User talk:MastCell/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RfA

I see I just missed the deadline on your RfA nomination. I can't believe I missed that. I just wanted to drop you a personal note to give you my support. I've only had positive experiences with you on wikipedia, which is saying a lot because the places I've run into you are on fairly controversial articles that can get heated at times. You'll make a great admin. Keep up the good work.-Andrew c 01:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The general convention is to allow comments up until the RfA is closed by a bcrat, but registering your comments here is great too of course. - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Also wanted to congratulate you on the successful RfA nomination. Not a single vote in opposition! Like Andrew c, I think you are the perfect candidate for adminship, because you've already proven yourself more than capable. Good luck, and I look forward to continuing to work with you! -Severa (!!!) 04:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations! Now here's your mop and bucket! -- Samir 04:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

After your successful RfA, you're now an admin. Spend some time on the admin reading list, and ask if you're unsure. If you keep up the good efforts you've made so far I'm sure you'll be fine. Again, congrats - Taxman ^Talk 02:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. While assuming good faith is very important, I ackowledge that noone is perfect. Good luck with the tools, and try to use them wisely, especialy when dealing with a suspected sockpuppet(Again, noone's perfect, I'm sure you'll do your best using them with good judgement, and congratulations)--U. S. A. 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, another great addition to the administrator crew! -- Samir 04:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Open that champagne!

Congratulations! You really deserve this and I'm sure you'll wield your mop wisely. I personally would like to see Wikipedia make a determined effort to officially become a reliable source by its own standards (which is one of Citizendium's goals). Vandalism wastes an enormous amount of time here, and other matters also contribute to keeping Wikipedia from ever approaching that goal. I hope you will work toward those ends. -- Fyslee/talk 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to see you on board. Congratulations, although it is one tempered with a hightened workload ahead for you I fear :-) Shot info 11:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Many Congratulations. Not sure if anyone has given you the links, but here are the guides: Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide. Regards David Ruben ^Talk 12:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5) Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. KillerChihuahua?!?

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.

From me as well. We've not had much contact in the past, but I trust your judgment and am sure you'll make excellent use of your new tools! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. You are a great contributor. Keep up the good work. Remember 14:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

vital tips

Hi MastCell,

Thanks a million for that tip. This PMID to cite journal conversion tool is a real time saver. I wasn't aware it existed. Great. Thanks, for pointing that out.

See you, Jasu 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Investigator

Many thanks for your help on this site: I thought there may have been an Admin only bar on this, but as I was going away from my desk I thought that would be the quickest way to stop them! Thanks again and if they come back I'll let you know. Gavin --hydeblake 17:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another persistent vandal

An Arizona user using at least three IPs is making libelous BLP violations against Simon Cowell on a number of articles:

• 130.13.16.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.13.18.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 130.13.18.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This isn't accidental or minor vandalism, but serious stuff. Such persons aren't needed here - ever! -- Fyslee/talk 22:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

hey

hey, i have a favour to ask you, if you have the effort to deal with it. User:Vision Thing keeps reverting my edits to Anarchism even though they have been endorsed by multiple other editors (see the last few sections of the talk page). Could you keep an eye on it? He/she pops up every few days *just* to revert me on that article and other people on various other related articles. It's pretty much all he/she does on wikipedia. I would even file a RFC or even a RFAr but I don't have the time to organise it. -- infinity0 15:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

RFCU

Please understand that as RFCU clerk, I follow the rules strictly. I never claim WP:IAR in the clerk work. Furthermore, I cannot act as advocate for any party, requestor or editor listed in the RFCU. Thank you for your participation in correcting the RFCU request.VK35 16:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem; didn't mean to give you a hard time about it. MastCell ^Talk 17:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Misc. Edit War

Hi MastCell, I thought you might want to take a look at recent edits made by User:Sacrumi to the diplom article despite your warnings to both parties to back off. I tried to give a third opinion to parties but, apparently, this proved futile. I don’t really want to get involved further but these recent edits just don’t make any sense. Good luck. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 02:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Runcorn

