I would like input on whetherthis edit is justified. Irpen of course is a friend of Giano.

If consensus is that Irpen is within his rights to do this, I will drop the matter. Otherwise, I would appreciate someone asking Irpen to desist. --Ideogram00:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Though not an admin, I think I can answer this one. The comment could be construed as a personal attack. It doesn't read like a reasoned argument. My advice is try to keep thingscivil, you're more likely to be listened to. Don't give in if you think someone is behaving unreasonably, just make sure you don't charge at the red rag!Mallanox00:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If you believe the comment qualified as a personal attack and should have been removed on those grounds I will not disagree. --Ideogram01:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mallanox, he's actually asking about the removal of the comment, not the actual comment. He should not have removed the content since it was atWP:AN/I, not his user page (where he would have been able to freely remove material).Nishkid6401:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something here, absolutely unjustified. It is attack-ish, but even then, the proper procedure is to remove or strike with replacement text to show that something was removed, not to simply act like it was never there. —bbatsell¿?03:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone made a personal attack, and another person removed it without regards to policy.Xiner (talk,email)04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entry that seemed to me mere trolling by Ideogram. The user has occasionally posted trolling messages to different Wikipedia projectspace pages in the past and was reprimanded for that. I apologize if I should not have done it but his entries added nothing to the discussion but were aimed at inflaming matters. I removed them only one time and once he persisted with restoring his inflammatory comments, I desisted and did not remove them again. --Irpen17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen,you are not objective. We have tangled before, especially regarding Giano.You do not have the right to label me a troll, or anything I say trolling, because you are biased. --Ideogram22:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed off-topic comments milder than this from article talk pages, so I know what you mean. It's just that I'd let them make the mistake twice before doing something about it.Xiner (talk,email)21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be so much easier if people just left non-vandals' signed comments alone. So much time gets wasted in fighting over deepening levels of comment removals.Milto LOL pia21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Might have been better to strike, as it was on AN/I. Someone would have done it eventually.146.186.44.19922:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The parties here are engaged in a multi-way mutual comment deletion war. This isgrossly bad for Wikipedia civility, and all three of you need to stop it, now.Georgewilliamherbert22:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I long ago asserted it was a bad idea to delete other people's comments. --Ideogram22:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, you say I am biased. Note, however, that you posting habit has been described astrolling by multitude of users in the past:one thread,another thread, yetanother thread. So, just knock it off. --Irpen23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those users didn't like my opinions. If you (and they) are so sure I'm a troll then take it to ArbCom. Otherwise don't claim you speak for the community. --Ideogram23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If admins uninvolved in the current argument decide one or more of you are trolling, then they may do something about it. I don't think that the three of you have a sufficiently neutral point of view on that regarding each others edits right now. Just leave each other alone, please. If something really grossly offensive happens, let a neutral third party deal with it.Georgewilliamherbert00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say all along. Irpen et. al. take it upon themselves to label me a "troll" and remove my comments, thereby assuming that they speak for the community as a whole. This is plain arrogance. I'd also like to formally request thatUser:SlimVirgin not use any of her admin tools on me. --Ideogram00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. The notifications here[1][2][3][4]. seem to be helping the NLP article move along. I am adding more information here to help long term scrutiny and to help you with your assessments of the ongoing status compared to the past. I am also presenting this in order for other editors on the NLP article to have their say.

Investigating the archives has shown some more evidence of meatpuppetry and involved editors with possible COIs - who may still be editing on the article.

The anonymous editor (58.178.141.147 - also using various other numbers) seems to me to have been the most argumentative in editing and uncivil in editsummaries – calling for blocks on the article and in edit summaries – and restoring argumentative phrasing and debate into the article. There seems to be 2 possibilities. It could be that 58.178.141.147 is the previous NLP editor User FT2[5]. The approach is the same according to a brief search:[6]. The user is editing by presenting lists of non-conclusive articles, obscuring science views, and adding or restoring very argumentative phrasing into the article. It seems certain to me that the editor 58.178.141.147 is as non-neutral as FT2 in relation to the NLP article. ...remove (false) personal attack... The information I posted previously on ANI shows they are registered in the same town and are part of the same NLP provider registry. I'll inform you of any other possible past-present editors who seem to have COI or ongoing meatpuppetry issues.

Considering the nature of NLP it would seem to be fairly impossible to stop all meatpuppetry from NLP licensed providers. Instead it would seem to me to be more constructive to provide a situation where editors of all views can simply get along constructively and to verbally discourage meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry and COI problems. Mediation using a neutral mediator would also be an option that I am very much open to. I may suggest this to the other editors soon.

There is some evidence of agreement on the talkpage and userpages - that there is an ongoing determination to get the article into a balanced NPOV shape and deal with problems long term eg[7]. Again - if I am doing anything that is not constructive I would be happy if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage.AlanBarnet06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The information removed from above by User Comaze - is information pertinent to the problem on the NLP article[8]. I believe it is still reasonable to simply encourage editors of different views to get along so that all views are presented in a “balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability”.AlanBarnet00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The editors of the NLP article all agree that AlanBarnet is a sockpuppet of banned editor (HeadleyDown). We are still waiting for a block. --Comaze13:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors[9][10][11][12][13][14] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuserHeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 5th effort gaming WP:AN/I[15][16][17][18]. No-one has corroborated any of his stories -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to other editors indepedently conceding that the only way to deal with AlanBarnet is to ignore.AlanBarnet's talk page shows him exhausting all user patience over the course of two months. It seems to be a game to AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown to play games with people's sincerities.58.178.111.521:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello user 58.178.111.5. I am not trolling or meatpuppeting and am discouraging both of those activities by working to calm any conflict and provide admin with information about the status of the article. I've been reporting both problems and positive points and admin will be able to go to the article to make their own assessments and encourage the article and proceedings towards a better state.

