Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive609

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

Noticeboard archives


User Blackjack[edit]

User:BlackJack has issue several complaints against a number of users for editing his material. He has gathered around him a handful of supporters on the Wikicricket project who assisted him in reverting an indefinite block against himself. Anyone editing his work is accused of being a sockpuppet despite several IP sources being used. His own site is protected so redress has to be acted out in public. His general tone is abusive as an examination of his posts will show - He makes no response to reason and mercilessly uses his own ebook as a source despite the fact that reputable commentators have pointed out the unsubstantiated and weak nature of the text therein.(He makes use of scorecards which is fine though he claims to have researched them himself when in fact such pre 1800 lists exist in standard text books and publications). He has claimed copyright or licence or whatever that is over some of the content which I think would last 50 seconds in court. In addition he has made posts on Entries directing readers to his authorised version. He has abusively used a string of sockpuppets and was banned for doing so. I believe he is bad for wikipedia and has held part of the cricket section open to derision. I am using this user name in order to access the site.08:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinersArms (talkcontribs)

Because you've created this account entirely for this report, it would be helpful if you'd tell us what article[s] these issues have come up upon. Shadowjams (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. I have no idea about the current edits in this issue (largely because the OP didn't exactly explain which ones were at issue--SURPISINGLY a lot of sports articles get vandalized). Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
And for further reference, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BlackJack's website and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#BLACKJACK'S SITE. This appears to be an argument about a user self-referencing his own website. This could be cleared up quickly if BlackJack could explain how he is to be considered a reliable source and everyone could go back to editing cricket articles again. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WT:RS is bouncing it back to WT:CRIC. I think WT:RS would be a better venue because a) Blackjack and his supporters (myself included) won't be there so it will be a more neutral ground, and b) it is the place where our reliable sources policy lives. --SGGH ping! 13:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuing disruption on article on probation[edit]

I posted a large thread here about a behavioral pattern.

I am in this section only gonna focus on the recent continuing disruption of the Asmahan article that is on probation.

I asked the drafter of the arbitration case Wizardman if I could present points of corrections for a neutral editor and he said that I could, after this another arb also said that [1] that we should discuss sources, arguments and let other experienced contributors help. Well I presented the corrections at the talkpage and got a neutral editor to take a look, look at nr 4 in corrections: [2] I presented my suggestion and linked to the source in the book and Nishidani came with a suggestion following the source and added it to the article, now the Newer Tweety account has changed that sentence to "stopped in" against what we talked about, and against what the source say, [3] Nefer Tweety has done this without participating at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about typing "corrections" in the edit summary. This is the same old behavior that Arab Cowboy and NT did repeatedly which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SD has for the last 9 months made every effort to be the sole editor of Asmahan and other pages in the Asmahan arbitration case. Other editors are either banned from contributing or are completely disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being. I, personally, have no time for more endless arguments on the talk pages, however, I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration.SD is subject to a topic ban specifically related to Asmahan due to his extremely disruptive behavior, while I am not under any restriction. While I am busy to be a regular contributor, I cannot allow SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry; you're saying you will not allow any edits to the article that are not approved by every editor subject to the arbitration case? Ironholds (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
He is saying that he will revert any edit not accepted by user Arab Cowboy. Nefer Tweety is an account which is exclusively used to perform the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy.[4] AC is temporally banned from the article for sockpuppeting and NT is continuing to perform ACs edits as shown above and also: On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before [5]. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary. NT has been blocked before for performing ACs edits. [6] And he is continuing with this now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Nefer Tweety: Consensus is not decided by a fixed group of editors for each article. If there is consensus that edits should be made, from whichever users responded to the discussion, you should not revert them; if you do, it's you who'll be the subject of an arbitration enforcement action, not Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness, attempt to get some strong consensus that these edits should be made; if you can do that, this entire situation becomes clear-cut. Ironholds (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Traian basescu and the IP underneath attacking the Traian Băsescu article[edit]

Resolved: Traian basescu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked indef. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Traian basescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is violating wikipedia rules in countless ways. The account appears to be a reincarnation of this IP, which I had just warned regarding edits on the Traian Băsescu (edits such as these). I also reverted the edits for BLP and simple vandalism concerns, but the IP reinserted them and added other such stuff (100% of the edits so far relate to this). The "Traian basescu" account (which, btw, violates our user name polices) surfaced the moment I warned the IP, and the similarity in editing can be seen for instance here and here. Once I and another user reverted these edits, the IP resurfaced yet again, and continued to edit exactly the same nonsense. This guy, it appears, will only be stopped by a block and a semi-protect of the article. Dahn (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Thesevenseas blocked as unattended bot making mass template changes[edit]

Resolved: Edits have been reverted; user is contrite and unblocked. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thesevenseas (talk · contribs) has been making mass code insertions (at a rate of 3 - 4 per minute) to templates. While I cannot speak for all of the templates that were changed, at least the signing functionality of the uw- series of warnings appear to have been broken by the inserted code (see here and here and especially here for examples). Since Thesevenseas has continued to make the template code additions despite multiple messages, and as some of the changes are clearly inappropriate (such as adding the code to this redirect), I have blocked the account for twelve hours as being an un-attended bot. Any other admin should feel free to reverse the block once the issue has been resolved. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(posting the following here for him as he is unable to do so at the moment. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC))
My sincere apologies, I was using a script rather than a bot. I did check everything very very carefully and I am extremely willing to repair any problems. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 279° 28' 30" NET 18:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thesevenseas, why did you not respond to the messages on your talk page? - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thesevenseas did not post that message here. I copied it from his talk page as I felt it was applicable here. He is currently blocked and can not post anywhere other than his talk page. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Nihonjoe, I was aware of that and cross posted to Thesevenseas' talk page, but wanted to try and keep ANI in the picture (as you can see I gave up immediately ;D) - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have offered to unblock, contingent on his agreeing to revert the changes, then discuss and test the code additions prior to their insertion into hundreds of templates. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, unblock him, the preventative aspect of the block is no more. He acknowledged that he was using a script and should get some additional trouting for it, he has been here long enough to known better, but the block serves no function anymore. Amalthea 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As I've said on Thesevenseas' talk page, I agree an unblock would be warranted here, as the original reason for the block no longer stands (since Thesevenseas wasn't using a bot). - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, as Kralizec seems to be happy with any other admin reversing the block, I have done so. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI I've reverted these mass edits... In my opinion the templates are not so precious as to demand subst'ing. It's better that an appropriate warning get to an editor rather than worrying about if it was subst'ed properly. That being said, if a discussion finds consensus that these edits are helpful, by all means reinstate them. –xenotalk 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


