Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive634

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

Noticeboard archives


Possible illegal sig[edit]


Would someone have a look at Hinata (talk · contribs)'s sig a little ways up this page, diff and let him know if it violates policy? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:Signatures specifically mentions that signatures should not contain blinking text; it's rather annoying. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Please do speak directly to editors prior to bringing an ANI thread. Had you visited their talk page, you would've seen that they've had messages from two different administrators since their last edit. –xenotalk 18:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, you are required to notify anyone you discuss here, but xeno has done that for you. The user has since changed their signature, and I've gone ahead and disabled the blink above. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Ah, dammit, you're right, didn't notify. Seemed like such a small thing, I figured a quick word from someone who knew policy better than me would suffice. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Not a huge deal. –xenotalk 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
          • That must be why he asked me if I liked his new signature. It wasn't flashing for me, so his comment didn't make sense. Maybe there are indeed advantages to operating a vintage machine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Vintage machine? Hinata talk 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Steam powered. HalfShadow 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
                • Perhaps his steam-powered computer is still running this cranky "operating system". —DoRD (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
                  • It's not steam-powered, it's run by a tireless team of squirrels, some of whom can type, which is why I appear to make evil comments from time to time. When that happens, just assume it's a squirrel. Regarding Windows... 95? You mean there's an upgrade from 3.1? Awesome! Tomorrow I'll go to my nearest Circuit City and get a copy! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Windoze 3.11 is the networked edition - but you could actually skip right to the incredible Windoze 98SE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Romaniantruths (the former and blocked User:Romanianlies)[edit]

Resolved: blocked as sock. Thanks Alison! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

After being blocked for breaking username policy, this editor created a new account with a ironical name. He vandalizes articles about Romanian aviators, including:

3RR-warning given to both of you. Please stop IP-hopping. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So is this now your account, or are you going to keep IP-hopping/socking? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As an aside to the IP user - The user getting a new account name after a username block is an acceptable practice (as is having the account renamed). If they were not blocked for other abuse, that's perfectly OK under our policy. Picking a username we forbid for some reason is not otherwise a problem.
I don't mean to assert there is no other problem - but the username change was normal and not abusive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Incivility / harassment by User:7mike5000[edit]

Resolved: 7mike5000 indefinitely blocked by User:SarekOfVulcanDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Legal threats

Hello. I've posted links and diffs regarding a problem between another user and myself on the Wikiquette alerts page, but nothing has come of it (See: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility_by_user_7mike5000). I've tried to determine what board is best to report this problem, but the chain of command isn't clear, so I'm posting here. Would an admin either direct me towards a functioning committee or group which covers this sort of thing or bring other users into handle this? Since I'm not sure this is the correct page, can someone else notify User:7mike5000 of this comment if it's appropriate to do so? Thanks. TeamZissou (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

He's been informed. - Donald Duck (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The diffs from WQA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000.

This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [17]

  • I undid this and in my edit summary pointed toward the talk page of the article (I wrote, "undone -- see talk page"), providing an explanation here: [18]
  • 7mike5000 then reverted to his edit, stating "Something called an edit summary/ try using it": [19]
  • I then reverted that here: [20] , stating "The edit summary is on the talk page -- I'm invoking the 3-revert rule until issues resolve."
  • 7mike5000 replied then replied to my explanation with this: [21] , a somewhat less-than-civil tirade. Notice the part at the bottom which reads:
Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.

  • I then responded with this incensed reply: [22]
  • 7mike5000 then responded with some taunting and insults: [23] He also added that I hadn't included an edit summary on my first removal of the text, which I had -- I even preserved a copy of said text for discussion on the talk page. I did not respond.
  • 7mike5000, not content with this latest tirade follows up with this: [24] which included more personal attacks. I did not respond.
  • 7mike5000 then decides to continue ranting on my talk page, here: [25].

7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [26] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [27].

That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [28] TeamZissou (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [29] and here: [30], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:

While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've brought the diffs from WQA here and dropp them into the above archive box for ease. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Although he is correct in his tagging of the articles (i.e. they do need references or whatever) that doesn't mean he is necessarily tagging them for the right reasons. I would say that mass removal of a section is a bit of a decisive application of WP:BRD and you might want to have tempered it a bit with discussion first, but the other user's comments are completely dickish. I draw attention to the initial response of "People like yourself crack me up, with your twisted logic and your rude mouth"; "Tell you what mouth, out of the millions of people who access Wikipedia the fact that you run into know it all, trouble makers like yourself is pretty much a given, it's like you people flock to Wikipedia, what is it not enough love from mommy?"; "Displaying bravado and wise comments are easy to do when you sit behind a computer screen. Nobody died and left you boss, and if you want to try and belittle somebody, try harder" and so forth. I am especially interested in why he signed himself "Saddhiyama" [37] I'll ask User:Saddhiyama. --S.G.(GH) ping! 09:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
In this thread on his/her talk page, I pointed out that trawling through another editor's history and tagging their stubs is combative - though in my case, most were justified. Having done it again to TeamZissou, let me just say explicitly 7mike5000, it's inappropriate.
In this thread I recommended 7mike5000 refrain from calling people names and instead "politely argue your case on its merits."
In this post on TeamZissou's talk page, 7mike5000 said, "I myself am going to control my temper. I can state my case in a rational manner without resorting to calling people J***-off"
7mike5000 has admitted here that "I have a tendency to lose my temper and respond with infantile vulgarity" and here that "I tend to overreact so I apologize."
So 7mike5000, you are aware there is an overreaction problem, and you want to modify that behaviour. Please do, because you have a lot to offer. Please thoroughly familiarise yourself with WP:AGF and don't rise to perceived bait. Polite argumentation wins the day. I also suspect you need a firmer grip on WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS. Following these as well as (given your comments about a tendency to overreact) WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, should make your time spent here peaceful and productive. Anthony (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a good faith edit/addition to Smoking. It gets deleted without commentary by TeamZissou. I reverted and state just to use the edit summary. Deleting someones' edit without commentray is rude. He then deletes it again. And leaves this uninformed tirade;
think that there's some bias and misreporting going on here, in that smoking is far more common among people with mental heath issues ranging from depression to schizophrenia, but that the affects of tobacco smoking serves as a "band-aid" for the underlying issues. Also, this entire section was tobacco-centric, and we've gone rounds on this talkpage reminding contributers that there already exists a tobacco smoking article. Indeed, there's already a mental health section in the Health effects of tobacco article. Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles. The lay reader would interpret that in the same way a non-scientist would interpret a wording such as "Evolution is just a theory." The point I'm trying to make is that this is not the tobacco smoking article -- this article is on the practice, culture and history of smoking in general, and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project. 19:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Using comments like; there's some bias and misreporting going on here
and like this: and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project

is enough to gey anybody incensed. If that isn't condesceding, rude, impertinent and uncivil I don't know what is. The audacity to instigate an alteration, then receieve a like response to go complain and try to twist facts.

The fact is that he another user asked this individual to tone done his wise comments concerning others twice.
Complaing about this: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:
They were tagged with appropriate tags. To delete other people's edit and talk down to somebody, then preach what Wikipedia is or is not, and your own "contributions" fail to meet even the most basic tenets, such as a reference. I failed to notice where it states anywhere, that you can't place an APPROPRIATE tag on somebodies article if there has been some disagreement.
This comment:Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page (Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.

--Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC) 
7mike5000 (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Its from TeamZissou contributions page, its kind of funny because now its not there, that's convenient, is it possible for someone to alter or delete user contributions from their history? Of course it is, if you know an administrator or are one. There was a problem with a pictures uploaded at Wikimedia, an adminstrator in Germany fixed the issue, and cleared up the upload summary. So that's what happened here. That's a little disurbing to go through that effort. Forgot to take care of this though:

19:12, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:TeamZissou (→Question about my history: oh you silly goose) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) User talk:Saddhiyama (→Re: Question about my history) 19:06, 9 April 2009 (diff | hist) Talk:Enlightened absolutism (→Benevolent dictatorship: some people just like to cause problems.) and this: I would have preferred not to be dragged into that conflict, for my part any disagreement I might have had with TeamZissou is a closed chapter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Intitiating rude behavior this is all from his contributions page, cur | prev) 20:07, 7 May 2010 TeamZissou (talk | contribs) (9,574 bytes) (added photo (again) -- it was removed by some zealot with a vague comment about it being (""out of context""). Hopefully that user is no longer active, and this useful image remains this time.) (undo and this one 19:46, 2 September 2009 (diff | hist) History of Icelandic (I came here looking for sources, and found not one.) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (diff | hist) List of punk films (→U: not even a hint of tangibly relating to anything punk, either in the film or in any element of culture inspired by it) 06:19, 17 July 2009 (diff | hist) Meadow jumping mouse (Removed poorly written, unsourced material. Ref to Smith was a little distorted -- Good idea for a section, but a very bad section without better language and accurately cited statements.) 18:44, 9 May 2010 (diff | hist) Scythians (Undid revision 361068696 by Gabhala (talk) The pro-Iran rewriting is annoying. Undid revision--look @ previous page edits.)

Someone who has a history of initiating altercations with rude comments, deleting the contributions of others and is obvioulsly on an infantile vendetta.
A simple comment in the edit summary on his part would have avoided the issue, to follow it up with rudeness and condescension just escalated it. To go out of his way to alter or ask somebody to alter his user contributiion log, is, and there is no euphemistic way of putting disturbing. 7mike5000 (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And yet you were quite uncivil yourself. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I specifically said in the original revert AND the second revert that the complete edit summary was on the talk page of the smoking article, and that I not only included the entire section but also outlined what I found wrong with it's content and placement. How long are you (7mike5000) going to continue this? Pointing out another example of my bad behavior in the past isn't helpful. Just drop it, and know that I'll be surveying my watchlist everyday for when you nominate my articles for deletion. Saddhiyama is right in that whatever we were arguing about IS a closed chapter, but it seems prudent that I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I type one finger at at a time so it's getting a bit annoying now. The succinct version:
  • YOU initiated a confrontation with somebody else by arbitrarily deleting a well referenced appropriate contribution in an appropriate section.*
  • In response to being asked to use the edit summary, you leave a condescending and insulting reply in the Smoking talk page.
  • Considering that this is an administrator complaint board and I'm being called a "dick" "but the other user's comments are completely dickish". Anything I have said doesn't seem so egregious.
  • You brought attention to yourself and to articles you "created". The fact is a majority of them are woefully inadequate, and that you are content to leave them like that, so I placed appropriate tags on them.
  • This:I have to now watch closely for nitpicking and juvenile retribution -- no, that's not meant to be insulting, rather it's descriptive. There's no other reason for doing what you've been doing than bullying. I don't want to be back here in a month when you start nominating articles I've started for deletion or moves simply to feed your issues. Also, stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome. It's working, but if that's your agenda, stop. If not, what gives? TeamZissou (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • IS FROM WAY OUT IN LEFT FIELD, if you you are not capable or are too lazy to create an appropriate article, that's your personal problem not mine, I merely place the right tags on them.
  • Placing this on the "article" Sherman Trap shows your maturity. Thats not the way you reference something:
    • Numerous scholarly articles[44]
    • Numerous academic texts concerning small mammals and ecological surveys[45]
  • Placing this on the Talk page of Sherman Trap [46]; again shows your maturity.
  • "stop trying to bait me into a bitching fest -- dealing with internet tough guys is wearisome"

not for nothing that is pretty wacky comment considering you seem hell-bent on creating an issue in the first place and then perpetuating it with this bogus complaint. It seems you thrive on a being part of a "bitching fest"

  • Dealing with people like yourself is getting " wearisome" to me. You detract from Wikipedia by initiating anomosity, and when you can't deal with what you dish out, complaining about it.
  • I don't appreciate being slandered and maligned on the internet, unlike yourself Mike is my real name, it doesn't take to much effort to see that I don't look like Mister Bean, because my picture is on the Internet. And trying to make me look like a jerk-off is getting "tiresome". My nature and my character are self evident by what I write and what I have contributed to.[47]. So enough already, I have things to take care off, and wasting time with an adolescent on a vendetta isn't part of it. I have no intention of doing or saying anything else in regards to this nonsense. If others feel this B.S. warrants otherwise, your prerogative, do what you got to do. I won't be responding for quite a while because I wont be on Wikipedia or the internet in general.7mike5000 (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Half of your justifications for your actions comes from completely unrelated material I was involved with a while ago. You're not being slandered or maligned, but you are doing quite a bit of that yourself. The original and only problem you've ever had with me that's anchored in something directly related to you was my revert of your edits to the smoking article. You accused me or removing your text without explanation, which was false. You went out of your way to insult me instead of discussing the problem or recognizing that there was a perfectly good spot for your content on the appropriate page. You then came to my talk page and continued insults as well as pointing out everything you could find disagreeable about my history on Wikipedia -- in no way relevent to your problem with my revert, which could simply be overcome by placing your contribution on another page. You've focused on my character over and over without discussing the actual problem, merely to emphasize a personal attack on me, rather than move or fix your contribution. You've invoked the same rhetoric and played the same baiting games this whole time, and a copy of your content still sits on the smoking talk page waiting to be amended and/or moved by discussion of its merits and proper article place. If you're afraid of people thinking poorly of you in real life, Mike, then don't act like you have here in real life and hope others won't act that way either. Because, if this were real life I'd be like the neighbor who told you that you couldn't park your car on the boulevard, and you'd be the neighbor who yells at me over the fence, throws my newspaper away, and then addresses the city council on the finer points of how I haven't shoveled or cut my grass by the rules every time. How could I not view this as "wearisome"? And, using your own words written just above, who is the one making you look like a jerk-off? PUT THE SECTION YOU WANTED ON THE GENERAL SMOKING ARTICLE -- THE LENGTHY, IN-DEPTH AND WELL-CITED ONE ON HOW TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES SUICIDE AND TOBACCO SMOKING CAUSES DEPRESSION -- OVER ON Health effects of tobacco, IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT. TeamZissou (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, "IT'S NOT THAT HARD, AND STOP ACTING LIKE A WP:DICK ABOUT IT." I sincerely do appreciate the advice and since were pals now, I have a few helpful pointers, if you need help on writing articles, expanding them beyond a sentence or two, or the finer points of adding a reference I think you can find help here: WP:Mentor or here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User, I found this to be helpful as well Wikipedia:Your first article. I feel so much better now that we are giving each other useful advice, maybe we can exchange recipes some day, or go get our nails done together or even do each others hair. I've been to South Dakota, I was at Pine Ridge and Rosebud, maybe we can hang out together someday and sing Kumbaya, or any song you like, I think that would be groovy. Have an excellent day TeamZissou, your a real swell pal. 7mike5000 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
The best thing that's coming out of this is that every single comment you make will make it all the easier to have an admin ban you the next time an editor does something you don't like and you feel compelled to spend the better part of a week being an internet tough guy. TeamZissou (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yelling at people in caps and calling them names isn't going to win you any sympathy from admins.— dαlus Contribs 09:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
After reading through everything 7mike5000 has said, how he has said it, and in consideration of why he has said it, how would you respond? It makes me angry that after making a legitimate edit and criticism about text placement, all I've received is a stream of insults and jeers irrelevant to the origin of the dispute, which (as far as I know) still hasn't simply been placed on it's appropriate page. And, I think the tactic here by Mike is to draw this out as long as possible until the original problem is obscured and the argument comes down to who's doing more of the insulting, which is precisely why I'm claiming that he's baiting me. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away -- if he's continued to pursue this as roughly and tenaciously as he has over something he could have simply taken care of by three mouse clicks, I have little faith that he'll stop here and continue to target my edits and contributions for no other reason than spite. Because of this, I encourage anyone who comments on this issue to review the problem and the exchanges starting as the very beginning -- the evidence will speak for itself. One editor reverted an edit in good faith and reason, and another decided to take it personally and spend their time spitefully harrassing and taunting that editor. The issue here is will this stop, and if not what are the solutions? Given the length of time and the depth of retribution over reverting one chunk of text in good faith, it isn't unreasonable to expect further harassment in the future, and so what solutions can be considered there? I posted to the admin board seeking such solutions, and the old "don't say anything" doesn't appear to be a good one. I've personally been banned from editing for half an amount of hot-headedness as what Mike's done. Returning to the possibility that I've not seen the end of his disproportionate animosity, this record in the very least provides a foothold to address future attacks. 7mike5000 has clearly been wikihounding me, and I've asked the admin community to review the situation and offer guidance regarding Wikipedia:Harassment#Consequences_of_harassment. My only other option is to go to Wikipedia:Admins_willing_to_make_difficult_blocks, but jumping on that option isn't very Wikipedian. Other than "ignore him", input? TeamZissou (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) 7Mike5000, has been causing problems elsewhere, including repeated unprovoked abuse on the ADHD talk page to Doc James and other editors, see this for example,Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/Archive_19#Congratulations and only a week or so ago he injected himself into a dispute which had nothing to do with him on Tom Cloyd's talk page where he character assassinated SandyGeorgia and he has now likely escalated a dispute between Sandy and Tom out of all proportion which I was hoping to try to resolve.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified both Doc James and SandyGeorgia of this discussion incase they want to contribute their thoughts on these issues with 7Mike5000.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I agree with LG's and AnthonyCole's characterizations of 7Mike5000's problematic edits and behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Definitely Mike needs to be more open to feedback. I concur with LG and Anthony.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My response[edit]

I wrote a response that was in the same vein as those above then deleted it, I don't to stoop to the baby name calling... anymore, because I know how to write and I don't need to use specious allegations and Doublespeak. My character is right here:[48]. The old man who went flying out the rear window of his car didn't think I was "DICK", when I helped him. The other old guy who hit a tree in the same accident didn't think so either. The day before my "behavior" got my picture on the front of the Merced Sun-Star, holding a missing child's poster and talking to the mother, because I care. Which is why I'm responding because to reiterate: I think knowledge can be useful and can help people and Wikipedia by virtue of it's rankings in the search engine and it's extensive hyperlinks can help disseminate that knowledge. And untalented penny-ante people are using Wikipedia for there own ego-strokes, which is what initiated this nonsense in the first place, and the replies from the peanut gallery.
My character is also self evident in what I have written on here: Depression (differential diagnoses), Terrell Peterson, Foster care, Bullenhuser Damm, Anorexia nervosa, Maudsley Family Therapy I think it's self evident that I don't suffer from Anorexia nervosa, and the differential diagnoses of depression, alot of people suffer and die because they don't know what the differential diagnoses are, and even that article, became the target of the same B.S. I have to go out of my way and type my one finger at a time response, so useful information doesn't get deleted, and I have to deal with comments like this,Should we examine people carefully? absolutely and this is what the other article already states. 'nuff said. User:Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Talk:Depression (mood)#Merge discussion A topic that affects the lives of millions, and of all the "medical experts" on here, I happened to be the one who addressed the issue and started the article. Only a few people on here have tried to improve it and expand it's information like:User:Anthonyhcole/Differential

7Mike5000, has been causing problems elsewhere

That's funny: I've tried keeping to myself and doing the right thing
Have I improved the content on Wikipedia, I think so:[49][50]Wikimedia:[51]
Articles I have entirely reformatted and contributed to, like New York City, Brooklyn, Staten Island, Auschwitz concentration camp, Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, Empire State Building and rewrote entirely like Central Park, Wounded Knee Massacre and Anorexia nervosa. Collectively get way over 1.3 million hits a month.

Alice in Wonderland allegations

This little gang-bang started because of a good faith edit on Smoking, referencing the fact that smoking is linked to depression at least doubles the suicide risk. The article mentions the I.Q. of Israeli soldiers that uses only one reference, which if you people want to preach, violates WP:MEDMOS in relation to primary sources, but a few paragraphs about Smoking, depression and suicide using multiple such as listed below are deemed irrelevant:
  • Increased Depression Risk / Medscape[52]
  • Cigarette smoking and completed suicide among middle-aged men: PMID 15780776
  • Cigarettes and suicide: a prospective study of 50,000 men.PMID 10800427
  • Smoking and suicide among nurses. PMID 8427332
  • Cigarette smoking and suicide: a prospective study of 300,000 male active-duty Army soldiers PMID 10873129
And for putting that there some guy who is capable of writing little more than one line articles about a rat and an unreferenced "article" on a brand of rat trap Sherman Trap, tries to make a fool out of me by among other things leaving a comment like this Beginning a section with weasel words like "There is a proven correlation between cigarette smoking and depression," doesn't make for factual articles and this and pamphleteering to persuade isn't the point of the Wikipedia project., anybody would find that insulting, but he can't handle himself in a verbal confrontation, so he starts crying, slinging allegations and tries obfuscating the facts with verbose nonsense. Pointing to this: Talk:Smoking#Section on Depression vs. Suicide is supposed to make me look bad? If you can't handle sarcasm don't dish it out, and don't cry when you get a response spend the better part of a week being an internet tough guy. you (User:TeamZissou) initiated the whole thing and won't let it rest The content of my character is self evident, and you people want to sit here and gang-bang me.
If somebody is lacking in intellectual and creative ability that is not my problem. All this geeky B.S and the comments from the peanut gallery are from people who have a history of INITIATING confrontation by being rude and obnoxious, and when their ability to defend themselves verbally is as deficient as their other abilities they throw a temper tantrum, try to put a spin on the facts and get the other person banned.


People want to preach what Wikipedia is to others, Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for intellectually and creatively challenged people with bruised and damaged psyches to dictate to the rest of the English speaking world what is and is not allowed, especially when they have no innate ability. All you have to do is look through the user "contributions" of the people slinging allegations, it's mostly TALK, why don't you try writing and improving the content starting with your own, and get off your high horses. It is also somehow ironic that everybody with a comment has been involved in conflicts with more than one person that they initiated. Go through every single edit summary, I do not leave rude comments, any words I have had with anybody, I have not initiated, I try and keep to myself.

Comments to the commentators

User:Literaturegeek: I went through your recent contributions[53], after a couple of months worth it seems likes it's all talk. The last time I checked Wikipedia wasn't Facebook. It seems like you have elected yourself bureaucrat. Mentioning this:Tom Cloyd's talk page. You have the audacity to state "injected himself into a dispute which had nothing to do with him"... and what exactly did you do? Is your permission required? And your self righteousness is on display with your long drawn out dissection of Tom Cloyd's "behavior". As for "escalated a dispute between Sandy and Tom out of all proportion", either that is an irrational comment or I must have amazing powers I was not previously aware of. The content and quality of Wikipedia isn't your prime motivation, the evidence of that is you have all the time to Talk yet most of the "articles" you have "created" consist of one line:[54]
User:SandyGeorgia, anybody who does not find your comments and behavior here: :User_talk:Tomcloyd#Your behavior and personal attacks, disturbing, is either being disingenuous or irrational. You excoriated a professional who is using his real name, face, and who is also self employed, for a comment he made to another user. Your haughty and imperious manner is self evident. You are slinging all these accusations against the guy. I was wondering why there is a paucity of medical and mental health professionals contributing content here, it is precisely because of that behavior. The most altruistic of professionals wouldn't want to deal with that lunacy. I think Tom Cloyd answered you and brings out your true nature and motivation To suggest that my rejection of shoddy claims about EMDR promotes anything personal is nuts, here lets all have a look:Talk:Posttraumatic stress disorder#COI Was I too far off the mark? Obviously not: agree, in essence, with your points. I found the repeated posts by SandyGeorgia, into the wee hours, browbeating. This was overkill. User:MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jmh649: Nothing personal but you really should not be commenting on anyones character, when your own is open to considerable debate. And quite frankly the fact that you were made an administrator detracts from Wikipedia's credibility. Some case points:
  • A laymen like myself should not have to explain to a physician, why:
    • You don't put pictures that romanticise death on an article about Suicide. Talk:Suicide#Picture.
    • You are a physician you should be aware that posting pictures of emaciated girls suffering from anorexia nervosa is unprofessional and psychologically harmful. Talk:Anorexia nervosa#No picture?
    • I also pointed out to you previously that posting a surreptiously taken photograph of someone's child on the internet as you did here:Childhood obesity is unethical and potentially psychologically harmful to the child if they should become aware of it. You originally concurred, but I notice there is a picture there of someone elses kid now. Nobody with any degree of common sense or decency would post that...but you did, and you cropped it, so there the kid is in all his "obese" glory. Any of you people on here passing judgement are pretty hypocritical, if any of you are fat, post your picture, you wouldn't do it but it's okay for somebody elses kid.
  • Your comment here:User talk:Jmh649/Archive 10#Depression (disambiguation)
    • One must make the diagnosis before they consider the differential diagnosis. Thus the ordering.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • That is called medical misinformation not how you practice good medicine, this is how you do it:
    • a "roadmap for diagnosis" that leads the clinician through a disciplined process of considering a broad differential diagnosis and narrowing this differential to arrive at a working diagnosis.[55]
    • Am I capable of writing medical articles? maybe more so than yourself you started this:[56] I turned it into this:Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome, and I had to tell you the correct name:Talk:Hemoglobin Lepore syndrome, another example
[57] into this Autoschizis.
This article: accoding to your medical expertise;Intrauterine hypoxia (IH, sometimes called birth asphyxia)in your version;[58]
More medical disinformation, Intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia describe separate issues with important medicolegal ramifications. This is my version of Intrauterine hypoxia.
    • You only started those articles to make your article creation count look good. Somebody looks at this:[59], they would say "wow he's smart". The reality is it's mostly fluff, you split off articles because it makes look like you started them, and you start one line articles because it adds to the count and the name looks impressive.
    • I noticed that not only can you juggle balls but you can perform magic, like how did this userbox which used to say This user is sarcastic become This user is obviously not sarcastic. And miraculously going back through the history This user is obviously not sarcastic shows up, now, how did that happen? Alter the template? This is the real you:[60]. An attitude like that doen't change over night, despite your fawning clique.
Your penchant for providing medical disinformation and the pictures you have posted or reposted on the Suicide article;[61], and :Childhood obesity[62], and the picture you had posted on Anorexia nervosa [63]which was deleted 17 minutes later by User:Martin_H. on Wikimedia Commons;[64]
(cur | prev) 10:01, 18 January 2010 Jmh649 (talk | contribs) (34,756 bytes) (added image) (undo)[
| Image = Anorexia 12.jpg
| Caption = A female with anorexia
Okay well I guess I will just wait until I get someone who is anorexic and welling to have their picture taken.Jmh649 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC
Can I use this one? [65] Jmh649 (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is the conversation on Wikicommons:[66]
National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders:Triggering photos of anorexic individuals that are used for inspiration[67]
This is the prognosis section of the article Anorexia nervosa as it appeared when User:Jmh649 uploaded the triggering image of an anorexia nervosa victim:[68]
Anorexia is thought to have the highest mortality rate of any psychiatric disorder, with anywhere from 6-20% of those who are diagnosed with the disorder eventually dying from related causes.[47] The suicide rate of people with anorexia is also higher than that of the general population.[48] In a longitudinal study women diagnosed with either DSM-IV anorexia nervosa (n = 136) or bulimia nervosa (n = 110) respectively who were assessed every 6 – 12 months over an 8 year period are at a considerable risk of committing suicide. Clinicians were warned of the risks as 15% of subjects reported at least one suicide attempt. It was noted that significantly more anorexia (22.1%) than bulimia (10.9%) subjects made a suicide attempt.
Are you even vaguely aware of how reading something like that can affect some of the 3k average users who log onto that article? Or do you just not care, there is something called tact: Anorexia nervosa#Prognosis
legal threat deleted


On Wounded Knee Massacre which I wrote, this occurs onTalk:Wounded Knee Massacre#Grammatical issues: It's a little ironic the timing of a comment by this guy: (I changed "lead" to read "led", for example). I'm not the one with English difficulties here. beerslayer (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I had to explain to him how led is the past participle of lead but now the edit history reflects just the opposite. Considering all he wrote in four years was Hey Boy (TV Character)[69], I quite frankly don't believe he has the intellect to alter edit summaries and I think somebody who is an administrator would have to do it, and the timing of his little quip is convenient.


User:TeamZissou; you can't write, you can't handle what you dish out, and you hurt my feelings, so we are no longer BFFs.
User:Literaturegeek; you value yourself and your opinions highly, bully for you not everybody else does. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia not a social utility. And you should really cool out with the fawning sychophantic behavior with User:Jmh649, because people are starting to talk. Not that there's anything wrong with that
User:SandyGeorgia; Tom Cloyd said it best; This looks like yet another case of your not doing your homework - not that it would have helped your core argument'And using words like Twat isn't very ladylike, especially on the internet, you're not in a bar.
User:Jmh649: I believe your twisted behavior has been harmful to people and is unprofessional and is self evident to anybody beyond that disturbing little clique you are in. Can I use this one? [70] Jmh649 No you cant. And so everybody gets a spin I would like to quote:
Doc James is aggressively partisan and will misuse his Adminstrative powers to advance his agenda User:Hickorybark
I do see an Admin issue here -- a lack of integrity. User:TimidGuy
As I stated elsewhere I am not going to be contributing to or even accessing Wikipedia for a while, until my own personal issues and thus my stress, are taken care of, and maybe not even then. My behavior: I acceded to the fact that I may overreact when provoked, largely in part due to stress and I can't deal with troublemakers especially one after the other, so no more Wikipedia for me for now, but, some of the twisted incompetant behavior I have seen on here is incredible. This is my last "contribution", the people I have addressed, stew all you want, get me banned, alter edit summaries, send each other e-mails, tear apart articles I have written like this baby behavior by ::User:Jmh649 on the anorexia nervosa article: [71], you are not hurting me, I've dealt with alot more than petty words from petty people, you damage Wikipedia and those who can benefit by it.

7mike5000 (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a break. Destress. Wikipedia's not going anywhere. You are overreacting and, I believe, reading more malevolence into others' behaviour than the evidence warrants. In the meantime, please become very familiar with WP:MEDRS and WP:OR - straying from those 2 policies in particular (and WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA) is at the bottom of most of the above strife. Anthony (talk) 11:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Echo that comment, but add that 7Mike might also benefit from reviewing WP:NOT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:TLDR. There are some clear behavioral issues here, and some time to destress and reflect on what Wiki is may help with perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Call for ban, block, indef, or whatever is warranted in such cases[edit]

A long history of abuse by 7mike5000 is outlined above, but this latest aimed at Jmh649, a Canadian physican IRL and a trusted Wiki editor, is over the top, and was likely missed in the WP:TLDR post:

"I think you are little twisted and have no concept of the Hippocratic Oath. I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware."[72]

I don't know blocking policy on this issue, but 7Mike5000 should be shown the door for a very long time for such a threat, in combo with his other misbehaviors. I propose that at least a six-month enforced break is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
For something like that, I don't like to put a time limit on it. Blocked indef -- when he decides he can edit collaboratively without threatening people's livelihoods, he can request unblocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Missed that. Good block. Anthony (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww and WLU[edit]

Resolved: Freakshownerd has been blocked for 48 hours, as well as having his / her talk page access revoked. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Kww is abusing his admin tools to intimidate an editor trying to uphold our BLP standards in order to advance his personal Point of View. He and WLU are removing accurate and undisputed descriptors of William Dembski's career from the lead because they disagree with his positions on Intelligent Design. Apart from the clear BLP violation that these edits have with their potential to damage the man's career, there is also the very serious issue of abuse of admin tools, a subject which I have (quite unfortunately) am acutely aware. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look and can't see Kww taking any recent admin action on that article - can you point directly to what you mean (with diffs or in the logs) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He's using his tools to threaten to block me for maintaining BLP despite my requests that he take the issue to the BLPN noticeboard if he disagreed that removing content on a man's career to make them look bad was inappropriate and in violation of policy. That is an abuse of his tools. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The core of the matter is that this is a content dispute; Freakshownerd contends that the removal of the term "mathematician" from the lead sentence of the article is a BLP violation, and has thrice reverted to keep that term in the lead. Kww and others have pointed out (correctly, I believe) that this is not a BLP violation, and that focusing on the mathematician term is a violation of undue weight. Extensive references throughout the article make the subject's involvement in mathematics clear to the most casual observer, so there is no danger of the subject being considered a non-mathematician. In this particular case, there appears to be no abuse of the tools - no tools have been used in the debate. Freakshownerd, moreover, has repeatedly accused editors of bad faith, and has done so using personal attacks and gross incivility. The most recent block, yesterday, resulted in the removal of the editor's ability to edit their talk page following a pretty nasty tirade against myself and others after I attempted to explain why I declined to unblock. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Your description is inaccurate. He is removing that he is mathemetician, theologian, and philosopher (BASICALLY ALL THE INFO ON THE MAN'S CAREER) from the lead, despite that content being sourced to Time magazine and indisputable. He is doing this solely for the purpose of disparaging a living person who he happens to disagree with. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
He also failed to notify Kww and WLU. I'll do that momentarily. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Toddst already did that. Anyway, I don't see any misuse of administrator tools. Here are Kww's logs, talk page of the reporter, and the history of the article in question. - Donald Duck (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I notified both and was responding to the related discussion on my talkpage. You failed to note that you have been in dispute with me over similar attempts by you to push your personal point of view, and over Rd232's abuse of admin tools. Maybe you should leave this discusssion to the uninvolved? Freakshownerd (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Toddst1 notified Kww, and Freakshownerd and I Edit Conflicted in notifying WLU. Done. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I did briefly block Freakshownerd for an earlier edit-war on the article on August 12. I unblocked after it was pointed out that Freakshownerd had self-reverted as his final reversion on that day. Freakshownerd is edit-warring on the article, and is falsely portraying his edits as reverting BLP violations when, in fact, no BLP violations have been made. Personally, I consider Freakshownerd to be a hopeless case: no concept of what it takes to edit collegially, personal attacks whenever crossed, and basically a single-purpose POV account. I'm to WP:INVOLVED to do it, but I'd propose holding him to a 1RR limit on all articles.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And I propose that you be stripped of you admin tools for abusing them, as you admit in an unfounded block, and for consistently abusing your tools in cases where you are involved. I know you have strong opinions on Intelligent Design, but that does not give you the right to disparage article subjects, especially living ones, or to abuse your administrative status to go after good faith editors seeking to uphold our most basic standards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe an RFCU is in the works, as this person is almost certainly our old ANI-haranguing friend ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs). This savage lashing out at every single admin or user who takes an opposing opinion, especially when the discussion is in regards to his blocks and the perceived ganging-up, injustice of it all, etc...should be quite familiar to those who have had to deal with CoM in the past. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt that it is, and I hope checkuser will confirm it soon. In the mean time, this thread should be closed to avoid further time-wasting. (FWIW, I agree with F that the removed text at Dembski was better left there on NPOV grounds, though removal hardly constituted a BLP violation since the info was still in the article.) Rd232 talk 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Freakshownerd (talk · contribs) and WLU (talk · contribs) - have overstepped WP:3RR on William Dembski today. Freakshownerd is claiming a WP:BLP exemption that I do not think applies as I am not able to direct anything libellous or really contentious. Codf1977 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC) (filed at WP:AN3 here) Codf1977 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • The BLP policy is clear:


BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan' manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject...

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack pages and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}. The idea that it's not a BLP violation to remove all the content about someone's career from the introduction of their article despite it being well sourced and indisputable is outrageous. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  • COM? Is that you COM? Only two days ago Freakshow was blocked by another admin as a sock of Grundle? Has anyone actually made a report? (there is nothing that I have seen that if a big enough issue to be a BLP revert exemption) Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been accused of being the socks of four or so different editors. It happens every time someone disagree with my positions. And Rd232, who abused his tools in another matter where he was involved and edit warring, has said he is engagede in an an off-wiki campaign to get checkusers to block me (ie. a witch hunt). The conduct of these abusive POV pushers and corrupt admins is truly outrageous. If someone thinks the edit is appropriate let's hear why instead of trying to attack and disparage me for upholding our BLP standards. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
If you can't produce diffs or log entries showing that tools have been abused, you really need to stop crying abuse. —DoRD (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Also this is another case of crying abuse from today. Codf1977 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Has a sockpuppet report been made by anyone? Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Grundle sprang to mind and prompted my investigation, which showed from the edit history it's clearly CoM (though it's getting to the point where F's comments alone could be enough). I prefer to keep the details private, since pointing out the socking errors will just make CoM's future socking more effective. (I'm not surprised F has been subject to previous sock allegations - there are various clues that it's not a first account.) Again, I'm awaiting checkuser result, hopefully today, and hopefully that will settle it. Rd232 talk 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you made a proper report, citing your evidence for requesting checkuser? Nothing in your edit history, two days ago you blocked him because you were sure he was a sock of grundle and now your sure hes a sock of COM and no report nothing just a please check this user back door request to a checkuser, with the claim that you don't want the evidence to help future socking attempts, imo that is a rubbish claim for checkuser and you should make an open up front report as you are already accused of involvement and a poor block that was quickly unblocked by another admin. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've emailed detailed evidence to a checkuser and half a dozen admins. I won't quote from private emails, but I can say it's deemed easily sufficient for a checkuser. Rd232 talk 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have consistently been accused of BLP violations, and have consistently asked for clarification on which part of BLP I am breaking. I have yet to get a reply that helps me understand, though I have been accused of vandalism repeatedly. Note edits like this one I made, where I note his former position as a professor of theology. Dembski is primarily a proponent of the creationist pseudoscience intelligent design. I've never removed "all of the information on his career", in fact I have added the listing of degrees he has attained and noted them in the lead. That sentence, "Dembski holds advanced degrees in philosophy, theology, mathematics and statistics, and has written numerous books and articles on the topic of intelligent design and Christian apologetics"? I put that in. It's hard to accurately summarize Dembski's career, given the propensity of ID promoters to claim far more than is their due (Dembski amusingly claimed to have discovered a fourth law of thermodynamics); I think the best position to adopt is to list affiliations and qualifications, and leave it at that. He's certainly not a real philosopher, since he doesn't publish in philosophy journals or write on real philosophical topics. He's not really a theologian either, but he does write extensively on Christian apologetics. Much of this has played out in aggressive edit summaries rather than talk page discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You may be right, but Time described him in that way, and clearly the issue requires more than edit summary discussion. Rd232 talk 15:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There should be enough behavioral evidence so this really should be at SPI if it isn't already, though I share Off2riorob's concerns in that I don't think the evidence needs to be kept private - given the whole blocking while involved and perceptions of fishing. Just looking at the circumstances of his editing, his commentary, and his style, I think he's a sock of CoM. It seems pretty obvious to me and CU isn't the be-all and end-all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with Ncmvocalist & Rob. Open an SPI report - if the evidence really can't be public (and I'm not sure I like the idea of it being private...) then at least the CU is all official and documented. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
As a coincidence, Freakshownerd's account was created exactly 3 days after CoM's last edit. That should probably be taken into account. -- Atama 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That's part of the circumstances I was (vaguely) alluding to, though it would follow that I was a bit more sceptical and didn't interpret it as a coincidence in this case. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've boobed there, it's 19 March and 22 May. In fact Freakshownerd was created some weeks after User:Electroshoxcure's last edit (the previous CoM sock). Rd232 talk 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
This being another part of the circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I did goof with the dates, sorry about that. -- Atama 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note - I have blocked User:Freakshownerd for 48h for obvious 3RR violation reported at WP:AN3. The issue regarding WLU ((link here) is more complex - would someone else like to take a second look at it for me please? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Given this edit, I would suggest removing Freakshownerd's ability to edit his/her Talk page. If it's only going to be used to lash out at and insult admins, there's no point it leaving it open during the block. Once the SPI results come back, we can determine if we need to extend or shorten the block, but there's no point letting the user spout vitriol in the meantime. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I was called a "moron". Working at Wendy's doesn't really deserve that kind of treatment ... :-( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

IP is overusing "reqphoto"[edit]

A overactive user is adding the reqphoto" template to multiple pages, every minute, effecting hundreds of pages. Some articles don't have images, but many do. I'm assuming this is a bot, just blindly going along, based on a category. --Rob (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should probably specify the user's name, so someone can check out their editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It's (talk · contribs). Looie496 (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
That does appear to be a bot, whether unauthorized or just not logged in. It's looping alphabetically over categories and then moving to a new category. Really, it ought to be blocked until there's some explanation. Gavia immer (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked the account. I'm going to bed, though, anyone is free to unblock if they see fit. TNXMan 03:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the cleanup work. Surely if this was something we wanted done, re-doing it won't take much effort... AFTER it's gone through WP:BRFA. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I watch BMO Centre which I created. The IP properly requested a photo for this article, but that useful tag was undone by Shirik. I have now looked through many of the photo requests made by the IP and it seems that 95% of them were properly requested. I don't see any evidence that the IP was "looping alphabetically over categories and then moving to a new category" as stated by Gavia immer. Can you point to a dif that demonstrates that behaviour? It appears to me that the IP was acting properly to tag articles that needed photos, and that it was Shirik who was just "blindly going along" undoing a lot of good work. Inniverse (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Further Comment: Geolocate puts the IP in Calgary, Alberta - the same city as the location for the photo requests. It doesn't look like a bot to me. It looks like the anonymous editor was "photo request" tagging articles about his/her home town. Inniverse (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I also took a look as an uninvolved person, and these are all Alberta articles. Nothing wrong with the edits. Recommend Shirik revert his unnecessary reverts and the IP be unblocked. Did anyone think to talk to the IP before taking this to ANI? That is how things go around here. Talk first, then ANI. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)As to why I think it was a bot: three edits a minute (which I could easily do manually) over a span of many hours (which no human could or would). As to why I think it was looping over categories: check the contributions; they are doing individual groups of edits in alphabetical order, then starting another group of edits in alphabetical order. I suppose this could be a manually-assisted tool; in that case, they need only give an explanation to be unblocked. Also, I agree with you that they are likely an editor with a direct interest in Canadian topics, since they have often created talk pages with a WikiProject Canada tag on them. Also, the editor's talk page does have an outstanding request to discuss their edits, though it appears it was left shortly before the ANI thread was started. Gavia immer (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Gavia immer: It could also be someone opening a crapload of tabs and pasting in the template and hitting save...rinse, lather, repeat. That could be done manually and quite quickly if someone wanted to. - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I do know all the tricks to make manual edits efficiently. The IP has a sustained edit rate of not less than two edits per minute from 16:42 UTC - 19:09 UTC [73]. It is not reasonable to assume that the editor was just opening a bunch of tabs for that length of time. Gavia immer (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Around here, nothing would surprise me, seriously. But I honestly don't see (be them bot, tool, or manual) these being vandalism edits. They are just requesting a photo, what is the harm in that? - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have not said "vandalism", personally. However, if other editors say their edits were disruptive, they probably were disruptive, and avoiding disruption is one of the reasons that we require approval for bots doing things like that. Gavia immer (talk) 05:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, as someone with a pile of Calgary and Alberta related articles on their watchlist, it was annoying as hell, but it was also good faith, and ultimately, pointless. The only issue I really have, aside from the waste of effort, is that they weren't even checking if an article had images, they just tagged everything in various categories. That would indicate a lack of verification, though not neccessarly a bot. At any rate, all of those "needs a photo" talk page templates are utterly useless. We can determine if an article needs an image by looking at the article. If it has no images, then we need one. Resolute 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Who said the edits were disruptive? I've not yet read a single editor to say that. The IP is accused of being "overactive" and Gavia immer's opening response was that the IP be "blocked until there's some explanation". Huh? Is there really a policy that states that a non-disruptive editor can be blocked for being "overactive"? Apparently "Tnxman307' thinks so. I call for this IP to be unblocked. Not a single editor has said that the IP's edits were disruptive. I called them useful. The only disruption are all of the "undo edits" made unnecessarily by Shirik' (and very quickly too - maybe Shirik is a bot "joking"), and this ANI. Inniverse (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I went to sleep shortly after this and didn't see any objections until I woke up. As for the reverts - they can easily be undone, however keep this in mind: While I was doing the reverts, I came across several instances of users having already undone the edits with reasons like "this isn't even close to Calgary" or simply unintelligible edits. I think, even if this wasn't a bot, this needs to have some discussion before we modify literally hundreds of pages. (And for the record, yes I did do a lot of reverts in about 5 minutes. You can call me a bot if you want – I did even use the "bot" flag – but the AJAX sysop tool makes mass reverting pages quite easy.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think we have already had enough of a discussion. You have said that the tags placed in error were already undone by other interested editors. Did you check the remaining articles to see if photos were needed before reversing the remaining "hundreds of pages" that were properly tagged? Inniverse (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I've just left a "welcome message" on the IP's talk page (isn't that the first step that should have been taken?), but I am afraid its "too little to late". This ANI is a very unfriendly way to welcome a new editor. Inniverse (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) No I did not, and perhaps I should have, however a handful of editors on ANI is not a "discussion" for the purposes of content. Of course, I should point out here that there is nothing that I have that you don't have (or anyone, for that matter) that's preventing you from overturning my reverts. I'm simply not going to, on my own, restore a bunch of tags (nearly 300) that were (1) questioned by several editors, (2) led to a block, and (3) haven't properly been discussed as being desirable, especially where I lack the content knowledge to know whether or not they are appropriate. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the block and rollback were entirely appropriate. I only become aware of this IP (sorry for identifying it at first) because multiple articles I posted pictures to, were still on my watch list. It's simply a matter of coincidence that most of the type of article targetted (low profile local places) happened to not have a picture. You can't count those as legitimate tags, and it's unreasonable to expect anybody to manually check everyone of these articles. That's why I reported this to here, because I didn't have a spare week, to go through all these articles manually. If these hadn't been rolled back, then the value of the tag would become almost nil. --Rob (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeking assistance from Admin to move article / something (user?) is blocked[edit]


Hello -

Not clear on what's happening or what changed since last contribution to Wikipedia, but now this user is (apparently) blocked...hmmm.

Just created a new article which is notable:,_Cambodia_Film_Festival

Can an admin here pls kindly handle its move to the main space?


JCM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncmorley (talkcontribs) 03:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Already answered at a more appropriate venue: WP:NCH#Having trouble moving article from user space to main space / am I blocked? -- Atama 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Indeffed by Favonian

Recently, I was involved in an SPI concerningUser:RewlandUmmer, a sock of banned User:Barryispuzzled. RU was blocked, but today FranceIsHog (talk · contribs) showed up badgering the participants in that SPI and generally quacking all over the place. Check his contribs, they are pretty self-explanatory. Every user talk page he's posted on was someone involved in the SPI. This definitely won't be Barry's last sock, but if someone wouldn't mind giving the old banhammer a heave-ho, It'd be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't this fowl quack a bit too loudly? I seem to recall another puppeteer with a passion for mimicry. Favonian (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Does it matter? Either way, it's still an indef. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. It's done. Favonian (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, much obliged. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Vulgar and racist insults[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Elockid. Favonian (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Something should be done about It appears to be the sock of some disgruntled user with a history with Elockid. The only two edits are both extremely vulgar racist insults: [74], [75]. Given the extreme vulgarity, I have reverted both of the comments. --LK (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Stillwater, MN politics[edit]

I had tagged Dave Junker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for speedy under {{db-bio}} as it's simply a political ad. It appears to have been created as a pointy response to the page protections which resulted from excessive edit warring on the articles Stillwater, Minnesota and Ken Harycki (now at AfD). The db tag was removed by an IP, the original user hasn't edited other than creating the article.

Can someone else take a look at this? --- Barek (talk) - 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedied, no other action taken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


There is a long history between myself and Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) but this user has a knack of personal attacks and false claims against me. I don't want to spend time at WQA but is this acceptable? Can anyone talk to this person? Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in much detail here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No, this is a brand new incident. It is about your insulting edit summary. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the edit summery was a personal attack, but I also didn't see how the previous edit can be considered vandalism. Anyhow, civility questions belong at WP:WQA, so perhaps this should be brought up there.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The edit summary mentioned isn't addressed personally to Dr.K. or any other single user. It's about preserving the integrity of the article from disruptive and deteriorating removals undiscussed properly before. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Please also note the continuous personal harassment by Dr.K., which has been described in detail here. I'm not pushing it, but his permanent attempts to blame me for whatever reason possible become more and more uncomfortable to bear. Please note that I've personally initiated none of the attacks neither used any reporting tool to accuse Dr.K. of anything. I've just been reacting and defending from his aggressive accusations. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
So you think that your edit summary: (Undid revision 380941035 by Dr.K. (talk) - please stop vandalizing the article.) is ok? And you call my reporting of your aggressive accusation of vandalism an "aggressive accusation" on my part? I think you don't make any sense at all. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
And I think you're trying to push a synthesis and your personal opinion into an encyclopedia article, trying to intimidate me in this process, as I'm the main editor who has been trying to defend the neutrality of the article against your disruptive edits. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You are skirting the issue. Any perceived content dispute with anyone does not give you the right to insult them. You have a fundamental problem with civility and owning up to your actions. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I want to stop this unbearable personal dispute with you, Dr.K.. Please forgive me I'll not reply each and every of your accusations, because this has really no end. I've withdrawn from the discussion on Prodego's page just to save the day for better things than endless arguing with you, and here again you push me into more fruitless arguments on this noticeboard... this is just too much to bear. I need a break... -- Nazar (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I withdrew from Prodego's talkpage for the same reason. I grant you that this dispute is not pleasant at all and like all disputes it should be avoided if at all possible. I will withdraw as well because I see nothing good coming out of pursuing this further. But for the record your claim and here again you push me into more fruitless arguments on this noticeboard is invalid. I never push anyone for anything. But if someone calls my edits vandalism I have to respond. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 18:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way Nazar. Prahlad Jani himself would not want people to fight in order to defend his claims. Count Iblis (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


I am a bit at a loss as to what to do with this user. I don't want to get involved in this anymore, mostly because I am having trouble believing this user is editing in good faith:

  • The user is brand new to Wikipedia, but has extensively edit warred already. Amp's second edit was a revert. This includes, in his/her barely 100 edits and 4 days, about half a dozen reverts to Conscription (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and three reverts to United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
  • The user has edited with an agenda, which is why the reversions have been necessary, because people have routinely been reverting this user. For example, as I detailed on User talk:Amp873, routinely referring to the American/Indian wars as a "gruesome genocide" and the European colonization of America as an "invasion", and conscription as sexism, discrimination, and slavery.
  • Misleading edit summaries: [76] [77] [78]
  • And of course, a demand on my talk page: [79] and immediate assumption of bad faith which showed that the user has no intentions of paying attention to my common sense uw-npov template on his/her talk page

After my talk page response, Amp simply had the courtesy to make another revert with a misleading edit summary and the same NPOV problems. It's obviously s/he will just ignore anything I say. It would be nice if another experienced editor or administrator could respond to the issues on Amp's talk page. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: user removed this thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I note that Magog has notified Amp873 of this discussion and the user has blanked their talk page afterwards. I have placed an "only warning" for removing this discussion. I believe this user needs a block as they are not contributing in a collegial manner, are being disruptive, assuming bad faith, leaving false edit summaries, among other problems. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A block is absolutely called for, at the very least. Removing a thread about oneself from ANI?! What could exhibit more contempt for the process by which we work together here? We don't need editors like this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
They were up to something like 20RR on Conscription, combined with disrupting ANI by removing the thread here...
I have blocked for 48 hrs. I pointed them to specific policies and the Pillars. I would like to encourage others to do things like that, on encountering problematic new users, as exposure to our policies and discussion may help head them off from having to be blocked...
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

OK Thanks for the info Georgewilliamherbert. Additionally: in your block summary you linked to WP:DE, which couldn't have been more on the ball. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


This is new user who started on Aug. 19 and has already created at least 6 already deleted articles on the Middle East and one now undergoing an AFD. Today he is up at the Israel/Lebanon border, removing a large amount of referenced, long-stable material form Sabra and Shatila massacre. I do not know the proper procedure, but surely there is a way to stop a troublemaker like this from disrupting so many articles.AMuseo (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried dispute resolution? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am never going to sock again! (this time I mean it)[edit]

Thanks! NW (Talk) 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have offended many with my behavior the past year, particulary admins, SPI clerks and CheckUsers. I have finally realised that this is not the right thing at all and I deserve 100 {{whale}}'s. To show I have changed, I vow to never make an account here again and I will become a good faith editor on another Wiki. Goodbye forever Wikipedia and I'm sorry! (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard ducks fart before :) If you really mean it, Good for you. Whether you do or not is an entirely different issue, we'll believe it when we *don't* see it! BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I swear down I will never sock again and I mean it! (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Good! you can do a WP:CLEANSTART here and avoid the topics that threw you into troubleWeaponbb7 (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Not if they're blocked or banned. Maybe they should go put in some good, meaningful time at another project before attempting again here.Heiro 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
It may interest you to know I am GEORGIEGIBBONS. (note: I am the same guy who posted this thread, dynamic IP range.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Thats 2 ips from, would it be worth blocking them or a range block? Or should we just take him at his word? Heiro 19:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Meh, DFT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/GEORGIEGIBBONS will never again be seen on the WP:SPI page. (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Stuff a cork in him and forget he exists; assuming it's him he's been socking since January. The possibility that he's 'seen the light' is minimal. At best. More probable is that this is just him waving his dick in our faces and saying "Look, I'm back." Equally probable is that this is a different socker trying to pass themselves off as someone else. I know at least two who do this. In either case, RBI. HalfShadow 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Portmann[edit]

There's paid editing issues at the above AfD. My solution is to keep the newly cleaned article and block anyone who looks suspicious. That's probably a bit of an overreaction. Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on it all? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the paid editing issue ever got resolved, so I'm not sure there would be cause for blocking if it is simply the case that an editor admits to being paid. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that, though. Given that there is an open AfD, this seems likely to be mistaken for canvassing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing for what? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
DC himself admits that there was no consensus about paid editing on AN/I, so this is a nonpartisan audience, and as such the canvassing issue is moot... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC).


User talk: has been adding WP:POV material to Akahi Nui. Normally, I'd just report him to WP:ANI, but he's making threats and disputes about Arbcomm and such so I'm not sure how to proceed. [80] If someone could check it out I'd appreciate it. Falcon8765 (TALK) 07:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my talk page, where the said user makes references to "outside remidies" the user also leaves his/her e-mail address. Df747jet (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Admin GorillaWarrior has applied the loving bananna hug of correction to the IP for a month. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Banana (sp) hug? You'll have to explain that one. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Have you heard of the loving mallet of correction? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
No. Shadowjams (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
He's referring to the Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool, also called a Lart, Cluebat, Clue-by-four, etc. —Jeremy (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Block request to Cameron Scott[edit]

No admin action required here, ZirconiumTwice's warnings were inappropriate and the user may benefit from reading WP:SOURCES
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I request to block the user Cameron Scott because he keeps deleting uw-npa1 from his talk page for 8 times and cleared all his notices for 2 times, resulting a blank talk page. I stated WP:RPA for several times but he didn't listen. Now all the notices were deleted by him. I post uw-npa1 because he used bad altitude in Talk:Nokia C6 and [81].
Claudeemann --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I will investigate the general behavior, but, as a rule, people are always allowed to remove warnings or comments on their talk page. Declined unblock requests are pretty much the only exception.
It's assumed that if someone has removed it, they are responsible for having read the comment and acknowledged its receipt.
Please come see an administrator sooner in the future, if something like this starts... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not seeing them making abusive behavior. Can you list the particular diffs which you believed were personal attacks?
The editorial discussion on Nokia C6 and its talk page should be more constructive, but I don't see that he's done anything wrong under our policies. Can you please try to engage with him cooperatively?
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
But he deleted other notices, too. --ZirconiumTwice (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
He is allowed to do that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahum - where is my notification of this discussion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

We trusted that your psychic powers would work properly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
(In all seriousness - ZirconiumTwice, you need to notify other editors on their talk page if you open an ANI thread about them, please do so next time... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC) )

In regards to It's assumed that if someone has removed it, they are responsible for having read the comment and acknowledged its receipt. read the edit history for my talkpage, I note multiple times I've read it and ask the user to check his actions with others before he persists with his editwarring on my talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I did note that prior to my second response. I don't see that your actions were wrong here, Cameron. ZirconiumTwice appears to be unfamiliar with how editing and the community work, but you appear to be trying to handle it properly. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary in a case like this where there is an obvious misunderstanding about WP:TPG, but I looked to see whether I could find any reason for ZirconiumTwice to post warning notices on User talk:Cameron Scott. It appears that the issue concerns a disagreement about the reviews (which are negative) in Nokia C6 and the discussion at Talk:Nokia C6. There is nothing at that talk page that approaches a personal attack, so the warnings were not appropriate in the first place. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"Anyway it's a bit rich having a lecture on NPOV off a C6 owner and someone who has SYMBIAN slapped over the top of the wikipedia logo on their talkpage." Offensive.--ZirconiumTwice (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Resolved: Twinkle removed. Fences&Windows 00:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Copied material from ANI archive. Please see below for actual matter.— dαlus Contribs 21:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. User reverted my edit as vandalism. I've added a name of the fortress in Armenian and in Azeri; I've mentioned that the fortress is situated in the disputed territory which is de-facto under the control of NKR for improving NPOV. Finally I've added three interwikies: in Azeri, Russian and Ukrainian. All these my edits were reverted by User:NovaSkola as a vandalism.
  2. There were a discussion in the talk page of the article about the city of Martuni. Don't taking part in the discussion User:NovaSkola changed the name from Martuni to the Khojavend and after it he make a request to the administrators for protection of the name of the article. Administrator SlimVirgin protected the name of the article on the version of NovaSkola. Then there were no discussion from the users who represents Azerbaijan: User:Tuscumbia, User:NovaSkola and User:Brandmeister as they agreed that it is normal behavior of user NovaSkola. In my request that there are no consensus, administrator SlimVirgin wrote answer in the talk page (end of the page).
  3. After that without any discussion User:NovaSkola has done the same with the article about Martakert (town). He moved the name of the article and after that make a request for protection of the title, but I've seen it and stopped him, mentioning about it in the RfPP. After some period of time he repeated the action. He moved the title and then make a request for protection of the title on his version. Administrator TFOWR accepted request.
  • Please take concrete measures against the user, which is in conflict articles biased and unfair conducts his activities. Thanks in advance. --Ліонкінг (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
No idea about the content-dispute, but there seems to be some mis-use of Twinkle going on... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like someone needs a break from twinkle.— dαlus Contribs 06:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definatly needs a break from Twinkle Látches (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Ліонкінг mentions the link to Ukranian Askeran Fortress. I just want to remind, that in the Ukranian version there is no mentioning of Azerbaijan even though the fortress is legally located on Azerbaijani territory. About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto. So I guess this user accusing me of false allegations and I want admins to check my and his records and make right decision. Also I want to remind, this user previously topic banned on Azerbaijani articles as he was falsifying Azerbaijani articles and removing references, while accusing all other users of mistreating him.--NovaSkola (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There were not only Ukrainian interwiki, there were also Azeri and Russian interwikies, You've deleted all of them. But it is even not important what is in the other language article. In the ukrwiki uses de-facto names. Anyway You don't have a right to delete interwikies and mention it as vandalism.
"About city so called Martuni, it is actually perfectly fine with Wikipedia, due it should be renamed to de-jure name not de-facto." - it is only Your opinion. You can't decide for whole community. By the way there were a big hot discussion on the talk page of the article. You've just ignore opinion of participants and moved the title of article and make request for protection on Your version, however there were a hot discussion. I have never falsified anything. Just You and Your collegues Tuscumbia and Brandmeister started a campaign against me and from third request I and Your collegue Tuscumbia were topic banned.
Speaking about everything else what You've said it is just Your propoganda and it does no matter to the plot of this discussion. Now we're speaking about Your behavior and Your concrete actions, not about my actions. So please give direct answers to the request. Thanks. --Ліонкінг (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Your not admin to I force me to do something. Ліонкінг is surely, don't know his duties by showing agressive behavior against me. This user just showed his attitude against Azerbaijani users by accusing us without having constructive arguments. So I urge admins to take action.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

On a side note, considering User:NovaSkola's past actions of removing information he/she finds unpalatable[82](massive deletion of referenced information),[83][84](contends Armenian sources are not neutral, yet corresponding source is written by a Turk(Özkırımlı)!),[85](straight deletion after information was given on the talk page, which was NOT used by User:NovaSkola!), why has this editor's recent actions surprised anyone? Admins should take into consideration this editor's past reverts, deletions and non-use of talk page, before allowing User:NovaSkola continued use of Twinkle. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am actually not surprised, by Kansas Bear who is well known for his one side support and sympathy for armenian users as never seen this user been neutral, always acting anti-Azeri so I guess, they should also check your opinions on Azerbaijani users, which clearly shows your sympathy for armenians nearly in each case. I know, truth hurts. --NovaSkola (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


I've moved this thread up to unify the two complaints; feel free to revert if you think this was inappropriate. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I have complaint against User:Ліонкінг, who constantly personally attacks me and other users without having constructive opinions. Situation follows: 1. User failed to notify me, about incident that he launched against me. While I notified him immediately. 2. User starts using aggressive behavior towards me by forcing me to do his actions, despite this user is not in admin role. An example of this could be - give direct answers to the request in here 3. User also accuses other Azerbaijani users, which includes Tuscumbia and Brandmeister by trying to get back to him, while we just only complained so Lionking tries to blackmail me and others.

So I hope admins, do something against this user who is fed me up with his direct attacks.--NovaSkola (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a big contribution in enwiki, so everybody can review my contribution. The problem is that user NovaSkola try to get distracted from my request. He don't want to give direct answers on my request. Instead of it he says that I've aggressive behavior against him and smbd else. I want to listen his comment to the diffs which I've written. Am I disagree with his behavior? Yes, I'm. And I've written here why. He revert my edits and he write that I vandalise pages while I'm not do it. Then I want to hear why he without any discussion move the title of the articles which are about very disputed area and then he make a request for protection on his version. And he don't take a part in any discussion. --Ліонкінг (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, you don't have big contribution and now you are taking on big contribution users from Azerbaijan to ruin our reputation. Once again, I decide admins to make wise decision and make sure this user is not attacking me directly. User must know his own responsibilities and not accuse of me answering or forcing something. --NovaSkola (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Just reviewed the edits by User Ліонкінг and this one in particular