With respect to your message of consensus - Comaze seems to have just given me the benefit of the doubt on my talkpage[19]. Considering the obvious COI issues and the need to get along - I believe that to be a constructive attitude and I encourage it as editors of obviously different views we need to get along. There is much NPOV based summarizing to do. I have received encouragement from admin over the last few notifications and had recent encouragement from Woohookitty[20] to keep working calmly and civilly towards a properly summarized article.AlanBarnet00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I blockedUser:Beowulf666 (bypassing the normal warning process) for making a threat againstPat Robertson. I don't have time to follow through, and having never dealt with this, am not too sure of policy when an illegal threat is made. I'll leave it in more experienced hands for follow-up. ThanksPollinator02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a more experienced hand really, but looks right to me. The contribution history doesn't show anything odd, but my hunch is that someone got on the computer with the cookie.Teke ^(talk)03:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the case, that's a pretty bad vandalism with a bit of a threat in it, and an appropriate block. I added a notice in the user talk page referring to what article and edit provoked the block.Georgewilliamherbert03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a slightly complicated issue regardingNadirali,Unre4L,Szhaider (who seems to be a subject for discussion) and perhaps some other Wikipedia editors (ostensibly of Pakistani descent). These editors have been discussing their activities on Wikipedia, with derogatory and insulting remarks about Indian editors/admins and yours truly atPakHub - a discussion forum on Pakistani history, that is committed to "reclaiming Pakistan's history." These editors have expressed the notion that "corrupt administrators" Indian editors are "banning" Pakistani users and dominate content on Pakistan-topics. While all matters outside Wikipedia are beyond our purview, there is a possibility of this behavior represents some a cabalist-style desire to "infiltrate" Wikipedia (especially in order to propagate their point of view) and potentially to stalk and harass users. With no desire to be alarmist, I'm posting the relevant links here and requesting the advice of all - as I seem to be involved in this, I could consider desisting from acting myself.Rama's arrow (3:16)00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Relevant links to PakHub discussion on Wikipedia

[21],[22],[23],[24]

It would be helpful to know the (explicit) Wikipedia rules are these editors violating as a result of their posts on PakHub. The comments of Nadirali and Unre4L on the website don't sound like they intend to stalk and harass. (I didn't see Szhaider there, BTW.) Unre4L and Nadirali were arguing with other members, who seemed more extreme. Here are a few quotes from thediscussion:

Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My point of concern is why are they discussing Wikipedia affairs, individual and groups of editors and administrators and insulting me and some others there. I don't care about that website and what they do there, but only what they're doing in pertinence to Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors.Rama's arrow (3:16)01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point still stands that its a meatpuppetry cabal.Bakaman01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at some of this and at some of the links they used. Nasty stuff, but I think we need, in this case, to focus on Wikipedia behavior. This is not active wrecking, but expression of feelings that they can't get their story told.Fred Bauder02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you rememberHkelkar (talk ·contribs) was stalked byBhaiSaab (talk ·contribs)? He was looked up on facebook and called. You know BhaiSaab was Pakistani? I am not assuming good faith on a site where I am probably named "Dushman-y-Jumhuriya" or something. I dont wantIslamofascists calling my phone either. Some editors on PakHub look downright creepy.Bakaman02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I fear that the collective beliefs of these members of PakHub is entirely shaping the work of those who are editing Wikipedia - by which I mean the various edit wars, disruption and insulting commentaries that have resulted in Nadirali, Unre4L, Szhaider and Siddiqui being blocked from editing. I'm specifically concerned with Nadirali's comments, insults and insinuations. I'll be happy to take your advice (Fred) - I just wanted to make sure through this report that the activities of these guys are known to admins and other users as well as kept a close eye on. I was a little alarmed about the fact that these guys are so intensely discussing Wikipedia business there, insulting me and others and importing the agenda of PakHub into Wikipedia.Rama's arrow (3:16)02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fred that they are expressing frustration. There was no mention in their posts of plotting anything, no mention of intentions to tag-team or edit war anywhere on Wikipedia.Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how the "shaping" takes form - how many people are posting there? 12. It appears that maybe 5 or 6 people are active and at least 2 of those seem quite reasonable So you've got maybe 3 editors who could be a problem. - big wow. A storm in a teacup when you consider how gaming sites and the like have mobilised in the past to promote their games or point of view. --Fredrick day11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the record I'd like to leave a few quotes about what exactly concerns me:

There is a fellow calling himself "Nishan-e-Haider" who ostensibly has a dormant account here.

Rama's arrow (3:16)15:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what their views are or what they use PakHub for. My point is, these comments are not acceptable especially as this hitherto-unknown "Nishan-e-Haider" promises to make trouble while Nadirali and Unre4L go about making accusations against me and others as being corrupt, extremists, etc. They may obviously discuss anything they like, including Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but it is clear to me that these users are committed to "reclaiming Pakistani history" on Wikipedia and making insulting accusations against me and other users.Rama's arrow (3:16)15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping that other Wikipedians (whom they may respect, despite their impression of "neutral" admins being "cowards") may send a strong message about this kind of thing to them when they return from their respective blocks.Rama's arrow (3:16)15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there are ostensibly Indian editors too at theIndian Defense Forum Website, who actuallyare trying to recruit people to edit-war against Unre4L and Nadirali on Wikipedia. Here is a memorable quote from one of the (likely) Indian editors:

What do we propose to do about them?Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose they are just "expressing frustration," aren't they? Same treatment for all.Rama's arrow (3:16)00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:) Well, I agree with you (at least about "same treatment"), and that is my point. For example, even though the following post from the same Indian website is an example ofactive recruiting:

I think it is still best to focus on actual Wikipedia edits and behavior.Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk»00:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Fowler & Fowler, but they should get talked to for abusing CQUOTE that much. Gah, I need bandages for my eyes, they're still bleeding. (But really, that kind of use of a template is really unwarranted and unneeded.) ✎Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me •Neutrality Project )01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I am not a member of any forum, in case this "Hindu fascist" is accused of being a member of right wing neocon forums. Btw, whoever the indian editor is, they are anonymous while we have hard proof that nadirali, unre4L, etc are on wiki. My bet is that the indian is a banned user along the lines ofUser:Himalayanashoka (though himalaya didnt seem too bright). Also unre4L recruited for pakhub on wiki, while the unknown indian recruited off wiki. remember pakhub was created after unre4L came to wikipedia, the Indian forum is way older and seems to consist of a bunch of armchair generals playingred alert and fantasizing about missiles.Bakaman03:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a hoot about who is doing what - these gentlemen can play the fool all they want on web forums across the world. My concern is solely limited to how these happenings off-Wiki are creating problems for the stable growth of Wikipedia and its reputation. I don't personally care for them "expressing frustration" anywhere but here, using off-Wiki opportunities to attack Wikipedians like me. If they want to criticize Wikipedia, there are far more respectable ways to do so. I don't like these forum debates by people who seem to represent all that is opposite of an ideal Wikipedian. I'm sorry, I won't defend anybody who tries to do this, but Baka is right to the extent that we don't know who many of these guys are, except for Nadirali and Unre4L. I'm very concerned about the latter two and at the uncertain prospect of sleeper accounts. All this is a bloody waste of time and energy (I wonder how much Britannica has to worry about these blogs and forums) but we have to do something about it. Its foolish for these gentlemen to think that Wikipedians will sit on their hands about this.Rama's arrow (3:16)03:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend everyone re-reads the statements of principle in the RfArb on MONGO that just finished[25]; I think it is indicative that "Participation in a website which spoofs or criticizes Wikipedia is not an actionable offense in itself." Note that we are encourage to keep a close eye on these individials:"Users, especially administrators, who are associated, or suspected of association, with sites which are hypercritical of Wikipedia can expect their Wikipedia activities as well as their activities on the hypercritical website, to be closely monitored." (Though I am not sure that the things I have seen qualify as 'hypercritical'.)

