*'''Endorse''' He's already shown that he's not willing to follow the rules by using a sockpuppet. And now evading it with an anonymous IP? Nuke him.[[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy96]] 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' He's already shown that he's not willing to follow the rules by using a sockpuppet. And now evading it with an anonymous IP? Nuke him.[[User:Blueboy96|Blueboy96]] 01:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. Another one on the brink. Unlike other derilect users, this one was stubborn with all the chances he got. {{sysop|Durova|Durova}} tried her best to steer him off the path. I'll decide pending his plea. [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCenturyDriver]] <small>([[User_talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Honk]], [[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|contribs]], <span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BuickCenturyDriver&site=en.wikipedia.org odometer]</span>)</small> 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''Neutral'''. Another one on the brink. Unlike other derilect users, this one was stubborn with all the chances he got. {{sysop|Durova|Durova}} tried her best to steer him off the path. I'll decide pending his plea. [[User:BuickCenturyDriver|BuickCenturyDriver]] <small>([[User_talk:BuickCenturyDriver|Honk]], [[Special:Contributions/BuickCenturyDriver|contribs]], <span class="plainlinks">[http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=BuickCenturyDriver&site=en.wikipedia.org odometer]</span>)</small> 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
*'''comment''' pretty nice that you go over the content, and just look at formality. He's personal? So what he says is evil also, or bad. I've apologized for many many times, fo my behave, accepted adoptery or what, also proved presented many evidents, proofs, or however you want to call it for my "accusations" before. Slovan is still my roommate, he's go another account since, so I'm not loggin in from his PC anymore. The bad guy is the personal guy, as usual. Maybe a mentor, who ''mentors'' me, not just put a nice userbox on my userpage would help. Otherways, [[User:Juro|notorious sockpuppeteers]] can be lifted from indef ban [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Juro]? Noone took the time not the click, to check evidents, no, I go personal, I'm the bad one, not those, who give ridicuolus or none or unverifiable, or recently: POV sources, like at [[Miklós Horty]]. No. Personal? Ban. The content of his words behind personal things? Hey, this is not htat place. Speak nice with liars [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&diff=prev&oldid=102809025#Tankred_.28talk_.C2.B7_contribs_.C2.B7_logs_.C2.B7_block_user_.C2.B7_block_log.29 Tankred caught 4 times lying - read the last comment by me]. I've got death threats immediately, when P started a lame edit war with me from a Serbian IP address (P is Serbian also), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:VinceB&diff=90037241&oldid=88484892]. Maybe I got frustrated a bit? No I can not be angry, I have to swallow it, and speak nice or I got banned. Yeah, ave wikiprocess. Nice. Thank you. --[[User:91.120.82.124|91.120.82.124]] 02:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Indefblocked on February 12--only 15 days after joining--for adding blatantly false information or outright nonsense to articles. Suspected of being the puppetmaster of almost 40 sockpuppets, some of whom have made threats on talk pages and on actual articles. Some of the uglier examples:
Azumanga1 alerted us on WP:TVS about this guy, but after taking a look at his edits, this guy's threats pose a direct threat to the project--we're lucky the Foundation wasn't flooded with calls because of some of the threats he made on articles. This calls for a community ban.--Blueboy9604:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and Addition -- In addition, he also revealed a list of Alief ISD school bus drivers in this article: [5]. Furthermore, while he mostly used SBC IPs for his crimes, two of them originated from Alief Independent School District servers: [6], [7]. He is a person who needs to be stopped NOW. -- azumanga12:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse community ban. Jesus, this chap has been busy with the sockbabies, and by the looks of it they're all as unpleasant as each other. We don't need this obvious troll, ever. MoreschiRequest a recording?13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by user proposing ban I would think it would be a good idea to block the Ailef ISD from editing Wikipedia for a time as well. It's obvious from his activity that they don't have even cursory methods of monitoring usage. There's precedent for such an extreme measure when an educational institution doesn't police itself (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime). Any collateral damage to the ISD's other students is more than outweighed by the fact that the whole project could have been TOSed by our upstream provider had someone not caught those threatening edits in time. --Blueboy9614:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this person is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia and I agree, block on sight per a ban is the way to go here.--Isotope2320:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I started browsing through his contributions and just, wow. A completely clear-cut case for a ban. Vassyana14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.
This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:
Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.
