Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive202

Saberscorpx (talk · contribs)

I originally listed this at WP:RFCN but they said this was a better forum. Saberscorpx is not exactly a vandal, but his sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to create and defend the article Saber's Beads which is a vanity neologism he created. He recreated it after a first AfD and I listed it for AfD a second time[1]. I've also tried to get the image associated with the article deleted. Since then he's been doing slow scale spamming of my talk page with minor edits to the comments he's made on it, causing me to get the new messages link, sometimes several times a day [2]. I asked him to stop and his response was an odd accusation that I had deleted his comments. I have done no such thing. He's been at his game of adding nonsense to Wikipedia for months now as seen here. Given his obvious COI I think the time has come to do something about him. I will admit I initially listed him at WP:RFCN after being annoyed with yet another useless edit of his to my talk page. And yes his talk page is mostly made up of warnings from me. I'm on my PDA now but later I'll link to diffs explaining things like why I warned him over the New Moon article (for adding his neologism to it several times after his article had alread been deleted.) Nardman1 17:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

On a random note, there was a strong consensus to allow this username based on username policy and the evidence presented at WP:RFCN. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Right, here's the amplification of the case I promised. First, here's the link to the user's defense at WP:RFCN:[3]. You'll notice he's so consumed with his COI he ignores the fact that submitting information about yourself on Wikipedia is simply not allowed. Instead he accuses me of being jealous he came up with a new astronomical discovery. As to the diffs I promised for New Moon, he added his link twice in a day in January [4] and [5] and again a month later [6] even after the second AfD started. He added this link to New Moon another time before [7] and added a link about himself to "Lunar phase" 2 times. [8], [9] and moved it up the list of links so it was almost first [10].He even once nominated his neologism for featured article status [11]. He's also variously attempted to create a personal article about himself [12] and add info about himself to various articles such as List of drummers and Illinois too many times to list all the diffs. More recently he's edited his comments on my user page several times in minor ways I believe is just calculated to annoy me. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Nardman1 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wheel war at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993

There's a wheel war going on at Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 between numerous admins. There's a related discussion going on at DR regarding the 1992 category. All sysops involved seem to be well aware that they are wheel warring and there appears to be absolutely zero discussion going on regarding the matter at any talk page. --- RockMFR 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. Do these admins want to be desysoped or something? Because that's the road they are traveling on. Yuser31415 21:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the list of stewards? Yuser31415 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stewards don't have the authority to desysop (without the ArbCom's authorisation) unless it's an emergency... which this isn't. -- Steel 21:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV has endorsed the deletion - crisis over.--Doc^g 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, I had just gone into the steward's IRC channel. However, wheel warring, in any shape or form is completely unacceptable and does not look good for the project at all. Yuser31415 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Not so much "numerous admins" as 1ne vs. all comers. I re-deleted per WP:DRV#Category:Wikipedians born in 1992 and the associated TfDs. If he undeletes again I think we might have a problem. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  I think this edit shows that 1ne has (albeit reluctantly) accepted the WP:DRV result [19]. WjBscribe 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• 6 restores of the same repeatedly-deleted-by-community-consensus article is ok, but seven restores is the mystical number of doom? Proto ► 00:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I see 1ne has now deleted Category:Wikipedians born in 1989. That looks at little pointy as Wikipedians in this category must be 17 or 18. Can someone take a look? WjBscribe 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I will not restore, as I don't want to get dragged into the RFArb 1ne seems hellbent on, but I have asked him. Proto ► 00:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It has now been restored by Ryulong in any event. Undelete summary was: "9 revisions restored: This is a bit much, it passed CFD not five days ago". WjBscribe 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is a shame ... all of these unencyclopedic age user categories should be deleted. --Cyde Weys 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And it is a redlink again... Titoxd^(?!?) 04:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is someone readying the WP:RFAR case statement yet? – Chacor 04:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is just stupid. Who cares how old a Wikipedian is anyways? Can't they just state it on their userpage anyways? I don't think any of you should be deleting/undeleting anything when there has already been a XFD on anything. — Moe 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Block log problem?

I blocked a user over half an hour ago and it doesn't show in my log or the user's block log, but it does show up on Special:Ipblocklist. Has anyone seen this happen before? (Time of block: 11:30, 17 February 2007, user: Kilda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) NoSeptember 12:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I tried to block the user, but it said they were already blocked, although there's no log entry. Grandmasterka 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I blocked myself and it worked. I've always wanted to read what the message blocked users get looks like and now I have. Grandmasterka 12:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahm ... MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Viridae^Talk 13:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

But do you get the heart-pounding thrill without experiencing a real block? ;) NoSeptember 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the second MediaWiki page I've found out about that I never knew existed, today, before I even start my day. But anyway, the original problem only seemed to happen on that one block. Grandmasterka 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Power level (Dragon Ball)

Power level (Dragon Ball) (talk · contribs) has made what I believe is a veld threat to another user, TTN (talk · contribs), in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raditz.[20] Apparently, the two, along with Dark Dragon Flame (talk · contribs), have been in a dispute about whether to merge/redirect Raditz into List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball prier to this coming to AfD for a "larger opinion".[21] I have already issued a warning to Power level (Dragon Ball),[22] but further admin actions may be needed. --Farix (Talk) 12:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that first diff the one you meant to post? --Onorem 12:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing this was what you meant to post? --Onorem 12:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's what I get for having several tabs open. But yeah, that's the right diff. --Farix (Talk) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I deal with the user a lot, I'll handle it. --Deskana (request backup) 12:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I have to go out now, can someone else handle it and I'll take a look at it later? Thanks. --Deskana (request backup) 12:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe any further action is required at this time. Farix did the correct thing. Yuser31415 20:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, continuing copyvio (Version 2.0)

Oussma (talk · contribs) was blocked for the second time for putting copyvio material into articles. The block was indef after a dozen of warnings. I had executed an earlier block of 1 week. Oussamama (talk · contribs) came back evading the block days later. I decided to leave him edit and give him a second chance while keeping an eye on their contributions. Alas, same old stories again. Many warnings followed. I had to block their account again. Oussamama5 (talk · contribs) has just appeared on Feb. 16th. They've already made it again. They just don't care about the Copyright policy as they did here.

Does this user needs more explanations re copyright issues? If yes, than can someone please have a word w/ them? If no, is there any solution to this evasion of blocks? Or would be sane to keep blocking them every since and then? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked through Oussamama5's contribs, 90% of them were adding wikilinks to other articles. I didn't see any copyvio in those.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The articles are probably deleted, so they won't show up in the contribs. Daniel.Bryant 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh argh, I remember dealing with this user back in December. Yes, he posted and reposted a lot of copyvios, both images and articles. If you're really interested, you could probably find many of them by checking my delete log for 9 December 2006 (and probably a couple of days afterwards too) for articles and images about aircraft and military equipment. He never responded to the numerous messages I left for him, and I had the impression that English might not be the best language for communicating with him. Maybe someone could try in Arabic and/or French? Anyway, yeah, he really did not seem to understand about copyright. FreplySpang 00:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiStalking and blind reverting by Smeelgova

This editor has been incessantly stalking and blindly reverting my edits for a while now, depite repeated request that he stop. His edit warring is constant, but it tends to carry over into WP:STALK behavior as well. See [23] [24] [25] [26][27][28][29](reversing his attempt to restore to an earlier version with miseladeing explanation)(reverting clearly non Reference desk source)here acting in tandem with a team of POV edit warriors--led to article rotection(gain restoring non reliable source that was ultimately removed)9characterizing removal of non reliable source as "vandalism")(blind reversion of inappropriate links that were ultimately removed)waits a few days to restore absurdly inappropritae EL) These are just some of his reverts; he generally works together with others in a group of highly vociferous Scientology critics, most notable Tilman (I have been trying to balance the more overt biases in some of those articles--removing clearly non-WP:RS sources, fixing gross misquotes, etc). These editors usually filibuster with absurd explanations in summaries and talk pages (claiming, eg, clearly non WP:RS sourced material should be reverted because it is "properly suorced" is a common time wasting tactic). I have warned Smeelgova a number of times that I would report him, although i am disinclined to take actions of that sort unless extreme, and despite his groups campaign against me (which has included outright false and distorted complaints about me). Anyway, its getting silly, annoying and a bit creepy. BabyDweezil 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This clearly is not a case of wikistalking nor blind reverting (as you put it). Smeelgova has edited the subject matter in your diffs for a long time, and his edit summaries appear to be attempting to engage you in a discussion regarding your edits. However, I'd like to remind both of you about edit warring - and encourage you to following WP:1RR; if someone reverts your edits do not simply revert them - discuss the subject and attempt to reach middle ground Glen 07:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly the editor's own personal interpretation of my edits. I have many if not all of the related articles on my watchlist, and have for some time now. This entire rant above amounts to a vicious violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, especially the allegations that I work in tandem with other editors - which I do not. This is not new, as BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a history of personal attacks against other editors. The user has also made a habit of inappropriately utilizing the edit summary space for personal attacks as well - instead of attempting to resolve conflicts on article talk pages and at least try to come to a consensus. Smee 06:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I don't see anything in the diffs you provided to show you being stalked or otherwise harassed by Smeelgova. I have edited controversial articles with Smeelgova in the past, and have found him to be both hard working and careful in his edits to maintain NPOV. Jeffpw 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think BabyDweezil ought to look at his own conduct - as this page history demonstrates, he has a record of edit warring and disruptive behaviour which on this occasion forced me to protect a page. I'd not encountered BD before this week but frankly, I haven't been impressed by his confrontational approach - he doesn't seem to have understood that Wikipedia is supposed to be a cooperative project. I note that he's already been cited and blocked for this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive163#Personal attacks and formal warnings and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive196#Text removal ban: BabyDweezil). It's unfortunate that he doesn't seem to have taken the hint. -- ChrisO 09:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the subject matter at issue, I think we may be dealing with a sock puppet of a known abuser or banned user here. A number of users have been banned outright, or banned from Scientology-related articles specifically, because of similar conduct: repeated personal attacks and revert warring, followed by claiming persecution / stalking / bias by editors who have been working on the articles for months. --FOo 10:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is that the case? If so, could you give examples of banned editors? I myself no longer edit Scientology, simply because the anti-cult activists, who have usurped that article (in your lingo: have been "working" very meticulously on propaganda pushing), will not allow for their spin being removed from an article. Fossa_?! 10:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No longer editing scientology articles? Then you must have been the victim of a hacker who emulated your modus operandi (delete first, talk later). [30]

Banned editors: AI, for example. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This complaint by BabyD strikes me as projection from a very aggressive editor. As ChrisO points out above, BabyD doesn't seem to have taken the hint of his recent blocks by myself for edit warring, incivility, and aggravated 3RR vio. Incidentally, Smeelgova was simultaneously reported to WP:AN3RR by User:Justanother, a supporter of BabyD, who produced the 3RR report by daintily picking out Smeelgova's reverts from the much more egregious sea of BabyD's. Smeelgova was found by another admin (as I didn't want to be making all the calls) not to have violated 3RR.[31]. Bishonen | talk 13:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

My feeling is that BabyDweezil came to the Barbara Schwarz article less to improve it, more to enjoy arguing with the editors there. He made some rather scurillous arguments, like that a court document isn't a reliable source, or that there might be several Barbara Schwarz. --Tilman 13:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had to protect Fred Newman twice because of BabyDweezil's edit warring, and I can confirm that dealing with him is difficult: he seems unable to write neutrally, is very aggressive, and can be very insulting to other editors. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw heck, Slim, and after all the nice things I've said about you... sniff :) But, to state the obvious--if there was an edit war precipitating the protection, obviously there were (at least) two sides in said war? Or lese you would have just sent me out to the cornfield and end of problem, no? So more acccurately then, I was in an edit war, yes, with other participants? BabyDweezil 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

BD is spot on about the rampant abuse of [WP:RS] in many Scientology articles. Additionally his critics are exaggerating when they say that by voicing his concerns he is engaging in personal attacks. He is being railroaded in an attempt to get him banned by a group of editors that believe that the only rational POV RE: Scientology is a negative, mocking and hateful one. They defend this blatant anti-Scn POV (which, in fairness, they likely do not see.) by happily accepting as valid, heaps of cites from web pages maintained by Scientology hate groups. Anyone that tries to be bold and stand up to the bias gets gang tackled by the Scn despising editors here: witness the above piling on...It is an obvious and deliberate attempt to get him lynched.