Note that this Pakistani site isnot an attack site as defined at the RfArb as it does not discuss off-wiki 'real world' identifiers.Hornplease09:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Second that (i.e. Hornplease). Also, many apologies to Peter Dodge and any other editors whose eyes were seared by my boldface quotes.Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that specific quote of the ArbCom ruling does not settle the case. As I've repeatedly said above, the problem is not their criticism of Wikipedia at another, unconnected site, but the nature of their personal attacks against Wikipedia users (by way of 1 specific ref, racial/religious slurs, defamation of Wikipedia users and administrators and the importing of PakHub objectives into their editing on WP.Rama's arrow (3:16)15:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While that is certainly troubling, I do not think that I can agree with you, Nirav, that there is some definite way forward. The discussion in the past about occasions such as this has left us with no clear precedent. Taking your concerns one by one: a. the specific slurs - I presumekaffirs is what you mean - can hardly be acted upon as long as they are not used in the course of editing on WP itself. b. The specific statements about admins as being biased is again, something that can hardly be acted upon; suppose, for example, this was an IRC discussion, and you happened to be in the same channel. Would we be compelled to take action then? If so, then a lot of IRC discussion would have to be cleaned up. c. The importing of these objectives: well, it wont be the first time that a group of nationalist users collude in acting on articles of interest. This time at least the encyclopaedia is warned.

Which brings me to my general point: we are more than justified in watching these guys very carefully now. We can drop the assumption of editing in good faith pretty soon if they have indicated their agenda fairly clearly. That is the action we can take: to ensure that their on-wiki behaviour is even more effectively and speedily policed given we now know their motives and organisations. I think that's the spirit of the ArbCom decisions, and anything further would be WP overreaching.Hornplease16:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you on the second para of your comments. On the first para, I didn't necessarily mean the "kaffir" remark, because I know its too general. While such general comments do give us an indication of the nature of these gentlemen, I only mean the stuff that's directly pertinent to Wikipedia and Wikipedians - take two quotes specifically (apart from the one naming me and one suggesting the existence of a troll sleeper account)

I've seen a few editors blocked for simply hating WP, and Nadirali seems to fit that category. He's obviously filled with negative convictions about a general group of editors and of how WP works. Apart from other things, he thinks WP is grossly messed up as "Indian extremists" are "controlling" Pakistan articles.

Unre4L is repeating what he has been hollering on his user page and various article talkpages, about Indians "ripping off" Pakistan's history. This is not only his view but the goal of PakHub. And the off-hand, derogatory reference to Jews not having"any say" in Islam articles, unless constructive. I cannot imagine a more ridiculous statement to make - who is he or anybody else to judge the "constructiveness" of Jewish editors, and at the same time accuse Indian editors of pinning Pakistani editors down and rip Pakistan's history off. I can draw a lot of conclusions about this guy's editing purpose.

Now I read this, I know immediately that these gentlemen are not fitting the quite lax criteria of being productive Wikipedians. Nadirali's hallucinations only signal future disruptive editing. No doubt, we musn't take drastic action and the policy is not clear-cut, but its clear that the way these gentlemen think, write and edit are harbringers of future trouble. Thus, the community must in some way, send a very strong message to them about this. They can do what they please at PakHub, IRC or any other place on the internet - but this point should be made crystal-clear to them. In order to disregard these warning signs, we must know for sure that they will not import this behavior onto Wikpedia. Unfortunately, both Nadirali and Unre4L have carried their PakHub agenda onto Wikipedia. Finally, one someone's expression of frustration or desire to blow-off steam is to be respected, it must at least not include conspiracy theories and vituperation against Wikipedia editors and the way WP works. I'm just glad we could have a productive discussion on this, as it will at least let these folks know that we know and are taking this issue seriously.Rama's arrow (3:16)17:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramas Arrow. Please take a look at Unre4Ls reply in response to this:

I cant actually believe that you are trying this hard to get me banned even more. You keep making new conspiracy theories. I dont have anything against Jews, and sorry, but Jews is not a racist term it simply means Jewish People. Stop using this stuff to gather support.I was trying to calm down the Troll on Pakhub, by explaining to him that Jews dont vandalise Islam articles, and You are using this against me? Oh My God!!!!PakHub Propaganda?? What?? Its a discussion forum. And you are using the Trolls comments to describe the founders of the site? Please dont make mindless accusations.Now I understand why you had to ban me in order to do this.I followed your advise in trying to resolve disputes. No Edit wars or Insults from me whatsoever. And even with that you are trying your best to extend my ban, when people dont even agree with your current ban.--Unre4Lﺍﹸﻧﺮﮮﺍﻝ UT 23:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

User01:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Rama's Arrow: I think you are pushing this beyond the pale of what is reasonable. Nowhere did Unre4L say anything racist about Jewish editors; if anything, he was paying them a compliment, and at the same time, trying to calm down the editor Nishan-e-Hyder, who clearly was making some bizarre comments. Here is Nishan-e-Hyder's comment:

In response to this, Unre4L says:

The last sentence is ungrammatical, to be sure, but what it means is that Jewish editors usually don't edit Islam-related articles (in Unre4L's opinion), and if they do, they usually have constructive things to say. (Unre4L is not, by a long shot, proclaiming—as you imply in your interpretation—that Jewish editorscannot have a say in Islam-related articles.) How does Unre4L's become a racist statement against the Jews? Please!Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of spamming by proxy currently in progress. See*.supermortgagerate.info and*.besttradelink.info.✤JonHarder^talk14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

They're all reverted, at least at the moment. |Mr. Darcytalk14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it back, the spam continues... |Mr. Darcytalk14:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Continuing non-stop. This is revealing hundreds of proxy addresses. Is there a way to go back and identify and block them, since several editors are pitching in with the removal and its hard to keep track of the IPs?✤JonHarder^talk14:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blacklist?yandman14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

