i anywhere appologized for his comments? I mean he has made quite a few edits after being blocked(mainly with block evasion)[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], but I personally failed to see something where he would actualy understand that such comments are very wrong.--Staberinde 18:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. However, I once saw a comment of him that appears to have indicated that he at least understood wrongness of some of his comments. I can't find it right now, but this is the main reason I'm not objecting loudly to the "let's rediscuss in a month" plans offered above.
However, I'm still rather skeptical in M.V.E.i.'s reformation's possibility, and believe Alex Bakharev is overextending the benefit of doubt.
Considering that per WP:BLOCK, blocks are preventive, not punitive, my understanding is that it is desirable to have a block whose length would be comparable to M.V.E.i.'s estimated time of changing his ways. Without any remorse, such an estimate would obviously be very long. If M.V.E.i. repents and recants his evil ways, this would obviously directly factor into such an estimate.
The state of psychology research being what it is, any such estimate would be quite rough. My experience would suggest about 3 months as the roughly minimum time for a non-coercive reformation of this kind. Thus, I would suggest starting with a three-month block, and not counting upwards from it if he comes back after these three months reformed and then gets into troubles not related to continuous incivility. In a sense, this would be offering him a clean slate as long as he does not fall into old evils. Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
So he is unrepentant? Jpgordon explained to him that his behaviour would not be tolerated. If he does not stop now, I would support banning this guy indefinitely. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is 'now' any better cut-off point than, say, May 10 ([42] -- [43])? Digwuren 18:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor note: I've seen this kind of double measure from the part of Russian admins on Moldova- and Transnistria-related articles. The party perceived as pro-Russian or pro-Soviet usually gets helped in front of the other. Support meaning that minor and some major offences are forgotten for the pro-Russian, whereas rules are strictly applied for the others. Dpotop 18:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My view: One month is way too short for this kind of hate speech and incivility , no matter what "ism" is appropriate , without any signs of regret. Indefinite block seems just about right, since user has been blocked before, but because there is opposition and given allowance for expression, i think that minimal length for reforming should be three months. However, I feel that there is a most likely unintentional bias in Alex Bakharevs judgment so the final decision on the fate of this block should be made by an unrelated admin. It is hard to pass unbiased judgment on your "comrades in arms". --Alexia Death 19:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that indefinite block is appropriate. MVEi behaivour is way over line, also repeated block evasions([44], [45], [46], [47]) show inability to learn from mistakes. Finally he has had plenty of time to publicly appologize either here or on his talk page and I would find it really hard to advocate indefinite block if he had said "I am very sorry, it will not happen again.". But nothing like that has happened, on the contrary he seemed to think that shouting "LIAR" with full capital letters [48], accusing others in forming some kind of coalition aganist him [49], asking block of others [50] and accusing others playing cowboy [51], is correct way of action.--Staberinde 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
It's appalling that we'd even consider allowing a person who repeatedly makes such remarks to keep the privilege of editing Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Estonian users' shouting "Kill him! Kill him!" is absolutely unproductive. Alex Bakharev has "comrades in arms"? Give facts. "asking block of others" is criminal? No. (BTW, do you, Staberinde, remember the case, when DLX, while avoiding WP:DR, cherry-picked Sandstein, who blocked me, new editor, without a warning?) As to LIAR, I'm not a judge, but looks like he wasn't far from truth. Beatle Fab Four 20:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your own slurs. Please don't put words into my mouth. As you see I'm willing to give the person benefit of the doubt that after three months he can contribute sensibly. My remark on "comrades in arms"(note quotes) was based on impression that he and the subject of this debate have shared a side in number of articles. I however assume good faith in Alex Bakharev actions. And I still believe that final decision should be made by an unrelated admin.--Alexia Death 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion is moot to begin with. User Ghirla applies double standards, defending "people of the same blood", yet resenting racism, with a history of advocating indef. blocks for "nationalist trolls"- whether Romanian, Polish, Lithuanian, amend list here. Just the usual "Russian" way of "all hell breaks lose upon you if you disagree and make a big hissy fit if you dont anyway". Im sorry Ghirla, but your history of (ab)use totally discredits your campaign war for incivility based along racialist lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:01, 9 June 2007
