Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive443

Lebanon related afds

Hi, there are some Lebanon related afds running that would benefit from the attention of some admin. They are being target for vandalism (just as well as the articles) and had recently even been closed by one of the editors involved (non-adminm, of course). The afds are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skiing in Lebanon, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi. See the history of these afds and their respective articles for knowing the users (and anons) involved. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 13:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, a related dispute seems to be taking place at Faraya Mzaar Kfardebian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Damiens.rf 13:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps take to WP:AIV? If editor has removed any more AfD tags after this diff Although it appears stale per this diff on my talkpage. . Cheers, Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mosaic Dallas spam

New "article" Mosaic Dallas by a single user looks somewhat like spam. --Túrelio (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me (albeit unreferenced). Will clean it up a bit. – ırıdescent 22:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, cool article. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

neat picture! --Allemandtando (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone knows anything about Dallas, can they have a look at this one? My cleanup of it has left it with more issues tags than article at present. – ırıdescent 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that, all it needs are some references and expansion. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Subtle vandal

A few minutes ago I noticed this edit to the backgammon article. I googled Patrick Nikodem to see if I could find any evidence of notability. I didn't, but I did find the same name mentioned in completely unrelated articles.[1] [2]. I'm looking through histories as I'm writing this and have found two IP's adding the name to a lot of articles, 128.91.97.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 202.72.240.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I also found the name mentioned at this Wikipedia mirror site entry. I haven't tracked down the IP responsible for that one yet. I suppose I can search for the text string and revert other instances I find, so perhaps no admin action necessary except a heads up.

On a related note, has there been any talk of banning certain text strings from Wikipedia? I know there's been a problem with vandals adding an unlinked URL to a large number of pages. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See also Grouphappy (talk · contribs) and this edit, which adds "Pat Nikodem" to a list of sea captains. The IP used to add Pat Nikodem to that article is owned by the University of Pennsylvania, where there is a Patrick Nikodem majoring in Finance (email included in Google results). Not sure there's much we can do, but you could always send him an email. - auburnpilot talk 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone check if Phil Jagielka's middle name is really Nikodem? (added here by IP) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see (un)reliable sources stating his middle name is "Nikodem", quite a lot, actually. There's also a Polish tabloid Super Express which uses it: [3]. But nothing reliable - not even Everton's site nor UEFA's. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think that Phil Jagielka's meddle name might be Nikoden, Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)???

I don't know if it's right or wrong, just that there seem to be many places that use "Nikodem" as his middle name. He does have a Polish ancestry, apparently ([4]) and Nikodem doesn't sound English - perhaps his middle name is Polish? x42bn6 Talk Mess 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I ask, Smith Jones, is that Patrick Nikodem is the name that a few IPs have been subtly vandalizing with, as you can see by looking at my first post in this thread. Since that middle name was added to the Jagielka article by an IP, I thought that might be vandalism, too. But now that I've looked into it, it seems quite plausible that someone from that part of the world, might have that middle name. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat

What should be done about this. The title says it all, but it was one of a number of foul pages introduced by Volapuks (talk · contribs). Should this threat be acted upon? I have asked for oversight for a number of the pages, but suggest that someone else also sends one as my e-mail can be temperamental. Woody (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

From looking at this (admin only) its apparent he knows this place. RBI. Right thing has been done and he'll probably return again one day doing exactly the same. Rudget (logs) 10:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one that deleted them all, I presume oversight don't deem them to be personal information worth deleting then. Woody (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

CPP

Please keep an eye on the article Communist Party of Pakistan. Jamco (talk · contribs) repeatedly fill the article with promotional coi material, and possibly hoaxing. Except for perhaps seeking to make the user understand wiki norms (a previous posting by another user on his talk page hasn't resulted in any change so far), perhaps some disciplinary action is suitable. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him. The content is not appropriate and his edit warring to try to force it in and then claiming some kind of special privilege as the "spokesman" of CPP is not acceptable. Sarah 14:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett blocked, requesting review

Resolved

 – Block has expired

I have blocked G-Dett (talk · contribs) for 24 hours due to continued incivilty after being repeatedly warned about on her talk page. You can find a discussion about it at User talk:G-Dett#Comment. There I reminded her that she was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, explained to her about the "Decorum" section, and told her about commenting on content as opposed other contributors. For those interested, feel free to read the rest of the section - I am requesting a review of this block in order to see if other members of the community agree or not. Khoikhoi 08:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If a contributor is misrepresenting policy, it seems appropriate to point that out, even to "comment on the contributor". --NE2 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Support block. G-Dett is under civility restrictions from the ArbCom case, and was repeatedly using uncivil terms ("troll") to refer to another editor, despite repeated requests from administrators to stop. Further, she was using this kind of inflammatory language in relation to articles that are already powderkegs, in the Palestine-Israel topic area. If G-Dett would like to point out concerns with an edit, or editor, she has the right to do so, but she must do this without the incivility and name-calling. --Elonka 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is this here and not at AE? Not to mention that truth is always a defence, even in "powder-kegs". Elonka, you've already made at least one article worse through over-application of discretionary sanctions, please don't do so with others. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth is indeed a defence, but if it's expressed in an aggressive fashion that raises genuine issues with civility. I'm sorry to see G-Dett get blocked for this, since in my (admittedly limited) experience of her she's been a productive and very lucid editor, but I can understand the reasons for it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think Khoikhoi and Elonka acted very decently here, and I agree with Chris' comments above. I do hope that people will look into the situation that sparked this, as it will need to be addressed at some point, with or without my dulcet-toned reminders.--G-Dett (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

reporting possible vandlaism, WP:CANVASSING, or other vioatlion of WP: policy???

Resolved

 – Straightforward vandalism, already blocked 24 hours

8 (UTC) User:68.248.74.14 has ben making a handful of wierd and offensive posts to myslef [5] and [6] <--- dozens of other users with schauch speed that her posts seem tobe automated. I am not sure twer this report should go since i am not sure wehther or not this is a result of some sort of edit dispute i was invovled in the past or some sort of vandalism/spamming atempt or a WP:CANVASS scheeme. Any help rendered here wil be appreciated and thasnk you for reading. Smith Jones (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do IP's not require warnings before being blocked (even if it is blatant vandalism)? Angrymansr (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting specifically on anything, but as this section of the blocking policy states, warnings are not an absolute requirement for any blocks, of any users. Although, most people (including myself) find it courteous to make sure the users know what they're doing wrong, and to inform those users by means of a warning or warnings. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The link you provided seems to highly urge warnings but not require it. I was confused because back in my vandal fighting days I would report IP's to AIV and a few times the responses from admins were the user did not have sufficient warnings recently, though many times the page was filled with them over a long period of time and no action would be taken until many warnings were issued within a few days. Thanks for the information. Angrymansr (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That range does not require a warning, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal information. They have been at it a while now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Resolved

 – Range softblocked one month, hopefully this stems the tide of vandalism.

68.248.74.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted someone's phone number in a bunch of talk pages. Should this be taken out of the history, or just reverted? (Note:similar vandalism has come from similar IPs) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Just an Anon IP with nothing better to do. If the number is a issue an Admin will remove it from the history. Bidgee (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an ongoing problem from this IP range. See User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Friendly IP and the history. They have been hitting several pages. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to force the IP range to edit with an account and not via an Anon IP? Then again we may still have the same issue. Bidgee (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked that range for one month. That range is in Southfield, Michigan, on AT&T's DSL network--has anyone contacted them yet? Might not do much good, since we've got a lot of abuse from anons on that network (most notably Mmbabies)--but it's worth a try. Blueboy96 17:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted them twice over the past week but nothing seems to have happened. I think they had a few accounts, Blackbeltpussy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Blackbeltstinky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blackbeltsmelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I'm not sure. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please help me with my troll?

OK, so a couple weeks ago while patrolling recent changes, I reverted a simple NN edit to List of computer scientists [7]. I gave the user a basic test1 warning. He then undid my revert. I reverted again, with a more descriptive edit summary [8], and gave him a test2. He then signed out of his account and undid my edit again as an IP user [9]. After that, he began trolling pages that I created or had recently edited, sometime blanketly undo'ing perfectly reasonable edits of mine [10], [11].

I asked him to stop trolling my edits, and that I felt he was harassing me [12]. After this he seemed to stop editing, and I thought everything was over. Until today. He started off his editing today with a pointless edit just to revert something I had fixed [13]. Recognizing my troll's IP, I reverted this edit, and left him a test2 on his talk page [14]. He then proceded to make bad faith edits to articles that I had created [15]. His only edits today have been to articles I created. All of this had been done with absolutely no dialogue from the user.

Attempting to remain civil, I even offered to let him put his name back on the List of computer scientists article if he would just quit harassing me [16]. And now for the first time he's posted something on a talk page, apparently just to further mock/harass me [17].

I'm about to run out of civility with this guy, and I don't know what to do. Could someone please let me know what to do in this situation? A third party's neutral POV would be greatly appreciated, even if the response is that I could have handled the situation better.

Thank you,
Adolphus79 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP's hard to block for long since it's shared and belongs to a US gov agency. It's sad but true that when this kind of thing happens, the most helpful way to get rid of it is to edit as if it doesn't nettle you at all (pay it no heed) and maybe quietly revert a day or so after the vandalism. This will tend to be highly boring for whomever's behind it and you'll likely see less of them soon. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a sad state of affairs, I originally thought this was just some kid getting pissy about my removing his name from a list, but come to find out that this is not only an (educated?) adult, but someone that works for/at the FAA? Your advice is pretty much what I've been doing, wait til he is no longer active, then go through and revert... considering that out of the entire FAA range, this is only coming from one particular IP, I'm considering contacting the FAA themselves about this. It would be one thing if it was a rotating IP within the range, but it looks like there are only 2 IPs in that entire range that have been used to edit wikipedia. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Andycjp ignoring policy

User:Andycjp knowingly disregards Wikipedia's overlinking guideline, and to a far less problematic extent, that on red links. When other users ask him to reconsider his modus, he merely argues. My interaction with him consists of User talk:Andycjp#Overlinking and his replies on my talk page. I don't know what to do; the reason I seek intervention is that it seems easier than reverting the massive numbers of unconstructive edits he makes on a daily basis. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added a request to his talk page, asking that he read the WP:CONTEXT and WP:RED pages. He's replied to my message, saying that he will read them. -- The Anome (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He has indeed been reading: he has tried to edit the policy subtly, in addition to continuing with his nonstop link edits (Special:Contributions/Andycjp). I had already made it clear that he must use the guidelines' talk pages in order to challenge them. He has kept up his argument with me, including the cheeky overlinking ("'Relevant' is subjective"), although he mollified his plea of innocence. Given his activity since your message, I can only see his reply to you as devious. MagnesianPhoenix (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 Ceedjee is claiming that the article is AfD while making incorrect allegations. The events occurred as referenced. Secondary sources have been used. Exodus does not imply war. also he has not notified me by placing the tag on my talk page and I can't find it on the AfD log page. So where do I get to argue my case?

The Afd page is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956. – ukexpat (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please. I assume numerous people went from here to go and give their mind. There numerous references in that article but not a single one of these talks about a Palestinian Exodus that would have occured from 1949 to 1956... Ceedjee (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC).

I am me93 (talk · contribs)

Hi. Please see here here, I'm not suggesting they are, but they seem similar and I am just putting this here to your attention if nessecary and to see if you think that they are similar enough or not so that if nessecary. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

User Cali567

Since Cali567 started adding a very controversial genetical study on every argentine article in reference to demographics: (eg. Argentine American, Demographics of Argentina, etc) there has been several edit wars every day, that is why I requested the full protection of Demographics of Argentina. Though there was a consensus on Demographics of Argentina[18] she continues making her edits. User Jersey Devil and I told her that this kind of issues have to be solved on talk pages, still though she continues making her edits.

This user has been warned more than once, nevertheless I have given her the last warning for disruption. If she continues the disruption please block her. Regards, --Fercho85 (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Need attention on Barack Obama talk page

An IP-hopping editor who has struck before is editing Talk:Barack Obama to add the n-word to discussions and edit summaries.

The editor struck a few days ago too. Playing whack-a-mole by blocking the IP accounts after warnings isn't doing any good. For the moment we probably need semi-protection of the talk page and/or immediate blocks on the affected IPs. We ought to delete the edit histories as well. As Hate speech this is hurtful, particularly given the subject of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. I don't think deleting the edits is necessary, and given the size of the page history it would be painful. MastCell ^Talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! Maybe we do something about the one edit that uses the N-word in the edit summary? Just being there is hurtful.Wikidemo (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Practically impossible without developer intervention. With 12479 edits to the page, it surpasses the maximum number of a revisions that an admin can delete (5000). Oversight is possible, but there's no personal information or libel in the comment (even though it is a disgusting comment), so I doubt they would be willing to use the tool for that edit. I'm suggesting we ignore it, but someone may disagree. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay ignoring it but it must be disheartening to African Americans (and some others) to be called racist names in a public forum. You can't see them without being reminded that you're not fully welcome or safe. The thing about hate speech is that like libel, threats of violence, privacy breaches, etc., the words themselves are the injury by their presence. I guess we're done then, assuming it doesn't pop up again. Thanks again. Wikidemo (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If more people archived by phsycially moving the talk page over, this wouldn't be a problem. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseball Bugs

Resolved

 – No admin action required. —Travis^talk 02:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Chris Long (American football) there is bee na lot of rancor. Now, in an effort to achieve real consensus an Adminstrator editor, User:Baseball Bugs, made an WP:UNCIVIL personal attack against me. I ask that since he is an Admin and should be held to a standard that he be civil and that this incident not go unpunished. Saying it is obvious that English is not my first language us unhelpful, untrue, uncivil, un-wiki and un-becoming of an adminstrator editor. This makes it impossible for the past to be the past. In a heated atmosphere which Bugs has done little to dimish that. As an Admin he can reduce the rancor by being civil. The old axiom applies, if he's not part of the solution he's part of the problem. It makes me wonder if he's reall interested in the Long article or if he is there to stir sh!t. I cannot assume good faith with an Admin edit taking a personal shot about my lack of language skills.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bugs isn't an admin. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

My error, I thought he was. For that mistake I apoligize. My complaint against him still stands.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything actionable here. It may not be the best observation to verbalize, but questioning whether or not English is somebody's first language is not a personal attack. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Beg to differ. It was not "questioning" is was a statement:

"Well, it's obvious English is not his first language. That hasn't stopped him writing long, incomprehensible diatribes. That's why I'd like him to explain in 25 words or less. In English or Spanish, either one is OK. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) "

A statement is more than a question. It was a cheapshot, no? I am not suggesting a block, just a warning or something72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. It appears to be in response to Ksy92003's comment "I'm anticipating about 95% of that response to be in Spanish".[19] - auburnpilot talk 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

As AuburnPilot says, not actionable but I will concede his comments could have been more civil, GDonato (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem, as I and others have told this guy, is that he writes lengthy diatribes that don't make sense. I would just like for him to explain in 25 words or less why the item he keeps pushing for is special enough to be in the article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally, he can post as much as he wants. When I see something that I can't be bothered reading then I simply don't read it, GDonato (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know this guy's history with this article, or you wouldn't be saying that. He's in constant battles over it, with a variety of users. Someone asks him why some obscure speech is notable, and he responds with a broken-English, rambling essay that makes virtually no sense. That's why I would like for him to explain briefly and then maybe it will make some sense. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The user's address is in New Mexico, I don't think that Spanish is his/her mother language. Ksy92003's comment was out of place, even if the user speaks Spanish mocking him won't make him disappear. Anyway, was resquesting help from a Spanish-speaking user that hard? - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want him to disappear, I want him to explain in a way that's readable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GDonato, although I tend to be a little more proactive. I don't see a problem with asking people for brevity, so long as it is done in a civil manner. - auburnpilot talk 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This being the English wikipedia, it is reasonable to expect its users to write readable English. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In kind of an ironic twist, the IP address has now bought himself a 3-month block. [20] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He says I'm mocking him further, but all I wanted was a straightforward answer to a question. I'm not sure why he was specifically blocked, although it does come on the heels of a 3RR block about - you guessed it - that same article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was apparently caught in a range block trying to net trolls, and has now been unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is resolved and I will withdraw this report of this incident. I think there were a coupld of folks who said that Bugs should have been more civil and I think that serves as a warning enough. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I likewise agree it's resolved, as I'm done talking to this guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk page and 72.0.36.36 appears to speak English acceptably well. Most of the errors I saw were more consistent with a failure to proof-read than with poor ESL fluency. Either way, if you know somebody is sensitive about their level of fluency I would suggest not provoking them. Of course if you really have no idea what they are saying you might ask them to rephrase it, but I had no difficulty understanding the general meaning of any of his posts. Of course his attitude is a whole other story... — CharlotteWebb 01:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He writes the way Bush talks. Either way, it's painful to hear. I tried to get him to answer a simple question, and he won't do it, so we're done. I'll let the collection of other users that he's annoyed deal with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see my comment has been called to attention. I didn't intend to insinuate that the IP doesn't speak English. My comment was in reaction to Baseball Bugs asking the IP to explain the situation in 25 "English" words or less, and I joked that he might respond in another language to circumvent that request. I didn't intend to offend anybody or to infer anything. I apologize that my comment was misinterpreted, albeit understandably. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows about copyright/images take a look at this

See this revert: [21]. The images are claimed as permission obtained but *shrug*. Viridae^Talk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(oh and I got edit conflicted when starting a new section - I thought that wasn't supposed to happen) Viridae^Talk 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio/unfit fair use to me. Commercial URL on the image, no license, no fair use rationale, everything about these images seems wrong. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've speedy deleted them, and warned the uploader. PhilKnight (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the rest that the supposed author removed. The Other two images seem suspect too, but I've tagged them with nld instead of speedying them right off the bat. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal

Will someone take a look at this? I would post the diff but I can't for some reason. While patrolling the recent changes I ran into three of these which all take you to this page. If you try going to the article, or click the diff it takes you to that page, whatever it is I have no idea. It's the edit to the Solomon Islands article. Landon1980 (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused, it is fine now and his edit was reverted. I couldn't even pull up the article's history, clicking the diff or the link to the article turned the page into an animated page with vulgarities seconds afterward. Landon1980 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't have anything to do with the edit by the IP, because it just happened to me again on a different article. Landon1980 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this relates to vandalism at Template:Commonwealth realms, I've now protected the template. Melburnian (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Cheers Landon1980 (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a Grawp vandal. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting protection

I need help. I made an edit, got blanked, came to ANI and the admins okayed it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

However certain editors continue to blank out these edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223041906&oldid=223037963

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falun_Gong&diff=223364394&oldid=223363516

This is not the first time this has happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bobby_fletcher#Editor_Asdfg12345.27s_blanking_of_facts_from_notable_source

I would like to request some protection. If I've done something wrong please let me know. Thanks. Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The normal place to request protection of a page is WP:RFPP. Enigma ^message 08:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody trying to hack my password

Resolved

 – Par for the course, unfortunately - make sure you have a decent password and ignore them.