Anyway, I think BD is a good editor who is exercising good faith and lots of courage in an attempt to combat the entrenched, deliberate and systemic bias against Scientology (which doesn't exist of course) - the net effect of which is that Wikipedia contains almost no accurate information about scientology in its scientology pages just inflammatory, mocking and hatefully exaggerated distortions.

Hang in there BD. There are those of us that agree with you. Don't get frustrated. And tone things down! The mob is incensed and hunting for a rope.---Slightlyright 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

There are indeed real problems with the Scientology articles, just as there are with many other Wikipedia articles - poor sourcing and poor writing in particular. The problems do need to be dealt with. But the way to do that isn't to make the whole thing into a drama, edit warring, deleting content, making accusations against other editors and so on. People with strong views on any side of an issue edit Wikipedia all the time - all we ask is that they abide by the core rules of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, assume good faith and behave in a cooperative and non-confrontational way towards other editors. That's not so much to ask, is it? -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK, Stop, enuf, I'm getting cramps laughing!!!

I hereby withdraw any complaint against the unfortunately accused Smeelgova--no official redress can match the entertainment derived from reading your responses! Don;t know which was most precious...maybe it was Wikishrink Bishonen's psychiatric diagnosis (hey, send me a Wiki-bill, and same appointment next week same time?)...or perhaps FOo's worries about possible (shudder) sock puppetry on my part (got any proof of that cowboy, or are unproven personal attacks your sole contribution to my request?)...or there's ChrisO, yet again failing to disclose that off-Wikipedia he is a tireless Scientology basher, yet sees fit to perform admin functions on a controversial Scientology related page and consistently side with fellow Scientology bashers in the ensuing discussion, including advocating using non-WP:RS's that suit the bashers POV...or maybe Tilman, whose honed his skills at character assassination over 25,000-odd usenet postings now taking aim at me...or the beleaguered Smeelgova, who, in the best spirit of WP:OWN, notes that he is not blindly reverting me, because he has been wathcing the articles all along, and doggone it, someone's trying to change them!!! Anyway, thanks for the fun, but I see someone's personal webpage being used as a RS--gotta run and "disrupt" Wikipedia again now! Cheers!! BabyDweezil 16:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Even more inappropriateness and violations of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, here: DIFF Smee 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC).
  • And by the way, this entire post by BabyDweezil (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a serious violation of Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and I don't speak for the other editors involved but I for one am highly offended at this inappropriate behaviour. Evidently certain individuals do not learn from multiple warnings. Smee 21:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Eeeek! help help!!! He's still stalking me, Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelp!!!!! BabyDweezil 21:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

BabyDweezil, I am this close to blocking you from editing for a while. You need to cool down. Your starting to cause a disruption and it won't be tolorated. Please remain civil with any more posts you make here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am quite cool; however, the response to my posting on this board was laced with personal attacks, pseudo psychiatric diagnoses, false and distorted claims about my behavior, and (bs) allegations of sock puppetry. Is that how claims are evaluated? If its without merit, just say so. If I am going to be attacked instead, I will respond as I did. If you wish to join the chorus of those who wish to demonize me, feel free. BabyDweezil 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do, J.smith. During his time off maybe BD will take the time to study WP:NPOV and understand what it means. Plus, it will help give many editors a much-needed break from having to constantly revert his rather odd POV edits. -- Big Brother 1984 07:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Does BabyDweezil seem like a disruptive editor? I honestly have no interest in the validity of Scientology, and was actually looking into FOIA requests when I discovered Barbara Schwarz. Her FOIA related lawsuits and appeals number between 800-1200, many naming specific government employees as defendants. Ms. Schwarz is regretably now a prominant example of how far a pro se person can take a grievance against federal and state governments. The unique reality that drives her litigation is in part due to her views of and experiences with the CoS. It is also her association with the church that led to a violent de-programming attempt by Cyril Vosper, at the behest of her family. Ms. Schwarz has also had many ongoing fueds with groups like AHBL, and even Wikipedian editors on her article's talk page. Barbara Schwarz is an article which must be carefully written, and I believe it was before BabyDweezil began editing it. At first I thought BabyDweezil felt sorry for Ms. Schwarz and was defending her. Then BabyDweezil renamed a section of the article labelling her views as conspiracy theories, which is technically accurate but perjorative. I started to wonder if BabyDweezil's motivation was Scientology's image so I searched a few articles about the CoS and noticed BabyDweezil on some of the talk pages. As I have not been editing on those pages I will simply point to a few examples of BabyDweezil's disruptive behavior on the Talk:Barbara Schwarz page. BabyDweezil accuses another editor of COI, after a few editors and myself ask in what way the editor in question violated COI, BabyDweezil accuses the same editor of COI under a new section. Anynobody 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I second this report -- BabyDweezil is a highly disruptive editor. He seems to have a particular habit of using a tiny sliver of barely plausible concern for policy and loudly declaring that as justification for edits far beyond what is justified by his supposed source of concern. An excellent example is his action in regards to the following sentence and its reference:

This was in contradiction with police reports that had discovered at Aum's main compound in March, of a sophisticated chemical weapons laboratory that was capable of producing thousands of kilograms a year of the poison. CDC website, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Aum Shinrikyo: Once and Future Threat?, Kyle B. Olson, Research Planning, Inc., Arlington, Virginia

What was BabyDweezil's claimed concern about this sentence? Simply the word "contradiction"; he purported to find it "original research" to note a contradiction between the police reports and other publicly given opinions that had been mentioned previously. Did he suggest any alternate phrasing that would avoid the statement of there being a "contradiction"? No -- he removed the entire sentence. Wikipedia needs editors who try to encourage and develop well-sourced text, not editors who look for excuses to delete it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, as well as comments by editors and Administrators regarding this user's conduct, at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Smee 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

I was also involved in that one... I remember that I asked him several times what his exact argument was.

My feeling about him is that he edits more because he loves "fighting" with certain people (including me), and less because he wants to improve articles. He came on Barbara Schwarz without bothering to read the sources and inform himself about the topic, and immediately started his usual behaviour, and started arguments that had been discussed months ago already. When told this, his answer was "Yes, but the arguments haven't been made with my silver tongued eloquence!"

Despite being blocked several times, he still hasn't learned to adopt a more constructive modus operandi. --Tilman 09:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 3RR on List of groups referred to as cults. This seems to be a worrying trend. Glen 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is BabyDweezil's fourth block for 3RR and fifth block overall (discounting one erroneous block). I think we're getting to the point where we have to start asking what benefit we're getting from BD's continued involvement on Wikipedia. Given my own involvement in the issues being discussed I'm not going to propose a community ban, but I wouldn't oppose one either. -- ChrisO 14:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also see comments by other editors and Administrators, at User talk:BabyDweezil. Smee 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Saikano (talk · contribs) - problematic user

I was on MFD earlier and noticed this particular MFD, for Saikano's user page. The user page is a soapbox against various things, particularly American anime and lolicon, and he has had several outbursts about it despite being warned about incivility. However, this user seems to have a history of soapboxing on various related talk pages and articles, as well as Saikano-related articles and images). For instance: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. The user has been warned about all these various things and continues to post to various pages in a disruptive manner. --Coredesat 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Steve block and civility

I'm not sure how to precede here, but Steve block (talk · contribs) has taken exception to the term "webcomic warriors" which I used to describe those who have been fighting over webcomic articles on AFD and DRV and was starting to spill over into an edit war on Wikipedia:Notability (web).[37][38]

I would normally issues a civility warning, but I fear that that would just inflame things with his passion in defending webcomic on Wikipedia to the hilt. So I request for someone who is not involved to chime in on this one. --Farix (Talk) 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility problems here. -- Steel 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Must say I agree with Steel. I don't see any incivility there. Apparently he disagrees with you, and he disagrees with your creation of a particular term, but he's not being incivil about it (at least in those two diffs). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"I don't disgree, but remember, I am a webcomic warrior so I must cleave your head in two with my broadsword." We block indefinitely for death threats. Yuser31415 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thing that wasn't a death threat then. -- Steel 23:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, if that was serious, please accept this WP:TROUT . A better example of the ridiculously liberal interpretation of supposed death threats around here would be hard to find. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing wrong with Steve block's statement was that he misspelled disagree. — MichaelLinnear 01:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

24.168.32.207 (talk · contribs) - Vandalism

This IP address vandalized the Slam Dunk article twice today. TJSwoboda 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. If the problem continues, see WP:AIV. The Behnam 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Punk and EMO

I've just got a message from a user on my talk page about a revert debate going on at Template:Punkbox. Apparently edit comments should be able to fill you in on what the hassle is, and there's discussion going on here. Sorry to cut and paste and dump and run, but it's past my bedtime and I'm not sure when next I'll be on. Steve block Talk webcomic warrior 01:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Threat

I received this threat on my talk page [39] in reference to a nonsense page that I speedied earlier today - Special:Undelete/Rommywood. I have blocked the user indefinitely. The IP under which he left the message maps to "Ocean State Higher Education and Administration Network ", so I have blocked the IP for a month and left a message on its talk page asking for the system administrator to contact me via email if it is a shared IP. Because I am obviously involved in this situation (the object of the threat), I am requesting a review of these actions. Thank you. --BigDT 01:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like that person was hoping for the response that they received for their actions, i.e. baiting Wikipedia. I believe your actions in response were appropriate. Cla68 01:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request assistance

I don't know if this is the right place for this, but I would like to call for a resolution on the matter of User:LexiLynn. At the very least, he is a bully who adds nothing of value to wikipedia. At the most, I have reason to believe he is a sockpuppet of the banned user JuliannaRoseMauriello, among others. He has made harrassing remarks on the topic of Stephanie Adams, as did JuliannaRoseMaurielllo. He has also made edits to the Jessica Lunsford page, as had either JuliannaRoseMauriello or WorkingHard, who I believe to be the same person anyway. He has also made libellous remarks about the user Cumberbund, as did WorkingHard. I'm sorry if this seems long and convoluted. It's hard to keep up with all his banned nicks. I believe a checkuser is in order. I am not an impartial observer as he has made libellous remarks about me as well, using an IP that is clearly not mine. I will submit to a checkuser test myself, to prove that point. Thank you in advance for your assistance.

Ispy1981 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

That might work except you have about 15 administrators on here that have been following your wikistalking off and on wikipedia over the last few days. While maybe you'll get an admin here caught off guard, you certainly won't impress any of the admins who have already done checksums with you and seen your sock puppets.

