Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive527

Resolved

 – IP blocked, article sent to AfD Black Kite 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've received legal threats from this user (on my talk page) about this edit. I left a warning and a note on the user's talk page. I feel slightly biased in this so I'll leave an admin to come to their own conclusion. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Promises to continually blank an article, then makes a legal threat bundled into a generally incivil comment...blocked for 48 hours. Of course, I would have blocked indef, except that I have no idea when the IP will change. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The IP might have a point about invasion of privacy. How is a little bitty dead end street "notable" in wikipedia? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This occurred to me, but then how is this article invading their privacy? - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the IP's complaint is on the level, he's saying there are only 2 houses on that street, that he owns both of them, and this article might draw undue attention to that street. I don't know if that's a reasonable complaint or not. But if it's true, then someone took a photo of one of his houses and posted it here, so if I were him I might be ticked also. I'd like to hear how that tiny street qualifies for an article. The thrust of the article seems to be complaints about the way the street was dealt with, given the subtle editorial-like verbiage. I'm guessing the article subject is highly personal to whoever wrote it. That part is understandable too. But this is just a small side street in a Cleveland suburb. What are the notability rules for individual streets? For example, Lombard Street is certainly notable - a well-known tourist attraction in a large city. But this little street? I can't see it. I'm tempted to nominate it for deletion, but I'm not a deletionist. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been looking into that. I suppose the argument would center on the unusual decoration of the houses and the activist campaign to save it from redevelopment. But then, the only real source given is a local news story. There's also a few sentences in this book about it. Every other mention of the street on the whole of the internet is either part of a real estate pitch or a mention of utmost triviality. But I don't think there's any credibility to the "invasion of privacy" claim; I am actually sympathetic to such claims with regard to articles of extremely questionable notability, but that doesn't forgive the incivility and the legal threat (actually in the same edit) when we're not dealing with threats related to a serious BLP issue. But anyway, I'm reasonably certain the article would be deleted at AFD, after going through the 46 unique ghits. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From edit-conflict: An AfD might be suitable? We have Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) but this is just a proposal. - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't question the block. You make a legal threat, you're history. His proper course of action would have been to file an AFD. But are IP's allowed to file AFD's? And obviously he can't right now, but he could in 48 hourse - if IP's can file AFD's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

IPs can create AFDs through Article for creation (that's right, you can use it for deleting stuff too) or by placing the AFD template on the page and their reason on the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That should cover it. So we'll soon find out if he's willing to follow procedure or is just messing with things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The original author and primary contributor is Swinterich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'll post this discussion on his talk page and see if he has anything to say about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another observation is that if someone things it's notable because of that "mural" - well, the average third-grader could do better than that. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's discuss it at AfD instead. Black Kite 11:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling that merging the info into another article is not going to dissuade the legal threat? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ad.minster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In the past day, User:Ad.minster has:

• Reverted a page of notes in my user space (User:Tb/Foo) seven times,
• Published my name in user comments four times (once after he knew that I objected)
• Accused me of sockpuppetry three times
• Reverted many of my edits as "vandalism" which are in fact good faith content disputes
• Posted a spurious CFD on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory and engaged in an edit war there.

I regret that I may have violated 3RR on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory; the question is complex because counting "reverts" is tricky in the particular case. When I realized that I may have crossed the line, I stopped editing the page immediately. I do believe that his edits to the text of Brotherhood of Saint Gregory are not in good faith.

He has accused me of WP:HOUNDING, and it would be useful to explain. I noticed in my recent changes that he had posted the spurious CFD on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory, and added a "holdon" tag, and set to work tracking down some references. Further references will await some newspaper research, so I stopped that work. I then noticed that he also edited many pages which are on my regular watch list, most notably, by creating some new templates with virtually identical content to other templates in use by the Anglicanism project, and with confusingly similar names. He started putting these templates in many pages edited by the project, and removing the previous templates. In all these edits, he did not provide any edit summaries. Because such changes are destabilizing and the project normally discusses them rather than simply charging ahead, I reverted some of the changes, and looked at his contributions log as a guide to which changes should be reverted. I was careful to examine each change carefully, considering case-by-case, and many of them I did not revert. In addition, there was a discussion a while back about the separate pages for the various seminaries of the Reformed Episcopal Church, and the consensus was that the different seminaries did not need separate pages, but that the section in the REC article should include the relevant info in a merge/redirect scheme. Because some of these pages are on my regular watchlist, I noticed the changes when they occured, and restored the previous consensus, with a request to open a discussion if the consensus needed to be changed.

I am confident that his edits in both the templates question and the REC seminaries question were in good faith, but still, they were contrary to the consensus, and I believe my edits were justified.

When I realized that he was not interested in discussing either of these content disputes with me, I stopped editing the pages in question, and got back to work on Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. An admin denied the CFD (of course), with some useful comments about notability should a VFD be opened.

He then begins an old pattern of personal comments about me on his own userspace [1] and [2]. Of course, the notes I made are not anything of the kind, nor did I delete the pages in question (nor could I, not being an administrator).

In the course of the content dispute, he has, as I mentioned above, violated 3RR in my user space, published my name in user comments (once after he knew I objected to this), accused me of sockpuppetry three times, and labelled every single one of my good-faith edits as vandalism. Tb (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Leave me alone.

Stop reverting all my edits.

Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.

Stop following me around Wikipedia.

Stop filing complaints that you lose.

Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.

Did I say to just leave me alone and stop following me? Ad.minster (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not willing to stop editing pages on Anglicanism, and if you are also not willing to stop editing them, we're going to have to work together.
• I don't "revert all your edits", and indeed, I explained exactly what I did earlier today.
• I don't mass delete articles (that isn't even possible) nor is there such a thing as a "sneaky redirect". The community agreed to the redirect/merge, and you reverted it without discussion, and I simply tried to restore the community's consensus.
• I don't "follow you around".
• You have been asked twice now to document those complaints that I "lose".
• You have been asked twice now to document what outcome you think I am ignoring.

I will happily leave you alone if you don't edit pages that interest me. But I suspect that's not something you're willing to agree to, so we will have to find a way to work together. Tb (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Where you say "Reverted a page of notes in my user space (User:Tb/Foo) seven times," can you provide a link? I look over there, but don't see that. Dream Focus 11:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Sorry, I counted wrong. The seventh was not a blanking, but was this (incorrect, unsigned) comment: [10]. Tb (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ongoing and persistent harassment and WP:Hounding, meaning that he follows my substantive edits all over Wikipedia and deletes them. Then he files spurious Noticeboard Incidences, which he loses, but which disrupt Wikipedia significantly.

• He does little else but hound people.

• When someone complains about his harassment, he says it is a "personal attack" justifying him to hound the editor some more and file more spurious Noticeboard Incidents. He ignores the outcome and the cycle goes on and on.

