Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive268

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

Noticeboard archives



Regarding the article X-Ray Stinger, a single user User:Xraystinger edits (talk) has been editing it and has removed a Speedy Delete tag from the page (twice). The user has a clear Conflict of Interest and has twice removed a COI tag as well. The article should be speedily deleted because it does not properly assert notability (there is no notability, though it currently makes a weak attempt). The user has been welcomed, but appears to not have read the important guidelines. Hu 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing problems at Point guard, Point forward, Swingman, etc.[edit]

This is an ongoing problem which I need to hand off to another editor or group of editors. If you're an enthusiastic RC patroller who isn't afraid to get her or his hands dirty with IP users, then this is a job for you.

Since this spring, I've been trying my best to watchdog the basketball position articles. There is at least one dedicated user whose mission in life it is to maintain a POV list of "notable" players at each position. The articles are always in slow-motion edit wars as different users squabble over who is or is not "notable". In the case of some loosely defined basketball positions, like swingman, the debate is about who is or is not actually considered a swingman. Often there will be a section detailing "the best" players at each position; these are essentially lists of that editor's favorite players.

I don't have to explain the futility of all this: one man's notable current point guard is another man's chump. It's all opinion, none of these editors ever comes up with a source to back up a claim.

A fairly frequent offender was a user working under the accounts User:Tmacrockets0115 and User:Kobetmacyao, although those accounts have been abandoned since I asked them to start communicating before making contentious edits. All of the POV edits have been coming from IPs since then, it seems. For more background, check out this old AN/I post.

I'm not around enough to babysit these articles anymore. What the articles REALLY need is an intrepid editor to go and find real citations and reasons to list players as being the best ever; the NBA 100 Greatest list published by the league itself a few years ago would be a great start. I might even get around to it myself later if I find the time, but if other editors won't watchdog the articles it won't be worth it.

So please, add these articles to your watchlists and try to keep them as NPOV as possible. This old editor thanks you. A Traintalk 05:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat and User:Bakasuprman, edit warring again[edit]

There have been previous threads about the edit warring of this duo; most recently, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive260#edit-warring_duo. In that thread, both were blocked for awhile, and then unblocked. Today I've noticed them edit warring on Goa Inquisition, 2006 Aligarh Riots, M. G. Ramachandran, Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them, Hindu Forum of Britain, Hindu Forum of Britain, and Godhra Train Burning; there are a few more articles involved with only one edit/revert sequence. On most of these articles both editors have stopped before accumulating four reverts, but on Goa Inquisition it appears that both editors may have broken the 3RR. I have been editing that article as well, so it would be inappropriate for me to take any administrative action. Since the problem affects many articles and has been on ANI before, I thought ANI would be a better place to bring this than the 3RR board. I take no position as to who's "right" in this dispute, although I note that Baka has posted to the talk pages of some of these articles today, including Goa Inquisition. I'd appreciate it if some uninvolved folks could look at this and warn/protect/block as needed. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am being stalked. Anwar's first edit on this page came this morning. I was accused of linkspamming by linking to a peer reviewed article in a respected journal by our resident troll. I made three reverts, all sanctioned by WP:3RR, since I was reverting a blanking of a peer reviewed academic journal. However Anwar made 4.5 reverts (.5 being a revert of Bharatveer (talk · contribs))

I have a revert first discuss later philosophy, and those who have worked with me will not disagree. After I realized Anwar was bent on trolling and was being dishonest about the content I showed that the link worked in a terse statement on the talk page. I already pointed out the relevant policy on the image pages, noting that the image of a bookcover was illustrating the book, therefore there was no violation. Anwar was also censured by another user for irrationally tagging images. At andrew's behest, I "discussed" on Talk:Vishwa Hindu Parishad why anwar's edits were slanderous.Bakaman 17:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this duo at Vishva Hindu Parishad, unaware of the previous conflict, or the ongoing conflicts on other pages, and I am trying to get them to discuss the changes on talk instead of simply reverting each other. Sorry I can't comment on the other pages and do not want to get more involved than I already am. I'm keeping my hopes up that the dispute can be reasonably settled through simple talk page discussion. Maybe I'm approaching this situation from a too narrow view and someone may want to take a more holistic approach.-Andrew c [talk] 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
It also seems that Anwar doesnt not need my help to get into disputes on Hinduism related images. He was trolling and was soundly shut down by user anetode on the Hindu Forum of Britain image. see history).Bakaman 18:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Both blocked for 48 hours. This sort of revert-warring, on such a massive scale, is really not on. Moreschi Talk 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, it is precisely this sort of behaviour that the clause in Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which says "Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive", is designed to prevent. Edit-warring up to 2 or 3 reverts on 6 pages in one day is self-evidently disruptive, particularly since there are no other editors involved; it's just these two reverting each other again and again. Protecting six pages just because of the edit-warring of 2 is not only obviously grotesque, but also completely unfair to anyone more productive who wants to edit the pages in question. That would be fundamentally un-wiki. Hence my blocks for disruptive edit-warring across multiple articles. These two have lengthy histories of similar behaviour and big block logs. The pair of them need to knock it off. Moreschi Talk 20:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I protest. This block is wrong and unjustified. It is obvious that Anwar is vandalizing these articles on the basis of borderline racism.--D-Boy 21:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he has been very disruptive. Bakaman has just been doing damage control, along with myself and others. Arrow740 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That's hardly the point. Whatever your differences with another user, revert-warring with them across six or more different articles is hardly the way to resolve them. That's plain disruptive. It's also against the rules. In addition, removing tags on an article that have been placed there by multiple different editors is also frowned upon. IMO both deserved their blocks. Wikipedia is most categorically not a battleground, something these two seem to have forgotten. Moreschi Talk 07:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman unblocked[edit]

We do not appreciate administrators unilaterally blocking other users for no violation of policy. Please do not do this again. Your admin action has been undone. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse unblock of Bakaman. Yes, Anwar's edits do violate WP's policies and guidelines but blocking him is not really an option here. Blocking users in this manner is a no-no and does more harm than good. Terence 13:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Um. Nick unblocked Bakasuprman, but apparently didn't unblock User:Anwar saadat. This reeks of special treatment, especially given Nick and Baka's involvement in the ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2. And who exactly is the "we" that Nick refers to? --Akhilleus (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"We" is for the community. I will endorse an unblock of Anwar saadat if done by any other administrator. As for your misguided comments, it was I who highlighted the inappropriate block of Anwar saadat on the Evidence page. Please cease with this conspiratorial and partisan rhetoric. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying, then, that User:Moreschi is not a member of the community? As for Anwar, two different administrators have already denied his unblock requests, so I won't override them. I don't like to undo other administrators' actions. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The blocking admin's judgment was clouded and if he would have cared to take a look at those pages where the alleged warring took place, these are effectively 0.66 RR blocks. We need dispute resolution for this and not blocks to escalate the situation. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
O.66RR across six articles? Yep, that's disruption, and last I checked we block for that. And no, my judgment is not clouded: my reasoning abilities are perfectly intact, and I'm virtually uninvolved when it comes to these users. Moreschi Talk 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
"Clouded"? I think you should have initiated a discussion here before concluding that. Since Anwar had three unblock requests declined before FaysaalF unblocked him, I see a pretty robust consensus for Moreschi's block of Anwar. As for dispute resolution, from what I've seen, neither Anwar or Baka has shown great inclination to engage in discussion, mediation, or anything similar during their sporadic edit-war (except, as I noted, Baka made some talk page posts yesterday). For what it's worth, it looks to me as if Anwar is stalking and trolling Baka, but Baka's response is, for the most part, simply to revert. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Akhilleus. Now is reverting (and making my best attempt to discuss) anything comparable to stalking? No it isnt.Bakaman 15:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Deja vu, anyone? "Humus Sapiens' unblock of Baka was a mistake". That and the earlier "edit-warring duo" post have me confused as to where Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) ends and Akhilleus (talk · contribs) begins.Bakaman 15:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
As civil as ever. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out my train of thought in the most civil way possible. You accused me of being a proxy of a banned anti-Buddhist troll and I took offense at your mis-characterization of evidence and your opprobrious facilitation of admin abuse. I find that is covered in policy, under WP:CIVIL. Your remarks are little more than "Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another".Bakaman 15:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock of Bakasuprman per Nearly Headless Nick.Dineshkannambadi 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The block was hasty and badly judged. I support the unblock. Sarvagnya 02:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. Do either of you have reasons? Do you wish to expand on this? Hornplease 00:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You masquerading as an [opinion] is absurd.Bakaman 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Anwar saadat unblocked[edit]

I've just unblocked User:Anwar saadat to cool this down. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

These are my thoughts: It seems my unblock requests would not have been declined three times by admins if the diffs I provided were read through. I was not revert warring with Baka here (as Baka blanked entire section without discussion or even a note in the edit summary and here (as Baka removed the formatting for the filmography table without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here and here (as Baka inserted link to FU image, no FU rationale provided and introduced POV with links to a partisan blog) and here and here (as Baka reverted a tag to a FU image and blanked a whole section along with supporting links to the Guardian without discussion or even a note in the edit summary) and here (as Baka inserted a subscriber-only link). I hope the matter is clear now.Anwar 15:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoing co-admins blocks[edit]