I have to concur with the above statement. User Ghirla never misses a chance to advocate for Russian editors [52][53], no matter what they do. I haven't noticed him admonishing any Russian editors for anything either. People should be judged by their actions not by who they are or what nationality they are. This is the perceived bias that many people notice, when Russian editors get more advocats and always a second consideration that many others don't. --Hillock65 15:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hillock, I'm glad that your 31-hour block has just expired. Would you put the blame on me again? Of course, there is a great Russian cabal, and Dmcdevit (who performed the block) is apparently part of it, right? User:Bonaparte knows that too well, but he did not miss his chance to join the latest trollfest above. Wikipedia is tolerant, but even its tolerance has its limits. I won't stoop to commenting to this thread again. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Bonaparte being a troll does not make the provided edits less factual. And the limits for tolerance should be the same for all users. Which reminds me of Bonaparte: [His initial 12 or so blocks, from one day to one week] (by your co-national User:Mikkalai) were not for having socks, but for ethnic and sexual slurs, and this is what motivated his swift ban following the discovery of socks. How about applying the same rules here to your co-national User:M.V.E.i.? Dpotop 18:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ghirla, please don't insult people's intelligence with the above comments. I have never claimed that my block was unjust or accused anyone in mistreating me, I pointed out your bias in regards to Russian editors. It is everywere. If you don't stoop to acknowledge it, then someone else will. You never miss a point to point out at transgressions of others but blatantly prefer to overlook the same actions by the Russian editors. I am talking about the ones with the picture of Stalin proudly displayed on the front page[54]. The ones who recruit revenge squads on the Russian WP [55]. You not only knew about it, you participated in that discussion thread yourself, and yet never said a word to stop it! And yet you have the nerve to admonish others? --Hillock65 19:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
User:Neil has a picture of Hitler on his user page, and so what? Having a dictator's picture on one's user page is not a crime. User:Piotrus wheel warred about unblocking his compatriots User:Molobo and User:Halibutt, and so what? Probably he knows them better then non-Polish editors do. You maintain uk:Вікіпедія:Ксенофобії — НІ! and uk:Обговорення Вікіпедії:Допомога англійській Вікіпедії, two special pages which urge Ukrainian editors to go to English Wikipedia and support your anti-Semitic edits on History of the Jews in Ukraine, so what? Well, in the latter case I am at a loss for an explanation, since for this very reason the page has to be permanently semiprotected. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa, context. That picture is there as a joke - note the caption. This does not mean I am a Nazi (far, far from it). Neil  21:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, settle all your disagreements with other users the way you like it, the discussion is not about them. And if their actions are deemed improper by you, is that a reason to justify your own bias? In regards to several month old message boards on uk. wiki, I guess even you can see the difference between asking for attention on a particular article and calling to "help put the user X in his right place" which is the last line in the diff I cited above. I dln't see any diffs implicating me in directing someone to get you or someone else. Additionally, I was not taking "holier than thou" attitude and didn't even attempt to advocate for Ukrainian editors that got banned here. Whatever happens, people should get the same treatment be they Russian or not. Double standards if practiced by someone else do not give you the right to do the same. --Hillock65 20:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Again and again and again, absolutely pointless speech. M.V.E.i is from Israel. Beatle Fab Four 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Pointless, you say? Dpotop 21:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't comment the message above. I'm not a specialist in racial purity. Beatle Fab Four 22:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help at RFCN[edit]