I've replied to your comment at the Runcorn AN thread. Regards. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

Once again I had to report user:Gon4z to the Administrators' noticeboard today as I found another large amount of insults he threw at other users (i.e. "I can see you an American ASS licker"). Here is the link to the new accident report as usual there is vandalism, insulting other users, 3rr edit wars, lies, unsourced edits and so on too... I have requested that he be banned once and for all, as he clearly is disruptive in everything he does and has been since his first edits over a year ago! noclador 02:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like User:Prodego is watching him. He's had enough warnings. If he continues disruption after Prodego's final warning, I'd be willing to block him for an extended period of time as he clearly is not getting the message and continuing to cause problems. You may want to notify him of the AN/I thread. MastCell ^Talk 02:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I informed him of the AN/I thread. noclador 11:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology

apology for threats of violence. in the same way, people should learn to be civil —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mehudson1 (talk • contribs).

Head's Up

Thanks for the note. I won't tag any of the new comments. I really am at a loss for what to do about this page and this user. --evrik ^(talk) 19:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• The content issue is being driven by the one user ... perosnally, I'd like to see the page protected with an earlier version in place. This is one user editing one page whose edits are questionable. --evrik ^(talk) 20:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, that is not good enough. Evrik should have to remove the existing tags as well. And though Evrik may find my edits "questionable", it was I who found the legal brief on behalf of Ms. Arellano's son which provided most of the pertainent details of the case which she stipulates to in court. In short, my edits have provided the most neutral info about the subject. Evrik doesn't point out any flaws in the legal brief data, he just makes vague accusations and deletes what he does not like. And gets a free pass for it. LordPathogen 20:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the tags which Evrik has placed. He's agreed not to place any more. In the meantime, please take this back to the article talk page or to dispute resolution and don't continue this argument on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree and will quit posting here. I am also trying your advice... Hence I have set up a Request for Comment section on the talk page. In the meantime, Evrik reverted my deletions of the SPA tag... again, despite my noting in the edit you gave me permission. He wrote: "no such permission was given, you are a spa and need to be identified as such." But hey, that's not harrassment, right? ;-) Would you please make HIM remove them this time? I'm getting tired of doing it... LordPathogen 21:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hadn't seen where you said LP could remove it (which I disagree with), but I have made the change. By the way, please look at this email I got last week. -evrik ^(talk) 21:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for blocking User:Nozzlehog so quickly. I wish I could do that myself sometimes. Have a great day. --Witchzilla 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

SKRINE2

A fundamental tenet is NPOV . . . the article Mandrake of Oxford was nominated for AFD for the right reasons but you chose to revert the proposal without considering the merits of the nomination.

I would ask you to please take a moment or two read this.

Brief Background Summary: User IPSOS is an aggressive editor and very skilled at applying guidelines robotically as rules. He has been involved in four edit-wars in the last couple of months. He has lied to admin about his aggressive personal attacks blaming Emnx, for proof see the section Look beneath the Surface on User talk:Eagle 101. He had offensive material on his user page which brings Wikipedia into disrepute and which was conveniently removed today after many complaints, over many weeks, by editors and admins alike. The material he had was :-

Problem with Wikipedia The main problem with Wikipedia is that complete fools cribbing from books consider themselves the equals of people who have studied a field and are intimately acquainted with it. Like people who don't even know how Maugham or Goethe or Jung are pronounced but edit their articles just the same, or who don't know how the word draught is pronounced but are editing beer. Can you believe I was asked for citations to prove that a well-known anthropologist with a double-barrelled name actually shouldn't be cited using only the second half of his last name when a simple phone call to any anthropology department or a simple search of the Library of Congress catalog would have cured one of one's ignorance? When those who don't really know insist they are right rather than admit that they don't really know, I suggest that they simply leave Wikipedia. Why invest your ego in proving yourself right about something which you don't know anything about?!!! Damn silly.

A rather unpleasant text and shows an attitude I doubt you had perceived of IPSOS previously.

Putting all other points, arguments, disputes, bans, and who did what to whom and when aside . . . the original reason for the nomination of Mandrake of Oxford was valid and supported by other neutral editors!

The article clearly does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. On that basis alone I would most respectfully ask you to reconsider your position from a NPOV and perhaps resurrect the Mandrake of Oxford AFD process SOLELY on its merits.

In support of that request I would quote three other editors who have expressed clear views in support of delete:-

In the AFD for Mandrake of Oxford Javit wrote "Delete, fails WP:NN. Should go asap. In addition, I suspect a case of WP:COI with USER:IPSOS

In the AFD for Mandrake of Oxford Gustav von Humpelschmumpel wrote "Delete Wikipedia not a commercial directory."

Earlier when applying a PROD tag to the article Coldmachine said in his edit summary "This article is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising."

thank you for taking the time to read this--86.147.169.220 19:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said in the AfD closure, I wasn't making a judgement about the notability of the article. It may very well warrant deletion. But it's simple: when you're blocked, you're blocked. Using a sockpuppet to nominate an article for deletion is not the way to get things done. Any user in good standing can re-nominate it for AfD at any time, but AfD's initiated by abusive sockpuppets are invalid. For the record, I saw a balance of "keep" and "delete" opinions expressed during the brief time the AfD was online. I'm not validating IPSOS' conduct (I haven't looked into it deeply) - I looked into this as a case of abusive sockpuppetry, which it was, and acted based on that. Using an IP to evade a block is also not recommended. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First up thanks for not blocking the IP (for now) and allowing me to converse with you. It is truly appreciated.

I am sorry about circumventing the ban in such an obvious way but it was, and is, the only way I can approach you directly and I have a dynamic IP that is why there is no record of my history. I've never bothered with an account in the past and the Sock Puppet case was trumped up and I guess you didn't look that deeply beyond the circumstantial evidence.

Truthfully, I guess you don't have the time or inclination to investigate such an apparently complex matter and it is easier to follow the most eloquent editor who knows how to apply the rules to his best advantage. What suffers on such occasions is the integrity of Wikipedia.

I know you weren't "making a judgement about the notability of the article" but I am again respectfully asking you to do so now . . . please consider the views of the three editors who supported my proposed delete, take into account that the only two people who argued for keep are the very two who created it as a result of the split arguments on Mandrake Press — that is not a balanced split ? . . . please consider re-instating the AFD or maybe setting up an RFC about deletion?

Cheers (and bye, I'm off to be an anon again!)--86.147.169.220 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Way too lenient...

A 1 week block for 70.106.74.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? Futile. They'll be back again next week. Mark my word. 6 months would have been a lot more appropriate considering they've been at it since January. --  Netsnipe  ►  20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The last block was 48 hours, and they've never been blocked more than a week. I agree there's a high likelihood they'll vandalize more when they return, at which point a longer block could be in order. On the other hand, if you feel strongly about it, feel free to extend the block yourself as you see fit. That would be fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (2nd)

Thanks for the action and update. I didn't tag User:Coldmachine's page as I wasn't sure either. The Emnx sock may simply have cut and pasted as it said (I see our friend is back editing from an IP). Though I have other reasons to suspect Coldmachine based on contribs (readdition of linkspam on Dune (novel) after I'd cleaned up the links, which I hadn't even noticed). I'm happy to wait and see if Coldmachine takes up the crusade or quest or whatever the sock is on about. IPSOS (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is verging on slander. I am not a sockpuppet and slurring the reputation of a wiki user is offensive and crass. You refer to the Dune (novel) article and my edits. Discussion is evident on these pages, and you were not a part of it. A resolution was made, and the edits were agreed upon by all concerned. Simply because you disagree is not grounds for reverting edits, or for accusing other users of being sockpuppets. You clearly have a conflict of interest in the Mandrake article and are raising this into a vendetta as a result. I suggest you take a break to cool off.Coldmachine 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, break it up. The case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Billyego sockpuppets