These links need to go on the spam blacklist. I have requested it and an admin on meta needs to add them. -m:Talk:Spam_blacklist --Aude(talk)14:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on blocking the IP's right now.--Isotope2314:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the ones I confirmed as Open Proxies indef and the ones I couldn't quickly confirm for 24 hours while I do a bit more research. I'm guessing they are all open proxies or zombie machines. I'm guessing a missed a few though because several editors were reverting the spam so if you were reverting and you notice any IPs I have not blocked you can dump themhere and I'll take a look.--Isotope2315:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just added eight to your list, Isotope23. That's all I reverted myself. |Mr. Darcytalk16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just temp-blocking them to immediately stop the spamming pending an open proxy check, but the spammers are actually helping us by giving us near-certain open proxies to check and play with. I do hopeTPTB will blacklist this pronto. --Deathphoenixʕ15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the same thing. The silver lining is that I confirmed and blocked about 20 open proxies and got about 10 more to investigate further.--Isotope2315:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor should have a full list up once the spam logs are processed the main list ishere for logs by dayBetacommand^{(talk •contribs •Bot)}16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I was going to go through my block log tonight when I get home to add a bunch of them to theWP:OP page as blocked...but I might wait for the log then.Syrthiss16:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has the time come for this domain to be blacklisted? It's been a steady stream of vandalism today, it's starting to cross the border between useful and annoying. --Deathphoenixʕ17:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think one of them is already blacklisted; I'd suggest blacklisting the other ones as well. I'll put up the logs sometime within the next 12 hours.Veinor^{(talk to me)}17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(newbie admin questions) I've been blocking a number of IP's for this spam as well. Is there somewhere they should be listed after blocking? Also, what is the appropriate block length for an IP whose only contributions are two or three spamlinks? I've been using a week just arbitrarily but would defer to consensus on this.Newyorkbrad18:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE SEE ALSO[26] which seems to be part of same attack. Needs cleaning but I have to rush off now--BozMotalk19:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad directed me here as I thought it would be much more useful to simply prevent the insertion of these links into wikipedia (as I believe the one who is spamming has the same list of open proxies which he uses over and over again as can be seen when viewing the contributions lists of these IP's). Also, is there a policy on the blocking of open proxies and is there a part of WP that has a list of IP's needed for research of open proxies as I would like to help out with that. I reverted many of these entries and submitted them to AVI (although some of the ones I submitted weren't banned for some reason :/).Yonatanh19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is happening as well; suggest blacklisting all of those links.Veinor^{(talk to me)}21:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another user, in case it matters. --Wafulz21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All of those sites have been requested to be blocked at theSpam blacklist. --Fan-196721:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And it still continues:[27]. These are undoubtably open proxies, please block on sight.146.186.44.19921:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And those sites are blocked[28]. --Fan-196722:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Still going:[29] and[30]Veinor^{(talk to me)}22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that there's a pattern in the spammed domains. The first word changes, but the rest is always the same. (e.g, baseball dot homeloancourse dot info and baseball dot homeloancourse dot info).Veinor^{(talk to me)}22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And the block was only for specific addresses, not the whole domains. I've updated the request.Fan-196722:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, a list of IPs is onUser:Veinor/Link count/Botspammers. Note that these need to be hand-checked, as some of them might be people removing the links that the linkwatcher bot messed up on.Veinor^{(talk to me)}04:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Over at theGlobal warming page, we haveCleanHarry29201 who seems to object to the consensus that has painfully been established at that article over time. He also has expressed quite a few opinions on quite a few folk's talk pages, and I think we've reached the point where we need a broader range of administrators looking into the situation.

Atlant02:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well let's at least get our facts straight. I am not nearly the only person "objecting" to any consensus atGlobal warming. I'm just the only one who is currently being threatened over the situation.CleanHarry2920103:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what is going on, butUser:70.54.50.137 andUser:Artcanada keep reverting and blanking the pages without giving a reason. I also suspect they are the same account, logged out to bypass the 3RR2 and 3RR3 warning I placed on Artcanada's talk page. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk)05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned thatNationalist (talk ·contribs) is edit warring withJerrypp772000 (talk ·contribs), and while doing so is making edits with summaries that range from boardering on notassuming good faith to outrightpersonal attacks. This user has been blocked recently for telling another editor to "Fuck off"[31], and I've noticed this behaviour contiues after Nationalist's block expired.User talk:Nationalist contains a number of links to offenses, which include calling another editor an "extremist POV pusher" in an edit summary while engaging in an edit war[32], to continueing abuse on article talk pages here[33], and here[34] where he belittles another editor as not knowing as much because he's not an admin. The edit history ofChien-Ming Wang also shows a pattern of disruptive edit warring with other editors (5), includingJerrypp772000 above.74.14.20.20505:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps vandalizing NBA related articles and has been repeatedly warned, he may need to be blocked to get the point.Quadzilla9905:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually looking at his contributions it isn't that much, but he still has been repeatedly warned and could use a block.Quadzilla9905:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

86.17.211.191(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS) left an insult on my talk page[35]. This user has been warned before (as86.17.247.135(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS), which is in the same range according to WHOIS).John Reaves(talk)01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. They're apparently only here to disrupt and mock you, at this point. If things improve, good; if they keep going as they are, this may still need more attention.Luna Santin07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.John Reaves(talk)07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Klptyzm is basically conducting unsigned personal attacks on a valid action by an editor - needs some response from an adminSatuSuro05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sean mc sean (talk ·contribs) seems headed for trouble, if he doesn't calm down. Warned for now. Hopefully they calm down or take a breather.Luna Santin05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems out of control...[36]Merbabu06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours to hopefully calm down.Luna Santin07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Avad(Contrib) keeps on creating foreign language pages that seem like large sections of copy pasted text. The text is even hard to edit for English encoding browser, such asمحمد کریم پیرنیا now allowing the input of text at the beginning of the article for me. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk)06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

63.194.52.252(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS) has been removing the names from the categories (e.g. [[Category:Radio|ABC]] as the diff) within many West Coast radio/television articles. This sure seems like vandalism to me, and the users has apparently refused to respond to my query on their talk page.John Reaves(talk)07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that the pipetext in the articles in question typically consists of thelast three letters of the call sign;Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations has done this in categories where all articles begin with the same letter (i.e. W or K in a radio category), in order to make the category page appear more cleanly sorted. In this particular case, I think it more likely that the user doesn'tunderstand why it was done, and isn't so much vandalizing as merely correcting what they thought was anerror.Bearcat07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A short while agoJustin Forbes (talk ·contribs) edited theTemplate:Video storage formats page to changeDVD-Video toDVD, and added the {{homevid}} tempate to the DVD article. Both of these edits were done with no edit summary. I reverted these (given that the homevid template is for video formats, not video media, e.g. VCD but not Compact Disc) and out of curiosity looked at the user's contributions. What I've seen there can only be described as a strange pattern of borderline vandalism that might be fact-checking. Or vandalism. It's very, very subtle.Case in point.