Can someone nip down to RFCN, I've closed a discussion as allow because non latin character usernames are allows - 2 users keep reverting me, my fingers edging closer to the block button - hence why I'm posting here. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking either one of us because you are in a content dispute with us is not proper. But don't worry, I won't revert any further your unfair speedy close of an ongoing discussion. Corvus cornix 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I have my own opinions about what RFCN urgently needs but I doubt anything will be gained by reiterating them. — CharlotteWebb 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Charlotte, that now me and you can finally agree on something here. Ryan Postlethwaite 06:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
You should never threaten to block someone you are in dispute with. Often these cases bring up lack of community support for a policy - why does the English wikipedia allow usernames people can't type and many can't display? It's not clearcut that we want this. Secretlondon 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#だってばよ[edit]

I posted a request for comment on the user name of User:だってばよ, which clearly violates policy at WP:UN which says be careful to avoid names which may be offensive, confusing or unintelligible to English-speaking users. User:Ryan Postlethwaite keeps closing the discussion, claiming the name is allowed by policy, but I see entirely the opposite, according to what I quoted above. And not only that, but Ryan Postlethwaite is accusing me of biting the newbie for having the audacity to make a respectful request that he change his name. Corvus cornix 23:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as they use the English transliteration in their signature, then the username (which is read as Dattebayo) is fine by policy as far as I know.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Precisely, so if conrnux would like to stop being a dick and read policy before blind reverting me. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Continued amazement at people who think it's civil to call someone else a dick... /wangi 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well if they revert my policy related closure - thats what they get. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The constant banding of WP:DICK really does piss me off... It's the assumption that it's not a "big deal" to badge someone as such... Well, lets look at it another way - I could say stop being a complete cunt. That's pretty much as acceptable where I come from :) Apologies for the off-topic rant. /wangi 00:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
More of the same from Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to think that my repeated civil responses to the user were somehow biting him. Corvus cornix 01:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Well WP:DICK suggests that anyone invoking it is also one. Secretlondon 23:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming good faith. I did read the policy, I've been quoting it to you. Alright, whatever, you want to allow people to have user names that only look like squares or question marks and can't be differentiated from anybody else'se user name with square or question marks, who am I to question an exalted one admin "we're admins, we don't work by consensus", indeed. Corvus cornix 23:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I think we've all been saying. So what we should be doing is advising the user to change his signature, not telling him his username is just fine as it is. So the request should not have been closed as "allow," but as "allow on the proviso that the user change his signature to one that is readable by English users." Exploding Boy 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've told the user to do so on his userpage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

(after much edit conflicting)The former prohibition on non-English names is not really enforced any more. At some point in the not-all-that-distant future, we are going to have m:Single User Login and we certainly aren't going to refuse to recognize users who register to other wikis then. If someone is going to be a regular participant (as opposed to just doing minor updates here while focusing on another language), as said above, they should be encouraged to add something English to their signature, but we can't really disallow these names any more. One thing that is really a good idea for everyone is to download some of the more common Asian font packs - that way, you can differentiate between nonsense (? marks and squares) vs international characters. --BigDT 23:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on en.wikipedia does not override consensus in the wider wikimedia community. This username is *permitted*. If this person edits often they may want to also include a latin signature, but that's for another day.
If you are seriously still having issues with squares and question marks, then please update your system. Software written this century typically has adequate UTF-8 support.
--Kim Bruning 00:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know what system they're using? How do you know it's not nine years old? How do UTF8 Japanese characters render on, say, a Braille display? Andy Mabbett 00:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
They have their own braille system. See Japanese braille.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but why would that be available to an English-language-Wikipedia user? Andy Mabbett 10:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Good grief ... there's no reason to be rude about it. Asian font packs are not automatically installed with 2000 and I could be wrong, but I don't think they were with all versions of XP. --BigDT 00:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
And should you be on a public computer, you may not be able to install Asian font packs. Phony Saint 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Single user login has been in the not to distant future for well longer than I care to remember. --pgk 00:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In an MMO I play, such updates are called to be showing up Soon™.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sort of the Duke_Nukem_Forever development team will get right on it as soon as they've finished the current project. --pgk 00:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the requirement of intelligible usernames from the nutshell of WP:UN to reflect current understanding of the policy. nadav (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The policy is flexible - if the community wants usernames they can type and display then they can have it, surely? Policy is not law, set in stone. (The underlying argument is presumably about language imperialism, however as a user you function much better with a username people can read. Asking people to change their username to something that doesn't show up as blocks doesn't make you a nazi). Plenty of public computers don't have those fonts - and even with the fonts you can't type them. Secretlondon 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Prematurely. The policy clearly states that user names must not be confusing. We can't reasonably expect every user to have every character set installed on his or her computer. And even if we did, we can't expect every user of the English language Wikipedia to be able to read every character of every available language. Exploding Boy 23:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, my PC is less than two years old and runs on regularly updated Windows XP, and this username prints out as little squares on my monitor.--Anthony.bradbury 23:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Avfnx (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) ; (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)[edit]