This user, User:AlasdairGreen27 intentionally missinformed me that another editor, User:Nuujinn was the mediator on the discussion taking place on Talk:Draža Mihailović here [7]. Since a request for mediation has been made for the discussion [[8]], and I insisted that the main participant in the discussion, User:DIREKTOR signed the agreement for mediation, an attempt has been made so I would beleve that a third editor User:Nuujinn was the mediator. Since User:AlasdairGreen27 has been presented in the discussion as a "veteran wikipedian", and I was already accused of not knowing the procedures for requesting mediation, or other bureaucratic WP issues, it is hard for me to beleve in WP:AGF in this case. Now, they are all covering up for each other and I am being quite ganged up. I had been discussing the issue seriously, since for me, as a Portuguese/Serb of Jewish ancestry, "nazification" is a very sensitive issue, but this users have done all they could so they would prevent any serious analisis of the sources (their interpretation abuse by another user has been discussed), and they are now preventing the case for comming to a mediation. They all know eachother and are acting united against me. Could somebody please see what is going on here, and stop this constant manuipulative and obstructive behaviour? It is all clear at the bottom of the discussion page: Talk:Draža Mihailović. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a mistake to me. Weren't you just here yesterday trying to get sanctions on another editor in the same dispute? Yeah. AniMate 05:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well Seems like a mistake to me that also looks like a purposly written excuse so they look innocent if this happend (see the time of that post, and the time I confronted them). It looks like you are also trying to find excuses for their behaviour... We are talking about senior wikipedians, and they all knew quite well the mediation has not been atributed. Aren´t you the one that atributed awards to User:DIREKTOR? Yes. Also, yesterday you were all but objective. You started analising my English, [9] as if that was in discussion... Am I forbitten to report if I can´t writte in perfect English? I don´t think so. Also, the other admin that gave his opinion yesterday, User:Polargeo is also the one that gives awards to Direktor [10]... Also defended him, and said that I had bad intention (???). Why am I not suprised? Unfortunatelly for me, I am in disagreement with DIREKTOR, so I have to listen to all kind of obscenities and take all kind of dirty games from him and his group, because it looks like they have people defending them, and leaving this cases in the garbage... Maybe it would be better to have some other Admins analising this case that don´t have connection with this people (DIREKTOR and AlasdairGreen27). Thank you for your opinion anyway. FkpCascais (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Well User:Nuujinn does not appear to be in "DIREKTOR's group." Nuujinn and User:AlasdairGreen27 have never edited the same article. The only article talk page they have in common is Talk:Draža Mihailović. Similarly User:DIREKTOR and Nuujinn only have one article talk page and no articles in common. Yet you've accused AG27 of lying and Nuujinn of having a previous relationship with them when none appears to exist. You've attributed what looks to be a simple misunderstanding into something sinister. Assume good faith, because there's nothing actionable here. However, your repeated frivolous reports here that reek of bad faith may be an issue to look into. AniMate 05:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming WP:AGF for 2 months now. Their behaviour is still very wrong, but you instead choose to discredit my reports. And you also insist in excusing an intentional missleading of an attribution of a madiator (they falsifiyed a mediator, and when caught, they said it was accidental!). That looks bad faith to me. I am asking you please to stop discrediting my reports and to stop intimidating me about making further reports if necessary. If you find unusufull to read them, let other Admins analise it, but please stop defending and excusing people you know. FkpCascais (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S.:You are saying that AG27 didn´t lied to me when said that Nuujinn was the mediator? Well, you are wrong, yes he was. And they all have been very much in touch for days now (direktor and AG27 for months...), so am I liying? And naming intentionally someone "mediatior" to mislead is quite sinister... but you prefer to call it "simple missunderstanding" and say that me reporting it is sinister. Stop taking constantly their side, try at least to be neutral. FkpCascais (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
"Stop taking constantly their side, and start taking my side." There, fixed that for you. Anyway, diffs or it didn't happen. I feel strongly about baseless accusations of lying. Show us diffs that prove they are indeed lying and have been in touch for months and people might take this report more seriously.--Atlan (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh its just nonsense! Al mistakenly thought Nuujin was a mediator and told FkpCascais that he was one, Nuujin corrected him immediately, and FkpCascais started accusing everyone they're "lying" to him and such. The reason why FkpCascais is feeling helpless and "ganged-up" is that he insists on removing four university publications and the sourced information they support based only on his opinions as to what is The Truth!TM. Naturally everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that, and here comes Fkp with nonsense reports trying to get everyone blocked without any basis so that he can have his way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has any questions for me about this, please let me know, but I don't want to throw unnecessary bits on the camel. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

@Atlan, your comment is close to vandalism.
@direktor, stop missleading about my requests. They have been many times well explained to everyone (including you), so I can only conclude you are doing it on purpose and acting in bad faith. Here are they as explained to you in the discussion: here or directly to you here, besides continuosly repeting it on several other ocasions. This intentional missunderstanding of yours is also making the discussion there completelly useless (you are doing this for 2 months now), and since you are also boycoting the mediation request, it is really you that is acting in bad faith and doing everything possible to obstruct further discussion. Also, you can´t behave civily and stop insulting me neither here, at ANI!. You are also liying when saying that "everyone that knows anything about Wiki is opposing that", meaning the Admin No such user, who was quite critical at your position, as he told you your talk page, knows nothing about WP??? Direktor, could you please accept mediation request so all this silly accusations of yours get really under some neutral scrutinium, and see if you are that right as you say, and get over with this. FkpCascais (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not an admin, for the record.
I'm afraid that this dispute becomes quite unsolvable with current actors (chiefly Direktor vs. FkpCascais), with both sides entrenched and unlikely to move from constant assumptions of bad faith. It is true that I criticized Director's stance in the whole issue, and I also think that he was overly abrasive throughout the whole affair, often on the verge of WP:NPA. On the other hand, I haven't seen any serious sources presented for the opposite side's statement (User:Jean-Jacques Georges had some quite useful comments, but he, like myself, doesn't seem to be keen to dive himself in the current mudslide on the talk pages of Draža Mihailović and Chetniks). FkpCascais, I also think this is a blatant forum-shopping and blatant assumption of bad faith from your side ("your comment is close to vandalism" included: all Atlan did was calling a spade a spade). While I sympathize with you in the sense think that you have received rather harsh treatment (chiefly by Direktor), you would do much better to find and present the sources which better explain the nuances Mihailović's [lack of] collaboration, than to engage in this mud-slinging game. Myself, sorry, I'm too busy in real life at the moment, and even if I weren't, I'm not particularly interested in solving this rather immature conflict. This is just a website, you know. No such user (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I thank you very much for some kind words. It is nice to have at least for once the recognition that I had been badly treated there. I would like to point some things:
  • Regardless of what the discussion content is, or who is defending what, or even who is right (abstraction), from what I understand uncivility shouldn´t be tolerated in any case.
  • I completely disagree that I have "entrenched" myself. I have been the only one that has been constantly cooperative and discussing from the beginning to now. If anyone, it was me that wasted more than the half of all kilobites found on the discussion, but I simply came across some unbelivebily obstructing contra-arguments that made extremely hard (well, imposible) to reach any kind of consensus.
  • Regarding the discussion itself, there has been some huge missunderstanding about the points I am defending there. I am not neither a D.Mihailovic neither a Chetnik simpatizer. I get involved in the article in the moment I saw direktors exageration and missinterpretation of the sources he has been using. If a source says "an effort of collaboration has been done, but it has been rejected" you just can´t use the source for a claim like: "Mr.X, a WWII Axis collaborator,...". It is not me that has to bring sources that say DM didn´t collaborated because that is not what I defend. I defend the correct use of the sources, maynly because I am a Law enthusiast, and not a Chetnik or Mihailovic one. With the already existing sources, I had enough for already 2 months of debate, and I don´t want, neither have time, to bring more sources, so we start analising them now until August. I really hope this gets clear to all parties involved. I also beleve that one of the main reasons for a missunderstanding between me and direktor is the fact that I have been looking to this case in a practical, judicial, and interpretational manner, while he has been giving far more weight to his emotional and historical perspective.
  • Regarding Atlan, he has been quite offensive towards me here in already two occasions. Giving the fact that I don´t know him from nowhere, and that I don´t understand the reason of his interventions here, I don´t see any reason to come into any kind of dialogue with him. But, I will report him in case it becomes necessary.
  • Regarding my reports here, I apologise for not having any experience in making them the most practical but, since I consider myself a devoted wikipedian, that fact wan´t make me stop making further reports to admins whenever I feel the WP:PG are not being followed (I will obviously study them better).
  • About the people that I had reported, I just want to make clear that I had never asked any kind of blocking for them, as I am many times acused of. My main intention here was maynly to prevent further behaviour of this kind. I am far more intrested in getting things going, rather than punishing people. But, if that is impossible for me to do without some intervention, I wan´t be discouraged to ask for help here.
  • Hoping my comment was helpfull in clarifiying any doubts, I would like to express my gratitude one more time to User:No such user that accepted my invitation to spare part of his time and give his opinion on this subject. FkpCascais (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