• He has been doing this to me for about a year now. He loses the disputes, but ignores them and continues harassing me.

• Deletion of tags on the article which is about himself and a group in which he claims membership. It is a WP:Conflict of Interest to edit it and it is disruptive to constantly revert several editors attempt to put up tags. The article Gregorians has no WP:Notability.

• Frequent (about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages.

• Deletion of five different articles and numerous templates, which he lists, promising to delete them. Here is his list of the articles he keeps deleting and promises to delete again, which is extremely non-productive and indeed disruptive: [11]Ad.minster (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This was opened after the User:Ad.minster entry was filed by me recently. I would be happy to respond. As I indicate in my entry above, I have not been monitoring User:Ad.minster's contributions log, except when I was attempting to track down the recent creation of templates which I believed was a good faith, but destabilizing, change to the Anglicanism project. As for the generic claim about filing spurious noticeboard incedents, and "losing" them, I would appreciate some actual evidence. I challenge this as being factually untrue. As for the claim that "he does little else but hound people", a look at my edit log will show this is untrue. Most of my wikipedia activity consists of monitoring a large set of pages, and reviewing other editors' work, often fixing up style, or resolving inconsistencies in articles, and the like. Regular readers of this page will remember that when I edited User:Ad.minster's user page, it was specifically to remove comments I had made and no longer wished to have published there, and to remove personal attacks of me in his pages by link or by name. Finally, User:Xeno stepped in and "courtesy blanked" the offending material in User:Ad.minster's pages, though I was content with simply having all reference to me removed. I have not deleted any articles (I am not an administrator), nor have I blanked articles. I believe that User:Ad.minster is referring to articles such as Reformed Episcopal Seminary, which was part of a merge/redirect a while ago--which I did not execute or have a strong opinion about--and in which User:Ad.minster reverted the consensus. I have not "promised" to delete anything, and he is quite incorrect about the purpose of my notes. Tb (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Stop reverting all my edits.
• Stop mass deleting of articles and templates with sneaky redirects, etc.
• Stop following me around Wikipedia.
• Stop filing complaints that you lose.
• Stop ignoring the outcome of Noticeboard Incidents.
• Did I say to just leave me alone and stop following me? Ad.minster (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• "(about 200 times) deletion of content on my user pages." Can you provide a link to an example of this? And the other claims as well. You two shouldn't be posting on each other user's page, if the other party asks you not to. Dream Focus 11:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The history has been removed. But you know what it doesn't matter, just get him to stop following me and reverting all my edits. Is that really so hard to understand? He won't listen to you. Do something! Ad.minster (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dream Focus on that score! Indeed, the previous dispute arose because I wanted to remove what I had posted on User:Ad.minster's page, and he kept re-adding it, along with commentary amounting to a personal attack on me. I read WP:3RR carefully, and it said that edits of one's own comments were an exception; alas--edits of one's own user space are also an exception, and we were neither of us willing to back down. Then User:Ad.minster went away, and User:Xeno courtesy blanked the page. Then a fair bit later, a different admin (IIRC) came along and removed the history, since they were personal attacks. (I was surprised when that happened; I had nothing to do with it.) As for the content dispute, there is no right not to be reverted. I would like User:Ad.minster to engage in some basic courtesies: don't make large numbers of changes without edit histories; when he is reverted with a request to discuss in talk, I would like him to discuss in talk; when he is reverted with a reference to previous community discussion, I would like him to discuss. Indeed, if you look at his edit history, you'll see jillions of changes without edit histories, and essentially no posts to talk pages except to criticize me in recent months. But that's all a content dispute and a how-to-handle-content-disputes question. So, the fact is that the content I wanted removed from User:Ad.minster's pages was a personal attack on me, and which ultimately User:Xeno removed, and a different (IIRC) admin purged the edit logs in accord with the policy on personal attacks. Indeed, if this were not true, there would be no reason for the removal of the history, and User:Ad.minster would be able to substantiate his claim. Tb (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of merging both threads into one; apologies if anyone objects and please do feel free to revert me (ideally retaining this comment but I'm thick skinned so no worries if it disappears ;-)

I notice you've both been awarded a half-barn star of cooperation by Xeno recently; have either of you contacted Xeno very recently to discuss this? It looks to me like Xeno is a very able diplomat, and would be able to assist both of you in handling this matter privately.

Regardless, I'd like to hear from Xeno before commenting further.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I hate to be dragged into these meaningless disputes.

Could you just get Tb to stop following me everywhere and reverting everything I do.

Get it? Get him to stop following me! He doesn't take any of your people seriously, or he would have stopped a year ago. Could one of you please do something? Thanks! Ad.minster (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, so I can't do much that you two can't do yourself (I suppose the one exception is be uninvolved ;-)

In any event, since Xeno has been mediating between you two, I'd like to hear what Xeno thinks before jumping in and assuming that you're right and Tb is wrong. Once I've heard from Xeno I'm prepared to offer any support I can.

I suspect administrators will want more detail - e.g. information from Xeno, or more detail from both you and Tb - before taking any action against Tb, you or both of you. I note that Dream Focus has already requested more detail, for example.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to hear from User:Xeno. I'll say that I don't believe I have somehow failed to follow appropriate procedures or policies, and I would readily apologize (and do!) if such is pointed out to me. I urge though that I have been as clear as possible both about my motives in the content dispute, clearly explaining my actions, and documenting and substantiating my claims about User:Ad.minster's behavior when requested, while he has simply repeated them same generic, vague, and unsubstantiated claims. Alas, I think that Xeno's efforts were not quite what did the trick before. Instead, User:Ad.minster has a pattern of popping up once every month or so in much the same fashion (by making a huge number of tendentious edits) and then vanishing in a day or so. When he vanished last time, Xeno did his "courtesy blank" and advised us to both steer clear of each other. Then, nothing happened for a while, and the half-stars were posted. But this was simply the side-effect of User:Ad.minster's every-month-or-so editing cycle, and the very next time he popped up, one of the things he decided to do was a spurious speedy-delete request on an article about a group close to my heart. And, simply "steer clear" works fine if the dispute were only about the personal attacks User:Ad.minster was posting against me, but we also have these content disputes. If User:Ad.minster would adopt a pattern of discussion in talk pages, filling in edit summaries, explaining the purpose of changes, not re-reverting if his change is reverted by another editor, and so forth, the result would be much happier. Tb (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing one user whose name looks like an abbreviation for a serious lung illness, and the other whose name looks like it could turn up if I ran a Norton scan. Eek. And this bad blood between them contrasts with the fact that they both make a thing out of being Christian. Maybe they could both do with a bit of a timeout, and review some of their scriptures about loving their enemies and stuff like that there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Onward Christian Wikipedians, marching as to edit-war..." That's number 1232 in your Octal Hymnal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of these comments is helpful; they sound like an attempt to ridicule people in a serious dispute--by making fun of their names, to boot. Tb (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, here's serious: You two are supposed to be Christians. So ACT LIKE IT ALREADY. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Ad.minster for 72 hours due to the edit warring at User:Tb/Foo. Tb is exempt from 3RR as its his own userspace and as far as I can tell, the material was not contentious in the least (just a bookmark page of internal wiki links). I'll be looking at this situation in a little more detail, but would like some opinions from others. Ad.minster seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Tb (see, in particular, Ad.minster's deleted edits - sorry, admin only); Tb has done his best to stay away as far as I can tell. –xeno (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't see that, since the list you link to as for administrators only. Odd they don't let everyone view it.

Unauthorized

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The action you have requested is limited to Administrators.

Return to Main Page.

Oh well. Dream Focus 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you'll have to comment on the other aspects of this, the deleted edits are admin-only. –xeno (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a mere-motal too, but I've seen some WP:Outing going on, after Tb requested it stop. I won't link to it, but I dare say Xeno can confirm it. I'm tempted to suggest that Ad.minster simply didn't realise that it wasn't Tb who blanked part of Ad.minster's userpage, but Xeno has made this clear on Ad.minster's talk page so it's more likely a case of selective hearing. Despite the claim that Tb is on some sort of deletionist crusade, Ad.minster has nominated at least one article for deletion. I'd be interested to hear more from Ad.minster, but right now I wouldn't argue against a topic ban of articles Tb frequents (and also Tb's user pages, and possibly talk page). I'd also be interested to know exactly what User:Tb/Foo is a list of - though I've seen no evidence that it's a list of articles that Tb intends to "delete" (I believe that Ad.minster means that Tb intends to redirect these articles, rather than physically delete them). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, since you asked. The list of pages is a (partial) list of pages which I want to go back and check over once things die down. The only one on that list that should probably get redirected is Reformed Episcopal Seminary, but that's the merging discussion, and maybe should get reopened for group discussion. Tb (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the response, Tb - that makes sense. As I mentioned above, I've seen no evidence that the list was what Ad.minster believed it to be. It might be worth adding some explanatory text... though I don't know if it will convince Ad.minster. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have issued a warning to Tb regarding Brotherhood of Saint Gregory. –xeno (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Going forward, the best solution may be for both editors to always follow the bold-revert-discuss principle when dealing with one another's edits. I realise that it's more common to impose 1RR or 0RR restrictions in this sort of situtation, but I think this approach may be more productive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. In the past, what has happened has been similar to this incident (though with less virulence): User:Ad.minster appears, makes a large number of changes, and I and others then carefully go through them and keep some and revert others. That's steps one and two. The change from what has happened in the past would then need to be User:Ad.minster's willingness to begin a discussion, rather than simply re-reverting. In addition, I believe that he should be requested to provide edit summaries for his changes and to offer explanations when he makes them. Tb (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

this has been brought to my user page as well, as I originally declined the speedy on the Brotherhood article. I have warned Ad there about a matter that was mentioned above: he saw fit to place the personal name of another editor on that page; I have of course redacted it. It seems probable to me that the two parrties know each other, and I very strongly suggest they not carry off-wiki matters onto Wikipedia. They would do very well to avoid each other altogether, though this may be difficult because of topic overlap. At the least they show avoid making comments on each others' talk pages. DGG (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Ad.minster is in real life, and have (to my knowledge) only had contact with him on Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – blocked forever and ever --GedUK  20:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Uruguayan (talk · contribs) (aka Historian19 (talk · contribs), NIR-Warrior (talk · contribs))

A gentle touch of sledgehammer please, it's too obvious to go through WP:SPI. Thanks. No such user (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Hi, I've just indef blocked User:Coemitch for recreating the original research articles for which User:Mitchcoe got blocked. Would a more experienced admin please review my actions on this. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice shooting - definitely appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. ϢereSpielChequers 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Can someone do something about Crunk Incorporated (talk · contribs)? I have notified WP:AVI, but there is a bit of a backlog and I would rather this user not continue to keep creating pages like this. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, resolved now. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have blocked the account and deleted their contributions. Next time, try WP:UAA. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but it wasn't a username issue, but a vandalism one. Therefore, I went to WP:AVI and then here. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is a username issue. Take a look at WP:IU and {{spamusernameblock}}. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

CharlesRKiss (talk · contribs) is having a hard time understanding wp:consensus[12], wp:NOTFORUM, wp:SOAP[13][14], and wp:POINT[15][16][17][18]. He doesn't seem interested in seeking help at the wp:REFDESK, but is much more interested in having editors discuss his OR. Can an uninvolved admin help him out? Also, before yesterday he used Charlesrkiss (talk · contribs). NJGW (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I've notified CharlesRKiss (talk · contribs) of this discussion. Looie496 (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's ignored your notification Looie, but fretted publicly about the cabal controlling that article[19] and provided even more of his own personal proof that the article is totally false.[20] I predict messy edit wars will commence once he either figures out that his old account can edit the (semi-protected) page or waits 2 days to edit it with his new account. Meanwhile all the multiple new sections he is creating on the talk page are really annoying. Please keep this man with a mission on your radars. NJGW (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He is now sending (ungrammatical) insults on userpages via copy/paste spam. See mine, NJGW's, William M. Connolley's, and Skyemoor's. His inability to behave with anything resembling professional civility is unfortunate, and his insults are unacceptable. I told him on my talk page that I was reporting his actions here. Awickert (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He is now taking a 24 hour break from the project which he can use to read up on the policies and guidelines that concern his editing and behavior. Mfield (Oi!) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, he'll flame out soon enough if people just quietly delete his rants and don't give him the attention he craves. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is repeatedly being blanked by Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), who claims to be the subject of the article. It's been the target of a lot of disruptive editing by Serbian and Bosnian editors over the years, as the individual in question appears to be fairly controversial. In the last few months a series of anonymous IPs have attempted to replace the article with a poorly written curriculum vitae. The problems appear to be reaching a new stage now, so input from an uninvolved administrator would be appreciated.

(I've also posted this to the BLP noticeboard as it involves a BLP article.) -- ChrisO (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-judgemental preliminary - I have full protected the article for 24 hrs while we sort this out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to add a bit more background info, over the last eight months or so, a series of IP and new editors has repeatedly sought to replace the article with an unsourced curriculum vitae or to add this text to the article. I strongly suspect that this is the same individual, probably Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs), as the style of writing appears to be the same and there are some very distinctive common elements (look for the use of "ref" followed by a hyperlink). The geographical range of the IP addresses used may indicate some degree of open proxy abuse.