While it's nice to pretend to be innocent on wikipedia and throw around terms such as libelous and others, just remember this: It's not nice when a 37 year old man stalks a 10 year old girl, and 4 admins have already seen the court paperwork against you. Good luck! LexiLynn 03:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Implying that another user is a stalker/pedophile goes far beyond acceptable. One more comment like that and you WILL be looking at a long block. --InShaneee 05:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Since LexiLynn thinks I'm Ispy1981 I also take great offense to the despicable attack charges. I'd like to see a link for this imaginary court paperwork or be contacted by an admin who puts any weight to these disgusting charges. What remains available for any admin or other Wikipedian is the ability to compare the edit histories of WorkingHard (banned by JimboWales), JuliannaRoseMauriello (also permanently banned), and LexiLynn to see the similarities. --InstaTornado 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

InstaTornado, I never said you were ISpy, please don't try and mislead admins on here. The admins I have been dealing in email with know exactly who you are, they know what is going on, and though some admins who don't know what is going on like InShaneee above, there are enough admins that do know. Some of them even have a copy of the police report. LexiLynn 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. In a post at User_talk:Garion96 you mention an email you mention an email you sent to Garion96 that sounds like you point out we're both one and the same. (under title "Hand In Cookie Jar"). --InstaTornado 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If any admin here says it is okay to post the court paperwork let me know on my talk page, it WILL be posted. I didn't want to break any "privacy" concerns Wikipedia would have, but just for fun, let me know and it will be up within hours. Any admin here doubting the paperwork can feel free to call themself and verify it. LexiLynn 19:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Court paperwork" about editors and allegations of this nature should not be posted on-wiki (much less should this be done "for fun"). Is there an administrator who is taking a close look at this entire situation? Newyorkbrad 19:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

LexiLynn has contacted several admins requesting email correspondence, but until they respond here any information about said correspondence would rely on LexiLynn's word. Leebo⁸⁶ 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer not to be the admin to address this because I have previously edited Jessica Lunsford which is one of the articles in question, but someone needs to be on top of this. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be a burr in everyone's saddle ,but, could someone take a look at the user 65.184.20.38? Many of the same sort of threats as Lexi Lynn. Thanks.

Ispy1981 21:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit [40] by LexiLynn shows him correcting an edit by 65.184.20.38 so that he gets the credit. I think this is an admission by LexiLynn that he's also 65.184.20.38. --69.106.7.122 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

more sockpuppets here then in a sock drawer in a kids room. LexiLynn 21:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you've already talked to the admins about it, and proven the sockpuppetry beyond any doubt, can you point me to the socks that have been blocked as a result? Surely, admins with this evidence wouldn't just sit on it after hearing from you. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Several points here. #1 LexiLynn refuses to answer any questions regarding his/her/its various abuses here, just throws out unsubstantiated claims of sockpuppetry and hints at pedophilia. "A 37-year-old man"? Yes, that's why my username is Ispy1981. 2007-1981=37. Must be the new math. I have often said and will AGAIN say it clear, so that LexiLynn may understand, I will submit to any test wikipedia has to offer, to answer LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's outlandish claims. #2. I fail to see why no admin has come forward with a solution to this problem, given LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's history of abuses (check the edit histories). Perhaps Jimbo should be called in on this matter, as he has dealt with this user before, if indeed it is WorkingHard/JuliannaRoseMauriello. #3 If it is true, and I believe Leebo touched on this, that LexiLynn/65.184.20.38 has contacted "several admins" regarding me, why am I still here? Why is InstaTornado still here? Why have I been continuing to post/edit (I edited an article this morning, in fact.) I call pure BS on LexiLynn/65.184.20.38's part and would invite ANY admin who has had contact with LexiLynn to write to me on my talk page. I would like to review any court documents LexiLynn gave you or any correspondence you've had with LexiLynn. I doubt very seriously there are court documents, as LexiLynn does not know my true identity. I know LexiLynn's identity, but due to privacy rules on Wikipedia, I have held my tongue. There is more than enough evidence to see who LexiLynn really is, if one looks hard enough.

Ispy1981 01:45, 18 February 2007

I won't comment on the accuracy of her claims, but her manner in dealing with them is completely unacceptable. I've let her know that the next time she makes any such unfounded claims in inappropriate venues, she will be blocked, so let's just put this thread to rest. --InShaneee 04:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Elsanaturk is edit warring already, i suspect he is obvious sock of Atabek, he has had two socks recently and they both have been blocked, he is edit warring here, Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, check user states, "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet" = "Block. No checkuser is necessary." any admins i urge you to look into this before the edits get worse. These users keep on popping up its getting old and its disruptive to our article contributions. Nareklm 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[41] and [42] Nareklm 04:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing anything wrong with those edits. If you want, you can file a RFCU code letter "E", but otherwise you have a content dispute, and I would encourage you to move on to dispute resolution. Yuser31415 04:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm edit warring hiself on multiple pages, undoing other peoples edits without any explantion. I'm really concerned that no action was taken against Nareklm, who was proven to use sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nareklm) and who is edit warring again. He reverted all of my edits to the articles about Caucasian Albania and History of Nagorno-Karabakh without giving any reasons back to the versions of the banned sock User:Tutmoses8 and banned anon sock. I suspect that this disruptive activity is coordinated outside of Wikipedia, because a few users, including Nareklm follow my edits and undo them without any explanation. Anon IPs and socks are also used for this purpose. Those users are not known as contributors to the pages they are reverting and most probably are not even well familiar with the topics of the articles they revert. I would appreciate if someone looked into this issue. Grandmaster 06:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually was blocked and this doesn't concern you unless you have any confessions to make? you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules? no, i didn't see anything behalf of your part adding the info, and removing info and making it suitable to your needs.Nareklm 06:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nareklm, you say "you edit war much more than me, you know why i reverted i only reverted 1 time per article is that against the rules?" In which case, you are violating the spirit, even if not the letter, of edit warring and should be blocked. Is that clear? Yuser31415 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Erm, i mean revert basically the same thing, and i have not edit warred since i have been blocked the user is stalking me and replying everywhere with my sock puppet case which admins have closed. Nareklm 07:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You "revert basically the same thing"? What do you mean? Yuser31415 07:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I meant when i said edit war to reverting comparison, i never reverted more two times on any article these past days since i was blocked, yet grandmaster is bringing up groundless accusations, him adil and dacy have been bringing this up hard these past hours, even though this case was closed bringing up irrelevant things since this has nothing to do with him. Nareklm 07:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You've heard what I said. Edit warring again will result in an immediate restriction of your access to the site. Furthermore, I suggest you do not be hypocritical and throw baseless accusations of sockpuppetry around when a checkuser case regarding your own was closed positively only three days ago. Yuser31415 07:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided references for all of my edits, but Narek reverted each and every one of them without any explanation. And I was reverting socks of User:Ararat arev and Nareklm, helping the admins to clean up the mess. Grandmaster 07:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: Diffs, please. Yuser31415 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't get over the fact that i wasn't blocked right? stop adding nonsense to articles and start discussing you added it you discuss i don't revert for fun i was obviously not satisfied with your edits and you removed alot of references to so stop with that. Nareklm 07:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And quit arguing, you two. Yuser31415 07:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Here I reverted a proven sock of Ararat arev: [43] and edits by this vandal account: [44]. ANother sock here: [45] And I rvd some more socks earlier. I did not make more than 1 or 2 rvs anyway, but these edits should have been rvd. Grandmaster 07:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? those aren't even me. Nareklm 07:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this IP yours: [46] Grandmaster 07:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Nareklm 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I find it strange that the sock accounts rvd in parallel with certain established users, supporting their actions to supress the info they did not like. Grandmaster 07:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Another scok I rvd: [47] Grandmaster 07:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Again stop bringing up irrelevant users, go do a check user on ararat and me please. Nareklm 07:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: [48] Grandmaster 07:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying you are each others socks, it just looks very strange that you rv activity is so well coordinated with that banned user. Grandmaster 08:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs of Nareklm reverting your ref'd edits, please. Yuser31415 07:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention him and Tabib are very similar, [49] rv to Grandmaster, his last edit was well-referenced. Nevertheless, putting totallydisputed tag..., rv to last version by GM, rv POV to last version by Grandmaster, rv to GM. Stop edit warrying and deleting referenced material.,rv to last version by Grandmaster. Eupator, pls, stop edit war, and how many is that ? and still counting. Nareklm 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: [50] [51] Grandmaster 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And can Nareklm state why he did so? Yuser31415 07:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

As one could expect, no explanation has been provided. Grandmaster 12:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Elsanaturk and Atabek are not the same people. One lives in Azerbaijan, the other does not. Khoikhoi 07:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Khoi what a person huh, he just closed the discussion in one sentence. Nareklm 07:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Please check this: [52]. Edit warring is continued by another user. Grandmaster 08:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

And your pointis? who is Atabek? you dacy, adil always revert together another thing to point out you guys never message each other even in edit summaries you guys would simply say revert. [53] Nareklm 19:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Most of Atabek's and Elsanaturks edits are pointless edit warring. They simply go around removing information they dont like on several pages. They start needless and pointless edit wars, which then drag other users in to stop the removal of sourced information.Azerbaijani 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the above pretty accurately describes what you do. You go around and revert the articles to which you never contributed a single line just to undo the edits by Azerbaijani users. I can illustrate my point by examples of such behavior. Grandmaster 16:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not true, basically anything you add contains POV.Nareklm 03:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trolls/vandals/sockpuppet out in force

This started yesterday and is starting up again. What seemed to start as User:Marshalbannana adding unfactual information to an article, which was reverted by myself and User:Looper5920 and others, has become a directed vandalism effort by a person/group of editors from IP addresses in Marietta, Georgia. I'd appreciate help in identifying the IP origins and blocking them.

Common editing elements;

• Adding penis images to user pages and subpages of admins who have reverted or blocked the IPs. See this edit to User:Yandman's talk page. [54]
• Soliciting users (both registered and IPs) who have been reverted or blocked by myself and others to track my contributions and revert them. [55] [56]
• Reverting edits made by admins and others in apparent retaliation:
  • Special:Contributions/68.219.3.133
  • Special:Contributions/68.219.13.118
  • others

As another admin noted, there are more RC patrollers and admins who will prevent this type of trolling. Thanks in advance for the additional help. — ERcheck (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was gonna block, but I saw you did it already. Looks like a disgruntled editor is trying stir up some trouble. Revert, Block, Ignore. They will wonder off eventually and be forever forgotten like so many others. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the R, B, I; the help of a number of RC patrollers and admins yesterday made it manageable. Hope for the same today. — ERcheck (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Oop. Didn't notice this discussion. Whether it was an individual or a group, they had access to a very wide number of IP ranges, including multiple ISPs. After sprotecting a fair number of pages, I realized they were trolling through the contribs of most of the users reverting or cleaning up after them -- finding this entirely unacceptable, and considering their apparent refusal to take a hint from narrower blocks and protections, I laid down some pretty heavy rangeblocks for a few hours. I haven't seen a sign of them, since then, but if anybody sees it pop up again, let me know. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... on further review, I see that they've just run away from anywhere I was watching. I am fully prepared to block those ranges again -- any objections? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take care of it with "extreme prejudice." Thanks, Cla68 01:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Luna Santin. I completely agree with whatever range block measures you can apply. — ERcheck (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thank you to all involved with reverting the vandalism. You never truly appreciate the vandalism police until they help you out. Cheers--Looper5920 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Several accounts

Hello all, I can't remember if this is the place to request this, but can we see if the following accounts were created from the same IP range, and if so can we find out all the accounts that have done 5 edits or less and that have existed for more than 2-3 months?

• User:Saikogrrl
• User:Mikegaycraig
• User:Marslando

All of these accounts have been vandalising Ed Kavalee, and all appear to have been created some time ago just to get around semi-protection. This means that there are probably more of them, in which case I think we should proactively work out which ones were created and then decide whether to indefinitely block them or at least come to some sort of solution to prevent further vandalism. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• WP:RFCU. – Chacor 02:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The alternative is? Sorry, it seems to have been cut off! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed the comment from the trolling account, don't wory Ta bu shi da yu.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Barringa, engaging in racist trolling

User:Barringa is violating several WP policies by using the Reference Desks as his conduit for antisemitic propaganda. On February 10, he asked the following "question" on the Humanities RD:

"Beginning with the gold looted from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf all the way up to Howard K Stern's persuit of money via a having a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith? -- Barringa 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)"

The question was removed for violating WP:SOAPBOX.

On Feb. 17, Barringa asked this question:

"Both Moses and Jesus condemned Jews who demonstrated their love and worship of money, wealth and possessions above God. (Moses and the Golden Calf, Jesus Christ and the Money Changers). Is not then the worse possible condemnation of Jews demonstrated when a person or group possess, loves or worships wealth, material possessions and money above God? -- Barringa 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)"

Two hours later, he made the following response to a question on religious prophets:

"::Yes and Jews who have a greater affinity for worldly possessions than for God are greatly in need of the first [messianic coming]. Whereas true Christains have been saved from being swallowed up by the Earth through their faith and belief in Jesus Christ as God. -- Barringa 02:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)"

When confronted, he has tried to rationalize his behavior and refused to change. However, he has demonstrated a consistant pattern of abusing WP. -- Mwalcoff 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, userspace protected for reasons which should not be spelled out. El_C 03:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Lisa Nowak

This article is currently under a barrage of vandalism by a variety of IP's all posting the same porno image at the top. Please protect this article as quickly as possible. Rklawton 03:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally, requests for page protection go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:RockyMarky

This user continues to remove speedy deletion tags (dp:repost) from Next Era Wrestling. Mere minutes ago, the page was deleted and within a minute, he had recreated the page. The page was previously deleted as you can see simply by looking at the page's log. EDIT: Nevermind, looks like the page has been locked.

Yeah, it was recreated in order to salt it. Philippe Beaudette 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What does Salt mean in this circumstance out of curiosity?

Salting the earth--Hu12 04:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, when an article space is "salted", the article usually can not be recreated there. Philippe Beaudette 04:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:JBAK white supremacist abusive message on talk page

User:JBAK has made some decent contributions including starting the page Bophuthatswana coup relating to white right-wing in South Africa. This page is presented fairly neutrally (although the style needs work). He/she also edits anonymously. Claims to be working with User:Williamdevino who was banned indefinitely for an abusive edit in December, but their style overlaps heavily, so it's highly likely that they are the same person. Related anonymous IP addresses made these abusive edits targeting User:RevJohn. User:JBAK most recently made a highly racist edit to their own talk page. Incidentally they also recently moved their user page to 8298182 in article space with the comment that they didn't want anyone to view it, then deleted it. What action can be taken? Zaian 09:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Not just everyday racism, but incitement to murder people of Sub-Saharan African descent.[57]. Indef block recommended.Proabivouac 09:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user indefinitely. That's a very shocking edit, and highly similar to the one that got the other editor you mentioned blocked indefinitely... This is weird though, because JBAK has a solid contribution history. Everyone else, please jump in and review... I think I'm going to bed soon. But I think this qualifies somewhat as a "death threat" and we shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior under any circumstances anyway. Grandmasterka 09:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block, based on the severity of the comment, his editing through other accounts, and likely sockpuppetry (which is even more likely now). I've got no tolerance for shit like this myself. However, the edit almost makes it sound as though he wanted to be blocked, which might imply some sibling rivalry or something. That shouldn't be our problem, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd have given him a week's vacation, enough for him to see what happened and claim that the rogue edit was made by a retard who happened to come across a computer from which he hadn't logged out, or that he has some psychiatric disorder in which (for example) one personality is embarrassed by and apologizes for the behavior of the other personality. If that claim were made, I'd read it very sceptically; if such a thing happened again, I'd ban him permanently. One thing's for sure: the author of those comments (whether a child, a retard, or a mock-retard) isn't worth anyone's time. -- Hoary 09:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... But If that's the case, I'd rather have the real owner of the account come back whenever and have to say "OMG I'M SORRY" to get unblocked, personally. Grandmasterka 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's a good unblock reasoning given, I would probably be okay with giving him one more shot. Along those lines (i.e. to inform him of {{unblock}}), I just sent a uw-block3; hopefully you don't mind. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the decision to indefinitely block.--Jersey Devil 19:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

He has now left me this friendly message on my user talk using an anon IP User:82.2.84.255.Proabivouac 21:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block of that IP for personal attacks.--Jersey Devil 06:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This user may now be editing under the new account User:BOV1993. There are many common style features (starting a page on a right-wing South African topic, spelling mistakes "Viljeon", "Bophuthatswana Defense Force", and others). No abusive edits yet. Zaian 07:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict between two users

There has been an ongoing conflict between the two users Messhermit and Bdean1963 on Peru-related articles. Their edit warring had caused the Tacna Region and the War of the Pacific article to be protected. They then went on to edit war in the main Peru article, when I saw this I warned both of them to stop. They said they would stop but instead the user Bdean1963 tried to sneek around this by making the same edits to the History of Peru article and Messhermit responded the same way by reverting. So I blocked them both for 24 hours on that occasion. Today I saw that they were again edit warring in the List of Presidents of Peru article. They had been doing so for maybe three days now. So I gave them both a 48 hour block. I would like the advice of some administrators on how to handle this situation because it seems that both users think they are in the right and are unwilling to stop their edit warring.--Jersey Devil 20:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been observing proceedings for a while from the sidelines. The pair of them should agree not to edit any Peru articles until these disputes have been resolved through mediation on talk pages etc. They have been raging for months and causing a lot of disruption. If they continue to edit any of the affected articles without going through the dispute processes, they should be blocked for increasing periods. Actually, wasn't Messhermit already banned from article mainspace by arbitration?-- Zeitzen^(talk) 20:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but I was making a small effort to get agreement on the War of the Pacific spat. As to the background, Messhermit was banned from Alberto Fujimori and articles regarding the Ecuador-Peru dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Messhermit; the ban expires in May. On the up-side, Messhermit and Bdean1963 have made some attempts to undertake dispute resolution. There's a case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-08 War of the Pacific opened by Messhermit. Bdean1963 created Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/War of the Pacific, but that was rejected as Messhermit didn't sign up. As with many multi-article content disputes, it's very difficult for an outside observer with a fuzzy grasp of the topic(s) to understand what's actually disputed, and where, and why it should matter anyway. In general, Bdean1963 isn't terribly communicative, while Messhermit is rather the opposite. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but I regularly edit Peru-related articles, and have had some run-ins with both of these guys. I've had very little actual user-to-user contact with Bdean1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I have, however, had a lot of contact with Messhermit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). For purposes of full disclosure, I will bluntly tell you that most of my experience with Messhermit has been extremely negative: he frequently calls me a communist, a terrorist sympathizer, a Shining Path member, etc. That being said, he has engaged me in civilized conversation on Talk:List of Presidents of Peru in the past few days. I still think he's wrong on the issue there, and is in violation of policy by refusing to provide sources for his own claims and deleting sources provided by me, but at least he's avoided calling me names, and I'm quite thankful for that. Frankly, I'm willing to deal with anyone who is at least somewhat polite.

I'd also like to point out that neither one of these users actually violated 3RR on List of Peruvian Presidents. In fact, Bdean1963 just arrived at the page shortly before JerseyDevil blocked him

For some background information, Messhermit was banned from editing the article Alberto Fujimori, a former Peruvian president who Messhermit thinks very highly of. Messhermit has never really respected the ban, however, and was blocked for five days for massive violation of the block proven by checkuser (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Messhermit). He claimed that he'll never edit that article again, but was actually blocked a second time for violating it.

I hope that this information is of at least some use, although it probably won't be. --Descendall 06:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked Descendall to participate here because he regularly contributes in the types of articles in which these two users are having their edit wars. I will say however that WP:3RR does not give user's the right to three reverts and I will say that the user has been told to stop edit warring with Messhermit in these types of articles and that is why he was blocked.--Jersey Devil 06:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) * Vandalism continuous attack on the article.

• Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), India Rising (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Soman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.113.94.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) continuesly attack the page National Development Front see its history.[58]. I try to correct the article with other user's point of views and help user:sundaram7 to bring more valuable data. But they just change the page to old versions without putting any reason in the talk page or in the discussion page. This is continuing for couple of months. Ganeshco 07:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Tooj

Tooj1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Tooj3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), probably more. All the same user, vandalise only once on each account so I can't report any individual one. Someone deal with it; I have to go now. Thanks – Qxz 07:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Tooj117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be blocked already, and is the user behind this. Hopefully that doesn't meant there are 116 more of them – Qxz 07:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been done. Thanks to whoever did that – Qxz 07:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't that hard—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My request here, and the links I provide, may be enlightening. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 09:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Sarvagnya's behavior and violations on Wikipedia

I am reporting user Sarvagnya in regards to his behavior and violations on Wikipeida. To save space on this page, I have created a separate page in regards to this case here. I humbly request for this matter to be looked into and for a consideration for Sarvagnya to be blocked. Thank you. Wiki Raja 09:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Any admins around?

Then head over to the 3RR board which has been backlogged for over a day. My request for semi-protection has also been waiting for over 12 hours. Catchpole 11:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I don't have the stamina right now for 3RRing (or for talking to people who object to having been blocked for 3RR, to be more precise). El_C 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This you get for not adminning Bishzilla, she go through 3RR backlog like knife through butter. Bishzilla | grrrr! 12:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

And what a lovely un-orange talk page she has! Unlike a certain someone... Gah! El_C 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

A zilla on 3RR patrol, I tremble with anticipation at the body count.--Doc^g 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion, continuing copyvio

Top Gun (talk · contribs) was blocked for the second time for putting copyvio material into articles. The block is still active. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Top Gun confirms that 87.116.171.227 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Top Gun. This IP is making contributions despite the block and is presumably still identical with Top Gun, cf. [59]. The IP is continuing the pattern of copying copyrighted material, e. g. in [60] from [61]. The modus operandi is such that the copyvio material is hard to find and to remove. I ask for administrator action to make it stop. This is a repost of yesterday’s complaint; if the request is unwarranted, I would appreciate somebody noting so. —xyzzy_n 19:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin the second time around. This user seems to have a troubled history; given this socking I suggest extending the block to indef and making it a community ban. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I already gave this my best shot. Why this user is evading a ban in order to insert copyvios into our articles I will probably never understand, but that is clearly what is going on. Block anything that looks like this until this person decides to take a different approach. Jkelly 04:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support a block. Despite the fact that he has good intentions, he has stated that he is unable to do edit these articles without inserting copyvios (see edit summaries that are most likely deleted). I originally discovered his copyvios on new page patrol and brought the original complaint against him on AN/I after many, many copyvios and subsequent deletions and I can't see any way to deal with him. Even after some very tolerant and good faith intervention (by Jkelley), I really don't see any other solution. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have now blocked him indefinitely. However, he can contest the block; he should agree to stop with this disruptive behaviour. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Post-archival note: Now unblocked on parole. He promised not to do it again. Sandstein 21:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

40 Anonymous IP Address Vandals

I am reporting the following 40 anonymous IP Address users which are listed here. Each of these anonymous IP address vandals have been involved in removing WikiProject templates from related pages, leaving a statement which links to this page.

I have had similar problems like this with other groups of anonymous IP address vandals in two phases which has been documented here and here.

