Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive281

  Resolved

 – blocked by User:Jaranda—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

71.112.235.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is pretending to be an admin and "blocking" people by leaving them blocked messages. Not sure if here was the right place to report it or at WP:AIV. T Rex | talk 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think an IP address "blocking" people is blatant enough for WP:AIV ;-) Someguy1221 06:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone checked to see if the IP address is on the list of administrators? .V. _[Talk|Email] 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A sock of Jimbo... Well, I'm not involved.... --DarkFalls ^talk 13:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

After persistant vandalism and engaging in an edit war at Nantes, the above anon user forced the page to be semi-protected for three days. Since then, the user continued to make persistant changes to the article, as well as making a personal attack on an admin on the talk page, resulting in him being given a final warning. Due to this final warning, the user decided to create an account, User:Firstwind, and acting as a different party, the user has attempted to defend the conduct of the anon user on the talk page, in clear violation of WP:SOCK. Schcambo 10:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Supported. this user has been engaging in disruptive editing and not willing to achieve consensus in a clear case of WP:OWN. n disagreement has occurred about his/her edits, they simply revert without consultation e.g. as shown in edit summaries of [1] and [2] and then launch personal attacks such as [3] and [4]. Article was originally protected 3 days to stop this user but he/she has returned. [5] Michellecrisp 11:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – Deletion endorsed Sr13 is almost Singularity 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

A new user, Jdmorrison, uploaded this self-made image (Image:Zionist_lie.PNG), before inserting it into Holocaust denial. He then decided to post to a number of talk pages, including Jimbo's, before getting blocked for harrassment. Even though the image is not technically against policy, the fact that it's self-made convinced me to remove it from the article and delete it. ELIMINATORJR 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse your decision. Shalom ^Hello 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Good call. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsed. --John 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am contously rollbacked by some guys like Bzuk and now, this Akradecki. I am not sayng that they are never in right, but their action on me, here by only 10 days is already so heavy that i cannot almost do nothing that they cames and rollbacked my contributes to some pages. Interesting, it happens only in aviation pages.

Lastly, i have made some contributes to the page Reggiane Re.2001, that was improved from this [[6]] to this [[7]]with datas extracted by one publication that i have, and cited, as source. This yesterday. Today i found this still changed to the previous version by Bzuk, and so i have roll-backed my version and tryng to do it better[[8]]. No more than minutes, still the old version was ripristinated by Akramadeki, that says i have no references for these modiphics, that i write bad in english and i have deleted some 'important' informations' (and those deleted posted by me??).

Now i am quickly amused by this manner, both him and Bzuk. I know that there are some policies in wiki.en more rigid with some aspects, more rigid than other wikis. But the continous roll-backing of almost all i am writing here is simply frustrating, gratuitus and offensive.

And this latter modiphic is justiphied in a manner ever more idiotic than the others. If one desires to improve an article, then he tries to do so: my english is not perfect, but i post many datas that shouldn't be deleted for many reasons, even so stupid as 'unuseful data'. Atleast move this contribute to discussion page! But not, they prefers to do so, 'improving' Wikipedia deleting my posts with all the array of possible justifications. I rate this atleast excessive, and now, 'unaccettable'. If things functions so in wiki.en i don't know, but surely Bzuk and some others have seriously amused me. I ask support to that i call 'persecution' against myself.--Stefanomencarelli 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this user has been banned from it.wikipedia for much of the same behaviour he's been exhibiting here. He has been deleting information without reason, introducing uncited info and OR, text dumping copyrighted material and generally being uncivil when confronted by it. Diffs will be provided later, as I'm on a quick break at work. The main focus of his edits have been several aviation articles, and on ongoing dispute with Bzuk who asked me to step in as an admin. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and discuss in article talk the changes you wish to make. --John 14:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

for it's worth, let's examine how Bzuk has acted the last time:

He cutted some stuff in Macchi C.202, and it' really useful to look what. I have 'stated an OR' or someone else, saying simply this: becasue axis fighters were faster than the older allied machines as Hurricane and P-40 they were overall superiors as combat machines (really showed, absolutely not my opinion), but they must been always careful with their adversaries, 'cause they were very well armed, so every mistake can be fatal (in other words: when axis nimble fighters attacked slower P-40 or Hurricanes, if they made a mistake, they suddently face to 12 machine-guns or 4 cannons, a very lethal firepower for every fighter). I cannot understand what's wrong with it. I am not inventing that allied aircraft were very well armed, and that such armament was much respectable by everyone. Many axis pilots were killed because finished in the gunsight of these beasts. So where is the problem, talking about the necessity to be careful in fighting such adversaries? 6 M2 are a micidial combination, also: enough to shot down a bomber, let's figure a fighter.

It's so plain and simple: insthead, it was deleted because 'this violate OR'. I rate this simply absurd, and even if it could be OR, where is the necessity to delete a perfectly *reasonable, *well documented and *accepted fact? So i hope to have given you the reason of my protests, invain made with such guys that simply roll-backed everything i write without any discussion. It's a incredible and amusing situation, for me. I call it mobbing.

And as wiki.it, i was banned not before to have made 1700 articles, so go figure: many of them are even in evidence, and it was a time that i made almost 1% of the total. I wasn't there as vandal. And in the 'wikitrial' many have defended me pointing, among others reasons, to the total strumenctal, hipocrital and fallacious nature of the accusations made to me. Not a clean process at all.--Stefanomencarelli 16:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)--

Read our policy WP:NOR, discuss in talk, and be aware your English is less than perfect. That should do it. --John 16:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! 1700 articles! John's given you good advice, Stefanomencarelli. I can see you've got loads of good technical points to make, but the way to do it is to hit the "discussion" tab at the top of the article page and then list your proposed change there - then other users can help with the valid points you are trying to make. Ciaou!...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this has gone on long enough to demonstrate we have a problem user on our hands here. Stefano's edits are certainly interesting, but are barely legible at best, something that is amply demonstrated above ("this latter modiphic is justiphied in a manner ever more idiotic than the other"). I really don't have a problem with that, though. But when any of his edits are modified or RVed he cries fowl, and has now reported BZuk and Akradecki for "violations". BZuk, in particular, went way out of his way to show Stefano what was wrong with his edits and how to improve them, but Stefano continues to treat these as some sort of "attack". I'm generally in favor of adding material, and was certainly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in these cases, but nothing has improved and he continues to report well-meaning editors to ANI. What do to? Maury 16:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned him for this edit. Either he will cool down or he will be having an enforced break. --John 16:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

Please compare these edits made by CameronPG - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHokieRNB&diff=149075241&oldid=148263455 - with those of vandals 24.56.43.213, 66.194.14.82, and now 67.161.238.135, and consider blocking. HokieRNB 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The first IP is already blocked, the second hasn't edited since June, but the third (67.161.238.135) is obviously the user avoiding his block, so I've reblocked both him and the IP for another 48 hours. ELIMINATORJR 14:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: An administrator with Portuguese or Spanish language experience is preferred, as content issues which originated the incident are in English but most of the personal attacks and subsequent legal threats are in Portuguese.

This issue is a content issue which has moved into the personal attack and legal threat realm. Opinoso and João Felipe C.S. have been sparring for the past year or so in the Brazil article over multiple issues. So far, they've followed the "revert war, cooldown period/3RR warning, discussion" pattern, but I have been very concerned about Opinoso's attitude towards the other user. Where Felipe has, for the most part, kept a civil tone and worked towards clearly improving the article, Opinoso has reacted personally to Felipe's edits. While most of Opinoso's content disputes have merits, his aggressive and insulting manner (using words such as pathetic and calling him "mentally incapacitated") have boiled over. He has threatened legal action against João Felipe, not once but twice, by characterizing his edits and comments as "racism" and stating that according to Brazilian law it's a crime (which it is), and that he has enough evidence to put him in jail. Previous edit wars here:April and May, 2007 and June and July, 2007. Current one here. Legal threat no.1 here and no.2 here. More personal attacks here.

I don't know what (if any) administrator intervention is warranted, but since this is no longer a content matter, I felt the incident should be recorded.--Dali-Llama 04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is escalating. Could someone please help? If you know an admin who speaks Portuguese, please just post on his talk page to take a look at this issue.--Dali-Llama 00:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• For those non-Portuguese folk (myself included), freetranslations does a semi-borderline-almost-acceptable job with Portuguese-to-English. I don't know anything about Brazilian law, but I'm very skeptical of Opinoso's claim that João's rearrangement of pictures was motivated by racism. The commentators on the first few pages you referenced seem to do a fair job of cleaning that up, at least neutralizing the issue for the most part. Then again the consensus of a handful of Wikipedia editors may differ from the opinion of a Brazilian law enforcement agent. I don't think there's sufficient information in João's profile for him to be located anyway, given that Wikipedia servers are Florida-based and so Brazilian authorities cannot view his IP (unless I'm missing something). --xDanielx^Talk 03:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is not necessarily whether João's edits were racist or what the law is--far from it. My issue is that Opinoso has escalated an issue from a content dispute, to personal insults, to two separate "vendetta" legal threat. That's not the sort of behavior we should tolerate at Wikipedia. I'm asking for appropriate admin intervention. Whether that's blocking, a written warning (he's already gotten god knows how many from me) or what else, it's not for me to decide. But this clearly is a violation of WP:LEGAL.--Dali-Llama 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinoso's messages looked like legal threats to me, so I sent a message to him. Let's see what he will answer. --Carioca 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

He said to me (check my talk page) that he will not take legal action against João Felipe C.S., so, I believe the question is now solved, and there is no need to block him. --Carioca 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whilst recent changes patrolling, I noticed JustineLuxtonB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created several new user accounts, as seen here, on the new users log.