• Spasioc (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 March 2009 - [21]

• 196.207.28.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20:42, 9 January 2009 - [22]

• Dusan Trifunovic (talk · contribs) 13:35, 5 January 2009 - [23], 08:00, 5 January 2009 - [24]

• 82.137.200.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 23:51, 9 October 2008 - [25]

• 66.92.173.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 08:09, 10 July 2008 - [26]

A checkuser run would probably be useful at this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Informational background - the article is a fairly critical BLP of a ethnically Serbian Bosnian (now Serb) citizen and former minor Bosnian diplomat, who wrote some material widely believed to be genocide revisionism / denialism over the Bosnian civil war.

We believe that the user account is the subject of the article.

This has come up before - with different accounts, people claiming to be Mr Trifunovic complained about having the article at all, specific content, etc. I believe this flew up to OTRS at one point - I think that's where I saw it first. Complaints have been rejected in general as attempts to whitewash the subject's reputation and remove well sourced negative materials.

In my opinion, the sourcing, while somewhat biased, has consistently met WP:RS and WP:V, and though some Bosnian extremists have violated WP:BLP on the article on and off it has generally met the policy as written and normally enforced.

However, now is as good a time as any for more previously uninvolved admin review, if he's up and zapping content again. I am tempted to just indef the account, as he's been blocked under other account names before, but independent review before action would be great. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no blanking, Trifunovic is a NPF and Georgewilliamherbert and ChrisO have blocked anyone's effort to point out the article has no merit and violates Wikipedia policy on Non public Figures. Futher they shout vandalism but ignore all discussion that challenges their neutrality and qualifications by claiming all critics are Trifunovic. I am not Trifunovic but an American PhD who specializes in Balkan matters and I can tell you the article is biased, not relevant, over hyped and all the rest and appears to be an attempt to incite hatred against Trifunovic who is simply a colleague of mine. The article puts Trifunovic at risk of being assasinated by Bosnian extremists and it's a bad article as pointed out repeatedly in the discussions. Dr. Levy Resistk (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There clearly was blanking - here on April 1, a second time today, a third time today.

Please use the "History" tab on articles to review before making claims like that. We make edit histories available just to avoid any question of who did what when.

Regarding the non-public figure claim - Trifunovic and Levy (Resistk) have both asserted that, but the reliable sources stand as evidence that he is one. If one is covered in the media for multiple notable events, and Trifunovic is and continues to be, one is notable and a public figure. One might argue that if all the coverage was purely from Bosnian sources it might not be generally notable, but he's appeared in other media as well.

Dr Levy - How is Dr Trifunovic a colleague of yours?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

We both teach counter terror courses, have academic affiliations etc. Both of us are involved with the Jasenovac Research Institute. Resistk (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You are really stretching things when you say he is notable and mentioned in non Balkan articles - exactly one I count - an Italian new service reporting threats on his life for exactly the same sort of stuff recklessly put out in the Wikipedia article. In my opinion Wikipedia is getting as bad as Blogspot and Blogger which never remove anything no matter how violative of their own terms of service. This is why universities generally mark down students who attempt to use Wikipedia as a source. Resistk (talk) 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr Trifunovic's publications denying mass murder at Srebrenica were noticed outside Bosnian media circles. Time magazine noticed (referenced on the article). There are more, if you go back further and deeper - we have not bothered, as notability was previously established.

There are two possible venues for removal of the information - one, Dr Trifunovic is judged to be truly not a public person, or two, the claims are shown to be false.

The claim that he's not a public person fails due to the media coverage - mostly in Bosnian and related Balkans publications, but it's wider than that. Neither Dr Trifunovic nor you are arguing that the information is not true.

Is it true that most professors in the Balkans have no Wikipedia page? Sure. However, Dr Trifunovic has become a public figure due to his controversial viewpoints and assertions.

You can't un-become a public figure because the attention is embarrassing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Further - on the article talk page, you (Resistk) just suggested that the Italian article on his uninvitation to an academic conference was somehow not reliable or inaccurate, because it had been in a less well known Italian news source.

I would like to know if either you or Dr Trifunovic assert that the Italian article under discussion is false. Further - do you or Dr Trifunovic assert that anything else in the Wikipedia article is false?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 (talk · contribs) has continued uploading the same copyvios after over 20 warnings and already after having being blocked. I would usually take this to AIV, but this needs more serious action and scrutiny. The user has continued to upload copyvios after warnings, failed to respond to any warnings, and continued uploading the same copyvios immediately after having being blocked. There is no evidence that he intends to stop with his uploads. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody did take it to AIV, and i've just blocked them for a couple of days. If the consensus here is to extend that, then i've no issue with it. --GedUK  15:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Took a look at one image uploaded today randomly (File:Milad tower new04.jpg) and it took all of 15 seconds to verify it was a copyvio. I'd say that if he's already been warned and blocked, and continues uploading copyvio images to just indef and forget about him. Resolute 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Are you sure they're copyvios? Take this case for example. Mr. Rattansi (for I am guessing it is he) claims to be copyright holder of the work, and the version you found on the internet has a watermark with his name on it, that is not present on our version. Only the photographer would have the original copy. Why wouldn't he be legit? All the images are from in and around Tehran, presumably where he lives. Just because he has previously posted them elsewhere (or sold them), doesn't mean he's stealing them. yandman 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But his uploads currently listed at PUI seem to have watermarks from different websites and naming different copyright owners (e.g. File:Milad_tower_new07.jpg names one "Arash Hamidi", while File:Milad tower new01.jpg has "amirpix.ir"), so it's unlikely he's the same person as any one of them. Also, isn't this the same user as ااممییرر (talk · contribs), who was blocked for the same kind of mass bad uploads? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Off-topic, but Iran2 has also been inserting images at inappropriate places in the Flag article. I've not discussed the matter with them (except through edit summaries) because I'm a gutless coward whose linguistic skills can be summed up as "speeks inglish badly, rites inglish badly. Other languages? Don't make me laugh!" The images tend to exhibit a degree of national pride, which is understandable (why shouldn't the Iranian flag feature in the article?), but I've reverted because they're typically in the wrong place - the modern flag or Iran in a section about historic flags, or an image claiming to be the world's largest Iranian flag which is "supported" by references to a campaign trying to create the world's largest Palestinian flag (in Palestine). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They really don't seem to be responsive to any kind of feedback. If this second block fails to change their behavior, I suggest a much longer block to get their attention; say 1 week. If that has no effect, and they continue to post copyvios when it expires, we might as well move on to an indefblock. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