I respectfully request for a speedy block for all of these IP Addresses to prevent further POV vandalism in the future. Thank you. Wiki Raja 06:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything, the range is 59.92.32.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log), but this is an issue since it is the IP range for the entire city of Chennai, a major city in India.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Does that mean that all 40 of the anonymous IP address users have been blocked? Regards. Wiki Raja 07:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• I temporarily blocked 59.92.0.0/16 over this for 8 hours, but as these all appear to be dynamic IP's there was no way I was blocking that entire country over some template placings. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It is probably one guy traveling around with a laptop connection to wireless networks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But, back to back removals of templates on different sites every few minutes from different IP Addresses? Wiki Raja 19:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I do not think that it is one guy traveling around with a laptop connection. It would be impossible to do since each edit from each different IP Address was posted every minute here. Wiki Raja 21:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy enforcement & new user

On RC patrol I noticed the creation of the entry Chandralekha by Kalaripayatt (talk · contribs). (Most of) the entry is cut & pasted from here and the Image:Chandralekha.gif looks to be straight off google image search. I prodded the article, but the creator immediately removed the template. As I was explaining the process on Kalaripayatt's talk page I noticed that there were several other warnings for similar things. I'd appreciate it if someone with more astute detective skills could look into this, and perhaps take it from here, because I think the letter of the law is to blank the page(s) and slap {{copyvio}} tags, but that seems to undermine AGF and BITE a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently someone has unilaterally deleted Chandralekha already, but I'd appreciate it if they would leave an explanation on the creator's talk page about the policies involved. - WeniWidiWiki 19:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically you should tag the page with {{db-copyvio}}. Cheers, Yuser31415 20:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know - but what about the image and all the other stuff this person has cut & pasted into articles? I just want to make sure they get due process and know why their additions are being contested and removed, and to make sure that all of their other copyvios get cleaned up as well. - WeniWidiWiki 20:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I expect a gentle note reminding the user of Wikipedia:Copyrights would help. Yuser31415 20:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of admin privileges by Darwinek

A previous incident involving admin Darwinek was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182#Improper blocking by Darwinek. That involved his block of me, reversed by another admin.

Now User:Darwinek continues to abuse his admin powers in relation to a different article, Zoran Petrovic.

On 17 February 2006 15:57 UTC User:Darwinek moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović over redirect: Serbian name".

In the same minute, Darwinek protected the page "Protected Zoran Petrović: move protected unless dispute is solved [move=sysop]"

If there is a dispute, however, User:Darwinek is one of the two disputants, and just as he did in abusing his blocking power to gain advantage in a content dispute, he is now using his page protection power to gain advantage in a content dispute.

Furthermore, is there really a dispute? There is no discussion of any dispute on the talk page; in fact, Talk:Zoran Petrović and Talk:Zoran Petrovic remain redlinks. There is no discussion of any dispute at User talk:Darwinek nor at User talk:Gene Nygaard, and there aren't any other participants in any dispute as far as I know.

Darwinek has also not requested a move under Wikipedia:Requested moves, so there is no dispute under discussion there.

Prior to this, on 17 February 2007 at 12:27 UTC, Darwinek had moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrovic to Zoran Petrović: Serbian name".

Three hours later, at 15:40 UTC, I (User:Gene Nygaard) reverted that move with the edit summary: "moved Zoran Petrović to Zoran Petrovic over redirect: revert undiscussed, unreferenced move by User:Darwinek contrary to all cited sources."

It remains a totally undiscussed, unreferenced move by Darwinek.

In fact the only substantive edits Darwinek has made to the article were the early addition of a stub category, and since the first renaming his only substantive edit was to change one Petrovic to Petrović, and at the same time delete the Category:1952 births and Category:Living people entries, in an edit marked minor with no explanation of why he was doing so.

It remains true that all references cited in the article use the "Zoran Petrovic" and that none use the "Zoran Petrović" spelling. It isn't even established by any citation to any Wikipedia:reliable source that "Zoran Petrović" is an acceptable variant spelling deserving of mention in the introduction, let alone that it is worthy of consideration alongside the verified "Zoran Petrovic" spelling in choosing the proper name under Wikipedia:Naming conventions.

As an admin, Darwinek is also presumably aware of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. When it has specifically been pointed out that there is no source for a claim, then it is his obligation to provide one if he wants to continue making that claim. Gene Nygaard 17:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected the page. Use the talk page of the article or dispute resolution to resolve the problem. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 17:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

After posting this, I see that Darwinek has also protected a series of other pages (Damir Matovinović and several others), but once again only after making similar moves on his part to gain unfair advantage from his admin powers. The only difference in most of those cases is that, unlike this one, the earlier unreferenced undiscussed moves were made by a different editor, in most cases User:SndrAndrss, who not only has a propensity for making unreferenced, undiscussed moves, but also completely fails to address the various attempts by several editors to discuss his various headstrong actions at User talk:SndrAndrss. Gene Nygaard 17:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the page protection should not only be removed as Nearly Headless Nick has done for [[Zoran Petrović, but the admin doing the unblocking should also move the article back to where it was before the Darwinek move immediately preceding his page protection, to place the burden of showing that there is good reason for making the moves where it belongs, on those who want to make these moves which have been undiscussed, and in most cases totally unreferenced and contrary to the references already existing in the articles as well. Gene Nygaard 17:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it you, Eugene, who is generally not liked by the community, and is it you who will be definitely blocked for life sooner or later. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your chauvinist vomits are clear as always, you obviously don't fight against "unreferenced moves" which didn't stress diacritics. I can easily move e.x. Ramon Brown to Roman Brown and you will be OK with that. - Darwinek 17:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwinek, please don't get provoked. This can be sorted out by dispute resolution. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You are hoist on your own petard on that one, Darwinek. You didn't mess with my reversion of the unreferenced move of Valery Medvedtsev which didn't involve diacritics. Quite clearly, it is you who are the disruptive fanatic. Gene Nygaard 18:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OK Nick. I don't know how far you know this user but in a few words I can say that, he dreams about Wikipedia pure as a Lebensborn, Wikipedia without diacritics and "strange foreign characters" (citation) at all. This is NOT a content dispute, this is vandalism by his person, vandalism aimed to whitewash all diacritics. He actually don't care about my edits but he stalk them every day, cause he knows I am one of the strongest and firmest hard-liners trying to stop his destructive edits. - Darwinek 18:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have known this user to be disruptive on Cricket-related articles. However, making attacks on another user will make others assume bad faith with you. Start an RfArb or an RfC, if there hasn't been one, in the first place. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 18:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Nick. I have been considering that long time ago. I will start RfArb soon with other users, probably. Best regards, - Darwinek 18:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (Nearly Headless Nick) has unprotected the Zoran Petrović article with the edit summary: (Unprotected Zoran Petrović: Please do not use admin tools on articles when you are involved in content dispute.)

But it remains a half-finished job. Darwinek was using his admin privileges to gain advantage in a content dispute. He was protecting his own changes in spelling, in deleting categories, and in moving the article. What he was protecting, to improperly gain advantage, remains there. Somebody still needs to level the playing field by restoring the article to its original name, before the undiscussed and unreferenced moves, and then if Darwinek wants to make a move, he can make his case for doing so. Gene Nygaard 04:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The protection was clearly inapropriate... However the argument over the move is a Content Dispute. This page is NOT for resolveing content disputes. If you disagree with the move, take it to WP:DR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue here isn't a content dispute. It is about continuing to allow Darwinek to retain the advantage he sought by the improper abuse of his admin powers.

Further, the procedures in WP:DR are clearly not an appropriate forum in this case. Wikipedia has a well-established process for this purpose in Wikipedia:Requested moves, and that is where Darwinek ought to take it if he wants to make this disputed move. Gene Nygaard 14:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Gene, please request a move at WP:RM. This will probably form a consensus on what the appropriate title is. Conscious 15:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one wanting to move the article, without discussion, to a spelling different from that used in every source cited in the article.

I am also not the one who was caught engaging in misconduct. Gene Nygaard 00:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Further moving of pages around, while the dispute is pending, will only increase the dispute and rancor and confusion, and will not be done. Proceed from here. Newyorkbrad 15:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you hit the brad right on the head there, Newyorkbrad. Were I to be the one to move it, Darwinek would indeed step up the rancor.

But he will be quite satisfied if his misconduct achieves the desired result, sitting back with a smug grin, even if the actual misconduct itself is reverted. He will have gotten away with it.

Note that this is not a case where there has been an ongoing discussion. Note that Darwinek has never offered up any reason for making his move, he has not cited any sources which would justify his move, and he has not done any discussion whatsoever on the article's talk page. Or anywhere else for that matter. There is no reason whatsoever to leave the move he tried to protect by his improper abuse of powers standing.

It would be quite reasonable and proper, and quite likely to avoid increasing rancor and confusion, for some disinterested party to go there and say "I'm putting you back at square one, to the state it was in before the dispute started, now continue with appropriate discussion and/or requested moves". I can tell you for damn sure that my anger and rancor are going to increase significantly if something along those lines does not happen. There is something broken in the process if that does not happen.

Sometimes, of course, it is important to avoid even a perception of impropriety. It doesn't take much to convince many Wikipedians that the sysops are a bunch of back-room backslappers, reluctant to take one of their own to task for even glaring wrongdoing. That they might, for example, say one thing in public here or on the talk pages everyone can see, then go off-Wikipedia in a private conversation that might be the complete opposite.[62] [63] Gene Nygaard 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

194.90.125.208

I posted this before and it archived without response. So, repost then...

I was wondering if someone could look into 194.90.125.208's edits. I came accross this IP editor after [64] this edit popped up on my watchlist, and I looked at the user's contribution list, and almost all of this users edits are to some sort of link section (extrenal links, sources, etc.)

These edits look suspicious--they all go to the same website, but I can't tell whether or not they are spam because they are all in Hebrew.

Here's 194.90.125.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for your convience, because even though I'm fairly sure there's another IP something that provides info that doesn't label the person as a vandal, I have no idea what it is. Thanks ~~Miss Mondegreen | Talk   04:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely spamming (you don't need to be able to read Hebrew to see spamming). Blocking the IP doesn't appear to be an option right now, as it appears to belong to an Israeli ISP. I would suggest requesting that the page be blacklisted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Israeli ISPs can't be banned why? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks shared.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

But blocking the IP wouldn't prevent those IPs from account creation, right? It seems far more difficult to take up a policy of blacklisting instead of banning when the spam isn't widespread. In this case it's one person who's made less than 50 edits, spamming for two different websites. Blacklisting requires following this persons contributions, whereas blocking is much simpler and doesn't actually keep people who have this shared address from becoming legitimate editors. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Report on Admin Blnguyen

I am reporting administrator Blnguyen for abuse of his authority and favoritism. I understand that he takes an interest in the Kannadiga culture of Southern India which I admire. However, it does not justify him on taking sides and showing favoritism towards a particular group or individual here on Wikipedia. Further information on this situation can be found here. I humbly request for someone to look into this issue and to deal with this accordingly. Thank you. Wiki Raja 10:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins don't really have any "authority". They have a set of admin tools. If he has misused those tools then provide evidence because all I see is him not doing what you want, which is not a crime. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a clear incident report. El_C 10:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can take sides (as long as you're not applying it to articles:)). Go see WP:RFA. Bias is natural. Jorcoga ^(Hi!/Review)11:07, Sunday, 18 February '07

I understand and am not here to get people in trouble for no reason. Neither do I like doing this. It is understandable that admins have a lot of responsibilities. However, would be of good if he could be a little more neutral. Also, please look into the Sarvagnya case. He is getting away with a lot of things, in broad daylight. Wiki Raja 12:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Per his talkpage, Blnguyen is on a wikibreak anyway. Newyorkbrad 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• This one goes in the "too hard" basket. But Blnguyen is "good people" so I'm inclined to be sceptical. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I respect your opinion. Wiki Raja 00:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

sock puppetry

User:Paul Conners has apparently been using IP 70.188.138.214 to pov push while blocked. Similarities between the IPs contribs and Paul Conners contribs make check user unnecessary in this case, I think. Natalie 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they're the same :P. Duck test. *Quack!* Yuser31415 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

User 151.42.180.210 has insulted other users. His insults are very vulgar. He has written in his edit summary: "Carnildo, suck my cock, drink my cum" and "Fuck you" [65]. Furthermore he has vandalized dozens of articles with the edit summary: "Don't I have the right to remove what I added?" [66]. I propose that this user is indefinitely blocked. Agha Nader 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

In the future, blatant personal attacks can be taken to WP:AIV. —Dgies^t c 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours. As a matter of policy, we do not indefinitely block IP addresses. If this particular user retains this IP address and returns after the block, feel free to relist on WP:AIV or poke me on my talk page for a longer block. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Big Boss 0

This user has declared war on the banned user User:Ockenbock for whatever reason, and has carried the war over to uncyclopedia[67] where he has been indefinitely blocked.[68] He doesn't seem to understand that this may have an effect on the Wikipedia community. He is convinced that he can "defeat" Ockenbock by vandalizing his uncylopedia page. Both User:Metros232 and I have tried explaining to him that not only will this not work, but it may have serious repercussions on the Wikipedia community connected to him. He is still set on "taking him down on his own turf." Could we get some help here? 声援 -- The Hybrid 23:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Using an appropriate sequence of vandalism warnings

This message here has been prompted by the actions of User:James116, and the single warning this user got from User:SpuriousQ. James116 indulged in multiple incidents of vandalism today, and, although by the time SpuriousQ gave him a warning message on his talk page, he had carried out 4 such incidents, only one, non-specific warning was issued. I took some time to look at James116 contributuons today, and so could see that a total of 6 incidents of vandalism had occurred, including two after the warning given by SpuriousQ. If each incident had been separately logged and warned, the threshold for logging James116 at WP:AIV would certainly have been passed, and appropriate action could have been considered by the admins there. As it is, I feel an opportunity of prevention and stopping has been lost (until perhaps now), and a appropriate sequence of warnings has been "thwarted a little" (as I wrote in a message on SpuriousQ's talk page). I have, however, noticed that this failure to log each act of vandalism is very common and, in my opinion (though I'm only an editor) it subverts, almost certainly unintentionally, the means that are in place to combat persistent or "binge" vandals.

I've gone through and given James116 separate warnings for today's vandalism attempts (with the times at which they happened), but I thought it useful to raise this issue here, rather than log a report to WP:AIV, because of the mix-up over reporting that I think took place. This has meant that the vandalism is now more then two hours old (arguably not recent enough for action now to be taken). What is the recommended course of action? I know that flexibility should be allowed, but the amount of flexibility shown here has been, I argue, sub-optimal. Am I correct? What should be done about User:James116? Finally, it has made me think that perhaps a "cheat sheet" could be produced which gives a more clear sequence of actions editors might follow if they detect vandalism. This would only consist of guidelines, but it may be useful, and I wonder what the reactions would be to this? Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Long story short, I noticed a vandalism from James116, checked his history and saw he had committed a few others since his most recent warning (he had two priors), so I gave him a final warning that he would be blocked if he vandalized again. There's no reason to issue separate retroactive warnings for each prior vandalism that went unnoticed; in fact it's just more confusing both to the user and anyone reviewing the talk page. I've already reported to AIV, since DDstretch informed me he vandalized twice after the final warning. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks or the summary. I personally find it most confusing to not have any indication of which vandalism attempts the warnings refer. It also makes it difficult to see whether any report to [[WP:AIV}} would result in action, because there, it advises that: "Editors: Before listing a vandal here make sure that: 1. The vandal is active now, has received a proper set of warnings, and has vandalized after a recent last warning, except in unusual circumstances." (my bolded text). It would be better, surely, to specify the "unusual circumstances" that are mentioned in the advice somewhere, pethaps in the warning issued, because one person's "unusual circumstances" may not be another's - certainly more likely not if those circumstances are not given and the reasoning or justification made clear. It may be a small amount of extra work, but I think an explicit warning for each act would be simpler and less likely to result in disputes, fit in more clearly with the guidelines given, and be simpler to work with when there are multiple editors potentially trying independently to combat vandalism.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the AIV guidelines can be better explained somewhere, if they are not already. The basic idea is that AIV is to stop immediate future vandalism from happening rather than punish for old vandalism; i.e., the user must show a strong likelihood that they will vandalize again even after being told not to and informed that they may be blocked. That's the purpose of "proper set of warnings" and "vandalized after a recent last warning" (though the latter is more for IPs than for vandal-only user accounts). Given the blatant vandalism of James116 before and after the final warning, reporting to AIV was appropriate. -SpuriousQ (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is a multiple, obvious, string of vandalism, I see no issue in going right to level 3, 4, or 4im if necessary. -- Avi 16:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Deb 14:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, sometimes a vandal clearly knows what they are doing, in which case I think it's appropriate to jump right to level 3, 4, or 4im. For example, a vandal who is marking their edits as minor and giving an edit summary of "spelling" and then replacing the page with some all-caps screed obviously knows what they are doing and that it is wrong. Natalie 22:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with people jumping levels of warnings - I have done this myself on many occasions when i have warned people of vandalism. In one case, an anon IP (probably a sockpuppet) introduced some vandalism which a non-anon user apparently reversed, but which, in fact, added new and much more disruptive vandalism which had obviously been pre-planned given its nature and the additional resources, uploaded by the anon user, that had been later used. I obviously and correctly immediately reported them - as I said, there has to be flexibility. However, I do have a problem if there is a whole set of vandalising edits, and one warning is issued with no clear indication that all edits are covered by the warning, or which edits are covered. In some cases, there is also no clear indication of the level of warning that has been issued (this has happened a few times in my experiece) This latter situation could be easily corrected by a parenthetical comment in the warning itself, such as "(level 4, immediate)", but does rely on the correct warning templates being used, which also does not always happen. A further issue is, of course, where no warning is ever issued, and I have seen this happen far too frequently recently.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I know the issue at hand isn't really the specific James116 case, but you'll notice I put the warning under the heading "More vandalism to multiple articles". This was meant to bring attention to the user's edits between the previous warning and mine, which were all blatant vandalism (or almost all as I didn't check every one). I don't believe it's efficient or that beneficial to detail any further than that, it's all in the edit history. If you want to see what level a warning is, check out the source code, it will say <!-- {{uw-vandalism4}} --> or similar. -SpuriousQ (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:194.72.81.129

This blocked user is continually blanking (currently 7 times) their talk page and being abusive in their edit summaries [70] [71]. Would protection be appropriate? Not sure if this is the right place; please point me in the right direction if not. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 18:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

His talk page has now been protected. Sandstein 19:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein and also Bishonen. mattbr³⁰ 19:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh. I was under the impression that, while not exactly popular, users were allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and this wasn't a basis for page protection. Or did I get that wrong? Bitnine 23:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not all users. Whenever the matter is brought up at this board, consensus seems to be that established users can remove whatever they want from their talk pages, while anonymous vandals don't get to remove warnings. Especially not an anonymous vandal blocked for six months (!) and with such a warning and block message collection as this on their page. I think it's appropriate to use semiprotection here. If the user has any interest in having an editable page, they can either register an account and wait four days, or stop with the massive vandalism, whichever suits. Bishonen | talk 01:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

User:Booshakla

Booshakla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked twice before for incivility & personal attacks on top of a checkered history. See this for the most recent block. The latest personal attack, "your arguments are laughable and crap", was here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No... I don't think so. That's not nice, but not quite a PA either (your arguments are not you). And if the latest was four days ago, it's in any case a bit late to post a complaint about it. Also you've misread the block log. Booshakla has been blocked once for incivility and personal attacks, not twice. Deiz who blocked him/her had second thoughts and reduced the original 48-hour block to 24 hours, that's what you saw as two blocks. Moreover, Booshakla's very first block, by Yamla, was also apparently made in error, and soon undone. This means that what may look at first glance like a hefty block log actually consists of one block. Not much of a "checkered history". So, altogether, no. On another note, could you please avoid using the deprecated {{vandal}} template for a case like this? {{userlinks|Booshakla}} will give the same output, and is preferable. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Help

I don't wish to get blocked for 3RR on Waldemar Matuska, but other Wikipedians are not carrying the same fight as me. The talk page clearly states that the IP edits are unfounded, but I don't want to be found reverting the page a fourth time. Could someone please advise? Is this "simple vandalism", and thus exempt? Bobo. 12:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exempt. El_C 12:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

And semi-protected for a week. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting the article, JzG. Bobo. 03:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Arigato1 (talk · contribs) won't stop POV pushing and blanking legitimate text

Not sure what this person's problem is. He keeps blanking legitimate and accurate information from an image caption (the text is not POV at all, it just mentions that China is shown to the North of North Korea on a map). He was about to break 3RR, so I VERY politely warned him on his talk page. His response was to blank the warning with the edit summary (fo). I'm sure you can guess that that stands for [72]. This person is also causing a great deal of disruption on Denmark, as you can see from comments on his talk page, for pushing a lot of original research [73]. He's also wikistalking me, as evidenced by THIS bogus revert to some copyediting I did on a Chicago Article of the Week (which is a project I'm a member of) [74]. His edit summary there was "rv unsourced edit". This was obviously nothing but spiteful revenge. Can someone please deal with this person and his gross incivility before he really gets out of hand? TheQuandry 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stopping User:JeromeJeromeJustinn

I know this guy personally and he has behavioral issues. He also happens to be my 13 year old son and I will surely put a stop to this unacceptable behavior.DadddyO 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no user of the name JeromeJeromeJustinn exists. Perhaps you have made a typo? Yuser31415 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox...disrupter

Not sure if this has been posted before, but there is a persistant editor who has been making questionable edits to infoboxes under various IP addresses:

• 74.12.155.186 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.247 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.94.131 (talk · contribs)
• 70.53.95.145 (talk · contribs)

There might be more out there, but these are the one's I have encountered through Peter Jennings. It's definitely disruptive (although there are good contributions here and there), and the editor has certainly been warned before on his older IP addresses, but has shown no sign of heeding the advice of others. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gzkn 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Restarted this old thread since no one responded. The IP is still at it (this time under 74.12.155.51 (talk · contribs) (some diffs: [75] [76] [77])). The pattern is always the same. The IP persistently:

• replaces Actors infoboxes with Biography infoboxes
• has something against the {{birth date and age}} and {{death date and age}} templates, as s/he constantly replaces them with simple dates.
• deletes the "image_caption" parameter to infoboxes if they exist
• deletes the country name in birth place/death place parameters Gzkn 04:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfacts in various pages

Facts not in line with reality, misspellings, and human error have been littering the Wikiscape lately. "Anyone can edit" has it's drawbacks. Any ideas? For my .02 I say hire a factchecker.Pooddy 04:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unfacts"? --bainer (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspeak. Anyway, this looks like an untopic for ANI. Pooddy, please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) instead. —xyzzy_n 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking is done by everyone who visits wikipedia. Statistics has it that most people are good by nature, and so society in general will tend to correct more problems on wikipedia than that they cause.

Do your part! If you see an unfact, please correct it! --Kim Bruning 05:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Brunei-Darussalam article vandalized

Here's the part that seems to have been vandalized.

"Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei, whose [[List of Sultans of Brunei|titl'Bold text'Bold textass ass ass ass ass ass ass assIn September 2004"

Sabzavot 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's not 'Brunei-Darussalam', it's 'Brunei' (name of article that seems to have been vandalized)

Sorry for confusion

Sabzavot 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it: thanks for pointing it out! By the way you can get quick action on this kind of thing by reporting it at the administrator intervention board. Antandrus (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop abuse and use of my and my spouse's real name

WIll an admin please stop this continued harassment by Ted Frank? He is using both my and my husband's real name on WIkipedia, from information he got from one website which I do not frequent. I did not even know my or my spouse's name was there as "guest editors". I have told him that I do not want him to use my name here or anywhere else. I have also asked him to stop harassing me. It is unbelievable. He first used my real name on the talk page [78] and I can't find the diff now,. But he would not let it alone. He continues to bait and harass me. [79]

[80]

Digging up the past [81] [82] Here he "apologized" for using my real name (with which I have NEVER "advertised" anything) [83] But continued to harass me using or linking to my real name, and making clearly false claims: [84] [85] [86]

I have told him adamantly to stop: [87]

Another admin recognized that he was baiting and harassing me and asked him to stop.

[88] [89] [90]

Ted calls me "biased" but he not only slanted the article on Fred Baron but even linked to an entirely separate article solely on the controversy re this attorney, that he has written presumably to advertise his tort reform agenda. [[91]] Regardless, it is in my opinion inappropriate.

What I do know is that his harassment of me must stop. He also has used my husband's real name. We are both private on the internet, with the one single exception he found on a website I do not frequent. I did not even know our name was there. He has linked this in several places which I deleted. We did not provide bios as "guest editors" which he well knows. I have asked repeatedly that he stop and don't know what else to do. Jance 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Even though I support a block on TedFrank for harassment, (Take this back for a while) I must tell you that Wikipedia does not tolerate legal threats made against other users. x42bn6 Talk 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. So what exactly can be done about continued abuse, when Ted will not stop? ANd just exactly why would you now not support a ban - because I threatened to take action if he continued his invasion of my privacy and harassment? What kind of logic is that, pray tell? I do not have time to defend myself against someone who is clearly intent on smearing and harassing me, because he does not like my views. I do NOT actively blog on political sites -- he does. And evidently, he wishes to continue his propaganda here. Evidently, he now thinks he will be supported in invading not only my privacy but also that of my husbands by linking to a website neither of us frequent. We did not even know our name was there as guest contributors. Ted has continuously mischaracterized my statements, positions and has tried in every way possible to smear me. I am surprised he has not hired a private investigator in some perverted attempt to dig up dirt. So WIkipedia does not tolerate legal threats, but will tolerate this? Good grief. One does not have to look far to see what this editor is doing.Jance 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

These accusations are false. All of the instances that Jance complains of happened before she asked me to stop using her name. I stopped using Jance's real name. I never used her husband's real name, other than to link to the webpage the two of them set up where they advertise themselves as "civil justice Wikipedia editors" after Jance falsely claimed that she never used her real name and falsely accused me of stalking her. (I would link to it again to prove that Jance is misstating the facts, except Jance apparently considers refutations of false accusations to be further harassment.) I knew of that webpage and the real name before I knew of the username, and didn't know that the username was anonymous. (I learned of the webpage, because someone pointed it out to me when I mentioned to them that I was surprised how one-sided and biased civil-justice-related Wikipedia pages were: the fact that an anti-tort-reform website has two editors who advertise themselves as "civil justice Wikipedia editors" who don't reveal their COI explains why.)

This is a flat lie. He linked on his talkpage, on Sarah's talkpage, on my talkpage, links to both m y husband's and my name.Jance 01:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Because I have agreed to stop using Jance's real name, the only reason for this AN/I is an attempt to preempt my complaint about harassment from Jance, which I have documented on the dormant Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jance#Outside_view_by_TedFrank (though that needs updating with the last 16 hours of harassment). Jance has been systematically reverting my NPOV edits, and has been systematically deleting any pro-reform statements from civil justice articles. NPOV requires both points of view to be expressed, not just Jance's. In articles like Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Jance has reverted edits where I simply corrected statements of federal jurisdiction and replaced a strawman pro- argument with the actual argument used by supporters of the bill. I recognize that I have a conflict of interest, and have done my best to be NPOV, even AfD'ing an article I created as a compromise when Jance complained about undue weight for a notable event in another page. I welcome administrator intervention, because this is not the first time Jance has vociferously violated WP:CIVIL and attacked others she disagrees with.

Jance, under her previous username, was about to be banned from Wikipedia permanently for repeated violations and threats of litigation, and avoided that ban by agreeing to voluntarily delete her account. It seems problematic that she gets to start fresh and then continue with the same tactics that would have gotten her banned before without any administrator intervention.

I would like to request that Jance stop using my real name, which she continues to do after I asked her to stop[92]. -- TedFrank 01:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have selected your real name as your username. On Wikipedia we refer to contributors by their usernames (what else would we do?), so there is no alternative but for people to continue to use it. If you wish, you may change your username to a pseudonym by making a request here. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Never ever, ever, give out personal information about any user without their clear permission first(this is directed an whoever may have done this). ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur with HighInBC. This is a core policy here. Newyorkbrad 01:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stay calm, civil and away from each other from articles and user talk pages for quite some time. I am appalled that a content dispute can escalate to something that could warrant deletion, oversight and RfC, if not more. It's best a sysop comes and sorts out this mess. x42bn6 Talk 01:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never used her full name. I referred only to her old username (which is what several of the above complaints are about), which is relevant under the circumstances, because she was editing the same article under several different IDs, and I (now I realize mistakenly) used her first name in response to a personal attack on me using my personal information[93]. -- TedFrank 01:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a LIE. You provided a hotlink that linked directly to not ONLY my name, but also that of my husband.Jance 05:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what Sarah wrote, and yes, he linked to both my and my husband's name, that we didn't even know was on the internet. He continued to link to this and brought up every and anything he could to smear me. Here is what Sarah said:
Yes, we all know that Jance is Jgwlaw. Please stop baiting and harassing her. If you don't, you will be the one who gets blocked. And I'm serious about that. Harassment campaigns are not tolerated on Wikipedia. I removed your report from the noticeboard because those matters were dealt with a long time ago. No admin is going to block or sanction Jance for matters a long time in the past and for which she has already been blocked or faced RfC over. If you have a problem with her, follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution but trying to contaminate the process by conducting a campaign against her is not on. Sarah 14:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of your own behaviour. And I don't see what me thanking Jance for giving me a barnstar has to do with anything. Just because I try to be nice to people when they are nice to me, and just because someone gives me a picture to put on my page doesn't mean that I can't see straight anymore...I certified and endorsed the RFC against her for petes sake. As I've told you, if you have an editing dispute with her, use dispute resolution, request mediation, 3 opinion, whatever, but don't campaign against, harass and abuse people because you will be blocked. If you think your edits are being reverted without explanation, calmly discuss it on the article's talk page. What I saw of your discussions was you flinging around personal abuse and accusations. Also, please read over the actual policies and guidelines, such as WP:Undue weight because trying to weight an article is unacceptable. You need to deal with the present instead of trying to punish Jance for the past and using it as an excuse for your own rotten behaviour. 16:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

MOREOVER:
He is using Wikipedia to promote HIS agenda, in Overlawyered [94] where he actively posts, and Point of law [95]. So now he hopes that by getting me off WIkipedia, he will abe able to promote his hateful tirades against lawyers and tort law. Can anyone possibly think of any other reason for his continued assault?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jance (talk • contribs).

Please WP:AGF. The problem here is that I would like articles related to civil justice reform to reflect both the points of view of reformers and anti-reformers, and, as I documented, Jance has been deleting anything that supports reformers. The civil-justice articles all have NPOV problems, and I would genuinely like to see them fixed to reflect both points of view.

The administrator in question that Jance is citing is the one administrator who supports Jance, and is personal friends with Jance is real life. Again, I recommend looking at Jance's history; this ANI is an attempt to get administrators to say a pox on both their houses by throwing a lot of noise on the victim.

Overlawyered and Point of Law are respected websites that have been cited in law review articles, books, the Wall Street Journal and other magazines and newspapers. Because Jance has linked to my website, may I link to her inflammatory anti-reform website run by a plaintiffs' bar-funded left-wing think tank where she and her husband advertise themselves as "civil justice Wikipedia editors"? -- TedFrank 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This is asinine. Now you are calling it "my" website? This is the most stupid statement I have heard in a long time. I welcome others to look there and see just how often I have contributed. What once or twice? And Ted knows full well that we did NOT advertise ourselves as anything. We didn't even know our names were there. Now is someone going to stop this? THis is exactly what I have been saying. This does not stop. I have better things to do than to waste my time on this lunacy. I can't believe this. Have a good day all, and Ted, I hope you have fun continuing to rant alone. NExt time I won't threaten. I agree, that is dumb. And I apologize.Jance 01:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

TedFrank, you have no right to give out personal information, this will lead to a block very fast if you do it again. It is something we do not negotiate. I don't think Jance violated this policy by revealing your name as TedFrank as it is your username, thus not a secret. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have found the diff regarding User:Jance's real name but not going to put it here because that wouldn't be helping at all. But again, please stop attacking each other. x42bn6 Talk 02:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Jance, please hold your temper, if this user gives our your personal information after this point, tell me on my talk page and I will block him myself. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I "brought up to smear" Jance were Jance's own edits on Wikipedia. In contrast, Jance has been regularly insulting me (including in this very ANI), e.g., Jance writes: Are you an attorney? Do you have a clue as to what you are even talking about?: No, you don't on my talk page.

I will happily honor the Wikipedia policy, but there seems to be a real fairness problem when Jance can accuse me of a COI, but then hide behind her non-anonymous anonymity when her COI is at least as problematic, and arguably more so. Can I get any relief on Jance's wikistalking and personal attacks? -- TedFrank 01:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ted's link shows all that should be needed. If no admin stops this, then Wikipedia's vaunted neutrality and fairness mean nothing.. This is ridiculous, and a continuing harassment. He has already linked to my personal information, and I have shown diffs. Good night all. Ted, I hope you enjoy ranting alone, because I have better things to do tonight.Jance 02:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid each other. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been asking all day for him to just leave me alone. If you can effectuate that, I would be most happy. Jance 02:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This applies to you, too. x42bn6 Talk 02:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You already made that abundantly clear. What I want to know if you are willing to stop his abusive behavior? I didn't want to get into all this in the first place. I had no choice - why don't you read his talk page? His conduct speaks for itself. Or is that true only for some users, and not others? Jance 02:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm not involved here, but... I think that if we allow this user to claim that identifying one account (User:Jance) with another (we'll refer to it here as "the account in question"), violates the privacy policy, in order to prevent it from being made clear that there is a past pattern of POV or whatever (which TedFrank is alleging), that's a very dangerous precedent to set. Edit patterns are one way to identify sockpuppets (indeed the PRIMARY way, checkuser is a last resort), and if the claim that one user is a sockpuppet of another is quashed on this, frankly ludicrous, basis, that opens the floodgates. Basically there can be NO accusations of sockpuppetry if a blocked user waits long enough for checkuser data to expire, and ironically all one has to do to _prevent_ one's past actions from being considered is to _admit_ to them. There is no presumption of privacy in a username. If you don't want your current account identified with the name of the account in question, get that account's username changed so we can refer to the account without saying that name. Log in to the account in question and go to WP:CHU. Otherwise this whole exercise is nothing more than a smokescreen to allow you to continue making whatever contentious edits you're making and silence anyone bringing up your past edit history. --Random832(tc) 03:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think protecting users personal information is more important than catching sockpuppets. A RFCU can be filed through e-mail to avoid releasing potential personal information. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

An RFCU is unnecessary with an obvious sock and impossible with stale data. RFCU is NOT the primary way of identifying a sockpuppet. And usernames qua usernames are NOT personal information. --Random832(tc) 04:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

1. My objection was Ted's linking to a website with my and my husband's real name. He posted links, on WIkipedia, in more than one location, to a single website that had my husband and my full legal names. I cannot stress more forecefully that this is not only a violation of not only my privacy, but also the privacy of my husband. I can also not stress more forcefully that this exposes us to very real danger in the *real* world, because of what I do for a living, and cases in which I am currently involved.

2. I did not object to mentioning my former user accounts, jgwlaw and mollybloom. What I objected to was the use of my real first name on WIkipedia - which I have NEVER used here, and to the links to a website with our full real names. NOT user accounts.

3. I further objected to Ted's attempts to dredge up every controversy I have ever been involved in, no matter how old, as an excuse for HIS bad behavior, in attempting to disparage me and have me 'banned' for no reason whatsoever, except that he does not like my politics and because he would prefer creating and maintaining rants - the very agenda that he espouses in two different, highly political and inflammatory blogs.

4. I have never been a sockpuppet. Many admins know my former user account names. The mollybloom I created to avoid using my initials, for the purpose of protecting my privacy and safety. Ted placed links on WIkipedia in numerous places, to our real names. NOT usernames, or even initials. Real names. He also used my real first name here, while providing a link to the ONE website which had our real names as "guest editors".

5. Ted does not like my politics. I do not like his. I have in the past edited articles that were nothing short of rants on tort reform. For example, medical malpractice at one time was nothing but a tirade on lawsuits, and had virtually nothing of substance about medical malpractice. I corrected the section on the elements of med mal claim (which was incorrect.) I also corrected a section on expert witness, providing a description of the federal rules. Feel free to take a look. Feel free to take a look at many of my edits, w hich range in subject matter, many of which have nothing to do with tort reform. I also edited asbestos and the law. My father died of asbestos cancer - mesothelioma - so I have a personal interest in this subject. That article was also at one time only a rant on tort reform. I welcome review of my edits on that and on mesothelioma. I turned asbestos and the law into a legitimate article. I added sections on the law, and the regulations in other countries. None of this was there before. I also added a section on the problem of clogging the courts with cases of people who were filing claims without being ill. I also added the American Bar Association explanation of this problem, and possible solutions. There was actually a legitimate legal reason for people making claims to preserve right if they later became ill. Mesothelioma, for exmaple, has a 20-40 year latency period. My father, a non-smoker and scientist, died 40 years after his exposure. The need to preserve rights poses a problem, however, when so many claims are filed for people who may never become ill. The ABA proposed a solution, to not start the SOL until a person became ill. So I again welcome review of my edits. Do these look like sockpuppetry? POV? I suppose if it is not a rant on tort reform, it is POV, in Ted's opinion. It is not, in mine. He has placed POV tags on all such articles.

So now Ted is attempting to disparage me in any way possible, including exposing my husband and my identity, falesly accusing me of sockpuppetry, and making vague accusations about my "POV". Many months ago, admin whom I still can't stand, accused me of being a sockpuppet of my husband. That was untrue then and is untrue now. My husband has quit editing WIkipedia altogether, as a result. THat is a damn shame because he is very knowledgable on history, as well as law. And he is a good writer. But that is another issue. IF you all go to Sarah, for example, or any of those admins, they will tell you the story, of when I was first on Wikipedia. Every single one of them know what happened, and know that there was no sockpuppetry. Ted's attempt to raise that dead (and flatly untrue) issue now is a strawman. Ted's only purpose in raising all this again is to smear me. If that is tolerable, then I'd really like to know. As to the "highly inflammable" political site on which he claims we "advertised" -- go check it out. You will see that there are not more than one or two posts. We didn't even know our names were listed there, until Ted linked it today. I don't even know the moderator's email anymore - I can't find it. I need to, to have our names removed. Ted, on the other hand, is an active blogger on highly inflammable "tort reform" sites of Overlawyered and Point of Law. He argues that these are reliable resources, and is angry that I objected. So he has attempted to not only discredit me, but also expose our identities. He was well aware at that time that I have NEVER posted my real name on WIkipedia. EVER. THis was no oversight. He is also well aware that we did not "advertise" on the single webiste on which he found our names. Now he continues to harass and complain about me for what purpose? What exactly does he want?

I can tell you what he wants, and I suspect any of you can, as well. THere is no other earthly reason for his continued and ridiculous accusations. I am truly disgusted. I am surprised he has not hired a private investigator to see if there is any dirt anywhere he can dig up on me. THis is not rational behavior. And I want it to stop.Jance 04:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that I have fully disclosed MY position, can anyone explain to me what Ted is doing and why? Or is it permissible for this to continue, unabated?Jance 04:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Example

Please GO LOOK AT asbestos and the law. This is one of hte articles that Ted placed a POV tag on, and presumably wants me banned for editing. He doesn't like it now because it is not a complete rant on lawsuits. That seems to be his only interest in life. I urge you all to go back and looked at what this article was like before I started editing it. If my edits and similar edits are worthy of a ban and a "POV" tag, then I really don't want anything to do with Wikipedia. This has spun out of control because TED has decided to get rid of anyone who disagrees with him. GO LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS ARTICLE.Jance 05:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing is insane. Talk about POV!Jance 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please look at asbestos and the law. Here is my talk-page comment. I note that the article is one-sided, suggest links for further research, and make no attempt to edit the article, leaving it up to other editors to fix the problem. For this, Jance makes gigantic personal attacks on me, repeating multiple allegations over and over in an attempt to bury the thread through attrition. I've responded to these false attacks above already, and won't play Argument Clinic. (Do Please see my talk page for other examples of Jance's wikistalking me, reflexively reverting my edits, threatening me with lawsuits, personally attacking me, and insulting me.

Note that Jance is incorrect when she claims that she does not seek to sanction me for pointing out her edit history as jgwlaw: her ANI complaint protested this edit, where the only thing I did was point out her multiple-identity edit history. -- TedFrank 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look at what happened and look at this man's talk page. Look

Excuse me, but that was not the case. And why don't you try to control your outbursts, and harassment? Or is this only one sided here? What exact type of "behavior" is this, pray tell. Yes, look at his talk page. Look at what he tried to do, and look at an admin's comments on it. ALso look at the quality of the articles that he now has written. I have not reverted all his edits - that is absurd,. I haven't even been editing these articles lately. Yes, please DO look at asbestos and the law.

How long is this going to go on? Is anybody going to bother to ask Sarah, the administrator who was involved with my "behavior" before and is well aware of what I have been editing in the last 6 months? Or is this poor victim Ted, who is the one who is stalking and harassing me, and has included links to my real name, going to be allowed to continue?

NOW I see that someone is questioning my right to not have my real name disclosed here. Or my husband's real name. Have I entered the Twilight Zone, or is basic decency - not to mention Wikipedia policy - just an illusion? Jance 05:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC) WHAT I objected to I have included in the diffs above, and it included a link to our real names. I don't know how many times I have to say th is. Is this not understandable? Is the link not legible?Jance 05:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

STOP THIS NOW TED

Go ahead and ban me permanently. I don't care anymore. This is the most disgusting demonstration of baiting, harassment, violation of Wikipedia rules and general abuse that I have seen in a long time. And not one admin is willing to stop it. Pathetic. I am deleting all of Ted's tirade about me. If you want to b an me then do so. This whole drama was Ted's interest in baiting me and smearing me until he could get rid of any imprediment to furthering his political agenda. And not one of you had the guts to stop it. That is disgusting.Jance 06:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Is there something that can be done with the repeated-over-and-over-and-over comments in this ANI by Jance that say nothing new, but force me to waste time defending myself? She's trying to bury legitimate questioning of her violations of Wikipedia policy, evasion of discipline through identity-changes, and threats of litigation. There is no problem here: she can blog all she wants under her real name about her Wikipedia editing, and I have agreed not to link to it here now that I know that I was mistaken in thinking that she wasn't anonymous. I learned of her identity only because someone outside of Wikipedia in the real world told me about her own blog posting about her Wikipedia editing, which is why I made the mistake. -- TedFrank 05:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

User:67.90.43.121 keeps reverting to POV language, no matter how many times it is taken out

67.90.43.121 refuses to stop adding POV language ("shockingly beautiful", "stunned by her delicate beauty", etc.) to the Susan Eldridge page. I have taken out their edits several times, and told them not to use POV language in my edit summaries, as well as on the discussion page, but they will not stop. --DearPrudence 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• I added a request to WP:RPP; that's where things like this should go. I also noted that the anonymous user's talk pages were empty. JuJube 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Who does that guy think he is, a poet? What you need for this problem is a tablesaw, a toothpick, and whole lot of dedication. I hope you're a fan of "carpentrial topogrophy."I Like You, Yes I Do 03:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Carpent-" what!?CharlieWantsU 04:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for 3RR. Sasquatch t|c 07:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is backlogged

... that is all. —Dgies^t c 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Still backlogged. We have some nasty personal-attack vandals still running loose. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleared now, lots of not-warned/not vandalism reports. However one of those did lead me to an abusive sock, so I guess thats all good. Viridae^Talk 08:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Backlogged again. Defcon 2. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 08:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Better now. Not backlogged. Vandalism has also slowed down. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 09:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User:SpyMagician

I have been trying to clean up and find references for comedy-related articles, a number of which I have noticed are for non-notable groups or are being used for self-promotion. SpyMagician (talk · contribs) is arguing that these articles don't need references, or that non-notable groups are important to someone and therefore are appropriate subjects for articles, and is removing or changing all references tags I am putting on these articles wholesale. I hope this is the right place to seek help; it's not really content dispute, as much a disagreement on the goals of Wikipedia and need for verifiability. Am I doing something wrong? If I am, please tell me. Thanks. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 08:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Future Fun Jumper (TIC), you have greatly simplified the issue and completely ignore the way you have gone about edits that caused the contention with me and many others as well. You are simply dropping into many comedy related threads and demanding a level of citation that simply cannot be provided in many examples. And in many of the articles you have flagged, references do exist as external links which would simply mean a quick amount of editting and rewriting to conform to Wiki style is what is needed. The most baffling aspect of what I have seen in your edits, is the concept of WIki style as a way of resolving this issue seems to be something you are consciously avoiding. It seems that Future Fun Jumper (TIC), is donning the hat of an editor just to chastize and berate others and not much else. A quick review of his edits shows a strong disregard towards any other approaches to improving articles. My apologies to other Wiki admins if posting in here is inappropriate, but I'd like to think the role of a Wiki editor is to do more than siimply tag articles for deletion while dismissing the work of contributors who have helped the articles grow.SpyMagician 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I have oversimplified this. I do not want to present admins with a giant block of text to wade through. I am tagging these articles as I work to find references for them, in the hopes that others might be able to work on it with me. If there is a more preferable to way to go about doing things, I would appreciate opinions from editors not involved in this disagreement. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 09:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is a couple doors down, and I think would be more helpful here then an AN/I thread. If it's just between you two, you can seek a third opinion, else you might want to look at requests for comment or mediation. It's also generally helpful to provide specific diffs with the behavior you find disagreeable-rather then just saying "X is doing this all over the place!", say "X has repeated this many times (diff), (diff), (diff), (diff)." You two may know the nature of this debate, and where it's happened, but no one else looking at it necessarily does! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)