Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 16 April 2007

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• A request for adminship is open for discussion.
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
• Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
• Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?

Claims by User:Vlad fedorov

Can someone take a look here: ? User:Vlad fedorov wrongly blamed me in intentional falsification many times. Is that an uncivil behavior? Is any administrator intervention required?Biophys 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Please also see here, as well as checking Vlad's talkpage history. This guy has been repeatedly warrned for WP:CIVIL already but talk page / archives doesn't show it - Alison 19:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Example of false translation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Internet_brigades&diff=122006717&oldid=122004017

"It is important not only to protect authorities - that is needed for sure, but attract young people who can work creatively in the internet.

Please see the original of Russian text http://www.newtimes.ru/index.php?page=journal&issue=6&article=231

"Важно найти такой поворот темы, не защищать власти — это само собой, надо привлекать ребят, которые умеют творчески работать в интернете".

Its real translation is: "It is important to find such a turn of topic, not to protect the authorities - this is understood, we need to attract youth who could work creatively in the internet".Vlad fedorov 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You also may take a look here: Biophys 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Point of interest, Vlad and Biophys are attacking each other back and forth all over wikipedia. It's about time to block both of them, Biophys for repeatedly using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him, and Vlad for incivility and personal attacks, and WP:POINT violations against Biophys. I also should note that the Internet brigades page is a recreation of an attack page aimed at Vlad, previously internet troll squads or something similar. I'm sick of this issue coming up. It's time we block both of them. ⇒ SWATJester 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll endorse that, but not indef. This has been the subject of at least one RfC, a flamewar on my talk page and hostile comments on a lot of article talk pages. It is going nowhere and various people have attempted mediation at this point - Alison 20:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You said "Biophys for repeatedly using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to attack Putin and people who support him". Well, I just checked my edits using this tool: . I have almost zero edits about "Putin and people who support him". I edited only Valentin Korabelnikov among Putin's supporters. I wrote mostly about: (a) biology; (b) human rights issues; (c) Russian opposition (dissidents); and (d) organizations such as FSB. This has nothing to do with soapbox; everything is well referenced. Please check.Biophys 20:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is a specific reason, the community block is out of question here. Biophys is an actively contributing editor who started relatively recently and creates a good amount of content. He has yet to learn to separate his individual biases from his edits, but he is trying that without doubt. Vlad Fedorov is equally opinionated, also relatively new, who does not just run revert wars but is willing to read sources, add them and discuss. Both unquestionably make a good use of talk pages, they do not just run revert wars. I think there is a fairly good chance that we can preserve these two contributors who will be adding material to this encyclopedia. These editors need to be talked to in good nature rather than have their block logs filled with entries as the latter is usually a straight path to the permaban. --Irpen 23:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, if Vlad hadn't posted this racist quotation completely out of the blue. Appleseed (Talk) 02:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Appleseed, again? Came here to get the content opponent blocked? New users make mistakes. This quote is not Vlad's but it indeed rather belongs to the article space, not the talk page, I agree. Now, please take an effort to calm down the situation, not escalate it. --Irpen 02:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad's incivility is an issue that should be addressed. I have seen my share of incivil users on Wiki, but Vlad is certainly up there in among most aggressive. What he writes on his talk page - or even mine - is a minor problem, but he is also accusing users (myself included) of vandalism, falsification, revenge and such in article's talk space and article's edit summaries. See for example: Talk:Katyn_massacre#Falsification_of_sources_by_User:Piotrus and mainspace edit summary; incivil post, heading and edit summary; here three users at the same time; edit summary full of accusations - and those are just almost random examples, his recent contributions could yeld dozens of controversial and offensive posts. I think this user should be sternly warned by an uninvolved editor(s) (he seems to disregard warnigns by those that he discusses with considering them personal attacks...) and if his behaviour shows no change, he should be placed under civility parole, possibly with WP:CN input. Misplaced Pages should not be allowed to degenerate into Usenet-level where baseless accusations, flaiming and baiting dominate discussions - this is what WP:NPA is for and it should be enforced as much as WP:3RR is. PS. I will also note I am strongly opposed to sanctions against Biophys - I am not aware of where he has been 'attacking his opponents', and the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Internet brigades (2nd nomination) clearly shows there is no consensus to delete it, and certainly almost nobody supports the version that it is an 'attack page'.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus' propensity to invoke WP:NPA left and right, more often than not, inappropriately has become so notorious that every mention of WP:NPA by this user should be taken with a huge grain of salt, checked for diffs and diffs checked for the context. Having seen a bunch of false PA accusations spread by this editor to deflect the discussion from the topic, I think I should make this caution here. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen's lacks of diffs to back up his accusations is telling. His "let's ignore WP:CIV/NPA" attitude is somehow I hope will never prevail on Misplaced Pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And Biophys' claims that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government , his blatant biases anti-russian government that have been included or edited into nearly every single article he's written? The stalking on both sides of vlad and biophys of each other's edits solely to revert to one another's POV? The nearly WP:POINT like thousand+ edits specifically limited to russian articles? Accusations of defamation and and and ? The infighting in making several RFC's and AN/I reports against each other? Oh, what about the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads attack page? Look, neither one of these two editors are angels. Both of them are probably good faith editors, but don't know what they're doing. Biophys apparently understands policy a little better than Vlad, but both of these users need a time out. This nonsense won't stop until one side or another, "wins". This edit sums it up clearly, where biophys claims he does not want to edit russian articles any longer, but he can't let Vlad win. Whether or not that's likely true, since both of them edit nearly only Russian related articles, leads me to determine there will not be an end to this edit war otherwise. A time out to go over policy seems to me to be the only thing short of arbitration that could possibly work, though TBH, it hasn't worked for Vlad. Especially since Biophys has claimed that he will avoid editing articles that would run him into Vlad. That's why I suggest the block for both of them. ⇒ SWATJester 03:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look. I did not claim that certain editors are working on behalf of the Russian government (although I wound not even mind if some did). It was said by another editor who came uninvited to my talk page, and I deleted his comments as a possible defamation.Biophys 04:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Yes, of course, I claimed that Vlad inserts defamatory and poorly sourced texts to biographies of living persons (these unreliable sources also contained defamatory statements). This is violation of WP:BLP and I openly reported about this to living persons noticebord. So, I striclty followed WP:BLP. Doing otherwise would be a violation. Yes, it was me who suggested resolving this problems bot not edeiting each others articles (see my RfC), but Vlad refused.Biophys 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys made no such claim and he removed the thread from his talk page to prevent further flaming - I find his behaviour commendable in this incident. As for the following four diffs, I'd avoid such terms as defamation, and would recommend DR, but Biophys is much less offensive than Vlad. Their problems with each other should be solved via mediation or ArbCom, not blocking them - on this I agree with Irpen. To summarize: I don't see the need to block either of them; Vlad's incivility towards many editors can be solved via civility parole (and than block if he ignores it); Biophys lesser incivility towards Vlad merits opening of mediation (hopefully he will agree), but certainly not a block.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Misplaced Pages?" diff, where he invited everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - talk page. I think that now everyone could ascertain that Biophys is not true in his statement that those who abused me "come uninvited to his talk page". Moreover, I don't need to explain here that user CPTGbr is a best friend of Biophys and not "uninvited guest" on his talk page - just look at Biophys talk page. Vlad fedorov 10:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester and others, however tempting it may be to "just block both and get it over with", I would like to caution against this yet. Both editors are clearly writing content, not just flaming each other. With some supervision and tutoring this has a good chance of being solved. Point is that experience Wikipedians who are involved in these topics should try to pull them back rather than encourage to go on the rampage however tempting it may be to "use" a "rightly POVed" editor as a battering ram in advancing ones own POV into articles. --Irpen 04:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone. I'm just expressing my opinion. ⇒ SWATJester 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Both users are writing content. Biophys actually writes more than Vlad. Biopys has also a strong POV, a tendency to soapboxing and a tendency to misrpresenting sources. Vlad is good in checking the sourcing problems but also often his own point of view. Both are quite stubborn, tend to edit warring and name each others names. Both are easy to assume bad faith of each others and everybody else who objects their edits. In a way they are productive as a team, Biopys starts a new article on a controversial subject, Vlad checks his references and obvious POV tricks, adds his own references (and adds his own POV), Biophys finds better references for his viewa and checks Vlad's references, etc. In a few iteration we have a well-sourced more or less neutral article. Unfortunately usually result does not converge to single version but to a sterile revert war (often over minor points). Any attempt by third parties to find a middleground ends up with them both ignoring the compromise and reverting to their favorite version. So far I was just locking the articles then they reach that stage trying to keep some balance. Neither of these users are vandals, they both believe they improve the project. Quite possibly their net contributions are positive but they are often tiresome for the rest of the community. I propose, if they both agree, to use Misplaced Pages:Community_enforceable_mediation on them. Something on the lines of E104421 and Tajik. I imagine if they agree on 0RR for each other and some sort of a civility parole (e.g. an automatic blocking then they call each other vandals or their edits valndlisms) then we would have the effect of all their good contributions without the negative effect. If they are not agree I would call for the Arbcom. I do not think that a community ban is an option as it is a complicated issue that require hundreds of diffs to see all conflicts and it is not something that should be decided on the run. As a personal plea I would ask if anything not to ban one without the other, they check each other's strong POV if one is missing who would do it for us? Alex Bakharev 05:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course I agree on Misplaced Pages:Community_enforceable_mediation. And I have already started mediation on a case of Boris Stomakhin in January 2007. See mediation cabal cases. But the problem - there was only one mediator since - and the case is stalked. I also would like to point out that claims of Biophys that I violate BLP policies, or use unreliable sources are voiced by him in order to push forward his POV. The real problem, if you would like to listen to me at all, is that administrators and mediators do not deal with resolving the disputes, the duties which they are expected to perfom. Rather than resolve my disputes with Biophys over unreliable sources, violations of BLP, misattributions and POV editing, they just prefer to block and to forget. Earlier, you Alex and Mikka were editing our disputed articles and there was some line that Biophys wasn't crossing, but when you leaved, Biophys reverted all your edits without hesitation and broke "peaceful state". That was the case with Boris Stomakhin, Union of Jewish Council and so forth. Maybe it's time for you to resolve our disputes and to look into sources which Biophys and I are disputing over? Maybe it's time to determine finally that my contributions to Boris Stomakhin and Yevgenia Albats are based on reliable sources and do not violate BLP.

As for alleged "sterilization", I have never sterilized Boris Stomakhin. Please, give the diffs where I sterilize whole or substantial part of Biophys contributions. I protest against such blatant and strong description. Isn't it Biophys who deleted citation of Boris Stomakhin which he don't like claiming that "this is unreliable source" or "violation of BLP". Should you, administrators, be quick in resolving that dispute everything would be different. But look, instead of resolving disputes, you suggest "to block and to forget". Some prefer blocking because it would help to push their POV as Irpen rightly suggested. Some prefer blocking just becuase they are lazy to busy themselves with "hard" admin duties.

Just look at Intenet brigade talk page where I have descripted all the misattribution which are currently in the article. Some of them - are things as simple as translation. But look, no one who's appearing there throwing envious comments on me is trying to review simple translation. No one. And that's exactly why the things have gone so far.

I am always ready to defend all my edits. And I always agree to enforceable mediation, arbitration. The most important point is that it should be enforceable.'Vlad fedorov 07:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Both editors are welcome at WP:CEM. To clarify, it's a process that can't really be used on anybody. Durova 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I agree to try this process. But I have two questions First, I would like the mediator simply to judge if wikipedia policies (such as WP:BLP, WP:SOURCE and others) are followed in each specific case of our disagreements. Would that be possible? Then everything will be resolved instantly. I am a law-abiding person and agree to blindly follow all WP rules. These are good rules. Second, the WP:CEM process seems to be designed to resolve content differences. But the original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. Again, I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing. Biophys 13:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I just read the following "The mediator's level of involvement is generally low: primarily a sounding board and checkpoint. Although a mediator may take a more active role in bringing the participants to agreement, this venue is designed for editors who show enough independence and initiative to examine policies and past arbitration cases for themselves. When the participants reach an agreement the mediator screens their proposed solution" from WP:CEM. And I have a question: does that mean that when the dispute is over correct/incorrect translation from Russian to English we should wait for somebody who would translate it? Does that mean that we would wait painfully long for someone who could read Russian sources and evaluate their credibility, reliability and content? I want active judges, mediators and I want enforceable decisions. Not just stalking for months waiting for "someone else" to took the matter on. I have already protracted Mediation cabal case on Boris Stomakhin where mediator gave ambiguous decision not resolving directly whether Biophys and mine sources are relible and violating/not violating BLP.

If enforceable mediation means protraction and painfull waiting, then I choose arbitration. I have a right to speedy trial. If Misplaced Pages runs on California servers, Misplaced Pages should ensure me right for speedy trial according to the Constitution of State of California and according to Federal Constitution. Protracted mediation where mediators are unable to ascertain accuracy of translations and sources content is a violation of these rights.Vlad fedorov 08:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You do not have a right to speedy trial because you have not been arrested or accused of any crime. Your 6th amendment rights do not apply here. This is not court. This is Misplaced Pages, and you do not get to go straight to arbitration without first going through dispute resolution. ⇒ SWATJester 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Swat. As I am a lawyer, could I please remark that arbitration is a dispute resolution method? Vlad fedorov 19:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, protractions in resolving the disputes are contributing to the aggravation of disputes.Vlad fedorov 08:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of protracting the case, I also would like to show you how Biophys pushes forcibly his POV in mediation case: please see this link http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin#How_can_we_move_forward. Please, note that mediator fails to answer to the main point of disputes. Please see that Biophys doesn't agree with the mediator's decision to revert to my version of the article. Please see how Biophys tries to force the mediator to interpret Misplaced Pages WP:RS policy in regard of dated article to his advantage. Biophys claims that if the source has no date (is not dated), then it is unreliable source. Why not to deal with these issues, administrators? You all strive to receive you adminship rights, but how many of you really try to make use of them properly? I have posted here a hell bunch of questions which are quite commonly met and resolving of such issues would benefit to the whole Misplaced Pages community. Vlad fedorov 11:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for using jargon. There usually consider two types of edit wars. One is productive, when the opponents each add something to the article supporting their POV or improve the style to prevent from misunderstanding, etc. While the editing might be painful for the participants the article is indeed improving. I think this is usually the case at the start of yours and Biophys's editing. The sterile or fruitless revert warring happens then two opponents just repeat their reversions. It does not lead anywhere and just clatters the history of the article. It might be the case of a disruptive editor pushing clearily inferior version but usually it indicates stubborness from both side. Unlike productive editing conflict sterile revert wars are always harmful and should be prevented by either protecting the article or blocking some participants. Alex Bakharev 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I mean quite another point, you wrote that I and Biophys, are going into sterile reverts and we don't abide by third parties version. May I notice to you, that I have never was changing first, your or Mikka's version of Boris Stomakhin article. May I notice that it was Biophys who was always unwilling to accept your versions of the article. Let us look into Boris Stomakhi article history:

1) Alex Bakharev has made compromise version:

• (cur) (last) 01:29, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:21, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 01:00, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (/* Commentaries - see discussion)
• (cur) (last) 00:58, 28 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 23:52, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (technical edit. I said about his lawyer; "jumped voluntarily" sounds really stupid.)
• (cur) (last) 23:41, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (unsourced, OR and POV phrase removed)
• (cur) (last) 23:38, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (A reference provided, and the text of the article is now exactly consistent with the source.)
• (cur) (last) 23:21, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 19:31, 27 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (I leave only statements suported by reliable publications and claims from the court sentence which are not repeted later; there is no need to repeat everything two and three times)
• (cur) (last) 07:11, 27 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (my attempt to reconsile Vlad's and Biophys versions. Usually took more complete version unless its OR)

2) Alex Bakharev again tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 15:53, 24 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (rv - if I am wrong about the source, please explain what is wrong; this article will stay forever on living persons notice board unless this problem is fixed)
• (cur) (last) 12:26, 24 January 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries - a few statements need citations, Svoboda=>Liberty)

3) User Mikkalai tried to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 02:22, 18 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)
• (cur) (last) 00:29, 18 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)

4) User Mikkalai again tries to compromise:

• (cur) (last) 16:59, 15 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Totally disputed - as explained in living persons notice board. Contradictory sources.)
• (cur) (last) 08:13, 15 January 2007 213.184.225.28 (Talk)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→External links)
• (cur) (last) 02:30, 9 January 2007 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by Biophys (talk) to last version by Mikkalai)

5) User Mikkalai again makes third-party version:

• (cur) (last) 23:31, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:29, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Other similar cases)
• (cur) (last) 23:28, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs)
• (cur) (last) 23:27, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (Person convicted for hate speach qualify as political prisoner and dissident - see Misplaced Pages definitions)
• (cur) (last) 23:15, 8 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (defamatory citation of unreliable souce was removed - see discussion on living persons noticeboard)
• (cur) (last) 00:11, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (This is YOUR interpretation. Even court sentence does not say that.)
• (cur) (last) 00:07, 3 January 2007 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Commentaries)
• (cur) (last) 08:12, 30 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and trial - rephrase intro for quotations)