@yandman - That is just from a preliminary search. With his record, and evidence that the image existed elsewhere on the internet pre-upload, and no response, I am presuming that it is indeed a copyvio as suspected. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 00:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked pending resolution of legal action Papa November (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Waynemart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just recently made a legal threat here over the removal of unsourced information and spammed links to unreliable sources that supposedly tell his side of the story. This editor claims to be Mike Martin. He has fairly recently been spamming articles supposedly written by himself, along with a number of ip's 72.183.76.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 24.93.32.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 70.112.62.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 72.183.76.76 was recently blocked for spamming the same links and edit-warring over them Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive522#72.183.76.76. --Ronz (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked pending resolution of legal action. Papa November (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I've tagged the article in question with blpdispute and started a discussion. I expect some ips will respond. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification. Is contacting the legal department and saying that you "will hold folks liable" for content a legal threat? Haven't had much experience in this area (fortunately). I did now read WP:LEGAL and it seems against the spirt. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If the intention, by posting such comments and using terms like "liable" and "legal department", is to deter the other side of a discussion/dispute rather than using WP policies/guidelines as a means of resolving an issue, then, yes, it is a legal threat. The intent of WP:NLT is to counter the chilling effect of the use of such methods rather than the precise wording of a quasi legal comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that explaination. Tom (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Complaintant struck much of this thread and apologized twice below. Hopefully we can move on. Tom (talk) 03:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

In ongoing discussions inre the DRV for the article on Alan Cabal, User:Bali ultimate has been raising the bar of personal attacks in a manner that is escalating. Most recentlly on the talk page of the DRV discussion, he pointedly called me "obtuse" and called my quoting of guideline as "nonsense"diff, and then referred to my own courtesy and civility as "faux" diff. Prior to this latest in his escallation of rudeness, he let me know that he has been stalking my edits diff. I do not believe the many other past examples of his bad faith toward me or others need be brought up, as I do not wish him blocked for his continued and repeated incivility. It is just that I do not wish to be goaded into a return of such, and ask that he be admonished to behave himself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• As there were admins taking part in the discussion who obviously saw what Bali Ultimate was doing, what do you expect to accomplish by posting this here? Try WP:WQA. ThemFromSpace 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but is that a request or a command? What I "expect to acomplish by posting this here" is to seek intercession. That others saw this and did nothing does not mean I have to tolerate it. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I would strongly suggest not escalating this dispute to more places than absolutely necessary. DGG (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I fully agree. I would simply like it to stop. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
        • No admin action is necessary here. I'm sure you'll consider this a personal attack, but this feels like an attempt to gain the upper hand in an editorial dispute under the thinnest of pretenses. AniMate^talk 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• I see no problems with bali's edits. If you post nonsensical edits, you might expect to eventually get called on it. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• A useful administrator action would be to close the DRV, and to my mind there is a clear outcome - that the AfD should be respected. Verbal chat 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

?? Just so I get this straight.... Is it now being condoned that to call another editor "obtuse", his use of guideline "nonsense", and his courtesy as "faux" in order to denigrate attempts to contribute to the project, as to not be an personal attack? And that this will be allowed to continue impunity? Just how rubbery has WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL become? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract my complaint and ask that any of my personal concerns toward perceived incivility be disregarded, as not worth being brought to the attention of administrators. Bali, you have my sincere apology. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank Schmidt for failing to notify me of this complaint. I would like to commend him for pointing out that he has been an innocent victim of vicious attacks like "don't be obtuse" (though i do wish i had written "don't be deliberately obtuse" as that, which is different, was more what i intended). And i would like to tell him that all of his speculation about my "personal animus" (which is clearly skewing my judgement as to notability and whatnot) has been spot on. I am clearly acting out of vindictive reasons and obviously don't respect Wikipedia's guidelines. In seriousness: I dispute much of the way Schmidt has characterized our exchange here. Anyone care for the details? (I doubt it). If he stops ascribing motives to me (that he couldn't possibly know) and stops claiming i'm making his arguments for him when I'm clearly disagreeing with him , then i won't address him directly at all. Deal? Bali ultimate (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think his snarky response to my suggestion above is relevant as it seems to be an example of what you claim he's been doing to you. ThemFromSpace 21:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I reinterate, my complaint is withdrawn and an apolgy for my misperception of being ridiculed is again offered. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

It started with the deletion of Redboy back in 2007 as patent nonsense, and has gone on for a year and some change under numerous screen names and IP addresses (sockpuppets of User:Johnjoecavanagh). Lately, since I semi-protected my user page, it's involved insulting messages on my talk page on an almost daily basis for months. When I looked at my block log today,[27] I noticed that all of the IPs I've blocked as Johnjoecavanagh socks are 86.40.x.x and 86.45.x.x. Would this be appropriate to range-block for this long-term abuse? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a very busy ISP and I would not recommend blocking 130,000 IP addresses on this network. You'll block most of Ireland. You'd be better off semi'ing your talk page. On a seperate point, it's completely useless to block dynamic IPs for one year each, when they are changed daily. The odds of the blocks affecting the target user after 24 hours are virtually zero, while the odds of affecting innocent users are almost 100%. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would have done that long ago, but (A) I didn't think it was appropriate to semi-protect a user talk page, especially in the long run, and (B) there are legitimate IP-user uses for the user talk page that I'm not sure I want to block out, most recently with User talk:SchuminWeb#Vandalism. What do you think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection of an admin's talk page is obviously not a good thing, but in this case would be better than the range block. Some admins have, or should have, a subpage like User talk:SchuminWeb/unprotected talk page with a big link to it at the top of the real talk page. This allows noobs to contact you, while at the same time taking away the bright orange message bar from you, as well as most of the fun from the vandals. Just copy the noob comments to your talk page, and ignore the ones from the vandal. It's a variant of RBI and may help reduce any disruption. It's up to you whether you think the disruption is worth it, but it's a better option than the range block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I found User:Bastique doing exactly that, so I've seen it in practice, and who knows - it might just work. I'll see what happens, since the orange bar is perhaps the most annoying part of the trolling. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

An excellent idea, and I have followed suit done likewise (apologies for implied legal threat) with this - improving on the idea, as usual. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, doesn't that just trump everything? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I should deck you for that one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I only did this because Schumin ignored me. I can't remember the amount of times I tried to reason with him, get him to respond. I also honoured several ceasefires, to no avail or apparant recognition from Schumin. Since I now regard this as an apparant recognition of my existence, I will now leave Schumin alone, like I have promised to do countless times before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.35 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there, nobody is required to ever respond to you. If they either ask you to stop, or choose to not respond to you because they feel that it's better to back away from a situation than to enter into a disagreement, then that is their choice. Forcing interactions is not the way to go.(talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

He is an odious and arrogant admin, and he really has no grounds to be like that. He needed someone to give him a hard time because he gets away with too much crap. If you really want you can study the pattern for the last half year - 90% of the time I was pleading with him to recognise my existence and I will go away. The guy is obtuse that he simply blankly reverted. And so I kept at him, didn't care how long it would take. All he had to do was recognise I existed - does any sentient human being really have a problem with that?

Now that he has, in a roundabout way recognised my existence I will leave him alone. But I hope he learned something from all of this. A few less templates, less arrogance and a bit more common sense a year and a half ago and he wouldn't have made such a persistant enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.223.35 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Just bringing this here for future reference, FireFoxUser2343 (talk · contribs) is a new user who appears to just be commenting on people's pages (in alphabetical order, no less). I've welcomed them, but since we see so many examples of users who come and post to get confirmed, I figured I'd bring it here just in case someone else wants to keep an eye on them. Dayewalker (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock, but whose? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange indeed, saying Hi to every admin. By my calculations it'll take well over a day to reach my talk page :P It just seems like a waste of a day, rather than an immediate problem. On the other hand this doesn't look promising, so it's probably worth watching, slowly. I can't help wondering if they'll make it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Not likely, since User:Future Perfect at Sunrise just blocked them for three hours. I declined the unblock request just now, citing WP:MYSPACE, and also because three hours isn't really much of a block to begin with. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

His 3-hour block expired quite awhile ago, but he hasn't been back yet, so presumably that block put out his fire. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Bot blocked. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 05:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot is incorrectly formatting authors, and User:Smith609, the operator, does not appear to be online. See [28], [29], [30] and [31], all within the last 50 contribs of the bot as of this posting. Thanks, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, referred to this thread. Mfield (Oi!) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had to go back 2 days to find more mistakes ([32], but four in less than 50 edits is not good. Apologies to Martin when you read this... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: this bug is now fixed. The bot is operating in supervised mode only so it should be safe for you to unblock it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done- unblocked. SoWhy 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mnengrmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Robert Hunnicutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has been engaging in extreme article ownership at Robert Hunnicutt, personal attacks, and vandalism as shown in the edit history. I think a block is in order to prevent further disruption. MuZemike 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will also note that the user in question has tried to sign as Gaghostsociety (talk · contribs), as shown here. Perhaps the account was changed after that. MuZemike 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He used to be Gaghostsociety (talk · contribs) but requested a name change after being advised to. Check his talk. he probably momentarily forgot about the change while logging in. He's very upset now and has asked for the article on him to be deleted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: BTW, I've G11ed it, as he's blanked the article. I've warned him about Owange of articles on his talk page. Cheers. I'^mperator 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Know we just got to deal with this April 1st[33], however he is back and on another lovely roll again, and I really really think we need some range blocks here. I'm also practically begging for them. Since March 31st, we have had to block at least 14 socks, including IP socks from his usual 3 ranges:

1. Bambifan102 (talk · contribs)
2. Bambifan103 (talk · contribs)
3. Bambifan104 (talk · contribs)
4. Bambifan105 (talk · contribs)
5. Disneyhater (talk · contribs)
6. 68.220.180.164 (talk · contribs)
7. 68.220.174.27 (talk · contribs)
8. TheFoxandtheHound (talk · contribs)
9. Newswings (talk · contribs)
10. 65.0.174.173 (talk · contribs)
11. Knowoncares (talk · contribs)
12. 65.0.178.127 (talk · contribs)
13. 70.146.212.103 (talk · contribs)
14. Riverseverywhere (talk · contribs)
15. 70.146.213.249 (talk · contribs)

The last five there were all ones from today. Per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101, he now has 67 confirmed socks, and another 85 highly probable ones. He also gave a list of more here[34] that I have not checked and someone else can try to make sense of [35]. (Same category page also has alot of links to the history of all this). Many of his favorite targets, the Disney and Teletubbies articles, are now practically indef semi-protected because of him. He is no longer content to just vandalize these articles and their talk pages, however. He began vandalizing my user talk page, so it is now also back under semi protection. He also now goes through my contributions to randomly vandalize articles I have edited recently.[36][37][38][39] He admitted that he is doing this, I can only guess out of some sick/bizarre desire to get me to start watching for him again and get me "back" on the Disney articles.[40][41] I do NOT want to deal with this BS anymore. I walked away months ago, and I know he's continued since, but unless someone asked me specifically, I have ignored him. So I guess now he's trying to be unignorable. There is a abuse filter request, but it doesn't seem like that can stop him when he moves outside his range. The abuse report I filed in October to get ISP contact has never been touched. He obviously has some issues and feels a need for attention, and unfortunately he keeps getting it because we can't just ignore his vandalism. So, can we get some range blocks, something, anything to put him back on ice.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

• Can't you trace what internet service provider he uses, and then contact them asking who was using that IP address at that specific time? Do they keep records like that, or would they if requested? And is the [42] vandalism? Seems like a real summary of the manga. But yeah, he is certainly stalking you, the Disney thing confirming that. Dream Focus 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a WP:COPYVIO summary he grabbed from a non-mentionable site. He did that with some others to, just Googles to grab something to shove in there to be aggrevating. With the Disney articles, he frequently adds false info, trivia copied from IMDB, and rips clean ups and expansions of sourced content by restoring older even worse versions (not that any of the Disney articles are awesome). On Teletubbies, he's merged and unmerged the character articles so many times himself its like he's arguing with himself. *shakes head* He's actually indef blocked on at least half a dozen Wikis, and has vandalized numerous other language ones because of the lack of notice of his activities and the inability/unwillingness of meta to implement "universal" bans on him.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(Banned user's edits removed by Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)})

Riverseverywhere Plaxico'd and blocked indef. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Active at 65.0.184.16 (talk · contribs) as well. I extended the autoblock until he rotates off that IP. Kuru ^talk 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

From his bragging on some of his last IP pages...he has successfully vandalized just about every language Wiki there is. :( -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And he's back again today with the 70 IP range. Already reported the first, 70.146.213.249 and added above, but more eyes would be good.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Can someone keep an eye on this user? He's already made two personal attacks against me, which I've warned him about. Dollars to donuts, he's gonna make another, but I'm stepping away for a bit, and since I'm involved, I can't do much than warn him, anyway. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to post a link to where he made these alleged personal attacks at. Dream Focus 16:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• That user Nelson has a long history of getting into verbal slugfests with other users. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
• This - "You display qualities that pretty much show you shouldn't be an admin (immaturity, avoidance of policy) ... Grow up, pal" - seems pretty attacky. The edit summary for this ("they'll let anyone be an admin these days, wont they?") might also be seen as a personal attack. Mind you, I'm only bitter because they won't let Bugs be an admin. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ironic, ain't it? Also ironic is that I think I would have to recuse myself from issuing a block because I think (though I'm not absolutely sure) that he and I have had words in the past, or at the very least that I took someone else's side against his side in a dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• And I could point out that that was a not untypical example of Nelson's in-your-face approach to things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