I just got an e-mail from Wikimedia that someone with the IP address 71.115.153.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) (apparently in Reston, Virginia) tried to reset my password...should this be reported to anyone? Kelly ^hi! 00:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have received over 100 of these emails. I have always ignored them, no harm seems to have come from it. Is the IP one you have interacted with? Kevin (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. Once you start getting those, in an odd osrt of way, it means you're doing good work for Wikipedia. (I've gotten a couple myself) Wizardman 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh, you caught me redhanded! :-p Angrymansr (talk)

for future refernece, what does that mean when someone tried to resetr your password? That doesnt seem like something that might be important or dangeorus so could someone epxlain what that means please??? Smith Jones (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It means someone/something may have tried to steal her password. The only person who should be resetting your password is you. You should not receive e-mails for password resets if you didn't do it. That means someone else is trying to tinker with your account. Angrymansr (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it means someone clicked the "I forgot my password" button on the login screen, and nothing more. It's absolutely impossible to break into someone's account by doing this. --Carnildo (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow view of the possibilities. While most of these attempts may be harmless, this issue goes far beyond Wikipedia. There's something called Social Engineering which may allow hackers to gain entry to your e-mail without changing any passwords, and then they can come here and click e-mail new password and the account has been breached. Sounds far fetched? It happens all of the time. I don't think blowing it off as "impossible" is the right answer. The U.S. Gov't can't avoid being hacked, but somehow Wikipedia has it figured out? The right answer would be to ensure that you have full control of your e-mail and wiki account, and to change your passwords if you deem it necessary to a strong password scheme. Also advise not to use the same passwords for your e-mail and wiki account. Angrymansr (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the techniques of social engineering, and asking for new passwords has nothing to do with it. For more information, visit this site and log in with your Wikipedia username and password. --Carnildo (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if the user's e-mail has been hacked via social engineering or by any other means then their wikipedia account can easily be breached using this tool. It's not impossible. Angrymansr (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh...shouldn't those attempts be reported somewhere, or are they beneath notice? Kelly ^hi! 01:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cant people who do that be blocked? I mean, I dont want to come back one day and fidn someone else vandalized WIkipedia on my account or come back and find my account locked with some strange Nordic-Swaihili code or something! I would lose la my of my contributions have to find all of hte articles that I have worked on before in the past. I thinkt hat there should be a way to stop people from freel being able to reset someone elses password without their knowledge and/or consent. Smith Jones (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a very strong password and you will be fine. You can try to reset anyones password by trying to log in as them. It will only reset though if you click the link in your email. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 01:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying...so basically we ignore the hacking attempts? Doing something like that seems at least as serious as vandalism. Kelly ^hi! 01:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

i agree. Maybe the Hackers haven't not founded a way to compromise the our security failguards yet but they shall some day and if we dont find a way to knock them out now we will come in one day and find that a admins' account has been stolen and the entire encyclopedia has been horriblie vandalized. Smith Jones (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's really someone trying to "hack" your account but rather someone just trying to annoy you by having the emails sent to you. I get them on a regular basis and have done for at least a couple of years and I've always assumed it was some vandal I blocked who was trying to piss me off. The emails aren't of any use in "hacking" your account unless they also know your email address and are able to access it to be able to get the link in the email. Best thing is to make sure both your email and account passwords are strong and then just ignore them or even filter them to junk mail so you don't even have to deal with them. It's much better now that they have set a limit on one email per day as a couple of years ago some of us were receiving dozens a day and I seem to recall someone who got over 100 in one day and that was what eventually led to the developers setting the limit at one request per day. Sarah 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I got 60 in a ten minute period back in the Great Password Reset Flood :) Daniel (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

tank you for all your help. so I guesss we editors in good standing will have to put uwp with attempts to violate the intereigity of our accounts from these nutcases, right? Well, i guess its not that a big of a deal since the amount is limited! Smith Jones (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering they can't actually do anything by sending these requests, it's nothing to worry about. --Carnildo (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these almost every day. Usually, the IP responsible has made no edits. It's not a big deal, although if you start getting them, make sure you have a decent strong password. Marked as resolved. Neıl 龱 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I get these e-mails too, and I've been avoiding anything remotely contentious on Wikipedia, so I don't think it has to do with editing disputes spilling over into retribution through hacking, or even a deliberate attempt to annoy. I notice that Neil, Kelly, Sarah, and Daniel all have common first names as user names. It would not be surprising if new editors registering accounts for the first time often try to choose these same user names, without knowing that they are already taken. When that doesn't work, the software presents several options, one of which is a password reset over e-mail. And the most universal approach to solving computer problems is to try every available option and see what happens. They may click on the button without really understanding what it means. Rather than malice or hacking, I think a simpler explanation is a bit of confusion in signing up for an account. So I don't worry about it. --Reuben (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The IP address is already disclosed in the email. There is a bug open: bugzilla:14630, to log this IP somewhere reviewable as well, so that if there are incidents in which someone is harassed by a lot of these attempts, there is information available to further an investigation. This bug has support from a number of current CUs... ++Lar: t/c 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni33

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Per the growing consensus below, Giovanni33 has been banned by the community, in accordance with the banning policy. No need to continue this discussion. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I've just blocked Giovanni33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 1 month for a 6th infringement of his 1 revert per week editing striction. This time, he used socks to revert twice on socks to revert twice on Glenn Beck. Here as Giovanni, and here with a sock (confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Giovanni33). I've just realised as I've been writing this that the report is completely stale - It's from June which has suddenly given me huge doubts about the appropriateness of the block. But..... Do we really need this here. Giovanni has a huge history of using socks and/or meat puppets, as documented by his latest arbcom case, which he's set to be banned in. Can't we just ban him as a community? I think our patience is used up. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think he's either got sloppy, or was too clever for his own half. In regards to the latter explanation, Giovanni seems to be arguing that because he would never openly allow a puppet to be linked to his account, this can't be him. So having been exposed to what I would term "Giovanni logic" this would be the perfect ruse to try to deflect evidence of his puppetry at the pending arb-comm case. If these supposed conspirators who are trying to get Giovanni blocked could avoid linking Supergreenred to him, they could have done the same with Ratatoui. Equally if they wanted to get Giovanni banned by linking accounts to him, they could have done that with supergreenred. This scenario is just barmy.

I think Giovanni is taking the biscuit now, but faced with a 1 year renewing ban I think he would try almost anything. I have noted that in the past abusers of puppets have been indef-blocked even with a pending arb-comm case - the arb-comm just ensures that if they're ever given another chance they still have to face at least that 1 year ban. John Smith's (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse an indefinite ban. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse indefinite ban Just look at his block log, it's appalling. You actually have to expand the log to 100 items to see the entire thing. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom have very nearly given him a year ban - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Proposed decision#Giovanni33 banned - I would just leave the month block, and then let the ban take effect. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's foregone by now. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there are only 6 entries beyond it fitting within 50 and given that about 20 of the entries are unblocks, I'm not sure the description above is completely accurate. That said, it is certainly one of the longest block logs I've ever seen. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban in view of that block log. Any ban ArbCom may impose would just run concurrently to the community-imposed one.  Sandstein  20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC) — Clarifying on request: I endorse a community ban of indefinite duration.  Sandstein  22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban indef ban - in light of appaling POV pushing, rampant sockpuppetry, etc. Enough kiddy glove treatment - the only people not supporting a ban on Giovanni anymore are people who have been supporting his edit wars. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse ban and extend to indef Enough is enough. G33 has shown on numerous occasions that he has no respect whatsoever for this community and it's policies. Jtrainor (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of these comments could be a bit clearer. Are people endorsing the one-month ban or the suggestion of an indef-ban? For the record I will check, but from now onwards it might help if people specified. John Smith's (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if users don't clarify the ban length, it's safe to say that they are endorsing an indefinite ban. The one-month "ban" is not a ban. It is a block. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. John Smith's (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• endorse ban Frankly, I'm a little annoyed that this has taken this long to deal with. Even without the latest behavior I would have likely endorsed a community ban. Giovanni's continued presence is a net negative for the encyclopedia. The most recent edits I can find from him in article space that were productive and not edit warring date to almost a month ago. Giovanni at a fundamental level does not understand that NPOV is not HisPOV and moreover, seems to be consistently unwilling to try to learn. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban. For those who are concerned about process, User:Bluemarine was community-banned while his RFAr was in progress, and the arbcom's one-year ban was added in addition to the community ban which was in place. It appears that a similar situation has occurred here. G33 has clearly exhausted the community's patience. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban as per all of the above reasonings. Greg Jones II 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Sceptre ^(talk) 23:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef — Rlevse • Talk • 01:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse ban and extend to indef Probably holds the record for the biggest time-waster in the project's history (after Mantanmoreland of course). His article productivity is almost zero, and the most frequent argument I encounter against his banning is variations of "his POV needs to be represented". Unfortunately, that's not at argument for ignoring massive sockpuppetry and edit-warring. The 4 ArbCom votes so far to put him under a 1-year self-renewing ban (the first ever) are a big hint what to do here, folks. - Merzbow (talk) 06:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Two things: one, I think it is time that Wikipedia and Giovanni33 (and related socks) part company, and two, leave the thread open, because this place will tolerate disruptive editors endlessly, but close a ban discussion "too quickly" and there will be hell to pay. MastCell ^Talk 07:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• What a load of nonse. ArbCom's considering this very matter, and Ryan decides to step in, guns blazing? Just back off slowly, everyone, the people we elected to handle this are already on the case. Obviously do not endorse ban. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are you objecting to Giovanni being indefinitely banned, or being indefinitely banned prior to the result of an arbitration case? There is precedent for this - Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bluemarine#Bluemarine_banned is an example. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• comment the vast majority of editor endorsing the ban are those editors who vehemently oppose the content that G33 has added to articles. If you remove their (Ice Cold Beer, Jtrainor, John Smith, Merzbow, Sceptre, The Evil Spartan - just from the article Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) predictable endorsement of the ban, there are only about 5 non-involved editors endorsing the ban and about 3 non-involved editors questioning the ban.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the situation. As far as I can see only Relato refero actively opposes a ban and he always sides with Giovanni - he is far from being "non-involved". Gwen did not opppose the ban, only saying that it was a foregone conclusion the arb-committee will ban him for a year. Phil said that he would keep the month block, but he didn't say he opposed a ban (there's a difference between opposing something and not supporting it). John Smith's (talk) 12:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but that's a load of horseshit. I don't "always side with Giovanni", I merely think that sockpuppetry is unlikely here. For the record, I believe the article he most focuses on, State Terrorism, needs to be stubified and rewritten from scratch, focusing only on the highest-quality, directly relevant sources, which is the same approach that WMC is taking, who is hardly on Giovanni's "side". Attempt to avoid misrepresenting people for momentary gain in a trivial argument, please. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Relata, I was talking about when Giovanni has been blocked - not editing. From my memory you have objected to him being sanctioned in the past, and I cannot remember a time where you supported sanctions against him. If that is not the case I invite you to set the record straight with circumstances where you did support them. But certainly on the arb-case you opposed the proposed sanctions on Giovanni.

Maybe you could let me know the answer to my earlier question. Are you opposing the indef-blocking of Giovanni period, or simply before the arbitration case has concluded? John Smith's (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is not votes for banning. We do not vote on the fate of people. A strong case has been made that Giovanni33 has exhausted community patience. No administrator has objected. Therefore, Giovanni33 is community banned, until an administrator objects. Even then, Giovanni will remain blocked until there is a consensus to unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If this isn't a classic illustration of what Jimbo meant when he said we're too nice to the disruptors I don't know what is. Enough is enough. He's had multipile chances. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Giovanni33

I called it a mistake because I thought it was just a hasty error by Ryan per the RFCU, which confirms user Rataoui as the puppet of banned SuperRedGreen - not me. The arbcom case is currently considering the evidence and arguments of these claims. Since one would think that when an arbcom case is opened to look at the evidence of the claim that one account as likely being another, this supersedes subsequent punitive actions possibly taken by other admins, pending that investigative process and determination of fact by the arbcom proceedings. Otherwise what it the point of the arbcom case?

What seems to have happened in this case is that an admin may have made a mistake but is now saying that it's "likely anyways" that arbcom is going to decide against me so the block should stay anyway, effectively superseding the arbcom process that is charged with making this exact determination. This is procedurally wrong and a previous ANI thread concluded that it would only muddy the waters of the arbcom case. Ryan has said that Arbcom is going to ban me anyway, so it does not matter. I disagree. In practice this just prevents me from even responding in my defense on the talk pages of my arbcom with important counter arguments to the comments of others against me. Yes, there are reasons to believe and not to believe that I have any real connection to this account (SGR), but that is what arbcom is deciding on: Until they do, admins should not jump the gun, and make the determination on their on and block me for it hoping that arbcom will back them up in the end, and that it will be moot if I'm blocked or not. This is not fair, and a violation of due process.

For the record, I've held that SuperRedGreen is an impersonator, and has wikistalked and copied not just me but other editors. I had no problem when that account being indef blocked. Now they come back with a puppet, and once that is confirmed, they should be blocked -- not me! This is obviously a transparent attempt by someone to make me look bad. The user checks confirms the connection of these two accounts, and there is no connection to meGiovanni33 (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checkuser (technical) evidence has suggested that you are likely Rataoui. It isn't the result of any human error. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The human error is Ryan claiming it was confirmed when it was not. -- Ned Scott 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise that this thread was closed with the result that Giovanni33 is banned, and then was re-opened. FWIW, I think that it should remain open at least over the weekend because (1) it is currently 4th of July weekend, so admins/editors in the USA may not be able to comment until the end of weekend (or later...) and (2) the thread was closed after being open for under five hours. --Iamunknown 05:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that some people have thrown a wobbler over the fact Ryan started the discussion when he did, implying that he did it deliberately to limit the discussion. Well, guys, from his profile it looks like he's English, not American - so he had no reason to know about US holidays.

I don't disagree with the thread being re-opened for a short while, but unless it now becomes an informal rule to not close threads for community bans over the holiday period of any English-speaking country, I think having to keep the thread open for longer than the weekend is a bit much. John Smith's (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a long-time Gio supporter and "give Gio the benefit of the doubt"er, I'd like to suggest that too much mercy is as bad as too much severity. Ban him. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It has been my observation that, over the past year or two, User:Giovanni33 has frequently clashed with User:John Smith's, particularly at pages such as Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, in which Giovanni would attempt to skew the article toward portraying U.S. actions in a more negative light, then John Smith's would revert the article to portray the same actions in a positive light. In this case, I'm actually shocked that the very same editor on the other end of the revert warring (whom in many cases was reverting to worse versions) is the one pushing hardest for Giovanni's block. If there is anything political to do with this push (I believe there is), the block should not take place. The pot is equally as black, if not blacker, than the kettle in this case, and I cannot believe that no one has as yet pointed this out. I recommend a look through the archives on this matter to all making their opinions known here. Badagnani (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani, I have reverted that particular article a total of 5 times this year. 3 times against an anon-IP that was making poor changes (and may well have been a sockpuppet) and only twice against Giovanni. Now compare that with Giovanni's edit-warring on the page wth multiple users and his repeated use of puppets (I have never used them myself). He has also been blocked 6 times for violating his revert parole - I haven't been a single time. Yet you still accuse me of being as bad or worse than him? That is not credible. The facts speak for themselves. John Smith's (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Badangani - Yes, his opponents are going to be the first to notice this chink in his armour. But the fact is, the people who would like to support him based on his arguments, can't because of his behaviour. Too bad. ^^James^^ (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I must admit that I had a similar reaction to Badagnani on seeing John Smiths' lobbying on this page and I just reverted his addition of Giovanni to the banned user list. I don't really care if there is consensus to ban Giovanni as I have been watching the problems with his behaviour and his blatant socking and lying when caught out for the last few years and like other longterm editors I've basically had enough but it's absolutely unacceptable for Giovanni's editorial adversary to have any involvement in determining the consensus and then restoring his name to the banned user list. Sarah 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm hardly his "editoral adversary". He may have bullied me in the past, but I couldn't care less about his views or editing interests. I would say that people who have suffered from his behaviour in the past have as much as a right to express their opinions as someone who has never come across him, though I have never suggested my views should be taken as a means of establishing consensus. If people wish to oppose a ban they can do so, but I have a right to query their views - I don't see that as lobbying.