Should I acquit myself of non-agreeing on compromise versions after this? Vlad fedorov 12:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not discussing IB content issues here. Please keep this on track - we are discussing incivility issues. And I don't see Vlad addressing this anywhere, only his attempts to change the topic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Vlad, CEM is designed to be streamlined and shorter than arbitration. Mediation can be over as soon as both parties agree to a solution and the community ratifies it. Arbitration usually takes a month to six weeks. Durova 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(comment on the whole thing) I’ve been involved with Biophys and Vlad on Talk:Boris Stomakhin and all I got was this lousy t-shirt. —xyzzy_n 14:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to follow WP:CEM process. But it seems to be designed to resolve content differences. The original issue here was completely different: alleged WP:CIV violations by Vlad (and perhaps me?). So, what is your decision? Please punish us both as we deserve. I am a wikipedia-abiding citizen and ready to pay the price for any wrongdoing.Biophys 14:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Seriously, Vlad fedorov wished me to die (see ) and received a notice about it from Alex Bakharev but deleted it from his talk page.Biophys 14:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And how about that offense (is it something of sexual nature?) which Vlad claimed at talk pages of several users: .Biophys 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: . I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of those. Certainly saying that 'users on Misplaced Pages would be happy if you'd die' classifies as a serious NPA and is close to a death threat. There is no doubt Vlad has made many personal attacks and this needs to be addressed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys could you please stop clogging that page with multiple same messages. First of all< I was already punished by Alex Bakharev for this so-called death wish. You cannot punish me twice for one and the same instance. Second, the whole context of this death wish is ignored by you all. I have posted the context below. Biophys suggested what would be if Putin would die. I have made the same assumption in regard of Biophys. That wasn't death wish at all. If I wrote death wish to Biophys, than Biophys wrote death wish to Putin. If I offensed Biophys, then Biophys offensed Putin. Then we should be both punished.Vlad fedorov 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

There are other users who did not dare to complain about Vlad. See this: . I believe saying "Liach" in this context is an offense. And how about his "Then you better visit your doctor" hinting that another user is insane?Biophys 15:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did an appropriate encyclopedic edit of article Phallus (deleted by Alex Bakharev who did not agree with me). Please see: It says in the chapter "In satire": "When Russian president Vladimir Putin called on his nation's women to have more children, journalist Vladimir Rakhmankov wrote a satiric article calling Putin "the nation's phallic symbol". .Biophys 16:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Misplaced Pages "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV.Vlad fedorov 16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple instances of Biophys calling me vandal, wikistalker and so on

Please just see Biophys contributions page and just count instances:

• 05:20, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov ((rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 04:44, 10 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Ramzan Kadyrov (rv VANDALISM - translation was taken from English language source that satisfy WP:SOURCE))
• 02:41, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv vandalism)
• 02:39, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv vandalism - see talk page)
• 02:35, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 2 (→Category:Victims of Soviet repressions)
• 02:33, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures ((rv to version of Rich Farmbrough Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism))
• 02:31, 9 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism)
• 18:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism. The source WAS identified. It is review in Nature Review Genetics, a more than reliable secondary source)
• 18:45, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Grigory Svirsky (rv - deletion of sourced text is vandalism)
• 18:44, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv to version of Rich Farmbrough (Talk | contribs) at 21:22, 1 April 2007 (deletion of well referenced and appropriate text is vandalism),)
• 18:42, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 18:40, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - I have improved the article (and worked a lot!), but you simply blanked everything about Russia - this is vandalism!))
• 03:47, 7 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 20:02, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page (the text was supported by reliable sources)))
• 20:01, 4 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:48, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv vandalism (review in Nature Review Genetics is a reliable secondary source; see talk page))
• 17:26, 3 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - (restoring text after vandalism) - see talk page)
• 22:15, 31 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism, see talk page)
• 19:15, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring article after vandalism)
• 19:14, 30 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (Vandalism again)
• 18:41, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:40, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv -vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:39, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - vandalism - see talk page)
• 18:38, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Persecution of political bloggers (→Biophys false translation and personal attacks)
• 18:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Vlad fedorov (Vandalism warning)
• 14:57, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Alison (Vandalism report)
• 14:46, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Active measures (Alledged vandalism)
• 04:32, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Persecution of political bloggers (rv - restoring well sourced text about BLOGGERS - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:31, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Nikolai Koltsov (rv well sourced text - I warn you: what you are doung is vandalism)
• 04:30, 27 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Active measures (rv - restoring sourced text (I warn you: what you are doing is vandalism))
• 05:35, 1 March 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group (←Created page with '==Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov== Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his arti...')
• 22:49, 21 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalging - see discussion)
• 22:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism and POV editing of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:36, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv vandalism of wikistalker - see talk page)
• 22:35, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv vandalism (each cited statement was supported by a reference))
• 16:40, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Galina Starovoitova (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:39, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:38, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (rv - wikistalking - see talk page)
• 16:04, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Galina Starovoitova (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 16:00, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (→Vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:55, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:David Satter (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 15:50, 20 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov)
• 05:22, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Putin's Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion; he also removed links to reviews of the book)
• 05:18, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) GRU (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - this is supported by refrences 4,5,6, and the content of Misplaced Pages articles that are provided as links)
• 05:11, 19 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism of Vlad Fedorov - correctly describing ideas of author is not violation of BLP policy; this is quite the opposite)
• 22:50, 16 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv to last version by Biophys (BLP and reverting vandalism) - see discussion)
• 05:05, 15 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov - see discussion. The source are the books.)
• 05:07, 14 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Yevgenia Albats (rv - vandalism; she does NOT work now for Izvestia; she was fired)
• 21:39, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism (reliable and notable source - see discussion))
• 20:11, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism)
• 06:24, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov)
• 04:54, 13 February 2007 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (rv - vandalism (deleting valid reference to a notable person); there are no BLP issues here)
• 05:47, 10 February 2007 (hist) (diff) David Satter (rv - vandalism)
• 00:52, 9 January 2007 (hist) (diff) Disinformation (rv vandalism by Vlad Fedorov. I did not remove anything. I made this more clear and added more text.)
• 06:42, 30 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Boris Stomakhin (rv - "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" is falsification by Vlad Fedorov - see my comments in Litvinenko talk page)
• 05:46, 29 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (rv vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov)
• 02:54, 28 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted - 3rd time. This is statement by directer of a notable human rights organization.)
• 18:20, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 18:16, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov has been reverted second time.)
• 15:54, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Alexander Litvinenko (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted.)
• 15:49, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverterd. Naftalin and others (not me!) are talking about suppression of a dissident.)
• 15:45, 27 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Human rights in Russia (Vandalism by user Vlad Fedorov reverted. Naftalin is talking about ethnic problems here.)

Reply. Could anyone trace my recent edits of articles Nikolai Koltsov, Ramzan Kadyrov, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, Human rights in Russia, Persecution of political bloggers and others (with their talk pages where I explained my position) and check if editing by Vlad was actually a vandalism? What he always did was deletion of texts supported by perfect references! He even did not want to recognize such sources as Nature (journal) Review Genetics (article Nikolai Koltsov). I openly warned him about vandalism twice in his talk pages (he deleted this) and openly asked advice of administrators twice (see my talk page). But if I was uncivil, then yes, please do whatever is appropriate. Biophys 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please note how different your to texts: Text that I disputed initially and text which became the result of my dispute. So you claim this was vandalism?Vlad fedorov 13:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other instances of Biophys personal attacks against me

1) User Biophys on his User page put the following: attack on me.

2) Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Misplaced Pages?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr , that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Misplaced Pages?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Another cover-up of personal attacks.Vlad fedorov 17:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

4) Calling me a troll.

5) Calling me vandal.

6) Calling me a stalker and vandal again

7) And again I am vandal

You know guys, I am actually tired of putting here all the links where Biophys attacked me, because these are of enormous quantity and would just clogg all the board.

At the top of it is the creation of attack page against me titled Internet troll squads. Just in order to call a troll all those who dared to defend not even Putin's policy, but him as an ordinary man.Vlad fedorov 17:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of death wish by Biophys

First of all, here is the complete context for your claims that I wished you to die:

I have created a stub about La Russophob blog because it seems to be relevant to the subject of this article. But the stub was marked for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/La Russophob as not notable. So, everyone is welcome to tell his/her opinion or improve this stub. Biophys 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is "La Russophobe" with an e. Google the two and see what comes up most. Jallor 23:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys ne parle pas francaise. His ignorance is well-depicted by articles on Vladimir Putin and Boris Stomakhin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Misplaced Pages.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 16:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

After putting the relevant context, I would like to note that there is no actually death wish, because I am replying to death suggestion by Biophys. He tell imagine if Putin dies. I replied the same would be. In this context if I made personal attack, Biophys also made personal attack against Putin. I just defended him as an ordinary man who deserves the same kind of respect as other individuals, despite all his wrong, bad an so on sides, features and so on.

Second, I was punished for this By Alex Bakharev. So I can't be punished twice for one and same thing. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also apoligoze if Biophys accepted this a personal attack. Vlad fedorov 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of attack with Phallus

Sorry, it wasn't satire, because the journalist who published this article was sentenced for defamation of a living person - Putin. By inserting his article here you also defamed a living person. If you call reproduction of personal offences, defamations in Misplaced Pages "an appropriate encyclopedic edit", well, that's your POV. Vlad fedorov 17:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking about your continuous insertion of Putin phallus allegations into the Phallus and other articles. Most outrageous was your insertion of "Putin Phallus" into Persecution of political bloggers article, despite the fact that the author of this article is a journalist and it was published in internet newspaper, not blog. Considering that you have so many times inserted this into many articles, it would be logic to conclude that you love that topic. By the way this was the only my such post and it was because you have contacted the users with whom I had conversation on Freedom House article. You began to contact them posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. It was a case of wikistalking by you, since no one of these users have ever crossed your article and you never was participating in Freedom House. Moreover in all these "requests for help" you was attacking me too, you said I "wikistalkied" you and all your usual stuff.Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is your repeated insertion of Putin Phallus into Persecution of political bloggers article insertion, although Kursiv is not a blog, but registered internet newspaper, having registration number in Ministry of Mass Media.Vlad fedorov 10:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Here just notice from your talkpage: I could not help but notice

that your Vladimir Putin =====> "national phallus" addition to the phallus article has been removed. This is the second time the same posting has been removed, both times by the same editor, User:Alex Bakharev. Carptrash 02:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Defamation of me by Biophys

Biophys also began to contact different users by posting to their talk pages messages that RfC was filed by you against me edit 1, edit 2, edit 3, edit 4, edit 5, edit 6. In these messages he called me wikistalker. Vlad fedorov 17:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I called you "wikistalker" because User:Colchicum officially filed an RfC about your alleged wikistalking of him and me (sorry, I did not write "alleged").Biophys 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Counter-reply. You called me wikistalker, after adminstrators on RfC declined to acknowledge wikistalking. Moreover, it happened exactly when I decided to step aside from mine articles. I decide to tackle with Freedom House and see the talk page. I have pretty nice discussion with these guys. But you have followed me and began you witch hunt by posting these defamatory statements, knowing already that Bakharev and others didn't shared you accusations of wikistalking, violations of BLP and so on.

User Swatjester already said that you just can't leave without "your victory". I should add that you also couldn't leave without defaming me. You want harass me and to abuse me. This is exactly what you did posting these messages to other users. You just want to "cause me pain" right by blocking me?

Reply. What victory? This is nonsense. I only wanted to keep well referenced text that you simply deleted. A lot of people edited my articles after me and I never had complaints because they did good faith editing. I also objected inserting poorly sourced defamatory claims in biographies of living people that you did. Biophys 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you never had complaints because you was shamelessly reverting and deleting their contributions in case you didn't like them labelling it as "anonymous vandalism", "unrealible sources", "defamation" and so on.Vlad fedorov 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

May I note, that your poorly defamatory claims in biographies and other articles are objectionable too? Why I don't delete your insertions though? I would tell you, because I always was acknowledging my mistakes and I never crossed the line by deleting sourced text, although objectionable but somehow referenced. Tha is my difference from you. You sterilize texts of your opponents shamelessly. You claim violations of BLP everywhere when it fits you political views, the same is with reliability of sources. Vlad fedorov 04:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You excuses for "alleged" are of no avail. I never was writing to every editor of the articles which you have edited, that RfC was also filed against you. Vlad fedorov 18:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New attempts to eliminate others POV by Biophys

Please look there how Biophys again censures and deletes other work without credible explanations. Here is the diff. He creates an article where he inserts only his POV sources and then eliminates any attempts to insert all the POV's. It is he who sterilizes the articles. Vlad fedorov 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New personal attacks by Biophys

Please see that Biophys calls me vandal even at AfD for Internet brigades. He claims that he accused me of vandalism at my RfC , but this is lies. Just go and see that he never brought charges of vandalism against me. This is again a personal attack just to get more score at AfD. Note that Biophys doesn't stop his personal attacks while he reports to this noticeboard. Vlad fedorov 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just an example of you trying to misinterpret evidence. In the working diff, Biophys does not call you a vandal, he only refers the readers to RfC where such accusation was made. All of your above 'evidence' of personal attacks on you is in fact misinterpretation and an attempt to deflect discussion of your evident incivility to discussion of alleged incivility by one of those you have offended and who reported you here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you, Piotrus, provide diffs in support of your statement, that Biophys has accused me of vandalism in my RfC? Vlad fedorov 06:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And please respond directly to my links that show Biophys calling me vandal, troll and wikistalker. If calling me "vandal", "troll" and "wikistalker" is civil? How many times Biophys mad personal attacks on me? Why no one has ever stopped Biophys from personal attacks on me?Vlad fedorov 07:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Commentary by a Third Party

After reading over the thread, I recommend to the administrator(s) addressing this thread that Vlad be blocked for five to seven days, because:

• His edits suggest a major problem with edit warring.
• He's been blocked multiple times in the past, once for block evasion.
• He's already been blocked once this week for edit warring.
• He's also committed a number of obvious WP:NPA violations, some of them on this page. Not the least of these was the implication that Misplaced Pages users would like to see Biophys dead (see above). Rather than apologize, he has tried to pass these comments off as legitimate, honest commentary, despite their obviously mean-spirited nature and the unusal harshness of his accusations.

It's clear to me that this user has a history and hasn't learned much from it. I invite Vlad to read over WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:3RR. Also, I would like to point out to Vlad that while Biophys' addition to Phallus may not have been appropriate, it was indeed satire. Just because the author was convicted of a crime under (I assume) Russian laws does not mean that 1) his commentary is not satire or 2) that his commentary would necessarily be considered defamation under Misplaced Pages policy, which obviously has a substantially different position on both Putin and satire.

Here I would like to note that journalist who wrote "Putin Phallus" was convicted and sentenced for defamation in Russian courts, therefore reproduction of a defamation texts is forbidden in Misplaced Pages. Mister Moralis should familiarize himself with the context and stuation first. Biophys used "satire" labelling just to insert defamatory statements of convicted and sentenced for defamation journalist. Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I feel, should be treated with more leniency- while his actions have certainly been disruptive, he has not been as persistently disruptive as Vlad. While I feel it is fair to be harsh on Vlad because of his history, Biophys' block log is clean.

See how many attacks were done by Biophys in his contributions! Is it not disruptive? Vlad fedorov 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. This is just a discrimination. I have disputed my first block which was done by English speaking guy William Connely who coudn't ascertain whether the texts where supported by references. It is discrimination. Biophys so many times abused me, and in the end I got "just" and "discriminate" sentence by mister Moralis who isn't even administrator? Why so many evident Biophys violations are considered as light? Shouldn't sanctions be equal to everyone? Isn't everyone is equal here? Vlad fedorov 04:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also see here that mediator disagrees with one of my block too, I always disputed this block. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AMediation_Cabal%2FCases%2F2007-02-10_Boris_Stomakhin&diff=110220318&oldid=110217877. Vlad fedorov 06:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like also everyone to see the bias in relation to me. Biophys has violated 3RR rule recently on Boris Stomakhin. I have reported him on noticeboard.3.114 User:Biophys reported by User:Vlad fedorov (Result: Warning) And what? User Biophys received only warning!!! This is so unjust. Sorry, but I can't name it otherwise than bias. I was blocked without warnings momentarily when Pioutrus and his team were reverting Internet brigades incorrect translations. Vlad fedorov 07:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend a 36-hour block for disruptive editing, and that he be watched carefully for a little while. I don't think we have -too- much to worry about from Biophys beyond addressing the above, versus Vlad who has already demonstrated that he will be a persistent problem.