Uses Avfnx and a number of other IP's particulary[56] which was discovered when he answered for a Avfnx question [57] and fixes Avfnx edits for clarifications [58] and when he gave a fairwell speech [59]

Warnings for 3rr violations [60], Has engaged in multiple edit wars on different pages going from one non-NPOV version to another "Juan Pablo Duarte y Diez a man of virtue, a romantic in a romantic age, a philosopher and an idealist" [61] [62] His first edit fortold his POV with "What up with this Anti-Dominican Propaganda" [63]
Multiple references of personal attacks "Run you propaganda, do you...cause people like you wikipiedia losing wanted your personal attack there you got it. ...point blank if they don't like how they been people welcome them in Dominican Republic, they can go home. If i didn't like how USA treat me i would go home, I have a country, USA not my i don't go out in the street burn the flag. And remember something Dominican flag has the bible and the cross that very disrespectful and we got treat them more rights then Dominican, feel lucky that we don't do like the Americans and send ya right home..[64] "Like in life, let the people that are full of shit talk, so the world can know how full of shit they are" [65]
Has been warned multiple times for personal attacks [66] with each one labeling the incident in which he attacked someone. He was also given a final warning. [67] Seem to be an extremist, not caring about cited sources and denounces other nations while not caring about WP:Civility particularly Haiti .."This Anti-Dominican know so much that something i can't find where ceduala or passport is says race. This article everyday going to more to pure garbage. You could bring all this Haitian made article talking about DR.."[68]. Reverts edits on numerous pages that don't fit his liking [69] [70]. Claims edits that aren't with his opinion are propaganda, even if they are cited. [71] Non- NPOV opinions, [72] Deletes cited material with rationale being " Haiti facts on Haiti page " [73] Places in information on cited material that cannot be derived from cited material [74] , rationale behind support of a president [75].
A block is necessary at this point because it seems like that will be the only way in which to him cease from this behavior. YoSoyGuapo 10:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

New 3rr vandalism report on said user [76] As well as removal of warnings on talk page. [77] YoSoyGuapo 12:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This appears to revolve around an article content dispute where no party seems innocent. Perhaps a nuetral admin should look at all the issues and comment. I will when I have more time. LessHeard vanU 13:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
(copied from 3RR board) This user has not appear to have previously been formally warned regarding 3RR. This diff shows that it is commented he might be in breach of 3RR but, and despite the edit summary, there is no mention of the possible consequences or a demand that he stop. I realise that warnings are a courtesy and editors are expected to know and abide by the rules, and that 3RR should be acted upon promptly, but I am a little concerned that User:Avfnx has been previously accused of sockpuppetry (cleared by checkuser), has had warnings for civility and personal attacks - the first of which is WP:KETTLE and the second of which I could find no evidence of in English (I cannot comment on Spanish remarks) - all levelled by individuals with whom he is in dispute with on Dominican Republic. I have a suspicion that some individuals are using admins and WP policies to conduct a campaign against this editor instead of attempting to resolve the dispute over the article in a more appropriate forum.LessHeard vanU 20:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm Being Stalked[edit]

I'm having trouble with the editor User:TheRingess, who follows me around and chops my articles up. With the last article, Gurudev Siddha Peeth, she turned up before it was even finished and started chopping it up.