As for the list, as an administrator surely you know it's for logging bans. He is banned so I restored the name. Until he is unbanned it should be there. What is more important - waiting for an "uninvolved editor" to put it there, or having it there as a record of the fact he is under an indefinite ban? I guess you would say the first, but I would say the second. John Smith's (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are his editorial adversary - that's why you both ended up at ArbCom. Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the purpose of the banned user list and I have no objection to Giovanni being added to it; my objection is to *you* being the one to add him. Considering your background with this user, I find your 'leading role' here very concerning and political. I think you should just back off and leave dealing with Giovanni to others who do not have such a past history with him. Sarah 07:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the arb-comm case was way into last year and I thought Giovanni could change. Sadly he hasn't, which is why I came here. I tend to query comments so I can understand if you think I had heavy input, but I was merely curious and not "leading" the discussion. But I think we have agreed there is no more that we need to say on this matter - we agree to disagree on the rest. For the record I had already decided not to restore his name to the banned list if it is removed after the protection expires because it isn't important. John Smith's (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Small addendum to the above: Someone should probably go around and clean up all of G33's socks as well, those that havn't been already blocked, that is. It's odd to leave them unbanned. Jtrainor (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the ArbCom case closes, I will open a WP:AE for them. Likely those specifically named in the FoF will be banned with the closing of the case; the other major one that needs to go that's not named is Olawe (talk · contribs). - Merzbow (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely with Sarah. This is disgraceful. Regardless of the pros and cons of banning this long-time user, the fact that the proposal was made, the "decision" ratified and the discussion archived in less than 24 hours, covering the period of a major US holiday and the traditional "recovery" period cannot possibly be justified. That the majority of the discussion was between traditional "opponents" of the ban-ee only adds to the distasteful nature of an event that once again carries more than traces of the fetid stench of IRC. If you refuse to give the Arbitration Committee remedy the respect, time and patience it needs to work, at least indulge us with the pretense that this is a real community decision and not one patched together by a band of rogues in the pitch of the night. The contributions and style of Giovanni33 may well be ban material, but this is not the way to go about it. 220.236.108.16 (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I object to the premature closure of the discussion. I am not yet convinced that this user's actions warrant a ban. We should consider this carefully and with alternative remedies in mind. Perhaps Giovanni could be asked to avoid a particular article, if that article is a source of controversy? Everyking (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a strong opinion either way until I read this (see toward the bottom of the section): [22] I think it's best that he stop editing here until whatever unspecified legal actions he plans with his lawyer are finished. There are certainly some veiled legal threats there and I think he needs to explore those before editing here again. RxS (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: Mizbiplob

Mizbiplob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I don't know where else to put this. This user appears to be acting in good faith, but contains to make up categories, add uncited "facts" and roll back corrections made to his english. I've tried leaving messages on their talk page including help on categories; but they simply don't respond; instead claiming they don't understand on the user page. It's all very weird; and a ban would be over the top; but correcting every edit they make is getting tiresome. Any advice? --Blowdart | ^talk 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I reported to AIV due to the nonsense pages. The user has been blocked twice and persists in creating nonsense pages, despite multiple warnings. See their talk, and an admin can see how many pages it has created that got deleted. I'd say close to ten. Enigma ^message 08:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about AIV; but most of the nonsense, to me, seems to be due to the lack of a decent command of English, and no understanding of what is notable. --Blowdart | ^talk 11:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom page

Hi. On the United Kingdom page there is a box over the page that says stuff about grawp. I managed to 'hack' into the history of the United Kingdom page but it is not down in the history! thanks!--82.152.210.114 (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

Pararubbas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite numerous warnings, the user consistently removes external links, references, stub templates and other valuable information from articles. I think a temporary block may be appropriate. Cheers! BanRay 11:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Desmond Hume99

Desmond Hume99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor has been trying to create an article on Spoilertv, a non-notable website. He has since brought the matter to DRV, where it was revealed that the user is evading a block [23]. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have salted the article and indef'd the account as a block evader. Since there is an ongoing DRV I would not oppose any unblocking to allow participation if considered necessary. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Canvassin' (no pun intended!)

I just received this rather interesting message on my talkpage. It's from an editor I've never interacted with, on a subject I know nothing about. I can't be bothered to look into it, but someone else might want to, it looks as if others have been spammed/canvassed too. Cheers! ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's canvassing - it doesn't seem to be written in a way to influence the outcome; it's mere notification of a community discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But it's being given to loads + loads + loads of totally unrelated contributors, on a non-wide issue (as in, not deleting the Main Page, just a routine DRV-type thing). That sounds like canvassing to me, or at the least spamming. ╟─TreasuryTag╬contribs─╢ 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)

It's weird if TreasuryTag has never had any interaction with the user and/or the article. I know on at least one occasion I mass-Talked about 20 or so users who had participated in a particular AfD discussion, because a discussion relevant to the previous AfD was taking place and both sides of the discussion were concerned about making sure any interested parties were made aware... but I'm not sure how I feel about pinging random users to get more participation. It's not canvassing, for sure, but... I dunno, that's weird. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi: Thanks TreasuryTag! This will hopefully get a few more editors over at the deletion review for the Alan Cabal article: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_3#Alan_Cabal I have seen too many of the same people from the AFD there so I'm trying to get a fresh group to opine.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Manhattan Samurai is trying to have the article on Alan Cabal undeleted, but all the references provided in the DRV are blogs, blog comments or trivial mentions. He has also refused to accept userfying the article, insisting that it be in mainspace while he works on it. Finally, he has resorted to direct insults in the DRV, which I already warned him about. I refrained from !voting in the discussion because of that, but this is quickly becoming tendentious. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I now see that Manhattan Samurai has already reached his final warning for personal attacks. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

He was just addressing editors active on other subjects on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3‎, (I was one of them) as he wanted some independent opinions. Maybe he took things too personal, but I believe that everything has been settled. [24] Cst17 (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review of User:Betacommand (up to 4 blocks now)

As noted at the top of the page, I've moved discussion of Betacommand's most recent blocks to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Block review of User:Betacommand. Just a reminder since I've already had the obligatory complaint about the subpage move. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidas

This user User:Wikidas is going around posting nonsense into the Muhammad article [see users contribution] further this user is adding content without discussion in talk page [users discussion]. User provides poorly scholared information and seems to be into editing war with bringing sock puppets to revert article. --Veer87 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Veer87 the edits you object to are not "nonsense" or unsourced as you claim. You are engaged in an edit war despite receiving a final warning for you not to continue to remove sourced material from articles. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this case? I believe Veer87 should now be blocked for edit warring and vandalism of the Muhammad article. I am recusing myself from taking that action to prevent even the appearance of a mis-use of the admin tools in a content dispute - though I don't believe this is one. Gwernol 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User Arcayne & His Multiple Oxford Degrees

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

IP blocked for 48 hours for harassment; no other administrative action necessary; further such attacks on this user from dynamic IP's should probably be dealt with expeditiously in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Where is the proper place to discuss the posturing use of "Superior Authority" on Wiki? Arcayne, a self-proclaimed poly-degreed Oxon with 18,000 edits in 22 months can be, indeed is, a formidable Wikipedian exerting a vast influence on the quality and tone of this entire project. Here is the meat of the complaint:

Editor Arcayne (talk · contribs) has claimed not one, but Two, degrees from Oxford - and has claimed to have written several books [The two, of several he lists on his User page that he claims to have been published are Love Songs and Other Mysteries (1991) and Bad Choice (1989) - For which no ISBN numbers exist to link to ...] and has made just a hair under Eighteen Thousand edits[25] in 22 months at Wiki.

As he has frequently invoked the "Superior Authority" of his multiple Oxford degrees and education and on numerous occasions brandished his Oxford academic honors to defend and enshrine his edits in Wikipedia and to eliminate the need for discussion, this is having a very strong influence on many articles and editors - and are riddled with ignorant errors:

"With respect, I went to Oxford, so i am fairly well aware of Brit English...penultimate being the climax of the story."[26] - Arcayne

"Regarding the 'penultimate' stuff - not worries - as I said, it's just a word. I always thought is was used as next to the end, as in right before the ending. A slightly different meaning has become popular, like how the original phrase "buck naked" (meaning, naked as a male deer) becoming mispronounced so often that now people say "butt-naked". It would render me a crabby old man to decry the loss of the word meanings. It was also make me something of a jerk. Words evolve. - Arcayne 14:34, 3 July 2008"

"I did attend Oxford. I did graduate from there with the two degrees I have previously noted"[27] - Arcayne

These are the two degrees Arcayne previously noted:

the EU is not a single nation, nor is the UN or UAE. They are actually something called NGO's, or non-governmental organizations. - Arcayne

The EU is nothing BUT a governmental organization. Its purpose is to politically unite the countries within the European Community. ... it is a united entity. Ditto the UAE. Kapowow

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the EU is not an NGO? ... If you consider me throwing my political science and international relations degrees at you to be derogatory, then I have to say that I am sorry you feel that way. I am not a potted plant; I know the policies of which I speak,'' ... - Arcayne[28]

Surely Wikipedia has a policy for those such as Arcayne, who are able to place 18,000 edits in 22 months using his Superior Authority" as an Oxfordian with multiple degrees to bluff and cajole in an effort to "Win" for winnings sake.

Wiki must have greater, more idealistic, purpose than to simply be a place to facilitate and support fantastical self-aggrandizement. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

How come al of these nonregistereds hate User:Arcayne so much?? Its kind of creating me out!!! Smith Jones (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a giant leap of faith and assume the initial post here is sincere. If so, the solution is simple. Cease being intimidated when people mention their degrees and the institutions at which they've studied. It's not that hard, especially on Wikipedia where the default position is suspicion of any sort of real-life expertise. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe I'm the only non-registered user to post here RE:Arcayne. My purpose in participating in Wiki is to move the project forward without regard to the Social Networking uses of the site. My complaint regarding Arcayne is that he damages the mission through the false and self-centered nature of his words and actions. Fraudulently misrepresenting oneself in an effort to further ones effectiveness and "win" - while employing patently false arguments based soley upon ones claim to "Superior Authority" is a violation of all social norms and is a gross violation of Wiki trust. It is unacceptable behavior that harms the very foundation of Wikipedia. It is in and of itself a profound violation of the communities trust that one operate in "Good Faith". 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that in each and every one of the examples from Arcayne above, he brandishes his purported advanced academic credentials to support a position that has no greyness - he is simply, utterly, and childishly wrong. The EU is not an NGO, Arcayne's multiple post-graduate Oxford Degrees in Political Science and International Relations to the contrary. Nor does Penultimate mean Climax, no matter how much Arcayne wished that it did. Utterly and completely wrong, told so by large groups of fellow editors and he still forces the point based upon his "Superior Authority" as an "Expert." It harms the Wiki mission and violates the communities trust that others operate in Good Faith. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking about "Wiki trust" is quite interesting when we take under consideration that you have been using a lot of IP addresses to edit war with him, you wouldn't believe how many times I have seen the "sysop abuse" drama-magnet being used here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've claimed all of my Dynamic IP's. As was fully noted in your link. There is no violation of the rule, or even the spirit of the rule. All I am guilty of is not joining the Social Networking side of Wiki. My edits stand or fall on the merit of the idea's contained in them. After overcoming the institutional skepticism placed upon them as anonymous contributions. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming sockpuppetry, you already admited working on these addresses. However, when the contributions of these accounts are reviewed its obvious that you aren't a victim like you claim in your argument, its evident that you two are involved in a content dispute. That being the case this is not the place to work with it, after all "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department", try WP:DR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no content dispute. It's simple: Arcayne claims multiple advanced degrees from Oxford and uses this as the basis to close discussion and "win". The claims he has put forth are ludicrous and make a mockery of his purported intellectual pedigree.

That he makes these claims and by doing so forces false information into the Encyclopedia while bullying his fellow editors with lies is harmful to the mission, principles and spirit of Wikipedia. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what you expect to hear from someone involved in a content dispute, it should be noted that I actually reviewed the contributions of your other addresses, there are a lot of "Undid x version by Arcayne..." in them. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the anon's fifth unwarranted AN/I complaint against me. Clearly, he doesn't like me (not that it really matters to me, but I guess the 500-lb gorilla in the room needs to be noted). In each of his prior AN/I whine sessions, he has been advised, somewhat stringently that he needs to stop interacting with me. I have not sought him out. I have not created multiple IP account after multiple IP account - almost a dozen that I could find. And each one, almost without exception are attack pages directed at me. For an assumed superiority I feel from having attended the Ox and worked my ass off for two undergraduate degrees. Honestly, the only reason I would feel superior to any user is if they are solely content to use Wikipedia as an attack forum or to grind ut a personal agenda. This person has been proven to be using it as both since at least April of this year.

I would like to propose for the second time that, as the user 75.(et. al.) has used his post block time to create attack pages and generally disrupt Wikipedia, that his IP range be blocked. His continued personal attacks are simply disruptive. No one creates five ANI's against a specific user and devotes 8/10's of all their posts in attack. The most recent canvassing at the [of Oxford] and well as adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox pretty much proves the point. I would very much like this particular troll shoved back under the bridge and the span covered in an indef ban. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Why would anyone be impressed by someone having a mere two college degrees?Edison (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Arcayne claims three. In addition to the Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and the Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations" he claims an unspecified Associate degree as well. Perhaps Cambridge?. Only one small problem ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[29] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I missed something. What administrator intervention is anyone looking for here? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

None. this is a vendetta by a non-reggie against User:Arcayne. There is nothing that any amdin could do hear except to try and take away Arcaye's college degrees whjich we cannot do as per WP:D Smith Jones (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Lying about ones academic credentials while using them to claim "Superior Authority" during article editing in order to mislead editors and enter patently false prose into the Encyclopedia is a gross and flagrant violation of "Good Faith". It undermines the mission of the project and fosters a culture of dishonesty. Administrators must choose to either accept that an editor with 8,000 edits in 22 months may lie at will without reprobation - and the insidious harm that results from it, or they must censure the individual and take a principled stand on community standards and the projects purpose. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I had been clear when I asked twice before; I am asking for the user to be range-blocked.

• The user has created no less than a dozen IP addresses (and admitted to by the anon at two different RfCU and previous AN/I), and virtually every edit from these anonymous addresses attack me personally or my edits.
• He has wasted this noticeboard's time in having filed or contributed substantially to no less than five frivolous AN/I complaints (1, 2, 3, 4) since April, and all of them are attacks towards me me. Of course, the anon has pointedly avoided notifying me of the AN/I posting.
• Luvasfbr also noted that a wikiquette alert was also filed by the anon a few weeks ago, though I was never notified of its existence (again) and cannot find it in the archives.
• He has disrupted Wikipedia with his multiple attack accounts, including going to wikiprojects where I have never made a single contribution ([30]) (he was correctly named as a troll there) and then further disrupting wikipedia by point-style adding a saccharine apology to my user page with the Oxford userbox.
• He appears to be seeking personal information about my educational background by questioning it (ie, calling my earned degrees "advanced" degrees knowing that the correction of noting they are undergraduate degrees). Because of this, I am very concerned that the attacking of my educational credentials is a subtle attempt to gain personal information about me.

These attempts are additional nuking expeditions by the anonymous user to poison the well of wiki opinion by calling me a liar, an "aggressive kiss-ass and political networking gladhander, etc. For the most part, the users here have suggested the venue of DR or simply walking away. To date, the anon has 'never pursued any avenue of DR, instead following me to articles and discussions where they have never contributed before, and then only to contribute stale arguments.

It was previously suggested I simply ignore the anon's effort, which, until recently, I have. However, I should not have to overlook the continuous, bad-faith efforts by an anon who pointedly refuses to set up a public face to his edits. He has argued in the past that as a public editor, he is doing this for ideological reasons (a reasoning strongly criticized by both Ed Fitzgerald and Bzuk in the previous AN/I's) or is encountering ISP problems. However, a careful look at his contributions notes that he only switches IP addresses to avoid restrictions placed upon his editing behavior. Despite the "ISP problem", he has managed to contribute with the same ISP here for the past few days - following exactly the same pattern his previous times at AN/I. The user can maintain a single IP address - he simply chooses not to. It is in this way that he is able to escape admin scrutiny and oversight and continue his attacks largely unabated.

I feel that even though range blocks are a fairly blunt instrument, it is required here. The user has used their post-block period to do little but attack another user. As the focus of that user, I find myself a little concerned for my personal safety, as the user appears to be seeking personal info about me. I am also concerned that the user has tried five different times to have the noticeboard, never once having notified me; a clear indication that the user is attempted to have me back-door blocked. It cannot be confirmed, but is reasonable to suspect, that this renewed attempt by the anon was inspired by Edokter's retracted block of a few days ago.