User:Biochemical Mind is seeking ten billion dollars in damages from the Wikimedia Foundation for lost business opportunities following our refusal to offer him exclusive control over and subsequent deletion of his article Erinacine. His user page makes it clear that he is unlikely ever to be able to edit within policy. I have locked him indefinitely, a formal ban is requested in case of return. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. Genesis 7:11 : Gen 7:6. ; On my pages, I will explore various medicinal products of nature that can lead to longevity described in the Bible." Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a clear indication that he is going to sue the Foundation, it does not matter whether "his" article was deleted due wrong reasons. We have channels to follow in order to review apparent wrong decisions, and suing is not one of them. -- ReyBrujo22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He emailed OTRS with a copy of the plaint. To be clear: he is blocked and will stay that way, I wish to make it a ban. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurding to his reply (which I removed) he has reported this to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center. I guess they will be used to this kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse First a copyvio, then deleting an AfD template, then violating WP:OWN, then suing for an extortionate amount--this guy is batting a thousand. I would suggest, Guy, that you change your message on his talk page to indicate he's indefblocked, and you're seeking a ban--not that he's already banned. Blueboy9622:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the block and ban. Based on activities to this point, the likelihood of positive contribution to the encyclopedia is close to zero, and the disruption per day of activity index is quite high. Besides, not even Dr. Evil would ask for $10 billion... MastCellTalk22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ban with complete incredulity that someone would be this.. um.. (reads WP:NPA, and disregards several hundred different sentences). this completely off-base with the way Wiki works. Sounds almost like he's trolling SirFozzie00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He obviously didn't read policy before considering suing. 10 billion over "lost business opportunities" and excommuniations? Pretty much a troll. bibliomaniac1503:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; we don't need psychologically unstable people to misuse Wikipedia as well as governmental organizations. That and Ryulong feels that individuals who refer to themselves in the third person are generally not normal. Also, when did the FBI start investigating internet complaints?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask that this discussion not be closed for another two hours and thirty-six minutes? Timing is everything in comedy. -- BenTALK/HIST21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta disagree, Tony--and even if you were right, this guy is clearly too unstable for Wikipedia. Looking at WP:LOBU, we've banned people before out of concerns about their stability. Blueboy9601:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because trimming signatures is soooo anti-encyclopedic. -- ReyBrujo 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Ah, you must be referring to the subject, not Tony. I hope so. -- ReyBrujo22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he's made legal threats doesn't mean that's the only thing he could be banned for. Support ban on the grounds of irredeemable conflict of interest. Friday(talk)22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request Community Ban on JB196(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log)
This user has been indefblocked formally twice, once initially as User:JB196, snuck back as User:BooyakaDell, and since being indefblocked when found out under that account, has switched to using sockpuppets. He has a long term abuse report here. He continues to vandalize articles, inserting his link, at one pointt he site he was using got put on the spamlist, and then he turned to using proxy sites such as proxyhole to get the link into the article. I think the time has come to formally ban him from WP. You can see the accounts linked to him at his LTA report, his most recent set of socks were blocked over on ANI recently. Thank you. SirFozzie04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was already formalized. We just need some time and someone to find the appropriate ban discussion, which should be in the archives somewhere. —210physicq (c) 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have been searching the archives but haven't found it. Eyes hurt. Head hurts. Good luck to the next searcher. Going to sleep now. -- BenTALK/HIST06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am hereby banning SqueakBox (talk· contribs), Davidpatrick (talk· contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk· contribs) from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this action in line with WP:BAN? I'm under the impression bans are governed under the "decision to ban" section. I do not see how that specific arbcom case delegates this authority. Perhaps the article should be fully protected while the editors explore dispute resolution or proposing a topic ban at WP:CN. v/r Navou02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this action should be reversed in line with my above rational, but I'd be happy to hear what the community thinks. Navou03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been editing the article less than 12 hours and edit thousands of articles so am not sure how I could be considered to be fixated on any aspect of Townsend. Calling someone fixated on ana rticle after less than 12 hours might be construible as a personal attack. Indeed this seems wildly inappropriate and I may test the ban with a "soft" edit, which also has its antecedents in arbcom history as well as WP:IAR I believe, while this declaration with no policy backing by one individual would set an ugly precedent were it to be allowed, SqueakBox03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the fixation part, but it's definitely of benefit to Wikipedia that the article can now be edited, whereas while protected it could not, and while there was an edit war continuing nobody with any sense would have wanted to edit it anyway. So this is a win. --Tony Sidaway05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable restriction, certainly within our discretion, if the editors affected wish to challenge it then we have the community sanction process or ArbCom. I suggest they should not challenge it, but that they may ask in a few weeks for a review, if they have something meaningful to add to the article. In the mean time, the talk page would be a good place to start :-) Guy (Help!) 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ArbCom has issued bans on editing certain groups of articles in the past, at least once on my request in the "Depleted Uranium" case. I have issued such bans in the past on the grounds of "disruption to Wikipedia", but I take this upon myself if they are ever challenged. Physchim62(talk)11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has been listed as a proposed action, however, I do not think I am comfortable with the development of this particular case. For clarification, what Dispute Resolution steps have been taken? Navoubanter / contribs14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please clarify if this is (a) a proposed action seeking community sanction, (b) an action taken as mandated by the ArbCom, or (c) the unilateral action of one administrator? I hope it's (a) but it appears to be (c). Is there additional information or context that I am missing or overlooking? --ElKevbo15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to WP:AGF but it appears to be item c. Upon further consideration, I have un strike thru my above statement as I believe it is applicable. In order to impose a ban, it requires community consensus. And in this case, we do not have consensus, yet. There are other ways and processes in place that I believe should be used in this case. I'll wait to hear the banning sysops opinion on this. Navoubanter / contribs16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's reasonable to restrict at least temporarily their editing of the article itself. If they play nice, that restriction can be lifted in a week or so. If not, we have to explore any underlying problems with these folks. SqueakBox and Pigs are both inclined to edit war, but SqueakBox does not strike me as malicious and has taken past blocks in good part, usually coming back calmer. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protect the article, refer them to WP:DR. I would be happy to mediate. But, at this time, I feel any type of ban in inappropriate in the absence of any other evidence. Navoubanter / contribs16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But protecting the article means no one will be able to edit it. This ban eliminates the need to protect the article, so everybody who hasn't been disruptive can still edit it - while those who have been disruptive can't. Picaroon21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, in the event of edit warring the article should be protected and editors involved are encouraged to take it to the talk page. I don't see any evidence they are unwilling to attempt this. From WP:BAN:"Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct".