I would also want to point some strange things that happend: At the beggining of all this, and after having us both (direktor and me) been blocked for having broked the 3r rule on the article, we both receved an advice from the blocking Admin User:TomStar81 not to edit the article "until we agree to edit civily", my talk page message equal to both of us. The article was blocked (February 18) for one month, and after the protection was removed (March 18), initially we both refrained from editing the article. Since I was the only one that continued in persuing discussion on the page, (direktor ignored it completelly, he was abscent from February 24 to March 27, more then a month) I was mistakenly thinking that discussion was what TomStar81 said (he explained later to me that was only advice, not demand). After exactly one week since the article was deblocked, direktor reverted again the article restoring his version (exactly the same reverting for which he has been blocked) [11], but this time reverting not me, but another two users. Since I had wrongly understood that neither one of us should edit the article until we don´t reach agrement on the discussion, even worste, insisting in the same previous revert, I re-reverted direktor [12] remembering him about the discussion. Since I had said some things that I shouldn´t to direktor in another talk page [13], he made here on ANI a emotional report on me that resulted in me being blocked for one week! [14]. During that period, User:User:Jean-Jacques Georges suported my version of the article [15], and edited the article remembering direktor that he should also discuss at the talk page (since he had completely ignored my on the talk page, for more than a month). Direktor promptly reverted him [16] (see edir summary, brutal!) and made him one quite agressive post at the talk page Talk:Draža Mihailović/Archive_2#New_edits_by_User:FkpCascais, in wich, beside other things, he purposly missinforms Jean-Jacques Georges about the reasons for my block (I was still one weak blocked then) and intentionally itimidated him on his insistance on supporting my edits, that were wrongly presented as "little more than POV vandalism". User:Jean-Jacques Georges, after seing that direktor acts with total impunity, reverting as he wishes and whatever he wants against everybody, he obviously has understood that the issue there (on the article) was not being taken seriously. Since then, Direktor has been "policeing" the article reverting all edits that not his ones. Direktor made a total of 7 reverts since the page was "opened" on March 18 [17], and a total of 20 since February 13 [[18]. Both User:AlasdairGreen27 and User:Brutaldeluxe also reverted just recently other users so direktor´s version is "in place". I am just wandering, I was blocked for a week for reverting once, as explained my talk page, but he reverts everybody all the time with complete impunity!?!? As I know, discussion is a way to prevent edit-warring (where I was giving at that time all my efforts, and was being respectfull and never more edited the article), but in this case, nobody asked direktor to discuss, but the edit-warring was rather stoped by blocking me for one entire week for having reverted ONCE, obviously disencouraging me to edit further the article. Other very important question for me, am I allowed to edit the article? (for instance, other thins not in question on the discussion)? I do fear to do it so I don´t get blocked for entire week without even knowing it, as happend (and it was all but vandalism)... I will be enormously thankfull to any admin that spares me his time to explain this rather unusual and unfair situation. FkpCascais (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[edit]

I have tried to advise (talk · contribs), trying to get their content dispute on-track; however, after a final warning, they persist with Ad hominem arguments; diff. I would think, at this stage, a short block is appropriate, for their non-civil behaviour and comments about another editor.  Chzz  ►  03:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Although a short-term block could be considered for that last diff, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive. At least the user has engaged in conversation on the talk page, I'd say first wait and see what their next move is, if they persist in being disruptive then a block will be necessary. -- œ 04:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais[edit]

User:FkpCascais has a history of repeated personal attacks and extreme incivility. He was previously reported [19] in the past, which resulted in a stern warning by LessHeard vanU after another bout of incivility during which he and an IP sock of a banned user "brainstormed" on how to get me blocked from editing enWiki. The user at that time characterized me as a "propagandist" and my behavior as "abnormal" further insulting my mental health by calling me a "very ill and frustrated person". [20]

This trend continued. He was soon back in full form and, regardless of the warning, continued to insult others as well as myself:

  • he stated that I "shit out my words", which would be the closest (and probably most polite) translation of the extremely vulgar Serbo-Croatian term "sereš". [21] (This was due to my sincere attempt to point out aspects of WP:V to the fellow, while he, in his words, perceived my tone to be too "paternal".)
  • he continued to insinuate that I am mentally ill, referring to my "complexes" on several occasions [22][23]
  • he insulted my origins by calling me an "imbecile" and instructing me to "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village...". [24]

He was blocked for a week after this by Black Kite, apologizing in his attempt to get unblocked, and claiming this is the last we've seen of this behavior.

  • pretty soon I was being called "simple" [25] and unfit to edit articles due to my Croatian ethnicity ("Letting an assumed Croat and Titoist edit these articles is like letting Ahmadinejad freely editing Israeli history"). Further insinuating that I supporting Nazism in the article by "nazifying" people. [26] User:FkpCascais had voiced prejudice against Croats on previous occasions as well, demanding, among others things, that all publications by a Standford U professor be disregarded as the author might be of Croatian ancestry. [27]
  • User:AlasdairGreen27 and I were called "terrorists" [28] as part of a tirade during which he insulted and ridiculed both users.
  • In accordance with his previously stated intent ("The most important is to gather all the problems he already had and present it to some admin") [29], he filed two reports against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself, attempting to get us both blocked and out of the way with obviously falsified and distorted claims (virtually no diffs, just cleverly written emotional text). [30]
  • Finally, the user has just recently insulted my intelligence yet again by insinuating that my "IQ is minor" and that I "simply don't understand when something is repeated many times to you". [31]