I'm not the only one who's had trouble with her. I got a message from User:Ganesham, who said he's had the same problems and had to change his name to shake her off. Apparently, if she doesn't like you, she watches you and chops up your contributions. It's got to the point where, if I want to write an article, I have to ask myself how TheRingess will react to it.

Someone please do something about this woman. She's ruining Wiki for so many p[eople.

Sardaka 12:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in the article you reference... she did some wikifying, removed personal email addresses, and reformatted your references so they fit the Wikipedia format, and those are all things that needed to be done. I don't see where she 'chopped up' the article at all- she seems to have improved it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, you need to provide some diffs for what you claim. I generally turn a deaf ear (er, I guess a blind eye, in this case) to complaints that don't provide any evidence. EVula // talk // // 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks more like article ownership on Sardaka's part to me. I've looked at a few diffs ([78], [79], [80]), where Sardaka uses "my article" alot and where he demands explanations for all the changes (which are quite harmless). He also feels he should have been personally notified for the AfD on "his article". Meanwhile, he didn't bother to notify TheRingess about this report.--Atlan (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know the definition of "stalking" on Wikipedia myself, since I've been accused of doing it. When you observe somebody doing an edit you disagree with, then look at that user's edit history to find other similar edits, and possibly alter or revert them, is that "stalking"? *Dan T.* 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know. Stalking would be doing that just to annoy and disrupt that user's activities.-Localzuk(talk) 16:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Tracking a user's edits you think is prone to making mistakes, vandalism or spamming, is common practice. Especially if those edits are in your area of interest. I haven't seen any evidence that TheRingess is following Sardaka around in bad faith.--Atlan (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would not have found this thread if I had not been checking up on my own incident report regarding an editor who refuses to enage in mediation with me regarding very serious allegations of deliberate malfeasance on my part (there allegations are that I used Wikipedia to carry on a personal vendetta against a specific person who is the subject of an article) see #Editor uses edit summaries for personal attacks, refuses mediation.

Thanks to the editors who decided to respond. I like to think that it's always a good thing to have my own edits reviewed by fellow editors.

This is actually the 2nd time Sardaka has created an incident and not notified me. See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive242#Deletion of contributions].

I have to express that I feel somewhat stymied in my attempts to discuss material with this user. One such attempt, on his talk page, to discuss my specific edits, seems to have been ignored. See here

In one statement he made it clear that he thought I was engaged in "ownership" of a particular article. See Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 3#More on deleting other people's contributions.