Should we assume good faith that this is someone creating doppelganger accounts, or is this a vandal creating sleepers - and if so, should we block the accounts?? I've left a note on their talk page about this issue.

What should be done about it?? --SunStar Net ^talk 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No way to tell until they actually start to do something. There's no rule against creating multiple accounts per se, so no action right now. If the accounts are used abusively, then I'd have a low threshold for blocking all of them. MastCell ^Talk 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Might be easier to just link directly to the user's logs, since that's the only activity on the account. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

At least the user was not doing this surreptitiously, so WP:AGF seems to call for a wait and see approach. Just my $0.02. Carlossuarez46 00:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Need intervention please. Qaka is latest incarnation of permanently banned sockmaster Instantnood re-igniting the same revert wars he was banned for. SchmuckyTheCat

Evidence please. --Masamage ♫ 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody resolve this, one way or the other? User:SchmuckyTheCat is removing User:Qaka's contributions wherever they are found, including in AFD debates, and claiming exemption from 3RR for removing such edits. I'm not convinced one way or the other (having seen no evidence at all), but if this is not correct, these removals should clearly stop. JulesH 21:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

see below. SchmuckyTheCat

This is being posted here as per the request of the administrators whom deal with the WP:AIV as they feel it needs to be further examined. In accordance with general policy, this user has been given warning after warning and continues to make colorful, defamatory remarks and insults against other users including myself in addition to other general violations. This is my first time posting to the WP:ANI so you'll forgive me if my knowledge on how it operates is sketchy. I will post here as was posted upon the AIV.

• The user, GasSnake or Poison Oak, implements Personal Attacks against users including some remarks which can be found to be insulting and others which can be found to be questionable. Also makes use of their user page by taking other editor's comments and posting them upon it. In addition, this user makes usage of their signature to spoil a novel (Harry Potter, Book 7) by means of the text: "Change is coming and potter should have died". This does not affect my person as I've read the novel but it still does not excuse the action. In addition, other violations include violation of the 3RR Rule, Multiple POV Edits (as self-admitted by the offending party), spam, consistent uploading of Non-Licensed Images, and flat-out insulting other users including, but not limited to the reporting party, Ancientanubis, and Sam ov the blue sand.

I believe other users who have been affected by this will be making their own cases here. The above, however, is my sumation of things to the best of my ability without going out on an entire lengthy rant. Please look into and deal with this situation accordingly. Thank You. Evilgohan2 05:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried ignoring him? It doesn't look like he has editted any articles in a while (just talk pages). Someone should review his image uploads for speedy deletion, though; never mind, there's just one, and I just db tagged it. Dicklyon 05:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• if this were brought up a few days ago i would have completely and utterly agreed with all of Gohans above statements without question seeing as i was the one who technically gave birthq to this entire predicament (through a discussion/argument between GasSnake and i over some of his edits to List of O-Parts in 666 Satan) and i still have no problem saying that GasSnake is guilty of the things mentioned above. But, over the course of last night and tonight i have attempted to make peace with GasSnake and have seemingly succeeded seeing as we were able to carry some discussion about various topics related to the editing of 666 Satan, i have also attempted to convince him to stop his personal attacks on other editors as it will result in him being either banned or some other action that would not end well for him (as an editor). i guess in the long run the thing holding me back from outright saying he needs to be removed from wikipedia is that i now see some potential in him as an editor and i feel it would be wrong to take serious action(such as banning or what not) against him without him first giving him an "administer realized last chance"(of sort), thanks, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• i truly don't care about what happens as I've delt with worse than this guy. But originaly I tried to help mediate becuase anubis asked me to, even after I tried to talk to him calmly he answered me by yelling and making excuses as to why he does what he does, after telling him not to yell I also told him that being african american and hating racists is no excuse as to why he was acting in such a way. Even after that he retorted and telling me what I said was a personal attack even though it wasn't. I do see pontential but right now all I see is a troll. I truly don't care what happens to him but I do hope he stops his trolling ways.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• well, my main reasons for saying i feel he has some potential is the fact that during some of our more civil discussions(here for example) he has shown the ability to do things that most others see as being a "normal editor", and to be a little honest, i also see a bit of him inside me (this being the fact that i have been known to lose my temper and say thigns i really shouldnt say, only GasSnakes appears to be at a slight bit more of an extreme @ times), idk, to be honest im still waiting to hear his response to these aligations as i think it could go either way... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• "...right now all I see is a troll." At the moment, that is all I'm seeing. In addition, in response to Ancientanubis, I shall point out that he has been informed of the statements made against him. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• idk, maybe your right and im just being to optimistic, but after my enormous argument with him i'm tryin to treat him as a fellow editor until it is (or is not) deemed time to let him go.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Anubis don't defend me I'll defend myself I've only made personal attacks after threats have been used against me mainly to report me I've only made edits on ARTICLES not talk pages in 100% good faith I will admit that I do not believe I've broken the 3RR rule maybe on accident to fix a spelling error but not just to edit the same thing 3 times in 3 ways. I'm not aware of the rules I know I have to follow them yes but it never said I'm require to read them when I agreed to the term and agreements of becoming a member/full credited editor. I really don't care for harry potter I think my quote should stay since half of it because it's not a spoiler and what is a spoiler is from a book people probably already finished I didn't even read the book I just asked a friend about 2 weeks after release anyway it it's required I'll put a spoiler warning but find harry potter not worth it.In my actions CAPS DON'T EQUAL YELLING they are points I really don't want people to skip over while reading unlike other idiots who are like I.E.: OMG YOUR A STUPID MORON THAT WILL NEVER AMOUNT TO ANYTHING IN YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!. I've never done a point of view edit during my time as this log on I've done neutral point of views on articles,Not sure about spam because I do like to give every detail even if it's small, because it might become larger part of something planned, NLI everybody has done one or two which if you don't like mine rip it down...I've have only insulted others under the fact I feel insulted by their actions I don't care if they where just being a good citizen/editors they offended and insulted me in their on way and just like we have different points of pain tolerances and tastes everyone has a different level of where they feel insulted--Change is coming and potter should have died 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the situation. There is a content dispute on MEMRI centering around inflammatory criticism (likening the org to Der Sturmer and Nazis) published in what myself and others do not consider to be a reliable source. It became an edit war, the page is protected, and I've suggested a content RFC to sloat. One comment came in on the RFC which seemed strange because it didn't address the sourcing issue. I checked the RFC and had to fix sloat's tendentious request.
Next I see he has created an article for the publication in question in a transparent attempt to predjudice the outcome of the rfc. It's short edit history then became another edit war when user:Isarig attempted to insert criticism of InFocus sourced to the Anti-Defamation League and some other group Americans Against Hate. Ironically, despite sloat's objections to the material, it would appear to be the only possible way of asserting InFocus's notability given the lack of any sources in the article which actually establish its notability. The Americans Against Hate article -where sloat has spread his fight, suffers from the same lack of notability.
I was going to tag both Southern California InFocus and Americans Against Hate speedy delete, but I thought I should explain the situation here first.
Personally, I think sloat should be blocked for disruption and incivility, however, as I have a long history of problems with him, I'm staying out of that discussion.
I do think that the two articles should speedy deleted though. Is there a problem with this? or should it be a normal afd? <<-armon->> 12:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, as Armon notes these two users have a long-standing history of mutual disagreements and aborted efforts at dispute resolution, most recently an attempt at community enforceable mediation, closed by Durova [9]. As noted, their ongoing clashes take place across a range of (political) article topics, but rather than a case of 'WP:POINT', the specific and recurring disagreement between the two seems to always boil down to differing views of the criteria for establishing 'notability' of various 'critical' voices - along partisan lines - of the political issue in question.

I would urge both csloat and Armon to renew their commitment to mediation, and follow the process through to completion in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, please also note that Ryan is sloat's "advocate", buddy, whatever. This is simply another case of Ryan being protective of sloat, by suggesting a false equivalency in our behaviour. In any case, this hasn't actually addressed the issue I've brought up here. should the articles be speedy deleted? <<-armon->> 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

'Friend' is fine. I'm csloat's friend on WP. And when I saw you had posted this, I figured I'd respond with the context of your ongoing battle since your post here didn't specify that you two had attempted, and utterly failed, to participate in mediation. That's the only reason. While csloat's my friend and I'd hate to see him go (since I believe he's a pretty factual and passionate editor), I'm glad to see that your latest row with csloat is being seen in context of the overall, continuing counter-productive dance in which you two seem to be engaged on article after article. In any case, the evening beach beckons me so adieu for now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Look, you two have been at it for months. It's getting boring. You have to stop fighting. If you don't find a way to live together in peace, happiness and harmony, your mutual death-lock will result in divorce courtesy of the Arbitration Committee, who will forcibly separate you by banning you both, and then who will look after the children? As to avoid this dreadful outcome, I'd try Relate. Moreschi ^Talk 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No kidding. The problem is that I've been through a failed CEM with the guy, I've taken the page which was the locus of the dispute Juan Cole off my watchlist (never to return) and also took a wikibreak. I come back, and bang, he's straight back into it. This is why I've brought the issue here, rather than get sucked in. <<-armon->> 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about Armon? What am I "straight back into"? You are the one deleting sourced and relevant content with cryptic and bogus explanations. You are the one filing a phony AN/I based on the demonstrably false theory that I created a Wikipedia page in order to prejudice an RfC. It's one thing for you to attack my motives in talk pages, but filing a false report about them is beyond the pale. You are now wasting admins time as well as the time of your fellow editors (not to mention me) with a demonstrably baseless report. And your actions are the sole reason the CEM failed in the first place! For you to now comment above that you came to AN/I in order to avoid getting "sucked in" is just ludicrous. csloat 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been trying to get along with Armon and his friend here, but they insist on turning every edit I made into a fight-to-the-death edit war. This report to AN/I is an incredible instance of WP:POT in that Armon (talk · contribs) is the one disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Filing a phony AN/I report is very problematic in these terms. The page I created about Southern California InFocus -- California's largest Muslim newspaper -- was created before I ever even considered starting an RFC for the MEMRI page; his claim that I created the article in "a transparent attempt to prejudice the RFC" is an obvious lie. He is also incorrect about Isarig's additions -- it was me who included the comments of the ADL in the article. He is also incorrect about the case for deletion -- I have shown with reference to several outside sources that this newspaper is notable. I can't understand a claim such as his that it is not notable or not reliable as a source; if he really feels that way, why did he not submit the article for AfD rather than filing bogus complaints to AN/I? I'd really like to simply be able to edit in peace on Wikipedia rather than have to deal with this nonsense every time I change a Middle East-related page. csloat 17:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The narrow question here is whether a particular source satisfies WP:RS. I hope the content RFC works because ANI isn't good at that. Give it a few days. If that doesn't settle matters, arbitration is the logical alternative. Both sides are intelligent and articulate. they've tried plenty of dispute resolution and I've watched this drag on for nearly a year. Time to bring some closure if you can't iron things out for yourselves. Durova^Charge! 02:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of us are trying to work on Allegations of French apartheid, trying to suggest new names, to point from our own experiences what improvements could be done overthere to try to solve all these allegations problems.

On one side there are all the problems you know about the "allegations of"... I can't do a lot against this until the ArbCom request is over.

On the other side there are disruptive contribs on the talk page of that article... I tried, with Jeemde and Poppypetty differents things... From no answer to calm explanations, including the classical "yes" answer, but today, he definitely crossed the line :

• [10]

But when French government fell in WWII, you guys were defenseless as sitting ducks and this clown Hitler did with you whatever he pleased, until US soldiers buyed you out. You even can't get this article deleted, because English Wikipedia has been establish by an American and is based on the same American, not French, principles, where the community, doesn't matter how small, decides what to keep or what to delete, not some government establishment. Now you know?

I'm just... so bored. Please help. NicDumZ ~ 18:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on his talk page, asking him to be a little more constructive in the future. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing against French editors in my comment. This quote above was taken out of context. All my comment dealt with the topic supplied by the editor of the previous comment I was responding to, which suggested that French people are better people than American people, referring to gun control laws, living in communities, and dealing with religion and customs of the minorities, etc. Anybody who knows a bit English will know that all "you"s meant French in general, not the editor in person. Besides, there never was any anti-French movement in America except a little sarcasm, but there was a lot of anti-American movements, protests and sentiments expressed in France since the DeGaulle times, and here we got another example in form of this baseless accusation of "French bashing". greg park avenue 19:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the editor you responded to is a single-purpose account and was apparently being deliberately provocative. But as an experienced editor, please don't take the bait. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, having seen Greg "contribute" to a number of discussions, I believe he's a troll. A block would not be out of place here. -- ChrisO 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, Chris, as my opponent in few discussions concerning the issue of apartheid, you shouldn't play a judge here. Besides, trying hard not to take sides is sometimes like offending everyone I gather. greg park avenue 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to block anyone for that little exchange, and without diffs I can't comment on any pattern. Even if there were one, RfC might be more appropriate. I'm just asking for cooler heads to prevail, and maybe for everyone to hit the preview button and think twice before hitting "Save Page". MastCell ^Talk 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

ah. Eventually I'm the bad guy here. Whatever. Thanks for your quick answer, MastCell... NicDumZ ~ 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why User:MadmanBot semi-protected Volcano or is the bot malfunctioning? --Raphael1 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot didn't protect the page, it merely added the {{sprot}} tag. It was protected 21:50, April 27, 2007 by user:Steel359, presumably with no expiry date. I'll request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected it, but can re-protect it if needed. It has been over 2 months. Until(1 == 2) 18:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, why Volcano has been protected at all, since the vandalism came from IP addresses who vandalized multiple random pages. Thank you for unprotecting. --Raphael1 19:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

 – The link is red now.

Image:WWEUnforgivenPoster.PNG. It is clear that it is made by someone else. It is not a real poster, and it is clearly fake. And a fourth point is that one of the people in the poster isn't alive. This doesn't fall under the speedy deleted criteria though. Can an admin delete it please? Thanks. Davnel03 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

please take appropriate actions against this two cases:

• [12] (needs no comments)
• [13], deliberate changing of facts. --Pejman47 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please report vandalims at WP:AIV. Thanks ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

User:Paul20070 was reverting edits by an anonymous IP to the article Declan. After posting warnings to the IP's talk page (see [14][15]) he was subject to a legal threat by the IP.[16] He then posted a {{helpme}} message on his talk page, so I'm posting here on his behalf. --DeLarge 19:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked IP anon only. Shell ^babelfish 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning but it seems Shell Kinney already handled the issue.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is now back as a registered user The Mr. Barnes and posting nonsense on my talk page. Can I block him personally, or do I have to ask an admin to do that? Cheers Paul20070 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be an administrator in order to issue blocks. No worries though, issued a block to the account right now. Seems he doesn't understand that sockpuppetry is also not tolerated on Wikipedia.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully, he shouldn't come back again now. Paul20070 19:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to report the following users for continually vandalizing the G-Unit article despite receiving warnings:

• 216.232.167.176-Vandalism

• Yousuck69-Vandalism here
• 207.81.118.164-Vandalism here & here

207.81.118.164 and *Yousuck69 appear to be sockpuppets as they made identical edits.

• 24.70.195.228-Vandalism here

Thanks --The-G-Unit-Boss 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page, which should stop the IP vandalism. The named account has already been blocked as an inappropriate username. As to the IP's, they've been warned; if they vandalize further, consider reporting them to WP:AIV. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:71.227.87.141 was a long-standing heavily-suspected sock (on a static IP) of vandal User talk:Dunk meister, and has now even admitted to it in a June 2007 diff. There should now be way enough diffs and proofs (including his admission of sock) to have a checkuser or something. Proof listed on:

• User talk:71.227.87.141 (many diffs, including one of sock admission)
• User talk:Dunk meister (former vandalisms notices)

Context: His modus operandi, at least since January 2006, is to repeatedly alter the most prominent Electronic Music artists against consensus, so as to ascribe them to New Age Religion. This is done either by replacing other tags (Electronic Music, Space Music, Krautrock, etc.) with "New Age", or by inserting it in first position or in the lead paragraph. Despite editor consensus against it, repeated warnings, and long discussions with him (see for instance Talk:Klaus Schulze).

62.147.38.168 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) has been following all my edits and has reverted many of them. Qaka 20:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Because Qaka (and Iianq) are the current incarnations of permanently banned sockpuppet master and ArbCom proclaimed revert warrion, Instantnood. That's some cajones he has coming to ANI to ask for assistance. See also: I posted this sock notice here a few days ago. SchmuckyTheCat

The message you started regarding Qaka has a response. What evidence do you have for sockpuppetry? And do you know that there is a specific place to report suspected sock puppsets?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Iianq == Qaka [17]. Notice the first edit that uploaded the image? Iianq contributed an image, but he forgot he was logged in as Iianq, so he claimed copyright for the other sockpuppet, Qaka, who had contributed an image earlier.

Both == Instantnood. It's obvious to me, and to Huaiwei, because these users follow us around, as Instantnood does. He revert wars on the same subjects (about Hong Kong, about various countries and dependent territories, etc). The ESL grammar is exactly the same as Instantnood. He revert wars over the spelling of Macao/u just like Instantnood. After three years of editing here, and dealing with his behavior, I can smell it a mile away. He's got quite a few peculiarities. Anytime I've accused an account of being one of his socks, I've been right and confirmed by CheckUser. However; CU information on 'nood has scrolled so running CheckUser isn't going to help anymore.

At any point in time he is running half a dozen socks. Most of them do very innocuous edits for a month or until they are necessary. Then one or two of the socks go on the war path following Huaiwei and I. They keep it up until it is ineffective or until they are banned. It'll be idle for a week or so, and then the cycle starts all over again with a new batch. SchmuckyTheCat

Also, I first called Iianq a sock on June 30. The Qaka account has been steadily reverted for several weeks for being a sock. He's squealing like a stuck pig about it now because he knows he's been cornered. And yet he has never denied being a sock. SchmuckyTheCat

Okay I see this.[18] and connect the two sockpuppets to each other. How do you verify the accusation that these are both Instantnood? Durova^Charge! 22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Behavior. Grammar. Patterns. I've been right every single time when there was CheckUser data to check, and it's not an accusation I've ever thrown out on a whim. After three years, you begin to recognize people. SchmuckyTheCat

I'm inclined to say this is Instantnood, there are a whole lot of similarities in behavior to the puppeteer and the old socks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Iianq (talk · contribs) and Qaka (talk · contribs) indefinitely. SchmuckyTheCat makes a convincing point, the similarities in style and behavior indicate socks of Instantnood (talk · contribs). Picaroon (t) 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. How about kicking this over to checkuser to rouse any sleeper socks? Durova^Charge! 00:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed as socks of each other.[19] Instantnood's CheckUser data has scrolled for age. It popped up three sleepers, one of which I was watching (Wassabian) and the other (Guamiana) made a single edit I had made a mental note of (heading straight to a template as a first edit, to call Hong Kong a dependent territory). Sagitariusian was not on my radar, but he was gunning for Huaiwei with that one, building up a few edits related to Singapore. SchmuckyTheCat

  Resolved

 – Patrickstar489 has been blocked by User:Jpgordon. Pants^(T) 03:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Patrickstar489 made two edits to User:Googler459's talk page. For those who don't know, Googler459 is an indef blocked user that has been blocked since December 2006. This is made after Googler459 requested an unblock and after User:Jpgordon denied it at 00:17, 6 August 2007. Twenty-hours later (exactly), Patrickstar489 made those edits in the diff.

Note that User:SuperstarOU, another indef blocked user, also edited the talk page. This is about two or three days before Googler requested an unblock. I have a suspicion that all of these users may be sockpuppets or that Patrickstar could be a sockpuppet of SuperstarOU. Pants^(T) 21:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that both Googler and Patrickstar uploaded images with toilets in them. Even the usernames and edits are similar. Pants^(T) 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Patrickstar recently made edits to mall articles, just like SuperstarOU. Pants^(T) 01:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this week, a laundry list of hotels went up on AFD for discussion and were handled reasonably -- except for the ones in Singapore. A small group of Singapore-based editors, who demand that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable (and who hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources) have bloc voted on the nominations, and at least one of them, User:Hildanknight, who signs his contributions as J.L.W.S. The Special One, accused the nominator of bias/racism, assuming bad faith without a shred of evidence, and demanded Wikidiscipline against him. See, for example, [30]. Editors who behave like pack animals should themselves be subject to Wikidiscipline, especially when they organize and behave so that their favorite subjects would otherwise become exceptions to Wikipedia's general policies. Plaguedbyhordes 19:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, any simple votes without reasons are discounted. I would also advise you to use less inflammatory language if you wish to discuss this reasonably. Tim Vickers 19:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Er

"...every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable..."

doesn't seem to overflow with the spirit of WP:AGF. I feel that you are still harbouring some resentment at their previous actions against you. Anyway, can you provide some diffs where they are making these accusations of racism/bias? LessHeard vanU 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No opinion on this, but I alerted Hildanknight of this. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, Plaguedbyhordes? Your account was created today and in your first two edits, you posted this complaint to AN/I. The only reasonable explanation is that you are a sockpuppet of Russavia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make sockpuppet accusations without evidence to back them up. Neil ╦ 11:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am hesitant to label Plaguedbyhordes as a sockpuppet of Russavia, but I can't think of any other reasonable explanation why a brand-new account would file an AN/I report against me about this dispute. When I requested help on IRC, TheFearow agreed that Plaguedbyhordes was an obvious sock of Russavia, and suggested I file an AIV report. I did so, but WikiLeon removed the report, suggesting I file a Suspected sock puppets report instead. However, I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser.

Shortly after being involved in a bitter dispute with Huaiwei at Singapore Airlines, Russavia mass-nominated many articles on Singaporean hotels for deletion. Bad timing, or does he have a vendetta against the Little Red Dot? On all the AFDs, I voted "Keep and admonish nominator in the interests of fighting systemic bias." When Wikipedians AFD articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with, Wikipedia's systemic bias worsens. Singapore-related articles are particularly vulnerable:

Many articles on Singaporean shopping malls, includong Suntec City Mall (which houses the world's largest fountain) were nominated for deletion by Nehwyn.

Xiaxue (a Singaporean blogger who won a Bloggie, was a columnist for several newspapers and magazines, hosts her own TV show and wrote several posts that sparked national controversies) was nominated for deletion by N.

Chen Liping (one of Singapore's top three actresses, who was involved in the Slim 10 controversy) was speedy deleted by Mindmatrix.

Accusing SGpedians of being a "nationalist clique", "[behaving] like pack animals" and "[demanding] that every public toilet, bus stop, and dog run in their pissant little tyranny be treated as notable" borders on a personal attack. I support the "inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources", and I did not "[accuse] the nominator of racism" (bias, yes, due to his disputes with SGpedians).

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Russavia (talk · contribs) is not blocked, and this is not an RfA or an AfD, so the accusations of sockpuppetry are somewhat irrelevant. It's simply an editor who doesn't realize that being uncivil hurts his cause, and makes a poor presentation of his problems. Reinis^talk 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a racist asshole. Kamryn · Talk 08:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have phrased it in quite those terms, but... yeah. Raymond Arritt 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Is it common for people to throw around accusations that my account is acting as a sockpuppet without admonishment? I would like an IP check done immediately so that I can be cleared of what Hildanknight has accused me of doing. Secondly, I suggest that the people who are in the firing link with this 'incident report' take note, because I am obviously not the only one who sees some problems there. --Russavia 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I see that Hildanknight has already filed an AIV [31]. What was the outcome of that report? Do I get an apology for this accusation Hildanknight? --Russavia 16:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I fail to see any reason why Hildanknight needs to issue an apology, when the circumstances makes it highly suspect, even in the opinion of uninvolved users as he mentioned. He did not pursue with an IP check, and please be mindful that IP checks are not conducted just for users to demonstrate their innocence. I am equally disgusted by this (over)reaction on Russavia's part.--Huaiwei 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted Hildanknight, I am thoroughly disgusted in this. I didn't see above how you said your report was removed, and it was suggested you make another report in the correct area. So instead of doing so, because you can't be arsed in doing so, you come back here and continue with the accusations against myself. Should be ashamed of yourself. And if you are going to mention bitter disputes with Huaiwei on SIA articles, then I suggest that people have a look at Singapore Airlines Cargo and the continual reversions of factual correct, verifiable edits there by said user, and also have a look at this Mediation to see that this is an ongoing problem on anything to do with Singapore Airlines (note: I am not involved in that particular case). As to nominations of Singapore-related articles, don't assume that non-Singaporeans don't know about Singapore - I might be in Australia, but worked for SIA for some years, so would likely know more about the inner workings of said company than most of your wikiproject - and they were nominated because they are not notable in the overall scheme of things - some were shown to be, and most were shown to be irrelevant. And it wasn't only Singapore hotels that I nominated, but many from around the world. Time to take off the tin foil hat. --Russavia 17:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Riana blocked Plaugedbyhordes indefinitely as a "disruptive throwaway account". Plaguedbyhordes is clearly an abusive sock puppet - its first edit was to file this incivil and frivolous complaint against me on AN/I. Since the complaint pertains to Russavia's disputes with SGpedians (I'm surprised that Plaguedbyhordes singled me out instead of Huaiwei), there is a good reason to suspect that Russavia is the puppetmaster.

However, Plaguedbyhordes' statement that "A small group of Singapore-based editors...hounded me to the point where I stopped editing last year after disputes over the inclusion in Wikipedia of well-documented reports of human rights abuses in Singapore from reputable sources" suggest that Regebro could be behind this. In November and December 2006, Regebro and Instantnood (who is now banned) were in a dispute with Huaiwei, myself and other SGpedians over whether the Lion City should be listed as a single-party state. After losing the dispute, Regebro left Wikipedia.

Of course, suspicion is not proof. Russavia has denied that Plaguedbyhordes is his sock puppet, and requested a CheckUser to prove his innocence. Although several users have advised me to file a CheckUser, I have previously stated that "I'm not sure if it's worth adding such a simple case to backlogs at SSP and Requests for checkuser". To be honest, as long as Russavia stops getting into disputes with SGpedians, and no more sock puppets are created to file such incivil and frivolous complaints on AN/I, I have no interest in pursuing this further, or finding out who the puppetmaster is.

That being said, I welcome open, civil dicussion about how systemic bias is worsened by Wikipedians AFDing articles on non-American topics they are unfamiliar with - on the other hand, as Haemo commented, AN/I is not the place for such discussion, and I'm not sure what the right place would be.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So as long as I stop touching articles relating to Singapore, and stop nominating articles related to non-notable Singapore entities, you'll leave it alone? Do as several have done and file the check user report, then eat some humble pie and apologise. And please don't talk about being civil, when you continue to make accusations against me?!? What is that about? Absolutely pathetic. --Russavia 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What is this about? An attempt to extract maximum points to boost self-egos as a result of a protracted dispute? The world dosent owe you a favour. You are most welcome to edit Singapore-related articles, provided they are in absolute good faith as per wikipedia guidelines. Any signs of WP:Point will be swiftly dealt with, as it has been in the past and will continue to be done so. For you to make those comments in your opening line above also appears to be reflective of your inner concern, which if it is, would be rather tragic, I would say.--Huaiwei 17:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own comments appears to speak alot about the problems you are facing yourself, Russavia, rather than the problems you seem to think you are attempting to solve. If you are still feeling bitter over the disputes on Singapore Airlines-related articles, kindly state it matter of factly on what truly transpired instead of attempting to replicate a content dispute over here. Kindly also be keenly aware that no one has ever assumed that "non-Singaporeans don't know about Singapore" in all circumstances, even if this is true in specific cases. That these individuals know nuts about certain aspects of Singapore has no bearing on your personal knowledge of it, and I fail to see why you are taking it personally. And so you were an employee of Singapore Airlines. Gosh. So when you inserted {{refimprove}} tags in [32] with the comment all references are self-published - need more third party refer, has it ever crossed your mind that your involvement in Singapore Airlines-related articles may also be a case of "self-referencing", a representation of a primary source, and hence not prefered over the secondary sources which are introduced by non-involved contributors....like myself? :D And last but not least, you again fail to mention, that your mass nomination of hotels commenced at no where else but Singapore. Only when an admin drop a notice in your talkpage on his "past experience", did you went ahead and start mass-nominating hotels the world over, somehow thinking your actions are vindicated. Whether this is delibrately done just so that you can repeatedly quip the line "it wasn't only Singapore XXXs that I nominated", we will probably find out in due course. But until that happens, I would think you would do much better getting off your high horse and realise you are hardly in any moral high ground to start demanding any form of compensation. Wikipedia isnt an insurance company. You should be quite familiar with that.--Huaiwei 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)