Now were this normal vandalism I'd report this to AIV in a heartbeat, but much of this is borderline. (Some of it legitimate too, e.g.their edit toCat) I don't know if you can really call this guy a "blatant" vandal, but there's definitely something very, very hinky going on here. Distinctly not in line with what Wikipedia is all about, and probably bannable. I just don't know if it's an AIV thing or not. --Y|yukichigai (_rambleargue^check)04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this user was given afinal warning forthis edit. I think I'll alert him to this discussion and see what he has to say for himself; he's made some constructive edits in his time here. But subtle fact changes like that really bother me because of the opportunity for there to be misinformation that might not be caught right away. It would be helpful to get sources or explanations from him for fact changes like these.Grandmasterka09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User has also created pages about space travel topics that have been deleted, one of which was marked as a hoax. This doesn't look very good... But I would like to hear input from the editor in question as well as other admins.Grandmasterka10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A user editing from IP address 77.49.2.142 was vandalising several articles about Greek cities by removing their Turkish names. Based on his/her preferred edit summary[37], he/she may try to do so again. I reverted all of his/heredits and gave a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on his/hertalk page, but I wanted to let you know in case he/she shows up again. --JaimeLesMaths^(talk!edits)11:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

After a number of warnings left by other users, which were not heeded, I have blocked194.255.124.250(talk ·contribs ·IP contribs ·WHOIS) for 24 hours, anon only, account creation not prevented... (see:[38]) Edit patterns suggest this IP is a possible sock ofComanche_cph (talk ·contribs ·count ·logs ·page moves ·block log) who was blocked for a month by me a few months back. Note that Comanche_cph is currently not blocked from editing. The IP's pattern of reversion, manipulation of warnings on the pages of others, personal attacks on established contributors, troll like behaviour, and tendentious editing, in the face of requests not to do so, is disruptive enough to warrant this block, or more, I feel. But of course I welcome review of my actions as always. This matter was not urgent enough to warrant IRC consultation, and an immediate block, so discussion was carried out on my talk page: [[39]] ++Lar:t/c14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the edit war onGoa Inquisition is continuing. Given my history with the page, I won't get involved, but could someone take a look and see if anything needs doing? There are accusations of sockpuppetry flying around that probably need a little investigation. Thanks. --Tango15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this.I'm hoping to get some help with a page that was moved improperly.$ was moved toTarrus Carr, then redirected toMoney... --Onorem17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help. --Onorem17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a test4 warning toFrank Lofaro Jr. (talk•contribs) for having created, just a few minutes apart,Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong andWikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank. A sudden burst of trolling from what appears to be a good user.User:Zoe|(talk)

Hm, I suppose someone should likely review and perhaps step in over atRocky Marciano. The page has been locked a little while, largely due to a dispute betweenMKil andBoxingWear. I'm trying to remain uninvolved in the more personal arguments, so I'll just give some examples of speech. MKil has said a few things along the lines of [[40]], whereas BoxingWear has grown increasingly frustrated, leaving left a comment on my talk page[[41]] and comments in the talk such as this [[42]].

I've been trying to engage in conversation and so haven't done anything quite so far as warning, but some action likely needs to be taken to cool things down there.Bitnine21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I started sifting through the talk page and associated discussions last night, and will continue to read through today's accumulation of edits to get up to speed. The page is protected for now, but that will expire tomorrow and I'm almost sure that the unproductive editing pattern will resume based on what I'm seeing.Kuru^talk00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved in this situation, I welcome a review. I called for a third party review already[43] and when the third party chastised BoxingWear, BoxingWear began attacking that editor[44].

BoxingWear has continually called my edits vandalism and now, apparently, terrorism[45]. He has also spread outright falsehoods that I am using another IP address to edit[46]: “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here.”

If I am doing something wrong here, I’d be happy to correct my errors. I’ve tried to follow Wikipedia policies and have tried to point out these policies to BoxingWear. However, he erases my messages from his talk page and says that he does not want to hear from me.MKil02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

I may be way out of line here but the writing style of BoxingWear seems to remind me of the writing style ofVesa and his socks. He exhibits the same short fuse, use of caps when he's angry. Also, he is editing the same subject areas that Vesa/Projects did. Could this be another sock? -Localzuk^(talk)18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User Jogersbot has been running through various song articles, changing the date link formats from "year|year in music" to just "year". Needs to be shut down until its fixed. Seeits contributions pageWhyaduck00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed look like an issue - I blocked the bot temporarily while this is settled. I'll see if I can find the bot owner...Cowman109^Talk01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked more of the pages altered and it looks as though most of them are OK. There was definitely an alteration to the page forHow Are Things in Glocca Morra? though. Apparently an intermittent bug of some sort.Whyaduck01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what's happening. The bot leaves the first instance of a "year|year in music" it finds on a page, and then changes the later ones it thinks are duplicates. The problem arises when the article has mentions of later recordings of a song from different years. Removing the duplicate links is OK, but the bot needs to learn to differentiate between years.Whyaduck01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More precisely- the bot is in fact recognizing different years, but the "year|year in music" links are being converted to simple "year" links when the "year|year in music" is immediately preceded by a "month, date" link. I haven't seen any cases of simple "month" links, so I don't know if they cause an alteration or not.Whyaduck02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing precisely what is meant for. It removes piped links to "years in music" when they are breakingreader's date preferences (seeManual of Style).Jogers (talk)10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why the piped links are breaking the readers preferences, though. Is it only when the piped link and a linked month/day are adjacent? That's the only difference I can see between those pages where the bot removed unique "year in music" links and those where it left some of them alone. But I might be overlooking something, as I don't have any clear idea how all this stuff works. I'm just trying to figure out how to set up unique links to "year in music" pages so they won't be removed for misbehaving in the future.Whyaduck13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bot removes piped links to "years in music" only from full dates. Try to change date format inyour preferences and note the difference betweenJanuary 1,2005 andJanuary 1,2005.Jogers (talk)14:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically, lone links just to a year in music are preserved, but when you have a day and a month given, it is converted into a normal year wikilink so that it does not break user preferences. 'Years in music' links will be left alone if there is no attached day and month. I see now that this is explained inWikipedia:Piped_link#Use, which specifically states that piped links to years in music or years in sports should not be used in conjunction when a day and month are given next to it in order to preserve user preferences. I will be unblocking the bot now unless there are any objections, then.Cowman109^Talk15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I clarified the function summary on the bot page.Jogers (talk)16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked it.Cowman109^Talk18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Jogers (talk)18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

