Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Persistant harassment & vandalism[edit]

Resolved

Page protected.

Ever since User:RYNORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was banned for gross incivility, I've been the victim of substantial harassment and vandalism. A few of the highlights:

The violations are fairly severe (especially the anti-semitism) and make my Wikipedia experience unpleasant, especially given my history with the project. Any help would be appreciated. I also know that Croctotheface (talk · contribs) has also been victim of some of the harassment as well. Thanks! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked your talkpage history and noted very few ip's involved, so I have sprotected for 7 days. If you want the sprotect lifted or reduced then let me (or another sysop) know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


User Donchev -- 3RR, single purpose account and accusations of racism[edit]

This user has managed in his short history on WP to infringe 3RR and to accuse people of racism. I would have reported him for 3RR infringement, but this is a more serious case I think. Sorry if I put this in a wrong place. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Notice of RFC[edit]

As this RfC has as its purpose a community ban, I feel it best to direct ye to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig 3

It involves Whig (talk · contribs)

Adam Cuerden talk 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it involved the Whigs. Thanks for the clarification! El_C 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, had to get template {{user}} in somehow =P Adam Cuerden talk 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks[edit]

Donmardon is making personal attacks on Talk:List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes.[1] [2]The attacks will likely get worse and start being directed at me specifically rather than everyone. If an admin needs something to do, could you please keep an eye on him? Thanks. NF24(radio me!) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also over at Talk:Worms: A Space Oddity [3]. They clearly aren't here to contribute constructively. NF24(radio me!) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I will warn him. Smith Jones (talk)`
I'm sure that will be taken on board appropriately. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First edit [4], and indeed subsequent ones, indicate an account created by someone already experienced here that our Assume blind faith to the point of putting your head in the sand policy means we will now ignore until they are inevitably blocked anyway, as their disruption increases. Hi Ho. No edits recently so not a lot more to do for the time being Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is Smith Jones getting so involved with sorting out disputes here? He's a new user, who currently has a warning for incivility on his own talk page. Adam Cuerden talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
He's not a newbie user. I checked his contributions and stopped at a year. And he has just as much right to try and help as anyone else. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep an eye on Donmardon (talk · contribs · count), please. I reverted their removal of a redirect and explained the problem to them. Jehochman Talk 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse and Vandalism by IP: 71.110.255.19[edit]

The above IP has placed an abusive and rather vulgar statement on my user talk page. It was promptly removed but you can view this by looking at the page's history. Also, the same user put a degrading and insulting comment on his talk page in response to my request / warning of writing abusive things on article discussion pages. Based on the spelling errors and abrasive language style, I believe without doubt that this IP is indeed banned user Paul Barresi. He has also put several different times comments on the Paul Barresi article discussion page. One comment is still there. Several others have been blanked by other editors. I am requesting that this IP be banned and that user Paul Barresi's current ban be extended. I also request that discussion page for article Paul Barresi be sem-protcted to avoid further abusive comments. Thank you. Fuzzyred (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours but as I don't know Paul Barresi's editing style I'm not happy wextending the block without some evidence. Perhaps another admin whi is more familiar with the situation might do the honours? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hello. I just deleted an article for being vandalism and having personal information in it. However, as the personal information is in the title, what should be done about it? Thank you. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFO. Mercury (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think oversight removed it from the logs, does it? Keilana|Parlez ici 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oversighted. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Except now it's present in every revision of this noticeboard page until someone thinks to remove it... – Gurch 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you FT2 and Gurch. Could someone oversight the revisions of the noticeboard? Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 23:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I've asked on #wikimedia-tech about removing it from the log, there isn't much concern since the title itself is not attached to any name or other info and the number seems to be a spam number based on a Google search. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think whatever maneuver was just done here temporarily crashed the site, or it was something else. One or the other for sure. Jehochman Talk 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something definitely did crash it. Malinaccier (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I had one of those too, but the wheels fell off. Orderinchaos 00:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re User:Billy Murray[edit]

Resolved

BillyMurray (talk · contribs) This user keeps removing sourced stuff from Tom Cruise, using, for example edit summaries such as "there's nothing to discuss, articles are not a dumping ground for every random sensational remark about a celebrity". He has already been invited by User:Luna Santin and myself to discuss this on the article's talk page, but insists on acting without consensus. As you might guess, I'm pretty stressed out after this past week, and I'm tired of reverting him, so I'd be glad if someone else would advise this editor. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Already in hand --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Danny Daniel[edit]

This user has been blocked for multiple cases of sock-puppetry. This is a long-term issue with the user. He (gender assumption based on the names) periodically pops up with new socks. I'm not sure how many admins are familiar with his cases. An archived case by me is at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel, another editor opened a second case at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Danny Daniel (2nd nomination), and a third editor kept a trail of information at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Some of these are outdated with most current information, it's a little wearisome keeping up.

Today I noticed List of The AnimeLand characters (and previously deleted at least once, see the log), created by an SSP under the same motives as listed. I've tagged it for speedy under G5 (banned user), but it occurs to me that the editor has not been formally banned. He's just been chased down and his socks have been repeatedly blocked. It gets a little tiresome, and I think I realize there is not much that can really be done, other than vigilance, but that is the point of my posting: is there anything that can be done? Yngvarr 00:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility issue: mock-impersonation[edit]

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is vigorously persuing his Assyrianist agenda. He now turned to mock-impersonating opponents. I believe that this 'translation' on Talk:Syriacs should be regarded as intolerable incivility. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not me pursuing an Assyrianist agenda. What's going on here is that we have a serious case of sockvandals running around and putting in dubious sources in the articles, and they are pursuing a religious agenda without any valid sources. They use examples such as Megalommatis, and so on. I will take this to arbitration, because I've had enough of trying to keep these articles on a serious encyclopaedic level. Oh and Pieter Kuiper here above needs to get a warning for WP:STALK, by the way. As for Benne, I was just describing what his agenda is here on Wikipedia. You can check up his edit history if you don't believe me, none of it is productive or contributing anything whatsoever to Wikipedia. All he has been engaged in is revert wars, prety much. That is pretty much his entire edit history summarised. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
i ahve listed the relevent policies on both of your talk pages. please read them and ry harder to cfollow them in the futurue. Smith Jones (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:TeriBauer.jpg[edit]

Resolved: Deleted

Please delete as the image is a copyvio, and fair use rational deadline has expired.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Done --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and threats of off-wiki "investigation"[edit]

Resolved: Pol64 indefinitely blocked
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This declaration of intent by User:Pol64 to "investigate" editors off-wiki strikes me as an attempt to intimidate. This isn't the first time this editor has used language indicitive of being on a mission, and routinely fails to assume good faith while labelling and threatening other editors as a part of that crusade.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Regardless of the goal, these types of labelling and threats seem to violate several Wikipolicies. As per a previous discussion about this editor on this board,[26] it should be raised here again. Pairadox (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is VigilancePrime, , a good mate of Pairadox, who calls admins vandals, attacks good users and nobody does anything. Dioes wikipedia want to support these pedophole activists? Or not? I nhave done nothing than contradicts policy and if Pairadox, a good mate of Vigilance, wishes to claim otherwise there is rfc for that. I am a free persona nd off wikipedia nobody can stop me pursuing my legal path, i am an ex copper and if I see suspicious activity I do somethiong about it and pedophilia is against the lawPol64 (talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have asked on my talk page, but I guess I can ask here too. I have yet to understand where these comments about pedophilia come from? Incidentally, a typo meant the above userlink didnt work, so it is here: VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Hope you don't mind me correcting your link, Pol. SGGH speak! 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
i understadn both of your concerns but wikiepdia is not the place to pursue a personal or legal crusades. please do not issue legal threats; it is a waste of time and a possible violation of WP:AGF, and it's frowned up on in wikipedia. if you really think that another user is a danger to other people you should not try to handle it on wikipedia because there is really nothing the admins here can do to stop someone. The policies that you are violating are WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, as well as WP:LEGAL. 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The disgusting comments by Pol64 have no place here, and should either be retracted, or the User blocked. Corvus cornixtalk 01:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
+1 Corvus cornix. (But this never seems to happen.) VigilancePrime (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not here to score points, so please don't do that. Corvus cornixtalk 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats or declarations are not allowed on Wikipedia, pure and simple. Unless Pol64 retracts her intention to investigate other editors, there's ample justification and precedent in WikiHistory for a block. ~ Homologeo (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

These comments by Pol64 are instructive about the style of willy-nilly personal accusations the user has been making. Avruchtalk 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of those last to, I move for a block, strongly against wikipedias policies. SGGH speak! 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Policeman[edit]

Some time ago, I reported Pol64 for his accusations of pedophilia and criminal activity towards other editors. Rather bewilderingly, there was not any action taken against this editor. That said, his most recent behaviour (now targeted towards myself) is really concerning me, as he seems to be threatening to engage legal action against an innocent person, due to some suspicion of his. Pol64 has explicitly stated that he wants to police and investigate other Wikipedians.

The following diffs, I see as legal threats, based only on suspicion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187355983 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GroomingVictim&diff=prev&oldid=187361548

Then Pol64 accuses a far more experienced and subjectively unbiased editor of being a "Pedophile Advocate" (supposedly after he voted to keep a WP:PAW article): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pol64&diff=prev&oldid=187361041

Again, I STRESS, that we cannot be having this kind of behaviour on such a sensitive topic. I have already revealed personal details, and with another editor threatening to expose those who it seems he sees as pedophile advocates (in some vague, contrived, noncewatch fashion), someone could end up getting a brick through their window (and yes, as someone who has worked in child advocacy, I have come close to a personal experience of this). The best outcome from all of this, is that yet more nonhysterical editors get scared off editing PAW articles, leaving that section of the site under the control of a self-described "anti-pedophile activist" and those who he does not pursue with legal threats and insidious character baiting. GrooV (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That second diff is an attack on me. Pol64 states above that he is an ex-police officer and again states that "pedophilia is against the law" it obviously is, but I believe this statement to be a direct threat against other users he seems to believe to be pedophiles. From my position in life, I know that using "I'm an ex-police officer" is almost always a threat. I agree with GrooV. SGGH speak! 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We ban pedophiles from self identifying, I dont think we should police officers from doing so but if you believe we should a policy page is where you need to be, not here. The idea that the average editor would have fear of the police is outrageous. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Squeak, I think he is referring to the "pedophilia is against the law" and the implied threat that since Pol64 is a police officerm he would try to point the finger at SGGH as such. There's no need to fear a police officer if you are innocent, but at the same time, to toss around blatant accusations is a deliberate violation of WP:AGF for one and a personal attack for two. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Notice the attempts by Pol64 to invoke guilt by association, twice, by labelling Vigilance and me "good mates." In fact, the last time I communicated with VigilancePrime was on January 22[29] to indicate that I was disengaging from the "train wreck." Most of our prior back-and-forth has actually been about the BIG ORANGE BANNER on my talk page. Pairadox (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not going to defend everything Pol does here, no way, indeed I have counselled him enough to calm down and be civil (via email), my point is that we should not fear the police per se (and God knows I am haven't been the most legal person on this plant, cough, cough). I have written to him telling him it isn't a good idea to make what might be construed as legal threats. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't fear the police, you could say I have a healthy cultivated respect for them. I am not stating that we shouldn't reveal who police officers are (check my user page!) I am staying that using the fact that you are a police officer to strike fear into people whom you believe to be offenders when you have no real grounds to do so, is against policy. Pol has a number of prior warnings which I have noticed he deletes from his userpage about this. I apologise if my statement was confusing. SGGH speak! 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And personally, I can't believe any actual police officer would make statements like link 147 in the section immediately above. SGGH speak! 02:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I consider threats like the ones cited above, to be reason enough for a permanent ban of Pol64 from wikipedia, under our usual interpretation of such behavior here. I'll be glad to do the block, if there is support for it. DGG (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
SUPPORT - There is. I for one could do without the accusations, attacks, and threats. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need consensus? I think that he should receive indefinite on policy grounds. GrooV (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It has just occured to me that Pol may mean police (fool I am) perhaps a deliberate troll? Regardless, such threats and the stuff of bans or at least a long block. Before it is instigated, I might just go and check how many warnings he has had for further grounds. Give me 5? SGGH speak! 02:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
We have...
  • 2 bot warnings
  • sockpuppet block by User:WJBscribe, Squeakbox gives Pol advice on this, good advice too.
  • a mediation case related to pedophilia topics
  • 3RR block
  • AN/I by GrooV
  • A NPA warn from Vigilance
  • Another from User:Seicer
  • Another mediation call from User:Ryan Postlethwaite
  • More NPA warns from Pairadox
Then after that I visit for the first time regarding blanking of a page being considered at MfD. That's a long trail so it seems to be a recurring problem. NPA warnings are the first port of call for someone reacting to this kind of "police officer investigating" things I would imagine? SGGH speak! 02:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
SGGH, did you check the history or just the visible text? I suspect that if the history is examined more warnings, might show up, as this set of editors seems to be fond of warnings and blankings. Pairadox (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The history. Pol has removed content from her talk page on a couple of occasions, including past warnings. I have also just noticed this which seems... threatening... SGGH speak! 02:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
STOP WITH THE LEGAL THREATS PELASE. Clear violation of WP:LEGAL. you coudl be blocked for this, so please stop it. Smith Jones (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need concensus, I feel indef-blocking is the only option, I would do it myself but I am wincing at the sound of approaching neutrality accusations and an RFC that Pol seemed to be cooking up for me with Squeak, so I think someone else ought to do it if that's okay. DDG was somewhere a minutr ago. SGGH speak! 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this a question of "who will block the "good guy""? GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
He needs to be blocked, shall I just get it done and worrying about Squeaks RFC another time? SGGH speak! 03:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait for someone who is uninvolved, there is no rush at the moment. Avruchtalk 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
As I thought. Thanks Avruch SGGH speak! 03:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Who are you yelling at, Smith Jones? Corvus cornixtalk 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think he dislikes Pol64. GrooV (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I was about to indef block Pol yet User:Blnguyen blocked him for a week before my block went through. I think that block may need to be extended. Any thoughts?
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 03:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Er... ye-es. She has stated her activist intentions from the start, and has ignored previous warnings, most notably my own on this board. If unblocked, the same behaviour patterns will just repeat. I would advise an indefinite user and IP block (note that this user has abused their IP as a sock in the past). GrooV (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Typically IPs aren't blocked indefinitely (although I've seem some indef'd TOR nodes). Escalating blocks aren't necessarily a bad idea, to see if Pol64 responds and contributes constructively. She could simply be quickly reblocked if not. Avruchtalk 03:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely - block is totally justified. Just look at some comments from Pol today. Past warnings have never worked. That, to most, should demonstrate that behavior is unlikely to change at all. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Blnguyen is ok with extending it[30]. Is the consensus to indef? I will be glad to do it if that is the consensus.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 03:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not an admin (yet, hopefully in due time I'm lucky enough to have earned the right to be so), and I'm in volved as to I've added my $.02 in the discussion, but barely, however being a frequent editor and someone who tends to leave his POV at the door when I edit, these edits by Pol64 are a gross violation of WP:NPA and warrant an indefinite block. I'm surprised it's taken this long to do so in all honesty. Wildthing61476 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pol64 is now indefinitely blocked.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 03:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The banning of an anti-pedophile activist while tolerating pro-pedophile activists is noted. Good job to suport freedom, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know quite well that the block was not because of Pol's "anti-pedophile activism" and entirely due to her behavior. Corvus cornixtalk 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Corvus cornix here, an uninvolved admin (me) extended the block of another admin right after another admin said he would do the block. The block was based on the actions, not on any beliefs that the user in question has.
Gonzo fan2007 talkcontribs 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Squeak are you saying that since Pol64 was anti-pedophile, she should be allowed to say the rather vicious and uncalled for personal attacks that she did? Say what you will about the "activists" but that was some rather blatant name-calling and ad hominum attacks there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Stay tuned[edit]

For the exciting conclusion of WIKIPEDIA, the worlds most boring and painfully addictive drama. [[Satan|DARK ALCHEMY]] (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark Alchemy (talk · contribs) = troll. Corvus cornixtalk 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
...but it was still pretty funny... VigilancePrime (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC) :-D

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

Chronic canvassing by VigilancePrime disrupts another deletion discussion[edit]

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

VigilancePrime (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Albert Wincentz‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:HolokittyNX‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Homologeo‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ospinad‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Ssbohio‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB)
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Pairadox‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Tijuana Brass‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]
  • 22:12, 27 January 2008 (hist) (diff) m User talk:TlatoSMD‎ (Opinion Valued: VP/D:SB) (top) [rollback] [rollback] [vandalism]

The above are all editors involved in a contentious series of content disputes with SqueakBox (the AfD, DRV and associated MfDs have been here a few times before).

This is from an editor who has been blocked for disruptive canvassing before, previously about an AfD and this time relating to a MfD about a userpage that is a storage of links and descriptions against User:SqueakBox (found here). Since the vote stacking has already had its effect, can an admin review this to decide whether the MfD should begin again or the page qualifies as a CSD attack page? Thanks Avruchtalk 01:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice try. The original block was short-tempered and that admin has stated that he would have handled it differently. Nice try, though, attempting to create a history.
On this issue, read the notes. The messages were PAINFULLY neutral. Hence, not canvassing.
Please stop trying to blow up these things out of proportion. This is really a simple matter. VigilancePrime (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. GrooV (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
its likely that if the afd drv overtursns that we'll see another afd within hours as well. these people think they can do whatever to promote their POV with impunity, attacking others etc. I haven't seen even approaching such a disgrace in my 3 and a half years on the project01:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SqueakBox (talkcontribs)
Without trying to bring the entire debate over here, if the DRV is ruled to be overturned, mostly likely the article will be brought back to AfD anyway. This has been a VERY heated and quite ugly debate on both sides, and whomever the admin is that makes the final decision on the AfD, I'd like to buy them a (cyber) drink for their effects no matter how the decision goes. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The canvassing has been disgusting. That is why I am here. After vomiting (I am of a sensitive disposition) I decided it was time to act. Pol64 (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

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

User repeatedly blanking his talk page.[edit]

I do not know how to correctly fix this. As you can see, this user has repeatedly removed legitimate content from his talk page, mostly warnings about his uploaded images, but apparently no one has noticed before now. The most powerful anti-vandal tool I have available is rollback, which is of no use in this case. Is there any admin tool that can remove all edits to a page by a particular user? Also, this guy may need to be blocked, but I am not experienced enough to know if his offenses warrent blocking. If you wish to make a comment directed at me, please leave it on my talk page, as I will probably not be back here soon. (I'm not even positive this is the right place to report this, if it's not, please lemmeknow.)
Thanks for your help.
J.delanoygabsadds 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine in terms or reporting it here. I can understand the user removing "image orphan" tags, because they can become an annoying clutter, though he could just archive them. Incidentally I have just had to clear off some IP vandalism from his page. Have you attempted to contact the user and ascertain why he is blanking his page? Perhaps he is not aware of guidelines, or the archiving system? SGGH speak! 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"Guidelines" indicate that there is no problem with an editor blanking their own talk page - Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history. Pairadox (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Pairadox, he removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history, you may want to ask the user to archive the content instead of blanking it. Tiptoety talk 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If user J.delanoy misunderstands user-talk removal after the user has read the message as being vandalism, is not "experienced" and "not even positive" where to report incidents and thinks a user "may" need to be blocked, then how exactly was J.Delanoy granted the rollback capability? Seems like a "powerful anti-vandal tool" may have been put in the wrong hands... Hopefully the user means "Undo" as opposed to rollback. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
User does have rollback rights [31]. Tiptoety talk 04:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegingerone engaging in disruption on Wikipedia again[edit]

Thegingerone is engaging in a series of edit wars and reversion tactics over a long span in People to People Student Ambassador Program. This is the latest disruptive behavior by thegingerone in a long history of similar actions on Wikipedia.

User has been blocked before [[32]] for vandalism in Victoria Beckham, proceeded again to vandalize and was warned here [[33]], engaged in a 3RR violation and was warned on edit warring [34] on Ben Bledsoe, engaged in vandalism in multiple other pages and was warned [35], proceeded to continue vandalization [36], and then provoked another edit war warning and a block request in the Mickey Mouse Club [37].

User has engaged in protracted reversion warring and other tactics going back several months on People to People Student Ambassador Program to introduce a negative POV despite dozens of contributions from other editors to make the tone more neutral. User has also methodically deleted cited evidence that conflict with her POV that program is a scam. Her latest actions include these wholesale reversions despite acknowledging herself that some of the interim contributions she deleted were "fine" and "ok".[38] [39] Spelling error corrections and proper hyphenation, among other minor edits, have even been reverted in her wholesale undo campaign.[40]. User has not tried to incorporate constructive edits and useful new material, and has instead reverted several editors' contributions when they do not fit her POV.

User has been asked politely to cease unnecessary, wholesale reversions and to engage in collaborative editing (warnings/requests made here in the article's talk page [41] and on her own talk page here twice [42][43]. I believe a block on the user would allow other editors to improve the article and stop user's attempts to frustrate via reversions the evolution of additional information.

Other users have also noted that other improvements in the article and attempts over the last few months at NPOV presentation have been repeatedly deleted. See comment by user:lmalady1951 here [44] and by user:swissmiss321 here [45] —Preceding Bloombergy (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In defense of User:Thegingerone, I would have to say that he is just a hot tempered younger editor/contributor who is trying to exercise good faith to protect an article that has come under some huge attack by a group of individuals who would try to make this into a glowing positive P.R. release that might as well have been written by the organization itself. I'm trying to work with those who are editing the article in order to turn it into something that conforms with WP:NPOV guidelines, but trying to make that work has been somewhat difficult.
Certainly there is an edit war in progress right now, but it isn't entirely one sided as is suggested above. Don't perform a knee jerk reaction to this editor until you have seen what is going on.
As for the culling of comments on the talk page.... it was done in response to a comment I made on Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program. Some significant comments were added to the talk page that had absolutely nothing to do with writing the article, and were only tangentially even related to the article and were more of a program endorsement and a blog entry. IMHO, most of these deleted comments on the talk page needed to go, and this user certainly isn't trying to squelch legitimate discussion about the article itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jazzoj6[edit]

Resolved: Account blocked and tagged. nat.utoronto 05:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Jazzoj6 is a reincarnation of an indefinitely banned user, Jazzoj5, who was banned for uploading copyrighted images with misleading licenses. Now, Jazzoj6 is doing the same, inserting images of varying levels of nudity in articles. --Mosmof (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Anonymous (activist group)[edit]

Resolved: User Blocked, Tiptoety talk 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Anonymous (activist group) (talk · contribs) is up to, but beside vandalism, they uploaded over a million bytes of material to the Sandbox, which I didn't even want to try to look at to see what they were doing. Corvus cornixtalk 05:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just block now. Beaten to it. Wizardman 05:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I say go for it. Tiptoety talk 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actions of User:Reino Helismaa[edit]

Resolved

High-level warning given by Corvus cornix. Orderinchaos 12:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Plz, take the attention for Reino Helismaa (talk · contribs). His ru-wiki account ru:User:Reino Helismaa(block log) was blocked by me (as ru-wiki-sysop ru:User:Alex Spade) for a month, because his vandalism and sock puppets: ru:User:87.240.15.25(block log), ru:User:Pmmm(block log), ru:User:Hiljainen Soittaja(block log).

After that he have started to change the personal page/information in En-Wiki.

  • [46], [47], [48] - assertive changes of my attribution.
  • [49] - change of my language status.
  • [50], [51] - the non-authorised upload of my photoportrait. (1) He is not author - this image was created in 2003 on Starcon-2003 (annual Russian Star Wars fans gathering) by another. (2) I'm not АЛЕКС СПАДЕ (or Алекс Спаде). My pseudonym is Alex Spade (Latin) or Алекс Спейд (Cyrillic) and nothing else - this is my attribution and only these variants of pseudonym is permitted. Alex Spade (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Заблокировали меня не Вы, а администратор Кalan, на срок до 6-го января. Вы лишь совершенно произвольно переблокировали на бОльший срок, чем предусмотрено правилами, без соответствующего решения АК; по электронной почте присылали оскорбительные письма с угрозой бессрочной блокировки. Так что не надо врать.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No hablamos ruso aquí. Hable inglés por favor. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reservation for removal of misunderstanding. I haven't been asking to analize and take into consideration actions of ru:User:Reino Helismaa in Ru-Wiki - this is just a prehistory. I am asking to analize only five actions, which are mentioned above, in accordance to Wikipedia:Civility in point "Defacing user pages" and some others. Alex Spade (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of at least attempting to understand the above statement by Reino, I ran his text through Babelfish. Here's what it gave me. Do with it what you will:
  • Blocked me not you, but administrator k.alan, for the period up to 6th January. You only completely arbitrarily interlocked for larger period than it is provided by rules, without the appropriate solution OF AK; insulting letters with the threat of termless blocking sent on the electronic mail. So that it is not necessary to lie. <--- babelfish translation of above.
That's all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If en-wiki-sysops are interested in more commentaries - why and how much times was Reino Helismaa blocked in Ru-Wiki - the brief review can be given. Alex Spade (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to, I am not sure it will inform here, and can only serve to bias admins from making a neutral assessment of the situation. For the record, I gave him a stern warning at his talk page about vandalising other people's user pages. I consider that such a warning is sufficient action at this point. If he returns to vandalise your user page, even once more, or does so to any other user, a block will be issued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I have had a few interactions with this editor, who has been creating Finnish-language articles on the English Wikipedia, has uploaded a lot of images without valid copyright statuses, and doesn't respond to messages on his Talk page. He may have a communication problem, but the problems with him are escalating. Corvus cornixtalk 18:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Refusal to communicate, and refusal to acknowledge and react to warnings is still blockable as disruptive. If a user is warned, and the behavior continues, why not block? I have no idea if this is warrented here, but just a general statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Извините, что пишу по-русски, просто писать длинные тексты по-английски я к сожалению не умею.
Итак, попытаюсь объективно объяснить суть своего конфликта с Alex Spade. Первый раз он заблокировал меня ещё в сентябре прошлого года за то что я переименовал статью "Элвис Пресли" в "Пресли, Элвис" согласно правилам именования статей о персоналиях в русской Википедии (Фамилия, Имя), правда сделал это не совсем правильно, вручную перенеся содержимое страницы, уничтожив историю правок [52]. Однако он мог пояснить мне, как правильно переименовывать статьи, вместо этого он расценил это как вандализм и тут же меня заблокировал без предупреждения.
В следующий раз он заблокировал меня 9 декабря за то что я попытался заменить английские шаблоны быстрого удаления на русские, сочтя что в русской Википедии они более уместны [53] [54] [55]. Надо сказать, многие участники русской Википедии были недовольны таким решением (например Udacha, Silent1936 и многие другие, см. тут и тут).
Затем, уже после завершения этой блокировки, с моей стороны имело место нарушение ВП:ВИРТ. Однако за нарушение этого правила блокировка налагается до завершения голосования, в котором было нарушено правило. В данном случае голосование, в котором я нарушил правило, закончилось 6 января этого года, следовательно, максимально допустимый срок блокировки - до 6 января. Администратор Kalan заблокировал меня именно на такой срок, но Alex Spade переблокировал меня на больший срок без соответствующего решения Арбитражного Комитета, в нарушение всяких правил. После этого я отпраил ему письмо по электронной почте, пытаясь объяснить недопустимость такого самоуправства, однако он отказал, не приведя никаких аргументов. Тогда я снова отправил письмо, и он снова отказал - и снова не привёл аргументов. В третий раз он прислал мне письмо, состоящее только из одних угроз и оскорблений, и дал понять, что дальше обсуждать ничего не намерен. Затем я отправил ещё несколько писем, на которые он не ответил. Тогда я был просто ВЫНУЖДЕН несколько раз вандализировать его личную страницу на Викискладе и здесь, надеясь хотя бы таким образом принудить его объяснять свои действия. Однако, как видно, даже это не помогло.
P.S. Кстати, ещё до Нового Года я писал об этом в финской Википедии (см. здесь), и там несколько участников также согласились с недопустимостью того что делает Alex Spade.--Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • (Isn't there some sort of 'For God's sake use English' clause while communicating here?) HalfShadow (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Free Translation, courtesy Google. Diffs go to the Russian Wikipedia, and VP:VIRT was linked to our WP:SOCK, so I re-added that link. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry that I write in Russian, simply write lengthy texts in English unfortunately, I can not.
So, try to objectively explain the essence of their conflict with Alex Spade. The first time he blocked me back in September last year for an article that I changed the "Elvis Presley" to the "Presley, Elvis' according to the naming articles on the personalities in the Russian Wikipedia (Name), but did so not entirely correct, manually moving content of the page, destroying history of edits [56]. But he could explain to me how to rename the article, instead it is regarded as vandalism and immediately blocked me without warning.
The next time he blocked me on 9 December for what I have tried to replace the British templates for quick removal of Russian, finding that the Russian Wikipedia they fit better [57] [58] [59]. Indeed, many participants were dissatisfied with the Russian Wikipedia such a decision (eg Udacha, Silent1936 and many others, see here и here).
Then, after the completion of the lock, with my hand there has been a violation VP:VIRT. But for the breach of the rules imposed by blocking until the voting, in which the rule has been violated. In this case the vote, in which I broke a rule, ended on 6 January of this year, therefore, the maximum allowable term of the lock - until January 6. Administrator Kalan blocked me for that period, but Alex Spade pereblokiroval me at the longer term without a decision by the Arbitration Committee, in violation of any rules. After that I otprail him a letter by e-mail, trying to explain the inadmissibility of such arbitrariness, but he refused, not giving any reasons. Then again, I sent a letter, and he refused again - and again gave no arguments. For the third time, he sent me a letter, consisting only of some threats and insults, and made it clear that he did not discuss further intends. Then I sent several more letters, which he had not responded. Then I was just VYNUZHDEN several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions. But, as you can see, even this did not help.
P.S. Actually, even before the New Year, I wrote about it in the Finnish Wikipedia (see here), where several participants also agreed on the avoidance of what makes Alex Spade .-- Reino Helismaa (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still uploading improperly sourced and copyrighted images, and when others tag the images, he removes the tag - [60]. Corvus cornixtalk 05:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Did I read this right? Did Reino just say "several times vandalizirovat his personal page on Vikisklade here, hoping at least thus forcing him to explain his actions." He admits to vandalising? Jeez... Also, I am leaving the "please use english" warning. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Knowing Google translate, it could be a mangled translation with words in a weird order. I might leave a note on a Russian-speaking admin's page and see if he can help. Orderinchaos 22:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It is more or less correct translation. The user writes that he "has to vandalize a commons page of Alex Spade to draw his attention to..." Obviously it is a wrong behavior. While disruptive behavior of the user on ru-wiki and commons is not the reason to block him here it is obviously a significant warning sign. If the user would be a problem here I propose an indefinete ban. If he will be a good wikipedian here, then lets wish him a happy editing. The rationale problem is probably a newbee mistake, ru-wiki does not require specific rationales and the user assumed the same is true here Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming - and agreed with your comments. Orderinchaos 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
To Corvus cornix: [61]--Reino Helismaa (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop removing deletion tags. You have to provide a fair use rationale, which you still don't do on any of your uploads. Corvus cornixtalk 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued Reino Helismaa a uw-v4 warning for removing the {{deletable image-caption}} tag rom Masa Niemi even though he has yet to provide a valid fair use rationale. Corvus cornixtalk 06:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

User:KellyAna[edit]

This issue is regarding KellyAna. I’m requesting some admins to look into this issue, as I’m getting tired of dealing with her. KellyAna and I have a very bad history, see here[62],[63],[64]. A brief on the issue: Our dispute on the Las Vegas TV page ended a couple of days ago, when I decided to leave the site, to work on other sites that had well knowledge editors. Everyone dealing with the Las Vegas dispute stop arguing and moved on, besides KellyAna. She has continued to harass myself and now my relatives. KellyAna has now contacted another admin. Gogo Dodo because of this issue, as she has with several other admins, most of which discarded it because she started the issue. You can check several talk pages where other admins have been disgusted with KellyAna comments and games she plays. Now, KellyAna has been off Wiki, because she claims she was in Daytona. However, the minute she returns she attacks my brother’s talk page. She claims she was trying to help but what she says on her talk page [65] and Blackwatch21’s [66] is nothing but threats and intimation to a new user. One statement from her says, “I can certainly "intrude" in ways that would get you in trouble”. I wouldn’t call that helping. If you look at their history (KellyAna/Irishlass), I counted 6 to 7 new users that they threaten, warn, double team, or intimate. Now I’m pretty sure Wikipedia doesn’t want users acting that way to new users joining the site. That’s very unprofessional coming from a professional person KellyAna claims to be. Now that’s the only reason we (KellyAna and myself) came back into contact, is because I saw her mean, unnecessary comments on Blackwatch21’s talk page. As for Blackwatch21, YES that is my younger brother joining Wikipedia. Now KellyAna can call it what she wants, I really don’t care. I’m sure ¾ of Wiki users have relatives that have Wikipedia accounts. As for the comment I sent to KellyAna, which I’m sure she will mention, was nothing more than me pleading not to make this an issue again but with the type of person she is, she calls it harassment. I just wish that someone would block her, as I’m getting tired of dealing with this. Everyone from the BIG Las Vegas dispute has stopped arguing except for KellyAna. Again I apologize for this issue. I’m trying to make this issue go away, but that’s hard when you’re dealing with troublemakers. If anyone has some advice or actions they could take, that would help a lot. I’m willing to answer any questions or add more info if needed. Like I said, you can read several talk pages that I referenced that shows the history between KellyAna and I. Thanks DJS --DJS24 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to include that, all I'm asking is for someone to tell her to leave me alone. Gogo Dodo has asked us to go our separate ways, that's what I want and again another admin has come to the conclusion to drop the issue. However, normally this is when KellyAna goes off to another admin and brings up the issue all over again. See here [67] for Gogo Dodo's comments on the issue. I aggree with his/her conclusion but KellyAna normally doesn't listen. --DJS24 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Gogo Dodo Gogo Dodo, this has absolutly NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas article, as you can clearly see I have not touched the article since last weekend and have no desre but DJS24 claims I "had to get the last word" when it is clear I moved on last weekend. He then claims I "harassed" his relatives when it was impossible for me to know that there was any relation. I warned someone to remove logos and he jumped on my page. I did not contact him, I still haven't. I came to a neutral third party for advice and he started things up AGAIN. There is an obvious issue here and I'm not the one with it. He makes several false claims which I could point out here but won't. I just wanted your advice as to what to do, but he had to make it a big deal obviously following me around AGAIN. I have been calm and have ignored him, for the most part. Truly, how was I to know they were related? Truly, why was it wrong to tell someone to remove illegal logos on their page? I replied to Blackwatch only after he came to my page followed by DJS24. You'll see, if you truly look into the situation, I'm by and far not the instigator in any of this. I'm copying most of this to the reported incident and will show history that DJS24 is clearly instigating the problems ever since the creation of the sock last weekend. That's my reply this morning to the falsehoods in all of this. I dropped the whole Las Vegas issue and have not even been on DJS24's page but he did come to mine. I had gone to a page to ask for help and clarification on a scab writer for soaps, where I saw a request for "anyone who can help" from another user. I went to that person's page and saw illegal uploads of copyrighted team logos and gently warned/advised the person they should remove them. He replied and told me to stay out of it. I simply explained, on my page, that I was only trying to help him when I could have simply reported the issue, which I could have. He then claims I followed him, when I was clearly lead there by another page User talk:IrishLass0128. The warning was nothing more than to remove illegal logos, which he actually apparently uploaded twice from what I can see and after he was warned by an admin.
The crux of all this is last weekend, DJS24 created a sock who claimed to be a former admin whose account was hacked and jumped in and backed his argument. I caught them and one account was blocked [68] and DJS24 was warned [69]. Yesterday I did ask for advice from an admin rather than creating a report. I actually didn't know Gogo Dodo was an admin when I went to his page, just saw his warning and had worked with him on some Survivor pages. A few minutes after I requested help from Gogo Dodo, and when I could have possibly had no knowledge of any relation, DJS came to my page. I did not go to his as he claims. I have not gone to his page since well before he received the sock warnings. He's the one making this an issue, I've not edited any page with him on it nor have I gone to his page or that of CarsGm5, his blocked sock. I have been very open in this, since last weekend when I reported CarsGm5. DJS24, however, has not been as forthcoming and has been the instigator since last weekend even clouding the true issue on Gogo Dodo's page by bringing up the dead Las Vegas issue, making personal attacks, false claims, and repeatedly implying I'm a troublemaker by simply warning someone about illegal uploads. I assumed good faith with that simple warning, that's not being a troublemaker, that's trying to help a new person not get in trouble. KellyAna (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, you need to drop the words “personal attack", your not going to get far in life if you think everything is a personal attack. Everything I say, you accuse me of a personal attack. I would also advise you, for your benefit to drop the sock claim, that issue goes very deep, to where you no nothing about. Also, the person that blocked CarsGm5, seems to have a possible relation w/ KellyAna [70]. As I've shown above, the comments from KellyAna to Blackwatch21 were comments to scare, threat, and intimate a new user. Far from helping one. After I saw the comments, as it is my brother's page, sent some comments to Blackwatch21's page to advise him not to get involved in KellyAna. As I know her history and past, and I didn't want her to be the first editor he came into contact with because of this issue right here. KellyAna calls that a personal attack, but I could say HI to her and she would call that a personal attack. It is true, she hasn't sent me anything, instead she's sneaking around talk bad about me to admins. That’s when I sent her a message ASKING to stop this. She calls that harassment (No surprise) and now reports it as me being an instigator. I don't know how I can be an instigator when I'm asking her to stop the issue. This issue has NOTHING to do with the Las Vegas page, as I left that dispute days before KellyAna did. This issue is dealing with a user that won't leave me alone and gets off on scaring new users. Also, let me point out, she seems not to care about,Gogo Dodo the admin who came to a conclusion to drop this issue. She just continues to make this a bigger issue.--DJS24 (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You really shouldn't be the one telling me to drop anything as the evidence is in my favor that you have followed me around when I asked for advice from another editor, lied about you dropping the Las Vegas issue before me [71] as history shows you clearly have three talk edits after me and Blackwatch even has two and revision history shows I have not touched the infobox. I've not dropped the sock issue because that is the heart of this and I've provided links that provide links to your behavior. In this edit [72] you clear disparage my name and make false claims. IrishLass0128 was around all day Thursday and part of Friday, based on edit history, and I didn't get back until last night. And if they are brothers, why communicate who I am and disparage my name here rather than one on one at home? I also believe the claim that I "get off on scaring new users" is a personal attack.
As to the claims of me knowing the admin that blocked CarsGm5, I have no clue what that's about short of grasping for straws. The user that blocked Cars User:FCYTravis is one I've never encountered and lives in Fairbanks Alaska. I live over 5,000 miles from Fairbanks. How we can have a personal relationship or even be accused there of is beyond me. He claims that I should drop this but I'm not the one that brought this issue here or told people it was here. When someone insist on repeatedly making false claims after being told to drop it, one should be allowed to defend herself. KellyAna (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, let me point out that KellyAna has a big history of dicing around the issue. Half of her argument is this sockpuppet claim. The same claim that she caused and had someone she knows block the accused sockpuppet. User:FCYTravis simply blocked CarsGm5 without proving or providing facts for his actions. The sockpuppet was a claim made by KellyAna and action was taken by someone KellyAna knows. Also let me point out that this sockpuppet claim was a last resort on KellyAna’s part to keep her side of the issue right. This sockpuppet claim was a big issue in the "LAS VEGAS" dispute. The same dispute that KellyAna claims she doesn't talk about anymore. After the Las Vegas dispute, I have been doing nothing but defending myself against her claims. She attacked Blackwatch21's page, I came to defend him. Then she attacks me on Blackwatch21's page, again I defend myself. Then I find her sneaking around to an admin who has no reference on this big issue, and attacks me again. Again I need to defend myself against her. Let me point out, that Gogo Dodo is the 7th admin she has contacted to try to get me in trouble. All the other admins have discarded her claims. I have nothing against Gogo Dodo; they are just another victim of KellyAna’s desperate attempt to get rid of me because I'm the first person to argue with her to this level. I have also tried several times to stop this issue, instead she calls it harassments. This is just another example of how KellyAna has acted throughout this entire dispute. If you read my references, you will see that several admins. have told KellyAna to drop the issue. She has failed to do that. It's obvious that she doesn't care about admin. notices, advise, conclusions or comments. Finally, it’s funny how everything I say is a personal attack, yet she can speak as freely as she wants.--DJS24 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Of all that has just been said, I find the accusations against User:FCYTravis the most appalling. I've never seen him, dealt with him, or had any contact with him. Saying User:FCYTravis blocked CarsGm5 because he knows me is yet another false statement by DJS24 to attempt to cover his own discretions. I feel confident that the administrators of Wikipedia, if they fully look into this matter will see who is truly at fault. BTW ~ as you can truly see from my contributes on talk pages [73] I've had no contact with FCYTravis and certainly have not talked to 7 admins regarding DJS24. En total I have not dealt with 7 admins. KellyAna (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To all involved, I will repeat what I said to you on my talk page: I suggest that all parties just separate and avoid each other. No more accusations, no last words, no more messages left on each others pages or other editor's pages. If you see one another, go the other way. If the parties really do mean that they wish to step away from the issue, then step away. Continued bickering over who started what, continues to do whatever, or having the last word is not stepping away. Just agree to disagree and move on. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Five comments ago that might have been possible but I do wonder now. He's accused an admin of impropriety and that is beyond acceptable. He's made so many false claims after you told him to stop, he's taken this beyond smiling and moving on. The accusations made in regard to FCYTravis is unacceptable. Creating this "report" after you told him to stop is also an issue. KellyAna (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
If you want me to stop discusiing this issue and stop talking to KellyAna, I will RIGHT NOW. However I don't think I'm going to be the problem with the conclusion. As from KellyAna's last message, she doesn't seem to want to stop. I'm willing to stop right now. I'm ready. --DJS24 (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion was opened before Gogo Dodo responded to the issue, review the history.--DJS24 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Then why did you not drop it but rather reply after Gogo Dodo replied, you put your link to this on his page after his comment? Regardless, the fact is you accused an admin of impropriety and that should indeed be looked into. KellyAna (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not wrong to question an admin's actions. Again you fail to end this, by now bringing up another new issue. Your now going to put me up against an admin to get your way. You just keep proving my points. You should stop talking, its only hurting you. --DJS24 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not a new issue that I brought up, it is one you brought up and I think the admin should know you've done it. It's a false accusation and unfairly leveled toward him. I do hope FCYTravis sees your accusations, he has every right to put you in your place. And again, you speak only falsehoods or maybe mirrorisms is more accurate in your case. It's wrong to question an admin with false claims. Do you have any proof of any form of relation between the admin and I? Have we ever edited the same page, make comments to one another? Has he ever reprimanded me? No to all. Therefore you accusations are not based in fact and should be looked into. Many things you do should be looked in to. KellyAna (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm done discussing this until an admin steps in(Gogo Dodo has already, but KellyAna has again failed to listen).I hope Gogo Dodo see's that. I wouldn't be surpised if Kellyana responds, as she always needs to get the last word in. --DJS24 (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I just want to point out to everyone that KellyAna has put her information in the wrong order, as her time clearly comes after DJS24's message. I changed it to show the correct information. I also want to point out, that KellyAna has been a problem on my talk page and has personally attack DJS on several different times on my talk page. It was referenced above. --Blackwatch21 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments returned to original order, I was replying to something and the order was correct where I put it. The comment I replied to was not the last so where I put it was correct. As you can see, there's a questionable issue here, I'm not the one at fault here moving people's comments around to suit personal needs. The "ganging up" by a "relative" is just as unacceptable as sockpuppetry. The situation has gone past assuming good faith when one backs up the other, which is the same situation as last weekend with CarsGm5 before that identity was banned. KellyAna (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for Blackwatch21's comments on this page, obviously as related to me, his comments don't matter. I have advised him not to talk on this page again. He did however notice that KellyAna did put her statement in the false order and has put back in the false order; clearly her time stamp shows that. KellyAna clearly didn't want my statement saying "she needs to get the last word in" to be true. However her, changing the order of words proves that. I'm also seeing now that KellyAna, is trying to pin me against FCYTravis (An admin) in a last effort to try to block me. After FCYTravis block CarsGm5, Cars pointed out some good points on how they might know each other. I have no reason to believe otherwise, as Travis never questioned or disagreed with Cars comments. I'm not questioning Travis's admin duties, I simply don't agree with what he did. KellyAna, can you show me the in rulebook where I can't disagree with an admins choice of actions. Clearly, KellyAna is trying to have FCYtravis come in here mad at me and bully me around, an action that KellyAna would do. However the bigger issue isn't how I disagree with an admins action but how KellyAna is disregarding Gogo Dodo's (An admin) conclusion and request on this issue. The same thing she has done to every other admin that gave a request to stop this. --DJS24 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments go below the statement they are replying to. My comments weren't out of order. There are no "good points" to indicate any relation between myself and Travis, none what so ever. As an admin, Travis has nothing to explain especially when there's no evidence that Cars' accusations have any validity. You do realize, I've never called for your block, while you have clearly called for mine. KellyAna (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have never heard of that, but then again you made up the rules as you go. I just wanted to point it out to all the admins that you changed the order of statements to a false order. YES, I have called for your block, as your actions are unacceptable and against all wiki. policies. Please respond, everytime you do, you just prove all my points. --DJS24 (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I want everyone to know, that KellyAna has contacted another admin to join the discussion. This just shows how she disregards any admin's requests that don't go in her favor. This is now the 8th admin she has contacted. No surpise, she has contacted FCYTravis, the same admin to side with her before. I don't have a problem with FCYTravis commenting, I just hope any action taken isn't done by FCYTravis. Its clear now, that KellyAna is trying to pin FCYTravis against me, hoping that she finally finds that ONE admin to side with her. PLEASE some other admins respond to this issue, as my fingers are getting tired of typing on this page. --DJS24 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, false information being stated. I contacted FCYTravis when DJS24 made his previous claims. I notified him that his reputation was being questioned. A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded. As DJS24 did not afford him the consideration, I did. A cursory glance will see it was a simple notification of his name and reputation being brought into the discussion, not a plea to take a side. I am highly curious, where do you get that I've contacted 8 admins when my edit history clearly shows that not to be the case. As for the comment order, I learned that at Village Pump. Confused me at first, but I learned to understand the rules, not make them up as I went along. And does anyone find it odd that first "the brother" points out the order issue and then DJS claims he pointed it out. Another pattern forming again? See [74] for the oops of editing themselves on the wrong page. KellyAna (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you show me where I took credit for finding those statements out of order. I love your quote, "A courtesy anyone being accused should be afforded". I didn't see that same courtesy to me, when you were tossing my name around like a piece of trash to several admins. Again, the more you talk, the more you look bad.--DJS24 (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You keep claiming I talked to several admins, but have no evidence of the fact. I talked to Gogo Dodo once, that was it and you followed me there. Where are all these other admins I talked to? I asked Gogo for advice, I didn't trash your name or not notify you. You started this but never notified me, you brought Travis into this but didn't notify him. I afforded Travis the courtesy to see what you've done to his name. You followed me to Gogo's page. What other admin have I contacted? KellyAna (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all you brought up Travis's name. I may have referenced the issue but never mentioned his name until you did. You were talking on his behalf. You should of told Travis about this because you brought up his name, I didn't until you did. And for this OOPS thing, I'm sorry, I was fixing a word he spelled wrong, he is young. I didn't know I couldn't do that. I can't believe how desperate you are in finding any possible flaws in me. I've already pointed out he is related, so stop mentioning him. You're tring to make a 12 year ago kid's username look bad, you must be proud of yourself. I din't realize you could get that low w/ respect. It doesn't matter how many admins you contacted, review your own history, you'll see them in there. The fact of the matter is, you asked for Gogo Dodo's advice, he/she tells you to drop the issue, and then you pretty much throw his/her comments away and continued to argue w/ me. I have asked, suggested and even tried to stop this issue. Your the one that keeps editing and giving out false claims. I'm just defending myself until a admin steps in. Also let me point out, blackwact21 never asked for this, you went to his talk page and started this up again.--DJS24 (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Who started what? You started all of this. And you still haven't produced evidence that I contacted 8 admins. I gave your brother a good faith warning, you're the one who then started this. You could have left it at that but didn't. You're the one that has completely escalated all of this with all the falsehoods and blatant lies you stated. KellyAna (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please. Both of you, take this elsewhere. This is not an admin issue, it's a pissing contest. GogoDodo had it right—stay away from each other. Horologium (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done addressing this issue, clearly this is another admin that has asked to stop the issue. I will leave it up to other admins to decide the faith of the issue. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely; both of you need to move on. I don't see any big misbehavior here on either side apart from this pointless dispute. In fact, I think you're both asking each other to be left alone. Take your own advice. Don't look through each others' contributions, don't make complaints about each other, don't try to address each others' behavior, just stop. Mangojuicetalk 15:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, for addressing the issue, it needed to be addressed. Thanks DJS--DJS24 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved admin who has sometimes edited articles KellyAna also worked on, and I can say that the tone and attitude this user exhibits is definitely just like what was used here. I'm going to warn KellyAna straight out; if you continue acting in a combative manner, I will have to block for incivility. It's gone long enough. Mike H. Fierce! 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs by User:WikiBakel[edit]

Resolved

Unacceptalbe incivility, insults, and ethnic slurs by this user [[75]], [[76]], [[77]]. The remainder of his postings consist of trolling. Users have tried to reason with this guy, but to no avail it seems. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems like he has no intention of becoming a good-faith Wikipedian users. Block indef in my opinion. D.M.N. (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Addition of material from extremist nationalist website to the discussion page of Cham Albanians [[78]] --Tsourkpk (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Future Perfect hit them with RFAR/Macedonia, they won't be around too long if they keep it up. east.718 at 22:43, January 26, 2008
This user continues; personal attack to User talk:Tsourkpk here and to Greek editors here. Furthermore he deleted warning by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise here and instead he replaced it with the same dubious info citing an ultra-nationalistic site. Helladios (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Also in the section Editorial Harassement by Greek nationalistic extremists here!!! Helladios (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Calm it, please, everybody. The stuff from his "illyria" website is pretty poor quality, but that can all be pointed out on talk pages politely and without a lot of fuss. Fut.Perf. 18:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing, the user has been blocked for incivility. For further disclosure, despite this admins obvious cracker roots, I am in fact, 1/4 Greek. The user's short stay here has outweighed any benefit or contribution. Any further disruption and it is permanent. the_undertow talk 11:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of WP:FAIL[edit]

After a discussion about Wikipedia in #Wikipedia-en on IRC, User:Gurch decided to start removing mass amounts of content from WP:FAIL. [79] He disagrees with the opinions of the essay and is upset by it, which was why he originally wrote WP:MNF. In our discussion on IRC, he asked if he could block me for being "an asshole," and was later warned for making that statement. After our discussion was over, he decided to start blanking material from WP:FAIL, by reverting to a far older revision.

I asked him to self-revert because I am not going to bother edit-warring with him. He refused. When I spoke to him about it in IRC, his first response as "LOL," and it was pretty clear that he was acting in bad-faith. To demonstrate bad-faith, I can share the IRC log, although not on Wikipedia, per Undertow's warning here. [80]

Based on this, I also request that his "rollerbacker" rights be taken away for obvious reasons.   Zenwhat (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, it is not vandalism, it is a content dispute of sorts. You should not assume vandalism from an established editor of the community (especially when the majority of the content he removed was written by you). However, Gurch is misusing rollback, as rollback is only intended for vandalism, extremely non-productive edits and your own edits if you made a mistake. Not only is Gurch apparently misusing rollback there in a content dispute, [81] he is using his rollback rights to revert messages sent to his user talk page he doesn't like. [82] [83]. — Save_Us 12:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Gurch should also not of marked the edit as "Minor". As it is a content dispute, it should be discussed on the talkpage. Also, his rollback rights should be removed if he is abusing it. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we should remove it from the ton of admins (including myself) who use rollback for non-vandalism. Majorly (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should remove the bit from users who abuse their privileges. It's not exactly policy, but rollback isn't intended for content disputes and it is implied when the rollback function is used that the revision is something non-controversial to revert. User talk page reverts are borderline, pending what the message was. Rollback for content disputes on the other hand is pure abuse as that is not what rollback was meant for at all. — Save_Us 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Abusing rollback reinserting vandalism/non-productive edits[edit]

Apprently Gurch has read this thread about his rollback edits being questionable and decided to revert any use of his rollback to the previous version, which is now inserting vandalism and blanking back into articles. [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] I urge someone to remove rollback from Gurch and Gurchzilla. — Save_Us 14:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He still has the rights. See here and here. He seems to have stopped and left. Technically the rollbacker right should be removed, but my view is that if he returns and does useful anti-vandalism work, then the tool will be useful for him. So I'm not going to remove them. I suggest everyone go and learn how to use Wikipedia:Huggle instead. Carcharoth (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New situation - help needed[edit]

Gurch has tagged all of his user subpages for deletion, including User:Gurch/Huggle, which has a lot of incoming links and seems to be tied in to the anti-vandalism scene (which I don't know much about). I'm reluctant to delete these pages even though they sort of do meet the user-request speedy deletion criteria. Since they're all still tagged, some input is needed here. --W.marsh 14:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gurch looks like he has left Wikipedia. D.M.N. (talk) 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, they meet the speedy criteria, but I have the same concerns as you. I'm punting this one to someone with more experience with Gurch... maybe someone who knows him can find out if this is a storm that's going to blow over (leave them) or it seems for real (delete them)? - Philippe | Talk 14:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've moved some pages into the Wikipedia: space. The whitelist page may cause problems if it was anywhere else though. Majorly (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Gurch has left Wikipedia before, then came back. Corvus cornixtalk 21:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone undelete User:Gurch/Huggle/Icons and move it to Wikipedia:Huggle/Icons. Can someone do that for his other subpages under the Huggle banner? D.M.N. (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, done. Majorly (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, Majorly. You are much less lazy than me. --W.marsh 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Somethings wrong. User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist was moved into the Wikipedia space at Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist. As a result, User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist , served as a redirect, but people are editing it. D.M.N. (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've fully protected User:Gurch/Huggle/Whitelist as a redirect. Nakon 19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing Huggle is trying to update the whitelist. Can someone have a talk with Gurch if he's still on IRC to see what we can do about Huggle (which was a great idea, it would be a shame to abandon it). -- lucasbfr talk 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MZMcBride blanking my comment[edit]

In this diff MZMcBride (talk · contribs), an admin, is blanking part of a comment I made. As you can see, I made a factual statement that the user was in an IRC channel. MZMcBride even confirms it's true, but still claims it is defamatory, and that he can blank it due to WP:BLP. I would like the comment restored, as it seems absurd to claim that BLP prevents me from making a simple declarative (and true) statement in a debate. I do not want to edit war over it though. We shouldn't be able to just remove comments we don't like... MZMcBridge should respond to my statement and what he thinks it implies, then people might well think there's nothing to my statement. --W.marsh 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement cast me in a negative light, had no bearing on the DRV, was unsourced, and entirely irrelevant. Are we to start listing all deleting admins who are part of #wikipedia-en-admins at the beginning of every DRV? Seems rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your whole comment there is unsourced... that's just an absurd standard to apply to discussion comments people make, especially if you don't even deny my statement is true. At any rate, people can decide what my statement was worth. If it was irrelevant, it will have no effect. --W.marsh 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
To the contrary, in my opinion. There seems to be widespread skepticism of the admins' channel; it's already been brought up in that specific DRV when an admin commented, "I'm all for A7-ing #wikipedia-en-admins though."
Regardless, I simply refuse to bring more drama to Wikipedia. I'll reverse my action and put the article up for AfD. How does that sound? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like what I said several hours ago was the inevitable result. And as I indicated then, I'd be fine with such a decision. --W.marsh 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Done and done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got two trouts here, and I'm not afraid to use them. This is a silly conflict with people that should know better. How about both of you step away, ignore that article and that DRV from now on and let other editors deal with this particular one?(never mind) henriktalk 20:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

{{resolved|Article undeleted and sent to AFD. My comment in question is archived so it doesn't matter much. --W.marsh 20:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)}}

I don't think this is resolved, there's no indication that this tortured interpretation of WP:BLP won't be similarly applied, by this user or others, in the future. (P.S. wiktionary doesn't have this definition of "tortured", and I worry it's obscure enough that people might misunderstand. [see tr.v. #3 here].) —Random832 14:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Octavian history[edit]

WP:RFCU has confirmed that Octavian history (talk · contribs) has used multiple accounts. Based on evidence presented in the RFCU, it appears that Octavian_history may also be the same person as Bobtoo (talk · contribs), who was blocked in October for making a legal threat (again, just to be clear, this suspicion is in addition to the confirmed sockpuppetry). I am blocking Octavian_history and have already blocked the associated accounts. In this particular case, I thought it might be a good idea to let a few other admins know about it. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages." Would this include removing, for example, {{CheckedPuppeteer}}? (This suggests it's allowed.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
My view is that if the main account has been warned but is being given another chance to be a good citizen, then he could remove the tag in order not to have to wear a scarlet letter. It's in the history of course. If the main account does not become a good citizen and is eventually banned, the tag can be restored. Thatcher 13:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"...if the main account... is being given another chance...." He's had such an opportunity (at least IMO), did you mean this hypothetically? (As of this writing he's still blocked.) Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Carl jew[edit]

Resolved

Vandalism-only account, looks like a username violation. A little mopping, please? DurovaCharge! 07:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Next time, you can use Usernames for Admin Attention? :) SGGH speak! 09:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

Resolved: User Blocked

Just wanted to bring some admin eyes on this editor Leave Power Behind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Account was created today. This is the edit that first caught my attention [89]. he has also posted on OrangeMarlin's talk page here [90], that post may seem innocuous, however, contained within that edit is this link [91] which is well beyond acceptable. Also he has probably copied this page from conservapedia [link]. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User notified here and I think I was accidentally blocked! :-). R. Baley (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Account taken care of. Spartaz Humbug! 08:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

what about blocking 195.195.245.21[edit]

Resolved

See his talk page or his contributions, most of them are vandalism Momet (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

☑Y Done, 1 week block (first block, numerous warnings). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I just actually went through the contribs. 80 contribs and all of maybe 4 good ones, in case anyone was wondering whether anything constructive comes out of this IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock - January 28th[edit]

Resolved

I had a subpage, but its not as visible... The following IP's are tested and found to be no longer Tor nodes. This section will archive 24h from the last comment made to it. I will be posting my results in small chunks, cause I know in large amounts, it is a lot of work. Many thanks, Mercury (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  1. User:SQL/TORUser2
  2. User:SQL/TORUser2
  3. User:SQL/TORUser2
  4. User:SQL/TORUser2
  5. User:SQL/TORUser2
  6. User:SQL/TORUser2
  7. User:SQL/TORUser2
  8. User:SQL/TORUser2
  9. User:SQL/TORUser2
  10. User:SQL/TORUser2
  11. User:SQL/TORUser2
  12. User:SQL/TORUser2
  13. User:SQL/TORUser2
  14. User:SQL/TORUser2
  15. User:SQL/TORUser2
  16. User:SQL/TORUser2
  17. User:SQL/TORUser2
  18. User:SQL/TORUser2
  19. User:SQL/TORUser2
  20. User:SQL/TORUser2
  21. User:SQL/TORUser2
Working on it. -- lucasbfr talk 13:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
All but User:SQL/TORUser2 done, the TOR check sent a ACK (it doesn't look like an exit node, but I'm not 100% sure, I had a timeout while double checking on an other source) -- lucasbfr talk 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Exit policy for router "walrusbeauty" at User:SQL/TORUser2 is set to REJECT *:* and will not allow exiting to anywhere. Thus, there is no proxy. I garnered this information from the most recent Tor network status documents. Regards, Mercury (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- lucasbfr talk 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks, part deux[edit]

Resolved: User didn't know of personal attack policy and has promised not to do it again. NF24(radio me!) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Donmardon has now deleted a civility warning, personally attacking me in the process with the rationale of "it doesn't have to do with the article" and removed a redirect he doesn't agree with, telling an admin to "Search on google, please. I figured that if I posted above (link) it wouldn't get noticed. I'd recommend a block here as Donmardon clearly isn't here to contribute constructively and appears to think that his opinion trumps consensus and policy. NF24(radio me!) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A block based on what? "I haven't got an attitude mate, YOU HAVE." is hardly a blockable comment. I suggest you go to this users talk page and communicate before seeking a wider audience. (1 == 2)Until 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I have just deleted User:Donmardon. Administrators can look at the deleted revision to see why. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh, does not look like all of his edits are un-constructive, just looks like a new user who is un-familiar with wikipedia. Maybe all he needs is a little direction. Tiptoety talk 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the user page for reasons I will not state in the open. Administrators can view the deleted revisions to see why. Anybody who wishes can email me if they would like an explanation. Jehochman Talk 16:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks tiptoety. I will improve in a bit- i only joined yesterday. (Donmardon (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

But also understand that wikipedia does have rules, and one of them is civility, if you fail to fallow that rule you will be blocked. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia before you continue to edit. Feel free to ask me any questions. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday the user was being rather uncivil (sorry, the link I posted to the above section doesn't work). Diffs:(first link, then summary)[92] Donmardon uses profanity to refer to whoever redirected the SpongeBob episode articles.

[93] Donmardon personally attacks me. [94] Donmardon asks a user if they have the brain of a goldfish[95] Donmardon believes that his opinion trumps consensus [96] again. The worst part, in my opinion is when [97] Donmardon plays the ignorance defence when told that personal attacks aren't allowed - come on, that's common sense! Several users agreed above (section title is Donmardon (talk · contribs · count) and personal attacks) that Donmardon was an experienced user who had just created an account. NF24(radio me!) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Look- i'm new here, i will improve. Nascarfan 24 respect what i am new. I was nice enough to remove that attack on the Spongebob Squarepants page. I WON'T DO IT AGAIN. (Donmardon (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

Okay. Sorry if I've been a little bitey. After a bad experience with personal attacks last year, I'm especially wary of those who attack. You have potential, however. Good luck. NF24(radio me!) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting by Jaymes2[edit]

Resolved
Moved from WP:AN. — Satori Son

User:Jaymes2 (contribs) (talk) has been posting a long speculative piece about the relationship between meteors hitting the earth, Mass-energy equivalence and global warming on Talk:Global warming and other global-warming related pages. The user has been warned several times on the user's talk page, responded to my warning with a post of the same information to my talk page, and continues to re-post the same information (plus impolite comments directed at people who have deleted the speculation) on the global warming talk page. The user has made some edits unrelated to this theory, but it appears that they've all been reverted as unconstructive. I think that this user needs to be blocked, as several attempts at warning the user and introducing them to the purpose of Wikipedia have not affected the user's contributions. - Enuja (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the user has not edited since their final warning about inappropriate use of the talk page (warnings left at 17:29 (UTC) and 19:00 (UTC) on 26 Jan 2008, last edited said talk page on 14:06 (UTC) 26 Jan 2008). It would be reasonable, before any action is taken, to see if he heeds the warning or not. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The user deleted a level 4 warning on 16:40, 26 January 2008 [98]. - Enuja (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the editor should be blocked. There are six warnings on the relevant talk page, excluding any deleted ones. Even if the warnings are not for the same things, it shows a pattern of disruptive behavior that should not be tolerated. Why are we tolerating an editor who has done nothing but waste our time (e.g., this discussion)? I say that we agree to block on the next disruptive edit. The block should be implemented even by an "involved admin" since she will notice the disruption faster (thus, an effective block) and the decision to act was taken here as a group so the admin merely implements the block but does no "decide" to block. Brusegadi (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, this admin agrees; block on the next disruptive edit that has the same content. Blocking is preventative, not punative, so that makes sense. Also vandalism, and that is what it is when it is disruptive - even when made in good faith - means that otherwise "involved" admins can act, similar in the way that vandalism does not count against 3RR. However, if they have otherwise stopped - just let it go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, another one. I've reverted. I would block, but I'm borderline involved, so if someone else in available, please go ahead. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him William M. Connolley (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)