I respond less and less all the time. But there seems to be something to be said for reasserting that the show will go on, despite the sockpuppetry. It's mostly for the gallery. And on the Tucker page, there really is a substantive issue about how we handle that Late Life section. Thanks for keeping on top of this. Libertatia 18:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Vision Thing, there are a number of characteristics of the Billy Ego sockpuppets, including constant minor revisions of Talk page entries, that I don't see in VT's postings. He may be an edit-warrior on the "same team," but that's a different issue. Libertatia 20:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Nomination Mandrake of Oxford and your speedy keep decision

In the discussion for deletion of this article, which lasted no longer than a day I should add, you made a decision for a speedy keep based on the fact the nomination came from a "sockpuppet of a blocked user". I made the nomination (see the discussion page on the article), and I am neither a sockpuppet nor am I the individual named as such which is Emnx. Could you please explain what happened to my nomination, and why there appears to confusion over this? I should like the prod reopened accordingly since I believe a mistake has been made. Coldmachine 20:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the AfD nomination was made by User:SKRINE2, a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Such nominations are not valid. You may be thinking of the proposed deletion nomination which you made. However, once a proposed deletion is contested (as this one was), the article must be sent to WP:AfD for a full discussion. SKRINE2 did this, and I closed it because this user was a sockpuppet. As you are currently a user in good standing, if you'd like to renominate the article for deletion, you can go to WP:AfD and follow the instructions there to do so. If you need help with technical aspects, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I really do appreciate it. May just call you on that offer for technical help since as is probably almost certainly clear I'm still figuring all this out... Coldmachine 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the deletion process is confusing, and it took me some time to figure out its ins and outs. If the AfD nomination does not appear as it should, let me know and I can look it over. MastCell ^Talk 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I've gone through the process and hope I got it right. If you've got the time, would you be able to take a look and see if it's formed properly etc? If not, don't worry! I know how busy you must be :S Coldmachine 08:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick question please

Dear Sir, I noticed that you closed the case Suspected Sock puppets/VinylJoe without blocking him (He is the master puppeteer) why? He has been making accusations of identity fraud against me up to just a few hours ago (See: [1]) Now, that he knows that he can create sock puppets, his harassment will resume. Thank you .Jrod2 22:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the sock as it was clearly disruptive. VinylJoe's use of a sock was unacceptable, but blocks are meant to be preventive rather than punitive, so I didn't see that it would be appropriate to punish his main account. I think you and User:VinylJoe both ought to back off a little and pursue the steps outlined in dispute resolution (the first of which is disengagement). However, I'll leave a note at the admin's noticeboard asking if others would handle this differently. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough Sir. I think even if nothing happens at the notice board, he is going to think twice before he starts attacking me again, with or without new sock puppets. Thanks again for your help. Jrod2 22:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if more suspicious new accounts show up, feel free to let me know or return to WP:SSP. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has a dispute with user Jrod2. This matter and complaints against Jrod2 [2] was brough up on the administrative notice board by another user. Admins did nothing to resolve it. --VinylJoe 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution, thataway. MastCell ^Talk 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear MastCell, I am not going to start ranting on your page, but it has to be said that the user who accused me of deleting his external links (Which I deemed were too commercial for Wiki) has no longer an issue with me and the reason no action was taken on his allegations is that I may have actually had a point to delete. But, it goes to show you that user VinylJoe is constantly acting on bad faith and is grasping on things based on nada. He even had the audacity to harass me for a confirmation of a degree right there at the ANI. I will keep you informed if I suspect there is another sock puppet of his lurking around. Thanks again! Jrod2 15:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Evrik is at it again with SPA tag

Hi Masthead. Sorry to bother you but Evrik is at it again with the "highly discouraged" and in his case, also impoperly used SPA tag. He is trying to circumvent your previous request to him to stop using it regarding me by making my name part of a sentence and using the nowiki tag so it does not get parsed. This is how it looks: "...every edit this month made by {{spa|LordPathogen}} has made..." You can see what I mean here Arellano Talk. I asked him nicely to remove it. He would not. I removed it. He put it back and said "Don't edit my comments." Frankly, this has gotten rather old. You asked him to remove them before and he stated he would not use them in the future with me. Later, after he put them back when I removed them after you told me I could, you asked him to remove them which he grudgingly did. Now, he is trying a new way to get around it. I don't understand why he is getting such leeway here. If I were to do these actions, I would be blocked. Why is he not and what are you going to do about it since he is violating a ruling you made previously? Thanks... --LordPathogen 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have left another message at his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-) --LordPathogen 18:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, WP:SPA is an essay and not a guideline. I honored your previous request and removed it from the talk page. I used it in this instence because i wanted to illustrate a point. I have read and noted that the use of the {{spa}} tag is highly discouraged and may be seen as a personal attack.

Since LordPathogen started editing the article Elvira Arellano he/she has been blocked twice for violating 3RR. Additionally, one of those blocks also involved using two sockpuppets, one of which was blocked. During one of those blocks, LP sent me and one other user harassing emails and was unapologetic about it.

In the last week, LP has accused me of Suspicious editing behavior and harassment on WP:ANI – both times the complaints were turned aside. Also in the last week, LP has accused me of 3RR and another user of the same thing.

This user has spent a fair amount of time causing grief and making edits that violate WP:Point. LP is lamely trying to game the system and your warning is not only unjustified but is just giving credence to an account that is a thin mask fore POV pushing and near vandalism. I have resisted posting any notices to WP:ANI because I thought this user could be controlled. I also didn't want to escalate this further. --evrik ^(talk) 19:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, Evrik attemps to distract from the issue at hand. The issue is not my behaviour right now but his... He has been abusive to me, reverts without comment, has posted my personal email address on wikipedia while thoughtfully redacting his own and in general been extremely territorial about this article. Though I disagree with the rulings made on some of the above which were prompted by his actions, I was punished and "served my time." Is he above the law? I warmly invite you MastCell to read the article on Arellano and see if I have been engaged in "POV pushing and near vandalism" or, as is actually the case, Evrik is engaging in sheer hyperbole for as I have stated previously, he is out of control and feels he is above the rules we are all supposed to abide by and that he argues so strenously for. You went out of your way now several times to help him avoid embarrassment and save face, but he has failed to abide by the previous agreement he made with you and now is basically refusing to comply with the ruling you left on his talk page. Hence, I request that he be formally sanctioned and blocked as the only fair option left. Thanks --LordPathogen 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I see more editors have become involved at Elvira Arellano, which is a good thing. Evrik, if LordPathogen has been that disruptive (which I partway agree with), I'd suggest filing an RfC. Please don't use the spa template any further on the article talk page. I won't insist you remove the current instances where the template is not expanded, but if you use the template again then I'm going to feel forced to block you for personal attacks and intentionally throwing fuel on the flames. That doesn't excuse or validate LordPathogen's behavior, but your own conduct is independent of his. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why is he allowed to keep the current instance on the page in direct violation of your previous decision and what you stated on his talk page? Besides being unfair it is willfully disobedient. He does, yet again, what he wants. I don't understand that. Again I invite you to examine my "disruptive" edits to the article and you will see I added (and cited) material directly from the legal brief filed on behalf of Ms. Arellano's son and stipulated to by her. I did not pull it out of thin air. You will see it is I as well that added two separate RfCs on the talk page, both of which Evrik has made snide and disruptive comments at. Lastly, you will see under the Neutrality section of the talk page, it is Evrik, not I, who placed a NPOV dspute tag on the article and then fails to support the need of it on the talk page. Evrik may write on a lot of articles, but it should not allow him immunity from the rules, especially when he tries to lord them over others... --LordPathogen 01:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Since this user only edits on a single topic, I don't think the RFC process would be really useful. --evrik ^(talk) 00:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

another thanks, in addition to LordPathogen's

Thanks for adding the warning to that person I listed on WP:AIV. Name doesn't matter because there are so many. Until yesterday, I didn't know how to list things on AIV so I just gave lower level warnings on my own, even to multiple offence vandals.

You're not a mast cell, you're a mast cell stabiliser!VK35 18:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hello, it's me again. I'm getting sick of repeatedly telling Vision Thing to stop POV-pushing. Will you support me for an RFAr? -- infinity0 17:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in editing that set of articles, so don't really have any insight that would be useful in an RfArb. My involvement's been mostly limited to blocking Billy Ego sockpuppets. Sorry, but I don't think I can be of assistance. You may want to consider an RfC first, especially if there are other editors also having trouble with VT. MastCell ^Talk 20:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For your support and your message :) Don't worry, I won't practice on anyone. I'll send out "proper" thank-you notes later, but I'd like you to know I really appreciated your support, and I look forward to working with you again :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And yours:

Thank you for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking unsigned abuser

I'm sorry that I don't really know the proper route to deal with abuse, but there's a user that you've already communicated with (IP 74.195.17.240)who continues to add schizophrenic-type drivel to pages on biologically-relevant ions. Would you be able to block his IP? Thanks, Dan Levy 17:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; if it becomes a problem again when the block lifts, let me know and I'll extend it (or you can go to WP:AIV, although it may be easier to come back here). Has all the damage been undone? MastCell ^Talk 19:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

All vandalism was reverted. The root of the problem might require neuroleptics; but thats a bit beyond our powers :-) Thanks for helping out for now. Dan Levy 21:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No surprise, the problematic user is back. He's mostly limiting his contributions to salt and salinity control. At least he has a login now, which is Mcampbell422. Thanks. Dan Levy 13:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Emnx seems to be back

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Emnx (3rd). IPSOS (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked IP

Hi there; I did say in a previous post that I would respect the view of an independent admin. I must say that I do not agree with it, but there is no point in my making these comments if I do nor follow through on them. I will change the block to six months.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

He is back and has new tricks see here i.e. stealing images, claiming them as his and then releasing them as PD... plus insults, edit warring, ... well we know it all. As he came of a week long block and immediately returned to his well-known ways, can we end this now and block him once and for all? --noclador 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Mcampbell422 = User:74.195.17.240

The anonymous user you blocked the other day for "tendentious editing" has now taken on an identity of Mcampbell422. He has been posting his unreferenced mumbo-jumbo about sodium/potassium ratio (actually he references himself as the source) to an article someone else is trying to develop on soil salinity called Salinity control. Despite repeated attempts to remove this stuff, he keeps putting it back. He has also been disruptive (to a lesser degree) in the article, salt. In various talk pages he insists he has the right to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for self-publishing whatever he likes. I don't know what the policy is for users like this. Perhaps you can explain Wikipedia policy and guidelines to him better than any of the rest of us have. I'll leave it up to your discretion what (if anything) to do. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 01:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford

As the admin who determined the AFD -- can I ask you to intervene as I have placed a REQUEST TO ADMIN TO SUSPEND AFD.

GlassFET and IPSOS created the article concerned. I believe this AFD has been compromised by the actions of these two editors and their alleged COI. I request that this discussion and Mandrake Press be dealt with on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or elsewhere.

In summary the reasons are :-

• the suspicion mentioned in the main discussion above that IPSOS and GlassFET have a COI,
• that IPSOS and GlassFET are acting and voting in consort
• that the sock puppet allegations made by IPSOS and GlassFET may be little more than attempts to remove or disparage views that don't coincide with their own
• the low number of votes
• the contentious nature of the issues and events

I feel the only sensible conclusion is that this discussion should be suspended forthwith, all aspects properly investigated and the matter dealt with at a higher level. A default keep for lack of consensus would not, in the circumstances, be a satisfactory outcome.