I am not a fan of undoing blocks. It just makes things worse as shown above. Both users have been edit warring since a long time and honestly the block of Moreschi was appropriate. My unblock of saadat tries to bring the balance back. I hope both users refrain from using the revert button excessively. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not a fan of blocks. They just make things worse as shown above. Was this really a situation so extreme that the blocks were necessary? Are the blocking admins aware of the psychological effects of blocks? Bishonen | talk 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
Threads about both editors has been common here. It is not the first time Anwar and Baka's conflicts are brought here. There would be rather psychological effects of the blocks on admins i believe as shown above (i.e. Nick and Akhilleus). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot of things are brought up on ANI, not all of them are legitimate. It is our job as administrators to decide what is good for the project and what is not. Instead of seeking quick solutions like blocking users pronto, we must encourage them to seek dispute resolution; or perhaps take the prerogative ourselves and initiate one for them. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
These guys have been at it for over a month (see User:Bakasuprman/Archive16#Edit_warring_with_Anwar). Despite plenty of warnings, and two sets of blocks (both undone rather quickly), they've shown no serious inclination to engage in dispute resolution. How do you suggest solving the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that this behaviour is endemic for these editors, as witnessed by the sheer number of unpleasant RfArbs in which they have been involved, I'd say ending a fairly lenient 24-hour block is strange, to say the least. That it is Sir Nicholas who's done it should alarm anyone who's read the Request for Arbitration in which he and Bakasuprman were involved. This is quite ridiculously unsubtle, really. Hornplease 19:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your motivations, as presented on arbcom and another argument are clear.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think admins must recuse themselves from taking any admin actions, in cases where allegations of Conflict of interest may occur. And also, requesting the blocking admin to reconsider the block is much better than taking any controversial admin action to undo a block. My $0.02. --Ragib 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ragib, and note that this principle from the ongoing Hkelkar 2 arbitration states more or less the same thing. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Answar is a vandalising Hindu articles for no reason. Seeing as he is a muslim, makes his actions extremely predujice.--D-Boy 20:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
While no one disagrees with that, it seems .66 Reverts and attempts at talk page discussion are equal misdeeds.Bakaman 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We just trolled ourselves[edit]

First, I would like to reject the suggestion that my judgment was clouded. It was not. I'm not the one with a vendetta here. I'm not the one trying to push a POV. I'm neutral. Couldn't care less about Indian politics, or Wikipolitics.

Let's please say this all loud and clear: edit-warring is disruptive. I can cope with a bit of edit-warring, but revert-warring with just one other user across six different articles is very disruptive and self-evidently warrants a block. Both of my blocks were, very, very obvious blocks to make. This pair have been fighting each other for yonks with no attempt at dispute resolution. It's time someone tried to whack some sense into this pair, because they are not getting it, and unblocking either of them equates to condoning disruption. Just farcical. Particularly when you are a participant, on the same side, as one of them in an Arbitration case: a clear conflict of interest. Both users violated this rule and the clause in this one, which states the disruptive edit-warriors should be blocked even if they have not violated 3RR. Fighting like across so many articles clearly falls under that clause. Both users violated the rules: they were being disruptive, and we block for disruption, don't we? The unblock was a joke. Politics are clearly being played here. Moreschi Talk 20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, no Indian Wikipolitics for you. Thought I should remind you of the invectives you used for Bakasuprman and another gentleman over IRC a few days ago. You are obviously, an uninvolved party. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the specifics (and I incline to Moreschi's view of them), what happened to discussing a block with the blocking admin before undoing it? Am I missing something? Was the first notice that Moreschi's block had been overturned really a notice on AN/I stating, "We do not appreciate your administrative action; it has been undone"? MastCell Talk 23:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that is the case. This brings on the question of conflict of interest, given that there is an ongoing arbitration case that specifically barred any admin actions among the parties. In the end, such admin actions just bring the adminship into disrepute. --Ragib 23:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm still perplexed by that "we". Apparently Sir Nick believes he can unilaterally determine the will of the community, whereas Moreschi's judgement is "clouded". --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too perplexed by the "we". Ragib and Akhilleus were a couple the original supporters of Rama's Arrow (talk · contribs) during the notorious meatpuppetry fiasco. What brings adminship into disrepute is willingly making hypocritical statements and equating stalking with legitimate knee-jerk reactions.Bakaman 00:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And so was Moreschi...oh, wait, he wasn't. And guess what, he's the blocking admin. Not me, not Rama's Arrow (who left, so why are we bringing him up, exactly?). And you know, if you're foolish enough to take the bait when you're being trolled, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy. As for "hypocritical statements", I would expect that if you agree with the principle that administrators shouldn't block users on the opposite side of a dispute, you would also agree that administrators should not unblock users on their own side of a dispute. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I was never in any sort of edit dispute with Rama's Arrow. I had a spat with him maybe a week or two before the April 22 incident. I attempted to discuss after the second reverts. Anwar has a long history of this, as we can see in Rama's first RFA where he was censured by a number of users for attacks on religious beliefs. This isn't about one size fits all remedies. I have demonstrated on the talk pages how my edits were within policy. Anwar's inability to do that is not my problem. Facilitation of stalking and religious hatred are also not becoming of admins.Bakaman 01:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes, you're being trolled. Anwar's been trolling you for over a month. There have been numerous ANI posts about this, and it's played a role in the arbitration case. And you still haven't figured out a way to respond except pursue your "revert first" policy, even though you've already been warned, several times, that this is not a good idea. Anwar's behavior is worse than yours, but that doesn't mean you're in the clear. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Then it seems moreschi's judgment is clouded. He obviously cannot judge the difference between harassment and a legitimate reaction. I made attempts to discuss (citing policy and reliable sources) on VHP, image, hindu temples book, Aligarh riots, and Goa. I had complained of Anwar's trolling to no avail (especially not from you). Nick was merely being bold in helping to rectify the situation. Arbcom cases sprout around controversial articles. Users that edit controversial articles, see arbcom quite a lot, regardless of their scrupulous behavior and concurrence with policy.Bakaman 01:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I noted above, you made some posts to talk pages of some of these articles, after this note from User:Andrew c. You gracefully replied here, where you said, in part: 'I do not feel a need to discuss with a troll...That being said I "discussed" my edits now.' One might conclude that your efforts to discuss (sorry, "discuss") were in less than good faith; in fact, you explicitly said they weren't. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And I should add that your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Goa Inquisition consisted of "The link works." ([1]) Another one of your posts ended "I can remove this bs at whim." This was probably not the most constructive way to approach the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Moreschi referred to me as a bastard over IRC, I take strong offense at that, and his misuse of admin powers. He is obviously more than clouded. On the other argument, you still cannot refute that my edits were clearly sanctioned by policy. My use of BS is meaningless. Might I remind you Jimbo has said "some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced". Referring to things as BS may not be nice, but there is nothing wrong with being blunt about things.Bakaman 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So ArbCom appears about to pass a decision, in Hkelkar 2, specifically barring actions such as Sir Nick's unblock of Bakasuprman as inappropriate uses of administrative powers. Perhaps this unblock was technically "legal", in the sense that the ArbCom case is not officially closed, but it still doesn't pass the smell test. Unless I'm missing something here? MastCell Talk 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note Bishonen, morven and Flonight's comment on the talk page of Proposed decisions here – [2]. Some of those proposed principles are self-contradictory, and the Arbitrators are still reviewing them. They were originally meant for somebody else. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The principle in question is uncontroversial. Or do you disagree with the idea that "As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in"? Note that the sentence starts "As always," implying that this is something that doesn't even need to be said. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sir Nick has absolutely no experience with Anwar. The real issue is moreschi's cluouded judgment and his inability to differentiate differences in conduct.Bakaman 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's Sir Nick's behaviour in the light of ArbCom rulings and precedent that is being discussed. Concerns with Moreschi's block are properly aired above. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 22:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As someone who has seldom, if ever, edited 'Hindutva'-related articles, even I have been aware of Anwar's disruptive antics. Several admins are aware of this and none has the spine to do anything about it. If Bakaman(inspite of not being an admin) has taken it upon himself to fight it, he should be appreciated and supported. Not hounded and harrassed. Somebody here spoke about honouring not just the letter but also the spirit of the rules. If everyone could actually practise that, there wouldnt have been a need for Baka to take it upon himself in the first place! Also, considering that Baka did discuss his reverts on the talk page, blocking him by claiming that he was 'revert warring' is trying to pull a fast one.
  • Also "six articles" is not such a whole lot for someone like Baka who's been here a long time, written dozens of articles, edited dozens more and whose watchlist justifiably should run into many hundreds. Nick is totally justified in undoing the block which actually was nothing short of harrassment. The question one should ask here is whether Moreschi and Akhilleus would have blocked an admin for 0.6R? Where were you guys when Rama was stomping up and down the Arbcom badmouthing everyone in sight or when he was revert warring with Paki editors? Where are you guys when several admins in all corners of wikipedia revert war on articles they edit? Where are you guys when an editor almost gets away with a 5RR?! Sarvagnya 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
For the last and final time: Anwar's bad behaviour is no justification for Bakasuprman to follow suit. Indeed, it is not even the cause, since he edit wars continually. I discount all your other comments given this basic, flawed, premise. Hornplease 18:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't we all just be friends?--D-Boy 23:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

;Admin actions between parties barred

4) As always, administrators should not use their administrative powers in conflicts or disagreements they are involved in. Administrators who are parties to this case are reminded that they should find an uninvolved admin to determine if blocks or other actions against any other parties to the case are appropriate, and should under no circumstances take such actions themselves.