I see no evidence that steps of dispute resolution have been taken. This is simply not the way we do things. If it should be different the we should change the policy, but I firmly believe that in the case of a content dispute, protection is appropriate and the editors encouraged to take it to the talk page. Banning is early and inappropriate at this juncture. WP:RFPP and WP:DR is the logical course of action. respectfully, Navoubanter / contribs21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So he made a decision and ignored the rules. Things worked out. No reason to change policy. I appreciate your adherence to process, Navou, but there really isn't any point in debating the legitimacy of an otherwise sound action just because it's illegitimate. Picaroon22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent)In the interest of improving the encyclopedia, I have no issue with WP:IAR, however; I would like to see this softban have a timetable other than indefinite, and a plan for content dispute resolution. Perhaps the actioning sysop would like to leave DR options on the talk pages of the effected editors. I generally do not feel comfortable with the entire banning process and would like to see it done with consensus. Perhaps I'm being prude, but I would that if those editors have good content to add to the article, they work out the differences, come to an agreeable outcome and include the content. The soft ban, in its current wording, prohibits that. I have a difficult time supporting it as is. Navoubanter / contribs22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little surprised that one administrator unilaterally instituted a soft ban - especially as there was already a lock on the article - which in the past has led to compromises being proposed and resolved. And morevoer there was no warning or prior discussion that this might happen. I have chosen to assume that the action was well-intentioned to resolve a problem. I have never had this happen to me before. There have been edit wars twice before on this article that I am aware of. One in Dec 2005-Jan 2006. And one in mid-Feb 2007. On both occasions an administrator stepped in and worked out a compromise. Neither side were thrilled with the compromises of course (I was on one side of these edit wars) but both sides seemed to accept the compromise. The first compromise held for 13 months - without anyone making any fuss. The article expanded - but continued to reflect the compromise. The second war erupted in Feb 2007 when a comparatively new editor (6 weeks new and with a user page that attacked the very premise of wikipedia) challenged the compromise and fought hard to have it overturned complaining that the police's decision to not prosecute Townshend did not mean that he should not be described as "guilty of accessing child pornography" in the article. That war was again settled with a lock on the article for a few days - during which time an administrator proposed a compromise that achieved support (albeit with some disappointment expressed.)
All had been well again for 6 weeks - when suddenly it erupted again. This page is not the forum to argue the merits of the matter. But it is important to understand that the topic is contentious. And involves arguably libellous statements - or certainly libellous implications - about a living person - with some notability. Not something that Wikipedia should be too nonchalant about.
I will of course abide by whatever is decided in regard to the soft ban. I would prefer that myself - and the two persons whose opinions I strongly disagree with - are not subjected to a soft ban. But that the time-honored process of compromise that has resolved these matters before - be deployed. Thank you. Davidpatrick20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to dispute resolution would be beside the point here. The editors in question were obviously only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war. We shouldn't let them inflict their pettiness on Wikipedia, and on the article. It should be editable by all reasonable people, that huge majority of editors who are capable of resolving disputes without bringing them to a silly edit war. --Tony Sidaway23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more with the above note. While I disagree strongly with the points expressed by the other two editors in question - I don't for one moment believe that they - any more than I - were "only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war". They strongly hold to their beliefs - as do I. And heat was generated. That heat came from passion not pettiness. Assume good faith...? The better resolution would be the Talk Page and the help of an administrator. Davidpatrick23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporttemporary topic bans in this instance (also single purpose accountWiki-is-truth (talk· contribs)), and the ability of univolved admins to topic ban without much fuss in obvious cases. Per Guy above there are many chances for review: on AN/I and here or ArbCom if the editor objects. Just to be clear though, the case NicholasTurnbull cited above contains permanent restrictions on Bogdanov Affair, this proposal steers well clear of any type of article probation correct?—eric01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view this more as a kind of article protection rather than a ban. When IPs are causing problems on an article it is semi-protected so other users can continue to edit. Here established users are causing the problem, and this is a reasonable way to protect the article and still allow others to make changes. If the topic here were general user conduct, i think the community would impose much different sanctions on each of these three editors.—eric01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin who locked the article down prior to the soft ban being implemented. I also performed a similar action during the article's previous edit war earlier this year, and in fact my request for compromise worked out quite well on that occasion (although one of the parties in the latest round has since denied such a consensus existed - see the Townshend talk page). I would like to see a timetable clarified regarding the bans on the editors involved because, as noted above, it was implemented without the usual arbitration. I do think this is only a band-aid solution as an examination of the history of the article shows that periodically someone will try and push a POV regarding a certain aspect of Townshend's life, which results in push-back from others who feel this should not be overplayed. For my part, save for a few edits to resolve what I consider WP:BLP issues, I haven't landed on one side or the other (or at least have not intended to appear as if I have). I would like to see this resolved equitably, without the need to ban anyone from editing the article in lieu of an arbitration process. For the