IP address 81.145.240.86 has been warned once previously for vandalism, and today messed upJames Field.Nyttend16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You might have better luck onWP:AIV. Cheers!Isopropyl17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's not removed a last warning. I'll try there anyway.Nyttend18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice two very subtle vandalisms from this user today that I've reverted.TJSwoboda20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to report continuing vandals toWP:AIV for a quicker response (usually ;), just make sure they have recieved a recent final warning (such as {{subst:bv}} (my favorite) or {{subst:test4}}. Cheers!Yuser31415(Editor review two!)20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached in a meatpuppet investigationhere. The consensus is that the two users in question have formed a meatpuppet relationship that is abusive to other Wikipedia editors. It was successfully used to bait another Wikipedia editor into violating policy to the extent that he was permablocked; and they are still tormenting him on hisTalk page while he appeals the block. They should receive the same punishment: permablocks.

In the alternative, in his previous "NBGPWS" incarnation, FAAFA received a one-month block; this block should be longer. BenBurch's previous block was one day; this block should be longer. And they should be permanently blocked from editing theFree Republic article due to their ongoing violations ofWP:COI,WP:RS,WP:LIBEL,WP:NPOV (particularlyWP:NPOV#Undue_weight),WP:CIV andWP:NPA.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter. In response to anyone who has even the slightest suspicion that I might be a sockpuppet, I will cordially direct your attention tothis notice.Dino20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't there been an ARBCOM about some of these editors? I don't fully know the background here, but alot of these names are becoming familiar to me and that isn't necessarily a good thing.--Isotope2320:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there has been an ARBCOM... yet. FAAFA had an RfC, which became quite lengthy, and devolved into a circus atmosphere. I don't think that anything came out of it.Crockspot21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BenBurch may be interesting reading. Cheers, ✎Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me •Neutrality Project )21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• You edited in your own conclusion, since moved into the RIGHT spot in the complaint,and then came here to represent that a legal conclusion had ben reached. Bryan, and you ARE Bryan, you continue to violate our rules here at Wikipedia and are attempting to game the system here. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE -User:DeanHinnen just admitted to being a sock puppet of permanently blockedUser:BryanFromPalatine in a thread further down on this page. --BenBurch06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made no such admission, theofficial finding is the opposite, and such misrepresentations of the evidence are a chronic problem here. Something needs to be done.Dino15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You clutch to that unblock finding like it were a magic talisman... You seem to be unaware that this is not the US Legal system here. There is no concept of double jeopardy orStare Decisis here whatsoever. You got unblocked, yes, but I can make the representation that you are a sock puppet of Bryan or that Bryan is a sock puppet of YOU and still have that found to be true subsequently. And you know it is true. Please do not misrepresent yourself to this body, and please do notthreaten, as a member of the Free Republic legal team,to SUE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION as you just did in the Free Republic Talk Page. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has justblocked BenBurch for 24 hours due to his "incivility and misrepresentations" on this page and on Bryan's Talk page, and issued FAAFA awarning. Seethis also. It remains to be seen whether such slaps on the wrist will do any good in the long term. One can only hope.Dino16:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see notice of checkuser-confirmed multiple sockpuppet finding, below.WP:ANI#Confirmed_sockpuppets_of_User:BryanFromPalatine_via_checkuser. --BenBurch23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram is expressing a lot of hostility towardsGiano at theWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel discussion[47][48][49] (note the edit summaries—"Oh Giano said it it must be true", "oh my, the great Giano has spoken").Here he states explicity that he has "enmity" for Giano. I think it's obvious that this makes Ideogram the last person who should take it on himself to remove Giano's posts (with edit summaries like "Remove rant"]). I'd rather not speak to him on the issue myself, as I believe he has plenty of hostility for me also. Perhaps somebody entirely neutral would like to suggest to him that these removals are not appropriate? Possibly they're intended to make a point about Irpen's removal of one comment of Ideogram's, as discussedabove. I wish Irpen hadn't done that (sigh), but he did it once, as far as I know; and all who have commented above find that Irpen removed a highly uncivil personal attack by Ideogram. By contrast, Ideogram's own removals and attacks are large-scale, ongoing, and getting worse and worse. Now I'm not one to block for personal attacks, but could somebody try to talk him down from his trolling high or something? Please take a look at the thread above; does it look to you like Ideogram is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? It would be a real relief if it could be stopped. Preferably without any blocking, because I suspect that Ideogram istrying to get blocked, as part of the charming point he's making. Note that it's many hours since Giano edited. This is not some kind of battle or quarrel, it's a pure monologue. Oh, hey, here come the latest installments of it: "Giano again thinks he's God.[50]. "You are a god-damned hypocrite.[51] Baiting, anyone?Bishonen |talk23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Everyone knows you are a friend of Giano, so your opinion here is basically worthless. Aren't you the one who chose to unblock him when he was blocked for civility concerns? Did that seem at all wrong to you?