The issue is in arbitration and Nearly Headless Nick has been accused of supporting the meatpuppoting of hkelkar.Until the case is over he should not have overruled the actions of another admin with reference to all those involved in the case and let the issue be decided by those not connected with the caseand clearly he should stayed from Baka issue and should have intervened raising questions about his conduct.There was an issue about an admin giving private information about a user and that user using it to harass another user whether knowingly or unknowingly is debatable will be giving this evidence and an email in a day or 2. Adyarboy 14:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Red text and personal attacks on talk page[edit]

Duke53 (talk · contribs) is making personal attacks on other editors on his talk page, and also has quite a bit of red text there which could cause reactions in others. I took the liberty of refactoring it, as I understand is the right of any user, per WP:NPA and WP:USER ([3]) only to have Duke53 undo it ([4]) and dare me to report it. Well, I'm obliging--if an admin would kindly have a look, it would be appreciated. Blueboy96 04:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, here we go again! Any admin who wants to get involved in this might want to check out this [5] first; apparently this guy's last ploy didn't work, so he is now going to start this attack on me. p.s. I would like to see proof of the 'reactions' the red typeface could cause. I guess this guy must be a physician, as well as a journalist.Duke53 | Talk 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • p.p.s. this is a picture of his user page; maybe he should be concerned about 'reactions' because of it.
    colors on his page
  • Somebody should tell the person in charge of the Administrators' noticeboard page that they are using some 'dangerous, reaction causing' type on this page:

Duke53 | Talk 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Blueboy96, it looks rather petty to be complaining about a user's text colors on their userpage. Being so petty makes it more likely that other complaints from you will be ignored. Don't take disagreement with another user to this level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Morven. This is pettiness at it's most extreme, and such Nanny-state watchdogging is absurd. If a user is going to have a 'reaction' to font colors, he's not going to learn it from DUke53's talk page on wikipedia. He'll find it out on his homepage, which will undoubtedly have lots more colors in the pictures and icons. And such a person probably shouldn't be near the computer screen anyways, as the refresh rate/epilepsy link, whether true or not, has a place in pop culture already. ThuranX 13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Where does this process go now? It doesn't seem to be on any admin's radar as being ALL THAT IMPORTANT. Having this hang over my head has become fairly wearisome (sleepless nights, no appetite, etc.) and I would like to know how it is going to be resolved. Thank You. Duke53 | Talk 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

User Abecedare edit warring[edit]

User Abecedare is reverting cited article with improper explanation.

Check his explanations

Check his reverts

BalanceRestored 06:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked indefinitely in May for edit-warring and sock-puppetry. His account was unblocked by admin Vassyana, assuming good faith, and under stringent conditions agreed to by the user, which are listed here
However the user has resumed his disruptive editing, most recently on the Veda article where he has added factually incorrect information based on two lines of sample text he saw in an journal article on Google books - a journal article for which he does not even know the title and author(s)!
He has been explained in detail (with reference to gold-standard sources) why his source and edits are incorrect (see Talk:Vedas#5 Vedas not 4 Vedas) but he does not seem to understand either the article content or the wikipedia policies. He has already reverted the article twice in the past hour [6], [7] and violated the conditions of his probation. It would help if an admin can look into his actions and take appropriate action. Thanks. Abecedare 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the earlier ANI thread on the user. Abecedare 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is another instance a couple of days back in which User:BalanceRestored made edits violating NPOV and verifiability policies, and his 1-revert/day unblock condition [8], [9] Abecedare 07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I've realised that I was probably edit warring and had immeadiately stopped the same. I did refer to a cited text the very next day and changed the text to keep that more appropriate. I did not continue with edits and stopped that immeadiately. I only edited the text the next day with all the required citations. BalanceRestored 08:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This editor is surprisingly ignoring the facts those I am presenting and is ignoring the presence of the citations in this book. Also is challenging the book that is clearly visible. BalanceRestored 08:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It clearly appears that the editor is not trying to move the discussion in a healthy mood. Instead of trying to find the facts about the book is taking the discussion with negetive sense. BalanceRestored 08:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I am sure wikipedia is a place where editors guide newbies and not ignore the edits the way it is being done. I understand Abecedare is a very experienced editor but it is very apparent from the recent edits that the editor is trying to take the edits more personally. BalanceRestored 08:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hour for violating his unblock conditions.[10][11] I encourage both parties to seek dispute resolution for the content disagreement. Vassyana 08:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kindly let know the details about ignoring the book that was clearly visible?BalanceRestored 09:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Covell/Diaz Pertini school raid... incident[edit]

Hi, I'd really appreciate it if a couple other users could help me out with a problem user Indynessuno (talk · contribs), who is insisting (he initially made a legal threat, against which I have given him a single (final) warning in my reply) that I help him post an article relating to events regarding the 27th G8 summit. He claims to be (and I assume that it is a valid claim) Mark Covell, a journalist who was, according to the article, put into a coma because of police brutality in the attack. His comments initially primarily concerned my deletion of Talk:Diaz Pertini School Raid which I deleted under CSD G8 after deleting Diaz Pertini School Raid itself because of an expired prod, and additionally (having noted this in the deletion log) CSD A3 (which may have been borderline or A1). Administrators viewing these deleted pages will note that Covell (or rather, although he doesn't seem to be the same person at all, User:HResearcher) posted his essay on the talk page, rather than the article. I'll ask HResearcher about his post for Covell later.

The primary problem with this is that the user appears to want to completely disregard NPOV and COI, not to mention (although I haven't warned him yet of such) NOR. He's being a little difficult, so I'd appreciate it if some other users take a look at the thread on my talk page and perhaps make helpful comments.

I'd also like to note that some recent vandalism to my userspace has been made by 2 anon users, whose IPs both trace to the United Kingdom or even (one) London, where Covell claims to be located: (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism (not warned, page is a sandbox.) (talk · contribs) -- diff of vandalism diff of self revert (?!?) (not warned, self revert within 60 seconds)

Again, if you have some time, I'd appreciate more eyes on the incident, not least because I think that he won't appreciate my next reply - I have to clarify what I said and explain that his position really isn't supported by policy. Nihiltres(t.l) 18:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Virtually all of his posts contain one legal threat or another - he's now threatening legal action if his account is not deleted and we do not produce an article at his behest. --Fredrick day 14:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Despite of being warned multiple times (his response, blanking), user has continued in uploading same copyrighted images multiple times and later puts them on to Kurdistan Workers Party article. I hereby request admin intervention. -- Cat chi? 08:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Images deleted. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


User:Nate1485 and similarly named accounts have been harrassing User:Nate1481 by following him around and reverting all of his edits, though this particular account's edits so far have been odd edits to Dalton, Richmondshire, North Yorkshire, as well as creating userpages and talk pages for what I assume are more socks. As soon as one account gets blocked, he moves on to another one. Any help would be appreciated. --Bongwarrior 08:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This guy has a lot of energy. He original edit was pretty bad though, so the real Nate was probably correct to revert. I've extended semi-protection for an additional 2 weeks this time. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Joehazelton and[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User:Joehazelton is trying to soapbox again. I know WP:SSP is a better place for this, but the Sockpuppet page for that user redirects to a checkuser page, which isn't what I'm looking for.

Simple block will do, possibly sprotecting the page as there's not much of a reason for anons to edit it. --Sigma 7 09:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Another TyrusThomas4lyf sock-puppet[edit]

Blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf continues to evade the block put in place in May of this year. He is now using the moniker Hoopsknowledge. Evidence includes this user's focus on the same articles edited by TyrusThomas4lyf and the very same edits (in the case of List of National Basketball Association teams by single season win pct, see the history of List of National Basketball Association teams by single season record prior to the redirect). If you need additional information, let me know. Myasuda 14:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird edit/Possible sock...[edit]

Check out Snapped_tooth's contributions, and his very first edit.... I don't know who, but I think this could be a sock of someone attempting to evade a block. Davnel03 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhapses, but there simply isn't any evidence that this sock is being used to evade policy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Possibly not, I'll keep an eye on it though. Davnel03 15:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Check this out... [12] Davnel03 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Err... it all had sources, he removes the ref-tag-name and then removes everything associated with it. THEN he claims he didn't know it was sourced. Weird. Yeah, keep an eye on this guy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
After a discussion with MPJ-DK, we believe this could be a sock of Burntsauce, who hasn't edited since 30th June. I've filed a request for checkuser. Davnel03 18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and blatent 3RR violations by User:Narinen[edit]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Artemisse and edit history of Great Pyramid of Giza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) IPSOS (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All the puppets were blocked hours ago.. what else do you want? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Francis_Tyers using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers[edit]

Hi everyone. Could someone take a look at the following quotes by User:Francis_Tyers? To my knowledge, he is an administrator, and he has been acting abusively, using intimidation, personal attacks, and an attitude of owning an article. Such behaviour is unacceptable, and I suggest appropriate sanctions against him, including removal of his admin privileges.