record (since this is a lengthy discussion thread and I'm not sure I might not have missed something), the admin who unlocked the article and performed the soft bans did leave a note on my talk page indicating his action, with an invitation for me to reverse at least the unprotection if I so chose. I decided to let it ride for now since I'm in the middle of some major "real world" commitments that are restricting my availability to oversee any ongoing mediation. But I'm always willing to help out as I have done so in the past. There have been two major previous "blow outs" in the Townshend article: the first one more than a year ago ended in a compromise that held for months, while the latest compromise lasted for about 6 weeks until an editor (who appeared to disappear from the discussion) added something to the article to which others objected, and the round started again. In Yahoo Groups mailing lists, there is an option that group moderators can approve all postings by members, and this is often used to diffuse flame wars; it's a shame a similar process can't be put in place for articles that seem prone to controversy, such as this one. 23skidoo03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Navou for volunteering to mediate. There was also an earlier offer to mediate from the admin. who brokered compromises to the previous edit wars on this article and who is very well versed in all the arguments on both sides. He/she seems to be even-handed - I know this because neither side (including me!) were totally happy with his/her compromises! But the compromises prevailed for long periods of time - until the recent spat. I am willing to work with that admin again to try and restore the civility and compromise that had prevailed for a long time. Since it now appears that the imposition of the soft ban may have been rather premature given the state of play - I think that the soft ban should be lifted and we should all attempt to work together calmly. Thanks. Davidpatrick23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, could you contact that admin, and if he or she is willing, you may contact the other involved parties. Once the dispute is in mediation, I would ask that the community review this discussion and see what we can't do about concluding this, in the interest of the project. v/r Navou16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While mediation may be of help in enabling the editors who have been banned to work out their differences, there are no edit wars on that article since they were banned. Everybody else seems to be editing quite happily without warring. The encyclopedia is running as designed. --Tony Sidaway23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Upon encouragement by Durova,[8] I am proposing a community ban of User:VinceB. He has been blocked eight times since October and his sockpuppet User:Slovan was blocked indefinitely.[9] The reasons of VinceB's blocks were sockpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, and personal attacks. Some of his edits were especially damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia - for example when he changed the meaning of the text cited from academic works to its opposite.[10] His blocks were applied by several admins and positively reviewed by other previously uninvolved admins. In addition, VinceB has been asked to change his disruptive behavior dozens of times by User:Durova,[11][12]User:Khoikhoi,[13]User:K. Lastochka,[14][15]User:PANONIAN,[16] myself,[17][18][19] and, of course, by all the admins who have blocked him. Even more warnings can be found in an archive (User:VinceB/Blabla). VinceB has been just blocked again (for one month!) after he started to spam random talk pages with personal attacks against other users. Unfortunately, all the previous warnings on his talk page remained ignored, blocks failed to teach him a lesson, and even the recent most severe block turned out to be inefficient. Although it was made clear that he might face a community ban,[20] VinceB is evading his fresh block by editing anonymously from 91.120.97.127 (23 edits since the latest block was applied[21]) and he even openly admits it.[22] I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors and it should be dealt with. Given the long block record and inefficiency of all the previous warnings, I think a community ban is the only alternative left. Tankred23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... is there any reason we're allowing him to link to a blatant attack on Hungarians at the top of his userpage? Yes, ban him please. -Amarkovmoo!00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll co-nominate this editor for community banning. Back in October 2006 I blocked VinceB twice for edit warring. I shortened the second block after he sought mentorship, but mentorship just didn't work for this editor. On 29 January I followed up with a statement of concern about his growing block log and checkuser requests.[23] Tankred followed up yesterday with diffs of more recent personal attacks, all of which checked out, so I issued a 1 month block in the hope that VinceB would get the message (numerous shorter blocks hadn't worked). He promptly evaded the block on an IP address, identifying himself through first person comments, in edit notes, and using his registered account's signature.[24][25][26][27]DurovaCharge!00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tankred and Durova have shown that his abuse is persistent and that attempts at encouraging him to change his ways have failed. Flyguy649talkcontribs00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The user has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to moderate his behaviour or heed the good advice and warnings of others. Since there is no reason to believe he will stop his disruptive and threatening behaviour, a community ban is most appropriate. Vassyana00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse He's already shown that he's not willing to follow the rules by using a sockpuppet. And now evading it with an anonymous IP? Nuke him.Blueboy9601:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Another one on the brink. Unlike other derilect users, this one was stubborn with all the chances he got. Durova(talk· contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tried her best to steer him off the path. I'll decide pending his plea. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment pretty nice that you go over the content, and just look at formality. He's personal? So what he says is evil also, or bad. I've apologized for many many times, fo my behave, accepted adoptery or what, also proved presented many evidents, proofs, or however you want to call it for my "accusations" before. Slovan is still my roommate, he's go another account since, so I'm not loggin in from his PC anymore. The bad guy is the personal guy, as usual. Maybe a mentor, who mentors me, not just put a nice userbox on my userpage would help. Otherways, notorious sockpuppeteers can be lifted from indef ban [28]? Noone took the time not the click, to check evidents, no, I go personal, I'm the bad one, not those, who give ridicuolus or none or unverifiable, or recently: POV sources, like at Miklós Horty. No. Personal? Ban. The content of his words behind personal things? Hey, this is not htat place. Speak nice with liars Tankred caught 4 times lying - read the last comment by me. I've got death threats immediately, when P started a lame edit war with me from a Serbian IP address (P is Serbian also), [29]. Maybe I got frustrated a bit? No I can not be angry, I have to swallow it, and speak nice or I got banned. Yeah, ave wikiprocess. Nice. Thank you. --91.120.82.12402:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indefblocked on February 12--only 15 days after joining--for adding blatantly false information or outright nonsense to articles. Suspected of being the puppetmaster of almost 40 sockpuppets, some of whom have made threats on talk pages and on actual articles. Some of the uglier examples:
Azumanga1 alerted us on WP:TVS about this guy, but after taking a look at his edits, this guy's threats pose a direct threat to the project--we're lucky the Foundation wasn't flooded with calls because of some of the threats he made on articles. This calls for a community ban.--Blueboy9604:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse community ban. Jesus, this chap has been busy with the sockbabies, and by the looks of it they're all as unpleasant as each other. We don't need this obvious troll, ever. MoreschiRequest a recording?13:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by user proposing ban I would think it would be a good idea to block the Ailef ISD from editing Wikipedia for a time as well. It's obvious from his activity that they don't have even cursory methods of monitoring usage. There's precedent for such an extreme measure when an educational institution doesn't police itself (Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime). Any collateral damage to the ISD's other students is more than outweighed by the fact that the whole project could have been TOSed by our upstream provider had someone not caught those threatening edits in time. --Blueboy9614:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this person is not adding anything of value to Wikipedia and I agree, block on sight per a ban is the way to go here.--Isotope2320:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I started browsing through his contributions and just, wow. A completely clear-cut case for a ban. Vassyana14:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This new option in dispute resolution allows some disputes to avoid full arbitration by giving the participants the option to enter binding agreements that use arbitration-like remedies such as WP:1RR or civility parole.
This noticeboard plays an important role in CEM: mediators will announce new cases here when they open and will present proposed solutions to the community for ratification. The community has three options with each package deal proposal:
Accept - ratify the agreement and make it enforceable, similar to how arbitration remedies are enforceable.
Reject - nullify the agreement and close mediation.
Return - send the proposal back into mediation for refinements.
User:Biochemical Mind is seeking ten billion dollars in damages from the Wikimedia Foundation for lost business opportunities following our refusal to offer him exclusive control over and subsequent deletion of his article Erinacine. His user page makes it clear that he is unlikely ever to be able to edit within policy. I have locked him indefinitely, a formal ban is requested in case of return. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. Genesis 7:11 : Gen 7:6. ; On my pages, I will explore various medicinal products of nature that can lead to longevity described in the Bible." Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a clear indication that he is going to sue the Foundation, it does not matter whether "his" article was deleted due wrong reasons. We have channels to follow in order to review apparent wrong decisions, and suing is not one of them. -- ReyBrujo22:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He emailed OTRS with a copy of the plaint. To be clear: he is blocked and will stay that way, I wish to make it a ban. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Accurding to his reply (which I removed) he has reported this to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center. I guess they will be used to this kind of crap. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse First a copyvio, then deleting an AfD template, then violating WP:OWN, then suing for an extortionate amount--this guy is batting a thousand. I would suggest, Guy, that you change your message on his talk page to indicate he's indefblocked, and you're seeking a ban--not that he's already banned. Blueboy9622:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the block and ban. Based on activities to this point, the likelihood of positive contribution to the encyclopedia is close to zero, and the disruption per day of activity index is quite high. Besides, not even Dr. Evil would ask for $10 billion... MastCellTalk22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ban with complete incredulity that someone would be this.. um.. (reads WP:NPA, and disregards several hundred different sentences). this completely off-base with the way Wiki works. Sounds almost like he's trolling SirFozzie00:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He obviously didn't read policy before considering suing. 10 billion over "lost business opportunities" and excommuniations? Pretty much a troll. bibliomaniac1503:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support; we don't need psychologically unstable people to misuse Wikipedia as well as governmental organizations. That and Ryulong feels that individuals who refer to themselves in the third person are generally not normal. Also, when did the FBI start investigating internet complaints?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask that this discussion not be closed for another two hours and thirty-six minutes? Timing is everything in comedy. -- BenTALK/HIST21:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta disagree, Tony--and even if you were right, this guy is clearly too unstable for Wikipedia. Looking at WP:LOBU, we've banned people before out of concerns about their stability. Blueboy9601:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because trimming signatures is soooo anti-encyclopedic. -- ReyBrujo 22:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC) Ah, you must be referring to the subject, not Tony. I hope so. -- ReyBrujo22:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because he's made legal threats doesn't mean that's the only thing he could be banned for. Support ban on the grounds of irredeemable conflict of interest. Friday(talk)22:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Request Community Ban on JB196(talk· contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs ·filter log· block user ·block log)
This user has been indefblocked formally twice, once initially as User:JB196, snuck back as User:BooyakaDell, and since being indefblocked when found out under that account, has switched to using sockpuppets. He has a long term abuse report here. He continues to vandalize articles, inserting his link, at one pointt he site he was using got put on the spamlist, and then he turned to using proxy sites such as proxyhole to get the link into the article. I think the time has come to formally ban him from WP. You can see the accounts linked to him at his LTA report, his most recent set of socks were blocked over on ANI recently. Thank you. SirFozzie04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was already formalized. We just need some time and someone to find the appropriate ban discussion, which should be in the archives somewhere. —210physicq (c) 05:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I have been searching the archives but haven't found it. Eyes hurt. Head hurts. Good luck to the next searcher. Going to sleep now. -- BenTALK/HIST06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am hereby banning SqueakBox (talk· contribs), Davidpatrick (talk· contribs) and Pigsonthewing (talk· contribs) from editing this article; I am implementing here a "soft-ban" - as the article history shows the edit war exists only between these three participants, and thus the article may be unprotected in the event of these users being banned from editing. Upon the event of these users violating this soft-ban, administrators may, at their discretion, implement blocks from editing Wikipedia in enforcement of this. This is made in line with ArbCom precedent that editors who perform fixated edit warring upon an article may be banned from editing that article, such as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair. Should anyone have any questions or concerns relating to this, please do contact me. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)01:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this action in line with WP:BAN? I'm under the impression bans are governed under the "decision to ban" section. I do not see how that specific arbcom case delegates this authority. Perhaps the article should be fully protected while the editors explore dispute resolution or proposing a topic ban at WP:CN. v/r Navou02:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this action should be reversed in line with my above rational, but I'd be happy to hear what the community thinks. Navou03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd been editing the article less than 12 hours and edit thousands of articles so am not sure how I could be considered to be fixated on any aspect of Townsend. Calling someone fixated on ana rticle after less than 12 hours might be construible as a personal attack. Indeed this seems wildly inappropriate and I may test the ban with a "soft" edit, which also has its antecedents in arbcom history as well as WP:IAR I believe, while this declaration with no policy backing by one individual would set an ugly precedent were it to be allowed, SqueakBox03:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the fixation part, but it's definitely of benefit to Wikipedia that the article can now be edited, whereas while protected it could not, and while there was an edit war continuing nobody with any sense would have wanted to edit it anyway. So this is a win. --Tony Sidaway05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable restriction, certainly within our discretion, if the editors affected wish to challenge it then we have the community sanction process or ArbCom. I suggest they should not challenge it, but that they may ask in a few weeks for a review, if they have something meaningful to add to the article. In the mean time, the talk page would be a good place to start :-) Guy (Help!) 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ArbCom has issued bans on editing certain groups of articles in the past, at least once on my request in the "Depleted Uranium" case. I have issued such bans in the past on the grounds of "disruption to Wikipedia", but I take this upon myself if they are ever challenged. Physchim62(talk)11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it has been listed as a proposed action, however, I do not think I am comfortable with the development of this particular case. For clarification, what Dispute Resolution steps have been taken? Navoubanter / contribs14:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please clarify if this is (a) a proposed action seeking community sanction, (b) an action taken as mandated by the ArbCom, or (c) the unilateral action of one administrator? I hope it's (a) but it appears to be (c). Is there additional information or context that I am missing or overlooking? --ElKevbo15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to WP:AGF but it appears to be item c. Upon further consideration, I have un strike thru my above statement as I believe it is applicable. In order to impose a ban, it requires community consensus. And in this case, we do not have consensus, yet. There are other ways and processes in place that I believe should be used in this case. I'll wait to hear the banning sysops opinion on this. Navoubanter / contribs16:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's reasonable to restrict at least temporarily their editing of the article itself. If they play nice, that restriction can be lifted in a week or so. If not, we have to explore any underlying problems with these folks. SqueakBox and Pigs are both inclined to edit war, but SqueakBox does not strike me as malicious and has taken past blocks in good part, usually coming back calmer. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protect the article, refer them to WP:DR. I would be happy to mediate. But, at this time, I feel any type of ban in inappropriate in the absence of any other evidence. Navoubanter / contribs16:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But protecting the article means no one will be able to edit it. This ban eliminates the need to protect the article, so everybody who hasn't been disruptive can still edit it - while those who have been disruptive can't. Picaroon21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, in the event of edit warring the article should be protected and editors involved are encouraged to take it to the talk page. I don't see any evidence they are unwilling to attempt this. From WP:BAN:"Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct".
I see no evidence that steps of dispute resolution have been taken. This is simply not the way we do things. If it should be different the we should change the policy, but I firmly believe that in the case of a content dispute, protection is appropriate and the editors encouraged to take it to the talk page. Banning is early and inappropriate at this juncture. WP:RFPP and WP:DR is the logical course of action. respectfully, Navoubanter / contribs21:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So he made a decision and ignored the rules. Things worked out. No reason to change policy. I appreciate your adherence to process, Navou, but there really isn't any point in debating the legitimacy of an otherwise sound action just because it's illegitimate. Picaroon22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(reduce indent)In the interest of improving the encyclopedia, I have no issue with WP:IAR, however; I would like to see this softban have a timetable other than indefinite, and a plan for content dispute resolution. Perhaps the actioning sysop would like to leave DR options on the talk pages of the effected editors. I generally do not feel comfortable with the entire banning process and would like to see it done with consensus. Perhaps I'm being prude, but I would that if those editors have good content to add to the article, they work out the differences, come to an agreeable outcome and include the content. The soft ban, in its current wording, prohibits that. I have a difficult time supporting it as is. Navoubanter / contribs22:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was a little surprised that one administrator unilaterally instituted a soft ban - especially as there was already a lock on the article - which in the past has led to compromises being proposed and resolved. And morevoer there was no warning or prior discussion that this might happen. I have chosen to assume that the action was well-intentioned to resolve a problem. I have never had this happen to me before. There have been edit wars twice before on this article that I am aware of. One in Dec 2005-Jan 2006. And one in mid-Feb 2007. On both occasions an administrator stepped in and worked out a compromise. Neither side were thrilled with the compromises of course (I was on one side of these edit wars) but both sides seemed to accept the compromise. The first compromise held for 13 months - without anyone making any fuss. The article expanded - but continued to reflect the compromise. The second war erupted in Feb 2007 when a comparatively new editor (6 weeks new and with a user page that attacked the very premise of wikipedia) challenged the compromise and fought hard to have it overturned complaining that the police's decision to not prosecute Townshend did not mean that he should not be described as "guilty of accessing child pornography" in the article. That war was again settled with a lock on the article for a few days - during which time an administrator proposed a compromise that achieved support (albeit with some disappointment expressed.)
All had been well again for 6 weeks - when suddenly it erupted again. This page is not the forum to argue the merits of the matter. But it is important to understand that the topic is contentious. And involves arguably libellous statements - or certainly libellous implications - about a living person - with some notability. Not something that Wikipedia should be too nonchalant about.
I will of course abide by whatever is decided in regard to the soft ban. I would prefer that myself - and the two persons whose opinions I strongly disagree with - are not subjected to a soft ban. But that the time-honored process of compromise that has resolved these matters before - be deployed. Thank you. Davidpatrick20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to dispute resolution would be beside the point here. The editors in question were obviously only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war. We shouldn't let them inflict their pettiness on Wikipedia, and on the article. It should be editable by all reasonable people, that huge majority of editors who are capable of resolving disputes without bringing them to a silly edit war. --Tony Sidaway23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more with the above note. While I disagree strongly with the points expressed by the other two editors in question - I don't for one moment believe that they - any more than I - were "only interested in prosecuting a petty edit war". They strongly hold to their beliefs - as do I. And heat was generated. That heat came from passion not pettiness. Assume good faith...? The better resolution would be the Talk Page and the help of an administrator. Davidpatrick23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporttemporary topic bans in this instance (also single purpose accountWiki-is-truth (talk· contribs)), and the ability of univolved admins to topic ban without much fuss in obvious cases. Per Guy above there are many chances for review: on AN/I and here or ArbCom if the editor objects. Just to be clear though, the case NicholasTurnbull cited above contains permanent restrictions on Bogdanov Affair, this proposal steers well clear of any type of article probation correct?—eric01:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I view this more as a kind of article protection rather than a ban. When IPs are causing problems on an article it is semi-protected so other users can continue to edit. Here established users are causing the problem, and this is a reasonable way to protect the article and still allow others to make changes. If the topic here were general user conduct, i think the community would impose much different sanctions on each of these three editors.—eric01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin who locked the article down prior to the soft ban being implemented. I also performed a similar action during the article's previous edit war earlier this year, and in fact my request for compromise worked out quite well on that occasion (although one of the parties in the latest round has since denied such a consensus existed - see the Townshend talk page). I would like to see a timetable clarified regarding the bans on the editors involved because, as noted above, it was implemented without the usual arbitration. I do think this is only a band-aid solution as an examination of the history of the article shows that periodically someone will try and push a POV regarding a certain aspect of Townshend's life, which results in push-back from others who feel this should not be overplayed. For my part, save for a few edits to resolve what I consider WP:BLP issues, I haven't landed on one side or the other (or at least have not intended to appear as if I have). I would like to see this resolved equitably, without the need to ban anyone from editing the article in lieu of an arbitration process. For the record (since this is a lengthy discussion thread and I'm not sure I might not have missed something), the admin who unlocked the article and performed the soft bans did leave a note on my talk page indicating his action, with an invitation for me to reverse at least the unprotection if I so chose. I decided to let it ride for now since I'm in the middle of some major "real world" commitments that are restricting my availability to oversee any ongoing