In conclusion, the anon user is not interested in contributing to the encyclopedia; they are interested in attacking me and having me removed from Wikipedia. Almost all of the anon's contributions have been personal attacks. This doesn't represent the goals that we set for our editors. The anon should not be allowed to continue harassing me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A rather lengthy reply which conveniently fails to address in any way the most important point. In addition to an unspecified associate degree you claim an Oxford undergraduate degree in "Political Science" and an Oxford undergraduate degree in "International Relations". Except ... Oxford simply does not offer such courses, majors or degrees to undergraduates.[31] At Oxford one would study the very famous and long standing PPE. 75.57.205.135 (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if I choose to be a little vague as to how my degrees are specifically noted (or that my associates' degree may or may not have been earned at my alma mater) in order to protect my privacy, I will do so. That you have taken a lot of care to explore my educational background demonstrates the need for that non-specificity. You aren't getting anything more specific, anon, no matter how many ANI complaints you fabricate. Hope that is clear enough for you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Portal:Current events

There is a lot of trouble with at least one IP removing perfectly good entries from the portal. Trouble is, they defend their actions and seem to feel that they fall within policy. Can someone more delicate than I (I'm getting kinda anoyed by now) have a go at putting things straight? Because the portal is rapidly ceasing to be the good at-a-glance update that it has always been. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted entries restored. Reasons given by IP are too vague to warrant such action. If the IP elaborates, then we'll reconsider, but in any case, the IP can't revert or it's a 3RR violation. —Kurykh 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

They're not perfectly good entries! Read guideline. Stories without English reference are not properly referenced. Stories about shooting in US is of regional or topical interest. And they don't belong to main pain of current events portal. Don't like the rule? re-write it. You don't like my reasoning? You don't give any reason at all! Am I elaborating enough? --87.198.133.62 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At it again. Request someone uninvolved to get involved and sort things out, please. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the item about the Stockholm museeum being destroyed by fire. If that's not "important enough", we'd better scrap Wikipedia altogether. 213.50.111.114 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Milwaukee shooting is particularly world-news-worthy. Corvus cornix_talk 18:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Persistent disruptions by User:JeanLatore

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Has admitted as sockpuppet of a banned user; user will remain indefinitely blocked per both Wikipedia policy and community consensus. —Kurykh 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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

JL started editing on April 1, 2008 and has demonstrated a persistent pattern of disruptive behaviour. His initial contributions were disruptive (e.g. Anal Sex with Sluts, an article he created, was speedily deleted as vandalism) and his disruptive editing has continued to this point, although he has also made some good and solid contributions to a number of articles about Sepreme Court cases. He had a couple of blocks already[32] but they did not seem to have worked. Just by looking at what the user has been doing in the last 10 days or so, one sees quite a bit of apparently deliberately disruptive behaviour. First there was his own abortive self-nom RFA on June 28, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore, that apparently was intended as a joke‎ or a WP:POINT of some sort. Then there was another one on July 6, which really looks like a case of vandalism Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JeanLatore 2. Also on July 6, even worse, he nominated another user ‎ for RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix, and included a bunch of obviously bogus information in the nomination. For JL to behave like a clown and damage his own WP reputation is one thing, but to hurt another user in good standing by damaging their RfA is quite a bit worse. There are also recent inappropriate and disruptive posts at various talk pages, such as [33], [34],[35][36],[37], an apparent WP:POINTy AfD nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (advertising character)(2nd nomination), and so on. JL seems to enjoy being disruptive and deliberately provocative and to treat WP as some kind of an equivalent of a blog. I think some kind of administrative or community action regarding this user is overdue. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've given a block before, but I don't think it addressed the problem adequately. I have given final warnings before but they had no effect, and this disruption is too recent for those warnings (that I gave) to be of any effect. I'd strongly recommend an extended block for this user. Rudget (logs) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would endorse, at minimum, a ban from WP:RFA. An offer he made to nominate another editor for adminship showed up on my watchlist, and I took the unusual step of e-mailing an editor with whom I'd had no prior interaction to advise them against accepting Jean's offer. I think Jean's behaviour elsewhere has been tolerable if sub-optimal, but nominating users who are too new to be familiar with the RFA process or adminship in general and bringing a snow close upon them is not acceptable. All exprienced Wikipedians are in a de facto position of trust when it comes to their interactions with new users, and in this respect Jean's been violating trust. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been occurences in the mainspace which are in equal measure to the disruption sustained at RfA. Rudget (logs) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This user si very new but hsi behavior worreis me. He created an article bring them on and when it rec'ed for deletion due to the fact that it was almost entirely WP:OR but then he simpl removed the prod and made a silly comment on my talk page about him having aspergesr. I am not sure that this user has been operating entirely in good faith when editing this encyclopedia and someone needs to get through to hime before he does something silly again that gets him sanctioned like what he did to User:Red_Phoenix. To deliberaltey set someone up with a WP:RFA without angood faith to work.. Smith Jones (talk)

I issued a final warning re his harassment of User:Plutonium27 and he doesn't seem to have edited since then. If this idiocy continues I'd have no problem with an indefblock. – ırıdescent 16:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We generally tolerate quite a lot of kooky and/or trollish behavior. Whether this is good or bad is a matter of opinion. When this behavior crosses the line into sexual harassment, I suspect hardly anyone wants to tolerate it anymore. I have no problem with an indefinite block at any time, but failing that, a series of blocks of escalating length should be applied liberally at the next sign of trouble. Friday (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, he amdits to deliberately edditing Wikipeida when he is too high on drugs to edit responsibley and constantly posts sexually-harassing/charmed conmments on multiple peoples' pages. Is there nothing to do about that??? Smith Jones (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Smith Jones (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thought I should make my response known here. I'm leaving Mr WooWoo's charming little piece of geo-ethnic come-on up on my talkpage despite the heaves it gives. A reminder I hope to anyone who feels like giving this loser one.more.chance. Ever. Ta Plutonium27 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Indef block per the hundred people that beat me to the punch. The user has rarely shown any good faith or constuctive behaviour, and his trolling and harassment is completely uncalled for. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

At least ban him from WP:RFA in my opinion, and do further if it is deemed necessary. I still can't believe I fell for that little trap of his, but I guess assuming good faith doesn't mean you shouldn't be wary. I can only hope that his actions toward me have not damaged my reputation on Wikipedia like they already have to my RFA. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Doint worry RedPhoenix. We know that you had nothing to do with this abomination, and i wish you the best of luck re: your adminship request. Smith Jones (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Upon a more thorough examination of the diffs provided, I've changed my solution from "RFA ban" to "indef block", and per what I believe to be consensus here, I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger. If he wishes to explain himself, which I think it likely that he will, he can do so through the unblock template. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have spent a long and painful time reading through this editor's edits, and I concur in an indef block. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The below section is transcluded from JL's talk page. –xenocidic (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC) It is now subst'ed since JL has since gone offline/stopped contributing to the discussion. –xenocidic (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcluded section of User talk:JeanLatore (now subst'ed)

I apologise for my recent actions. My behaviour on Wikipedia could have been fairly characterised as mischevious from the get-go, but I can see how the events of this weekend have far surpassed my usual level of flippancy. I guess I've just been under a lot of stress lately. That being said I have a few preliminary comments to make:

1) An indef block this quickly is a bit too harsh, 2) I have a multitude of what I think we all consider very helpful edits to wikipedia concerning U.S. Supreme Court cases. Any review of my contribs will show that. I would like to continue making edits in that vein, and benefits of banning me would outweight the costs. 3) I take issue with some characterisations of my comments by above editors. I do not "regularly sexually harrass" anyone, that comment on "Plutonium"'s talk page was my only comment that could be construed as such, and really, it was not that bad. Her comments about me and my friend user:Darkspots really bear scrutiny as well. 4) I apologise for the "Red Phoenix" contretemps -- I had no idea that the situation would get so controversial.

In sum, I admit my behaviour this last week has been less than ideal, with fewer than normal constructive edits to counterweigh them. But that is not wholly characteristic of my entire career at Wikipedia. I would have been indef-blocked well before 1,100 edits if this were my "norm." I realise sanctions are in order and would feel a 15-30 day block would be fair. Upon returning from that, I promise to resume editing legal articles and lay off any shenanigans at RFA, which is what brought this matter to a head in the first place. Thank you. JeanLatore (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain the Red Phoenix episode more clearly? If you weren't out for controversy, what were you trying to accomplish? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I came across that user on VPP where I often read policy threads. I clicked on his user page and saw a user box that said he would like to be an admin and had 3,100 edits. So I decided to nominate him, having no idea that my involvement in the RFA would become an issue at all. The user accepted my offer. I in no way was trying to make fun of him or harm him. I cannot stress this enough. I'm sorry if i didn't realise just how unpopular I was on here. JeanLatore (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And by what reason did you claim that he'd brought more articles to FA since Giano, or that he was a "strong young strapping buck"? And could you clarify your offers to nominate other users, including some with under a thousand edits, for RFA? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that young strapping buck thing was stupid. I realise that was wrong. I just thought it would be eye-catching. And SesquipedalianVerbiage was the only sub 1,000 edit editor I discussed adminship with. I feel that edit-count-itis is wrong and I honestly did not care that he had less than 1000 edits. I did feel that he is intelligent and well-spoken. That's why I offered. That certainly was not a "blockable" offense. JeanLatore (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You also seem to have a trend for creating inappropriate articles. For example Bring em on, OMGLOL!, and Small Sluts, Nice Butts... I would like to know the reasoning behind so many inappropriate article creations, and if you are unblocked, what you plan to do about creating articles in the future? - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Per Adolphus79. There has been a lot of questionalable edits made on this account. Also you leave inappropriate comments on people's user page: [38]. America69 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Break 1

Endorse indefblock. This wasn't a one-off piece of vandalism, this was a systematic pattern of abuse and harassment. Someone who thinks this is acceptable doesn't deserve a second chance, and the occasional valid contribution doesn't counterbalance the months of trolling. If you want somewhere to treat as your personal chatroom with the occasional article added, I'm sure Livejournal would be glad to have you. – ırıdescent 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Support long or indef block I first encountered JL when he gave tried to feed me a tall tale about knowing the creator of an obviously copyrighted image. Despite a handful of useful edits, this user continues to demonstrate a lack of maturity. The comments left on Plutonium27's talk page constitute sexual harassment in my opinion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I first encountered him trolling FAC by repeatedly nominating random articles. The time taken cleaning up behind this user has more than outweighed any positive contributions they've brought. – ırıdescent 18:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I would like to point out that this user's behavior and edits have very distinct similarities to banned users/sockpuppets: User:Mr_Bullockx and User:Adam Pirolo. -WarthogDemon 18:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting observation... note 18:44, March 28, 2008 Viridae (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Adam Pirolo (Talk | contribs)" and 08:15, April 1, 2008 JeanLatore (Talk | contribs | block) New user account, and their 2nd edit was to welcome themselves. –xenocidic (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And between those two that Xenocidic mentions, User:Bankerboy83 hit my userpage. It looks like JeanLatore was made almost IMMEDIATELY after Bankerboy was blocked. I was going to do a sockpuppet report, but since he did not begin AFDing articles until after a week as Jean, I thought perhaps the evidence was not strong enough. -WarthogDemon 18:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of an Endgame1 (talk · contribs) sock. Picking four of Endgame's socks at random, they all have numerous FA nominations that will clearly fail, as well as spurious contribs to the RefDesks.- auburnpilot talk 18:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Should I introduce my evidence? I have hesitated to do so because the evidence is based around him and indicates he has some kind of bizarre grudge against me, and I have thus far made an effort to avoid him as much as possible. If, however, you think it best I produce my evidence here and now, I shall. -WarthogDemon 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A confirmed CU would solidify this block. –xenocidic (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of my evidence is based on User:Adam Pirolo's similarities to User:Mr Bullockx. A CU with Bullockx would be stale but I shall endeavor to include that as I bring up Adam, Bankboy, and Jean together. Further Note Actually I'll have to exclude Bankerboy as it would only be a "throwaway" account. -WarthogDemon 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

CU Report made. -WarthogDemon 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indefinite block. I can't recall if I first encountered JeanLatore via edits to autism-related articles or his multiple spurious FAC noms, but I have watched his talk page ever since, and as someone who has a history of successfully mentoring another editor of autism-related articles, I do not see any indication that JeanLatore can or will become a productive contributor or will do anything but continue to disrupt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  oh, and I want to encourage RedPhoenix not to feel that this will reflect longterm on him/her; I know another very experienced editor and writer of many FAs who almost fell into a similar issue with an RfA nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  Well, thanks I guess. By the way, it is "him" (should probably put up a userbox about that one). It wrecked my RFA, at least. So I'll just have to wait some time until the dust settles. I just kind of feel dumb falling for a trick like that while assuming good faith. Oh well, thanks for the compassion. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  Por nada; by the way, WP:WBFAN is where you find the data about FA noms :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse per Sandy and Iridescent, as well as his sexual harassment of Plutonium. S. Dean Jameson 18:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse per S. Dean Jameson. Durova^Charge! 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support indef block - while he has made a few worthwhile contributions, the headache he has casued several people far outweighs this. If a vandal makes 1 good edit, 3 or 4 vandalisms, 1 good edit, then another 3 or 4 vandalisms, then throw on top of that some harassment, would that user not be blocked indef also? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reading Special:Contributions/Mr_Bullockx kinda makes me want to vomit, I mean literally, not figuratively. Obvious socking. I feel like an naive idiot for trying to mentor this user. Support indef block, clearly. Darkspots (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For those who can't see deleted contributions: one of Mr_Bullockx's first contributions was to nominate Fleshlight for FA: This article is succinct yet poetically comprehensive. It expemplifies the best that Wikipedia, nay, the best that humanity has to offer. It is also well-annotated and has been covered extensively in several reputable journals. Compare with one of JeanLatore's FA noms. Do I hear a quack in the room? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • God. I know it's not all about me, but this. hurts. my. pride. I've been listening to his shit for months, all the while feeling like I was at least doing something to help out. And the whole time it was just a sick little game. This sucks. Darkspots (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, and here I thought it was some stupid grudge match on me. :P Glad to know it's not. -WarthogDemon 20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Darkspots: Nothing wrong with assuming good faith and trying to be helpful. I'd been occasionally monitoring his edits after my first JL encounter and hadn't caught any one thing that was grounds for a reblock until I saw this notice posted today. I certainly didn't have any sockpuppet suspicions until WarthogDemon brought them to light. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks. It's probably much more complicated in the poor schmuck's head than it seems right now to me. I think I'll take a break for a while. Darkspots (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse As Nsk92 says, "some kind of administrative or community action regarding this user is overdue". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• NOTE: the user just admitted to being a sock puppet of User:Wiki_brah, if we could also get puppet templates added to the above mentioned usernames for future reference... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and not entirely surprised to see them here to be honest - I was curious as to who they were or what they were doing here. Orderinchaos 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akash Arora

I was huggling and I came across this. Assuming this guy is who he says he is, can he legally force us to delete that article? The article is not libelous. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Making legal threats is against policy. He needs to take this up with the Foundation, as detailed here: Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself. I'll leave a note on his talk page. L'Aquatique[review] 19:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you see a legal threat, but I do see a BLP that is completely unsourced and contains no assertion of notability. WP:CSD#A7 perhaps? BradV 19:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep putting a prod note on an article is not a legal threat. Agree about the speedy delete. There is no assertion of notability. So I'll go and do it now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, there's nothing there. I can't even see why the subject would have any problems with it. Shouldn't the deletion tag appear on the talk page, at least as discussion? FWiQW Bzuk (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

Why? I speedied it because there was no assertion of notability. Why should someone have an encylopedia article just because they happen to be a journalist? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) It was deleted. Sorry about the confusion, I guess I read into it a legal threat that wasn't there. I apologize... L'Aquatique[review] 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for wording my post like that. I didn't see how the guy was notable either. I was more interested in knowing if that would have been a valid PROD reason assuming that the article had been about a notable person. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the article were about a notable person then it's a different story. IANAL but I'm pretty sure that we don't need someones permission to simply write about them. How would newspapers be able to operate if that were the case? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Polite third guy needed

Hi,

I have maybe a bit a strange demand here, where I need assistance. Ercdw created the article Ducky Wucky, where I placed an AfD for Non-Notability and advertisement on. Now, instead of improving the article or commenting on the AfD-discussion, the user writes a lengthy, quite insulting comment on the article's talk page. I'm not sure, but I think the user mainly missunderstood some of our principles about notability and verifiabily.