TheRingess (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any merit to the charge of stalking. On the contrary, keeping an eye on the edit history of users once a problem has been identified elsewhere is part of the recommended practices both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. My impression is that User:TheRingess has been doing exactly what editors are encouraged to do, which is demand compliance with policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:NOR, and that these requests have not been well-received by User:Sardaka. If there is any problem here, it is with User:Sardaka who has made a number of uncivil comments in connection with this matter, and also in the course of discussion on an article that he or she authored which was eventually deleted (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shakti_mantras). User:Sardaka showed unfamiliarity with Wikipedia procedures during that debate by deleting comments that I made regarding the article that in AfD (see: [81]). User:Sardaka, who may be unclear on Wikipedia procedures, has now taken this matter to the Village Pump: [82]. Buddhipriya 18:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of TheRingess and Buddhipriya trying to delete Sardaka's work. [[83]], where TheRingess and Buddhipriya are drowning out the only objective editor's suggestion to keep. And a link to some other documented examples of their personal vendettas in action: [[84]]. Over and out. Ganesham 23:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Over and out? Is that some kind of joke? The first diff is just a delete comment in an AfD discussion, with absolutely nothing to substantiate the "stalking" claim. Even crazier, the second diff is you calling TheRingess and Buddhipriya thugs and claiming they are ruining Wikipedia. You certainly didn't help Sardaka there. If anything, you got yourself a block for personal attacks out of this.--Atlan (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I have never emailed Ganesham. Due to the very serious nature of his allegations (that I have used Wikipedia to further a personal vendetta against a subject of a biographical article), I have preferred to keep all communication regarding these allegations on Wikipedia (for obvious reasons).TheRingess (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just a note of support regarding TheRingess, I was requested by Sardaka to review her editing pattern, and yes I fully concur, the edits are entirely helpful. However, regarding Ganesham, nearly all the edits are criticising TheRingess, so the account could be a sock. Addhoc 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
There is quite a bit of crossposting going on at this point. I have replied to some of these matters here: [85]. The possibility of some sock at work did not occur to me, but I am wondering what a checkuser would show. Buddhipriya 00:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Allison Stokke and DRV[edit]

User:Durovina (not Durova)[edit]


Based on the user page comment about whack-a-mole and the very odd pattern of user contributions, I believe this is a sock puppet of a banned user. Could an admin look at this please, and also see if those pages moves need to be undone. This looks like it could be sneaky vandalism. See also this complaint about Durivona copying somebody else's user page, in part. Jehochman Talk 14:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Which banned user? Or is it merely a suspicion? Evilclown93 15:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Evilclown93, unless some concrete evidence can be provided. Cool Bluetalk to me 15:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at the user page and the user's contributions. I believe Willy on Wheels has a history of page move vandalism. How many new users show up and start moving pages on day 1? How many new users say "let's play whack a mole." I posted here instead of WP:SSP because there are multiple issues: socks, sneaky vandalism, and inappropriate user name, if the user is seeking to disrupt by causing confusion with the real Durova. Jehochman Talk 15:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Durovina hasn't edited in two months, so perhaps we can take a bit of time to figure it out. Or just block it as disruptive and leave it at that. Flyguy649talkcontribs 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The first thing to do is check if those pages moves are legit, and if not, fix them. I don't know anything about nobility and titles. Somebody who does should look at this. We shouldn't leave socks laying around so they can pop up and do damage later. Semi-protection stops new users, but not aged socks. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet of, Alison will be happy to confirm it by the contribs. One Night In Hackney303 15:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I left her a message. Jehochman Talk 16:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
When a new user cuts a chunk from another wikipedian's userpage to make a userpage for himself and adopts the name of another wikipedian who is mentioned just below, I have some trouble in assuming good faith. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This account's actual contributions don't appear to be vandalism. Account was created April 11, made a couple of dozen normal-looking contributions, and then stopped the same day. (I did not see any page moves, just some redirects that appeared normal). Indef block is probably justified (pending user's clarification) based solely on the boast about sockpuppetry on the user page. (That's like waving a 'please block me' flag). If this is a sock of a banned user then adding that template would also be helpful. EdJohnston 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock IP[edit]

Resolved: unblocked by User:Eagle 101 - Alison 05:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This IP has been blocked until 13:30, 25 May 2012 because the computer behind it was an open proxy. This long term doesn't make any sense since this is a dynamic IP (ISP is QSC). (I couldn't even ask earlier because even logged in users with that IP are blocked from editing here.) --32X 17:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask the blocking admin, User:Eagle 101. If you find yourself autoblocked because you are using this IP address, add {{Unblock-auto}} to the IP talk page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Investigate, delete, salt block[edit]