mediation. But I'm always willing to help out as I have done so in the past. There have been two major previous "blow outs" in the Townshend article: the first one more than a year ago ended in a compromise that held for months, while the latest compromise lasted for about 6 weeks until an editor (who appeared to disappear from the discussion) added something to the article to which others objected, and the round started again. In Yahoo Groups mailing lists, there is an option that group moderators can approve all postings by members, and this is often used to diffuse flame wars; it's a shame a similar process can't be put in place for articles that seem prone to controversy, such as this one. 23skidoo03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Navou for volunteering to mediate. There was also an earlier offer to mediate from the admin. who brokered compromises to the previous edit wars on this article and who is very well versed in all the arguments on both sides. He/she seems to be even-handed - I know this because neither side (including me!) were totally happy with his/her compromises! But the compromises prevailed for long periods of time - until the recent spat. I am willing to work with that admin again to try and restore the civility and compromise that had prevailed for a long time. Since it now appears that the imposition of the soft ban may have been rather premature given the state of play - I think that the soft ban should be lifted and we should all attempt to work together calmly. Thanks. Davidpatrick23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, could you contact that admin, and if he or she is willing, you may contact the other involved parties. Once the dispute is in mediation, I would ask that the community review this discussion and see what we can't do about concluding this, in the interest of the project. v/r Navou16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While mediation may be of help in enabling the editors who have been banned to work out their differences, there are no edit wars on that article since they were banned. Everybody else seems to be editing quite happily without warring. The encyclopedia is running as designed. --Tony Sidaway23:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Upon encouragement by Durova,[37] I am proposing a community ban of User:VinceB. He has been blocked eight times since October and his sockpuppet User:Slovan was blocked indefinitely.[38] The reasons of VinceB's blocks were sockpuppetry, vandalism, edit warring, and personal attacks. Some of his edits were especially damaging to the integrity of Wikipedia - for example when he changed the meaning of the text cited from academic works to its opposite.[39] His blocks were applied by several admins and positively reviewed by other previously uninvolved admins. In addition, VinceB has been asked to change his disruptive behavior dozens of times by User:Durova,[40][41]User:Khoikhoi,[42]User:K. Lastochka,[43][44]User:PANONIAN,[45] myself,[46][47][48] and, of course, by all the admins who have blocked him. Even more warnings can be found in an archive (User:VinceB/Blabla). VinceB has been just blocked again (for one month!) after he started to spam random talk pages with personal attacks against other users. Unfortunately, all the previous warnings on his talk page remained ignored, blocks failed to teach him a lesson, and even the recent most severe block turned out to be inefficient. Although it was made clear that he might face a community ban,[49] VinceB is evading his fresh block by editing anonymously from 91.120.97.127 (23 edits since the latest block was applied[50]) and he even openly admits it.[51] I believe such behavior undermines credibility of any administrative measures applied against disruptive editors and it should be dealt with. Given the long block record and inefficiency of all the previous warnings, I think a community ban is the only alternative left. Tankred23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... is there any reason we're allowing him to link to a blatant attack on Hungarians at the top of his userpage? Yes, ban him please. -Amarkovmoo!00:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll co-nominate this editor for community banning. Back in October 2006 I blocked VinceB twice for edit warring. I shortened the second block after he sought mentorship, but mentorship just didn't work for this editor. On 29 January I followed up with a statement of concern about his growing block log and checkuser requests.[52] Tankred followed up yesterday with diffs of more recent personal attacks, all of which checked out, so I issued a 1 month block in the hope that VinceB would get the message (numerous shorter blocks hadn't worked). He promptly evaded the block on an IP address, identifying himself through first person comments, in edit notes, and using his registered account's signature.[53][54][55][56]DurovaCharge!00:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Tankred and Durova have shown that his abuse is persistent and that attempts at encouraging him to change his ways have failed. Flyguy649talkcontribs00:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The user has repeatedly shown an unwillingness to moderate his behaviour or heed the good advice and warnings of others. Since there is no reason to believe he will stop his disruptive and threatening behaviour, a community ban is most appropriate. Vassyana00:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse He's already shown that he's not willing to follow the rules by using a sockpuppet. And now evading it with an anonymous IP? Nuke him.Blueboy9601:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Another one on the brink. Unlike other derilect users, this one was stubborn with all the chances he got. Durova(talk· contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) tried her best to steer him off the path. I'll decide pending his plea. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 02:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment pretty nice that you go over the content, and just look at formality. He's personal? So what he says is evil also, or bad. I've apologized for many many times, fo my behave, accepted adoptery or what, also proved presented many evidents, proofs, or however you want to call it for my "accusations" before. Slovan is still my roommate, he's go another account since, so I'm not loggin in from his PC anymore. The bad guy is the personal guy, as usual. Maybe a mentor, who mentors me, not just put a nice userbox on my userpage would help. Otherways, notorious sockpuppeteers can be lifted from indef ban [57]? Noone took the time not the click, to check evidents, no, I go personal, I'm the bad one, not those, who give ridicuolus or none or unverifiable, or recently: POV sources, like at Miklós Horty. No. Personal? Ban. The content of his words behind personal things? Hey, this is not htat place. Speak nice with liars Tankred caught 4 times lying - read the last comment by me. I've got death threats immediately, when P started a lame edit war with me from a Serbian IP address (P is Serbian also), [58]. Maybe I got frustrated a bit? No I can not be angry, I have to swallow it, and speak nice or I got banned. Yeah, ave wikiprocess. Nice. Thank you. --91.120.82.12402:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]