Could someone not involved have a talk to the user and maybe tell him that such language is not to be used? I don't think it would be good if I did it myself. Thanks a lot. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried, we'll see if he catches on... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a bad WP:BITE violation in the AfD debate, namely "It's horribly written to boot, and the author is a vandal." That would piss off any new contributer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, such comments are inappropriate at the least. I should have removed that comment, but I'll generally not mess around in others discussion entries, and for sure not in one of a very experienced user. Whereas one would expect that they do know the policies. --PaterMcFly (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I left Blueboy a comment asking him to try to patch things up. I'm assuming (and hoping) it was an over-hasty misunderstanding. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to bite, but I've closed the AfD and deleted this. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeated deletions by User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and User:Folantin

Resolved

 – See note at end Papa November (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Over the past two days I saw in front of my eyes how all of my contribution to Chechen people disappear by the two editors with clear WP:MEATpuppetry engaged. Neither has provided any real explanation, and reverted to a heavy POV version that was semi-plagiarised from an amateurish source. Despite my attempts ([39],[40]) to get a discussion going, both editors have clearly expressed ([41],[42])their non-willingness in doing so. After the [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], sixth revert of my work, which included removal of disputed tags and the like, I have no option but to raise the issue here and request admin intervention and to explain to these users the principle of WP:OWN.
On a separate note, if one checks the history of the article or other articles the former user is editing, one can clearly see an attempt to have an edit stack. I do hope that if he chooses to have an RfA in the near future this record is kept for refrence. --Kuban Cossack 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BAM, did not have time to finish writing this already a SEVENTH revert. --Kuban Cossack 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats true. He aslo had a revert war yestarday on the Russians page, and here you can see he started a discussion which he turned into a political debate and started arguing about things not even in the article. For a few times he was explained Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum, explanations he have ignored. Log in, log out (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(Referring exclusively to the Chechen people page): User:Kuban kazak is a soapboxing nightmare. I watchlisted the Chechen people page because I had made some contributions to the etymology section, including adding a valid reference. Then, last week, KK arrived and slapped a "citation needed" tag on my contribution, which was quite clearly referenced at the end of the paragraph, while adding a load of tendentious material of his own completely lacking in sources [48]. When he finally added references for his material (mostly in Russian), I checked out one of them and it did not contain any reference to the fact it was supposed to verify (see talk page for details [49]). Moreover, the whole tenor of the source he used said exactly the opposite of what he was claiming in the article (i.e. the Chechens collaborated en masse with the Germans in World War Two). When challenged about this misuse of sources, he tried to change the subject, then offered another source in Russian which again failed to back the fact cited. He has refused to give any explanation for his behaviour, finally telling me to clean up his mess myself: "So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not?". I reverted him and began to source the previous version of the article, adding a reference from a reliable source in English to a fact he had marked as "dubious" [50]. This morning, he completely reverted this and reinstated his own material, including the completely unverified "facts" I had challenged on the talk page [51]. It's pretty obvious that this editor is pushing some kind of agenda (see his user page) and is completely untrustworthy as far as following WP:V and WP:RS are concerned. He probably thought he could get away with inserting some vague references in the Russian language and nobody would be able to check up on him. He should be topic-banned from editing this page and other Chechen-related articles. I'm neither Chechen nor Russian. I merely want a factually accurate page. As it happens I've also challenged User:Captain Obvious about material he added [[52]], so we're hardly "meat puppets" (and I haven't been involved in any of the disputes on the other pages). --Folantin (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all I am not a soapbox! You are! Second, what right have you got to remove the whole edit? Yes I admit that I've made a mistake on a small segment of it, and yes I encouraged Folantin to correct the parts he deemed incorrect, or re-write that particular part affected in light of his "better" refrences. Also the version he has reverted to five times now (slipping away from a 3rr by a very small margin) included material based on an non-professional source, parts of which were clearly copypasted and plagiarised! Once again I remind him that he does not WP:OWN the article, and that wikipedia goes by consensus not by reverts, so far he has made NO attempt at bridging our disagreements. Yet he already is demanding that I am banned. Talk about being agressive I've not even tried to ask for a sanction on the user. --Kuban Cossack 09:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And you've provided no explanation for your flagrant abuse of referencing, your reinstatement of challenged material (which you know is dubious), your adding "citation needed" templates to referenced material (I had to spell this out to you at least twice in edit summaries) and your deletion of cited content. I do not have time to waste on national chauvinist POV-pushers. You are clearly untrustworthy and I have no faith in any content you might add. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all how dare you insult me? I hope the admin are watching this personal attack and will react, I've not set a word of your personal habit and views and opinions yet you are biting away aleady. Second I now know its dubious because you've pointed it out to me, ok a section is wrong, in a normal case you settle down on it and work at it improving it and expanding it, no you instead revert everything along with other parts that you did not challenge, and with the tags as well. FYI I did not remove the material that was there before but incorporated it into my large edit. Yet as you said above you have no interest in even looking for consensus, which means you have got a lesson to learn in manners and good faith and etiquette. --Kuban Cossack 09:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've already referred to me as "arrogant" on an admin's talk page behind my back yesterday[53], so it's a bit late to be talking about "personal attacks". All of which is a sidetrack anyway. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and your refusal to seek consensus, and persistant reverting is exactly the reason why I called you arrogant. Or is the culprit of the problem that the original text was heavily POVed which you endorsed now give times, particularly relating to the post-1956 events and the events of 1800-1930s, copied from a very dubious and no-reknown publisher Joana Nichols, and it suited your version to make WP:POINT that the Chechens for the past 2 centuries have been nothing but victims to the evil evil Russians (despite ethnically cleansing 250 thousand of them in 1990-1994). --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Nichols is a professor at Berkeley. She's published an English-Ingush dictionary. I even replaced the reference sourced to her with one from Jaimoukha's book, which said exactly the same thing. Now are you going to explain your abuse of sources? --Folantin (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

She published a dictionary. Great. That still doesnt mean she knows history. And just for the record, there are proffesors who deny Gas Chambers at Nazi territores, and...? She's not enough known, she's not neutral, she's biased. You need a completely neutral reference of an author who doesn't try to make a point. Log in, log out (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, she is a linguist not a historian and on that paper in the intro she states black on white that this is not a professional history refrence but more of a public outcry to side her opinion. For example the post 1956 events with Chechens being repressed is pure bullshit, considering that by 1970s the whole administration of the republic was made entirely of Chechens who held all key cabinet roles. The original passage implies some colonial/labour camp administration. I have no idea what your Jaimoukha said, but I for one try not to limit myself to one source. --Kuban Cossack 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Had a look at the preview of Jaimoukha's book at google, on the whole can't say I am impressed with it, again same one-sided history written from a clear non-neutral perspective. For example it ignores the savegery of the Chechen attacks on Cossack stanitsas as documented by a wide scale of international historians such as Peter Hopkirk's book "The Great Game". Of course it does not even mention what happened to the Russian minority at the hands of the Chechens in early 90s nor will it bother to mention the even the name of the insurgent leaders. So in short good for political propaganda of like minders, but for encyclopedia... :( --Kuban Cossack 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, Do you know that if the source is not reliable you can delete it and out a citation needed? Your sources were not reliable, thats why Kuban Cossack challenged them. Bring references from nutral sources who dont have i bias. And you cant denie this user Captian loves edit wars. He came to the Russians page, started a revert war with a few users, then started a political discussion not having to do anything with the article. Log in, log out (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My source was The Chechens: A Handbook, by Amjad Jaimoukha, London, New York: Routledge, 2005. In other words, a book in English from a renowned academic publisher, not some Russian source off the Net. --Folantin (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaimouka is not excepted by anyone but Chechen Nationalists. He's known primary for using more imagination then truth. Log in, log out (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

He's obviously not acceptable to National Bolsheviks, of which you are a supporter. Check their flag [54] - what a great way to combine Nazi and Soviet imagery. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind Folantin to Comment on content, not on the contributor. I could not care less what you stand for and here you go insulting a user who is not even involved in our dispute. --Kuban Cossack 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not come across Folantin, but from the tone of his comments I can clearly see who is in the wrong here. I had a look at the edits and reverts, and although Kuban kazak's is far from perfect the old version that Folantin and Captain Obvious are sterily reverting to is much worse in terms of neutrality and accuracy. Some parts of Kuban's additions are clearly correct. I would recommend you to follow a WP:DR process, and Folantin to cease reverting. Log in, log out (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that just by tone, can you? What an amazing gift. But here's another explanation: Folantin is an editor who is sick to the back teeth with rampant national and ethnic POV-pushing on Wikipedia, which might account for the note of frustration and weariness at yet another attempt to mess with content. Obviously, your sympathy for Kuban Kazak has nothing to do with the fact you are Russian. --Folantin (talk) 09:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Folantin the fact that you are not Russian is not something that bothers me, I deal every day on wikipedia with people of different scope. In other words no only do you have problems with political views you now have problems with nationlities of the editors. Well I do apologise for us resisting the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler and other times when Russia fought for her independence, obviously it made your life a lot difficult. --Kuban Cossack 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats funny, because that's what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV. Log in, log out (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep sidetracking. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You were brought certain claims. You were brought certain facts. You ignore them and go into personal. That doesnt work in your favour here. Log in, log out (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've said. Jaimoukha is a reliable source (he's published by Routledge). Your friend KK wanted to add material which claimed " In some areas up to 80% of the [Chechen] populations backed the [pro-German] insurgency [during World War Two]". He referenced it to this online source [55]. No such "fact" occurs in the article. Moreover, the page is written by Alexander Uralov, who's kind of pro-Chechen, and is entitled "Murder of the Chechen-Ingush People. Genocide in the USSR". Uralov completely rejects the idea of mass Chechen-German collaboration, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...[and so on]". In other words, it makes the exact opposite point from the one KK wanted to push. I had to spend my available free time yesterday afternoon reading that page in my rusty Russian. I doubt if KK even bothered read it in the first place. You could have checked up on this by following the links I provided in my first statement here. You obviously couldn't be bothered either. This is why I object to wasting my time checking up on obviously untrustworthy POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I trusted the article 1940-1944 Insurgency in Chechnya, however the original version of the Chechen people article did not even cite that as the reason for the deportation, only the POV statement: Moscow's repressions reached the apogee. Now how is that not being biased. Whether or not the scale of insurgency was as large as claimed is not of my concern, there is evidence for it (fact one; Khasan Israilov did exist) and there is evidence that Germans dropped paratroopers into Chechnya (fact two). That is of course sidetrack and maybe WP:UNDUE for the article, but omitting compleately along with other parts such as the post-war and pre-war events that I have added is worse. Maybe if Folantin and his meat puppet did not engage in reverts I would agreed to remove that particular passage, but whose fault is it that no consensus was reached? --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's all my fault. You've got a nerve. I'll give you that.--Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And he did it again. Look. It was deleted and he recived a second warning. There won't be a third. Log in, log out (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"He" being "Captain Obvious". --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak has been engaged in a slow-scale nationalist edit war with User:Riwnodennyk on European ethnic groups. WP editors have clear problems if they reject as recognized sources books written by reputed academics and published by long-established publishing houses. Johanna Nichols and Amjad Jaimoukha have respectable academic credentials. She is Professor of slavic languages and literatures at the University of California, Berkeley, in charge of a Chechen project partially funded by the NSF. He was educated in England, and is now Assistant President of the Royal Scientific Society in Jordan and member of the Central Eurasian Studies Society at Harvard University. Mathsci (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was not nationalistic edit warring, but more of fixing the incorrectly drawn map. WRT editors, again there are professors funded by most reputable organisations that deny Holocaust, I take it most of them never even set foot in Chechnya. Nichols srticle is out of date by more than a decade. Yes I reject that as reliable source, Jaimoukha's can pass wrt culture and tradition, history reject again because its laden with opinions, that were copied into the article. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"I don't like it" obviously trumps reliable sources. --Folantin (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Problem is they are not reliable in presense of contradicting material awailable and the POV the authors carry. --Kuban Cossack 11:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Evaluations of writers cannot be made in this way on WP; academic book reviews can of course be cited when relevant. Some details of Nichols' field trips to Chechnya can be found on her home page. Mathsci (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We've already established Kuban Kazak's "reliability" as a source anyway, so I don't think we can have him going round dismissing scholars who don't fit in with his POV. --Folantin (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those scholars are controversial and push their POV in their text. I'll give you an example. If a scholar, and there are many like that, will write that the Germans haven't built gas chembers, would you belive him even thought he's a scholar? I really hope not. The sources shouldn't be just of a "dud with a deploma", but from someone known as nutral. Log in, log out (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those credentialed scholars are clearly just like Neo-Nazis - and this is coming from someone who sports imagery derived from the Third Reich on his user page. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You know going into personal will get you blocked. You ignored a claim by going into personal. Thats a behaviour of someone who lost an argument. Log in, log out (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Violating WP:BLP by libelling accredited scholars by comparing them to Holocaust deniers will get you blocked a lot sooner. As for the "Third Reich imagery", Compare [56] and contrast [57]. Your user page as of this writing contains the latter image [58]. We've already had trouble with one notorious "National Bolshevik" editor (User:M.V.E.i.). We don't need another. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Action required

Appeal: could an uninvolved admin please deal with the essential issues here to stop this discussion sliding into irrelevance and obfuscation. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Johanna Nichols' work involves compiling Chechen and Ingush dictionaries. There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich. There is a direct link with the NSF which has funded some of her projects. Mathsci (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"There seems to be no direct link with the Third Reich". Well, I don't think any ever expected there would be. It was just User:Log In Log Out engaging in diversionary smear tactics. More importantly, the question of User:Kuban Kazak and his abuse of sources and tendentious editing has not been dealt with. Yet again he's removed sourced content and added unsourced material of his own [59]. I really want some action to stop this, please. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I've had enough of this. I'm simply going to revert this guy's edits as vandalism from now on. --Folantin (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck explaining this to the 3RR patrol. --Kuban Cossack 15:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system as a last resort (without issuing warnings for behaviour you are guilty of yourself). Any admins on the 3RR patrol would have to explain why they weren't aware of this incident which has been on ANI for seven hours or so now. --Folantin (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no last resorts, don't think that I am just going to abandon the article by your revert war efforts, I'll be here tomorrow the day after that and the year after that. But you are right the admin do have to explain for the lack of attention this problem gained. --Kuban Cossack 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, time for a response

I've been very slightly involved here, but this has gone on long enough so I'll take temporary admin action to stabilise the situation until an uninvolved admin can take over. Most of this is a content dispute, focused on reliability of sources. Consider options for dispute resolution instead of arguing about content here. Per WP:PROTECT and WP:EW, I will temporarily fully protect the page to stop the reverts, revert it to the last stable version and investigate whether any 3RR violations have taken place. Papa November (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• User:Kuban kazak and User:Folantin both blocked by User:Scarian for edit warring after Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Folantin reported by User:Kuban kazak (Result: 2x 12 hour blocks) Papa November (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:Folantin, after his request, as the disputed article is protected. However, I have warned him that any further edit warring or incivility will lead to a new, longer block. Papa November (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have declined User:Kuban kazak's unblock request, as he has received several blocks for similar behaviour previously, and is engaging in similar behaviour in other articles. Note that this does not imply any endorsement of User:Folantin's side of the content dispute. Papa November (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a serious problem with nationalist editing, or 'cultural and ethnic edit wars'. I've not been very involved and don't plan to be, but I would be very much surprised if Folantin has not been acting in good faith in this or any other dispute. What I see happening (and this is a very personal observation over a small number of articles so may not be represenative) is a very small number of people trying to stop nationalism from prevailing on a number of articles, and a large number of nationalists either taking over articles or edit warring on articles. Right now its a losing battle and it is pretty bad if any of the casualties are those trying to solve the problem. Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What Doug said. I've effectively been blocked for adding properly referenced material in line with Wikipedia policy and removing blatantly bad faith content. That's my reward after 10,000 edits and two years here. For five months I have been asking for a report from the working group on national, ethnic and cultural edit wars which is supposed to deal with this sort of thing. Look at the talk page for my requests and the answers I got. The only member of the group who's actually done anything in response is User:Elonka. It's extremely easy for agenda-driven tag teams to bulldoze through dubious content in the face of lone users trying to follow policy. Admins are supposed to stop this. This is an encyclopaedia. The only thing people judge us by is our content. I've long harboured the suspicion that certain "national" editors have been playing fast and loose with references in foreign languages, effectively using them to hoodwink anglophone editors. I have given an example of this in this thread and tomorrow I will try to offer a translation of the Russian material Kuban Kazak used as his source so others can judge for themselves. I'm forced to conclude from today's proceedings that Wikipedia is badly broken. Admins need to stop hiding their heads in the sand and start trying to fix it. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, although I know it's frustrating that so few admins are getting involved here, this is a huge task, and rather daunting for admins. It's hard for us, as non-experts on the content to judge what is nationalistic propaganda and what is good encyclopaedic content. It's unfortunate that you were blocked for a 3RR violation, but the complex circumstances make it very difficult for admins to decide who, if anyone, is breaking the rules here. You're right that Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's a work in progress and your suggestion of forming a purpose made working group may be a good way of improving things. Why not put together a draft policy page, and take it to WP:VPP? Papa November (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 1500 of you. You had eight hours for one of you to do something about this. You have failed to enforce basic policies WP:V and WP:RS. The content I added was referenced to reliable sources. The content Kuban Kazak added was mostly unsourced and demonstrably falsified in at least one instance. I did the research (including reading Russian) to prove this and presented the evidence here. Nothing happened. I was then blocked for reinstating referenced material. I had no warning and the blocking admin couldn't even be bothered to do the most basic research into the issue or distinguish between me, a user in good faith with over 10,000 edits and a clean block log, and a user with a reputation for agenda-driven editing. I've spent a good deal of my time checking up on sources - I busted a hoax article on Illyrian mythology written by an Albanian nationalist which had been allowed to remain unchallenged on Wikipedia for two whole years [60]. In return, I expect to see admin support for such efforts to ensure content is reliable. If you admins can't enforce core policies then we might as well all go home now. --Folantin (talk) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's true that it's sometimes difficult to judge the quality of source if you're not familiar with a topic, and that can make it hard to see who's working to make the encyclopedia better. However, I would think that when editors suggest that the work of a a tenured professor at UC Berkeley isn't a good source because "there are professors" who are Holocaust deniers, and reject sources published by prominent academic presses as "biased", that suggests that one "side" of the dispute has a severely deficient understanding of how we're supposed to use sources on Wikipedia. Sadly, this is the kind of thing that gets defined as a "content dispute" rather than being seen as a case of tendentious editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Or shunted off to "civility", something the kid admins can understand. There's always been something suspect about the Russian articles with regard to Chechnya. Get this: the main History of Russia article was passed for FA when it contained three longish paragraphs about post-Soviet Russia with not one single reference to the Chechen Wars of the 1990s. Would you trust a History of the USA article with no mention of the Vietnam War? (Actually, the Russian example is far, far worse than that). --Folantin (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be a red flag when someone is calling academic sources 'biased'. It may be that it has a POV and other sources with different POVs need to be added, but a clearly reliable source should never be removed simply because an editor thinks it's wrong. I've had a similar problem, a quote from an academic press book was deleted because the editor didn't believe it and insisted on another citation backing that one. As for FA articles, that isn't the only one that has been passed where I couldn't understand the rationale for it being FA.

One of the problems with nationalist editors is that their motivations are often extremely strong, and it only takes one or two such editors on a page to tire anyone else out, and you end up with a 'no-go' article. Something needs to be done, perhaps at a pretty high level, to stop this from happening. Doug Weller (talk) 07:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You know what the funniest thing about this affair is? Kuban Kazak was the one who insisted on re-adding material by a well-known Chechen nationalist. I'm referring to an author who used the pseudonym Aleksandr Uralov, though his real name was Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov. We even have a page on him on Wikipedia (reliability uncertain). Of course, Uralov's article did not support the claim Kuban Kazak said it did. I will try to provide a translation later on so you can judge for yourselves. This makes total nonsense of User:Log In Log Out's claim: "what you, Folantin, were doing in the Chechens article. Pushing Nationalist and biased authors. Kuban Cossack, unlike you, brought links which are nutral and simply name facts. Simple facts, not more not less. No POV". Turns out KK was adding the "Chechen nationalist" source! Of course, had he bothered to read the page (in his own native language, I presume) he might have noticed that. Instead he kept edit-warring to reinsert it. And I'm expected to waste my time on such nonsense? --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If recently arrived editor Kuban kazak is consistently dismissing sources which easily meet WP:V and WP:RS and consistently adding material from sources which fail these tests, he is editing tendentiously as Akhilleus has said. His editing should be examined more closely. From comments on his talk page, this kind of tendentious editing/ edit warring is not restricted to one article. Mathsci (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look, and someone seriously needs to mentor the guy. EE is bad enough without this. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can I offer a personal apology to Folantin for a lack of courage on my part. I did read this thread yesterday, and even went and looked at the unblock requests, but decided that I did not want to get involved. It seemed to me that Folantin, an editor in good standing, was indeed fighting a lonely battle on Wikipedia's behalf and had been blocked only due to his frustration at getting no help. However, I bottled out - as a relatively new admin, I was unsure of my assessment, and frankly was not hugely enamoured of diving into a nationalist POV dispute and making things worse. However, given my acceptance of the mop in the first place, that was no excuse. Sorry Folantin, and thank you for your efforts to keep POV under control.

Secondly, I agree that mentoring at the very least would be a good idea, though it's not a task I personally would relish. I think we should be showing far less tolerance of POV pushers than we currently seem to. KK does seem to be on a mission; perhaps the blurb on his user page re 'avenging thousands of ethnic Russian victims' should have set the warning bells ringing. EyeSerene^talk 09:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't take it personally, it's a system failure. Frankly, I'm not surprised hardly anybody wants to get involved in these problem pages given the endless grief involved. On the other hand, I'm far from impressed by the conduct of the blocking admin. I'd expect a little more background research before that kind of action. I was not even issued a warning. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW This is my rough (and, no doubt, imperfect) translation of the Russian source Kuban Kazak claimed backed his additions (with some commentary by me). It didn't and he didn't even realise it was by a pro-Chechen author who accuses the Soviets of genocide. Just one example of how foreign-language sources have been used to hoodwink anglophone editors. --Folantin (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrators, you missed the whole case

You ignored the facts that Captain obvious did have revert wars, and not only that, he provocated political discussions on talk pages which are not connected with the article. Ask user Papa November, who is an administrator who warned him about that.

All Kuban Kazak wanted was real sources, reliable sources by nutral people. The sources Captain Obvious and Folantin supporte are maybe by people with a degree, but those people have a clear political agenda. For example. A man can denie a holocaust, and have a degree in History, would you use him as a reliable source? I hope not.

Folantin wasn't blocked even thought he violated the law when he atacked me a few times for being a National Bolshevik. Thats against the policy of not going to personal level, whatever more we weren't arguing about a National Bolshevik topic. Can a Wikipedian who once out of arguments goes to personal be here? Kuban Kazak had never went to personal level here.

Administrators, you can't decide who to block and who not to by the political standing of the editor. Kuban Cossack had a solo-war against people who clearly try to push a political agenda. That doesn't matter if the opinion meets with your western views, or not. While it's not nutral, it's wrong. Kuban Cossack haven't searched to insert his views, but to insert a referenced nutral view that can't be argued.

Lets say Folantin and Captain Obvious entered reliable sources, but Kuban had brought other sources which are reliable to, but contrast Folantin's and Captain Obvious's sources, why should Kuban be blocked? The administrators clearly failed in this case when they let Folantin to get unharmed after he went to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please restrain yourself. We do not need a repetition of this.[61] Mathsci (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Uuu, threats. Scary. I admit i did a mistake by writting it, but once it was deleted once, i haven't returned it because i understood it. By the way, the one who reverted me was Kuban Cossack, who you blame for nationalism and being not nutral. I would better be explained why it was returned (do is mell provocation?). I understood i did a mistake there, and haven't repeated it. Your threat has nothing to do with what a wrote above. Log in, log out (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Half of your [Ukrainian] lands are not yours by right (Crimea and Donbass, New Russia, were opened by Russia for Russia, Odessa to. Lviv and the whole West were Polish), and instead of thanking us you act like pigs". Unbelievable. I hadn't seen that link before. And this from a user whose page says he is a member of the National Bolsheviks, an extreme Russian nationalist party whose flag clearly shows totalitarian imagery (both Nazi and Soviet). This is the kind of editor we have to deal with on these problem pages. --Folantin (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You do it again. You try to move the discussion to an off-topic to make people forget what you were blamed in. Once Kuban Cossack deleted what i said there and explained me Wikipedia pages are not forums. i, unlike you and Captain, have never returned to it. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple questions

Can we get a clear answer from a blocking amdmin, first of all, but from the users who studied the matter (including the concerned editors themselves):

1. Did Folatnin technically violate the letter of 3RR?
2. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?
3. Did Kuban kazak technically violate the letter of 3RR?
4. If yes, were his reverts exempt from 3RR rule because he was reverting vandalism or because there was sockpuppetry involved?

These are basic questions and it is always helpful to get the facts straight before discussing anything further. --Irpen 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Papa November

I was not the blocking admin, but I was the one who unblocked Folantin and declined the unblock request from Kuban kazak, so here's my view.

I've boiled the edit war of 3rd July down into the following edits. I've used "KK" for Kuban kazak, "F" for Folantin and "CO" for Captain Obvious.

1. KK adds fact tag to "defeated Russian soldiers in 1732", and adds large amount of text to history section
2. F reverts KK's fact tag, added NPOV tag to KK's history section (1st rv by F)
3. CO reverts KK's history section, does some copyedits (1st rv by CO)
4. KK reverts CO's removal of history section, CO's copyedits and his own fact tag (1st rv by KK)
5. CO reverts KK's last edit, adds categories, further copyedits (2nd rv by CO)
6. KK reverts CO's removal of history section (2nd rv by KK)
7. F reverts KK's addition of history section (2nd rv by F)
8. KK reverts F's removal of history section (3rd rv by KK)
9. F reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by F)
10. KK reverts F's removal of history section (4th rv by KK)
11. CO reverts KK's addition of history section (3rd rv by CO)
12. F changes reference to English source
13. CO adds "Noah's people" claim, some more copyedits
14. F reverts CO's "Noah's people" claim (4th rv by F)
15. CO reverts CO's removal of "Noah's people claim (4th rv by CO)

Several editors have blamed the situation on the slow admin response. Although this is disappointing, it is no excuse for the edit warring that continued. A whole range of measures could have been taken by the three editors involved, rather than the blunt tool of reversion, including

• Addition of maintenance tags to the disputed section
• Dispute resolution
• Waiting patiently for an outcome here
• Waiting for another editor to revert the material

So, my conclusions are as follows:

• All three editors violated 3RR by performing 4 reverts within a 24 hour period.
• There was no simple and obvious vandalism, copyright violation, or WP:BLP violation, so there is no exemption from the 3RR rule for any of the three editors here. WP:3RR explicitly states that "Content changes, adding or removing tags, edits which are against consensus, and similar items are not exempt".
• There is nothing here to suggest sockpuppetry taking place.
• Folantin's 3RR violation was not simply a case of him cleaning up after KK, as he also reverted an edit by CO.
• The blocks against User:Folantin and User:Kuban kazak were both therefore justified.
• I unblocked F later, as his edit warring was limited to a single article, which is now protected.
• I declined KK's unblock request, as he was engaging in edit warring in multiple articles, including Holodomor.

My recommendation is to continue the temporary page protection at Chechen people, while things cool down a little and to keep an eye on the three editors for the time being. Papa November (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits by Captain Obvious also removed sourced material and he added unsourced content of his own (the idea the word "Nokhchi" is derived from "Noah" is fringe crankery). You admins also failed to enforce core policies WP:V and WP:RS. Don't try and dodge out of that. I was protecting sourced content, you weren't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for process wonkery, remember? --Folantin (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not check the diffs carefully but unless someone else did and find Papa's summary incorrect, both KK and Folantine violated 3RR and both were blocked within the blocking policy. Now, Folantin claims that he should not have been blocked because his edits were "better" than Kuban's. This just does not cut it. Stick to 2RR and you will never pass the 4th revert threshold even in the judgment of the most block happy admin. I make no comment on Papa's decision to unblock Folantine but not to unblock Kuban. Personally, I think if both users stated the intention to stop reverting on the said article, it is best to unblock them both. But Papa's decision to not unblock Kuban was clearly within policy. I think Folantin should stop fussing and simple cut down on reverts. Kuban does not seem to be fussing anyway.

If there are indeed reasons to believe that one of the editors did not technically violate 3RR and one or both blocks fall under the discretion block category (that is for general revert warring), this is an entirely different game then. Discretion blocks should not be unilateral and should be suggested here first except in cases of emergency. This not being a discretion block but a clear 3RR block ends the matter, IMO. --Irpen 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer

Surprise, surprise. It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back. This is the situation we have here: "national" editors will always back their compatriots. We have previous history [62] (scroll down for "Ultra-nationalist alert"). As I said there: "Actually the more I think about this, the more I'm riled at you, Irpen. I used to have respect for you as an editor but now I see exactly why ArbCom pulled you up for violation of AGF. I attempt to maintain a modicum of neutrality and I get attacked in xenophobic terms by two Russian nationalist editors who are hardly the jewels in Wikipedia's crown. You naturally jump to the defence of your compatriots (or fellow Russophones). This is another problem with the nationalist gang warfare round here: even the half-decent editors will stick up for the rotten apples if they're on the right side". Lone editors have no chance against users who hunt in packs. --Folantin (talk) 08:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Surprise surprise, it's Folantin. There's no anti-Russian and pro-Chechen editor he wont back. That's what we have here. Editors without argument will always come down into a personal level. You jump on defence to your friends, and dramatise yourself. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm sticking my head where it doesn't belong but this conversation is getting a little testy (and messy!). Lets have so more linear discussion and bulleted lists so my brain doesn't explode =| mboverload

@ 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) ::I've added a section heading to clarify. It's testy because I'm furious at the way Wikipedia is being manipulated by national "pack-editing". --Folantin (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "section heading" you added as an attempt of below the belt character assassination, Folantin. It is a fantasy too. If you don't cut it, you may get blocked again. Please calm down. --Irpen 08:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, thank you for the link to Moreschi's talk. It is instructive indeed. I welcome anyone to read it and evaluate it themselves. I so much welcome that I give a better link to the specific thread to make it easier for anyone to find it than from your link. The rest of your stuff does not even warrant a response. Your fantasies that I am defending Kuban after I said that if he 3RRed, the block is justified is obvious to anyone. Even that I am his compatriot is your fantasy. If you would have asked my opinion about how Scarian should have acted on this 3RR report, I would have given you one (and it is different from how he acted.) But since you came here to attack me, I will leave it at that. Happy edits! --Irpen 08:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC) :Obviously, it's pure coincidence you turned up here. I note you haven't commented on KK's abuse of core policies. "Even that I am his compatriot is your fantasy". Sophistry. You are a well-known pro-Russian editor as ArbCom is well aware.--Folantin (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, I know it may sound harsh but it seems to me that you act strangely. Please cool down. --Irpen 08:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::You act completely predictably. Your user page says your mother tongue is Russian. Go figure. As I say, you are well known to ArbCom for warring over East European articles. Here's one finding of fact against you [63]. --Folantin (talk) 08:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If anyone bothers to read the thread you linked at Moreschi's talk they would see how editors reacted to this "finding" too (none of them Russian.) ArbCom is very prone to produce strange things. Now, would you please be a nice guy and stop biting me? If you have an issue with myself, please start a thread where it belongs. Thank you. --Irpen 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous. You're both excellent editors. Stop sniping in this childish manner. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That goes more for you, Folantin, as on re-reading I see you're being considerably more heated than Irpen. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had enough of this kind of thing

Sorry. I've had enough of this kind of thing. If uninvolved users aren't able to edit "foreign" history articles on Wikipedia (I'm British by the way) because the pages have been hijacked by "nationalists" and if admins can't enforce core policies like verifiability and reliable sources then this project is in serious trouble. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This group should be fixing these problems, but look at the talk page. I've been asking for a progress report for five months but nothing has appeared. I have even tried to solve things by hosting an alternative free debate on the matter in my own user space. Here's one of my comments there from April this year - it's rather relevant to this whole incident: "Insist on the enforcement of Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Priority must be given to up-to-date sources which have been peer-reviewed and/or issued by respected publishing houses. Ideally, sources should be in English. This is an English-language encyclopaedia and the only language we can rely on all editors having in common is English. References in articles on controversial topics to sources in foreign languages (especially if they are not widely spoken) should be avoided if at all possible. Improving the quality of sourcing will inevitably improve the article. Intelligent general readers are not mugs and they can tell when POV-pushers have tried to hijack a page. Up-to-date referencing from books in English produced by well-known publishers (especially the presses of major universities) is more likely to persuade the intelligent passerby of its accuracy". --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shure. You tried to resolve peace by edit waring. Now you've had enough of it, after some things you dont wont are coming up. Now you'll play the role of the insulted and say "that stops here", or will again insult me and others personaly. Your predictable. If you were a man to have propoganda against Kuban Cossack, be a man to answer to critisicm against you. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin: warning

Folantin, your personal attacks on Irpen based on nationality above are shocking. And right on the admin noticeboard..! And against a respectable, hard-working editor..! I did a double-take when I saw your "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back." Your behaviour is completely unacceptable. Just take a deep breath and stop it. Now. Not one more xenophobic attack. I mean it. I have copied this post to your talkpage. I mean it there, too. Bishonen | talk 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC). :Bishonen, please don't claim you are unbiased here. You are well known to be a close friend of Irpen. Irpen has a reputation for tendentious editing on Eastern European topics and everyone knows which side he favours. Several ArbComs have confirmed this. You know this very well. "There's no Russian editor he won't back" is a slight exaggeration but not much of one (not all our Russian - or Russian Ukrainian editors - sing from the same hymn sheet but a large number of them do). And he's worked closely with Kuban Kazak on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 09:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin. You are a well known friend of Captain Obvious, just see talk pages of both. You are not without bias here. You have a reputation of pro-Chechen editing. There ain't an anti-Russian editor you wont back. Log in, log out (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some background

Some background on Irpen's editing of Eastern European topics:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irpen
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Halibutt
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren

--Folantin (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Some previous history of Irpen and Kuban Kazak working together can be found here[64]. --Folantin (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I got the point. Is it nowdays a crime to edit articles. I have edited articles together with Irpen, Kuban Kazak, Folantin, Halibutt, Piotrus and Digwuren (probably about Latvia as well)). Should I permaban myself? Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Are you an uninvolved admin here? I don't think so. --Folantin (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess, I am a involved editor. My efforts to get some sourced middle ground between yours and Kazak's POV are gotten lost in the history of the protected article because of the edit war between you and Kazak. I am sort of hurt by your xenophobic comment. Still never mind my feeling, do you care to explain what this array of links is suppose to prove? Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::My material was referenced. His was in violation of core policy. You are not an uninvolved admin on Russian matters. Don't accuse me of xenophobia. My Russian friends will not edit Wikipedia because of the bias and shoddy editing allowed to dominate here. --Folantin (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Look who's talking. Alex is known for editing in a nutral way. You are known as an anti-Russian, so you are to, not "uninvolved here". (now as always when your out of arguments you'll come down to the level of insulting me and my opinions. Cmmon, show yourself again). Log in, log out (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

OK Folantin, these complaints against a great nationalist conspiracy are getting tiresome. I understand your frustration, but this page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. There's no sense in further discussion here, and I am marking this discussion as resolved, taking into account the following points:

•  Done: The original complaint about edit warring: The situation was resolved by stopping the edit war, albeit slowly. Sorry it took a while, but we can't change that.
•  Not done: Your grievance against User:Scarian for blocking you: The consensus supports your block, and no one here believes this is admin abuse. If you really think that User:Scarian was abusing his position, you'll need to go to dispute resolution, and explain why you think your block was inappropriate.
•  Not done: Your grievance against User:Irpen: Irpen has not supported Kuban kazak in this discussion - he actively opposed him. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Sure, he has been the subject of comment previously, but if you have some tangible grievance with him, take it to WP:DR and point out exactly what you think he has done wrong, rather than making vague stabs at his background here.
•  Not done: Complaint about admins failing to act against "nationalist editing", verifiability or reliable sources: Administrative tools aren't the default option for content disputes - if we just blocked and protected every time a dispute arose, it would be very disruptive. The correct, and very effective way for you to deal with this is once again through dispute resolution, where the community makes a judgement, rather than a single (and potentially biased) admin. The number of Chechen nationalists is absolutely negligible compared with the size of the community, so your concerns about a biased response will be allayed if you go through the correct process. Admins will act in support of the decisions made, but it is not our job to unilaterally make judgements about the reliability of sources, and bias. Papa November (talk) 10:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Nationality removed - it's beside the point - Papa November (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• "The number of Chechen nationalists is absolutely negligible compared with the size of the community, so your concerns about a biased response will be allayed if you go through the correct process". What is this supposed to mean? Why would my concern be allayed by the negligible number of Chechen nationalists on Wikipedia?--Folantin (talk) 10:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  (Answered on your talk page) Papa November (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I still don't quite grasp the logic here, going back again, I was blocked for 3rr fair enough I've served the block so that is clean, but how can an editor who has instead of even trying to discuss issues provoked the edit war and then degraded to insults get off with hardly any sanction? Now have a look at my text above, have a look at my text on the Talk page of Chechen people. where do you see me assaulting or even commenting of Folantin's ethnicity and nationality?, where do you see me take a bias because she is English? Where do you see me threatning to revert all of her edits as vandalism? Where do you see me trying to disgrace those who come to her aid out of their political beliefs? Now if that is not low enough, how the hell can someone who pleaded not for an endorsement of one's version, but for CONSENSUS get a harsher penality just because I had a rocky start to my career at wikipedia? Well I hope the concerned editors know that I am drafting an arbitration request and if the admin here don't want that I best see some sensible answers and apologies. --Kuban Cossack 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• You asked for administrative action to stop an edit war, and that is what was provided. Everything I have to say on my contribution here is in my resolution above. I think I've done more than my fair share here, and I do not have the time or inclination to get involved with the other aspects of this dispute. Papa November (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes and I thank you for doing that, but with all due respect, I feel that a Robocop was unleashed on me whereas Folantin managed to get away with violating about 10 policies related to Civility and etiquette of wikipedia, and at the end of the day prematurely unblocked. How do you explain this justice? Now I understand first-time offenders can expect a bit of slack, but c'mon this is not an accidental slip of Personal attack here and there, nor is this a case of someone being carried away at an edit war. Folantin had a clear political agenda, she herself has openly stated that she will continue revert waring, and yet she walks off. Moreover has there been anything constructive wrt initial issue since. I heavily doubt that a WP:DR process will be even accepted by Folantin, let alone the facts of her wrongdoings, and if you can't relay the message to her that her behaivour was unacceptable then I will pursue an arbcom and yes Papa you will be asked to give a statement there. Is that really something you want? --Kuban Cossack 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How about droping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass? Just get to your arbcom case, I am sure I am not the only one dying to see this happen. --Hillock65 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If that was the case I would, back away, I personally do not like wasting time on pointless rant. However the problem here is what assurances do I have if the moment I try to re-add material to the article, even if it is sourced and refrenced, that Folantin will pursue the civil quest for consensus, avoid personal attacks and stay on issue? You see I want to believe that horse is dead, but something tells me that once that article is unlocked it will not only reincarnate, it will come straight back and once again kick up A LOT of dirt. So you were saying you were dying to see something? Good in luck with they dying part, since I doubt if I do choose to raise to the arbcom, you will be an inert observer, just like despite your "good faith" intention here, you made well use of my block to push your version. --Kuban Cossack 16:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin

And that user will be left unpunished, after coming not once down to a personal level, after blaming all Russian editors for not being able to edit because they are Russian (even thought we could tell him he's American, which's government is pro-Chechen, thats why he's biased from the fact coming from the West)? He didnt present any real arguments! It cant be that Kuban Cossack who acted in a civilised way will be punished, while that user who acted in a rude way is not punished. Not only Russian editors complained on him, and Irpan talked about it. I think we have here a user who pushes clearly a political agenda and while caught provocates a discussion on personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Shot by both sides

I'm not going to be drawn into this - and this is probably the last I'll say on this matter - but here are two relevant facts:

• I am not a friend or "meat puppet" of Captain Obvious. Before last week I barely knew who he is. In fact I reverted unsourced material he added to the Chechen people page[65] and queried him about it on his talk page [66]. I don't approve of some of the other edits I've seen him make either (e.g. at Russian people).

• I have been abused by a Chechen editor on the very same page involved in this dispute for maintaining referenced material [67] ("hands off my nation u infidel").

I have attempted to maintain referenced material on the page. For this I have been abused by both Russian and Chechen editors. I have also been blocked after admins failed to assist me. Thanks, Wikipedia, you really know how to reward people who are foolish enough to believe in your policies. --Folantin (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just what i said, now you will dramatise and victimise yourself. Predictable. With the Chechenians eventualy you dound a friendly language, with Russians you chose to continue the war. You completely ignored a few facts i wont let you ignore. 1. You cane down to personal level, instead of talking about what the discussion is about you came down to a personal level of touching opinions. 2. You deleted eventualy referenced material by Kuban Cossack, and the references were reliable. 3. You ignored how the discussion started. If your not a friend of Captain Obvious, then why have you ignored he started revert wars ond political discuiions on talk pages (and i remind you talk pages on Wikipedia are not forums. And you cant say he didn't do that, a very reliable administrator, Papa November, saw it). 5. Blaming all Russian administrators and users in nationalism, while Irpen and Bakharev are known by all for their nutrality. Again, coming to the personal level of nationality. 6. Trying to built an impretion that people are against you because you reverted their nationalism, when turned out most of people opposing you were actualy not Russians nor Chechens, and people without any connection to nationalism. Stop trying to victimise yourself. If you would really be against pushing agenda's and fanatism you would long demand to block your friend Captain Obvious who started insulting users on the Russian talk page and cursing communism. You dont have to like communism, but it had nothing to do with the topic. And personal dislike to anything, doesnt give the right to revert referenced information. By the way, you did that to, coming down to personal level. I thought your twins. Infact, if your nutral, why have you turned your user page into a McCarthist witch hunt document spreating lies on National Bolshevism, while you haven't written one line against Chechen nationalism? Interesting and terrorism. I dont remember National Bolsheviks kidnapping children and cuting them to pieces. Log in, log out (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am an uninvolved editor, apart from having followed Kuban kazak's edits to European ethnic groups. Following the discussion above, User:Log in, log out left this message on my talk page.[68] It seems to imply that he believes only the writings of an inhabitant of Chechnya can be used as a source for Chechen people. This contradicts all the WP guidelines for WP:V and WP:RS. Did he really mean to write this? Mathsci (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. What i ment is that it's better to use a Chechen proffesor when talking of Chechen language. 2. Dont push the discussion away. The discussion was of the behaviour of Folantin and captain obvious who came down to personal level. Log in, log out (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unresolvable - mark as "resolved"

This is obviously a waste of time and now so tangled there's little chance of an uninvolved admin making sense of it (had one stepped in in due time things might have been very different). Slap a resolved tag on it and archive it if you like. The wider issues won't be going away any time soon due to the very nature of Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am second here. The article is protected for month, so the immediate problem is resolved. The discussion went down to personal level and is not helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Block the user for 24 hours and the case will be resloved for 24 hpurs. If he will learn - it will be resolved much more. If he wont - their ain't a law not allowing to block twice. Log in, log out (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a final comment from my talk page. "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back". I'll certainly apologise for saying that. It's an insult to some of our good faith Russian editors who aren't here to push a POV. --Folantin (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin, you have only that much time when your wild attacks upon myself can be excused by your anger over your being blocked. You exhausted your quota of attacking myself by now. Please stand up to your accusations and file an arbcom with evidence or stop them at last. If you just continue this nonsense, you may find yourself blocked again, this time for a persistent campaign of attacks directed at me, assumption of bad faith and turning the Wikipedia into a battlefield against editors you arbitrary name as your enemies. --Irpen 16:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidrama

Wow. Give Folantin a break. He may have lost his nerve here, but let those who reprimand that "these complaints against a great nationalist conspiracy are getting tiresome" spend some time around nationalist hotspots themselves. This whole sad mess is a competence of our excessive lenience towards clearly disruptive editors with a nationalist agenda. There is no "conspiracy", ethnic nationalism is simply a thing that exists in the real world with a potential to do damage to this project (its aims and rationales being anti-encyclopedic in the sense that nationalism taylors history into national myths, and is interested in biased over-representation of the selected group's merits, viz., everything we specifically do not want on Wikipedia). We have good faith editors of every nation here, but the recurring drawn-out and entirely pointless (in a WP:SNOW sense) dramas over ethnic nationalist editors has the effect of wearing down good editors like Folantin or myself to the point of assuming bad faith on a knee-jerk basis. We're only human, and we're left alone against a huge influx of disruptive activity that cannot be noted by the vandalbots. Admins, take some responsibility. Less arm-chair adminning, more actual involvement in the trenches. Warn and block the disruptive and WP:POINT accounts (which we'll always get) before everybody loses time, nerves and good spirits over something like the above. dab (𒁳) 11:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So Ddachmann basically I am the evil, and every piece of garbage that Folantin threw at me is fully justified, because my view did not coincide with hers. So instead of being Civil and showing a bit of WP:FAITH, I was mercilessly humiliated and the admin just stood there and jerked off not seeing the tell tale signs of someone on rampage WP:AX grinding mission to sercure her WP:OWNership of that article. Now before you say anything why not have a read of my comments. Where do you see me assaulting or even commenting of Folantin's ethnicity and nationality? Where do you see me take a bias because she is English? Where do you see me threatning to revert all of her edits as vandalism? Where do you see me trying to disgrace those who come to her aid out of their political beliefs?

Need I remind you that it was Folantin who made the first revert [69]. Then comes this comment: Thanks for reverting all that guy's additions. It seems the best solution in the circumstances. So here, very early in the conflict she is actively supporting a revert war. Now yes I made a mistake of trusting another sourced article that was writtne from a dubious source. In fact my latter corrections to the article were completly different than the original addition, and that questionable passage was removed. The remanining of the material which was sourced and accurate was verified, yet that did not stop Folantin from reverting me twice. I did everything in my game to try to seek consensus, I broke the section into headings, added disputed tags yet Folantin kept on reverting and reverting. The talk page discussion immediately went off track where she assaulted me with Personal attacks and kept on using my small mistake as a justification to continue her sprawl. Forget the fact that someone was released early on from their first (though most likely not last) block. I might have violated WP:RS and WP:V but how does someone who violates WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, WP:EQ, WP:POINT, WP:OWN and WP:NPA not to mention my concerns regarding the same WP:RS and WP:V which I was more than keen to question. I wanted a consensus and one can only be blind for not seeing the obvious in comments. She wanted a battle and now I want you to tell me on what grounds should I not file an arbitration. --Kuban Cossack 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother. I'm seriously considerintg filing a whopping great arbitration case myself, incorporating every single problematic Russian nationalist user I can think of. You can have your say there. That will probably be sometime next month, when I get back from holiday and have some more free time. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well good luck, because I'll be on my own holiday in Abkhazia overwatching maneouvres of the Abkhaz Army, but then again I don't consider myself a Russian nationalist, yet if you do need a third opinion let me know. --Kuban Cossack 12:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi, please watch your tongue. Folantin was pissed off by his first block and went rogue. You do not have such excuse. You can file and ArbCom but stop casting wide and ambiguous accusations. Either name who are those Russian nationalists and act honorably or shut up and write another essay. It is amazing that Irpen-phobes managed to add me to the list of culprits even here. I did not even support Kuban and said that his block and the decline to unblock were within policy. I also said that the solution of blocks (of Kuban and Folantin) was, while non-optimal IMO, within policy as well. So, you and your friend, please either stand up to your strange and ambiguous aspersions and file the arbcom with parties clearly named or withdraw with some honor and write a page in the main space. I tolerated these spiteful talk directed at myself from you and Folantin long enough. If you have anything to say, say it directly and honorably. If not, don't say anything. --Irpen 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course parties will be clearly named. Give me another month to figure out which parties these will be. I haven't got round to collecting any evidence yet! Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

arbcom? pray note the section title. Filing an arbitration case will create more wikidrama, waste dozens of man-hours, and result in a "final decision" of "please be nice, everyone". The long and the short of it is, Wikipedia gets editors with nationalist agendas. These editors often attempt to wikilawyer to get away with their violation of core policy. We need to deal with this in some efficient way. I have nothing against Irpen, but he needs to stop trying to keep this personal and recognize the systematic problem we do have. --dab (𒁳) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dab, there is a systematic problem of POV pushing in the articles that touch nationalist nerves. I am first to accept that and this complex problem requires a solution through better worded and enforced sourcing policy and clamping down on off-line coordinated edit warring. I said that multiple times in many places. I am not talking about Arbitration over this nonsense here. That's Moreschi and Folantin who do. And speaking about making that personal, I suggest you reread what Folantin wrote in this threads as well as at the talk pages of Papa November, Relata Refero and his own. He is running around accusing me in the wildest things and you are telling me that I am "trying" to keep this personal? I think, given the intensity of his attacks, I was rather calm. Please tell Folantin to cool off and this incident is over as far as I am concerned. As for finding a solution to this global nationalist mess, I am all for it. --Irpen 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to de-escalate this all day. I've removed statements from talk pages and offered apologies to editors where I thought appropriate. I have tried to avoid this thread which I thought was finished. I don't believe I have threatened you with Arbitration over this. "this incident is over as far as I am concerned". OK then. --Folantin (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is resolved. This user edit wared, spreat lies, insulted people, got down to a persoanl level. Even now he keeps User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin7 page. And after that he tries to show he changed. Suddnely he feels things turned against him and he plays a confessor. Log in, log out (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And that's fine, really. We don't do revenge. If your preferred narrative is that Folantin got burned and withdrew hastily, please believe that as far as this board is concerned, that is usually sufficient.

Right, I'm sure that both of the more experienced editors involved recognise that this has spiralled out of control. I'd suggest we chalk this up to experience. I've written a long note on my talkpage, which people can read if interested. There are a couple of recommendations in there as well. --20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Relata refero (talk • contribs)

This enormously long discussion proves that we do have a serious problem with users who push nationalist agenda. It is hardly possible to write anything polemic about Russia without being immediately reverted or worse. Why? Just look at the incident with Folantin who obviously acted in a good faith. Will he ever edit Russian subjects again? I doubt it.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Realy? Edit wars, insults is good faith? Beutiful. I'll remember to remind you that one day. The problem with you Wikipedians from the west, not all, but many, is that you use your western references about Russia wich some are politicaly loaded and stereotypical. Russian users perfer to use reliable sources by Russian academics about Russia. That's not nationalism but NPOV. Somehow, anytime a Russian tried to enter Soviet/Russian references about a western state/party/ideology or western states history he was reverted and cursed for pushing a "POV". Folantin is clearly biased, politicaly (and that was seen when he came down to the personal level, and his user page has a reference to it). With all respect, Wikipedia is not a place for western nor for communist values. It's purpouse is reliable sources and NPOV. Folantin called for a fight of wikipedians against some political views. Thats not the place for it. It doesnt metter who is what as long as we all agree sources should be reliable, NPOV, and not biased. That includes not being westocentric. Log in, log out (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Log in, log out as a sockpuppet of permabanned User:M.V.E.i. Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Can we either archive this now or move it to a subpage? It's over 80 KB and ANI is almost back to 500 KB. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am really unhappy about several offensive accusations of myself posted here but I am willing to let it rest until another time which would hopefully not come. So, no objection from me to archive. There is a discussion now at another talk page of a respected editor who commented here and this is where I plan to continue a very calm and a more global meta-discussion, unless the host of the page objects. Oh, and if "Log in" is indeed MVEi, I fully support reblocking him. If I remember correctly, he was blocked for racist and homophobic talk. We are better off without editors who spread hate speech. --Irpen 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. From what he said on my talk page about sources, subsequently reported here, there was clearly something seriously wrong with User:Log in, log out. Why did it take so long to work this out? Why was he allowed to taunt a good faith editor like Folantin for so long? Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

MVEi was not the only one taunting good faith editors in relation to this matter. But that aside, too bad nothing really effective has been done globally with the Wikipedia's socking problem. I easily understand why this is so difficult but we should not give up in trying to solve this. However, the latter is a subject for a much more global meta-discussion, perhaps at one of the VP boards. --Irpen 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad luck. It happens. Sometimes there's just not the time to check the contribs of every participant in the discussion to see if they're a sockpuppet. BTW, I've emailed Alison to see if there's anything more permanent we can do about M.V.E.i.'s persistent socking, like a rangeblock. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Question re notifications

How many deletion notifications is considered too many before it is considered whether a user is really getting the message? I am referring to the 90 warnings that Weissmann (talk · contribs) has received since April this year at User talk:Weissmann/Archive 1 and User talk:Weissmann. -- role^player 13:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The deleted contributions listing is quite long, but so is the contrib history. It appears that the account is a "fling it up the wall and see what sticks" type contributor. I am not sure that there is a policy or guideline that covers such an approach, or if they are in violation of any should it exist. Any suggestions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Short block for WP:DE? Editor really should be aware of WP:N by now. --Rodhullandemu 13:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (to RoleplayerI don't know of any policy; I usually stick {{uw-create2}} or {{uw-create3}} after someone has three or four CSD notices, but I usually only deal with new users, not ones with several hundred edits. :/ J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

We had this conversation last year about User:Billy Hathorn, who also follows the "suck it and see" approach to notability (it'll be in the archives somewhere); consensus then was he wasn't breaching anything. – ırıdescent 14:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that case, but if articles are created in good faith and in full knowledge of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" and some of the creations are deemed encyclopedic, then it seems that there is little to be done here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks to all for the clarification. -- role^player 01:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

User:Hiram111 keeps removing large heavily sourced criticism sections he doesn't like in the articles Walid Jumblatt (here, here, here and here) and Saad Hariri (here, here, here and here), despite being warned twice. He removed the warnings twice, see here and here. I reported him and I asked for both articles to be protected, but his edits don't seem to be disruptive enough. Does it mean that if I were to remove every criticism section I didn't like on Wikipedia, I could get away with it? This isn't content dispute. His edits, removing large sourced sections and calling them unreferenced in his edit summaries, are nothing short than disruptive POV-pushing and I've wasted enough time dealing with this person. He should have been indefinitely blocked long ago. GreenEcho (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It makes me sick that no one has bothered to give this issue the time of day. So people are now allowed to wander around Wikipedia, delete whatever section they didn't like without even being warned? I'm out of here. GreenEcho (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like he's been spoken to about this - sorry for the delays, occasionally these reports get overlooked, as we do have a lot to do around here, as you may have noticed. ;-) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

United States Declaration of Independence = Saxonthedog

Here is a repeated attempt to add a paragraph containing a partly made-up quote. The part that's made up is used to support some POV-argument. Would be nice to have someone politely point out that's not working out. Tedickey (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread on the article's talk page. Has this been discussed previously, that I just missed? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely familiar. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Admin Intervention

For background please see ANI and Talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive442#Is_Chinese_government_website_notable_source.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falun_Gong#Asdfg12345_Please_put_the_PRC_government_sourcyou_BLANKED_BACK

I really don't know what to do anymore. A consensus has been reached that the Chinese government edit should be there, but cetrain editor still insist on repeating the argument and removing/altering the edit in appearant bad faith.