Resolved: article salted and protected

A case probably needing investigation, deleting, salting, and blocking has come to my attention. This newspaper article led me to this Robert Crampton wikipedia article, which I tagged for feletion, appears to habe been deleted and then recreated. I looked at the first edit by the guy who recreated the article and his name and first edit seems like maybe he and his friends should be blocked. Something spamish/trollish is going on here by multiple accounts. WAS 4.250 22:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Article salted and protected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wishbone Ash[edit]

Please see the history of Wishbone Ash; the user DiamondJack (talk · contribs), along with two IP ranges, (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs) have been vandalizing the page. I put in a request at WP:RFP so that the 212 IP range would desist from replacing the Creative Commons image Image:281873485 4eae256491.jpg with the WP:FU image Image:Band 1989.jpg. I also went through the page and removed WP:PEACOCK terms and WP:NPOV/unsourced statements. Diamonjack has returned and mass reverted again twice in order for the information of "Martin Turner's Wishbone Ash" (a different entity then Wishbone Ash and given mention at Wishbone_Ash#2000.E2.80.93present already) to continue to exist. I am bringing this here because, even though I feel this does not break the WP:3RR rule, I want someone else to see and possibly evaluate this situation and whether the recent edits should be wholesale reverted. Cheers! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now I reverted back, noting that I never removed any thing about the other "band" and requested on the users page not to revert it. Most of all, the user is removing the protection tag. Please advise. Thanks! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 04:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I've warned User: DiamondJack for 3RR just now. Also, the article is now fully protected. This has been going on for months and really needs to stop - Alison 05:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Input requested: Badlydrawnjeff physical threat[edit]


Resolved: user blocked for 48 hrs

This editor has been reported before, but no action has been taken. The editor continues to attack other users, including his most recent edit (not sure how to link it, but Talk:New England, time index 9 June 21:29 UTC is one instance). The editor has been warned about civility many times, yet no action has been taken. Please consider this user for blocking for violating WP:CIV and WP:NPA to name a few. Thanks for your time. Neo16287 02:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 48 hrs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User:The Anonymous One blocked 72 hours, should we make it indef?[edit]

I've just blocked The Anonymous One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for 72 hours for this. I'm getting ready to leave a "one more stunt and it's indef" message, but I'm wondering, has this user ever been constructive? Is there any reason not to just go to indef now? ··coelacan 04:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A no brainer, Coelacan. Indefblock indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The main reason I'm asking is if we indef, this one might just sockpuppet, whereas this account is not hard to keep tabs on. I know this is hard to predict, though. =/ ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, has his account been compromised? Based on his edit histories, It is very unusual of him to go rogue. Indeed I agree with the indef block, but only as a temporary measure until things sort out.--PrestonH(Review Me!)(Sign Here!) 04:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The account has not been compromised. I don't think this is unusual; are we talking about the same "Anonymous One"? He's been planning this. I knew when that question showed up on the reference desk that there was trouble ahead. Other users warned him not to "make an ass of himself" but I'm honestly starting to wonder if he understands what that means. ··coelacan 04:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What the--?! That behavior is unacceptable. Based on this diffs above, I support the indefblock. Again, that behavior is not tolerated.--PrestonH(Review Me!)(Sign Here!) 04:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. There's absolutely no excuse for his actions tonight.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As the one who reported him to Coelacan to begin with, I strongly support this block; however, there should be no problem allowing him back if and when he apologizes for his behavior and pledges not to repeat it, or anything remotely like it, again. Perhaps he should individually apologize to each and every user he harassed.
Though having looked further through his contribs, there seems to be a good deal of religion-related disruption; more than a matter of a simple apology would be needed, more like a very broad topical ban. Not sure.Proabivouac 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my…User talk:The Anonymous One#BlockProabivouac 07:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user is persistently and perversely disruptive on topics of religion. He has form for this behaviour. His indignant responses to warnings and blocks show no sign of acceptance that his behaviour is unacceptable. Support indefblock. Worries about socks should play no part in the decision making on this issue. --Dweller 07:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock, per lack of contrition shown on his talk page. Rationalizing that kind of harassment is not acceptable, ever. I dunno how much weight my opinion carries as a non-admin, but under no circumstances should he be allowed back.--Blueboy96 12:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has been an unmitigated pest ever since he got here. His latest tirade of attempted self justification indicates that he still has no grasp of what this project is for - and more importantly what it's not for - despite having it explained to him a number of times. He is here for only one purpose: to seek out people of various religious convictions and confront them with comments which he knows full well are going to be inflammatory. Since he shows complete inability to take on board what is said to him and modify his behaviour accordingly, I am definitely in favour of an indef block. His disappearance will be a positive benefit to the community here. --Stephen Burnett 12:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as it depresses me, endorse. He was told from the second he got that list (well, category) to be responsible and courteous with it, which he blatantly went against. That was bad enough, but then he tried to defend his actions... I don't feel it's possible for him to have any positive effect on Wikipedia or it's community. A quick glance at the numerous warnings on his talk page is sign enough for this -- Phoeba WrightOBJECTION! 12:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


