Hi. You have blocked and warned User:VinceB in the past (your latest warning is here), so I wonder if you would not mind looking at his behavior also this time. He is leaving personal attacks against me and other users on random pages and it is difficult to track his activity down (although he usually signs his comments, he rarely logs in, so the comments do not appear in his contributions page). For example, he accused another user of expressing racist and fascist views on a completely unrelated talk page. [1] He has just mentioned me in a derogatory way on a talk page, which I have never edited. [2] Despite my requests and warnings by other users (including admin Khoikhoi [3] and User:K. Lastochka [4]), he did not calm down and he did not remove his previous attacks. In addition, he has recently abused my talk page to post his spams against other users [5] and he left several comments of the same kind ("you lied", "you abused references", "I can not believe, that you're not some political extremist", "you're supporting anti-Hungarian 'very far-right' ultra-nationalist ppl.", "Maybe you should start to think first") also for me. VinceB has been blocked for personal attacks before, [6] but he now benefits from his illusory invulnerability after WP:PAIN was deleted. None of the warnings on his talk page (including the one from an admin) worked. I will greatly appreciate if you can help us anyhow. Tankred 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You blocked U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk · contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of 1B6 ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/1B6 came back showing the two editors are unrelated and so I assumed good faith on USA's behalf and unblocked the editor. I did this because the basis of the block was the sockpuppetry. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, please let me know. -- Yamla 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And, just to be sure, I don't have to worry about 1B6 framming me?-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see you having commented either direction in the pete townshend ban. It is getting old and needs to be closed, I can't because I commented. Can you close it conclusively? Regards, Navou banter / contribs 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a request now at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests, thought it would be a good example. → Aza Toth 15:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:VinceB is evading his fresh 1-month long block by using an unblocked IP (23 edits since the block was applied). [7] VinceB even openly admitted that he is using 91.120.97.127 during his block, so no CheckUser is needed this time. [8] I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors. What to do with a guy who does not care about warnings and blocks and just switches between computers whenever he is blocked? Honestly, I have never seen anything like that and I ran out of ideas how to deal with him. Tankred 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't sign in all the time, and so I've also got an edit history under [9] and [10] (with the exception of the two Rosie O'Donnell edits). Sorry for forgetting. Soxrock 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think these diffs can stand without comment on my part.
I'll take this to AN/I if you prefer. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, now that I've read your CEM page again, as far as I'm concerned, I'd indeed prefer a somewhat different model than what you envisage there. We'll need a more active and more "authoritarian" role of the mediator in this case. These two guys are not Piotrus and Ghirla. Just my opinion. -- Of course I'm also not sure how the acceptance processes of CEM are supposed to work. You seem to have quite an institutional hierarchy set up there, what with "communitiy mediators" and "trainees" and stuff - (who's training them?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I am re-arranging the entries in the Talk:Mudaliar talk page for article Mudaliar, according to the time the entry was made. The User:Mudaliar is reverting my edits. There is no reason why he reverted it.
Venki 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is jumbling the posts on the talk page and is vandalising it. There is simply no reason to do this except to create confusion. You can very well see this is suddenly being done after about 5 months. This is not acceptable. Mudaliar 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I was just rearranging the talk page by time order so that when the time comes for arbitration, it will be clearer for the arbitrators to go through the comments. Shall I do it or not in all the related articles such as Mudaliar Sengunthar, etc ? What is your advice?
Venki 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
...I agreed with you, not that it matters. That was ill-advised in my opinion. Quadzilla99 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:VinceB is reinserting his reverted POV from 91.120.82.124 despite his ongoing block and the discussion about a community ban. [11] [12] Can you block also his IP please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. I'm on a bit of a wiki-break this week, but I'll check in a few times at my talk page. -- JaimeLesMaths ( talk! edits) 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This gallery has been creating pages for all their artists. There is no assertion of notability, so I am tagging all of them with db-bio. Hopefully the user will get the point and not need to be blocked. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
DelloJello2 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy is to move a section to the talk page if you think the section damages the article, not to delete the section. The section you deleted was a critisism section, which states four simple facts, all of which are verifiable.
The first link is to the game's forum where only members of the game may post and the threads are monitored by the game admin. Forums normally shouldn't be used to cite material but in this case the members are in fact an established group. Since the forum resides on the game's main webpage and is monitored by the games admin I see no verifiability problems. Why do you?
Also, the facts in the section are true no one disputes that but my only means of verifying those are with game films and game voice recordings, which I have. Is there a problem with me using those to verify my claims?-- Scribner 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
They've been worked down quite a bit, and are now back to well within the 10-day range, so I've removed the backlog tag. If you wouldn't mind, could you please go through some of the archived ones and give me some feedback on how I did? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest checkuser is in, multiple socks confirmed. Is there enough evidence to block the older accounts too please? One Night In Hackney 303 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems a bit odd that he headed right to WP:CN despite his account being only a few days old. Might check later ... just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Blueboy96 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake ... misread what he was doing ... shows what happens when you move to another shift ... Blueboy96 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't User:DelloJello get an indefinite ban as well? While it hasn't been confirmed via RFCU, it was included in the SSP case.-- Bobblehead 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Zeuser might need a block. He's recreated his favorite vanityspamcruft for the third time. I've only given him a friendly COI warning thus far. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, thanks for your note about that oppose !vote. Since you responded to him, I think I'll hold back for now--I don't want anyone to feel badgered for opposing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Someone mentioned to me that User_talk:SqueakBox is at 412kBytes or so... (User resists archiving), Any suggestions? 2) WP:RfAr, Kurdistan... Cool Cat was asking for help regarding it (since MedCab/RfM failed when parties decline to participate), and I was wondering whether your expertise would be of any help.
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I must admit I am highly disgruntled by your actions regarding MiszaBot II ( talk · contribs). You have provided no explanation in the block summary, neither directly nor by linking to some appropriate forum. I took me a while to dig through your contributions and find this. It eventually turned out that it was no real malfunction at all. Yet nobody apparently cared to unblock it and two days passed without a bot archiving the most active Wikipedia noticeboards, because nobody cared to notify the bot's operator (read: me) in the first place. Please be more considerate in the future. Thanks and happy editing, Миша 13 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Please deactivate this article because it is a copyright violation. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Got it. Now please deactivate this article. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The website BeerAdvocate.com has been added in 131 places. This turned up during one of the COI investigations yesterday. The main BeerAdvocate article was deleted, recreated, and then merged into an article Beer rating that I successfully speedied yesterday. Do you think these links are spam? To my sharp marketing consultant's eye, it seems so. The editor was clever enough to create a template, described at Wikiproject Beer, to automatically inserts these links. He deserves points for ingenuity and industry. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going through these links manually. Read about 30 page histories so far. Yes, I see the template insertions. Links come from a variety of editors. Preliminary report on the one that catches my attention: Stlemur. No explanation for the reinsertions. Durova Charge! 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
More reinsertion after spam blacklist removal (also without explanation):
Durova Charge! 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And here's the discussion. [27] Beetstra argues this constitutes spam and deserves blackllisting (and deleted several dozen external links on 22 March) while Stlemur defends the links as a large database. Stlemur is by no means a single purpose account (around 3k edits, various topics). I'll let you dig around some more on this one. Doesn't look like a slam dunk for corporate abuse. Durova Charge! 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The following templates may need to be deleted:
I've tagged the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer "guidelines" as essays. A bunch of spammy beer articles need to be cleaned up or db'ed. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You have blocked and warned User:VinceB in the past (your latest warning is here), so I wonder if you would not mind looking at his behavior also this time. He is leaving personal attacks against me and other users on random pages and it is difficult to track his activity down (although he usually signs his comments, he rarely logs in, so the comments do not appear in his contributions page). For example, he accused another user of expressing racist and fascist views on a completely unrelated talk page. [1] He has just mentioned me in a derogatory way on a talk page, which I have never edited. [2] Despite my requests and warnings by other users (including admin Khoikhoi [3] and User:K. Lastochka [4]), he did not calm down and he did not remove his previous attacks. In addition, he has recently abused my talk page to post his spams against other users [5] and he left several comments of the same kind ("you lied", "you abused references", "I can not believe, that you're not some political extremist", "you're supporting anti-Hungarian 'very far-right' ultra-nationalist ppl.", "Maybe you should start to think first") also for me. VinceB has been blocked for personal attacks before, [6] but he now benefits from his illusory invulnerability after WP:PAIN was deleted. None of the warnings on his talk page (including the one from an admin) worked. I will greatly appreciate if you can help us anyhow. Tankred 03:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You blocked U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk · contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of 1B6 ( talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/1B6 came back showing the two editors are unrelated and so I assumed good faith on USA's behalf and unblocked the editor. I did this because the basis of the block was the sockpuppetry. If you believe I have acted inappropriately, please let me know. -- Yamla 05:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And, just to be sure, I don't have to worry about 1B6 framming me?-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see you having commented either direction in the pete townshend ban. It is getting old and needs to be closed, I can't because I commented. Can you close it conclusively? Regards, Navou banter / contribs 14:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I have added a request now at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Requests, thought it would be a good example. → Aza Toth 15:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:VinceB is evading his fresh 1-month long block by using an unblocked IP (23 edits since the block was applied). [7] VinceB even openly admitted that he is using 91.120.97.127 during his block, so no CheckUser is needed this time. [8] I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors. What to do with a guy who does not care about warnings and blocks and just switches between computers whenever he is blocked? Honestly, I have never seen anything like that and I ran out of ideas how to deal with him. Tankred 15:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, I don't sign in all the time, and so I've also got an edit history under [9] and [10] (with the exception of the two Rosie O'Donnell edits). Sorry for forgetting. Soxrock 19:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think these diffs can stand without comment on my part.
I'll take this to AN/I if you prefer. · j e r s y k o talk · 20:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In fact, now that I've read your CEM page again, as far as I'm concerned, I'd indeed prefer a somewhat different model than what you envisage there. We'll need a more active and more "authoritarian" role of the mediator in this case. These two guys are not Piotrus and Ghirla. Just my opinion. -- Of course I'm also not sure how the acceptance processes of CEM are supposed to work. You seem to have quite an institutional hierarchy set up there, what with "communitiy mediators" and "trainees" and stuff - (who's training them?) Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I am re-arranging the entries in the Talk:Mudaliar talk page for article Mudaliar, according to the time the entry was made. The User:Mudaliar is reverting my edits. There is no reason why he reverted it.
Venki 23:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Venki123 ( talk · contribs) is jumbling the posts on the talk page and is vandalising it. There is simply no reason to do this except to create confusion. You can very well see this is suddenly being done after about 5 months. This is not acceptable. Mudaliar 23:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Durova,
I was just rearranging the talk page by time order so that when the time comes for arbitration, it will be clearer for the arbitrators to go through the comments. Shall I do it or not in all the related articles such as Mudaliar Sengunthar, etc ? What is your advice?
Venki 01:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
...I agreed with you, not that it matters. That was ill-advised in my opinion. Quadzilla99 23:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
User:VinceB is reinserting his reverted POV from 91.120.82.124 despite his ongoing block and the discussion about a community ban. [11] [12] Can you block also his IP please? Thank you in advance. Tankred 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for letting me know. I'm on a bit of a wiki-break this week, but I'll check in a few times at my talk page. -- JaimeLesMaths ( talk! edits) 05:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This gallery has been creating pages for all their artists. There is no assertion of notability, so I am tagging all of them with db-bio. Hopefully the user will get the point and not need to be blocked. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
DelloJello2 16:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wiki policy is to move a section to the talk page if you think the section damages the article, not to delete the section. The section you deleted was a critisism section, which states four simple facts, all of which are verifiable.
The first link is to the game's forum where only members of the game may post and the threads are monitored by the game admin. Forums normally shouldn't be used to cite material but in this case the members are in fact an established group. Since the forum resides on the game's main webpage and is monitored by the games admin I see no verifiability problems. Why do you?
Also, the facts in the section are true no one disputes that but my only means of verifying those are with game films and game voice recordings, which I have. Is there a problem with me using those to verify my claims?-- Scribner 21:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
They've been worked down quite a bit, and are now back to well within the 10-day range, so I've removed the backlog tag. If you wouldn't mind, could you please go through some of the archived ones and give me some feedback on how I did? Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Latest checkuser is in, multiple socks confirmed. Is there enough evidence to block the older accounts too please? One Night In Hackney 303 21:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Seems a bit odd that he headed right to WP:CN despite his account being only a few days old. Might check later ... just thought I'd give you a heads-up. Blueboy96 23:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My mistake ... misread what he was doing ... shows what happens when you move to another shift ... Blueboy96 23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't User:DelloJello get an indefinite ban as well? While it hasn't been confirmed via RFCU, it was included in the SSP case.-- Bobblehead 01:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
User:Zeuser might need a block. He's recreated his favorite vanityspamcruft for the third time. I've only given him a friendly COI warning thus far. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, thanks for your note about that oppose !vote. Since you responded to him, I think I'll hold back for now--I don't want anyone to feel badgered for opposing. --Akhilleus ( talk) 03:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Someone mentioned to me that User_talk:SqueakBox is at 412kBytes or so... (User resists archiving), Any suggestions? 2) WP:RfAr, Kurdistan... Cool Cat was asking for help regarding it (since MedCab/RfM failed when parties decline to participate), and I was wondering whether your expertise would be of any help.
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I must admit I am highly disgruntled by your actions regarding MiszaBot II ( talk · contribs). You have provided no explanation in the block summary, neither directly nor by linking to some appropriate forum. I took me a while to dig through your contributions and find this. It eventually turned out that it was no real malfunction at all. Yet nobody apparently cared to unblock it and two days passed without a bot archiving the most active Wikipedia noticeboards, because nobody cared to notify the bot's operator (read: me) in the first place. Please be more considerate in the future. Thanks and happy editing, Миша 13 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Durova! Please deactivate this article because it is a copyright violation. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Got it. Now please deactivate this article. Thanks. Helmür Cölser 13:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The website BeerAdvocate.com has been added in 131 places. This turned up during one of the COI investigations yesterday. The main BeerAdvocate article was deleted, recreated, and then merged into an article Beer rating that I successfully speedied yesterday. Do you think these links are spam? To my sharp marketing consultant's eye, it seems so. The editor was clever enough to create a template, described at Wikiproject Beer, to automatically inserts these links. He deserves points for ingenuity and industry. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going through these links manually. Read about 30 page histories so far. Yes, I see the template insertions. Links come from a variety of editors. Preliminary report on the one that catches my attention: Stlemur. No explanation for the reinsertions. Durova Charge! 22:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
More reinsertion after spam blacklist removal (also without explanation):
Durova Charge! 22:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
And here's the discussion. [27] Beetstra argues this constitutes spam and deserves blackllisting (and deleted several dozen external links on 22 March) while Stlemur defends the links as a large database. Stlemur is by no means a single purpose account (around 3k edits, various topics). I'll let you dig around some more on this one. Doesn't look like a slam dunk for corporate abuse. Durova Charge! 22:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The following templates may need to be deleted:
I've tagged the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer "guidelines" as essays. A bunch of spammy beer articles need to be cleaned up or db'ed. Jehochman ( Talk/ Contrib) 02:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)