If someone I believe is neutral suggests I am crossing the line I will of course tone it down. --Ideogram00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said nothing on that page. I suggest that you tone it down, both on the page and in the edit summaries.Newyorkbrad00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad, I do respect your opinion. --Ideogram00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting a rebuttal with "your opinion here is basically worthless" suggests a certain need for more quiet reflection before hitting the 'Save page' button. I haven't reviewed the other conduct, but just the response here speaks for itself. Tone it down.TenOfAllTrades(talk)00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't think the fact that she's Giano's friend makes her opinion biased? Are you going to force me to rebut her point by point? In fact I am able to do that, if you like. --Ideogram00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He asked you to quietly reflect on what you said before hitting the save button. In what way is that advice forcing you to do anything?Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not forcing me to do anything, and I didn't say it did. --Ideogram00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Never the less TenOfAllTrades advice is good and you do well to follow it.Theresa Knott |Taste the Korn00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been advised by several people I trust now that I have indeed crossed the line. I will be more civil in the future. --Ideogram00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, this situation continues to make me sad, as there have been continual misunderstandings and hurt feelings about it. Take a moment and consider that Bishonen is posting here because she wants other opinions on the matter and therefor we can only assume that she has good intentions, after all she has not acted unilaterally as some admins should have. Also, I feel that while some of Ideogram's comments are regrettable, he or she has been misunderstood on more than a few occasions. I would ask both sides to remember toassume good faith and attempt tostay cool in a heated and divisive situation. Please realize that there is a wide spectrum of views on the depth and nature of the situation and therefore a similarly diverse number of opinions how to fix it. Above all else, remember we're all here to work to improve this encyclopedia, and treat others with respect. Cheers, ✎Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me •Neutrality Project )00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I've come across Giano before and haven't found him/her to be nice at all - that's putting it rather mildly to be frank. I'm not surprised that Ideogram has said what he has, though my advice to him is just to ignore any comments by other users he finds to be blatantly annoying. I just want this opinion of mine to be noted, but don't wish to be contacted further on the issue, so please don't message my talk page about it. I've been told off Wiki that Giano has a few friends here who can make life on Wikipedia very difficult for me if they wish, so I don't want to get involved. That's my personal opinion, and as I said I don't wish for any messages regarding this - any I get will be ignored.LuciferMorgan01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My one and only experience of this editor is here[52], where his points were not only refuted by not only the regular architecture editors, but also by editors with whom I had had no previous interaction. Regarding Ideogram's edit here[53] not only is it a personal attack (I can live with it) it is the first time I have ever been called a hypocrite (many other things but never that :-). Apart from (possibly - I don't remember exactly) removing his trolling comments from editor talk pages, I have never deliberately (I'm pretty sure I haven't at all) removed a comment he has made elsewhere. However, tempting on occasions that may have been.Giano10:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to decide if I'm a troll. Ever. --Ideogram22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain this. I am not the kind of person to demand apologies (but you are), what do you think you should do about this? --Ideogram22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh,and this. --Ideogram22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, aren't there enough disputes in the community now without dredging up a diff from months ago? I hope this can stop now.Newyorkbrad22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano could have chosen to let the matter drop. If he feels the need to make counterfactual claims I will rebut them. --Ideogram23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should let the matter drop.Newyorkbrad23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will also ask Giano to never speak of Kylu, Lar, or Carnildo again. --Ideogram23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If Giano ever calls me a troll or anything I write trolling again, you can be sure I will not let the matter drop. --Ideogram23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Described as "Likely" by checkuser, it'sPloughman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log). Block requested.Moreschi^Deletion!21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He's just been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR but this is the checkuser-confirmed sock of a community-banned user, someone needs to indef.Moreschi^Deletion!22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to the checkuser case:Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters.Heimstern Läufer22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The entry has been vandalized a number of times in the last few days...should it be protected?Benje30922:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask onWP:RFPP. Don't be surprized if they say to just watchlist. It's worth a try anyway.68.39.174.23822:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Despite wikipedia having policy to the contrary, ZakuSage seems to think he owns PSP-related articles.

He defaced my user page yesterday as well as removing someone else's comments regarding his behavior from the pageTalk:PlayStation_Portable.

I think this is wrong behavior and am serving him formal warning to stop it. This note on the admin noticeboard is my following up to serve public notice as well.RunedChozo20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also request deletion of my user page as well. I intended not to have one and I wish that to be respected.

I had a quick glance atUser:ZakuSage's recent contributions but don't see any evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behaviour. Can you be more specific as to what you are complaining about, and provide diffs? —Psychonaut21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, I'll try. It appears worse than I thought, he has maliciously claimed that another user is me with no evidence and had them banned for no good reason.

The other use in question isUser:NotAWeasel.

Diffs emblematic of his behavior:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102729058&oldid=102686610http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101828003&oldid=101825050http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101618470&oldid=101618369

He seems obsessed with removing any mention of the different Playstation Portable firmware editions from the page, as well as generally being disrespectful. He is also obsessed with misspelling the word "Color."RunedChozo21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am updating, he has just vandalized my user page again.RunedChozo21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102987910&oldid=102981599He has now after re-vandalizing my user page gone on to revert yet again to remove perfectly valid content as he is obsessed with doing. This is wrong behavior.RunedChozo21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits toPlayStation Portable seem fine to me; he seems to be calmly arguing that dwelling on firmware-related minutiae clutters the article. If this is "emblematic" of his behaviour, then he has probably done nothing wrong. With regards to "colour", it is the proper spelling of the word in British English;WP:MOS states that either British or American spelling is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently within an article.

The accusations of sockpuppetry are a different matter entirely. I agree that he should present his evidence that you also operate theUser:NotAWeasel, or else withdraw the claim. However, perhaps he has already done so somewhere I haven't looked yet. —Psychonaut21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll create an evidence page in a moment. -ZakuSage21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have for a long period been working to keep the articlePlayStation Portable not as my own personal plaything, but to the upmost quality of wikipedia standards. This user simply has a grudge against me for a past dispute. He's also been actively engaging the the act of sockpuppetry (currently with the recently blocked indefinitelyUser:NotAWeasel, created the day of one of RunedChozo's blockings) not only on the PSP article but also on his other grudge match the article for theBeit Hanoun November 2006 incident, as well as using his sockpuppet to vandalise my userpage. He has removed the template I placed on his user-page to let other users know of his activity as a sock-puppeteer. -ZakuSage21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He has done nothing of the sort, and his "complaint" - that it makes the article harder to read - is groundless. He has even refused to allow descriptions of changes made to the firmware over time in the firmware SECTION. He is deliberately trying to make it a less informative article than it could be, for reasons unknown, except that he seems to feel some ownership of the article as it currently sits; he never makes improvements, just sits around reverting. His accusations that I used a sockpuppet are base lies and I demand an apology.RunedChozo21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop making accusations/demands. Zaku, without Checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry, such insistent accusations can be considered personal attacks. Runed, stop accusing Zaku of attempting to damage the wiki and take this through the normal disupte resolution channels rather than continue to edit war. --InShaneee21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser request has already been done a few months ago:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo - just to let you know.x42bn6Talk21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Regardless, new requests need to be taken there, and you cannot take unilateral action based on your assumptions. --InShaneee21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made an evidence page in any case, as seenhere

Yes, convenient that you deface space attached to my user page for your lies.RunedChozo21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but the issue of whether to include certain facts about the firmware is a content dispute and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the administrators. For this matter you should pursuedispute resolution such as mediation or RFC. With respect to the sockpuppet accusations, if it can be shown thatUser:ZakuSage has made them negligently or in bad faith, then this may be a violation of Wikipedia's policies onpersonal attacks orcivility. (On the other hand, if he is correct and you have been using a sockpuppet to evade a block, to engage in edit warring, to attack a user, or to otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, then you will be blocked.) Let's wait for him to present his evidence so that it can be judged by a disinterested party. —Psychonaut21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, another user has already been blocked - indefinitely or so the page says - based on Zakusage's lies. And I have already been cleared in another bad-faith case when POV pushers were trying to accuse everyone and their brother who disagreed with them of being sockpuppets, and the claim that I was "Wheelygood" was meaningless, they were merely another person at my school.