Can someone please do something about this user: Filips 85 and his anon alter ego (the IP is probably the same person before he registered). He did blatant vandalism to several articles regarding Dražen Petrović, Goran Ivanišević and Marko Perković. His only aim is by my first impression only to vandalize articles, especially ones regarding Croats. For what reason I do not know. --No.13 17:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum;WP:AIV would be. Second, he's not correctly warned. See WP:WARN. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
OK sorry, I registered only recently. Thank you. --No.13 11:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated NPA[edit]

Not sure if this is the correct forum but don't know where to go. Omegatron has in the past days taken it upon himself to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.[89][90][91][92][93][94] (I provided the discussion since just reading his comments suffices, if needed I can of course add the seperate diffs) For some reason he ignores my repeated requests to stop this behaviour. His most recent response is that I should start an RFC.[95][96] While I don't think it warrants that I do want him to stop using ad hominems on my person. Specifically, how is does adding tags to his article to ask for WP:RS qualify as being disruptive? Could somebody advise/intervene in this matter? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not the first time Omegatron has been warned for his repeated attempts at making false claims of disruption, his use of ad hominem and misrepresentation to try to browbeat someone and then using the "report me" taunt. Questionable behavior False disruption accusations Report me taunt 1 Report me taunt 2 Fnagaton 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe an RfC is more appropriate here? Evilclown93 21:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty seeing where Omegatron is acting significantly out of line. Simply stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith. If/when he stated that you were trying to be disruptive, then this would be frowned upon.
In your own links, I see Omegatron attempting to contact you only to be stonewalled, while his attempts to contact other people with opposing viewpoints have resulted in a civil consensus. I imagine this situation is very complicated and nuanced, but from what I've seen, there is no need for administrative intervention against Omegatron. –Gunslinger47 22:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
In my links you see Mr O going around calling me disruptive and tendentious. Have you understood why? Because he does not want to produce WP:RS, and let an advertisement be either altered or deleted. In any case, I think if all editors were allowed to call opposing editors all sorts of names we mights just as well get rid of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Heck, what is the point if "stating the belief that a particular editor's involvement is disruptive is not assuming bad faith." Let me state the belive that that particular user is a (fortunately I do accept that I need to refrain from such statements) Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
The issue is that Omegatron is making false accusations of disruptive behaviour when editors make changes he doesn't agree with. That and the general bad attitude. Fnagaton 00:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

JB196 is back[edit]


Orange check.svg IP blocked (several, actually) (But really, use WP:RFCU for this.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

One of our favorite puppet shows, JB196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), is on the loose again. Three socks have popped up today:

Hopefully he'll eventually give away his open proxy so we can shut his mic for good.--Blueboy96 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And Scallop pope (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), not blocked yet. --YFB ¿ 02:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Check out (talk · contribs). May be the range --