This, I must stress, is the brief account. To be frank, I am honestly sickened by this constant abuse being leveled at others and me during the course of ordinary discussion. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is just a response to a ANI report that I have made related to this same discussion. [32] just earlier.
@direktor: You can´t have me blocked for something I have said to you in quite some time now, and for what I have already been blocked. You can´t repeat reports!. Regarding your Croat ethnicity, I am just saying that you (an assumed Titoist and a Croatian) may not be the most NPOV person to find yourself owner of the trouth regarding a monarchic Serbian movement (quite logic, since they fought both, Tito and Croatia, and your repeated accusations towards me that I am a "Serbian nationalist" are much more offensive, since I am only partially Serbian, and much less can I be considered "Serbian nationalist"). I have Croatian wikipedians that in case of need may confirm my excellent relationship and total abscence of any nationalistic feelings not only against Croatia, but any nationality. I am quite a "non-national" or "world" person. Hey, I have Croatian friends, an ex-girlfriend and a house in Croatia (well not me, the house is of my family, we all use it, on the Adriatic coast).
I didn´t called no one terrorist. You insulted me on that ocasion insinuating that I am "paranoid" and that I have "the powers against me", to what I have said to you something like, well, it looks more like some minor annoying terrorist organisation that has been bothering me." If you insultuously troll editors on some serious discussion, this sort of unswer is the least that you can expect.
I have been lately very patient and polite with you.
You haven´t been with me: As clearly even possible to be seen here on ANI [33] but anyone can also go to the discussion talk page and see what is really going on (who is trolling, and who is being serious).
Resumingly, you are being "sickened" that I had insisted over 2 months, against all your obstructing behaviour, and get you to sign today a mediation request, so this dispute can finally be analised by someone neutral. I am really happy to get this going forward so we can reach an end to this. I had already asked you never to comment on my talk page any more, and I also really expect not to have any more contact with you after this gets over.
Ah! And just to demonstrate the kind of manipulation I have been taking from you: You claim I had insulted your IQ, well this is what I have said: [34] so by that, everybody can see that I just said exactly the oposite: "I can´t beleve that your IQ is minor and you simply don´t understand when something is repeated many times to you." saying that I find you intelligent, and that was impossible, and bad faith, that you intentionally missunderstand something whan repeated to you over and over again. I also don´t beleve that you didn´t understood this (I even explained it to you), so again, your manipulation, and much, much bad faith. I really wished I had your ability to distorce the ANI reports as you do, and do it with impunity. (you even just called my ridiculously inexperinced and badly written on hurry report on you, an "cleverly written emotional text", I feel flatered!)
Btw, many of your diffs have nothing to do with what you are saying...
Oh, and about "simple", I just now understood what is about... It was when I´ve said to User:BoDu to "be kind with you because it seems that you don´t have too many kilobites to spend." But, how can you feel offended by this? when it was just after you had insulted the other editor that, because he disagreed with you, had you saying to him:"[35] that you want be responding to him any more because it was a "waste of type and kilobites". It is really you that should have been reported here. FkpCascais (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S.:I apologise for my enormous comment, but some things just had to be clarified. FkpCascais (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we really need a new thread about this every day? Couldn't this just have been added to the other one which is still on this page? Anyway, mediation will have to resolve whatever content dispute you are in. However, it's quite clear FkpCascais can be quite insulting in his comments, as shown by those diffs. It seems FkpCascais acknowledges this, but finds this sort of communication justified in dealing with opposition, or doesn't understand how he is being insulting. In fact, he happily continues calling DIREKTOR a troll in his response here, again without any diffs to back up this serious allegation. I asked for diffs in the previous thread, a question which FkpCascais qualifies as borderline vandalism. I feel that if FkpCascais continues to sour discussions with his continued insults and assumptions of bad faith, he should just be taken out of the equation. Saves the mediators a headache as well, so we all win (except maybe Tylenol).--Atlan (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment You forgot one big lost. Article itself. I think that that is the most important part in your equation. I hope that this massive content dispute will be fixed in the mediation. --Tadijaspeaks 11:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I will kindly ask you to remove your comment Atlan. We don´t know eachother from nowhere, you are not an Admin, I have never been incorect with you (yes, your assumption on your comment was close to vandalism). You are being highly provocative towards me, and your comments are all but not fair. All this without any reason. FkpCascais (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
One comment: User:FkpCascais' preemptive "counter-reports", which obviously do not carry weight, should not be a reason for this serious report to be ignored. It is an old and generally known tactic: User:FkpCascais called us "terrorists" so I sternly warned him that he may get reported for this kind of behavior if it continues. As a response, he tried to get both User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself blocked with two very offensive (and annoying) false reports.
Posting massive replies and "counter-reports" are two basic methods for avoiding sanctions when reported on WP:ANI. I'm hoping they will not work here. My post is completely supported by diffs, its a simple account of offenses - please do not ignore. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Tadija, I mentioned I have no comment on the content dispute, as that is all way over my head. If you feel articles will suffer with the loss of FkpCascais, then I'll just have to take your word for it. However, and that was my main point, if all your one's comments are accompanied by assumptions of bad faith and plain insults, you one shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism here on ANI and even a block. I'm aware tempers might flare and discussions can get heated, especially in this contentious area, but that's no excuse to call other editors terrorists and implying their IQ is low, among other things. Futhermore, FkpCascais still fails to supply any diffs proving his allegations of lies and trolling and instead goes on counter striking any opposition he meets. I can't be particularly bothered by calling my comments vandalism when they clearly are not, but it does illustrate the problem with the way FkpCascais deals with other editors.--Atlan (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
@Atlan, are you sure what are you doing here? You have just told User:Tadija that he "might be on criticism here, or even a block"... because he said that he hopes the dispute gets solved??? I am sorry to tell you this, but from what I see, you are only making things worste for people you suposedly defend... I think direktor has been able to handle himself quite well in this conflictous situation. I even respect him a lot and I could easily call him a "specialist", or an "expert" on this kind of disputes, so I really beleve that is kind of offensive from your part towards him to beleve that he couldn´t survive this reports without your precious help. Anyway, you really should spare yourself from further embaracement and remove the unfortunate comments that you have made. I don´t see even one correct neither objective sentence in them. FkpCascais (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
And also Atlan, regarding the IQ issue, what I said is the oposite, something like,"I don´t beleve that you are a low IQ that doesn´t understand when something is being repeated over and over again". I am already repeating this... FkpCascais (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
No, all I told Tadija is that I'll take their word for it if they say you are a valuable content contributor. The rest of my comment was about you, as is rather obvious because it's your edits under scrutiny here. I've altered my post to make that more clear.--Atlan (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As for the IQ remark: That one's equally bad. You basically say: "I don't think you have a low IQ, but it appears you have one anyway." Maybe not as clear an insult as "you are stupid", but an insult nonetheless, even if you didn't mean it that way. What it basically comes down to, is that you should be more careful in what you say to others.--Atlan (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly, what I really mean could be resumed to something like, "I know you are smart, and this missunderstanding has another reason behind, that clearly is not your lack of capability in understanding it." I do recognise that I can be arrogant, but I didn´t insulted nobody, obviously because I have been very carefull, and measured all the words I have said. You must have in account that the majority of the diffs direktor provided are previous to a block that I already and rightfully had because of it. I can´t be punished twice for the same crime... The only ones that direktor has in this report that could be analised are the ones he calls: "simple", "terrorist" and this "IQ missunderstanding". (you can check and see that in all of the cases direktor made quite a missinterpretation and exageration in order to make it look like something that really isn´t). I could only be acused perhaps on arrogance here, but if you rally want to see, you should check the reasons why I have said it, so you could really confirm that they were really soft responces to much worste expressions that were directed towards me. Anyway, I do acknolledge that a really cleaver person would avoid answering to such provocations, but you must understand that after 2 months of this constant game, it is really hard for me not to come from time to time with some of this answers. I am guilty of arrogance, but you can also see that I am not pretentious, and that I fully acknolledge that on that subject, I am miles behind direktor, and he could really teach me about it. Anyway (I don´t have to, but I´ll do it anyway), I do recognise some reason on your critics about my attitude, and I promise you that I am going to be way less arrogant in future and even more carefull. I sincerely thank you for you having started to have consideration my arguments as well, and the explications I adressed to you, and I send you regards. FkpCascais (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting the "Nazification" crack. How many insults of yours do you think I need to list before an admin should block you? If not 4, maybe 6? 7? 10? You were warned, disregarded that warning and got blocked, and then once again continued the exact same behavior. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, 1 should be enough, but it has to be a real one... Since the block you got me, I did continued with exact same behaviour, I have been extremely patieny with you. Regarding "nazification", thank you for reminding me, I really think that you should treat this issues much more carefully. You have been giving yourself too much freedom on your description of certain historically sensitive issues. I have already told you that you shouldn´t behave so pretentiously about freely making characterizations without any support, just based on your assumptions. You continuously act as you know more than all the experts on the subject. Unfortunatelly, WP is an encyclopedia where some assumptions can´t be described as so because some anonim person calling himself DIREKTOR say so. I will really have to advise you for your own good to lower your level of pretention and open yourself for receving further knolledge. Each day is a new lesson, and fortunatelly for the ones that want, life is good! Cheer up, and if I were you, I would start preparing myself for the mediation, because I am sure the mediators want be so patient with your unpresicions and weird argumentations as I have been. Good luck. FkpCascais (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, only one more important thing. It has been very painfull to see the way you treat other users that disagree with you. WWII is over for a long time now, you know... FkpCascais (talk) 12:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) blocked for 1 year. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Amir.Hossein.7055 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appears to be evading his Commons indef. block for uploading images without permission here on Wikipedia. Can someone look into this? Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please notify them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. Connormah (talk | contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 Blocked for 1 year for uploading copyright violations. Any admin is free to unblock without consultation if they feel it would be appropriate to do so. NW (Talk) 03:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Your notification of this user for their 1 year block has been altered by User:Helloworldhelloiran to read that Helloworldhelloiran has blocked AH for 1 day. Weakopedia (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the contribution histories it may be that AH has taken the new username Helloworldhelloiran and continued to edit around their block. Weakopedia (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Per Wiki talkpage policy I have undone the changes to the block notice. Weakopedia (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have indef-blocked Helloworldhelloiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for disruption and apparent forgery attempts. Crum375 (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


I have a complaint about Wikipedia.

Extended content
Over the past few years, I have been coming on here to edit. I admit, I have had many accounts on here, but they were not intended for harm. The reason I would have many accounts is when I would get harassed on one and the person that was harassing me wouldn’t stop and administrators wouldn’t do anything after I reported it, I felt, in order to get away from the harasser, I would have to make a new account. Recently, I have had many in a short period of time because of one particular user that harasses me. I am not giving out names in order to protect MYSELF, because I know already that the administration/users on here will take that user’s side, as they have in the past. I have been accused of sock puppetry on here because of the many accounts I created, but, if any administrator would realize, especially after I pointed it out, that when I make a new account I “get rid of” the old account, since I don’t make any new edits from the previous account. I was not aware until recently about putting the “Retired” sign on any account you get rid of, and I did that, yet I was blocked.

My edits are not vandalism and I don’t harass other users, yet I get blocked and a full blown sock puppet investigation is done on ME, however, when a user in the past made a side account to harass me, I reported it, however, no sock puppet investigation was done on the basis that the user was making “good” edits from their main account. I made good edits and haven’t vandalized articles from the accounts I have had. Also, this user I am mentioning that had a side account to harass me, accused me of harassing him just because I edited a FEW articles that he edited. We know each other in real life and used to be friends and had common interests, and from what I am aware, as I quote directly from Wikipedia “Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that ANYONE CAN EDIT.”

From my experiences, this seems to be a lie, since any time I make an edit, I am blocked for it. I admit, if I knew you could only have one account and if you get issues with it then that’s it you can’t have any more I wouldn’t have made any more accounts once an issue arised that seemed to have nothing done about it even though I report it and give evidence, and the user that is causing the issue won’t stop, even after I try to talk to them. It seems that the user that I am not mentioning their username that harasses me is in favor of the administrators, since HE was told to make another account because “I was harassing him.”

Funny. When I made a new account in order to GET AWAY from him, he found out about it and mentioned it to another editor in a discussion. I never even edited any of “his” articles, yet I was blocked. (I also understood that nobody “owns” an article, anyone can edit an article, which also seems to be a lie from my experiences. For example, I edited an article recently and got rude messages from another editor saying how I was “messing” up the article for other users just because I fixed some spacing and wording. I never went and put every word together without spaces or put in huge spaces, and I never screwed up words as to screw up grammar, spelling, or anything.