Here are the diffs:

[13] [14]

In the first one, I wrote that I do not edit much any more, and Francis' response was:

"Good, because you're in no position to judge what is bad and not. "

Not only it's a personal attack, it's directed to prevent an editor from editting in general.

In the second one, I voiced my concerns over his neutrality, and his response was:

"And please, do not assume just because I have not commented it means I'm supporting Grandmaster. He can be as absurd as you."

I am not sure calling editors absurd is acceptable for an editor, let alone of an adminstrator.

Furthermore, User:Francis_Tyers behaves on the Khojaly_Massacre article as if he owns it, which violates the Wikipedia rules of WP:OWN. After I added a sourced information, he simply reverted it with the simple explanation "rv, irrelevant." [15]

His comment on the talk page was "drop it, it isn't going in": [16]

Clearly, using a language of intimidation to exclude sourced information from an article is unacceptable. I don't think this user should be allowed to edit on this particular article.

Please note that this user has previously relinquished his administrative privileges due to violating 3RR. --TigranTheGreat 22:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not an administrator, thus no administrator abuse is possible. — Moe ε 22:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. It doesn't excuse him from using personal attacks and intimidation, or from *owning* an article. He acts abusively as an editor.--TigranTheGreat 22:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just judging from your own account I tend to agree. Perhapses a user conduct request for comment would be in order? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe that one needs a more in-depth study of this issue than a few differences provided above. Anyway, TigranTheGreat, what administrative action do you expect will be taken? If you want Francis Tyers blocked, then it's unlikely to happen based only on your diffs. Beit Or 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence of any of the three accusations in when reviewing the talkpage. I do see a great deal of POV pushing, from contributors editing in accordance with the views of one side or the other. I note that Francis Tyers participates in a great many of the discussions, and it appears that he is attempting to keep as much a NPOV (un)bias as possible in the article. His perceived summary removal of edits which might appear to go against that standard is not WP:OWN.
In a contentious subject involving nationalistic perceptions over recent conflicts I think the best option is to continue good faith discussions on the article talkpage, and not attempt to influence the editing of an article by cherry picking from the comments of persons with different views in an attempt to have them blocked or otherwise sanctioned. LessHeard vanU 23:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If block is unlikely, simple warning would be more than appropriate. Are you saying that the his behavior is acceptable? So, editors can call each other absurd? And tell others "you shouldn't edit, since you can't judge what's bad or good"? Because if no action is taken, that's what will be regarded as acceptable.--TigranTheGreat 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that, and "absurd" isn't as bad as your making it out to be.. A block is out of the question for this situation, a polite message telling him that he could be nicer isn't too far fetched, so why not tell him yourself if you feel this way? — Moe ε 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As for the "...good or bad" comment, I feel that it is a completely legitimate comment. You have a distinct POV toward the article, which is fine for when it comes to locating and referencing content but not as helpful in determining what constitutes a balanced article. I believe that Francis Tyler is noting that a reduction in your contributions would be a potential de-escalation of the POV pushing endemic in the article, a position confirmed by the comment that another editors contributions (supporting an opposing interpretation) is often as "absurd" (that is, extremely biased toward a particular viewpoint). Steven Tylers comments are in keeping with an editor who has expended some considerable effort in attempting to maintain an article which is both as well balanced as possible and also include the contrary viewpoints of the protagonists (regarding the event, not the editors). If Steven Tylers comments are a little terse now it may because he has already provided his rational (in perfectly civil terms) several times before. Be that as it may, I will request that he considers his future interactions with you in regard with this matter. LessHeard vanU 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, wow I'm honoured. I welcome people to look at the historical exchanges on the talk page and in the archive. Both of that article, of Sumgait massacre, or Nagorno-Karabakh. My comments should be taken in the context of a long-time mediation between Armenian and Azerbaijani users. I'm not going to comment on Tigran's views on the massacre as he has explained them to me in private, but needless to say, the Armenians would like to downplay the massacre as much as possible, and the Azerbaijanis would like to upplay it as much as possible.

And finally, in response to the section title, "using intimidation, personal attacks, and abuse of administrative powers". I can't abuse administrative powers because I voluntarily de-sysopped after violating the 3RR. I have not used any personal attacks against Tigran or any other user on that talk page. If I have intimidated Tigran by my force of personality or superior display of talent, or have induced fear in him, then I apologise.

At most I am guilty of being a little uncivil, and for that I also apologise, but keeping this article neutral is quite some work, and it can get frustrating going over the same points over-and-over-and-over. - Francis Tyers · 11:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, this is the edit that Tigran would like included. - Francis Tyers · 11:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I also note that Tigran does not complain, when further up the page I use the same language dealing with the opposite side, "The quotes will not be included. - Francis Tyers · 09:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)" from Talk:Khojaly massacre#problems in all NK War cycle articles and Talk:Khojaly massacre#Recent additions / edits. - Francis Tyers · 12:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the last point is well made; the complainer only refers to the tone when addressed, and not in relation to the other parties. LessHeard vanU 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD covers/movie posters removed by BJBOT[edit]

Just wanted to drop a quick message and say that BJBOT deleted dozens of my images - scans of DVD covers and movie posters that were tagged correctly and used correctly under fair use act. I don't have the time to go and restore all of them, but it's pretty frustrating that I followed the rules and did hours worth of work only to have a crazy bot remove them. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while, so I missed all the messages about deletions. Just to be clear, all these images were correctly tagged and appeared to be OK under the usage guidelines. Steve-O 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot did not delete them; it tagged them as being orphaned fair use images and notified you as such. This means that your images were not being used in articles and were deleted several days later by an administrator. The bot did nothing wrong here. Metros 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have some examples we can take a look at? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the huge number of warnings on User talk:Steve Eifert. Corvus cornix 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

More User:Danny Daniel sockpuppetry[edit]


JackPee (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) fits the pattern of the sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. The username is in CamelCase, just like the last seven sockpuppets. The user created some hoaxes, including Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, Ninja No Evil (a Naruto hoax, some of the sockpuppets I've reported here have created hoaxes that are very similar to that) and List of songs in My Gym Partner's A Monkey, which are both related to pages edited by this vandal. Pants(T) 19:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User: added a contradict tag to Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends X!, claiming that it is an "upcoming show." Pants(T) 19:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hoaxes Deleted and sock smacked. SirFozzie 20:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt legal threats[edit]

After deleting an article that User:Suud Vaastereimergraadt posted—which was a clear attack article—and ultimately after said user threatened continued vandalism via a message on my talk page ([17]), I blocked the user indefinitely. The user then responded with an unblock request with a clear legal threat ([18]). Besides upholding the block, what else needs done with this? —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Upheld. Further action: block, revert, ignore, repeat. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ttturbo doesn't know when to stop (disruption)[edit]


Keen followers of this channel might remember that this user was recently blocked because he was unable to understand that his actions were disruptive - in particular his series of POV red army crimes articles (all deleted). He was unblocked and has now been reblocked for disruption - one of his original claims that his userpage was hacked and he's busy building a bigger and bigger userbox that lists which users were involved in the hacking - see here. This guy just doesn't get it - wikipedia or how to be part of a community. Anyone want to lock down his talkpage to stop his soapboxing and accusations of hacking against good faith editors. --Fredrick day 21:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. People, please, I know him from Lithuanian Wikipedia. Stop waisting your time with him. It's absolutely hopeless matter. Renata 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Roundwell unilaterally removing the royal anthem[edit]

User:Roundwell has been removing the British Commonwealth royal anthem from the userboxes of all Commonwealth countries, citing that consensus has been reached on the Australia talk page to do so. However, the discussion there only shows that the editors of Australia agreed to remove the royal anthem from only the Australia page, naturally. User also ignored and deleted the inline comment in New Zealand specifically asking editors not to remove the anthem. SPA has been reverted 3 times in the past few days on all articles, and is not being reasonable in discussion. May be a sockpuppet. Carson 23:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be a SPA. I'll give them a final warning, and blocks will follow if they persist.-gadfium 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gundor Twintle Fluffy[edit]

A few days ago, I submitted an MfD after getting no response to a warning over userpage content, on the premise that at the time it was full of material not related to WP, from an editor with 13 article edits out of 467 at the time. The user then cleaned out all the material, at which time I withdrew the MfD. Gundor has since replied with this diff in a old discussion on my talk page, and then added what ended up being this diff at the bottom. The user clearly misunderstands how Wikipedia "takes care of things", and I'd like the user to be warned for uncivil behavior for the first diff, and also that he be educated that users issuing notices and using procedures is precisely how things are taken care of on WP. MSJapan 23:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To many POV pushing single purpose accounts?[edit]

Maybe I just have a suspicious mind but there seem to be single purpose accounts hitting Narcissism and Psychopathy over the past 3 or 4 days, with determined "similar but different" POV-pushing...