For documentation of the history see here. Chrisjnelson is a prolific and hardworking editor who can also be difficult to work with. Not sure what the best response would be in this case, but yes it did go as far as arbitration with a civility probation. Durova^Charge! 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he was put on civility probation at one time. His path and mine rarely cross, as he is mostly concerned with football articles. He also runs his own website. Maybe the problem is that he's like Jim Rome only more so. Which is fine on a personal website or a radio show, but not so fine on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It was one of Wikipedia's oddest arbitration cases and he was on the way to sitebanning, during the proposed decision. Then checkuser revealed two surprising things: the other main party to the case was a returning sock of a banned user, and a second abusive IP editor had tried to frame Chrisjnelson for an impersonation attack. Both of those got sitebanned properly and the Committee decided to give Chris a chance, since it was unclear what his conduct would be without two trolls baiting him. Overall it's been a pleasant surprise: he's racked up a very high edit count, and not-too-frequent noticeboard complaints. Of course the other editors on the receiving end of the nastygrams may feel differently. Consistent sub-blockable sniping may go the direction of wikiquette alert or conduct RfC: have either been tried lately? Durova^Charge! 17:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Well I'm sorry you're so childish you can't just say "You're right. My mistake."" Landon1980 (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple other diffs that at the very least are very rude, such as here where he says "use your head" "you should be smart enough." Landon1980 (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if I think I'm being uncivil, I can look at a guy like Nelson and see how much worse it could be. Basically, it's all just way-over-reacting, wise-guy stuff that he does. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I like to say "basically" a lot. That's 4 of them, which pretty well covers all the basicallies. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've interacted once or twice with Chris, and moreso saw his interactions with others. They don't look to good, like the diffs already provided. His actions seem to indicate some WP:OWN issues. Grsz¹¹ 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also warned for 3RR. Grsz¹¹ 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I get it, Chris can be a bitch sometimes but look here, he helps too, and what Durova said he's hasn't had a civility block since June 2008.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like no one has informed Chris of this thread, so I went ahead and left a notice. Landon1980 (talk) 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a general comment: I love how whenever an ANI gets started about Chris (and it's been awhile now), you can count on someone showing up to comment on Chris' history, so that the entire discussion and investigation deals with Chris' history, and so that the "punishment" often ends up being a function of Chris' history as well. All I ask in this case is that the situation at hand - Cutler - is looked at, and judged on its own merits. This is just an outside comment; it seems that whenever something like this comes up there's always a user with historical grievances who jumps in and pulls the discussion off what it should really be about. Pats1 ^T/C 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's intended toward me, I have never been in a content dispute with Chris and actually urged the Committee to downgrade his proposed siteban to a lesser sanction, once it became clear what was going on. It is reasonable to mention in an admin board thread when that sort of conduct history exists, because it is equally reasonable for admins to weigh the difference between "good editor, bad week" and "good editor, two year history of incivility". It's very good to see things toned down from what they used to be, but habitual sub-blockable sniping may drive away other contributors. This was why I asked about WP:WQA and WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, no, it was not about you. There have been a small group of other users who have, though, done what I described. Pats1 ^T/C 02:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(EC)I apologize, as I said in the beginning, I was away, but I see this got more complicated than I thought it would be. Some of these differences are already supplied above, but I thought I'd piece them together in one place. As far as I can recall, this is my first and only interaction with this user.

• "...If you're familiar with the above policies, you should be smart enough to know your edits are wrong and don't live up to those policies... ...Use your head..."
• "Well I'm sorry you're so childish you can't just say 'You're right. My mistake.'"
• "Well I probably wouldn't have been so harsh if I had known you were an admin, if only to protect my own ass. I just assumed someone making edits that clearly violated WP policy couldn't have possibly been voted to be an admin so I never entertained the thought."
• "Right. You display qualities that pretty much show you shouldn't be an admin (immaturity, avoidance of policy) and I'm the one who's done something wrong. That makes sense. Grow up, pal."
• As far as no one informing him about this ANI discussion, well, he was aware of it. I let him know about the thread before I logged off, but he blanked out with an edit summary of "they'll let anyone be an admin these days, wont they?" Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd call showing up and replying on a user's talk page with a comment like this, then replying with sarcasm, and then a sarcastic threat - and then starting an ANI thread to have him blocked a rather inappropriate sequence of events. While Chris's comments were certainly not appropriate, Jauerback's replies did nothing but escalate and inflame the situation. Mr.Z-man 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the bigger concern here is the fact that User:Jauerback has admin privileges.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain - without personal attacks, needless to say. What grounds for concern are there? Can you provide diffs of questionable use of the admin tools, disruptive editing, or other policy violations? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking the liberty of sectioning this off as a subthread, since a discussion of an admin is really separate from concerns about Chris's civility. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Chris' concern with me as an admin is that I crystal balled, which is what brought on this whole drama. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that, and the fact that he's too immature to just admit he was wrong about his edits and be an adult about it. Someone like that shouldn't have admin privileges.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think Chris has made the case for us. Grsz¹¹ 20:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, my comment was only half-serious. I don't care about him being an admin and I certainly don't care enough to pursue it. It's just my personal opinion that he's too immature to be an admin, not to mention his lack of understanding and/or disregard for WP policy.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he told me about it. It doesn't matter anyway, I have little interest in this. I didn't do anything to warrant any punishment so I trust I won't receive any.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As long as you start keeping your personal opinions about editors to yourself, you hopefully should be fine. Tom (talk) 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

A compromise could be to maintain a subpage with an enemies list, as User:Tecmobowl did. That way, a user would only know about it if they went looking for it. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. Blocked by User:Kralizec! but next time, just use warning templates and then WP:AIV -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Gross incivility by User:Shannon Rose [43], [44], [45] to user:Spring12. Asked to stop by numerous editors [46], [47], [48] all of which deleted with an incivil edit summary [49], [50], [51]. Please block, at least for the duration of the Sheree Silver deletion debate so that this can be completed without intimidation. SpinningSpark 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

More in the same vein here. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked: 55 hours (talk · contribs).. Comments like "you're a nonsense person in Wikipedia, and you're one of the reasons why so much garbage don't get thrown out. You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless" [52] cannot be tolerated. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And so justified. What the hell ever happened to the imaginative and accurately targeted pejorative paired with razor sharp epithets that are so crucial in today's politically-soaked and "tell the teacher" atmosphere of the background machinery (or should that be machinations?) room of Wikipedia's infrastructure. I cannot stand inane and unimaginative personal attacks, give me a well-crafted one anytime! ;) --WebHamster 17:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Because this is no longer "the Internet" but teh Internets. MuZemike 00:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to log in to my account. Further, my text appears garbled after I save my edit (everything looks fine in the textbox before I save). Is this a script error, or a problem with the servers? 68.245.93.187 (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

^{Text was backwords, I translated it. Seraphim♥ 01:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)}

Interface could be stuck in right-to-left mode? Couldn't suggest much else. Not an ANI issue anyway. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is so minor, I am almost embarrassed to bring it up here; however, I would like to request administrator review at DreamHost, where I have been variously accused of WP:OWN and WP:COI issues. This relatively low-trafficked article has few editors, with only 19 edits in 2009 (this far). The accusations have come from a disgruntled SPA: Judas278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He/she keeps disruptively tagging the article with unwarranted COI and SELFPUB tags, and this "slow motion" dispute has continued for several months. I have tried to improve the article, but I find my efforts thwarted by this individual. The claims of a conflict of interest stem from the fact that I am a customer of DreamHost (I have some websites hosted there), but I fail to see how this would disqualify me as an editor. My suspicion is that the SPA is a former, disgruntled customer of DreamHost - other such people have vandalized/abused the article in the past. I would appreciate any advice on how to solve this "dispute". -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously an SPA, first created about 3 weeks ago and went straight to this subject; and near as I can tell, he has not made one iota of suggestion on how to actually improve the article, so it does indeed look like either trolling or agenda-pushing of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The editor made this reasonable edit, which Scjessey reverted. The editor tried to discuss, got nowhere, and offerred to go to mediation, which Scjessey ignored. I don't see why a possible disgruntled former customer has less right to edit than a current happy customer. In short, this is a one-vs-one content dispute, and this is the wrong place to bring it. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The SPA on his first edit took out language that does indeed look like editorializing, except that the cited source supports that viewpoint. My guess would be that the SPA had some sort of bad experience with them, and is thus also guilty of conflict of interest. If the SPA were a little more up front about his agenda, maybe things would be going better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is the "wrong place to bring it," could you tell me where? Bear in mind that this is not a content dispute, but rather it concerns editor conduct. The SPA has not made any effort to improve the article, but has instead made accusations about conflicts of interest and engaged in what I call "drive-by tagging". You claim I "ignored" mediation, but this is incorrect - I do not know anything about the mediation process, and I assumed that if an editor "accepted" the role of a mediator the parties involved would be informed and mediation would proceed. Is this not correct? Also, does it not look like a bad faith call for mediation, given that no attempt at talk page discourse has occurred? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In Sept. '08 JaverMC concluded "Neutrality is in question on this article." and "...having read the discussion under this section of the talk, leads me to believe there is a possible WP:COI and an even more unsettling WP:OWN tendency." The two cited reference problems remain, including the blog mentioned above; however, his tags were removed on Feb. 26. Please judge whether the COI and OWN tendency exist in the article edit history and talk. --Judas278 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What's your personal interest in this subject? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Though the most recent complaint was brought by an SPA, there are issues lingering from last fall, where neutrality of the article was questioned in this discussion: Talk:DreamHost#Neutral third party view. If agreement to mediation cannot be found, I suggest a Talk discussion or an RFC on exactly how the quality of DreamHost's customer service should be described in the article. If that issue were settled, there might be no need for tags to remain on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article has evolved since last fall, with better sourcing. With the exception of the SPA, the only other person to engage in talk page discussion agreed that the article "seems fine", which is why the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags were removed and replaced with a request for better referencing. My requests on the article talk page for thoughts on how to improve the article have, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the COI/NPOV/SELFPUB tags, but it could still use better referencing. And yes, I'm a Dreamhost customer too.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I was a customer. They were not transparent. I left. I didn't want to remain silent here when I saw appropriate tags being deleted from this article. It is not neutral. Editors have COI. Readers should be warned. The biggest changes since last fall are deleting 3 self-published references and one reference on being an (unsuccessful) .LA registrar. I acknowledge this is something, but 5 of 13 references are still self-published, by the company. --Judas278 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So essentially what you are saying is that your personal bias has led you to engage in agenda-driven editing. You have made claims about conflicts of interest and self-publishing, although you have no evidence to support either. You claim a lack of neutrality because of an over reliance on primary sources, and yet that is exactly what I said on the talk page (and tagged the article for). You are here to right some great wrong - to exact revenge. Your actions, therefore, are clearly not in the best interests of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a content dispute, and COI, neutrality and OWN dispute. As Looie496 said above, I made a reasonable edit, which was reverted. Then I restored previous tags, which was reverted. I tried to discuss, but motives were questioned and bad faith was assumed, so I requested mediation. Evidence of COI and non-neutrality? The many reasons given on the talk page. BTW, How many dollars per month in referral income do you receive from DreamHost?! Were you administrator of DreamHost's wiki? Do you have a closer relationship than most people? Are you patrolling to protect the article from all "wrong" opinions?! --Judas278 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You "tried to discuss" what, exactly? You have only posted on the article talk page twice (diff1, [53]) before today, and neither was an attempt to discuss anything. My reason for patrolling the article is that as a customer, I have knowledge of the company and how its system works. This is no different from a user of Windows patrolling and contributing to the article on Microsoft Windows. I have made a small amount of referral money over the years (along with thousands of other customers), but that in no way disqualifies me from contributing. In fact, most of my edits to the article have been to remove "referral spam". I am not an administrator of DreamHost's Wiki, although I was granted sysop privileges to police vandalism, but I have no special relationship with the company. I've been a customer since 2004, and that's pretty much the whole story. Again, none of these facts should prevent me from working on this article. You, on the other hand, have confirmed that you are a former customer with a beef. You have deliberately setup a Wikipedia account to edit the DreamHost article to denigrate the company you are unhappy with. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I "tried to discuss" the COI tagging, but you bit the newcomer. How many dollars per month do you stand to lose if the company failed? --Judas278 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made more than a handful of dollars per year for ages, and I donated most of it to charity (Susan B. Komen) because DreamHost matches donations. Anyway, you aren't a "newcomer" - you are just an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's not true you're known as one of their biggest fans?; rlparker, another customer "sysop" got hired by the company; and you wouldn't be against arranging a nice job there for yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you have dispensed with any pretense of good faith and are now just wading right in with the personal attacks. I also see that you continue to edit the article with your agenda firmly in mind, ignoring any sort of consensus-building talk page discussion. I recommend that this SPA be blocked, or at the very least topic banned for abuse of editing privileges. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that occurs to me is that Judas evidently joined Wikipedia for the exclusive purpose of attacking a company of which he is a disgruntled former customer. Surely that is a significant conflict of interest? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What is being a current customer, who highly recommends and defends the company all over the Internet, who gets money from the company, who "sysops" their wiki, who wants to work for them, who places customers' sites with them and makes money from that?! Can you admit no COI yourself? --Judas278 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear misrepresentation of the facts. I have been completely open about my relationship (or lack thereof) to DreamHost. I edit for the good of Wikipedia on hundreds of articles. You edit for some sort of revenge on just DreamHost. You should be blocked for abusing your editing privileges. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You've now been warned about OWN and personal attacks by another independent editor at the DreamHost talk. Also, you continually revert well-sourced brief statements I restore or add, because you judge them to be "misleading" or something. You make "wholesale" changes to the article and then demand discussion of any further changes, and post warnings on my talk page. Admins should tell you to stay away from DreamHost, and leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judas278 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)