This edit is just latest in a string of disputes with this page. Please see Talk/archive for history.

What should I do?

Bobby fletcher (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting with a request for comments from the general community, then following the rest of the dispute resolution procedure thereafter. Kylu (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Dab121, Edline and general disruption.

This user clearly has some kind of POV to push, as demonstrated by their talk page comments. This was dealt with previously, but the user has now moved on to other kinds of disruption, namely editing the article Edline, and then nominating it for deletion here, citing "Advert, no refs, no notabilty, spam links", after their edits (albeit under the IP - which added the afd tag...) were the ones which made it spam. I am not sure of the policy in this case, it being so complex... -Toon⁰⁵ 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism on Today's Featured Article

I just looked at the TFA and there is vandalism via a template that needs to be fixed right away - picture of an aborted fetus Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it is gone Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IP that performed the edit was blocked and the offending image has been added to the black list for images.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112

Resolved

 – ScienceApologist blocked for edit-warring. Insufficient evidence to suggest topic ban is needed for Levine2112. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

this is related to the below thread
#Elonka banning me from Atropa Belladonna

I suggest a topic ban for User:Levine2112 from articles having to do with alternative medicine. This user has exhausted community patience. See the incessant disruption at Talk:Quackwatch, Talk:Atropa belladonna, and Talk:Chiropractic. He seriously prevents discussions from moving forward, is tendentious, and generally one of the worst examples of an editor we have. We've discussed this option before, but Levine2112 has just gotten worse. Please, someone needs to do something. He's driving good editors away. Also note that many of the article talk pages that Levine2112 has been disrupting are covered under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy and Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took a quick look at those pages, but didn't see the "incessant disruption" that is being referred to. I'd also point out that anyone who says that such an editor is "one of the worst examples of an editor we have," needs to get out more, because I see much much worse, dozens of times a day. Or in other words, ScienceApologist, can you please provide a few specific diffs? Otherwise this would seem to be a violation of the "bad faith" ruling from your ArbCom case. Thanks, Elonka 19:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious, Elonka? Editors who make flagrant abuses are much easier to control than the civil POV-pusher that is Levine2112. Check it out, he is Wikilawyering right now at Atropa belladonna. I have patiently explained to him that we need to establish WP:PROMINENCE for a fringe subject to be included in an article that is not strictly about the fringe subject. There are megabytes worth of text where he essentially thrusts his fingers in his ears. We have policy on it. Levine2112 rejects for reasons I cannot begin to ascertain. The last few sections of quackwatch is basically a case study in how he trolls on Talk:Quackwatch. What has he added to the project? What is his purpose EXCEPT to disrupt? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Evidence that Levine exists solely to disrupt

• just a revert
• just a revert
• threatening another user
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• just a revert
• just a revert
• WikiLawyering a closed case
• Reporting a user for 3RR that he baited
• Removing comments from a user he is baiting as vandalism
• A disruptive comment, to be sure

Etc., etc.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know all the ins and outs of it, but I do know how you have described the diffs above is your own interpretation and in the case of what you call a threat, I can't see how that can be seen as a threat as all. Even if you disagree with Levine, he has been here for years, and to survive here this long he clearly has not been seen as being here solely to disrupt. Sticky Parkin 21:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see these prior discussions:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Levine2112 (Durova's comment towards the end is particularly apt)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive287#real-life_identity_outted
3. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive380#Vandalism_by_Classic_Tendentious_Editor

Levine2112 is an inveterate edit warrior and single purpose account whose purposes on Wikipedia revolve around pushing pro-altmed

POV and painting Stephen Barrett in the most negative possible light. In addition to several blocks, he was

de-Twinkled for using automated tools to edit war. There have been several prior

discussions about what to do about him, none of which came to consensus. This is a real problem. It is driving serious, encyclopedia-minded editors away from the articles he camps out on. Skinwalker (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through those diffs, and I'm not seeing the same thing that ScienceApologist is. I did see one place where Levine2112 got into an edit war on his own talkpage, where Ronz kept putting a comment there, Levine kept removing it, and in one of those removals, Levine called it vandalism. Levine then reported the situation at 3RR, which both I and another admin felt was unnecessary. Both Ronz and Levine have been cautioned, and I don't see any further action required at this time.

It is my feeling that ScienceApologist is skating the line of his ArbCom restrictions right now, so my advice to SA would be to drop this, unless he has a new and blatant violation by Levine2112. If not, take it somewhere else please, as ANI is not the proper venue for this dispute. --Elonka 23:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(followup) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours by Scarian (talk · contribs), for edit-warring. I recommend closing this thread. --Elonka 23:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful attention to the issue. I recommend reading Talk:Quackwatch and its associated archives, if you can summon the time and patience. Skinwalker (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the time and patience to do a full on defense of Levine, nor do I really have a ton of experience with him, but I do have experience with SA. I've yet to see him add a reference. A reading of the diffs that he provides (we might assume that he's posted the worst of them) shows him reacting fairly civilly to insults and edit-warring.

• what SA calls "a threat" is actually Levine counseling Ronz to be try and be more civil (diff).
• Wikilawyering a closed case? If an editor has an interest in keeping up discussion on something, it is not closed.
• Several of the reverts deal with Levine reverting the hiding of Levine's comments. Per Talk, messing with other user's comments is highly discouraged.
• The 3RR is, as Scarian noted, an example of silly behavior by both Ronz and Levine, but that has nothing to do with Alt. Med. disruption.

An illustrative example of SA's behavior happened at Quackwatch the other day: ScienceApologist reverted back a couple dozen edits, which used sources and RS/N for outside counsel, using Twinkle (so it was automatically tagged minor). When we objected that these would have to be taken apart piece by piece, he proceeded to edit war until he was blocked. I opened a "Compromise" discussion a couple days ago, requesting that we start discussing the offensive material piece by piece. The responses have been done without even reading what I've written, and no sources have been brought up. II 23:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper venue for discussing Levine2112's behavior. He has an extremely long and consistent history of misbehavior in Wikipedia, breaking policies and guidelines too numerous to list here. The fact that he gets away with misrepresenting others in this case is nothing compared to his other misbehavior. I'll participate in any RfC/U (or the eventual, necessary ArbComm) about him to detail the many, many times he's been cautioned, warned, etc for misbehaving. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has a pattern of misbehaving. But what is his motivation? Levine2112 does not like Stephen Barrett. The strong evidence is below.

Levine2112 claims Stephen Barrett is a crook! Personally I find Bolen's site much more reliable than anything a crook such as Barrett has ever put out there.

False allegations by Levine2112. - make no mistake about it - he is also a paid attack-dog.

More false allegations. Talk about a scam.

Libel and personal attack by Levine2112. Very interesting. The more you dig, the dirtier Barrett gets.

What are the motivations of Levine2112 who is a chiropractor true believer. I too have noted an excessive use of links to Barrett's sites all around Wikipedia. I would like to see this minimized too.

Stephen Barrett criticizes the chiropractic profession and Levine2112 does not like that.

Levine2112 has acknowledged his motivations for his editing behaviour on various Quackwatch related articles. A topic ban is the next step. QuackGuru 17:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those comments by Levine2112 were unacceptable; however, I would point out that they are from 2006. Administrators are not going to take action against an editor for something he did two years ago. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. If you have recent diffs of problematic behavior, please bring them forward, otherwise, please drop this, as diffing something from two years ago is fairly disruptive. Pretty much every editor on Wikipedia has had moments where they said something inappropriate. In most cases, editors calm down, learn from mistakes, and move on. If someone doesn't learn from their mistakes, then we can block or ban them. But as long as someone's behavior is currently civil and constructive, I see no reason to take administrative action. --Elonka 20:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This evidence does not support a topic ban against Levine2112. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Need Help Dealing with Hostile Admin on Wiktionary

Resolved

 – "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia..."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I checked all the relevant policy pages on dispute resolution, but there's nothing specifically for dealing with problem Administrators and I couldn't decide if I should file this under Wikipedia:Editor assistance, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or who to ask on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, so I put it in both of the first. Firstly to increase the likelihood that someone will see this soon enough to take action. And so that in case someone else is going through the same problem perhaps a precedent protocol can be set so that a policy can be made on how to deal with this issue (or if there already is one, perhaps someone can link the dispute resolution pages to it!)

My problem is with admin EncycloPetey. As I explain, I'll do my best to take responsibility for what I did incorrectly as per Wikipedia:CIVILITY and common sense. He's been giving a hard time since last night when I made in error and created a second adjective section on wikt:base, I fixed it before I even got the message from him to "Please include only a single Adjective section per entry, unless the two Adjectives are under separate etymology sections." Today he made an unnecessary threat to have me banned after I put a template in superscript (which I explained in the section edit). He later posted on my User space not to make changes without discussing them first for obvious reasons.

The problem arose when I replied, conceded though still said that intellectually my idea was a good one and he replied with a rant and threat to have me banned! I've been on Wiki for going on three years and have never had a problem with anyone, I think I deserve an apology for what he said. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Such behavior is endemic at Wiktionary and over the past years nothing seems to be able to be done to mitigate this "rough" manner of the editors that consider themselves to "hold the reins" there. It seems simply to be part of that project's "culture." Sorry not to have been able to give a more hopeful answer. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be short but this isn't Wiktionary. Don't they have their own system over there? —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. Wiktionary is far stricter than Wikipedia

2. Wikipedia administrators hold no authority over Wiktionary, it's editors, or it's admins, so this isn't the place to complain.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding accountability, they allow problems to be addressed via email, which they then don't return. If an editor is blocked, s/he is not permitted to post on any page, including his/her own talk page. So the accountability and attention to comments is minimal to none. Badagnani (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have no jurisdiction on Wiktionary. The best you (or we) can do here is get hold of an editor here who is also a Wiktionary editor or admin. I don't know any such editors, however. —Kurykh 00:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If witionary is paralel to this project then there should be a conterpart to our WP:ANI on their page. I reocmmend that you take your concerns there to that website, although of course since it IS wiktionary you wont get any help unless you run into an admin. Wiktionary's editors and aminds are as hardworking and dedicated as WIkipedias editors and admins, but there is a certain coolness about the proejct that I noticed when I tried to contribute there once. They dont seem to have any policy again to WP:BITE. Dont get discouraged though; Wiktionary is a worthy project and there are lots of decent people who work hard on it. You can joint hem someday if you have a thick enough skin Smith Jones (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Might want to instead direct this to wikt:Wiktionary:Beer parlour. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I left a courtesy notice over at the admin's page on Wikipedia. (intentionally adding as IP to avoid cross-project privacy conflict) 70.7.76.14 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and understanding everybody! I'll take the next issue to the Beer Parlour then since you guys helped out so much, I presumed that all Wikimedia projects were under the same regulations, interesting that they aren't. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There are regulations somewhere, however this page is on the English Wikipedia and incidents reported here for administrative intervention should be on the English Wikipedia. Administrators here rarely have jurisdiction over other projects like the English Wiktionary. There are a few, but problems there should be reported there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum (for the record): Here is the conversation in question. No threat of a ban was made and no rant appears there. I first pointed a mistake made in editing (noting that it was a new user), but then User:IdLoveOne did not seem to understand the severity of the problem with altering a project-wide template, so I provided an explanation. I noted that a repeat of changing such a template again without prior discussion would result in a block; I pointed this out so that this would not happen. I made no threat of a ban, but merely informed of the likely consequences should an admin find this happening again. This was given as information to a new user on Wiktionary, who likely did not know that this was a problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by banned user

Referred from CheckUser:

• Pgsylv (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 132.208.44.25 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 132.208.114.15 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• F:

• Supporting evidence:

Pgsylv has been banned from editing on Quebec page as a single user account. He appears to have used the IP adresses above to vandalise, edit war, and post uncivil comments on the discussion page 3 times in the last 3 months, most recently on July 3. The diffs linked here are samples, but a quick check of the user contributions shows that "contributions" are all on the Quebec page and all of the same nature, indicating the same single user pattern. [70][71]

Request that above IP adresses be blocked 3 months, as the activity patterns seems to be once a month. They are individual workstations at a large Montreal university, and will likely not block any other editors. I know this vandalism is low grade, but it has distracted a number of editors. --soulscanner (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeat vandalism of Afds

A few editors have been engaging in some problematic edits on certain pages.

User 194.126.21.5 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [72] and vandalized the Afd tag on Jean Riachi [73] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi twice [74] [75]. They blanked Emile Riachi twice [76] [77], then vandalized the Afd tag [78], then vandalized the page. [79]. This user has also made personal attacks agains Damien.rf in an edit summary. [80]

User 206.53.154.135 has also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jean Riachi [81] [82] They have also vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi four times. [83] [84] [85] [86] and vandalized Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism in a way to falsely accuse user Damien.rf of vandalism. [87]

User 83.229.109.156 deleted the Afd tag from Jean Riachi [88], then blanked the page [89], then deleted the Afd tag again [90] They also blanked Emile Riachi [91], then blanked everything but the Afd tag [92], then blanked it again [93], then removed the Afd tag [94]

User Lebprofiler has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi [95]. He also made personal attacks against user Damiens.rf in comments [96] [97] [98] [99] and in an edit summary. [100].

User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi. [101], claimed ownership of an associated page in his edit summary [102] [103] and made personal attacks against Damien.rf [104]

User Nabuchodonozor has not assumed good faith about Damiens.rf’s edits and has called for that user to be banned. [105] Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• The vandalism has continued unabated since last night. Just on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emile Riachi User 85.195.139.202 has vandalized [106] [v] , User Vikser has pretended to be User Vickser and vandalized [107] [108] [109]. User Teresa knott has pretended to be User Theresa knott and vandalized [110] . Edward321 (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And it doesn't stop. User Lebprofiler has removed the Afd message from Emile Riachi as has user 194.126.21.5, falsely staing in the edit summary that the article closed as keep. [111]. Edward321 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
    • User Lebprofiler has also falsely listed the Emile Riachi article as Keep on its talk page. [112]. Edward321 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As a further update, User Lebprofiler has claimed ownership of Emile Riachi [113], vandalized the page while falsely stating the Afd is closed [114], falsely accused Damiens.rf of being a vandal [115] [116], and engaged in personal attacks against Damiens.rf in comments [117] and edit summaries. [118]

User Nabuchodonozor has vandalized Emile Riachi by removing the Afd tag again [119], falsely accused Damien.rf of vandalism and made personal attacks [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]

So we’ve got multiple nicks (possibly sock or meatpuppets) vandalizing articles, Afds, and the associated talk pages; harassing, insulting, impersonating, and making personal attacks against other users. And this has been going on for several days. Edward321 (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Another user, Melkart1 (talk · contribs), created a page that has been nominated for deletion, and now requests deletion himself, accusing Damiens.rf: [129]. The user also removed links to the same article: [130], and a few hours after this a similar edit was made by Nabuchodonozor (talk · contribs): [131]. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was invited by Edward321 to comment this page so this what I am doing, probably to show me how much harm he can do. The fact that a user edits is not violation just bbecause it does not please some editors and blanking or removing text is just to avoid names being "floaded" in the internet. If there is any violation of Wikipedia policy such as removing Afd's is only out of ignorance. The only fact that this editig option exists makes it a nonsense if it is such a "crime" that you have to be "lynched" on this "hall of shame". There was no hacking or harrassment as no name of existing people has been cited by me or the others users that are lynched here. Now the moore serious issue is that editors such asEdward321 are doing some serious defamation with people that are presumably not aware of the discussions here. This is not about website policy. It is about public order and laws regarding the internet, international laws and US laws. I sugggest to close this discussion as soon as possible by deleting articles tagged as Afd (I finally learned some of your langage)and removing alll discussions related. I read something about "llegal threats" leading to blocking. Although I really dont care about being blocked, I a not doing any threat. Honestlly, I dont think it would be worth it. But I think this is a matter that should not dealt by "volonteer" editors. By seeing some of their profiles, they seem to be amateurs who are addicted to this without enough background to assess such issues. Maybe some editors who knows about defamation claim could deal with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melkart1 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What I think we need to do here is indef block every last one of the socks for disruption, block the IPs for a month to give us a break, delete ans salt the articles and semi the afds for a month. Is this sensible? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)