It could be just coincidence and good faith newbie enthusiam, at the start of the holidays, and so far I have treated it as such, but I would rather someone else was keeping an eye on it too please? --Zeraeph 00:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Block request re Amir Taheri[edit]

A team of anons and SPA-ish accounts keep reverting Amir Taheri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to a version with uncited attacks on Mr Taheri. (Note this edit's summary: "RV, well there are about 12 people who are dedicated to blocking your attempted whitewash of the Taheri entry. Either compromise or have fun reverting forever".) The article is now semi-protected. See WP:BLPN#Amir_Taheri for more details.

One of the SPA-ish accounts, Nyisnotbad (talk · contribs), has now reverted to the bad version at least 3 times after getting a {{uw-biog4}} warning from me. Could an admin investigate and take appropriate action, please? Thanks, CWC 01:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit-warring there, and it's a little out of hand. I'm not really sure which edit I agree with, but some of the information warred over is not cited sufficiently. I suggest you guys work it out on the talk page to find a compromise version which is properly cited. --Haemo 02:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


Can someone have a look at the contributions of this user please. Thanks Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[19]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 01:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Help! Good-faith but unresponsive editor contiues to posts copyvios[edit]

Will an administrator please attempt to talk with Mr wiggl3s (talk · contribs)? The editor has, since he or she created his or her account in September 2006, posted copyrighted material on many occasions to his or her user page without evidence of the permission of the copyright holder. I approached the editor in early April,[20] perhaps too aggressively, again later that month, [21] and again two days ago.[22] The editor has neither responded to me nor has posted anything in any talk namespace.

I fear that after my approach in April and after having removed two copyvios,[23] [24] Mr wiggl3s will not respond to me, but he or she is continuing to post copyvios (even today), and something needs to be done. Will an administrator familiar with copyrights please attempt to contact the editor? Thank you, Iamunknown 04:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As he'd posted yet more copyrighted material on his user page, I've removed the material and protected the page. Hopefully that'll get his attention enough to discuss the issue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Hopefully Mr wiggl3s responds. --Iamunknown 05:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Akradecki reverts and threats[edit]

Image issue[edit]

Would somebody please intervene at the images Image:Godmotherback.jpg Image:Godmotherfront.jpg and the article The Godmother: The True Story of the Hunt for the Most Bloodthirsty Female Criminal in Our Time, Griselda Blanco to avoid an edit war. The issues are the +tags in the images and editors that keep deleting the images from the book article. Thank you. PianoKeys 02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The other editors you're editwarring with are correct, you know. Carson 02:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no fair use rationale for those images. You must have a fair use rationale to include them. See Wikipedia:Image_description_page#Fair_use_rationale.--Chaser - T 02:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I slapped a fair use rationale on the front cover; now it just needs to be reduced in resolution. I don't believe the back-cover will qualify, even with a fair use rationale, so I left it alone. - auburnpilot talk 03:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no possible justification for including the back cover, in light of WP:NFCC #3 "minimal use". Additionally, your efforts to slap four fair-use portraits into Griselda Blanco is quite clearly against policy too - one image might be okay, and a strong case could be made for zero non-free images since she's still alive and thus the image is replaceable. More users should watchlist both of these pages to help enforce our fair-use policies. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
User:PianoKeys has now re-inserted the back cover image into the article. Corvus cornix 19:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is no non-free use for a backcover, unless the backcover is notable, or explicitly discusses (perhaps a unique artistic back cover that we have cited art critics discussing). This particular back cover isn't even mentioned in the article, and I'm sure we don't have a source that discusses the visual appearance of the back cover, so I believe this image could just be deleted. As for the other images, there is no excuse to have 4 non-free images of a possibly living person. Since the person was deported and whereabouts unknown, I could understand possibly 1 (or maybe a mugshot/booking photo), but not 4. So, I basically agree with all that has already been said above.-Andrew c [talk] 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Griselda Blanco[edit]

Hello, would somebody please intervene at this article, you can check the articles edit history to see the extent of the problem. I added images with appropriate license +tags of Griselda Blanco to the article and one or two editors keep reverting them. Would you please intervene to avoid and edit war. I will abide by others input, perhaps you could comment on the articles talk page. thank you. PianoKeys 10:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ESkog is correct. There's no reason we should have an overabundance of non-free images in that article, especially since they're all being used for decorative purposes. Please read our non-free content policies more closely. Even keeping the one image (Image:Griselda.jpg) is pushing it, considering that a "fair use replaceable" argument could be made. — Rebelguys2 talk 10:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Many of the images are allowed to be used. read the rationale at each one. PianoKeys 12:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
She's still alive. Besides which, you have provided zero fair use rationale for the use of any of those images. Corvus cornix 19:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
PianoKeys, please read the 10 points at WP:FUC. Every non-free image has to meet all 10 points for it to be included. Please carefully examine these points for every image you want to include. Then go read WP:IDP#Fair use rationale, and make sure your images have an individually catered fair use rationale. Using the template there could help. I think that in this particular case, this individual is notable due to her criminal record, that one mugshot photo could be used because we can't go out and personally book her again and take another photograph (i.e. a mugshot is not only irreplaceable, but closely associated with her notability). But stretching it to 4 non-free images for an article of that size (and the images are basically being used for decorative purposes anyway), is too much in my opinion.-Andrew c [talk] 14:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

K P Botany[edit]

Another note to the administrators please, regarding the simply awful behavior of KP Botany towards a few who were new to Wikipedia and really needed someone to be encouraging and helpful. He has insinuated on this page, that we are responsible for other good administrators departing Wikipedia, due to their extremely difficult experiences with us. However fact is, we would surmise that it might be more likely due to his contamination. Please know that Absolutely no instances of what I've seen so often on this site, such as Trolling, Stalking, use of Vulgarity, Personal attacks, etc., etc, or any kind of bad behavior by myself or associates, have occurred on the Daniel Rodriguez talk pages or anywhere else, where we have been a party. We simply have higher life standards than that. It should be noted also, that we asked for help on a few other administrations talk pages, when we learned that we had much to learn and were not knowledgeable in what was required to get this article to Wikpedia standards. That is the ONLY reason Jeff kindly accepted the challenge of helping educate and information us. He was Always polite and understanding, and together with the valuable and important information I provided, was able to bring this article up to a very high standard. Botany's claims are absolutely inaccurate, and border on Libel. He is NOT a positive force, despite some of his good additions to Wikipedia. His contributions on our page, for the most part, were patronizing, and unthoughtful comments to attempts to do what was being asked. I highly request that all his activity towards newcomers be Very carefully monitored in the future. Thank you again. (retired) 15:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See talk page of WP:AN/I VK35 18:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you referring to yourself in the plural? Are there multiple users using this account? Corvus cornix 19:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is the case. See User talk:Leah01, the blocked sockpuppeteer, & Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Operadog. Apparently an entire "family" used the same computer to create several accounts that were all single-purposedly adding essentially promotional content to a couple of articles. This became an issue when they vote-stacked on an AfD.
KP Botany (talk · contribs), an admittedly abrasive editor, was involved in all this and is the target of this IP who seems to be seeking some sort of redress against KP's manner in the matter. — Scientizzle 01:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Good grief. I had hoped that my earlier post was to be my last. However please allow me to make one more thing perfectly clear, and Please check it out for yourself. Previous commens (and others on various Talk pages) and particularly the mention of "promotional information".. is at the best, very misleading. The truth is that I am among those who Began/created several articles..No one else!! such as Chelsea Opera, Maryann Mootos, Broadway Magic, and the more well known Daniel Rodriguez pages, with help from a few who knew a bit more than I, but clearly not enough. We did ask for help when we were not even told why everthing we had put on the pages, were being either removed or filled with a bunch of symbols that none of us, understood and felt was someone just being mean or playing some kind of game. I don't think anyone even discovered "talk pages, and other places where, IF we had more time, would have done so and eventually figured things out..however the treatment we were given, was far less than helpful. The reason I was deserted by my helpers and left to do and keep these articles moving in the right direction. This past year has been the most stressful thing I have ever encountered in my life. So please know that you are not being given the true picture of events and why things happened as they did. Any "promotional" information that was being addded, was done, as it was felt that was what was being asked for to make it more "journalistic" and more up to Wikipedia demands. Jeff and a few others were the only ones to realize, that perhaps we had jumped into the deep water before even knowing how to tread. Absolutely true. So please get your facts right, check the talk pages, and stop making these inaccurage claims. Please, just take this and read it and allow me to continue in my retirement.. As far as wanting any "redress" against Botany, (Someone else's words and opinions - not my own!)all I want is to hopefully help others from this kind of awful experiene on Wikipedia. It should Never have happened. I love Wikipedia and will always use this as a basis for my work and do recommend it to others, but as far as becoming part of the "team".. NO WAY! Never again! Please take this and make a the first step in a more positive experience for all. We will all be the better for it..Best of luck! 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC) It is Really Most frustrating to see so much use of a few admin. to put words into posts that indicate I have said it or done it..most are false and irresponsibly misleading.. one big reason also that this has been such a Terribly Negative experience. I think the Aministrations should be examples of the best we can be, not the worst.. and please stop putting words in my mouth, that I never uttered!!!!! Really don't like that!! 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will allow me a bit more space here please. First to say that when I began all these articles, it was a choice I had to make, of either jumping in and just doing it, or wait to navigate through the vast numbers of pages, to try and understand how things should be done on Wikipedia. But I felt my previous professional experience in managing several internet sites, might have given me enough basic understanding, to be able to create something good here or at least get it started. Like most, I have a very demanding life, a full time job, a part time job and other committments, such as travel, etc. I simply did not have the luxury to give the necessary time, that clearly is required for a novice. Perhaps if there was just one Single page, that would be clearly - something I had been perhaps even Reguired to be read, before even pemitted to make a contribution, some of this might have been avoided. Not sure, but I do know that there is Way too much information for the average person to be able to read and absorb, to be able to come here and be a positive contributor, without risking what I did. and the treatment received.. So again, please take my comments as a hope to turn this regrettable experience for myself and others, into something positive for the future. (hopefully retired more 12:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Eep² blocked indefinitely[edit]