I have explained in more detail here --Arthana 04:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for the results of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Emnx. I mean, when a sockpuppet accuses somebody of conflict of interest, what's that prove? IPSOS (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making personal attacks and try to maintain NPOV. I did not make the accusation of COI that was already made in the AFD by others. As to allegation as to my being a sock puppet that is all it is — an allegation made by you.--Arthana 08:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, I noticed actually that IPSOS had accused me of being a sockpuppet of this Emnx also, the minute I posted the AfD, and now I see that GlassFET has requested a checkuser of my account. I'm happy for to be investigated by an admin because I have nothing to hide and no connection to any other user on here. But, as Arthana mentions I do find it highly suspicious that both of these users are using allegations of sock puppetry against my account merely because I hold a position with which they disagree. The whole thing smacks of violation of good faith, and I feel I am being subject to a personal attack by these users. Coldmachine^Talk 08:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you seem to be ignoring that there is a history of sockpuppetry involving the attempt to delete the article. It has to be investigated. So far, every attempt to delete the article has been traced to vandal and sockpuppeteer Emnx. One sockpuppet, SKRINE2 used the exact same words in the last AfD as Coldmachine used when s/he prodded the article. What do you expect me to do, ignore such a blatant and obvious indication of sockpuppetry? Attempting to expose sockpuppetry is not a personal attack when proper reporting and rfcu is used, and I'd appreciate it if you both would cease and desist pretending it is. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that when this admin looked into the allegation when my account was accused by you - falsely and with obvious malice - of having a link to User:Emnx, it was decided that no evidence did exist (I quote from the above: "OK, break it up. The case is closed, and I didn't find clear evidence that User:Coldmachine is a sockpuppet. If there's further concern, it could go to checkuser; failing that, he should be able to edit without a shadow on him. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 20:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)", yet you persist in raising these false allegations. Why? It cries 'vendetta' to me, and I can only assume these are continued personal attacks against my reputation as a user of good standing among the wikipedia community. Do you always accuse people who disagree with your perspective on this site of being sockpuppets? Coldmachine^Talk 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, break it up. The AfD will close when it closes; I'm going to let another admin close it to get an outside set of eyes. As far as sockpuppetry, if there are still concerns then checkuser is the way to go. Beyond that, I'd suggest looking at the steps outlined in dispute resolution - disengaging for a little while to edit other articles, or failing that, getting outside input via a request for comments or similar mechanism. MastCell ^Talk 15:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z

is back... As User:Gon4z has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia on June 12th for ongoing disruption, creating blatant copyright violations, incivility, worsening behaviour, edit-warring coming right off his 4th block for the same, seeming inability to edit collaboratively, and a general pattern of worsening disruptive behaviour. Now he is back and editing under the IP address: 82.35.34.170 and keeping up his disruptive behaviour including his insults and threats to other users! see here. Also he is trying to hide behind a non-existent user, by overwriting his IP by with a link to the non-existent user:NC. Furthermore the articles constantly vandalized by him (Serbian Air Force, Military of Albania, Template:Infobox National Military Albania, Albanian Naval Defense Forces, List of Albanian Air Force aircraft, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Land Forces Command, ... ) have now all been vandalized anew, with exactly the same Albanian-nationalistic, pro islamic and anti Serbian bias Gon4z displayed before his block. i. e. Gon4z edit and 82.35.34.170 edit. Therefore I request that the IP 82.35.34.170 rapidly be blocked indefinitely too. I posted the above on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here, but I think you should now too. Thanks --noclador 05:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: he is now deleting the block notices regarding him from OTHER useres pages! see here! Alison ☺ has blocked him, but only for a duration of 24h which is -in my eyes- not enough, as this just means that tomorrow all begins anew... noclador 06:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clearly Gon4z based on the editing patterns, talk page edit, and abusive edit summaries. We typically block IP addresses for shorter times initially, as they can shift, but if he comes off the block with his usual behavior (which, sadly, seems likely) then let me know and I'll extend it. I'll keep an eye out. In the meantime, try to treat it as a minor annoyance; the more someone like that gets under your skin, the more likely they'll keep after you. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z isn't getting under my skin :-) I'm just annoyed by all the time wasted to clean up behind him, but as reverting his edits fits timely and nicely in my coffee breaks (to short to write new articles:-( I just do that- and it is much better then hitting the snack machine downstairs with all the talkative secretaries :-) Well, tomorrow 7:40am he will be back... --noclador 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My recent RfA

Thanks for your support and defense in my recent, unsuccessful RfA. It's much appreciated. IvoShandor 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)