Zakusage is using these accusations to harass me and nothing more.RunedChozo21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NotAWeasel was blocked for abuse of edit privileges and being uncivil. -ZakuSage21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Zakusage has returned to vandalizing my user page.RunedChozo21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a just sockpuppeteer notice is not vandalism. Blanking and removing it could be considered as such. -ZakuSage21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. You are doing that just to harass and annoy me, administrators have removed your vandalism of my user page, STOP it.

I have filed RFC on the topic of PSP firmware on that page:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMaths%2C_science%2C_and_technology&diff=102996533&oldid=102739299RunedChozo21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. Please stop this.

I'd also like to point out that after creating a sockpuppetevidence page, RunedChozo has blanked it. This is getting out of hand. -ZakuSage21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off a little. Zaku, let him blank it for now if he wants -- it's in the page's history, so admins can see it, and you've raised the issue here. Continuing to edit-war to add it only reflects badly on you. Chozo, this isn't the place to handle a content dispute.Shimeru21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going out for a bit. I'm tired of this users continued attacks against me. This isn't the first time he's tried to come after me. -ZakuSage22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your lying campaign to harass me is very much out of hand, and I'm getting tired of it, because I'd rather make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, as opposed to you who just wants to keep a page static.RunedChozo22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against putting evidence in another user's userspace because it is fairly harassing - the best place (and should be filled in) isWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.x42bn6Talk22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the placement of the evidence page is inappropriate, but I've never had to file a sockpuppet report before because no other user has acted in such an uncivil manner anddickish manner as this one has, including the use of his sockpuppet against me in some sort of grudge. -ZakuSage22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page to NotAWeasel's talk space. Hopefully this will be a better place for it, even rather than moving it to the already over-crowdedWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. It can now be found here:User talk:NotAWeasel/Sockpuppets. The old one will redirect to this. -ZakuSage22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You were specifically instructed where to put it, and yet you insist on using it to harass another user instead. You're a problem user.RunedChozo23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not being productive and bordering on uncivil. ZakuSage, if you feel that there's a sock here, file a RFCU - throwing around unsupported sock acusations like this is hostile and uncalled for. RunedChozo, please back off; we're aware that there's a problem, nobody else will act against you based just on what he says. Both of you should probably take a break for a day and calm down.Georgewilliamherbert02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I already made an evidence page, but I have now filed a formal notice onWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -ZakuSage19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep sticking harassing "evidence pages" in other users' name spaces. What a riot you are. Stop with the harassment.RunedChozo 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ZakuSage has now started an organized campaign to keep sticking his harassment pages back into my user space over and over again. This is beyond ridiculous.RunedChozo20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report is in the proper place, and is nowhere near your userspace. Please stop vandalising the sockpuppet report. Your actions are highly childish. -ZakuSage20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've not TOUCHED the sockpuppet report beyond leaving a reply, you filthy liar. It's your constant insertions of harassment pages into my user space that I have a problem with, and I'm tired of you pulling this over and over again.RunedChozo20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are CLEARLY visable in thehistory (although because of an accident while moving the page, most of it is nowhere) of the sockpuppet report. Your actions are pure vandalism, and I'm getting tired of your antics. -ZakuSage20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed my own mistake and I'm tired of your lies,dick. Get over yourself and stop harassing me. I'm here to try to make wikipedia better and you're obviously not.RunedChozo20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please help me deal with this users consistent lieing and vandalism? I'm at wits end here! -ZakuSage20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd stop lying about me, stop harassing me, stop calling me a dick, stop thinking you own the page, and stop opposing making the page better, then you wouldn't have to spend so much time lying, now would you? I invited you to make HELPFUL suggestions on a project page I made to work on so that I wouldn't touch your precious article till I had everything banged out and looking right, and what did you do? You just left harassing messages on the talk page. You've proven you're not here to do any good for wikipedia.RunedChozo20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who's been vandalizing the sockpuppet report I made, and are now furthering your web of lies. Somebody, anybody reading this, please, PLEASE help me deal with this abusive user. -ZakuSage21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. The next time either of these users goes near the other, they're getting blocked. This has gone WAY too far. --InShaneee21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a note atWP:AIV regarding one of these two users (i.e.RunedChozo). For lack of civility and disruption, I have blocked the account for 1 week. Given the long list of blocks, I am not sure if I have been too lenient and should not be asking for a community ban instead.Asterion^talk21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to two weeks after personal attack to unblock reviewer.Asterion^talk22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider the extended block. Extending blocks based on people venting on their talk pages after a block is a pernicious form of admin abuse - yes, they're being uncivil, but it's their talk page, they've just been blocked, and expecting them not to vent some is unreasonable. Unless it crosses the line from mild personal attack into serious attack or personal threats of some sort, giving people a little slack calms the situation in the long term. The basic block was appropriate, though.

I believe that ZakuSage clearly went over the line into stalking here, though they didn't do so in a manner which is insta-blockable. I'm going to say something on his/her talk page.Georgewilliamherbert23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the other user's behaviour as I just came across RunedChozo throrugh WP:AIV. I considered his attack on the unblock reviewer particularly nasty and completely unwarranted. If the community think it is indeed excesive, I have no problem reinstating the original length. Regards,Asterion^talk23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of blocks not being punitive, I have restarted the original 1 week suspension of edit rights. I hope this editor cools down during the time off.Asterion^talk23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)r

So do I. There's currently a lively discussion on the wikien-l mailing list. Hopefully a little venting and then calming down will resolve this.Georgewilliamherbert00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, ZakuSage won't care. He got off scot-free after wikistalking, while RunedChozo got the nuke dropped on him for being the victim of wikistalking. But that's how wikipedia is, admins don't care about doing what's right, just flexing their muscles and beating someone down. Asterion asking for a "community ban" is just icing on the cake, he just wanted to beat someone up and couldn't care less about the facts of the case.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.178.235.28 (talk •contribs) 01:00, January 26, 2007

72.178.235.28 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log) has left some comments on my talk page[54][55] and here just above this subsection. I have gone through extensively the contribution history and there are several coincidences of style and edit patters with those of blockedUser:RunedChozo ([56][57]), including personal attacks (compare RunedChozo's[58] with the IP's[59]).A CheckUser may be inconclusive indeed but I think this needs a follow up indeed.Asterion^talk03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)