Eep² (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been a problem on Wikipedia for some time now. He's been bypassing AFDs by copying the content into a subpage so he will have a copy that he will be able to work on. He has been disrupting the disambiguation system, believing that Wikipedia is a dictionary or a search engine. He's been turning articles into disambiguation pages. I blocked him for a week in June due to a discussion that went on at the community sanction noticeboard. He has since returned to his old tricks, with copying Action (gaming), a page that he primarily authored, into his user subspace at User:Eep²/action (gaming) (which I have since deleted). I've blocked him indefinitely for his extreme inability to cope with Wikipedia, consensus, and our policies and guidelines. If a plain old ban is in order here, let that be brought up here. I've given him the option of appealing his block, but we really need to make sure that he does not continue if he is unblocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I endorse this block. Eep has absolutely no respect for the encyclopedia or those who work on it, as his RFC demonstrated. He's been given enough chances. --Coredesat 07:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I also endorse the block. Eep is the most unpleasant editor that I have encountered on Wikipedia. I feel this AfD and its talk page are perfect examples of Eep's behavior and his refusal to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He has been given more than enough chances to change his constant incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I would fully support a permanent ban. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I previously indef blocked Eep a couple weeks ago for the same reason: constant disruption and massive unilateral refactoring of disambiguation pages against consensus, blatant incivility, and repeated personal attacks despite a multitude of warnings and prior blocks, as the RFC Coredesat linked to demonstrates. He appealed the indef block and it was reduced to 24 hours. He has toned down his incivility somewhat since (though he continues to use words like "duh" in edit summaries), but his disruption and disrespect for the community continues. As there is no indication that Eep is willing to work in a civil manner with the community despite plenty of chances to improve his behavior, and this is a community project, it seems an indefinite block is the proper solution. Ƙɽɨɱρȶ 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can't say I'm surprised. I put a short block on Eep in the past and his behavior has not exactly improved since, more like the opposite. >Radiant< 11:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we should clean out his userspace; it's being used as a storage for deleted articles. >Radiant< 11:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eep. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sadly endorse this action. Sometimes, despite good intentions, there's a user who just doesn't seem to get what we're all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Template created/corrupted by mistake[edit]

Hi, I,ve create or corrupted Template:POTD_protected/2007-07-15 trying to view a projected image from Picture of The Day archive. Could somebody please either delete or re-instate page for me? Sorry for being so incapable. --Eddie | Talk 09:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

done. Agathoclea 09:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If an abusive user has sockpuppets but was blocked for something else... (a complicated question)[edit]

Let's put it this way:

  • User was blocked for threatening litigation on someone else.
  • User also made a bunch of sockpuppets. vandalized pages and repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL.
  • User was recently unblocked because the litigation issue is cleared up - but the damage and insults done by the user were not rectified and it is a hot button issue for those affected.
  • and keep in mind, the sysop admin who unblocked said user is being questioned for this unblocking.

Can the user be re-blocked for previous abuses that are separate from the reason for the block?

Before you ask, who are we talking about? I want the basic question answered first.

But for the sake of clarity, I am discussing this: Unblocking of Davnel.

Thank you, Guroadrunner 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest talking with the unblocking admin first, the unblock decision may have involved information that's missing from the above summary. - CHAIRBOY () 15:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with attack image[edit]


Could someone delete some attack image versions of Image:Runescape weapons specialattacks darklight-weaken.gif please? Sorry about all my reverts to it by the way, something lagged for a minute and it wouldn't bring back the good version. Cheers, CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, they can. Cheers, WilyD 16:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :-) CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Akradecki again[edit]

User:John has archived my complaint about User:Akradecki, claiming that it is a mere content dispute over fetus in fetu. A content dispute is involved; however, my complaint here (AN/I) concerns inappropriate behavior by Akradecki. Akradecki has:

  1. threatened me with blocking (examples here and here)
  2. slandered me by grossly misrepresenting my contributions to fetus in fetu as nothing but deletions and characterizing them as "tantamount to vandalism" (here)
  3. repeatedly made ad hominem remarks to me and about me (several examples here and here)

I might disregard such incivil behavior in a newbie, but User:Akradecki is an Admin. I also don't think much of User:John for covering for User:Akradecki (compare this with this and this).

--Una Smith 17:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see anything here needing administrative action. I would far rather focus on improving the article, wouldn't you? --John 17:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Qst (talk · contribs)[edit]

Following this incident report and this SSP, I have blocked the account of Qst (talk · contribs) for 1 month for abusive sockpuppetry. Comments and reviews are welcomed. Regards, ~ Riana 06:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems like Molag Bal in my opinion. --MichaelLinnear 07:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I second that opinion. Daniel 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This checkuser proved wrong yesterday, so I don't see why this is still a subject of debate. I've removed the tag from his userpage. Michaelas10 23:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, this is completely inappropriate behaviour from Daniel and Riana. Those blocks were way out of line. I'm very, very disappointed with this whole situation. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to completely agree that the block should not have been made. The checkuser made it very clear that the vandalising IP was Molag Bal and that Qst was completely unrelated. Rushing to block an established editor on the basis of dubious evidence is very disappointing and, as is now clear, was only ever going to inflame the situation. Will (aka Wimt) 23:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid this is the second time Qst/The Sunshine Man has been found adopting a Molag Bal sockpuppet (previously happened with Retionio Virginian. There's no checkuser evidence, but there's sufficient circumstantial evidence to show a bothersome connection between the two users, and considering Qst's behaviour yesterday following his aborted RfA, which likely culminated in vandalism on Moreschi's talk page, a block was completely in order. Nick 23:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Smells like meatpuppetry to me. Michaelas10 23:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Nick, a block for 32 days? I agree he was trolling but long term established users do not get a month and a day block for that... 24 hours would have sufficed to let him calm down. There may be an unfortunate connection... have you not considered Molag Bal actively finds Qst? Majorly (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The unfortunate connection extends to shared editing interests, pointing more to meatpuppetry or unprovable sockpuppetry rather than a simple passing acquaintance. Nick 23:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it's true to say that they generally hang around each other (in the sense that Qst has adopted a number of Molag socks). However, it seems pretty unclear to me as to whether this is Molag hanging around Qst and asking to be adopted by him on each incarnation or whether they do know each other. Either way though, I don't see much evidence of meatpuppetry from their wider edits. Take this RfA for instance, a page I found them both contributing to. Qst supports strongly whereas Molag's sock opposes. Now that doesn't prove anything of course, but this isn't a case of Molag agreeing with everything that Qst ever does. Also, the two got into a big argument with each other after Qst's recent RfA. Will (aka Wimt) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Um, actually, the IP was not commented upon in the checkuser. My point is that continuing to accuse him of being a Molag Bal sockpuppet in spite of its results is unreasonable. Michaelas10 23:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This is my point too. I believe that Qst and Molag may know each other, but it seems very unlikely on present evidence they are the same person. And a big of assuming good faith doesn't hurt, considering there was no imminent need to block Qst. Also, in relation to that IP, although the checkuser may not have specifically stated it on that page, it is an IP from a range that Molag uses (not one that Qst uses). Will (aka Wimt) 23:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate an update on this issue from the various administrators involved. It appears that Qst has been indefinitely blocked now and at his request. I would appreciate clarification as to the basis upon which he is believed to be a Molag Bal sock. Checkuser does not support such a conclusion. What edits by Qst are sufficiently similar to those by Molag Bal? It seems that Molag Bal has at various times shown a liking for this user thriough sock accounts - does that necessarily mean they are the same person? Are users automatically tainted by association where they form a friendly relationship with the sock of a banned user (even though they may do so unknowingly?) I recognise that I may be being naive here and that I had a fondness for Qst - but I think a fuller explanation from those involved in blocking this account is called for. WjBscribe 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Here goes. My original block was preventative rather than punitive. I see a lot of funny business occurring around this account - this series of accounts, as the case may be - I see reams of very damning evidence at the SSP, and I see continued bad faith gestures from the Qst account - not that I blamed him at the beginning, but after repeated appeals to calm down, he did not do so, but responded to continued baiting. OK, so I blocked based on all that. The 'one month' figure was arbitrary. I might just as well have blocked for 48 hours or indefinitely. It was an attempt to get the people involved to focus their attention on the issue at hand. All I wanted was a thorough explanation from the Qst account, since none of his previous explanations have been completely satisfactory.
  • Any admin may undo my block, although that seems to be a moot point now, seeing as Qst has chosen to leave. If he is innocent, this is most unfortunate, and I will feel great regret about that. Despite some of his faults Qst was not a bad contributor, or an actively disruptive one, until matters came to a head over the past few days. If, however, he is not - and I personally think that there is considerable evidence that shows that he is not entirely so - then I believe we've stopped ourselves from being trolled. In my heart, I believe that is what is happening. ~ Riana 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, but... in defence of Riana and Daniel, Qst's edit summaries and contributions over the past few days have included a number of heated comments and personal attacks, and it is curious that both Daniel's and Riana's talk pages have been the subject of someone adding huge amounts of headlines proclaiming "QST IS INNOCENT". I would include diffs, but for some reason the large resulting pages (more than 100 KB added) make my browser freeze. The relevant diffs are in the page histories, anyway. The IPs involved, User: and User: have already been blocked. The anon claims to be Molag Bal and not Qst, but only a checkuser would be able to establish that conclusively, and only within certain limits. The vandalism creates the appearance of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, regardless of whether or not it is actually the case. Getting back to my point, I tend to think that Qst's recent behaviour was sufficiently disruptive to merit a cool-down block. Perhaps something more like 24 hrs to a few days rather than an entire month might have been more appropriate. To be fair to Qst, Moreschi's comments on Qst's failed RfA did sound rather harsh to me, but harsh comments are not an excuse to escalate the situation. It's too bad how this all turned out, because all of this could have been avoided if one or the other party chose instead to just disengage when tempers started to rise. --Kyoko 05:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As the editor who originally placed the suspected sock template, I felt that there were similarities in behavior and too many coincidences that lead me to do so. --MichaelLinnear 07:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I need to explain myself a little more. When I said that a 24 hour to a few days block might have been more appropriate, I was considering solely the various personal attacks (comments, edit summaries) by User:Qst. Further blocks on Qst's account may have been justified by the actions of the various anons (User:, User:, User: pending findings of sockpuppetry. Could these all be separate people? Yes, they could, but the timing (all coming out now) and choice of their edits (all targeting Moreschi, Riana, or Daniel) does raise questions. --Kyoko 09:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Qst == very obvious Molag Bal meatpuppet. Not a sockpuppet, meatpuppet. Blatant tag-team. No great loss. Get over it, people. You don't adopt multiple socks of the same banned user by coincidence. Yes, I was harsh on that RfA. Mostly because I was terrified (not something that happens very often). Moreschi Talk 09:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, they don't appear to be precisely the same guy but it's very clear that they have a tag-team going on. Riana's block was wholly justified. Ƙɽɨɱρȶ 09:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry but I still disagree with the idea that this is some kind of open and shut case. It's true, you don't adopt socks of the same banned user by coincidence. But as I've said above, knowing Molag, it is my belief that he asked to be adopted by Qst on each incarnation. After all, we know beyond doubt that Molag actively follows Qst around because he sees him as a friend. This does not automatically mean Qst is at fault. And I still don't understand what you all think we have gained from blocking Qst. To those that think it will somehow make Molag go away, I rather believe you are mistaken. As for IP evidence, every IP that has been quoted in this thread so far is part of the dynamic pool that Molag uses. Numerous checkusers, both on and off wiki, have confirmed that Qst edits from an entirely different ISP in a different location. As far as meatpuppetry goes, of course I can't prove that Qst didn't ask Molag to vandalise. However, we know Molag in the past has been "protective" of Qst (albeit in the worst way possible) of his own accord. Whatever has happened here, it is far more complicated than a "blatant tag team". Will (aka Wimt) 10:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with Wimt. There's no "blatant meatpuppetry". It's Molag simply being an idiot and following Qst around. It saddens me there are people, who obviously know little about Molag Bal, that cannot accept this and are treating Qst so badly because of this... suspicion. Please get over it, Qst != Molag Bal. Majorly (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, come on. Haven't we been here before with another Molag Bal sock? RfA goes sour, user goes batshit insane? Then we find out a link to Molag Bal? I belive Kelly Martin filled my role on that occasion. There are too many patterns and too many coincidences here to be ignored. If Molag Bal does not == Qst, then they simply have to be meatpuppets. Regardless, Qst badly screwed us around here, and the connection to Molag Bal is far too strong to be ignored. We are supposed to use our common sense, damnit. Under these circumstances, accusations that blocking this nest of iniquity was wrong are inappropriate. It's not as if we blocked Giano, or Ghirla, or Piotrus, or Antandrus, or Dev, or someone like that - and given what I've seen of Molag Bal/Qst, I've no doubt they'll be back. Moreschi Talk 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I can guarantee you I'm using common sense. It just so happens, however, that knowing as much as I do about Molag, I don't agree with your conclusions. Of course Molag will be back regardless of what happens here, I've already said that. But will Qst? I hope he will but that's much less certain. As for your "it's not as if we blocked...", well so what? Qst was still a hard working editor on this project, even if he didn't write lots of articles like Giano etc. Will (aka Wimt) 10:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Common sense? Blocking a good faith editor because you are suspicious? That's a really good way to go isn't it? Also the fact that you don't like Qst doesn't help things hereMajorly (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone actually bothered to look into how Qst was chosen as an adoptee by the socks? Without that info the adoptions may be no more than unlucky coincidence, especially in light over very negative checuser results that (apparently) place them in entirely different locations. ViridaeTalk 10:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

  • If the main problem involving the person behind the Qst account is that he is followed around by Molag Bal, then frankly I think we've done him a service by allowing him a fresh start, away from any associations with past accounts - because he won't want to associate himself with an account that was once indefblocked. I'm not trying to put a positive spin on a bad situation in any way possible. And I object to the implication that if I've driven away a good contributor, I won't regret it a hundred times more than anyone else will. I trust that I have managed to prove over the months I've put in here that I tend to stick up for the little guy.
  • Having said that, the block was preventative. The block was based on evidence I saw at the time, right in front of me. I frankly can't understand why this was such a bad thing to do. If other administrators are privy to other information, I would strongly encourage them to put that forth when they can, because all this talk of 'people who don't know Molag's style' and 'this situation is more complicated than it looks' is starting to grind my gears. I thought we were about being transparent. Please help to uncomplicate the situation. ~ Riana 11:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Riana, I know you made the block in good faith, believe me. I also can see why Qst could be blocked as a cool down. I do however, think it was very unfortunate that Qst was branded as a Molag sock because, as I have reiterated, checkuser evidence is pretty clear about this not being the case. Now I'm sorry if all the talk of it being complicated is grinding, but unfortunately it isn't a simple situation. I am attempting to be as transparent as possible though. Now I think Viridae makes a good point above. What I am saying is that Molag follows Qst around, but they do not conspire with each other. I believe this is supported by the evidence of how Qst became an adopter of Molag's latest sock. Molag approached Qst and posed the question of whether Qst would adopt him on Qst's talk page, and Qst agreed to do so. Will (aka Wimt) 11:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Then I return to to the first part of my comment. If Molag is trolling the person behind the Qst account, Qst now has the golden opportunity to make a fresh start away from associations with either Molag or his previous accounts. I think he made a mistake when he returned as The Sunshine Man by making it so public that he used to be Tellyaddict. This time, should he choose to return, he need only inform people he trusts, like the two Wills and Majorly. If Qst is innocent - and I hope he is - then I hope he has not been too discouraged by this experience to not return. ~ Riana 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am disappointed by Moreschi's comments both at the RfA and immediately above, where it's like it's OK to harass and indefinitely ban anyone who isn't some sort of higher being (and on the flimsiest of evidence too). The coincidences of adoption, and meatpuppetry by the unconnected IP address don't cut it for me. The SSP case is unconvincing, and checkuser even shows evidence to the contrary. There is but one shred of hard evidence offered - Qst reverting back to the anon's edit [25]. Note that the IP made this edit at 18:10:38 [26], while Qst made an edit 12 seconds earlier at 18:10:26 [27], on an apparently unrelated IP address (according to CU). Whether Qst remains blocked of his own volition or not, he should not be prevented from returning, if he chooses to do so. The accusations remain unproven as far as I'm concerned. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser could be done on the other anon accounts involved, User:, User:, so as to determine any link with Qst or Molag Bal. I have to confess my ignorance about using WP:RFCU, though I do think it would help demonstrate if Qst were behind the vandalism to Daniel's page and Riana's talk page.

I still think that a short block of Qst was appropriate as a cool-down, preventative measure. A month-long block for sockpuppetry? I understand why it would be done in the face of so many coincidences, but I also see that the evidence is less conclusive than Qst's known contributions. If Qst is entirely innocent of sock/meatpuppetry here, and someone else (Molag Bal?) has been speaking on his behalf, then that form of "advocacy" is probably the worst kind of help that he could have received. Wherever Qst is, innocent or not, I still wish him well. --Kyoko 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kyoko, those two IPs you mentioned are part of the dynamic pool of IPs that Molag is known to use (this has been confirmed by checkusers off wiki and it can also be seen by whoising them that they are from the same ISP). Qst was also checkusered and found to use a different ISP altogether. Thus that vandalism was undoubtedly Molag rather than Qst. Will (aka Wimt) 13:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. If Molag Bal was behind the various anonymous vandalism, then he should surely understand by now that his efforts only hurt Qst's case rather than helped it. With this in mind, I hope that Qst isn't permanently soured on Wikipedia and that he will consider returning. --Kyoko 14:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah unfortunately in his attempts to defend Qst, in this instance Molag has made everything a whole lot worse. I'm hoping Qst will change his mind and decide to return too. Will (aka Wimt) 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I still have concerns, because the pattern of vandalism gives the appearance of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I think Riana's block was based upon the same impression, especially in the absence of checkuser info. Given the information she likely had at the time, I can see why she would block Qst for sockpuppetry, and I don't think she should be judged too harshly. I think the discussion here has raised reasonable doubt about Qst's involvement. Lots of odd coincidences, but nothing conclusive. It seems as if Molag and Qst may know each other, but as for actual meatpuppetry, I'm just not certain. I hope that Qst is innocent. --Kyoko 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect, the comment above By Moreschi are outrageous, I have no connection with Molag Bal, I dont know him in real life and I didn't ask him to vandalise or post them abusive unblock requests, maybe you people should learn from thism accusing established and long term editors of sockpuppetry is not good, there are only two people on this who I consider to be decent they are Wimt and Majorly, when it came to the crunch, all the rest just went along with the flow and abonded me, what kind of community is this? Qst (Userspace) 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As I see it from the discussions that have taken place here, there is evidence that Qst used an IP account to vandalise the talkpage of an editor he was in a dispute with - some block for that may well have been appropriate (though a month seems excessive - especially given neither side of the argument was covering themselves in glory). Opposition to his RfA was made in an unnecessarily unfriendly matter and the subsequent discussions were also carried out with an unnacceptable lack of civility and respect on both sides. RfA is a stressful process and those taking part - especially when it seems they will likely not succeed in their request - should be treated with some kindness. Qst overreacted to the hostility he was receiving but I have yet to be statisfied of any strong connection to Molag Bal. Being upset after a failed RfA is not enough to write someone off as a Molag Bal sock. Having been (unknowingly - lets assume good faith) friends with a sock of Molag Bal does not establish more than misfortune. No checkuser evidence links him to Molag Bal. Any editor may unwittingly become friendly with the sock of a banned user or find that a banned user pays them unwanted (albeit positive attention). To allow the character of someone in that position to be tarnished by association gives far too much power to banned users.

I think we should acknowledge here that Qst has not been established to be a sockpuppet and that he remains (until it is otherwise proved) a separate editor to be judged by his own contributions. WjBscribe 15:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not quite right. As I've said before, the IP that vandalised the talk page was undoubtedly from the ISP used by Molag Bal and not that used by Qst. The evidence for that is rock solid. The only question here is whether Qst asked Molag to vandalise but I strongly do not believe that occurred and see no evidence to the contrary. The vandalism of Moreschi's page was fairly typical of that of Molag who, half an hour later, then admitted that User:Francisco Tevez was a sock of his, presumable after seeing the checkuser report had just been filed and realising the game was up. Will (aka Wimt) 16:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I don't think was identified as a Molag Bal sock (see User talk:Mackensen#Qst checkuser). The identity of that user remains a mystery. WjBscribe 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it wasn't identified in that checkuser. However, checkusers off wiki have confirmed that this is on the ISP used by Molag. They have also confirmed that Qst edits on a completely different ISP. Will (aka Wimt) 20:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Action taken[edit]

After consultation with fellow administrators, the offer we have presented to Qst is as follows.

  • Qst and all his associated accounts will be blocked or reblocked indefinitely. Their user and talk pages will be salted.
  • Qst will have an account of his own choosing created for him through the normal channels.
  • Qst will be permitted to edit with his new account without any let or hindrance. The only restriction is that he does not, on-wiki or privately, link between his old accounts and his new account.

The above is a thorough attempt to prevent Qst's new account from becoming involved with another Molag Bal sockpuppet. If this offer is accepted, I'm sure all administrators would appreciate if any concerns are raised in private. We would especially appreciate it if editors don't go and try to find Qst's new account, the editor responsible is not banned and there should be no tagging of any suspected accounts as being Sockpuppets of Qst or Tellyaddict. Nick 20:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Great idea. ~ Riana 02:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got no problems with that. Daniel 04:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Complex sockpuppetry case[edit]

I've been dealing with sockpuppetry by multiple users across projects over the past few months (if it were not obvious from my requests across projects for checkuser), however, there is one user in question that I am unsure about dealing with right now.

In one of the checkusers, a specific account's name came up in the search that was divulged to me in a private correspondence. Within the past couple of weeks, an account with that same name was established here at the English Wikipedia. The user has not done anything wrong with this or the other account at the other project, but I am well aware that the user is in question a good hand sockpuppet of a prolific sockpuppeteer.

What should be done in this situation?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the puppeteer blocked or banned? If so, the sock is de facto abusive ("Circumventing policy", from WP:SOCK) and should be blocked, assuming you are confident that it is indeed a sock and not a naming coincidence. That's what I'd do, anyway. MastCell Talk 22:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The puppeteer is indeed blocked. And I am confident that the user is a sockpuppet.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Then I'd block the account as a block-evading (ergo policy-circumventing) sock. I'd be interested to hear what others would do, though. MastCell Talk 02:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of assuming good faith, could the suspect be asked about the conincidence? and maybe asked to change name if it turns out to be someone else? --Rocksanddirt 16:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would assume good faith, but the evidence is not circumstantial and this is the user that was harassing me through the e-mail service. A checkuser at meta showed that an account name (that I will not reveal yet) was the same individual as several blatant sockpuppet accounts at Meta, the Commons, and here at the English Wikipedia (and very likely at the English Wikiversity, where some other accounts showed up). I know of the IPs that were used due to e-mail headers and checkuserblocked IPs.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And now he's resumed acting like JarAxleArtemis...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, sounds like the right decisions were made. --Rocksanddirt 17:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I would still like to know if I should do anything concerning the account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Abusive use of anon IP by User:Grandia01[edit]

I had originally reported this at WP:AIV, but User:Daniel Case suggested I bring it here as it relates not just to vandalism but also abusive sockpuppetry.[28] User:Grandia01 posted this offensive drivel on my talk page under anon IP User: A glance at the histories of the articles to which this IP has contributed plainly shows that this is Grandia01.[29],[30][31][32][33][34][35] He removed my request for an explanation from his talk page without directly denying it (indeed, still addressing me as "dude".)[36],[37] Already completely obvious, the case becomes still more impossible to deny in light of Grandia01's frequent use of "u" and "ur" for "you" and "your", as seen in these edit summaries [38] [39][40][41]. Grandia01 has been warned to avoid personal attacks on many occasions (several of these may be found on his talk page.)Proabivouac 05:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the foul-mouthed IP is obviously him. He needs to meet the cluestick. - Merzbow 07:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
What motivated this? I can't find any prior conflict between the two of you.--Chaser - T 03:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, so the evidence is pretty strong that the IP is acting like Grandia01, but it doesn't indicate that Grandia01 is the person behind the IP (it could be someone else); as Grandia's edits are invariably before the IPs. I'm going to leave this up for other sysops to comment on.--Chaser - T 03:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The first Grandia01 edits come before the IP's because he's only had this IP for a few weeks. I haven't checked the histories to see what his IP was before this, though as most of the edits from the references IP appear to result from forgetting to sign in, I imagine it could be discovered. The underlying cause of conflict is Grandia01's slow edit-warring to push low-quality material onto Muhammad, and his frustration that it's invariably reverted: