User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse/Archive/2006/July

Holy_Ganga (talk · contribs · logs)

Being reported here on behalf of concerns raised by User:Anwar saadat that the user has been involved in edit-warring and has received subsequent blocks for these reasons. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User was approved by Prodego on 26 April 06. Prior to that point he had received no blocks or warnings and was a well-established editor. My opinion: approving him was correct.
On 8 May 06, the user was blocked by InShaneee citing the following reason: "3RR violation on Pakistan." Had the event been reported here at the time, he likely would have been immediately removed from the approved list and not been added back for at least two to three weeks; however, given that it is currently the 24th of May 06, I don't feel that removing his usage permission now for that one event is necessary.
I was only able to find two mainspace edits the user ever made with VandalProof: [1] and [2]. Both of these appear to be reversions over content disputes, not reversions of vandalism. Immediately following the first reversion I mentioned, Holy Ganga went one step further and warned the user. I don't agree with either of these actions, and it seems rather obvious that the user is not using the tool for the right reasons. In fact, in looking through his contribs, I see almost no vandalism reversions, yet several reversions over content disputes.

My conclusion from all this: I fear that Holy Ganga will potentially abuse the tool (and he has to a very mild degree already), but I see no reason currently to remove him from the list. I'm going to ask him to comment on this evidence and ensure that he understands why his actions suggest this to me. If another moderator would like to remove the user from the approved list, I will not stand in his/her way, but for now I'd just suggest that a close eye be kept on him and that any further blocks or abuse of the tool would result in his/her losing the privelege of using it. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will second you AmiDaniel, pending the response of Holy_Ganga.Eagle talk 02:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do not block Holy Ganga, the fact is that the user who complained about Holy Ganga is a known vandal. He has already reported perfectly good Wikipedians for various exaggerated things. Please consider User:Anwar saadat's talk page and his second archive on his talk page for proof of this. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for Holy Ganga's response, though thanks for your vote of support. (we don't block, the worst we can do is disallow use of VandalProof). Eagle talk 05:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real problem with Anwar

1) My warning was to anonymous user 212.32.94.152 [3]. This was the revert made by him [4]. Anwar asked for citations to my addition and in response, i provided most of the references. Suddenly, this anonymous user jumped in and reverted my edits back to Anwar's original edit.

2) In article Islam in India, I added another point of view with reference and some changes. Later , i also edited one line. ONCE AGAIN... same anonymous user jumped and reverted my edit back to Anwar's. [5][6]

3) In article Joseph Vijay, ONCE AGIN, this same anonymous user Jumped from nowhere and reverted edits by user:Prince 06 (where Prince 06 was feeling sorry for Anwar).[7]

4) Here [8], once again Anwar was involved in revert war with prince 06. Suddenly Once again, Same Anynomous user Jumped in and reverted edits.

Because of Anwar's past behaviour, because of his talk page discussions and because of his anti-Hindu impression, I can say confidently that this anonymous user = Anwar and warning to this anonymous user was warning to Anwar and thats why he is here once again with his tricks. To admins, don't block anyone if this guy reports. Go into the detail before taking any action on the bases of his reports. Beware of tricks.- Holy Ganga ^talk

19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hate to delay archiving of this (by 10 days) but I would like to see a moderator other than me respond to this. Thanks!! Eagle talk

P.S. I withhold my opinion until another moderator speaks.Eagle talk 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a complex dispute, so I propose no action or probation. Computerjoe 's talk 06:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine by me, though someone (me if nessacary) should speak to Holy Ganga about the use of vandalproof for content/non-obious vandalism. Meanwhile, untill the issue is cleared this can stay up. (has to for 10 days after the last post). After that it is history:-) What do you think? Eagle talk 01:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CynicalMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

this person keeps getting on my back about stuff i didnt do and keeps "fixing" my accurate edits!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.73.243 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 July 2006

Could you provide some examples? CynicalMe 18:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the IPs contribs I support CynicalMe, and I feel he did nothing wrong. ILovePlankton 19:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with ILovePlankton Eagle talk 21:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs5382 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User reverts all of my edits, and then proceeds to vandalise my user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.145.53.123 (talk • contribs) .

All of them have been vandalise of my user page. You don't have a user page. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 17:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it was my User:Talk page. I don't know about vandalism to your page, but please stop posting all of the nonsense and offensive language on mine.--146.145.53.123 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are posted on one's talk page, yet you also can not delete them. They will be retored at one point, maybe by not me this time. --

Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 17:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would advise not deleting current warnings. After a few days if you wish you may archive the warnings. Eagle talk 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]