All I did was remove personal opinions- according to Wikipedia, the articles are supposed to have a NEUTRAL point of view- and personal opinions I mean such as “It Is unclear where the house is, some may guess it is in the woods.”)

Now I have been taught in the past that a sentence like that is a personal opinion. If the rules changed, I wasn’t told. Either the rules changed or I’m just not welcome, and I believe the second, that I’m not welcome, from the experiences I have had on here. Even after I put the “retired” sign on my accounts, I was blocked. Anyway, you don’t have to worry about me coming back on here to edit, I QUIT, I don’t care if they go to articles I edited in the past and say that the sky is made of cheese, IF I go on Wikipedia some day and look up the article and see that something like that is there, I won’t be fixing it, since I’ll I probably be blocked again. Thank you for showing how much of a lie you are Wikipedia, you say how anyone can edit Wikipedia, yet if that’s true, then why am I being blocked even though my edits aren’t “bad”?I explain things to the best of my ability when I am accused of sock puppetry, yet I’m blocked. When Wikipedia users decide a user is not welcome, they make sure that person knows it. Wikipedia is pretty biased and racist in my opinion, and that is thanks to the experiences I have had on here.

Thank you Wikipedia, for showing me that you are nothing but a useless, racist, biased piece of shit, and that is thanks to the users on here that have made my experiences on there HELL. (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of usability of the board, I've collapsed your note, which is still readable to anybody who would like to peruse it. If you feel you were unfairly blocked under your first account, you should go back and appeal that block. See Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Once you have no taint of block evasion, then you can consider a clean start if you like. Meanwhile, it's pretty difficult to assess the legitimacy of your complaints without details. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If your experiences here are hellish, why keep coming back? Masochist? Anywho, we need to know details if you want some sort of investigation. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware "sock-puppeteer" was a racial/ethnic group. - Vianello (Talk) 22:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... Rainbow socks... Nice! LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see where accusing us (Wikipedia) of "racism" really fits (or works out in his benefit). RaaGgio (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
From my experience, anyone shouting racism is most likely a troll and should be treated as one. The likelihood of someone knowing your ethnicity on the Internet is lower than the likelihood of seeing a live ivory-billed woodpecker. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 17:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Todd[edit]

Resolved: blocked, watch for socks Toddst1 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, we've had an edit war going on for over a month in the Corporation article, and it has gotten to the point where no progress is going to be made without admin intervention. I'd appreciate if you could have a look.

The user in question, Professor Todd (talk · contribs) has engaged in ongoing edit warring [36], personal attacks [37] [38], and sockpuppetry [39].

Based on his last edits [40], ProfessorTodd expects an admin to resolve the situation in his favour, so it seems that we're past the point of where we can productively discuss the problem on the article's talk page. --Jonovision (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a long line of absurd behavior from a very opinionated editor. The irony is that in all that I've looked at on the talk page and recent reverts, I'm still unclear about what this user objects to. The description (that's sourced) that keeps being removed seems fair. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the use of IPs from exactly the same geographical region that only edit on this page, and always appear to support the user account, is quite a coincidence. It's an almost comical situation. I RVed to a previous version, that had almost no real substantive edits. As someone familiar with corporate law, I'm underwhelmed at any questions of a problem on that page, generally. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this clearly seems to be a problematic situation and a recurring issue. Blocked for one month as this is a repeat of previous problems. If the editor uses any sock accounts or ipsocks during this block, this should be extended to indefinite. Toddst1 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Predictably he is now emailing OTRS and no doubt in time will go to unblock-en-l. Somebody he has not previously encountered needs to sit down and explain it to him. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible G4[edit]

Resolved: Deleted, DRV is the way forward

Can an administrator look at the deleted history of Sebastian_Cole to check if the new version falls afoul of WP:G4? (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'd say it probably does. For record:
is the log entry. The article is a stub, the subject is marginally notable and apparently requested deletion last time around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not "substantially identical"; it looks like entirely fresh text. But the deleted version is largely superior to the old one (only the 2003 award wasn't mentioned there) and contained additional biographical information. The references that support (or don't) the article are much the same. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 16:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Finlay. (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it. It contains little more that asserts notability and given that the subject requested deletion of this marginally-sourced BLP last time, I think it needs to be recreated in userspace and taken to DRV if it is to be restored. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unencyclopedic language by User:UplinkAnsh[edit]

On 11 April at the Pakistan Air Force article I reverted an edit because of the nationalistic and unencyclopedic use of the word "crushed":

"During the war 16 PAF pilots volunteered to go to the Middle East in order to support Egypt and Syria but by the time they arrived, Egypt's and syria's militaries had already been crushed by the IDF." (Link to diff)

In this context the abbreviation "IDF" stands for "Israeli Defence Forces". The text was added by an anonymous editor with IP address Special:Contributions/, which according to geo-locates to "Tel-Aviv (05), Israel". I noted this in my edit summary.

My reversion was undone by UplinkAnsh on the same day. He stated the following in his edit summary: "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter." (Link to diff)

I am already in a dispute with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article regarding his unencyclopedic and unverifiable edits. PNS Ghazi was a Pakistani submarine which sank during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

"At the same time Indian destroyer INS Rajput started moving out of port on a mission to Bangladesh.[11][12] What followed was a deadly game where both sides were on tenterhooks."

Diffs of my edits to remove such text followed by reversions by UplinkAnsh:

I have attempted discussion with UplinkAnsh at the PNS Ghazi article and have found it to be a waste of time. He repeatedly reverts my edits and, although offering to discuss the matter, constantly ignores the points put forward by myself and the references. I believe some sort of action should be taken against UplinkAnsh for his continued unencyclopedic edits. Thanks.-- (talk) 13:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have notified UplinkAnsh of this discussion, as you should have done... Regardless, I find that UA has indeed edited to an anti-Pakistan/pro-India POV in the given diffs, and that the blind revert to the PAF article - which reintroduced a spelling mistake and an obvious POV term from a likely biased ip editor - is particularly problematic. While I am certain that there will be counter claims of bias by Hj108 (talk · contribs) (the presumed id of the ip that filed this report) this appears to be an instance where there should be a warning on further conduct, unless there is a good explanation given. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
UplinkAnsh is also involved in an edit war at Bangladesh Liberation War. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out netural editors here that Hj108 has been consistently trying to get me banned by rather than working towards betterment of articles by providing refrences and solving disputes on talk page. He has been consistently complaining on almost every noticeboard that his own views(which are unrefrenced) which he claims to be the official Pakistani version are not being added to PNS Ghazi article.

I would like to trace the details of conflict

  1. 18 March: I started to add refrenced data from reliable sites. I found sites based in US, Russia and India. However Pakistani media or offical Pakistani Navy site did not mention the incident and I found no refrences. I invited Hj108 to add more Pakistani sources and discuss on talk page. However Hj108( replied only a couple of times not getting into serious discusion and maintained that his views based on a UK based self published site pakdef.infoshould form the bulk of articles text.

Rather than adding more reliable sources all he consistently blanked all all sources which I cited. Following are some of his edits/reverts in which he had blanked comlplete sections of articles along with citiations

He then started to complain across various noticeboards.

Following are the list of his complains on various noticeboards and reviews by netural editors

  • 1st complain:Complain on Wikiquette
    • Result: Diff of edits done by netural editor
    • The editor also asked us to solve the dispute on talk page but Hj108 rather than entering a discussion again complained on Neutral point of view Noticeboard.
  • 2nd complaint:Complain on Neutral Point of View Noticeboard
    • Result: He recognised that Hj108's views were completely borrowed from a single self published site and were a fringe theory as per WP:GEVAL, so should not be accorded more weight than that according to WP:UNDUE. He also found history section on offical Pakistani Navy site which only mentioned that the submarine was sunk in 1971 with no details, and another netural site based in UK which contained details regarding the article. Hj108 who now had started discussing on talkpage and Neutral Point of View Noticeboard, started calling all cited sources as unreliable and still maintained that contained the only correct and offical Pakistani version.
  • 3rd and 4th complaint:He has presently complained on Complain on Administrators' noticeboard and

Complain on Content noticeboard

Following his persistence of adding large amount of data form I verified it's reliablity at Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please note the the mission statement of this self published site states:

  • Our contributors realized that the mainstream media around the world, as well as publications from respected policy analysts tended to mischaracterize Pakistan by exaggerating its deficiencies, while downplaying its endeavors and achievements in pursuit of a peaceful world.
  • We welcome any papers, articles, data, book reviews, historical papers and articles, pictures from the glorious past and the loving present, and thought provoking thesis on Pakistan to be published on the website
  • PMC and its Editors reserve the right to accept or reject any material without any explanation.

Editors at Reliable Sources noticeboard also agreed that this site was self published.

Clearly this site which Hj108 whole heartedly believes indoes not appear to be meeting the criteria elucidated at WP:RS. Looks like they accept only articles which talk about the glorious past and the loving present of Pakistan and discount what is said in the 'mainstream media' and in 'publications from respected policy analysts' reject other material without any explanation. Hardly the qualities WP requires of RS.

So, from my end I have only added refrences from reliable sources to help improve the article PNS Ghazi. If offical Pakistani Navy site and Pakistani news articles do not give details of the sinking of the submarine and only mention that it sunk in 1971, it does not mean we have to add original research of Hj108 and self published site as offical Pakistani version to achieve neturality. I have consistently told Hj108( in each of my edit on talkpage he is free to add refrences from reliable Pakistani sources and make edits to the article but his original research does not matter much on wikipedia.

I however accept the edit on PAF article was a mistake. I was working late that night, going through articles history and rather thought the word "crushed" had just been added. I undid the latest revision and went to sleep not checking the results. However my intention for the edit can be seen by the edit summary in which I stated "Reinserting more neutral term. Location of editor does not matter".

Regarding Bangladesh Liberation War the unsourced POV edits of BangladeshPride which added unnecessary verbiage in form of repetition to stress on certain points have been reverted by editors Drmies and Sentinel R as well. I am following wiki policy of assuming first 2 edits to be good faith and now have issued him warning regarding his edits. --UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

An ip from Tel Aviv changing wording to that of the Egyptian/Syrian forces were "crushed" by the Israeli Defense Force is unlikely to be introducing bias? Uh-huh!? I would also comment that in regards to some of the references provided by you for the sinking of the Pakistani submarine by Indian forces do not actually make that claim - but offer some officers opinions about the possibility of there being a result of depth charging (and the reference regarding the disposition of the Pakistan Navy is a mirror of WP). I mostly see each editor removing the others references in preference to their own, which mirrors a nationalist pov. The fact that the Pakistani sources appear to be a self published site does not mean that the Indian ones are either particularly reliable or otherwise free from bias (and they do appear to be circular also, in that they use each other to back up their claims). However, ultimately, this board is not for dispute resolution but for admin response to possible policy and guideline violations. I think both principle editors in this case need to look very closely at their own editing and try and determine whether they are contributing in an effort to improve the encyclopedia, or to promote a viewpoint which favours one side of a nationalistic subject to the detriment of the other. If it is the latter, then it needs to be recognised that the other viewpoint must be represented (as far as reliable sources allow) for there to be an neutral pov - otherwise an enforced withdrawal of editing privileges is a possibility. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
well said LHvU. it appears though HJ108 is forum shopping and hoping to find somebody who is sympathetic. even though WP:RSN thread seems to point out that is a self published site and not RS he has shown no intent of removing that info and the article on Ghazi continues to present that as the official Pakistani version. one common problem in these situations is when people from a particular side of debate start believing that their version should get 'equal weight' rather than proportional weight in conformity with WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. giving fringe theories equal weight in the article does not make an article Neutral.Wikireader41 (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Nick bttm[edit]

Nick bttm (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) continues to upload copyrighted material comprising both unsourced/unlicensed images with false claims of self-creation and text (such as creating The Marine 2 (film) and uploading File:Marine2 dvdcoverart small 1.jpg earlier today). Copyright problems extend back to 2008 judging from his talk page (reporting here per WP:COPYVIO). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A short-term block might help the user become familiar with our policies while they take a break from uploading images. They appear to have been sufficiently warned but haven't taken it on board. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Blocked 2 weeks for creating copyvios. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone has broken AfD[edit]

Resolved: WikEd has broken AfD. Reported at CaCycle's talk page. No intervention required. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Irish Amateur (2nd nomination)

One of the editors keen to see this article kept, left a strange 'note' for the closing admin, to the effect that "the automatic AFD statistics are not recognising some of the votes cast" (what automatic statistics), so the admin will have to count votes manually. This is not the problem. The problem is that when I went to add a comment about it not being a vote, the edit box came up totally blank and free of content, and when I tried previewing an edit, nothing showed up. This is a new one on me, and is not repeated editing in other places. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It's working for me, are you sure it wasn't just a fluke? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
That's bizarre. It's not just you, I cant edit it either. I tried to make a test edit (adding "this is a test edit" and a sig), and it didnt show up in the page and it doesnt show up in my contributions either. It probably isnt a "sneaky template" problem, since if it were, it'd at least show me editing the misplaced template. It happens both with and without WikEd installed. I'm stumped. Soap 21:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I cant edit any other AfDs either. Soap 21:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't able to and then deactivated wikied and it seems to work now... James (T|C) 21:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I can edit that and other AfDs (OS X, Safari 4). Not sure what the issue is for you chaps. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, even though I also disabled WikEd and still found myself unable to edit AfD's, it seems to work now. So either it was a very temporary glitch of some kind or it really was WikEd and I just had a cache problem for a minute. Im 99% sure it's WikEd that's causing this, but Im not sure exactly how. Soap 21:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, I can edit this and other AfDs in SeaMonkey without any problem. Is everybody back to editing AfDs all right now? Bishonen | talk 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
Soap's right, it is WikEd. Turn it off and presto! editing is back. Turn it back on, and editing is gone. At least I now know what it is....WikEd is doing something strange to the editbox layout as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Soap has reported it and I've reported it - WikEd bugs usually get fixed fairly quick, so I guess that's all that's required. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This was part of the new "streamlined AfD discussions" feature. jæs (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted wikEd back to the previous version and will try to locate that bug, please push Shift-Reload to update. Sorry for that, Cacycle (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:A Sniper[edit]

This user is constantly reverting my merge tags here,, and here,

There is currently a discussion to merge or delete the article, Ashkenazi Intelligence, which can be seen here, Talk:Ashkenazi intelligence.

A Sniper is the most vocal proponent for keeping the article, so I wanted him to give answers to the questions I was raising regarding the article. This can be seen in my talk section, User talk:ScienceApe, and his User talk:A Sniper. However he seemed uninterested in answering my questions. I asked him if he was interested in improving the article or just making sure it wasn't deleted, and he admitted that he just wanted to make sure it wasn't deleted. I then decided to open up a more serious merger proposal at the respective talk pages, and tag the articles with a notification of merger. However he keeps removing the tags since he is only concerned with preserving the article in question, to which he admitted to. He made it clear to me on my talk that he will continue to remove the tags if I re-add them, so I need some kind of intervention here to prevent him from doing this. ScienceApe (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, one need only check out that two other users (David Kane and Maunus) have already rejected the merge ploy, coupled with ScienceApe's belligerent and frustrated messages at my talk page (attacking me for being a single user account), and the matter becomes more clear. For the record, the last merge attempt was something like four weeks ago, and it is getting old. I have also advised ScienceApe to focus on edits and not another editor, and I have certainly not broken 3RR. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to expand the discussion. Slrubenstien brought up great points, and he even asked me to make a new section so people can focus on the points he raised, and the discussion stagnated. There needs to be more discussion. I made no personal attacks at all. You told me you are only concerned with making sure no one deletes the article and I said that you have this one single purpose. You aren't interested in improving the article. I asked you to work with me, you aren't working with me. Nothing is getting done, that's the problem. You keep defeating merger or deletion proposals, but the article is never improved. I want to change that. You are using very condescending language, "With all due respect" or "Best" while your comments are anything but respectful. You are stifling my ability to improve the article. You haven't broken 3RR because I haven't edit warred with you. After you removed my tags, and told me that you would continue to remove them, I just went here, than waste time with a revert war. ScienceApe (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Editor Maunus has just explained in detail why he has gone from your way of thinking to actually improving the article via edits and the addition of content. A Sniper (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A Sniper made a personal attack against me here, I really don't appreciate being attacked while I'm trying to discuss matters with other users. ScienceApe (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to know how to react to such a frivolous waste of time. This entire admin board filing is based on nothing - it is entirely OK to be bold and revert, as long as there is no violation of 3RR nor an edit war, so what exactly your problem with me is remains a mystery. Your issue seems to be that I refused to engage...and now you call my mentioning of this baseless action as an 'attack'. Other editors had every right to know that you have gone to this noticeboard essentially because I reverted your merge tag and refused to answer your irrelevant questions. A Sniper (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
By calling my merger request a "frivolous waste of time", you are attacking me. The admin board filing is based on this, I told you not to revert my tags, or I would contact an admin, and you called my bluff. As I said before, there was no violation of 3RR, because I didn't undo your removal of my tags and get into an edit war with you. The comment wasn't appropriate to the discussion, and has no place on an article talk page. Talk pages are not a forum, they are for improving the article. Your comment was an attack because you said "Fail." at the end of your comment. ScienceApe (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil editor(s)[edit]

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

Hello, please forgive me if my English is off,

I am reporting rude and unconstructive behavior by a Mike Allen. I said on the Saw VII discussion page I wanted a source for an edit that was made (and removed) repeatedly by another user. I wanted a source because I try to help the article. Mike Allen immediately uses profanity and rude/dismissive behavior. I remind him as nicely as I can of Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:CIVIL, but he does not listen. He deleted my topic, in the edit summary said I was a "troll" and he would report me and with no reason why.

I brought the topic back because no one else answered, and I wanted another opinion. He removed it again and posted on my talk page saying I am a bad editor, which I felt was a personal insult.

Also, Mike Allen has got User:Chzz to threaten to block me for personal attacks, when I'm the one who has been sworn at repeatedly.

Could a word please be had with him, I don't understand what I'm doing wrong?

For instances, please see [41] and [42]

Thank you 110%, POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 03:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

  • There should have never been a request for a source in the first place. The entry was clearly vandalism and, even if his balls really did itch that day, it damn sure isn't encyclopedic and shouldn't be in the article. Just let it go man. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not familiar with the jargon? I already made clear on the Saw VII talk page that I do not care about the edit. My complaint is at the continued hypocrisy and harassment on my talk page.POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 04:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • What jargon? The thing about the directors balls itching was clearly vandalism. Removing it would be proper, not leaving it there and asking for a source. Why? Because the entry would be a stupid, trivial fact of absolutely no relevence and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if it could be reliably sourced. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no harassment, Power Slave. Demanding that a source be provided for something as retarded as that is about as clear a case of trolling as one can find. I'd be surprised if you didn't earn a short block for this if you persist in keeping this gag running across the project. Tarc (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Well I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with the jargon of balls meaning testicles, I always used juevos but that is not the point. The point is that I have followed policy and guideline and other editors are demonizing me. POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 04:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, what is meant by earning a short block? POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 04:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you see the yellow box at the top of the page when you edit this page, which says You must notify any user that you discuss.? Did you do that? No. Woogee (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Mike Allen requested me to report him so I did. I'm sorry I forgot to tell chzz, but I was not sure if he was a person or an automation. POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 04:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Where did you notify Mike Allen? Well, that's it, I'm not going to continue this, WP:DFTT. Woogee (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
On my talk page. And again with the "troll" jargon. Please keep the personal assaults to a low. Considering a number of "editors" have been impeding my ability to help the article, I'm inclined to think I am not a troll. You are all hobgoblins in that case. POWERSLAVETALK/CONT 04:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This is all nothing but a tempest in a teapot. Power Slave appears to be a non-native English speaker, so perhaps some of the idioms that many of you are using have been unfamiliar to him. Power Slave, the reason that people reacted the way they did was the information that you asked to be sourced was unquestionably vandalism, and you seemed to be asking for sourcing of a vandalism that was appropriately reverted and ignored. Perhaps this whole thread could be archived? There is no administrator action to be taken here. NW (Talk) 04:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Serial sockpuppeteer Polylepsis, another sock.[edit]

I'd like to point out that User:Ao333 is clealy another of the many sockpuppets of serial sockpuppeteer user:Polylepsis but I'm unsure how to file a sockpuppet report. Wetog (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to file a report now Wetog (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User Tbhotch and Lil-unique1[edit]

Resolved: Blocked one week by Black Kite.—Kww(talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Please report Lil-unique1 and Tbhotch, as they are threatening me on the site. Tbhotch refers to Lady Gaga articles via her real name, when it should be via her stage name for reliability and accurate purposes. And user Lil-unique1 has threated to contact an administrator to report me. Please can you place some sort of block on the? Thanks. CharlieJS13 (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, CharlieJS13, but your recent edits here and here are disruptive and completely inappropriate. You should not remove a third person's comments from someone else's talk page, and you certainly may not edit war over it. Please stop immediately. — Satori Son 15:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. "report me because I called Lady Gaga, Stefani Germanotta" its ridiculous. I asked If you wanna do that changes, you should discuss it first on the talkpages, after this you started blanking my user page and my talkpage. TbhotchTalk C. 15:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
CharlieJS13, I see you've already been blocked for your edits here and here. My suggestion is for you to please take a deep breath and for everyone to try and discuss this content dispute calmly on the appropriate article talk pages. Good luck. — Satori Son 15:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Since this content dispute involves numerous articles, I have asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name. Anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion there. — Satori Son 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13 has been reported at WP:AN3 as well: [43].—Kww(talk) 16:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Withdrew the AN3 report, as CharlieJS13 has begun to communicate.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
He may have begun to communicate, but he refuses to be reasonable at all, and insists that he is correct in the face of contrary evidence. In my opinion, his contributions in this regard should be reverted and the traditional convention followed until a cogent argument to the contrary can be formulated. Tan | 39 18:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree that his version of "communicate" seems to involve selective hearing, selective reading, and a lot of assertions. I've reverted the articles to the sourced, BMI-aligned versions, and hopefully they will stay their unless there really is a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name to change from the normal format.—Kww(talk) 22:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to comment on the discussion since i have been involved. CharlieJS13 recently made a number of edits to all Lady Gaga song articles changing the writer credits from Stefani Germanotta. I pointed out (and reverted) the edits citing WP:MoS and also stating that it is standard practise to acredit artists by the birth name for song credits. Following my revert CharlieSJ13 put the following hidden comment at Telephone (song) "The main artist should be credited by their stage name not their real name". Following this comment i left a message at his talk page [44] which he subsequently removed without replying [45]. The following another revert he made i once again asked him to clarify upon what basis he was chosing to revert content [46]. Then i once again asked him if we would respond [47] to which on April 15 i got no reply. CharlieSJ13s page is littered with various warnings about the addition of unsourced content, edit warring and warning templates not just provided by myself. [48]. At one point following his own block for edit warring he contact User:Vaniello who is an admin to request that User:Tbhotch is blocked from editing.[49] On April 16 the following to comments shown in the one diff were left on my page [50]. Now i'm sorry if i was too harsh with the user in my comments... that much i might be willing to accept but then for me to come back today to find that i've been accused of threatening CharlieSJ13 is actually quite hurtful and i believe the basis of this ANi is unfair against both me and Tbhotch. The issue here is not necessarily over content it is over the fact that CharlieSJ13 has rapidly reverted and edited against policy (to my understanding) and has failed to discuss the rational. Rather than responding to the polite message i left he simply removed it and then when i started using warning templates he has accused me of threatening him. I believe he has filed this report because i found sources from BMI which list Stefani Germanotta as the songwriter and Lady Gaga as the artist and added them to all Lady Gaga singles. Now he cannot change the information from a valid and credible source and has so filed this report. Might i also remind people that CharlieSJ13 has been involved in removing content from another user (Tbhotch)'s personal page.Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that CharlieSJ13 has continued to revert sourced information. Look here [51] where's he's removed a valid source and then changed Stefani Germanotta to Lady Gaga and again in several articles immediately after User:Kww notification that he had recieved a WP:3R warning [52], [53], [54], [55]. Also note that his argument is invalid as he changes Nadir Khayat (birth name) to RedOne (stage name) but does not change Rodney Jerkin (birth name) to Darkchild (stagename).Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Also can i add that just 5 mins after i went back to all the articles above and re-added the source and changed back to sourced information it was once again been removed. CharlieSJ13 has now broken WP:3R multiple times and ignored the guidance at WP:Lady Gaga.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • According to WP:NAMES, celebrities should be referenced by proper name first, then by stage name/alias (space/format permitting). That and reminding everyone to read WP:Edit warring is all I'd like to add at this time. - Vianello (Talk) 20:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Aipom610 seems involved in this as well (at least by behavior, can't tell if there's socking or whatever). I'm not involved (and don't want to be!) in the content/editorial dispute about how to word her articles, but WP:BLP attacks on the performer herself are clearly out-of-bounds. DMacks (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst i agree this is essentially a content dispute i would like to know why CharlieSJ13's behaviour has not been addressed. I'm aware he has been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring but the in the discussion i explained how he had removed content that had a credible source as well as attempted to black User:Tbhotch's personal page. Finally he issued this WP:ANI without warning or responding to requests that several users had made to him about discussing the nature of his edits. Am i the only person who thinks that it should be explained to him that wp:Warning Templates are not threats and also what ANI actually is because to me it doesnt seem like he understands the nature of whats happened.Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13's block just expired, and he has not only resumed the edit war, he has been corrupting the existing ANI report. I've re-reported him at WP:AN3.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


I have indefinitely blocked, and propose that we consider banned, a user whose entire history is harassing the subject of a WP:BLP, Lia Montelongo. I am presently removing as much of his crap from the history as is reasonably practicable, so it's currently deleted. It will be beack shortly. Accounts include:

I believe this is the real Lia Montelongo:

Articles of interest:

I will semiprotect the talk page of the article on restoration, for obvious reasons. This has been going on for two years at least so it's unlikely to stop at the first attempt. OTRS ticket 2010041610044763 refers. As an aside, why on earth is not blacklisted? It's one of the "sources" this person used. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Four years, not two - Bravo Rio was active in 2006. Endorse ban - This kind of BLP abuse we explicitly and completely do not need here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes please, this is terrible if someone has been harassing and stalking a living person here for 4 years! Totally unacceptable. Institute permanent community ban. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, did you notice the following sentence in the article itself: After trying acting in the late 1990s, she has since been harassed by a producer for over 10 years with threatening emails and putting her images on projects she is not affiliated with. After many years and requests from her to him to leave her alone he has continued to be persistent with attaching his project to any of her most recent successes in hopes to sell more of his extremely low budget film. She has no option now but to proceed with legal action due to recent defamation and family humiliation. That is probably a clue as to who is doing this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP - Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As the article is fully protected, can an admin please remove this ASAP? --NeilN talk to me 00:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • This harassment of a living person is unacceptable. I support a ban. -- Atama 23:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Yes I just realized that it's unlikely that dead persons are harassed but you know what I mean.
Is this topic actually notable in Wikipedia terms. I note the article was AfD'd in 2008 with a no consensus outcome. I would imagine if it went back there today, it would be deleted..... Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
You're probably right, the subject does not appear very notable to me either. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it be unreasonable to list it at AfD, given that it's only Guy's report here that brought it to attention. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
How an article is brought to one's attention should be immaterial, IMO. If you consider the article lacks notability, list it. BLP's need all the attention they can muster. Tiderolls 00:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Only problem is, since the article is protected you can't add the template to the top. Twinkle would probably choke on it too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether or not the article meets our criteria for inclusion, I absolutely would support an indefinite ban under circumstances such as these. jæs (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support proposed ban per nomination. And if a BLP article has borderline notability but remains an attractive nuisance for a four year campaign of socking and harassment, it's better for everyone if we delete it. Notability is a guideline, not a moral principle. Common sense should reign. Durova412 01:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
    10 years, off-wiki. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for repeating the request, but can an admin *please* delete the text referred to above (or at least tell us why deletion is not needed). --NeilN talk to me 01:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hideously, even after all this admin attention, the article STILL violated BLP. I've just removed a horrid chunk. The whole thing is also unreferenced. Should be deleted or stubbed now.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse block/ban and support deletion/salting of article. Despicable. -- œ 02:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Here we go on Bryan's nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I have sent and received an e-mail from Amelia and she supports deletion of the article. Any administrator who stops by the debate, which is clearly going for a delete vote, might be interested in the e-mail, which I will send if she says that it is alright to do so. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse banning - repeated BLP violations as well as abuse of more than one account. This simply should be not on. Harassing the subject of a BLP to the point they contact OTRS clearly shows that this person is abusing their editing powers. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 06:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I have snowballed the AfD as delete, since there was a risk of it being used as a further locus for this foolishness and the subject evidently has no problem with that. I am very heartened by the overall robust response to this, I should say that the supertanker has probably turned on BLP, this is great news. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 50kg Banhammer, please. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Not that I think it will matter in practical terms. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban. Like Shadowjams, I doubt whether a ban will mean much to someone who is willing to behave this way in the first place, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse community ban and this seems like an obvious snowball to me. As I cannot imagine anyone arguing to let a stalker resume editing, I've tagged the accounts appropriately. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Pile-on endorse Looking at this case, we shouldn't be discussing how long to keep this user blocked--we should be contacting his ISP and the police. Also endorse Guy's decision to delete and salt the article for now--if it is to be recreated (and it's a big if at this point), it will need to be completely rebuilt from scratch. Blueboy96 15:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have checkusered these accounts (to the extent they have edited recently) but found no other socks. I am going to delete the userpages and talkpages of most of the accounts, because they are harassment usernames. Please advise me directly of any further incidents involving this situation. My thanks to everyone involved, particularly JzG, for dealing with this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

New user admits to being a return of a banned user[edit]

Resolved: sock blocked, user asked to email to appeal block-Crossmr (talk)

User:CLOSEXACT admitted a few minutes ago that he was a new account for a banned user, Guitarherochristopher, after I asked him so based on similarity in behavior and the fact that he knew who User:White Shadows was and seems to have borrowed an edit notice from User:Master of Puppets. He does seem to be editing in good faith, having created the G-Surfers article just now, and his old user account has had its talk page access disabled, so he could not post an unblock appeal there. I am starting a thread here because I've never dealt with a situation quite like this and don't know what else to do. I realize he will probably be re-blocked, but that he's at least trying to make productive edits makes me feel he deserves something more than simply being reported directly to AIV or SPI as I would normally do with a sock. Soap 01:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Call me crazy but if he can keep up his good edits. I say we give this guy another chance with this current account. I know that he'll be probably re-blocked anyway but thats just my opinion.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you that he's not operating any sockpuppets, if that information helps you somehow. --Deskana (talk) 01:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Not even once was this guy ever useing more than one account. He only got "banned" due to his myspacey edits. It apprears that this account is actually being productive and countering the edits that got him banned in the first place. Like I said, give him a chance. I know that my opinion on this contradicts one of WP's core policies but I think that this case is diffrent and I hope that you all see that as well.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:21, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I do not think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy is helpful, but an indefinite block for a series of problematic edits is not something that anyone should just be able to sock around (whatever their intentions). That said, his edits have turned productive, which is promising. If he would agree to temporarily cease editing using User:CLOSEXACT, and if he would agree to make an unblock request for User:Guitarherochristopher, I think it should be given serious consideration, with the understanding that a return to unconstructive or unacceptable edits would lead to a swift reblock. I think we ought to hold off on dropping the hammer on the new User:CLOSEXACT, and obviously his old talk page should be unprotected so he can make a proper request there. jæs (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't just get to sock our way back in. This guy generated a mass amount of AN/I traffic.--Crossmr (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I was involved in one of his sock puppetry cases (that turned out to be false) he should have his talk page access restored for GHC so he can make a proper unblock request. His socking though has to end.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The sock should be blocked and that is the end of it. Just further evidence that there is no respect for the wikipedia community.--Crossmr (talk) 01:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Very well. I support a block of this sock as a violation of GHC's ban.--White Shadows you're breaking up 01:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
May I interrupt this. I am unable to log in under Guitarherochristopher, so don't unblock that account until I respond to User:Soap or somebody in Wikipedia that I figured out to log in under that name.
01:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
You could have immediately made a statement to that effect but you didn't. You could have contacted the blocking admin immediately and you didn't. You could have done so as an IP. It was 2 days after you made the account and only when questioned did you admit who you were.--Crossmr (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I support a block as well. –Turian (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I support blocking, as allowing this user to continue editing would, IMO, erode the credibility of blocks made in the future. RadManCF open frequency 15:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So much for AGF and "we dont do punishment, we just hope people reform and become good editors". What a load we spout out one mouth while we block people and dont give them adequate tools to tell their side. "Lets block someone, PRIOR to getting their side, then allow them to only edit their own talk pages so they cant even take the admin who blocked them to AN/I and get a fair 'trail', then lets have any decisions to unblock them be made by OTHER admins who are unlikely to question the authority of one of their own." Nice system we have here; so very fair. Not saying this individual deserves to be unblocked, not saying he didnt do things wrong, but if its true he has now been editing nicely within the rules and obeying and respecting Wikipedia it is simply wrong to punish him again now for past offences. We now know who he is, unblock his new account, watch him, and if he does something wrong THEN block him.