The content removed from Phallus (among other pages) should be evaluated for potential inclusion in Vladimir Putin, under "Putin in humour and fiction." --Moralis (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Question. My another article, Russia and Saddam WMD allegations just has been marked for AfD. Can I at least finish this article before you block me? At least tell me please how much time do I have.Biophys 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC) O'K, I finished this edit. Now you can block me.Biophys 04:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moralis, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. I have observed Vlad's behavior here and at Internet brigades and its vfd. For the most part I have tried to stay out of his way, but the two instances where I stepped in were unpleasant. I think a cooling-off period is in order. Appleseed (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Warnings" to Vlad fedorov by Biophys

Please see the article Russia and Saddam WMD allegations and see how Biophys deletes text which he don't likes. For inserting texts that nullify his efforts to create conspiracy pages he "warns" me diff. If this civil? Vlad fedorov 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that sharing future plans about creation of new articles is civil. Biophys 17:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sharing is a normal thing, but threatening with future plans is definetly not. Vlad fedorov 17:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see also more rude "warning" diff. Vlad fedorov 17:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked

Since nobody wants to step in and stop the bickering, and since the drama has increased since starting here, I've blocked both Vlad_fedorov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Biophys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three days. WP:BRD if necessary. Naconkantari 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Endorsed. Thank goodness. They both did something similar on my talk page a few weeks back - Alison 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse with caevat. Equaling Biophys to Vlad is not fair - I don't think any of the users who commented above suggested this, and several pointed out the difference. Yes, Biophys should not be left off the hook with a pat on his back, but current solution is not fair. He has also given plenty of answers above suggesting willingness to discuss and compromise. I suggest shortening his block to one day at most.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• After spending 15 minutes reading this long case (I will be late on my lecture) I must endorse. Although I personally think Vlad is worse policy violator than Biophys. Maybe block of Biophys should be shortened to 24 hours, as he already shown a will to compromise. - Darwinek 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaints against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs)

I would like to know what the proper channels are for filing formal complaints against two editors, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs). The problem started yesterday when ElKevbo (talk · contribs) started blanking the article on Capella University. Until then ElKevbo (talk · contribs) had not previously spent much, if any, time editing that article. I appropriately posted a request for assistance on this board after ElKevbo (talk · contribs) whitewashed the article twice.

The following demonstrate the whitewashing and blanking done by ElKevbo (talk · contribs)

Blanking

Blanking

Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) then jumped in and blocked me a second time based upon her totally false accusations that I was another user who went by the name of ShacOne (talk · contribs).

Instead of discussing the issue on the talk page, as both Bobak (talk · contribs) and I were attempting to do, ElKevbo (talk · contribs) decided to retailate even though other editors had warned him that his edits were innappropriate. As noted on that link ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was warned

Please be careful, ElKevbo. Removing well sourced content from controversial pages or sections before a consensus is formed on the talk page is not generally a good idea, even if it doesn't amout to a 3RR violation. Indeed it could be considered disruptive editing, which is also grounds for a block. DES 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, others felt the same as I did - ElKevbo (talk · contribs) was removing a significant amount of content without discussing it on the talk page and then lashed out at others because of what he had done.

Had ElKevbo (talk · contribs) bothered to check, especially since he had never edited the before he started blanking, he would have found that another user or users,

• Pizzaman0000,
• Pizzaman6233,
• 68.117.38.94, and
• 75.134.132.66

were engaged in numerous personal attacks directed at me. A simple review of the Capella University edit history will reveal many of those. Perhaps the most blantant example is when Pizzaman6233 stated, F you.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is that Pizzaman0000 was merely warned while I was blocked. Why?

It also needs to be pointed out that over the past 24 hours since I was blocked by ElKevbo (talk · contribs), other editors have also gone in and restored the content that he had blanked. Instead of the whitewashing that was going on, they also made appropriate edits without the hostility and vindictiveness displayed by ElKevbo (talk · contribs).

In light of the contentious nature of the problem the Capella University article has experienced in the past, the article should have been protected - something which has already happened twice in the past.

My final question, how do I file a formal complaint against ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) with Widipedia? Both acted rashly without adequately examining the facts and they now behave as is they flexed've their muscles to prove their points - that certainly does not show a sincere effort, as ElKevbo puts it, to want to "extend a sincere offer to work with (with others) in a collegial manner." That is certainly not appropriate for Misplaced Pages editors. Shac1 08:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is common for us to see this type of complaint. I suggest you try mediation first; there is currently no basis for opening a complaint. However, if you do, you can try filing a request for comment, but you will need another established user to back you up. Part Deux 14:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I noticed while submitting an unrelated 3RR violation, that ElKevbo's name had been inserted into the template. I removed it, but thought it worth mentioning. :) Arcayne () 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as a point of courtesy, you could inform me and ElKevbo that you have brought a complaint here. Natalie 16:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Natalie and Elkevbo should have been informed of this being here. You state Elkevbo blocked you, but your block log only shows blocks by Natalie and DESiegel. Natalie also unblocked you when she realized she'd been fooled by the imitator, an honest error I'm sure. Admins are humans, and hence not perfect. If you care to pursue, I'd suggest mediation too.Rlevse 21:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Both ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) should have also informed me of their intent to block me first. Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) jumped to conclusions, first and was only "informed" that "she'd been fooled by the imitator" when I pointed it out. As you state "Admins are humans, and hence not perfect." Other editors, such as myself, should also be given the same custosy - neither ElKevbo (talk · contribs) and Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) did, in fact, they engaged in personal attacks and gloated about their blocking.Shac1 21:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, ElKevbo never blocked you. You were blocked by DESiegel for violating 3RR. When it appeared you were using a sockpuppet, I merely restarted the block. When it became apparent that this was an imitator and not, in fact, you, the block was lifted because your original 3RR block had expired. I'm really not sure what you want - I have already apologized and I fail to see what else I should do. Natalie 22:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you were in fact using a sockpuppet (arla364 (talk · contribs), as established by this checkuser. Natalie 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That you used a sock, arla364, who interestingly found your 3RR case after only a couple of edits, does not help your case and proves you knew about the 3RR that was filed. Natalie has apologized for thinking Shac1 and Shacone were the same. Using a sock to evade blocks (or vandalize) does nogt require a second notice. My suggestion at this point is to let this go. Rlevse 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is absurd. ElKevbo (talk · contribs), Natalie Erin (talk · contribs), and DESiegel (talk · contribs) acted rashly and arbitrarily. Until this incident, I had never even heard of the term "sock puppet" - furthermore, I NEVER vandalized anything. In addition, I NEVER reverted the same person's edits THREE times - I only reverted ElKevbo (talk · contribs) vandalism twice. Even with that in mind, I had appropriately taken this matter to both the article's talk page and to this board prior to the time I was arbitraily blocked while both Pizzaman's and ElKevbo (talk · contribs) blanking, vandalism, and personal attacks were ignored. The actions of those involved display gross inconsistencies and abritrary actions against all those involved.Shac1 21:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you had heard the word sockpuppet before you started using the arla account or not - it was still a sockpuppet. If you felt you had been blocked wrongly, you should have used the unblock template as instructed in the block message. The correct response was not to create another account and file a frivolous 3RR complaint against another editor. Natalie 00:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, your comments are absurd. You lashed out without checking the facts first and accused me of being someone else. The complaints I filed against you Natalie Erin (talk · contribs) and ElKevbo (talk · contribs), were valid. You acted frivolously, arbitrarily, and rashly without checking the facts. Furthermore, I did use the unblock message but, then again, you have shown that you do not check the facts before you act. It's grossly hypocritical for other's to claim that the error of your wrong actions "were only human" while, at the same time, you refuse to give others the same courtesy. Your own words display the hypocricy of your actions. The complaints I've made are valid. Shac1 00:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want anything else than the apology you have already received from me, take it to WP:RFC. No harm was done from my mistake so I think at this point you're just beating a dead horse. Natalie 01:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for a block

24.190.154.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a school's IP address; it has been blocked four times, and someone claiming to be a pupil there (and an "administrator", though I'm not sure what that means here) – Elnerdo (talk · contribs) – left the following message on the Talk page:

==Please ban us==

If an administrator sees this, please ban our IP address from all editing of Misplaced Pages. We are a highschool in Northern New Jersey, and we have absolutely nothing to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Anyone who has anything important to add to wiki already has an account. elnerdo 14:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I've explained that such a request would need to come from someone in authority at the school, not a pupil, and that even then I doubted that we'd be prepared to block an IP indefinitely. I just want to confirm that advice here. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC we have blocked indefinitely such IPs in the past, but as you say as a result of formal requests from a responsible party (probably via OTRS) --pgk 09:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence gives me pause. I have to wonder if this really comes from a position of authority. Part Deux 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have my doubts (although he does say that he's a pupil with some position; the equivalent of a prefect?). We'd certaibnly not block it on his say-so.

On a related but different matter — I've just received this:

== i'm Sorry, but please block my IP address. ==

Hello Mel, I have tried every trick in the book to get booted from wikipedia editing and now i would just like to be blocked. This is my last request, so please consider this so that i'm not able to edit pages on wikipedia.

Thanks-

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiThug777 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I have to say that he has been living up to his User name, and couldn't have been far off being blocked anyway. Again, what's the correct response please? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCK#Self-requested_blocks, you aren't supposed to be able to request a block for yourself. -Hit bull, win steak 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That said, if you wanted to block him for something unrelated (which came to your attention after you started investigating the initial request), I think that'd be kosher. -Hit bull, win steak 21:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked as a vandal, so the question's now moot. (I've always wondered by self-requested blocks aren't allowed; in this case, certainly, it would have mede sense.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably just to avoid confusion. I can think of a situation where someone would request a block, and then someone else would miss the request and get all hysterical (He didn't do anything wrong! How dare you block him?!). -Hit bull, win steak 17:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou vs. User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali

For several months I have been subject to continuing abuse by vandals and sockpuppets who object to my edits and my extra-Wika politics relating to the Middle East. To date, some 160 sockpuppets of User:Runtshit have been indefinitely blocked for their libellous and abusive edits to over 130 different articles. In addition to abusive comments, these editors have been adding a link to a weblog set up for the sole purpose of spreading these and other defamatory comments. Following the intervention of several administrators, linking to this hate site has resulted in automatic bans for the perpetrators.

Now, for the first time, an established editor has repeated these libels and posted a link to the weblog. In the course of a dispute at Talk:Shimon Tzabar, User:Jaakobou appears to have trawled through the history of my edits, and has repeated a libellous accusation as fact, including posting the URL of the abusive weblog. Since he has clearly read the weblog, he cannot claim to be unaware of its libellous nature. And since he has studied my contributions history, he must be aware that scores of vandals have been banned for posting these false and defamatory allegations.

The posting of this material is a deliberate provocation. It is a clear and deliberate breach of WP:NPA. If allowed to go unremarked, it could encourage other editors to post such abusive material. I therefore request that User:Jaakobou be blocked for a suitable period in order to emphasise the serious and unacceptable nature of his behaviour. RolandR 10:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR and User:Abu_ali have been making a tag-team effort and on numereous occassions stooped down to defamatory intonations and accusations with their tag-team reverting. this case was not much different as he accused me yet again (for the umpteenth time) for pushing my POV, an act that deserved a reply that he should quit doing so. after scores of situations where i was "against" a tag team revert effort while trying to make a normative contribution to wikipedia:

a few samples of insults/tag-team efforts:

1. "was in the article for several months until removed by POV editor"
2. Reverting tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits
3. "RonaldR, any valid reasoning for removal of criticism and POV change of "seperation wall" title ?"
4. cencorship of criticism per "politically-motivated"
5. "Removed hostile POV editsd"
6. Adam Keller warnings on RolandR talk page - part 1
7. Adam Keller mediation attempt i've made - refused by RolandR - personal attacks included: "this highly POV editor, whose good faith in this case I strongly doubt."
8. warning on RolandR talk page per more personal attacks
9. earlier weasel terms warnining he removed from his talk page
10. "I wouldn't be too worried at User:Jaakobou's bluster. He constantly threatens and attempts to bully other editors who do not agree with his own POV" and a little extra sad taunting attempt.
11. Abu Ali, please help me out on Adam Keller
12. "tag team war reverting" warning recieves these: "He simply reverted your POV edits to my neutral formulation. Jaakobou's accusation is so over-the-top, it is hard to take it seriously", "I am shocked at the patronising tone adopted by Jaakobou" and the best attempt to give the tag-team revert an anti-jaako feel: "Quite a colonial attitude, in fact; it doesn't surprise me that you are offended by such remarks."

I could go on and on with smaples of tag team wars by these two and POV pushing. this entire complaint by RolandR against me is the result of his incessant attacks on me which is the resut of a blatant tag-team warring style of editing preffered by the two over a proper talk page discussion debate. off course by now, he's contacted allready all of his other tag-team buddies to add libel against me... but guess who was first? (Abu Ali). evidence from the article of this initial report: a request by Lizrael for RonaldR to not force his opinion into the article, and a second request - both were ignored by RolandR and Abu Ali. The RonaldR attack - "My suspicion is that the deniers want to suppress the link altogether, in order to prevent Misplaced Pages readers from linking to its well-written and devastating critiques of Israel's behaviour.". obviously, i've had enough of the insinuations and the "hidden" nick-naming and i presented that he should stop calling me out on "POV charges" (claiming his view is neutral) cosidering that someone has even made a blog to honor his anti-israel POV. Jaakobou 12:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The above remarks by Jaakobou are irrelevant. The fact remains that he deliberately posted a link to a defamatory website, despite knowing that 160 sockpuppets had already been indefinitely blocked for the same offence. RolandR 12:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

how would i know that 160 sockpupets posted it? i'm very sorry that you have sockpuppets chasing you, but i was only presenting that you are a POV editor and that you should stop accusing me with POV while claiming you're neutral. another note i wish to stress, is that you constantly claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce your POV onto articles. Jaakobou 12:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

please do not POV the title of this incident . Jaakobou 12:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Now it has been made clear, perhaps User:Jaakobou will agree to not post the link again, and perhaps both of you will concentrate on the topic at hand rather than other editors. What does Abu Ali (talk · contribs) have to do with it? He hasn't edited for nearly a year. -- zzuuzz 13:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you for catching that, error fixed - User:Abu_ali what the correct username.

note: i was not the one reporting this "violation". Jaakobou 14:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Then will you agree to not post the offending link? -- zzuuzz 14:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of "posting" the offending link, it was placed (via style) to validate my claim that a blog that celebrates his bias exits. To my defense, I am fairly tired of being attacked under "tendentious, POV, untrue, pejorative and misleading edits" allegations by a tag-team that claim other editors are irrelivant and enforce their POV (bypassing 3RR) under the pretnece of neutrality... regardless, i wouldn't mind not reposting that link (when forced to mention it's existance).. but it would be only fair that user rolandR remove the warning from my page and in the future avoid statements such as "silly".."highly POV editor" and such. reverting should be left out and a discussion should be done properly... in fact, i'm surprized that this issue was not dealt with earlier. note: it would also be a good thing if he'd avoid removing my warnings from pages of other users and his own page also. Jaakobou 16:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, i was thinking of archiving this thread but you haven't answered Zzuuzz's question yet. Will you agree to not post the offending link? If yes, then we can move forward and archive this. -- FayssalF - 17:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF - , as you can see from User:RolandR's reply, he has no attempt to consider other editors in a respectable manner (per "totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response", "I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid", etc.). I see no reasoning for me to post the link (and i don't intend to) but a reciprocal reaction would be the removal of the warnning and an honest attempt at resolving disputes without the tag-team reverts per "user is highly POV and untrue, pejorative and misleading" tactic. It's become a major hassle to deal with them every time we encounter a dispute. note: why do you place no regard to the tag team revert and disrespect issue? Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a totally disingenuous and typically dishonest response. The link did not place itself; it was placed by Jaakobou, who himself repeated some of the libels from it. It is inconceivable that he can have looked at this site and not realised that it was libellous, abusive and offensive. I assume that he is not claiming to be too stupid to recognise this. Nor can I believe that he was unaware that scores of other editors posting this link have been banned from Misplaced Pages. After all, he trawled through my contributions history to discover some that he could cite as examples of my point of view, so he will of course have seen the dozens of contributions relating to this, as well as the offensive edits made to the pages he looked at.

I have been battling for months to deal with this. Several other editors and administrators have wasted hours of their time removing these libellous edits and links from Misplaced Pages. Zzuuzz is aware of this, since he himself has dealt with this abuse on many occasions. A grudging and half-hearted undertaking not to repost the linbk is simply not good enough -- Jaakobou has acted in a deliberately offensive way, he has breached WP:NPA, he is making libellous attacks, and unless he is blocked for a significant period, then a precedent will have been established and other editors are likely to take advantage of this.

Jaakobou is now trying to divert attention from my complaint by bringing up all sorts of untrue and irrelevant allegations. I do not intend to dignify them with a response, except to note that it is a lie to claim that I have removed his "warnings" from user pages other than my own. RolandR 16:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm placeing the attention at the root. i could care less about some people hassling you about your views. I do care about the blatent disrespect you're repeatedly showing. you're the one jumping on the first thing you can in an attempt to ban me. Jaakobou 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page, removing a message from User:Abu ali. He accuses me above of removing his messages from other users talk pages, and now he does himself what he falsely alleges that I have done. This too is unacceptable behaviour. Is there any way to block him from my talk page? RolandR 23:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

the previous comment by User:RolandR was preceded by this one: personal attack complaint and followed by this one: "i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it"

For a second time, Jaakobou has moved my comment in order to remove it from its context. It's not enough that he vandalises my talk page; now he is also vandalising my complaint about this. His behaviour has passed all reasonable and acceptable bounds -- he seems to believe that he can censor not only messages from one editor to another, but also the resulting complaints. I have the right to make my complaint in the place and mmanner I thoink fit, and he does not have the right to decide that it should be made in a different manbner. If he wishes to respond to my complaint, he should do so here, rather tnam move my complaint out of its context to a place of his choice. RolandR 12:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR your incessant attempt to portray me as a vandal are becoming increasingly annoying. do you have a proper reasoning for placing a vandalism complaint out of chronological order above the "personal attacks" about those very edits so that a naive reader might think that vandalism came first and personal attacks came later? Jaakobou 13:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. My comment, which Jaakobou has now moved three times, was not a response to his remarks below. It was a continuation of the discussion above, and in particular his false allegation that I have been removing his comments from other editors talk pages. By moving it, he makes me appear to make an irrelevant response to a different comment.

Meanwhile, his (very) frequent posting of unwarranted and extremely verbose "warnings" on my talk page and those of other editors, his removal of other editors comments from my talk page, his repeat of libels against me, and his posting of the URL of a libellous weblog set up purely in order to defame me, certainly warrant the description of vandalism. RolandR 13:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:RolandR, (1) it would be far more factual if you'd be able to link to all of your claims when you make them, as i usually do. (2) i've managed to solve the "comment moving" problem by placing a timestamp and link - i don't think you can really deny the time each comment was made. (3) i have no interest in you or in defaming you - i am however interested in proper conduct when working on articles, something you refuse to do despite many attempts i've made to relay that message to you.. Jaakobou 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

recent personal attacks

Please see RolandR's talk page to see Abu ali's subtle personal attacks against me. It's a repeated phenomena that's difficult to work on articles with; a duo that says they "must be doing something right" after they see they have, to put it bluntly, pissed me off. when noted that this personal attack is frowned upon, RonaldR ignored the note and reverted the personal attack back into his page and also made a 4th level warning on my talk page. Jaakobou 22:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following "i removed a personal attack" comment was preceded by this User:RolandR comment: "jaakobou has now twice vandalised my talk page removing a comment from Abu_ali"

i removed a personal attack and you've reinstated it while ignoring my notice that this personal attack is frowned upon. Jaakobou 23:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou invited me to state my case here. My talk page contains a number of final warings by this editor which I normally shrug off. But I think that this edit edit is libelous and defamatory beyond what is acceptable here. So I think it would be best for User:Jaakobou to apologize and agree not to insert such material here in future. If he is unwilling to do this, some sort of sanction may be appropriate in order to show him the seriousness with which such personal attacks are treated here and convince him not to repeat them. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that's an interesting way of mispresenting the warnings you had recieved in the past (and just recently) and ignoring your repeated insinuations, attacks and tag team warring. your rich history of zionist conspiracy claims makes me wonder about wikipedia's ability of dealing with destructive editors who abuse their personal page to catalogue israeli gouvermental officials that have or had issues with the law. Jaakobou 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know you do not like my user page becuase you have raised an ANI about it in the past. Any editor who is interrested in this will have fun trawling through our contributions history. But lets not get distracted and get back to the current issue. The question FayssalF and I asked (and you for some reason ignore) is will you apologize for this edit and agree not to reinsert links to this libelous and defamatory material. Thanks ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) i've answered the question twice allready. (2) will you apologize for all the attacks you've made on me (and erase those which can be erased) including the one made just 10 minutes ago and start dealing with disputes in a proper manner on the talk page without tag-team reverting? even when i've requested your opinion on an article you used it as an opportunity to unjustly attack me . Jaakobou 07:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) If you have answered the question, I would be interrested in seeing the answer. (2) I have made no attacks on you, and find it puzzling to say the least that you demand that I apologize for non-existent personal attacks, while you continue to make personal attacks such as this . ابو علي (Abu Ali) 19:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) look it up, it's on this thread. (2) your name doesn't even exist on the link you have provided. (3) scroll up a little bit and you'll find a few of your personal attacks on me. Jaakobou 20:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(2) the personal attack I mentioned was against RolandR. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

please see Misplaced Pages:Troll#Pestering. Jaakobou 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if anyone is being a troll here, and pestering others, it's certainly not Abu Ali. Jaakobou, on the other hand, persistently posts unwarranted "warnings" on other editors' talk pages. Just look at these, for instance: , , , , , . That's quite enough to demonstrate a consistent pattern. Jaakobou, I suggest you look in a mirror before you make such allegations in future. RolandR 21:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread keeps popping up in my watchlist and it's getting annoying. Jaakobou, there is no rule that says if someone starts a new (sub)section, people can no longer post in the previous section, so quit moving other people's messages around. Also, I can't see any personal attacks from RolandR, just you constantly accusing him of making them. I'm in half a mind to block you, but I'm holding off in the hope that you start being co-operative. – Steel 13:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, i've managed to solve this problem without moving the misplaced comment, thank you for the lovely response. all you need to do to find (many of) the details of the situation is to follow it through from the start of the thread. Jaakobou 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Steel359, could you please explain the reasoning behind this edit and perhaps present a better title to allow for this mini unrelated conversation to not clutter up the main issue? Jaakobou 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, it's not unrelated. – Steel 14:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, pace Steel's comments, that Jaakobou could benefit from taking a less confrontational approach towards his fellow editors. He does seem to have a habit of assuming bad faith and making claims of wrongdoing; this seems to be more of the same. It's the kind of approach that just ends up annoying people. -- ChrisO 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Chris, i'm assuming good faith regardless of our history. Your intervention here is not very noble. if you feel i was wrongly assuming bad faith on the Pallywood situation/incident, than you can discuss about it properly - personally, i was only alleging that you're insisting on your own opinion on the article and ignoring the other editors. rather than make insinuations on an AV/I that's got nothing to do with me assuming bad faith onto you (and i do believe we were wtill working on the talk page and not on the revert button) but rather with 2 editors tag teaming while ignoring the talk page and making repeated personal attacks/insinuations on me. Jaakobou 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Misplaced Pages is Communism

He went through the Navajo encyclopaedia doing his usual dealie - I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to say anything, but I don't speak Navajo. WilyD 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, did he do that to the main page? Yikes. I reverted it. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 14:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hit the Rumanian wiki too: . I'm reverting them now. Part Deux 14:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WilyD 15:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone else would like to help, you can see the list of vandalized pages at . I don't time to fix them all. Part Deux 15:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Navajo wiki. --Golbez 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

When you see rampant vandalism on a small wiki, report to #wikimedia-stewards, we can fix this much easier with our tools. MaxSem 16:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Slightly easier may be more appropriate actually. Prodego 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The Communism Vandal. He use to go around just blanking pages and putting the image of the Hammer and Sickle with the caption "Misplaced Pages is Communism". One of the better known habitual vandals out there.--Jersey Devil 17:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does he have an agenda? Does he really belive that 'wikipedia is communism'? And if so... Why? ThuranX 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a chance it isn't the original vandal but impersonators of him/her.Gizza 04:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User vandalizing the Hispanic article

Hi,

User:Burgas00 has been repeatedly removing entire sections from the article Hispanic. He is mainly obsessed with the section Hispanic#Racial diversity. Here you have some of his actions:

1.- He deleted a whole section that had been there for months and where tens of users have contributed. It was full of references and it had been discussed for long in the talk page. He did not obtain any consensus to remove it:

1 → "Racial diversity - I think this section is useless. It is quite evident from the rest of the article that Hispanics are an ethnicity not a race. This section contributes nothing to the article"

2.- The section he deleted was re-added. Now, he deletes a half of it. Someone re-added this piece of content that he had deleted, some time later:

2 → "Racial diversity - This bit is random, irrelevant and very lame. I think the whole section should go, but if not, at the very least this bit should dissapear"

3.- He deletes the whole history section where lots of users contributed, and all the small sections that talk about the Hispanics from Spain, again with sarcastic comments:

3 → "Cutting down stuff which is not relevant to the article on hispanics. Whats all this stuff about "The historical mistake"?????"

4.- He deletes, again, the section of the racial diversity:

4 → "Racial diversity - I'm erasing this section which is just garbage.Someone please rewrite a short coherent section rather than this rambling collection of users' personal issues"

5.- Again, he deletes the section of Racial Diversity:

5: → "Racial diversity - This section is shady racial politics. It is not acceptable..."

6.- And finally his last edit, copy pasting an entire section from the Spanish People while removing already existing pharagraphs in the Racial Diversity section:

6 → "Racial diversity - Copy pasting from Spanish people article... I still think this section is not necessary"

I think that some admin should say something to him, since me and other users have already told him not to do so in the Talk:Hispanic (check this part of the discussion, for example). Thanks. Onofre Bouvila 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution that-a-way. Viridae 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that user Burgas is close to Vandalism. He has had the same problems in the Spanish people article. He has a long history there of disrupting the article, for some reason always targeting the same type of information, deleting it or going around with one hundred excuses to attemtp to ge rid of it. Piece-here 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti

I wish to file harassment charges against dhartung and iridescenti, who have been tracking my articles and deleting as many as they can find. They usually cite "lack of notability".

Prior to mid-March, 2007, I had had only two articles out of several hundred killed. Since mid-March, with dhartung and iridescenti, usually following dhartung, I have had nearly twenty articles removed. A number were suddenly deleted. Several were deleted, and I did not find out for several days later.

I will focus on the following seven articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Malouf_Abraham%2C_Jr. Malouf Abraham of Canadian, Texas, is a retired physician and art collector. He is building a $7 million art museum in Canadian. He has also underwritten the Abraham Art Museum on the campus of Wayland Baptist University in Plainview, TX. I have over a dozen references. Dhartung wrote in condescension: "Successful allergist who knows a bunch of important people, apparently. Otherwise non-notable. Dhartung". Dhartung does not take into consideration that Dr. Abraham is building a $7 million art museum in a small town in the Texas Panhandle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cecil_A._Bickley

Bickley was one of the founders of Denver City, Texas, in 1939-1940, the last TX oil "boom town." The town library bears his name. He gave an oral history interview with Texas Tech. When this article was posted, the editor put it under "Did You Know" about Bickley being a founding father of Denver City. It was found missing from Misplaced Pages without explanation on April 13, 2007. Dhartung wrote: "Delete per nom. I'm tempted to speedy it, as I don't consider being named 'outstanding citizen' is really much of an assertion of notability. Otherwise, it's just a nice obituary. Accomplishment is not notability." Dhartung did not check to see that this article was cited by DYK just two weeks earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:KNM/Archive3#Cecil_A._Bickley_on_DYK_for_11_March_2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Floyd_H._Long

Long was a member of the Louisiana Long dynasty who did NOT run for office. In Louisiana, just being a visible Long makes one "notable." Dhartung wrote: "Just being a member of the Long family is not, by itself, notability." But Dhartung is not from Louisiana: in Louisiana Longism is notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_P._Hebert

Hebert was an elected member of city council of a city of more than 45,000 population. He was a star college baseball player and an engineer who developed a type of sewer pipe. Iridescenti wrote: "The highest office he attained was Streets Commissioner for a small (pop 50000) town. Plus, in light of the creator's history this is probably a copyvio from somewhere. - iridescenti). Iridescenti accused he of plagiarism, and there is no plagiarism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_H._Boyce

Boyce was the STATE chairman of the Louisiana Republican Party from 1972-1976. He was also a Baton Rouge philanthropist. He is easily notable. State chairman is an ELECTED position, not from voters, but from the elected members of the 144-member Republican State Central Committee. Dhartung wrote: "Local politico, highest office attained state party chairman. This is not considered passing the bar for WP:BIO which starts at the state legislature level.". Boyce was not "local" but state. Guidelines say "Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office . . . This could easily be interpreted to include state party chairmen, who are elected, or even county chairmen, who are also elected in many situations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/William_E._Bennett

Bennett was a professor active in his profession and often quoted in his local media. He was an elected member of his county school board. When this article was first posted in December 2006, there was objection. The article survived the test at the time. Then it vanished from Misplaced Pages on April 9, 2007, with no notice to me. (Dhartung did not participate in this deletion.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Preston_Dunn

Mr. Dunn was a Portales, NM, business and civic leader with an impressive World War II record, which was rejected as establishing notability. He was the subject of several articles in the Clovis newspaper. His death was carried by the McClatchey newspapers and placed in nearly all newspapers in the West.(Dhartung had the secondary role in deletion of this article.)

I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality.

Billy Hathorn 19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The length of this notice is excessive; please rephrase, aiming at greater concision. El_C 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing: dhartung and iridescenti are Wikistalking me because they say to delete my articles. Anyway, to respond to that, I notice that the result of each AfD you mention is delete. Maybe they are right? -Amarkov moo! 19:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of AfD is that it's just not one person's opinion. If someone is consistently adding articles that don't meet guidelines, then of course many of their articles will go to AfD, but at that point it becomes a matter of consensus from multiple parties. MSJapan 19:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan has explained it perfectly. The majority of the editors discussing your articles at AfD agree with dhartung and iridescenti, so perhaps you should rethink how you're approaching this problem. A Train 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletions, please aim it to deletion review. Accusing other users of stalking you will not achieve anything, especially in case the community agrees with their actions. Michaelas 20:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have not nominated articles Hathorn has authored that indisputably meet notability, such as politicians elected to public office at the statewide level or above. In my comment here I state, "Hathorn is skilled at using Misplaced Pages tools and knows a bit about house style. And it's great that we can have holes filled like Lieutenant Governors and State Senate Majority Leaders. If only we could get these skills turned toward helping the encyclopedia in a way that is acceptable to the community, this would not be as sour a process." I truly wish, Billy Hathorn, that you would do so. These borderline locally-famous people that you've cited above as evidence of improper deletion are all cases that you are welcome to take to deletion review. I'm certainly willing to accept community consensus at either AFD or DRV on any given nomination. But I'd rather you just didn't create these dubious articles in the first place, and I -- and other editors -- are very uncomfortable with the extent to which you use your own unpublished academic writings as a source. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Further to the above, of the seven AfDs you cite, I participated in a grand total of three of them, and was not the nominator for a single one of them. You appear to think that myself & Dhartung have some kind of magic delete-power; I'm not a sysop and to the best of my knowledge, neither is Dhartung. Each of those AfD discussions resulted in a Delete decision by an admin (and not only that, a different admin each time). As per Amarkov, ever if we were stalking you, if the articles didn't warrant deletion the closing admins would close them as keep, even if everyone !voted to delete. I also must point out that on one of those AfD's you cite as proof of our 'hostility', neither myself or Dhartung made any comment whatsoever. As for your comment that "I believe that Dhartung and iridescenti should be removed from editing my materials because they are hostile and lack impartiality", I don't know about Dhartung's edit history but to the best of my knowledge I have never edited one of your articles in any way, 'hostile' or not. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If it helps any, I'll offer that it's possible Billy Hathorn melded in his mind some of my actions with those of iridescenti. Unlike iridescenti, I have nomintated a number of Billy Hathorn's articles for deletion and have edited others. My deletion nominations have generated consensus to delete in almost all cases, and my edits have been to remove things like quotes from personal conversations that he has had with the article's subject. (He actually happily cites such references for quotes as "E-mail exchange between (subject) and Billy Hathorn".) He has been advised of WP:NOR and of notability guidelines many times (his talk page contains a veritable laundry list of such advisements), and shows no inclination that he cares or intends to change his actions in those areas. I readily confess that, as a result, his articles grab my attention more so than do those of other editors who do not sport such a track record of blatant disregard for policy. If that is somehow "harrassment", then I am guilty as charged. Mwelch 09:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd further remind Billy Hathorn that even if Dhartung/Mwelch/myself were following him around, of the actual text of WP:STALK: "The term "wiki-stalking" has been coined to describe following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor. This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Misplaced Pages policy". Besides as I say above, as far as I'm aware I have never either edited one of his articles or nominated one for deletion. As per Mwelch above, despite the laundry list of warnings on his talk page, Billy Hathorn is continuing to add similar articles (three already today, and it's not yet 7am in Louisiana) so this is likely to carry on indefinitely. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible Tendentious editing by User:Steve Dufour and User:Misou

Based on Steve Dufour's statements about Scientology Finance on the biographies of living persons noticeboard, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scientology_Finance, Misou put up a speedy deletion template , which was removed by another user. Then Steve Dufour put it back . I removed the template because it has nothing to do with living persons, nor does it fall within the criteria for speedy deletion. It looks to me that they want to get rid of the aricle for POV reasons.--Fahrenheit451 20:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it. User:Steve Dufour has done things which seemed to me like abuse of the deletion process before, such as nominating a featured article -- Xenu -- for deletion when his arguments that it was non-notable were rejected.

I'm still of the opinion that there should be a status here comparable to vexatious litigant, such that a person who repeatedly engages in misuse of processes such as deletion is barred from further use of them. User:Steve Dufour's gadfly challenges to the sourcing of Scientology articles are occasionally very slightly useful to article quality, but abusive tactics such as this make his overall contribution lean towards the negative. --FOo 06:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Misou

Thanks, guys, for not informing me about this sneaky attack on myself. Hope I don't disturb your little club here. Foo, could you please stop smearing me and start contributing some sense, thank you. Fahrenheit451, if you look at the edit summary, you'll find a different "truth" than what you spread here. The deletion of this article was suggested by an Admin but in any case fulfills the deletion criteria. This article is not a WP:BLP issue and I never said that. What it seems to be is a) Original Research with zero RS to back it up (could be wholly invented by you, as it stands right now and you could not provide any RS since a while either) and b) useless. This minor subject could easily be a part of one of the hundreds of existing articles. Misou 02:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't say anything about User:Misou, unless you're the same person as User:Steve Dufour, in which case we have a sock puppet problem here. Is that what you're saying? --FOo 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In re Dufour

Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

• Added Schwarz "Attack article" section — (later removed by another editor)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

• Added 2005 Schwarz nom to 2006 AFD log — (later corrected by another editor)
• in an attempt to open 3rd nom — (Schwarz AFDs 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

• Added 2 and 4 — (Schwarz sections 1 - 2 - 3 - 4)
• Added "Article about suspected sockpuppets of a WP editor?" (Schwarz)

• Added 1 and 2 — (Rathbun sections 1 - 2 - 3)

• Added Scientology Finance — (later removed by another editor)
• Added section again

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

• Added Schwarz section — (and anticipated 4th Schwarz AFD which soon appeared) — (subsequently incorporated into another section)

Misplaced Pages:Village pump

• Added section "Scientology overcovered?"

Page histories research results contributed by — Athænara ✉ 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I too have had difficulty with this editor, he seems to make a habit of bringing up issues already decided for the same reasons that caused said decsion. diff. He is again claiming the article in question is an attack article. Anynobody 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hows about we just stop the "tactics" and edit the encyclopedia?

Here is a word I had for Steve on the Scientology Finance article in response to his alerting me to it. Boils down to a NN article that was, IMO, simply added to give another opportunity for Scientology critics to link to off-wiki POV, non-RS, attack sites.

. . . Both aspects of Scientology policy are correct. There is an OR synthesis by F451 joining them together as they are unrelated other than both being policies related to money. They are also non-notable and too much detail for a separate article. Similar to F451's article on Dead File; non-notable, too low a level of detail, and that one is WP:Fair use vio. --Justanother 14:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This highly POV linking violates wikipedia policy but they have gotten away with it so long that they seem to think it is a norm. The article is non-notable Church policy and if Steve and Misou want to put it up for a delete then they should. Hey guys, instead of trying to get your opponents in trouble, how about we just walk through the process here. Thanks. --Justanother 05:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Capella University Article Request for Protection

There is now a another new user, Fizzleoneseven who has just shown up and is blanking the article on Capella University. The article needs to be protected.Shac1 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages: requests for page protection. Natalie 22:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• The account is a self-evident sock. WP:RBI. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

If Fizzleoneseven is a self-evident sock. WP:RBI, then why hasn't he/she been blocked? Shac1 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They have. Natalie 01:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad: wikistalking etc

Rebroad has opened another Incident report on this topic:

User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings

At the end of March, when Rebroad move Person to Person (Philosphical), I warned Rebroad about this page move and others (Telephone (Jack) to Telephone (Socket), Nephology to Nephology (to be deleted)) he had made recently.

This somehow turned into an enormous thing--Rebroad got very upset and warned me that I was impersonating someone of authority, that two people did not make consensus (apparantly one person did), and the resulting discussion/argument not only went over our talk pages, but on the requests for expansion page, the etiqutte page and here as well, when Rebroad came to complain about my warning him (he was blocked).

This is all located in both of our archives:
User_talk:Rebroad/Archive_2#Warning_in_re_your_page_moves
User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen/Archive_1#reply_to_your_comments

I question the wisdom of dredging up the previous discussion. The only current issue is your continued practice of assuming bad faith for not clearly bad faith edits and thus warning inapprioriately. Would there really be any harm in being patient enough to issue a level 1 warning first, wait, then issue another warning later if the editor persists? Your level 3 warnings don't even help explain to them what they need to change about their behaviour, whereas a level 1 warning does. --Rebroad 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone really does want to read through all the past discussion (I wouldn't recommend it!), my final summarisation was provided here. Rgds, --Rebroad 15:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The background is necessary--we are in fact supposed to be avoiding each other for a reason. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And Rebroad's block discussions are located on his current talk page.

After his block was over we both agreed to avoid each other, and as I didn't know how much things had cooled, I even avoided editing articles he created/worked on because I just didn't want to deal with this all again.

When I got back from inactivity (lack of internet connection), I had a warning from Rebroad on my talk page however--User_talk:Miss_Mondegreen.

I replied to him on his talk page explaining the edit--that I was following policy, and then once again asked him to leave me alone.

Today I have another warning on my talk page about a different edit, one where he disagreed with my placing a uwv3 warning, and he not only warned me about it, he went to the user's talk page, removed the warning and replaced it with a level 1 warning.

Btw, the user in question has been vandalizing regularly for ages, is a current vandal--I couldn't find a actual good edit, and to see why I gave a level three--this is an average edit for this user.

Rebroad is clearly wikistalking me. I'm constantly being accused of bad faith, and warned or something else, but Rebroad doesn't bother to find out why. My real problem with Rebroad isn't constantly having to explain or even having someone watch my edits--it's that Rebroad doesn't do research or ask--he assumes and accuses and then I'm not explaining the policy and the reasoning--I'm defending myself and it's tiring.

If Rebroad is willing/able to stop this--then I think that we could get along fine--I wouldn't avoid article and nothing we be a problem. If Rebroad can't or isn't willing to assume good faith or bother to look into a situation, then Reboard just needs to avoid me, no matter what he thinks is going on. Rebroad removed merge tags and forgot to merge the articles--I didn't do anything because I'm not getting into this again. Someone else will notice, or will add merge tags again. Or they won't, and a different wikipedia will emerge. There are lots of wikipedians--if Rebroad and I avoid fixing each others mistakes, Misplaced Pages will somehow survive.

If Rebroad is willing to either cool off or leave me alone there's no problem. But since that hasn't happened so far, I'd appreciate people watching this so that it doesn't escalate.

I am looking for editors and administrators to deescalate, not escalate the situation. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would say you are escalating the situation by bringing here. It's already resulted in my raising an AN/I for you now. Shame, since we seemed to be having a decent conversation about it on my talk page so far. --Rebroad 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In your raising an incident about me? Technically, this board is to report incidents not raise them, though really, it does seem to do a lot of the later. Bad joke aside--we had a solution--avoid each other. You clearly didn't like this solution and that wouldn't be a problem if you had decided to work with me, or even, if when you thought my edits were incorrect, you did some checking, or asked me, or others. But you didn't, and this is harrasment, whether you intend it or not. So we need a solution, one that sticks, and I don't think that we can come up with one on our own. And I emphasized that I expected the people who commented here to help cool the situation. I'd appreciate it if you worked in that vein as well. I'm trying very hard here, and I'm constantly being attacked. Please appreciate that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note for Rebroad on his userpage today, which you may have missed (you just posted just above it). I had hoped this situation was resolved, since I had been keeping an eye on it for a couple of weeks and it seemed to have quieted down. I strongly repeat my suggestion that the two of you avoid each other. Newyorkbrad 02:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Separately, is that title override on the User:Rebroad page Misplaced Pages-appropriate? -- THF 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Are title overrides (outside of the title can't acurately handle the name sorta thing) allowed in general? I personally don't have an issue with it, and I really don't know if there is any sort of rule on this in particular but if there isn't, it would simply depend on whether or not it confused people, IMO. All I know about title overrides is that they're used when a title can't be done quite right for some reason... Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I did see your note Newyorkbrad--and that's what I'm been doing--I didn't even wikify a particular article once I realized that Rebroad was the creator. Rebroad doesn't have this issue--he thinks that we shouldn't have a problem working together, but at the same time, he's clearly watching my watchlist and finding fault with my edits and coming to me about them. I've found fault with some of his edits that I've stumbled over too, but I haven't dealt with them, figuring that wiki is self cleaning. In the case of my edits unfortunately, he isn't coming to me and asking why, he's gathering from what he knows that I'm wrong, which is both not AGF and means I'm constantly defending myself.

It also has the unfortunate side effect that he learns less--if he came and asked why I did x--he'd be more open to learning why and I'd give him a nicer, less defensive, better answer. When he comes to me accusing, he's less open and so am I. The current situation is bad all around, and I'm willing to go in multiple directions--he just has to pick one.

Avoidance certainly seems to be the simplest but I also understand the bee-under-the-bonnet feeling that occurs when you see something you think is wrong and want to fix it. Rebroad has always been a bold editor prone to acting first and discussing later. This isn't right for all scenarios and it's especially wrong here. If this impulse could be curbed--and Rebroad could come and talk to me, and possibly someone else if he wasn't satisfied with what I said, before acting on whatever he thought needed to be done, we'd probably have a great working relationship and we'd both learn a lot. If not, then we should stick to avoidance. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI--I forgot to mention this earlier but I reverted Rebroad's replaced warning back to the uwv3 and also replied to him on his talk page letting him know about this discussion. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   02:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has been a problematic community member for a long time. I referenced a 3RR block and other problems in Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Rebroad. His history should be taken into account if further dispute resolution becomes necessary. YechielMan 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a blanket statement. In the 3 years I've been editing Misplaced Pages, I've been blocked only once for 3RR and that was swiftly unblocked when it was realised I'd mis-interpreted the 3RR policy (which I think had changed since I last read it). --Rebroad 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Rebroad's talk page

I think you'll find it's the helpdesk you should raise this with. Not ANI. You have been already warned previously about wasting admins' time by posting unnecessary comments at ANI. --Rebroad 14:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the helpdesk is a place to have factual questions answered. I do not have any. I haven't been warned about wasting admins time on ANI--one user didn't like that I, and several other users questioned an administrative decision. I have no idea what the user was thinking, as that user has never been in contact with me--ever--the user wasn't even involved in the multi-day discussion on ANI, and I don't know why the user singled me out, as over the four or five days that the incident took place--I made a grand total of six comments. That's a big whoop.

ANI is the place to go if there is an incident. I would certainly qualify this as an incident. I don't know how this will end--I'm simply asking for others to weigh in--provide opinions, other peceful solutions that you can deal with as you didn't like the avoidance once. We had a solution and it didn't work. I'm asking people to help us come up with another one--hopefully one that lasts a little longer.

However, in re ANI v. the Helpdesk, you could have gone to the helpdesk to ask if a level 3 was appropriate in that case. If they told you no, then someone there could have handled that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   01:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

what's the proper process here?

ok List of That's So Raven episodes has something like 96 individual episodes that have articles (though 7-8 of them have already been deleted or redirected back, more on that in a moment). I've gone through the first two seasons: so far every single article without fail is unsourced, original research, and consists of at least 50% of the pages content is trivia. Now, according to Misplaced Pages:Centralized_discussion/Television_episodes it seems that only NOTABLE episodes are to be given their own pages, and that unverified, unsourced pages and trivia should be deleted/redirected. The apparent consensus there is that redirects to an episode list page are notable.

Now, I about broke my arm prod-ding the entire first season. Two prods were contested, I took both to AFD, and discovered 1 of them had already been AFD'd with a consensus to redirect back to the episode list. The other one is currently on AFD. After doing some research, I found that at least 7 episodes already have been to AFD and the consensus was to redirect back into the list of episodes.

So, my administrative question is what is the proper process. Do I AFD and Prod 85 more episodes? Or can I simply ignore the rules, be bold and redirect all the episodes back into the main list of episodes?

It would seem to me, that since all the articles have the exact same critical flaws, and 7 of them already have been up to AFD and uniformly been redirected back into the main article, that given the centralized discussion consensus, there is adequate grounds for me to just go ahead and redirect the articles. However, I don't want to do something out of process and then be yelled at for it later. Not that I mind being yelled at, but considering the target audience of these articles, such a move is going to get me trolled by a bunch of 11 year olds. Not something I mind, but I want to be able to say "I was in the right" when they do yell at me for it. ⇒ SWATJester 02:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well I don't see what we gain by deleting this content in the first place. It's harmless, if there's OR, remove it. --W.marsh 03:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because after the OR is removed, nothing is left. Also, per Centralized Discussion, first you have an article about the show (there is one). Once there is enough notable information, then you have an article about the seasons, or some other high level logical time division (there is a list of episodes in this case). Once you have enough NOTABLE information about each episode, you then can start building individual episode pages. The problem here is that process was completely ignored. Now, we have almost 100 articles that do not deserve existence, and are magnets for teenage vandalism and fancruft, OR, and trivia. We've already noted before through the last 7 AFDs that there is a consensus that those articles should not exist on their own. So why should we allow the others? Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It's for encyclopedic content. Trivia over whether a minor character left their locker open in an episode, is not encyclopedic content. In 20 years, will anyone want to read that? Unfortunately, that's what over 50% of each article is: trivia. Once all the trivia is removed, each article is an exact duplicate of the synopsis at the main list page, and therefore should be deleted as a duplicate article. ⇒ SWATJester 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• It looked like a lot of plot summaries, guest stars, and other kinds of information when I checked a few articles. That's interested to fans, it can be verified... I don't see the harm in it. Anyway... you're apparently here to get approval to ignore all rules and speedy them all, I'm of the unpopular opinion (apparently) that episode summaries like this are harmless and we have better things to do than delete them. So I'm not going to give you that approval obviously (although, IAR doesn't require approval so whatever). --W.marsh 03:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, plot summaries and guest stars are either already included, or easily inclusible on the large "list of episodes". The vast majority of information on those pages is unsourced trivia. ⇒ SWATJester 03:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I want approval, but I also want to know what the proper action is. If I'm wrong, and other editors agree with your viewpoint, W.marsh, then obviously that's the correct action. ⇒ SWATJester 03:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered mass AfD? But do take note that if you do pursue this route, and it is successful, you would be starting a new, potentially controversial, undoubtedly heated precedent. —physicq (c) 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've considered it, yes. It seems a viable solution, but I've found two problems (at least for me). First of all, that's a lot of copy and pasting the article names in there. It's MUCH faster for me to be able to just open each episode in a new tab, click edit on all of them, ctrl+v paste in the redirect code, which would be the same on each one, and then click save page. Then all I have to do is edit the main list and dewikilink the article names. That could all probably be done in less than 15 minutes. The mass AFD route however would probably take me close to an hour. Second, undoubtedly, some of the articles have already been AFD'd and I didn't know about them, opening them up for super contentious deletion review.

I'm not opposed to a mass AFD by any stretch. I just would rather go through the path of least carpal tunnel syndrome. ⇒ SWATJester 03:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but being accused of "out-of-process" deletion will give you both carpal tunnel syndrome and high blood pressure. —physicq (c) 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hence, the question here, heh. See my dilemma? ⇒ SWATJester 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a second. There's a big difference between original research and primary source material. Watching a show and writing a summary isn't original research--the show is the primary source. Articles etc. about the show where the show is described are secondary sources--they got their material by watching the show as well--the only real difference is that it's much easier to cite and check many secondary sources than it is many primary sources--at least in terms of television, games, events. Just because an article only uses a primary source doesn't mean it's original research--it may however mean it isn't notable, but I don't particularly see a reason to go ahead and delete all of the articles. Lots of TV shows have an episode list and a stub or start size article or even a longer article on each episode, and I don't see why this TV show is being singled out. Perhaps a decision should be made as to whether articles on non-notable episodes should be allowed--and this might take some Rfcs and a big watchlist poll, and then people can go through and clean-up tv land if it's decided they shouldn't stay, but this seems odd to me. Other than possible non-notability, which would need to be decided per article, I don't see a problem with the articles. Oh, and when you use a primary source you still need to cite it--so adding a citation for the show/episode needs to be done, but I don't see an issue, at least not with the episode articles I looked at. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are zero third-party sources on a topic, then a proper encyclopedia article cannot be created. Such topics do not warrant separate articles; Misplaced Pages is not a fan site. —Centrx→talk • 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My note about primary sources was simply pointing out that they are not infact original research. You could tag all the articles with the primarysource tag, or put them up for Afd based on notable due to primary sources, but I the articles weren't using OR (at least not that I saw), and since the issue at hand was brought up as OR and not notability (it was mentioned briefly), then the rush to delete seems less necessary. And while I believe that there is a lot of junk on Misplaced Pages that doesn't belong here--Misplaced Pages isn't a fan site, I do think that we should have clearer standards in certain areas as to what is notable and what isn't and what should and should not be done in that regard (i.e. tagging, deletion, merging, etc.) What is suitable for one section is not always for another due to many reasons--practicality being one of them, and I think having guidelines laid out for this purpose is important. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be an argument you would use when such an AfD comes up. But polls don't due much except gauge current consensus, not whether the articles really are of worth or not. —physicq (c) 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. What makes you think that it would be ignoring any rules to merge and redirect a set of articles into a single article? What makes you think that "the rules" say that you should involve AFD at all? "The rules" say exactly the opposite. There are clear statements at the Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion#Nomination, at Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, and indeed on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion itself that if you want to merge articles, AFD is not the place. It is Articles for deletion, not Articles for merger. Article merger does not involve any deletion process at any stage. Just do the merger, and don't involve deletion at all. Deletion is for when an administrator using administrator tools is the way to solve a problem. This problem here can even be solved by editors who don't have accounts, who have all of the tools necessary to perform an article merger. Don't involve administrators when ordinary editing using ordinary editing tools fixes the problem. Uncle G 11:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G — merge into the list and redirect. It's going to take work, as some of the plot summaries are already too long, and will need précising further — and there's going to be determined defence from the fans who created and occasionally tinker with them. I'll lend a hand, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mel and Uncle G. That's what I wanted to do, was to redirect them back into the main page, and I was wondering if doing so was out of process, but it appears not. I'll probably get started on it tonight then. ⇒ SWATJester 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat from user

User:Matthew Joseph Harrington has issued a legal threat on his talk page and has generally been a disruptive editor. He has made close to 100 edits, all on his talk page, his NN BIO article the he created (violating COI) that's now up for AfD. Rather than admit he has not been complying with WP policy, he has taken to claiming vandalism for GF edits, and claiming stalking where none exists, as well as PA on various editors. His latest comment here is: "Incidentally, describing Baen Books as scamming the public is probably actionable. I'd enjoy the results of you keeping that up too. Hiding behind an online alias won't stand up to a court order." Harrington's two stories so far are published by said company, so this seems like a veiled threat, as the user may act upon this statement wrt the company.

This is an extraordinarily disruptive user who is only here for self-promotional purposes, and I request that appropriate action be taken. MSJapan 03:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely a legal threat. I've left a note on their talk page, a lot of times new users consider issuing vague legal threats lightly. If the user refuses to retract the threat, you should (or I will) report the user to WP:AIV. Regards, Iamunknown 03:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He's a disruptive editor. WP:NLT applies. indefinitely blocking. ⇒ SWATJester 03:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note, there was a nasty personal attack on his page from another editor. I've redacted it and warned the other editor. ⇒ SWATJester 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't immediately see any reason to disagree with the characterization above of this freshly banned editor, subject of an article that's about to be deleted. But I also don't see anything that's "definitely a legal threat". Saying that doing X "is probably actionable" doesn't look to me like a legal threat, let alone a definite one, and the apparent imagined schadenfreude that follows it merely looks like some humdrum testosterone imbalance. -- Hoary 05:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally do not either. Even an implied threat is definitely inappropriate, but I'm not sure it merits an indefinite block. That's why I issued a stern warning first and suggested Mr Harrington rescind the threat. Sigh. --Iamunknown 06:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, one of the fundamental reasons for the Misplaced Pages:No legal threats policy is that they have a chilling effect on free editing. The aforementioned statement would have precisely such an effect, and is exactly the kind of behaviour that the policy is intended to prevent. Looking at User talk:Matthew Joseph Harrington I see that this is not the only edit in which this editor has chosen to vaguely threaten other editors with legal processes in order to discourage them from editing, including discussions of involving the police on questions of stalking when an editor uses xyr talk page to talk to xem. Until this editor completely ceases this behaviour, we absolutely do not want xem here. Such behaviour is disruptive to the project, and damages the effort to write an encyclopaedia. The indefinite block is quite right. Uncle G 11:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm familiar with the reasons why we indefinitely block users who make legal threats. Thanks for the primer. --Iamunknown 20:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No need to get snippy. The point of indefinitely blocking threatening users (and by this I mean ones with legitimate legal complaints to the foundation) is so that if they actually follow through with it, there is no chance for tampering with any evidence, and the foundation can say "we did what we could to remove the user from offending material". When the suit/complaint is resolved, the block is removed. Now, for people throwing around baseless legal threats like "I WILL SUE U IN A CORT OF LAW IN TRENTON NEW JERSEY!!@!11!one!!!111!!!ELEVENTYONE!!!1!" we're indefinitely blocking them for the chilling effect those threats create, and we're not likely to lift it. ⇒ SWATJester 02:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Instantnood evading blocks via sockpuppet

Instantnood (talk · contribs) has just been confirmed as Pointe (talk · contribs). His block needs to be reset. - Penwhale | 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Natalie 05:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

THis was done within a minute of the checkuser being done.Rlevse 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The block of Pointe was done that fast, but Instanthood's block wasn't reset, which is what Penwhale was asking. Or at least I hope that's what he was asking, because that's what I did. Natalie 15:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

AH, but shouldn't Instantnood be indef vice one month as a known multiple acct sockpuppeteer?Rlevse 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Per an arbitration case, he can be sitebanned upon consensus of three administrators. I think it's about time to do that, he certainly doesn't show any hint of improvement. Seraphimblade 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

banned user creating more sockpuppets

the following users are very likely user:Serafin sockpuppets. he is under a community ban. The anon IP address is definitely his, as it was blocked as one of his sockpuppets previously. the other two possible socks fit his naming style, and only edit on the articles he has, using his style of writing.

• Skazb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 217.12.205.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ciapek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Jadger 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Usernames and IP blocked. --  Denelson83  07:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Durin & his uncivil remarks:

Recently I opposed the user Moralis on his RfA. This RfA is controversial as it is the first to be done with an open format & lack of tally as described on WT:RfA. At first, I commented on the RfA about the use of the new style & how I found it distasteful in an intended humourous way (, which was later supported by an admin ), as well as replying to other's views on both the RfA & Moralis & opposing (, , ). I'm usually used to having my oppose votes respected on RfAs, without someone arguing with them - However, Durin saw fit to do so with both me & other opposers (, as well as others before me - , , , , , , as well as discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Moralis). Durin may have a valid point, but it is lost on because of his uncivil & combative bahaviour. Thorughout my discussion with him he often employed the use of the CAPS LOCK (After which another user politely asked him to stop with , but the advice wasn't taken), the usage of *asterixes* & Bolding, often used all *ALL AT THE SAME TIME*. As per my above links, I grew tired of Durin's high octane approach to the RfA & his overprotectiveness to it, as well as the ever-so-often seen ploy of replying to every single oppose vote. I left a message on his talk page (, User talk:Durin) & stated his actions were uncalled for & I didn't want to talk to him further in his combative mood. He then replied on his talk page (), stating that he had no intention of calming down, & that I was "*WAY* out of line" & that I owed Moralis an apology. He said I should be ashamed & said "If calling a person accusing another of "stunts" way out of line is uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I and have me banned from the project." I then replied () that if he told me to be ashamed once more (which he had done already on numerous occasions), then I would infact report him. I had no intention of doing so as I had no idea Durin would continue the argument again by replying ( with the edit summary of "Fine, report me." & ) once again that I should be ashamed & that I should go report him. In his second reply he made a personal attack by saying "After reading the intro to your talk page, your attitude makes considerably more sense now. You're argumentative by nature." - this hurt my feelings (I don't know why but it did... sticks & stones etc...). My notice on my talk page is because I don't like arguing & wanted to stay out of trouble, not so that someone could use it against me & critisize me. I never got personal, I never attacked either Moralis or Durin in anyway other than stating that his demenour was combative & that I believed Moralis of subjecting himself to this experiment as a kind of stunt. That is my opinion & neither one had to agree with it - infact, the discussion Moralis & myself was rather pleasant, unlike my discussion with Durin. I don't care whether you agree or not with the RfA style, if Durin had replied kindly to me, I would not have had a problem - I actually enjoy the meeting of two minds & discussing important topics civily. Coming from an ex-admin, this behaviour is unacceptable - Because this is at the lower end in my view of arguments on a scale, I'd settle for an apology. However, I doubt I'd get one out of him & I don't want to post on his talk page in case I get attacked any more. I've managed to stay out of arguments for a while now & I did not engage in this one - I don't enjoy arguing & I remember a time when I did indeed look up to Durin. Any comments would help. Thanks, Spawn Man 06:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the formatting of this particular RfA has led to a significant amount of criticism, warranted or not. Durin seems to have received a great deal of it. I'm sure no ill-will was meant by his statements, which look as though they are borne more out of frustration than anything else. Sorry if you were hurt by things; I'm sure that wasn't Durin's intent 74.12.80.240 07:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the condolensces, but I doubt Durin shares the same view. Frankly, I'd prefer Durin to say it, but thanks all the same. :) It just hurt my feelings by his last personal attack towards me - I've been trying hard to stay out of arguments & haven't been in one for 45 days now. For him to simply quash all that & make a quick judgment of me based on one of my notices is upsetting. I'm a man of far more facets. Thanks anyway. Spawn Man 07:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a small dispute. I doubt any administrative action is necessary, although Durin needs to maintain his civility at all times. It's better if you leave him alone for a while, and I'm sure he will apologize in time. I'm sorry if you didn't mean it, but your discussion with Durin could also be potentially be very upsetting on his part, when warning him of AN/I. --Kz 08:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I thoguht that was common policy (like FAR, where you tell the creator of the article)? Sorry, but this is my first time reporting at AN/I. As I stated before, this is a very small despute & was hardly a definite breach of civility - it just hurt my feelings is all & hoped someone would talk to him. Maybe this wasn't the palce to go, but I provided a well worded & calm argument in any case. Thanks - I'll take your advice & leave him alone for a while (which I've done already...) & hopefully he'll come to me. Thansk, Spawn Man 08:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have no intention to apologize for my remarks and I stand by them. User:Spawn Man ruthlessly attacked the guinea pig (User:Moralis) in the RfA experiment and shows no remorse in his behavior towards him. He's accused him of performing a stunt, of weaseling his way around process, and disrupting RfA to gain publicity. You can see it for yourself . If saying Spawn Man should be ashamed for his behavior towards Moralis is a personal attack, then Spawn Man has made 10 times the personal attack. Subsequent to Spawn Man's "warning" that he would report me, I read the intro to his talk page. I noted that it says, in part, "I get in a lot of arguments with other editors. When I argue, I argue for a long time & don't usually back down". It's no surprise he won't back down and admit his behavior towards Moralis was improper. It's further no surprise that he should go out of his way to attack a person who calls him on it. I stand by my opinions and offer no apology to Spawn Man. He most emphatically owes one to Moralis. --Durin 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the diffs, yeah, it looks like Spawn Man is attacking Moralis, and Durin is just standing up for them. Spawn Man should think about what he has been saying. I do believe Kat Walsh even took the time to correct him . --Kim Bruning 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As they say, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Spawnman your remarks and subsequent outrage are part of the problem here. Take responsability for that part and walk away, no one will win this argument. David D. (Talk) 15:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how I "ruthlessly attacked" Moralis? Nor my "subsequent outrage"? I have remained calm through this whole ordeal. I made a point to Moralis, but I was never uncivil - You can't tell me that Moralis had no part in the format of his RfA - he could have quite easily said no, but he said yes, so in a way he is responsible. I'll quite happily say sorry to Moralis if Durin apologises to me - after all, Durin is taking the high road isn't he? Puh-lease... Spawn Man 06:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Spawn Man, have you read the diffs presented by Durin? I'll post the relevant parts right here just in case: "In my opinion, any editor who is ready to try & disrupt & weasel his way around process in bad news," "This is every bit a stunt. The only reason that a crat hasn't withdrawn it is because of it & the fact they can't be bothered looking for a solid tally in all this mess...," "The only reason I believe this user got so many supports was because he went against the grain & used this format. A user with under 800 edits would never get this far without this stunt Moralis has employed!" I'm sorry, I just can't believe that those aren't uncivil accusations and defamation of Moralis's character. Durin responded to incivility uncivilly. So? Retract your statements or live with it. --Iamunknown 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

, , The use of the word stunt and the implications of trying to game the system may not be a ruthless attack but they are outrage. And the latter continues by your presence here rather than sorting it out with Durin on his talk page. David D. (Talk) 06:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Spawn Man's "talked" to Durin before reporting here...so it kinda didn't work. --Iamunknown 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess i was implying not enough. There are other avenues too, such as the RfA talk page. I suppose he is there too. But this venue just seems like the wrong place to be discussing this issue. David D. (Talk) 06:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just don't see how this needs administrator intervention and, as such, why it needs to be at ANI (user talk pages and talk pages directly to the disputed article/project page / the article/project page where the dispute is are usually an excellent place to start!). --Iamunknown 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only endorsing what numerous other editors had said on the RfA. If anything, it should be Moralis who has the problem - Durin just came charging in making it worse. It doesn't really matter any more, I'm going on a Wikibreak - I'm not going to let Durin stand ther e& judge me, when he isn't telling about 50 of the other editors who opposed for the same reasons to be ashamed. He's targetted me out, & I have bigger problems & things to do in my life than waste it on arrogent editors like Durin. If you all want to defend him, that's fine, but if it was you in my shoes, then you'd understand. I stick by my comments fully & I can make a judgement on Durin on my own - I can clearly see why he denounced his adminship; because he's obviously a very combative & uncivil person & didn't want to be threatened with his adminship. I don't see how he shoudln't be punished any different just because he gave up his privilages - it gives him no right to continuously name call me & provoke me. I'm only taking a break so I don't say something to him that I may regret, but I think I've summed him up perfectly. Arrogant? Check. Combative? Check. Argumentative? Check. Somewhat like myself? Check. ;)... Thanks guys, you've been somewhat of no help, but thanks all the same. Cheers, Spawn Man 06:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Socks

We have a whole new army of socks reverting pages in favor of a certain ethnic POV. Please check the contribs of

• Sparala (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Tricethin (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• BWaves (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Torontz (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Restaren (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Henbacl (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki),
• Friesare22 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki), there could be more. ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs) also appears to be a sock, check his recent contribs. Urgent admin intervention is necessary. Those socks apparently belong to banned User:Artaxiad. Since most of editors to Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles are on a revert parole, it would be good if someone reverted edits of sockpuppets per WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Grandmaster 07:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

formatted. Thatcher131 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

203.153.230.101

This user appears to edit soley for the sake of vandalism and trolling. See Special:Contributions/203.153.230.101 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Micah hainline (talk • contribs).

Not recently and also very infrequently. — MichaelLinnear 07:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Masterbobo

This fellow's behavior is troublesome. He is mocking User:Bhadani, copying his user page design, all in a style that is reminiscent of User:BADMINton who was the Rajput vandal if I recall. He's also conducting a commentary with himself on a blocked user's page Johnny's in the basement 07:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Indef block the obove user as a sock of Johnny the Vandal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Feel free to unblock if you think I have got it wrong. Viridae 07:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think his user name gives away his intentions - *Doh*! ;) Spawn Man 08:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Johnny the Vandal has been idef blocked for a while and is known to spawn socks like breeding rabbits. I blocked Johnny's in the basement because 1. the similarity of the name 2. the contributions showed a familiarity with wikipedia unusual in a new user account and 3. one of the first 4-5 edits was a personal attack. However I would like this reviewed. Viridae 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can not block me in this way unless you listen to the view point of Bhadani. If I copy his lay out - is it the reason for block? I am not mocking him or any one. Unless you institute a checkuser on my IP or have other cogent reasons, you can not block me simply because a user with few edits complain here about me. Thanks. --Masterbobo 08:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Argh, this is confusing - you havent been blocked and are not about to be blocked from what I can gather. Viridae 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Erm, maybe that's Johnny's in the Basement as a new user account? Just prodding in the dark here. Spawn Man 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to add the following but edit conflict arose. I am adding now: Moreover, you will have to give me few days time before you block me. A user comes to my page with one or two edits and then land here request blocking me gives out his intention. You will have to see all my present edits to decide a block, and if the reason is exchanges with Bhadani or mocking Bhadani, you will have to take his point of view or/ and the totality of the position whether I violated any of wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can not block perhaps a user who has inked a red link on India Portal on the first day of his presence here. Thank you. --Masterbobo 08:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My request to Bhadani: Please help me. --Masterbobo 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterbobo is one of the many abusive socks of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Here is another one to push his favourite Hindutva POV User:Legaleagle. Indian admins know him to be Nick and they are laughing up their sleeves. That explains why he is not still blocked, whereas another troll who flirted with Bhadani was summarily blocked by Aksi. These Indian admins are trying to troll Dbachmann who is on a rampage against Hindutva POV brigade.Mistermasher 12:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is taking the piss, here. Mistermasher, I suggest that you behave yourself. Everybody else go back to editing. Nothing to see here, move along. --Tony Sidaway 12:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tony Sidaway. We should stop playing and concentrate on editing. As regards Masterbobo, I do not find in him any pattern and he appears to be an independent user. Unless a checkuser is instituted and he is found to be a sock, he should be allowed to do edits. As regards, flirtations and such things, I have found great editors stooping very low in civility and personal interaction - killing the new editors with potentials shall kill everyone. I found that Masterbobo in two days has done better than I had done during my first two days or most of us on the first towl days. Let us allow him to flourish. You can not block him simply because he is a Hindu. --Bhadani (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I add my request to that of my good and faithful friend, my fellow Wikipedian Bhadani. Let good editing flourish. I have asked Samir to consider unblocking. --Tony Sidaway 23:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your opinions. I see some truly specious ones (such as this disambiguation of Nordic to the Nordic racial superiority theory), as well as the previously mentioned insults to Bhadani, Hornplease and Dbachmann, and the rude captions to photographs on the user page (see below). I'm willing to assume good faith, but this user crossed my good faith barrier, and I still think an indefinite block is appropriate. I've corresponded with Bhadani off wiki and he's in agreement. -- Samir 04:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Please review the block I made in the section above please - new section made to give this more visability. Viridae 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Masterbobo indefinitely, see below -- Samir 18:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by BassxForte

I tried ANI before here, but I didn't get any admins acting upon or commenting on it, so I'm trying again. I have attempted an RFC here, but I had never been fond of RFCs, and a recent discussion on the lack of teeth in RFCs made me give up trying to get something out of it. I don't want to go over the details again, so just go look at the previous ANI and the RFC.

One thing I shall repeat though, is that his user page states the inability of punishment (i.e. blocks) to make him learn something. That is why I seek something greater than a short temporary block, as he will likely continue his editing habits without any regard for policies and guidelines. (This has happened before.) I must also implore you to read his user page completely.

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has explicitly told me to never mention this issue on his user page again, and if I do so he will delete it. Since I have already done a fair bit, I'd like someone to step over this line for me and notify him. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this sockpuppet of banned User:DavidYork71

Please see . (IP #149.135.50.176). --Aminz 10:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this recent edit of his is interesting . He continues having interest in binding of Isaac under his new IP: --Aminz 10:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done Gnangarra 11:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of banned user block request

Rostov-on-Don (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sockpuppet of community-banned user Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is again edit-warring to insert his POV on one of Rms's favourite pages, Tim Pat Coogan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Can an admin block please? Thanks! Demiurge 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Complaint filed at WP:3RR regarding User:Demiurge's repeated violations of WP:3RR over the past 36-48 hours on Tim Pat Coogan page; block requested. Allegation of sockpuppetry patently false.Rostov-on-Don 11:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• OK then, maybe you'd like to explain why you're inserting the exact same newspaper article quote (even down to the editing/formatting) as previous sockpuppets of Rms? Demiurge 11:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely; I was interested in Coogan following a comment he made last April (I guess I am not the only one), but which someone only recently showed me. When I checked the history I was curious as to User:Demiurge's unwarranted and unexplained rv, and I found that the rv was unjustified and I chose to re-add restore it as it was in toto. I have no idea if User:Glencolumcille is a sockpuppet or not but his edit was superb and encyclopaedic. Wikipedians remain innocent until proved guilty (which no one but User:Demiurge, who never requested oversight from an Administrator until I complained about him/her at WP:3RR, prior to his/her compalint complaint at WP:AN/I, has alleged). This sounds like there is some sort of an agenda on the part of User:Demiurge, who has appointed himself/herself prosecutor and judge. Rostov-on-Don 11:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a newbie user who has been here only a few days know about the 3RR? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The old-fashioned way, by reading. Rostov-on-Don 12:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well that comment pretty much confirms it, "superb and encyclopedic", right. Can someone please block this blatantly obvious sockpuppet before he wastes any more of our time? Demiurge 12:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• As the person who prepared the community ban for this editor, it's pretty clear they are one and the same. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why hasn't anyone noticed that of all the edits I made, User:Demiurge, who claims I am a sockpuppet, saw fit to revert only one, to which he/she apparently objects on a personal basis?. He or she probably will rv all now, anyway.

P.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott wonders how a "newbie" editor knows about WP:3RR, yet does not wonder how I also know how to cross out words using the markup tools?

P.S.S.S. How come User:Theresa Knott also chooses to ignore another Misplaced Pages precept: "Don't bite the newbie"?

P.S.S.S.S. How does "Korn" taste?

You will, I know, pardon me if I feel less than fully respectful of this kangaroo court.Rostov-on-Don 12:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I've been dealing with your POV edits for almost two years now and I know your style by now - Alison 06:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sock blocked. – Steel 12:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent POV-pusher

For about a month the articles on Photoshopping, Home of the Underdogs, Abandonware and a few other have been under relentless attack of Special:Contributions/216.165.158.7. The editor has been warned several times by different admins regarding his conduct and after an initial 2-day block made by me, he was blocked for 2 weeks by Durova. The block has expired and the user has returned with the same behavior of POV-pushing, unflexibility and agressive interaction with well-meaning editors. I now bring this case forward so that it can be evaluated by an administrator not yet involved in the case, hoping to reach some kinf of more effective result. Regards, --Sn0wflake 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, quite honestly he seems incapable of editing alongside others. I blocked him for a month for POV pushing. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to see reason still prevails on the Misplaced Pages... cheers! --Sn0wflake 14:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

random racist crap (user Holy Ambassador)

User User:Holy_Ambassador seem intent on creating the same article over and over again with the same racist crap in them ("colored criminals" etc), one version has already be deleted, a copy needs flushing and now seems intent on creating replacements. --Fredrick day 14:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also leaves talkpage messages like this --Fredrick day 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone re-delete this and salt it? --Fredrick day 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It has been deleted and the user has been indefblocked, so I don't think salting is necessary unless we see it come back via sock or the like. -- Avi 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User insisting on giving level 3 user warnings for first time warnings

I have previously raised this regarding a warning this user gave to me, and following that have seen that this user has a long history of issueing bad faith warnings for edits that are not clearly bad faith, and for where the user has had no prior warning.

Despite pointing this out to her on several occaisions, she persists, even reverting my level 1 warnings and re-replacing with level 3, as per their latest edit. I don't see any chance of the situation improving, especially given that whenever I point any of these out to them, they claim I am either harassing or stalking them. Please can someone advise whose actions here, mine or Miss Mondegreen's are the correct ones? If anyone needs to see edit diffs of previous level 3 first time warnings from this user, I can provide them on request. Many thanks, and apologies if ANI is not the correct place for this. --Rebroad 14:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could another admin please look into this entire situation (I have very limited access today) and issue whatever admonitions or whatever are appropriate to either of these editors? Rebroad has been critical of Miss Mondegreen for weeks, and my suggestion that they stay away from each other seems not to have been sufficient to resolve the matter. See also thread started by Miss Mondegreen, above. Newyorkbrad 15:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keeping the users apart is the most sensible option, perhaps we should look at enforcing this by some sort of community backed block or ban should they keep niggling away at each other. -- Nick 15:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for your feedback. At the moment, I'm not sure if my issue with Miss Mondegreen is an issue to the community. If it is, I should hope someone would let me know first before any sort of ban or block is implemented. I would certainly change my behaviour if I am told to do so or risk being blocked. Is there any sort of wikipedia policy which says that I'm doing something wrong please? If there is, I've not yet been made aware of it. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the difs and this situation is a bit weird, to say the least. You're always free to question someone about the levels of their warning, but reverting them and complaining about their re-revert is taking it a bit far: I don't understand why you're so involved in this. My two cents on the warning level are that this kind of vandalism can't be seen as good faith: this user was introducing false information (the birth year) that I just corrected a few minutes ago, because somehow the vandalism 'stuck' after multiple reverts. That's pretty damaging to the quality of our articles, and not in the same league as 'harmless' testing like 'hey, can I edit this'? All that said, Misplaced Pages is a very big place and it's really not hard to stay away from each other, so I suggest you do so if you can't work it out together. --JoanneB 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments JoanneB. I admit that if I was complaining about the re-revert then that would be weird. I'm not. I'm just asking for advice on whether there is an issue here. If there isn't, then as far as I'm concerned it's the end of the discussion. Many thanks, --Rebroad 15:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this situation is that if the time that was spent on this edit warring over warning levels was spent on checking out what was going on in this article, this misinformation might not have been in the article for 10 days. I know that when vandal 'fighting' and reverting, this stuff happens, but I think it's pretty ironic that it happened in a situation when you were both disagreeing about how bad the vandalism actually was. --JoanneB 15:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When I got to the article, the changes in birthdate etc. had me so confused, for so long, that I had to go back through and find edits where the user just wrote stories to realize what was happening--edit summaries like "added info about a new deal KKR is doing, don't worry it's all true" did tip me off" and so I warned the user, but when the edits were reverted, and then some of the information kept coming back in from other users, or not complete reverts, I thought that there was a possibility that some of the information might be true and so at that point, I figured that if he edited again, they'd see the warning, and revert his edits and someone who knew about the article could sort it out. I just couldn't believed that the user hadn't been warned before. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether there's a legitimate concern of wikistalking, the only problem I have with a level 3 warning for something like this explicitly designed to shoot under the radar of vandalism patrol is that it's not severe enough. A user who is doing that is an experienced Wikipedian who isn't "experimenting" such that he needs a test1, and I'd issue them a blatantvandal tag myself. -- THF 15:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have realised it wasn't just the birthdate that was wrong. There was a whole bunch of wrong information introduced. I just reverted to the version before this vandal started messing things up. --JoanneB 15:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, that's a {{bv}} tag. They know what they're doing. --kingboyk 15:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at this case at all, there's nothing wrong with giving immediately level 3 warnings. ⇒ SWATJester 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, if common sense tlls a test3 warning is warranted, so be it. Remeber, result is more important than rules. -- drini 20:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Miss Mondegreen:
Since this discussion is apparantly happening in multiple places, I'd appreciate it if any of you could weigh in above. We tried avoidance, which as you can see from this post here, clearly didn't work, and I'm willing to go back to that, but that's obviously up to Rebroad. I have faith in my edits, and I don't mind explaining them to another user, or users, but being constantly on the defensive is getting really tiring--as is constantly getting warned for by the book edits--some of them really minor. Rebroad hasn't responded so far to my question about what he would like to do, so in the meantime, I'd certainly appreciate opinions from others. Thanks much Miss Mondegreen | Talk   00:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My advice stands that Rebroad should leave Miss Mondegreen alone. Newyorkbrad 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

And conversely, Miss Mondegreen, please don't post to User talk:Rebroad any more. Newyorkbrad 01:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

User evading warnings with multiple sock puppets

An editor upset that his splog links were reverted has gone on a rampage against the two editors who reverted those edits, and is blizzarding talk pages using multiple accounts.

Editing as:

• Concerned person (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.161.198.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thats what u think (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lets see now (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• I thought so (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy al (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

And perhaps others by now. More details at WP:COI/N. //THF 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I block too soon?

Gekedo (talk · contribs) is concerned that I blocked 87.2.92.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) too soon. See User talk:Metros232#Blocked 87.2.92.89. Could other admins please review this? It's my belief that he was appropriately warned (level 3 mentions that a user will be blocked if they continue vandalizing) and if you're vandalizing Jimbo Wales' user page, you know pretty well the consequences and everything else that goes along with it. Metros232 15:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No concerns here. -- Nick 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerns? My own concerns is that we spent too much time worrying about obvious trolls - good swift action on your part. --Fredrick day 15:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Blocking before level 4 at times is reasonable, especially with the obvious vandalism shown here. -- Avi 15:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no "right" to 4 warnings. This was an anonymous user with no useful edits, who has repeatedly been warned, and still vandalized. I think the block is fully appropriate. 31 hours means he/she/it can come back tomorrow as a productive user if he/she/it so choses.

To be fair, since anons can't actually see new messages, the number of warnings is sort of irrelevant, isn't it?--VectorPotential 18:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anons can indeed see warnings. Visit Misplaced Pages from a public computer and discover that immediately. Anons with shifting IP addresses may miss the message; but most shifting IP addresses shift after being forced to or after a day or so.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  19:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The new messages bar hasn't worked for anons since December, it's a well known bug, and there are reports all over the place, the Village Pump, the Help Desk, even here a few times--VectorPotential 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That's news to me. Anyone have a link to the bug report/discussion? - auburnpilot talk 00:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Premature closings of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4

Since I have had to twice revert premature closings of this AFD, once by an admin who agreed to a revert, once by a non-admin whose closure did not meet Misplaced Pages:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, I would like to ask a non-involved, neutral admin to step up and volunteer to close this discussion properly when the due course of discussion has finished. Mister.Manticore 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem with closing that early? Looks like you lost, find another battle! --kingboyk 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's important to remember that WP:SNOW isn't a policy. Yes, the outcome of this will almost certainly be keep, but so what? If we let it run the full five day course then Mister.Manticore can't say that the only reason the AfD didn't end as he wanted was because of an invalid closure. --17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

I've just received this direct threat of a lawsuit. Please handle it appropriately. Durova 16:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since that's the only edit by that account, would a checkuser be worthwhile to identify the real editor involved, or do you already know? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It came less than half an hour after I posted a followup comment to Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_Jennifer_Powell. That editor has sent me nearly a dozen e-mails in the last day and a half, including after I sent a direct request for no further contact. It would be good if we could reach a swift closure to that discussion before it escalates any further. Durova 16:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

She's now harrassing editors at home. I move that a uninvolved admin closes and supports the community ban. Any further complaints by this editor should be sent to the foundation. I get the impression that once you go beyond the puff that the organisation is actually a one-man band and that's why she's is fighting so hard about this - nothing else makes any sense. --Fredrick day 17:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You can be fairly sure that if a user fights that hard to keep an article we probably shouldn't have it. Well sourced articles on notable subjects tend to speak for themselves. --kingboyk 17:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This leads to what I call the "Reverse Psychology Principle of Misplaced Pages": If you really, really want an article deleted, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of keeping it. If you really, really want an article kept, you should argue vehemently and obnoxiously in favor of deleting it (ala Daniel Brandt). So, if deep in their hearts Powell wants the article on her organization deleted, and Brandt wants the article on himself kept, then they're pursuing a brilliantly inspired strategy for this. *Dan T.* 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's all written down in policy, but I'll paraphrase everything for anybody uncertain - Anybody suffering harassment over and above that which can comfortably be dealt with by the administrators here or on any other Wikimedia site needs to contact the Foundation (I'd suggest e-mailing User:Bastique and possibly also Jimmy Wales) to report what's happening. I'd also suggest refraining from posting the phone number(s) being used, just in case these reports are designed to inflame the situation (as unlikely as it seems). Finally, and yes, it's über dramatic but if anybody feels intimidated by these phone calls, report them to the relevant authorities, nobody needs to suffer shit like this. -- Nick 17:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved with the community ban discussion, and the harrassment is absolutely unacceptable. I'm going to close the discussion with the consensus that the user is banned. Full disclosure: I apparently blocked one the user's sockpuppets as a username violation (the name was unacceptably long) before I was aware there was a ban discussion going on. Natalie 18:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done, and in process of blocking all the sockpuppets. I'm presently tagging the Istia account as the puppeteer; please correct me if I'm wrong. Natalie 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

All the accounts listed in the CN discussion have been tagged, the few that weren't already indef blocked have been blocked. Two questions: should I tag the IPs, and am I correct in remembering that Jennifer Powell applied for and received a username change? Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Two: see the asterisks after the respective username entries at the top of the ban discussion. -- Ben /_HIST 20:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Irishguy blocked one of the name changes and I just got the other one. One last one: IGet-back-world respect is still not blocked and there seemed to be some question of whether that account was a sock/meatpuppet or not. Not sure what to do about that one. Natalie 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/International Services Trade Information Agency. I'll add a note for the closer, if nobody else does it first (have to attend to some jobs outside). --kingboyk 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I can close it, but don't we need a five-day period to pass, or can we eschew that per rampant sockpuppetry? —physicq (c) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't examined it properly yet, but there's always WP:SNOW or WP:CSD, or indeed any number of criteria that might be used. Let me know what you want to do, in the meantime I'll have a read. --kingboyk 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, discounting the sockpuppets and anon IPs, there's still several people advocating keep: Egfrank (talk · contribs), Cumbrowski (talk · contribs), Russeasby (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), and Alkivar (talk · contribs). I think then that WP:SNOW is out of the question. If you want to close it early citing disruption that's your call. In the meantime I'll add that notice. --kingboyk 19:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like too much discussion among non-sockpuppets for a speedy close. I know there was some suggestion of relisting, which might be the way to go. Natalie 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. --kingboyk 19:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, Durova, you won't be sued for editing and administrating wikipedia. Anyone who would even try would be laughed out of the attorney's office, and anyone who tried to do it themselves would very likely be sanctioned for frivolous suits. (the exception to this being defamation/libel cases, but that's not the case here). ⇒ SWATJester 19:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word. I doubt that was a serious threat but I consider it important to nip this in the bud. Regarding the Foundation, however, I am very deeply disappointed in the response to my previous request for assistance when another user made a personal threat against me. I'll discuss details of that instance off-wiki, but I will point out here that in the past few days I've also blocked an editor who threatened suicide and gotten a community ban on a self-confessed psychiatric patient who had developed a sexual fixation on me. The community's support has been superb and I appreciate it very much. Bear my experience in mind the next time you wonder why there aren't more female Wikipedians. Durova 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

F'real. Natalie 23:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"Bear my experience in mind the next time you wonder why there aren't more female Wikipedians." - Yep. Totally ... Alison 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:88.107.112.215

Requesting block after full gamut of warnings (most recent vandalism edit made to Royal Grammar School, Newcastle three minutes after final warning issued by User:Wimt). I hope this is the right procedure? Thanks for your time, Tyrhinis 16:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quickest and best way to submit an IP for blocking if they have vandalised after a final warning is at WP:AIV. I've submitted the IP there now so they should be blocked soon. Regards. Will (aka Wimt) 16:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting defamation by IP and Admin's indifference

This IP 82.3.221.22 has added grossly defamatory content to certain articles. It looks like some of the IP's edits have not been reverted promptly. An extremely vicious instance was removed by me after it remained in the article a day. I reported this to an Indian admin who could watch these articles and make judgments better than non-Indian editors. I reported it almost half a day earlier. The admin to whom I reported has been active since. But he has not cared to look into the matter. Obviously, the gravity of the crime couldn't have been lost on him. Such obscene and venomous calumny against Sonia Gandhi can create a political storm and even Misplaced Pages maybe drawn to the vortex. Then why didn't User:Bhadani even issue a warning? Maybe, the gross defamation added by the IP is in keeping with his POV? It looks like he has been busy in petty discussions with a trolling user who created a new account solely to insult a senior Wikipedian. I am referring to User:Masterbobo. The abusive (dabba aimed at User:Dbachmann and religiously sensitive captions (Suwar ka Baccha) he gave to the pics on his user page should have been enough reason to block him at sight. however, User:Bhadani is busy protecting him and cuddling up to him for obvious reasons. Why should such men be entrusted with admin tools? Rajamankkan 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are never obligated to act on any situation. There is nothing stopping you from warning the user yourself, as you did. There is nothing stopping you from reverting the users edits. Sure, it's a bit easier for an admin to revert a lot of edits, but there weren't that many. I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. I don't think there is one. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 17:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, looking at some of the edits, they are at best childish petty vandalism. Annoying and in bad taste, but nobody will take them serious and hence no defamation has happened. Just deal with it as with any other kind of vandalism.--Stephan Schulz 17:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is obligated to do anything here, is she?. But if an admin seeing this chooses to ignore it, he is no good to wield the tools. The case here is defamation, calling a national leader whore. (Since when did it cease to be libelous?) There is no two way to approach it. Rajamankkan 17:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, nobody is obliged to do anything. And in many jurisdictions, especially in the US, an insulting statement has to actually harm someone's reputation to be actionable. Since no-one will reasonably believe the allegations, they are not libel. They are, of course, stupid, insulting, and certainly in bad taste. --Stephan Schulz 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Masterbobo indefinitely for trolling. He has interspersed a variety of seemingly useful edits with a number of egregious actions. His user page contains captions of profanity in Hindi, purposefully placed there with literal translations. His edit summaries are mocking of User:Bhadani. I don't see how this user is going to be productive -- Samir 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the indefinite block of Materboo unless a proper checkuser test is carried out. In any case, he should not be indefinitely banned but if he committed some misconduct - a smaller ban of few days may be given. offensive captions to the pictures should be removed and he should be placed on a parole of a week or two as requested by him. I am assuming good faith as enshrined in our policy guidelines. --Bhadani (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the trolling is pretty obvious, Bhadani. Here are some sample diffs from the past 2 days: , , , , , , , . The picture captions are all profanity in Hindi. The edit summaries mock User:Dbachmann (calling him Dabba, or box) and User:Hornplease, calling him Horn, as well as the Guru references to User:Bhadani, which also pokes fun at his edit count. This editor has clearly been around, and is just here to stir up trouble. The best thing to do in my opinion is to block and ignore. This disruption is independent of CheckUser -- Samir 19:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine Samir. I was assuming utmost good faith about that user Masterbobo. However, I now understand fully the silly things he did. I think in the hindsight that you are right perhaps. In case, he wants to be really serious editor, he may always create a new user name, and start a life afresh here. I withdraw my request for unblocking that user. --Bhadani (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Urgent: A banned user evading his block and vandalizing pages

The banned User:VinceB is openly using IPs of the range 195.56... to evade his block. ] He has engaged in several revert wars, repeatedly vandalized a request for checkuser, and needs to be stopped. His actual IPs are 195.56.224.237, 195.56.229.118, 195.56.205.29, and 195.56.25.64. Tankred 17:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked 195.56.25.0/24, 195.56.228.0/23, 195.56.224.0/23, 195.56.204.0/23 —Centrx→talk • 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI reform?

This WP:ANI should be turned into a subpager thing. You know: New problem? Template:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/headline of problem - for example this section would be in {{Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/WP:ANI reform?}}--195.56.224.237 18:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Then we get thousands of subpages, most of which consist of about three comments. -Amarkov moo! 18:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention anons wouldn't be able to create threads anymore--VectorPotential 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, see the thread above. I urge any admin here to block him. Banned users are not allowed evading their bans by using sockpuppets. Tankred 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that certain titles would likely be duplicated (how many sub headings are there on AN/I entitled "legal threats" or "block review", or "administrator abuse" etc. ⇒ SWATJester 19:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be a good idea. Transcluding each and every thread would put large amounts of strain on the Foundation's servers (as if AfD didn't mess with them enough already). // PTO 19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A user harrassing another user

looks like harrassment to me as does and . Can we have an admin intervention please, SqueakBox 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Self-evident sockpuppet, blocked. What are the chances of any username including the word "truth" turning our to be an asset to the project rather than tendentious and disruptive? It could happen... Guy (Help!) 18:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

About as likely as a user who includes "pwned" in their name turning out to not be a 12 year old boy. Natalie 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Handled by JzG. — ERcheck (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User: 69.132.199.100

I am bringing this up here as an admin, who blocked this user for 30-some hours has asked me to. I returned to wikipedia, after dealing with some real world business, to find this user at it again. I have, as many admins/members know, had personal issues with this user in the past. This user is obviously CineWorld, who has a repeat history of abuse against <name of a notable minor redacted>. That is secondary. Today, I discovered this off-wiki diff:

<redacted - see below>

connecting this IP to what appears to be a known internet con artist and convicted sex offender. I'm not sure what to do here. It is possible (albeit WILDLY possible) that this is a different person using the same IP, but it would seem about as possible as one of us getting hit by lightning after winning the lottery.

Ispy1981 19:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This extremely serious allegation and situation should not be discussed further on-wiki. Please send an e-mail to a member of the Arbitration Committee, or to me as a clerk for forwarding to the arbitrators' mailing list, explaining your concern. Thank you for your attention to and follow-up on this important matter. Newyorkbrad 02:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from AIV

Moving this from AIV, seems like a more complex issue. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Klptyzm (talk · contribs) is constantly harrassing me of being a sock puppet, and I'm was kinda new to this. --LAcfm

Ok, it's become apparent that I need to step in and defend myself: Craxy, along with another user, have an irrational feud towards me over edits I've done in List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series and have created a series of sockpuppets to further harass me; Craxy, in particular, has about 4 blocked puppets. Also, consider this: how would a "new" user know how to request adminship, let alone know where the page was? I didn't even know how to sign my messages when I became a member; go check his contributions. That was the very second edit he made. Also, consider consulting these:

Ptpgta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Markello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Craxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

GtaXl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thank you. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 20:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Beussery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has an inappropriate username employed as spam for the trademark described in a spam article he created, Special:Undelete/Beussery. However, the report on WP:AIV was delisted with the comment "Take it up with the user him/herself" Since the user himself admits that his username is a trademark that he owns, it is obvious that this username is inappropriately promotional, and should be blocked on sight. John254 20:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Since, despite that advice, you still have not taken it up with the user him/herself, Nardman1 has done so. -- Ben /_HIST 20:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As a note, the person's name is "Brian E. Ussery". That he has a commercial site http://www.beussery.com/ and tried to create an article Beussery is certain. I have to wonder about the required result... Shenme 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to force this user to change their name at this time. -- Nick 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur, I think, with Nick; there doesn't appear to be any particularly pernicious promotional use at present, and unless subsequent editing reveals the user to be here for a single, non-encyclopedic purpose, I don't think username policy would counsel blocking. In any event, whilst AIV or AN/I would be an appropriate venue for the levelling of an objection to a plainly impermissible username, inasmuch as there appears to be some disagreement amongst the community here, the issue ought probably to be taken to RfCN in order that a consensus might be divined. Joe 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

tiring attacks

For the last week, I've had to deal with attacks of various degrees by Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) (only a taste: ). He's already been warned about his conduct once (), and has been blocked for 3RR for his seemingly unending crusade to get a template on each of the individual notability guideline. He's been reverted or told he's incorrect by many people, although I'm the primary battler at this point, but I am beginning to lose my patience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And you want us to warn him, block him, or...? —physicq (c) 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what people think they should do. But I'd rather not do what I would like to do, so perhaps some administrative intervention would be of use. Am I supposed to make a request on how to handle this? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, we just needed clarification. Thanks. —physicq (c) 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I'd like something done. What that should be shouldn't be up to me to decide. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a final warning on his talk page. Anything else from him and he gets 24 hours. Just let me know on my Talk page. FCYTravis 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to register a counter complaint against BDJ for ongoing accusations and incivility in the same range of pages. While my statement(s) have been more direct, his mendacity and incivility test the edges of WP standards. While subtly avoiding a specific breach of 3RR, his behavior has collectively crossed the line into disruptive behavior. I don't seek a block, but suggest that he receive some counseling on his behavior. --Kevin Murray 21:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please? —physicq (c) 21:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not a wiki-lawyer. The investigation to put together "evidence" would be cumbersome, and as I said it is more subtle. I'll just deal with it, and hope that this behaviour will be visible to others. Sorry to have been disruptive and cause you extra work. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, providing evidence is not considered wikilawyering. It is actually standard procedure so that we can have something in our hands to work on. But you are free to not act on it, of course. —physicq (c) 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Need help moving an article

Someone moved Darth Vader to Death Vader and I can't move it back. Can someone take care of this please? // DecaimientoPoético 20:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a temporary fix as Death Vader now redirects to Darth Vader but all the history is in Death vader and needs fixing by an admin, SqueakBox 20:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep, someone needs to delete Darth Vader so the history of the page can be moved back to where it should be--VectorPotential 20:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone already did--VectorPotential 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is done now. But disturbing that such a thing can happen, SqueakBox 20:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should probably move protect it--VectorPotential 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

...damn, everyone beat me to the "it's taken care of" bit. Bah!

Also, I indefintely blocked the user who moved it. Pretty obvious case of "vandal-only account". EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

need a rangeblock

I don't know how to do a rangeblock yet and I'm still figuring this out... someone please block the range that has been vandalising these pages: — coelacan — 21:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to range block AOL's dynamic IP range?--VectorPotential 21:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh lawd, is that what it is? Well, then of course the answe is yesss. =P I guess we'll just try to do damage control instead. — coelacan — 21:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a precedent for range blocking AOL, however in this case, it may be better to report them directly to AOL and see if you can't get their DSL/Cable shutoff for abusing AOL's TOS ( :VectorPotential 21:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, yes, I am seriously asking for someone to do a rangeblock. This is not going to stop. user talk:janejellyroll, user talk:coelacan, and any user who reverts this guy is getting hit, always from a new IP. — coelacan — 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case you'll want to get in touch with The Anome (talk · contribs) or Pathoschild (talk · contribs) both of whom have prior experience dealing with AOL IPs, see also {{AOL ranges}}--VectorPotential 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Istia working around ban

Relaying message from User:The Behnam who is currently under block regarding User:Istia working around the imposed ban. Message as follows:

By the way, we have a banned User:Istia here .

Thanks. CASCADIA/_Trail 21:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gwernol got it. Natalie 23:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

user creating subtle attack page (BLP concerns)

User keeps re-creating this attack page (the figure in the page is not notable but so it seems to be a run of the mill grudge). On first glance, it might not seem an attack page (it's been deleted twice) but he seems to be adapting with each delete and changing the language to try and get around this. The crux of the article is that this mean is creating face lotion out of sperm and he's doing with the help of his wife (in the first now deleted version, she was a prostitute), reading between the lines, he's testing it on her face. Can we delete and salt? --Fredrick day 22:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted and user blocked. Naconkantari 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

User who insists on asking inappropriate question on the talk page

71.185.131.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-adding a question to the reference desk, removed by at least 3 editors (including me) who felt it was soapboaxing/trolling. The original version is here and the latest version while a bit better still seems to be the same thing . I'm not sure if WP:3RR applies to the reference desk so I didn't report it there, but if it does, this definitely violated it. See , & too. Nil Einne 22:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring and violations of WP:POINT. Durova 22:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Naruto: Ninja Council 2

I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss it, but there has been an edit war going on at Naruto: Ninja Council 2 for some time now. The edit war is between me and an obsessed IP who continues to add game guide-ish info to the article. I told him repeatedly to discuss his edits on the talk page (which he finally did after I started the discussion), yet continues to ignore everything I say. It would be helpful if an administrator, or at least a user who has very little knowledge of the subject, could read the information he continues to add and decide whether it should stay or go. Hopefully, getting somone's opinion on the matter when they know little of the subject might help us end this edit war. Also, I'm well aware that I have violated 3RR (the IP has as well, but I have decided not to report him for now) and am ready for any disciplinary actions that an admin must bestow upon me if necessary. Thank you for your time. // DecaimientoPoético 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for 24 hours, as I don't think blocks are really necessary. But if the edit warring keeps up, I may have to issue temporary ones. Shadow1 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Persistent re-adding of Spam links

Fizbin (talk · contribs) is verging on 3RR re-adding massive amounts of spamlinks to the Pink Floyd trivia article. The article contains a huge/unencyclopedic list of tribute bands of which only 5 are notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages article. The rest are either dead links or simple entries that include an advertising link to the artists personal webpage. Any attempt to cleanup the article section has been rv'd by User:Fizbin. A warning was issued on the user's talk page but his response was to blank the page and then rv the linkspam with an uncivil edit summary. The article itself is borderline PROD. The huge number of spamlinks in the tribute bands section are certainly not helping. Some assistance please. Thank you. 216.21.150.44 00:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

At least I have logged in so that 216.21.150.44 can voice his/her concerns on my talk page. The article in question has a list of Pink Floyd tribute bands. I have no idea who most of these are, but I assume that since they have been included for some time that there is some legitimacy about them. Anonymous 216.21.150.44 objects to the fact that some either have a link to a personal web site or no link at all. In my opinion this does not make their inclusion any more or less relevant. But whatever. And I do not take kindly to warnings (uncivil from my standpoint in this case) from anonymous posters, period. And I guess I don't know the secret handshake - have no idea what 3RR or PROD are supposed to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fizbin (talk • contribs)

If you are going to complain about anonymous editors, you could at least sign your posts. :) IrishGuy 00:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's what I was going to point out, but the edit window is already open, so I'll also say this: PROD means proposed deletion, more details are here; 3RR refers to the three-revert rule, which is discussed here. Natalie 01:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If I can get an edit in here edgewise, another apology for an unsigned statement.--Fizbin 01:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption by User:August 2 2005rps

User:August 2 2005rps, a supporter of Encyclopedia Dramatica, as evidenced by his post on Jimbo's talk page recently attempted to nominate Dramatica for deletion as a disruption of Misplaced Pages process. I've warned the user, they've only made 4 edits (2 edits to Dramatica, the AfD page, and Jimbo's talk) The deletion page should probably be deleted as listing properly will most likely result in a Speedy Keep per bad faith nom. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

requesting block

216.246.153.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized article DeMoulas' Market Basket, also vandalized article Tewksbury, Massachusetts (where DeMoulas HQ are located). Has an axe to grind against said company and uses articles as a medium of doing so. Rob McDougall 02:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Issue a fourth-level warning (see WP:WARN) and if said user persists, report it to WP:AIV. hbdragon88 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

75.45.187.11 at it again

75.45.187.11 was blocked for vandalism yesterday (after multiple warnings) and has come back for a fifth attempt at inserting the same racial slur into Bouyancy. Longer block? —David Eppstein 03:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Threats and BLP issue

Don Murphy has been the subject of ongoing BLP concerns, some raised by the subject. I have myself raised concerns about the article, although the last time I looked at it, it was much improved from its former condition.

A discussion today was raised about this article at the village pump. During the discussion, first-time User:StillbornScott made a post that was grossly harassing of and made personal attacks against another user. In addition, this username is unacceptable. As the account appeared to have no intention of good-faith contributions, I blocked it.

Per the user's talkpage, a thread has now been posted to Don Murphy's website, allegedly by Murphy himself, calling for me to be outed in real life and harassed. I have responded on the page, but wanted to make the broader admin community aware of this situation. Newyorkbrad 03:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Endorse indefblock for WP:NPA. Would stubbing the article (again?) have any effect? Naconkantari 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

With my personal experience, he is all talk. There have been numerous threads for his stooges to find all the information they can about me and thats all they do. They really can't do anything with that information, maybe because it is illegal to harass people. Don't worry about it. I also haven't been adding anything to the article unless there is a consensus to do so (excluding one edit where I reverted back to an edit by Zanimum, I thought a consensus was reached or something), even though I think the information is highly relevant. Honestly, don't even worry about his board. Philip Gronowski 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a troublesome situation, which among other things gives me even greater empathy for our OTRS volunteers who ordinarily deal with complaints from disgruntled subjects of articles. I have been discussing this matter with the user I blocked on User talk:StillbornScott, who now appears to be Don Murphy himself. His opinion of Misplaced Pages and its users is obviously low ("Shitipedia") and clearly many of the comments he has made are not acceptable. Yet I remember a post here about comments he made on his external site a couple of weeks ago, and remarking at the time that while his threats were wholly deplorable, that there were serious issues with unsourced gossip and undue weight associated with this article which he has a right to be upset about. At this point, I will be legitimately accused of having a conflict of interest if I ever touch this article, but I hope it is being closely monitored, even as I hope that its subject will immediately discontinue his problematic behavior directed against Wikipedians. Newyorkbrad 06:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different subject, I think we can link Fecapedian (talk · contribs) to being Don Murphy himself, as well after a cursory reading of the discussion that StillbornScott first commented at.

Back on topic, this appears to be getting to DB-level proportions with seeking the actual identities of users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Also slightly off topic, discussing this with Eagle 101, we have blacklisted his forums as they arenow in violation of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MONGO#Links to attack site (and we really need to develop local blacklists that aren't bot based)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

USER:RexxCrow

RexxCrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I am requesting a block of this user for incivility, personal attacks, and repeated disregard for requests to C&D:

• Adding inappropriate spam links (see his contribs for multiple instances)
• EL Warning 1 issued
• EL Warning 2 issued
• Removal of warnings from talk page
• Personal attack 1
• Reinstating warning templates, additional warnings issued
• Removal of warning templates again
• Personal attack 2
• Blanked my userpage & extensive personal attack 3

Thanks. /Blaxthos 04:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:ReyBrujo got to it before I could. For future purposes however could you not outright called for a "block". I only say this because I see it happen quite often and user's to often seem to not understand that AN/I is suppose to be for reporting incidents and once reported it is up to reviewing administrators to decide what to do. In this case, a block was most certainly warranted. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad-faith user page

User:Lewisskinner/trollbox. Andy Mabbett 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He's just keeping track of some diffs. No policy violation that I can see. RJASE1 06:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Try looking at its name. Andy Mabbett 06:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Surkov was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot