Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive145

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Roman Empirer" edits 2 Is it justifiable.....? 3 User:Bb3b no2 4 User:Kilz 5 User:Strothra 6 User:Mvk page moves 7 Abuse 8 User:Large Barge 9 Avian flu 10 Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles 11 Ruy Lopez 12 Uknewthat again 13 Legal threat in an edit summary 14 Street address given for building - semi-protection requested 15 69.241.4.133 16 Deleting a revision of Benjamin Harrison 17 Wikipedia:Admin school again 18 Sockpuppets needed to be blocked 19 Vague threat by probable sockpuppet 20 This is a public account 21 Patrick Henry Middle School vandalism 22 USER user:Freedom skies Vandalism and blocking edits USING ADMINISTRATOR TEMPLATEs 23 Vandalism and Editorial Gang? 24 Ultimate warrior 25 account used for anti-semitic comments 26 User:Keltik31 victim of WP:NPA 27 USER User talk:A.J.A. clear case of Vandalism 28 User talk:Sarahjohnson22 constant vandalism 29 Block of User:66.226.79.49 30 Does this warrant a block? 31 email exposure 32 Cjwright79 (talk • contribs) 33 Disruption during polls and xenophobic remarks 34 Sock puppet User:Fake CliffX 35 Friggin sockpuppetry 36 Internal spam emergency 37 216.79.33.77 38 24.128.220.169 39 Mess at Church league soccer 40 Mali 41 User:199.88.72.21 42 Protecting the page United Nations 43 Bazuka Poo 44 Firefox question 45 Blocked user User:Yas121 is back as User:JEBenson 46 User talk:Intangible removeing things 47 Open proxy question 48 Personal attack page for deletion 49 Fys (talk • contribs) 50 WP:EL being edited while protected. 51 User:StevenCrum 52 Improper full protection of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates by Omegatron 53 Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion 54 MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 55 User talk:217.235.243.238, vandalism and civility issues 56 User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez 57 Assuming bad faith 58 linkspammer with sockpuppet? 59 The Sun newspaper's report on the Borat article 60 Wikipedia may be put into legal trouble 65.0.101.151 (talk • contribs) 61 Wikipedia’s double standards? 62 Annoying non-civility 63 Afrika paprika 64 Disruption, edit warring, and incivility 65 IP-hopping vandalism of British National Party 66 Long-term POV pushing, sock-puppetry and other disruption 67 Trolling by page move, was: Botched long Series of Redirects 68 Unreferenced gossip and violation of BLP policy 69 MyWikiBiz active? 70 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs) 71 Tag removal 72 Block review: Sheiknazim2 73 Walled garden / spammers 74 Wikipedia User Guidelines in one place 75 JBKramer (talk • contribs) 76 Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs) (third time) & Vision Thing (talk • contribs) 77 User:Super Grand Am 78 Allied war crimes during World War II 79 Briefsism/The Cult of Briefsism 80 User:G4gamer33 request 81 Flame war at Talk:Armenian Genocide 82 Hardly a newbie... 83 Block request for legal threats: User:Fakir005 84 User:Generic Character and talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan 85 Sockpuppetry on Ascended Master? 86 Playing politics in pro wrestling 87 Beware of threatened new attack from Krystiandl 88 75.2.250.145 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) 89 Wikipedia vandal control 90 I need the following modifications to monobook.js 91 Accusations of libel

[edit] "Roman Empirer" edits

Help! Akanemoto is adding a template to lots of dates with what appears to be a bot - however, the template is spelt incorrectly - I've tried talking to him, but he keeps on! Not sure how I can stop this - it will just leave a lot of re-editing afterwards... Stephenb (Talk) 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He is redirecting his talk page to a temp page so it won't show a message. I have blocked him while I figure this out, brb. Proto::type 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks - didn't notice the redirect! Stephenb (Talk) 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow is faffing with his talk pages, I think he's done so I've left him a message. Proto::type 12:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, a massive template like that on such an esoteric subject is way, way too much information for each of the year pages - has adding this to each and every page been discussed? Proto::type 12:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've rolled back the "incorrect" edits. Will shorten the block to a day, if Akanemoto decides to respond to the requests and I miss it, please could someone unblock the guy. Proto::type 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is it justifiable.....?

Sir,The article in the page u have protected from further editing(S. Jithesh) is about a noted Kerala Cartoonist. He is an artist who had drawn thousands of book covers in Malayalam. Whether there is any sockpuppetry is in the AfD or not[1] is irrelevent.A person who played in one Oneday cricket match is notable and a cartoonist who had drawn thousands of cartoons is non-notable. Is it justifiable...? Usually editors of encyclopedia are experts in such fields.In wikipedia it is edited by teenage computer professionals. They may be expert in computer related subjects,or films,or cricket, but not in art or literature. Atleast in Kerala related subjects in wikipedia things are going in that way...!Administrators just check the notability of the artist. Doing sockpuppetry or any thing on the page of a wellknown kerala cartoonist does not make him non notable. U know cartoonist used to get the enemity of many. He is a notable and highly controversial. Through his sharp nib of pen and brush he used to attack nasty polititians and communal brigades. This might have provoked many. Please note these links-[2], [3],[4]. Devapriya 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Devapriya 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Please use deletion review to appeal a deletion. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bb3b no2

This user had already received a final warning on his talk page regarding his recent vandalism to Oktoberfest before his most recent vandalization of the page. Vandalizing that page is also the only activity he has to date engaged in. Badbilltucker 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick note. You probably want to report things like this to WP:AIV where they'll be sorted out faster. Though the editor has certainly vandalized Oktoberfest enough to warrant a final warning, there was only one warning on the page when I checked. I added a test2 for his recent vandalism. Keep an eye on it (I will too), up the ante on warnings and then report to WP:AIV. Cheers. Dina 15:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kilz

User:Kilz has severe problem (diffs below):

• vandalised his user talk page 8 minutes after being warned. list - User talk:Kilz#Vandalism of this page. He has been warned twice (no templates used).
• WP:NPA violations against me[5], and a non Wikipedian [6] (Swiftfox author) - list User talk:Kilz#Personal Attacks
• repeated uncivil behaviour User talk:Kilz#Personal Attacks

I bring this here due to the combination of vandalism, PNA, uncivil, and NPOV, edit warring, and his personal involvement with the author of Swiftfox which is almost the only article he edits. Widefox 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Strothra

Strothra (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) appears to be abusing the deletion process in relation to Barbara Pierce Bush, more specifically in relation to an ongoing content dispute and whether or not to include her public intoxication in the article. --Mhking 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mvk page moves

User has moved Laura Bush to SLUT. Not sure if this is something I can fix, or if it requires an admin. -- Coneslayer 18:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. In the future, you can use the "move" button at the top of the page to move the pages back. Shadow1 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse

Large_Barge (talk • contribs), is a New user,declared himself as administrator and member of arbitration commitee. He put a temporary block tag at User_talk:Bhoy_Wonder

Blatant vandal warning issued in User:Large_Barge.

Regards. Mustafa Akalp^TC 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Large Barge

Newly registered today, impersonating an administrator and member of ArbCom, see user page. Only edit has been placing an illegitimate block message on a user's talk page. Accurizer 20:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Disregard; intervening report above. Accurizer 20:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avian flu

Avian flu is plagerized in the toronto daily news article Avian Flu Explained published today in its introduction where it says "Avian flu first infected humans in the 1990s, and since then H5N1 has evolved into a flu virus strain that inflects more species than any previously known flu virus strain, is deadlier than any previously known flu virus strain. Avian flu continues to evolve becoming both more widespread and more deadly causing the world's number one expert on avian flu to published an article titled "The world is teetering on the edge of a pandemic that could kill a large fraction of the human population" in American Scientist magazine." It uses key phrases I wrote and have not seen elsewhere in exactly those words. WAS 4.250 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto Daily News article introduces itself as "Medical expert answers questions about avian flu - the symptoms, the precautions, the research." Was, you should write to them and insist they credit you. "Medical expert Was 4.250 answers questions ..." has a certain ring to it. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if that was true and not just a coincidence, it wouldn't matter. People can do whatever they want with anything that appears on wikipedia- even lift an article word for word and then sell it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's entirely incorrect. You can do with it what you like, as long as you follow certain provisions, the main one being that a copy of the original source (before you modify it) must be distributed with it, and attribution must be given to that source (or somesuch), and most certainly any version of the source then modified must also be distributed with the GFDL license. Such is the GFDL, under which all things wiki are licensed. It's possibly a matter for the Foundation to look at.Crimsone 20:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't see what it'd have to do with the Foundation, its something the copyright holder should look into, it is they who hold the rights and have licensed it under the GFDL. --pgk 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very true, though I'd assume that copying of articles wholesale is something that's encountered quite often, and is something that affects wikipedia as a whole on some scale or level. You're probably right though. Crimsone 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Write a letter/email to the newspaper and show that it was copied and ask for a correction. It is likely they will issue one if you are coherent and forthright. Also, a journalist or intern at that paper will likely be reprimanded or worse. --Deodar 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Deodar's approach. Got to admit that the situation is a little funny though. WAS, I could invite you to visit my hospital in Toronto to speak as a medical expert on avian flu if you want :) -- Samir धर्म 06:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The unsigned (no by-line) advertizement ridden Toronto Daily web-article consists of unattributed sentences from the Wikipedia article Avian flu introducing a copy of this from Temple University with Copyright © 2006 VG Systems Consulting Inc at the bottom. Toronto Daily News is one of many websites produced by Moscow Media Group Inc. with offices located in Canada and Russia says this. Anyone who wishes to ask them to credit Wikipedia when they use Wikipedia can use their contact page here (the e-mail box is optional). WAS 4.250 19:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I just looked at it again and the unsourced Wikipedia paragraph has been removed. I guess they read their reader input after all. Thanks to everyone who messaged them. WAS 4.250 08:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pedro Zamora and Judd Winick articles

User:65.241.54.187 (aka 63.164.145.198, 65.241.54.160, 65.241.54.173, 67.94.18.137, 67.94.18.162, 67.164.15.153, 71.106.204.33, 71.106.172.109, 207.200.116.138, 208.251.92.62,208.251.92.67, 209.101.48.205, Brianq, Dollys, Teddys, and Daphnaz) has repeatedly attacked numerous articles, most particularly the Judd Winick and Pedro Zamora articles. The identical nature of these edits and comments indicate that they are all the same person, or a group acting in concert. He repeatedly blanks out sections of the article, inserts unsourced assertions, removes the accompanying photo from the Winick article without any valid copyright reason given (the photo is one I took myself, and is properly tagged), he continuously refers to the deleted material as “lies” in his Edit Summaries, sometimes specifying that they are the lies of other editors who revert the article. He also makes personal comments about the article’s subject in his Edit Summaries, like “Judd’s a loser” and “a fraud”. He even nominated the article for deletion in June 2005 without illustrating that it met any valid reason as per WP deletion policy, and unsurprisingly, every single person who participated voted to keep it, concluding the process in one day. This vandal continues to add the AfD tag, even though the AfD was concluded almost a year and a half ago, and even tries to recreate the AfD page, which led to its protection. He also keeps adding a tag questioning the subject’s credits, but without engaging in discussion to elaborate on this charge. He has also removed the semi-protection tag. This person has been repeatedly warned on all of the Talk Pages listed here, and at least two of those pages (63.164.145.198 and 207.200.116.138) show an extensive list of warnings, including final ones, and in some cases, even blocks, not only for the Winick and Zamora articles, but numerous others as well. Nonetheless, he continues his activity. Is it possible to block this person permanently or do something more decisive? Nightscream 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Could this be Puck? JChap2007 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. You know, it's funny, because that thought ran through my mind, but I don't think Puck would have a motive to introduce some of the stuff this guy did into the Zamora article, like taking away credit from Donna Shalala and giving it to Brian Quintana for getting Zamora's family in Cuba to the U.S., or inserting an unsourced quote by Zamora. I think someone mentioned that the vandal is Brian Quintana himself, and that one of the things he does is that he keeps trying to re-create an article about himself that has been deleted. One of the Usernames above, in fact, is Brianq. Nightscream 06:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruy Lopez

Apparently I have become Ruy Lopez' next target due to my attempts to make Deflation reflect mainstream economic thought. Though I no longer care to make this encyclopedia be a source of valuable information (see my User page for more details), I would very much like to be able to use my user-talk page as a vehicle to communicate important information to me. If someone could make User:81.117.200.37, and all of his other incarnations leave me alone, it would be appreciated. See also [7]. Thank you. JBKramer 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are feeling disaffected from the project and hope the situation will improve. In the interim, I have removed the "disruptive editor" template that was placed on your talkpage by an apparent single purpose account. 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I just clicked on the link to my last 100 edits, and see 100 edits ago was in March. Which means, if spaced out, I've made one edit every two days. Yet for some reason, people tend to see me everywhere.

The user in question seems to have left his phone number[8] on a user talk page, perhaps someone can call them and ask him or her if they are me. Ruy Lopez 06:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uknewthat again

Uknewthat (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has a long history of blocks for edit warring at Hafele-Keating experiment and Global Positioning System. He received a one week block earlier this week, and responded to it by insulting the blocking admin, SlimVirgin: [9]. With remarks like ...one hundred years should be enough for every normal (non-Jewish) human being... and ...you and your "people"..., I believe he has crossed the line and exhausted the community's patience. I believe the time has come to indef-block him. It is clear that he will not stop his editing, and there's no reason to believe that he'll stop attacking and insulting other editors. This user is only here to disrupt wikipedia. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 21:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. This personal attack nonsense is unacceptable, and he has no grasp on the concept of dispute resolution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is "Wow WTF?" I saw those comments he made and I fully support an indef for that guy. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 21:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed - the personal attack via an anti-Semitic rant, in and of itself, crosses the line of what can ever be acceptable. Newyorkbrad 21:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There was an earlier rant about certain pro-Einstein "people" working for the Mossad and a rapist President. [10] He has also been evading his week-long block today using a new account and an open proxy, both now blocked. I'm quite willing to make his block indefinite. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that probably someone other than yourself should officially log the block. It doesn't look like there'll be any shortage of volunteers. Newyorkbrad 21:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reblocked indefinitely --pgk 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any notice of this on his user talk page. Should he be notified that the one week block has been made indefinite? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe an admin should apply the "indef blocked" tag to the userpage and talkpage, which will have the added benefit of getting the personal attack off the page. Newyorkbrad 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Newyorkbrad 23:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, pgk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn it, you should have blocked him for a hundred years to correct his mistakes, not indefinitely. Grandmasterka 06:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat in an edit summary

In this edit. FYI Fan-1967 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Warned user. It's the only contribution they have made, so I doubt they'll be back. ♠PMC♠ 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street address given for building - semi-protection requested

An anonymous IP recently added in the street address for Lakemba Mosque. An imam who preaches there recently made some offensive comments. Adding in the street address doesn't help create an encyclopedic article, but it may be "useful" for those who want to engage in real-life vandalism. I think the mosque's address should be removed from its edit history, and the article either semi-protected or the anon IP banned until the controversy dies down or the IP promises not to re-insert the address. Andjam 23:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The address is easily available via the first Google hit (click directory and go to the Lakemba entry) when using the mosque's name as the keywords -- see here [11]. I'm not sure it is a major security threat, although it is somewhat unnecessary information. Just remove the information. It is a community building, its not like it is a private residence address. But if they repeatedly add the information and you have told them on the talk page to stop, then take it to requests for semi-protection here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --Deodar 01:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 69.241.4.133

69.241.4.133's contributions have been continued vandalism on Habbo Hotel, AIDS, and swimming pool, among a few other pages. This IPuser has demonstrated no willingness to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, and has even parodied his former banning with an inappropriate comment on the talk page. Enough warnings have been placed on his talk page for the IPuser to "get the point." I also think that with the block of 69.241.4.133, there will be no need for sprotect on Talk:Habbo Hotel as I was originally going to request. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty minor vandalism, but yeah someone should ban the user. The article page is already semi-protected, the talk page could also be. --Deodar 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hrs. Chick Bowen 02:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Should this not have been directed to WP:AIV? Just trying to figure out why some requests such as this are instantly jumped on with reiteration that 'this is not the wikipedia complaints dept' and others are handled near enough straight away? Cheers, Localzuk^(talk) 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

At the time I saw that this had other IPuser vandals and assumed this was the appropriate channel. Further cases regarding IPusers will be taken to AIV. Thanks for the heads up! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting a revision of Benjamin Harrison

Could an admin please take a look at the history of Benjamin Harrison? A well-meaning anon has deleted some offensive vandalism from the article, but in order to explain what he or she did, copied the offensive text into the edit summary, so it's there forever in the history of a frequently viewed article. Perhaps someone could do a dummy edit, then delete the last edit. I'll drop a note to the anon. Newyorkbrad 01:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Chick Bowen 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Admin school again

I removed links to the admin school on the grounds that it is not part of the RFA process and shouldn't appear to be (and it's at MfD in any case). The Transhumanist (talk • contribs) has been adding them back. I do not want to get into a revert war with him, so I leave it to others to decide what we think of these links. Chick Bowen 02:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It may be better to bring this up on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) since it seems to be a policy concern or on the talk page of the RFA page. --Deodar 02:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not part of the RFA process, so no implying that it is. That's pretty much that. A person can have, "according to my standards [link to the page]," but it's not only not part of the process, it's getting pretty seriously hissed by the audience. Geogre 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, that makes three administrators who have removed such links, against one non-admin but wanna-be principle of an "Admin school" who wants these pages to link to his one-person project. I respect your desire to not edit war, but IMHO the issues raised at the afd - "this project treats adminship like a trophy to get for its own sake, going so far as to provide advice on gaming RfA and not even mentioning such principles (you might have heard of them) as assuming good faith, verifiability, NPOV and god knows what else that are a lot more important for admins and all of us to know about than edit summaries and using AWB to inflate your edit count, the topics this project seems to emphasize" among others - make highly undesirable that anyone might read this and think it is actually endorsed by the community. I welcome input on how to best handle this situation. The Transhumanist has put a great deal of work into putting together a complex package of pages, and its a pity he didn't float this past the community on the Pump before writing what is, essentially, "how to game the system and pass Rfa." I personally feel there is no need for this, but if others feel there is, with earlier input it might have actually be helpful and accurate. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets needed to be blocked

There is a massive farm of sockpuppets that needs to be blocked that are disrupting China. A list of the sockpuppets, graciously provided by Dmcdevit, temporarily lies at User:Cowman109/personalsandbox. I've blocked a good deal of some not on the list, but here still remains quite a bit, and I"d rather to to bed before 3am, so I was hoping others could help out with the blocks here. Thanks :). Cowman109^Talk 07:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Am starting with Random section break 4 - Aksi_great (talk) 07:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Section 4 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Section 3 done. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

All blocked. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep just wanted to confirm section one done, so that's the lot. Aksi did all the others God bless 'im :) Glen 08:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help! But, there is a new group of them that need to be blocked. This time I used word to convert the usernames into {{vandal| }} templates, so things should be easier. There are probably more to come once I forward more of the potential sock masters to Dmcdevit... Cowman109^Talk 00:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections 6 and 7 now done. List is empty for now. JoshuaZ 00:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! If any more show up I'll post back here, but I believe that's as far back as checkuser will go, so now it's a waiting game.. Cowman109^Talk 01:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vague threat by probable sockpuppet

[12] The account's only edit was this post. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Already dealt with, by CSCWEM. – Chacor 10:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, both. What an odd threat: it's actually spelled correctly. -- Hoary 10:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Double thanks, he hit me too. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 10:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a public account

This is a public account used by Formby High School - do NOT block. --Oxbleye 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Public accounts are problematic, as there is no accountability (especially with the public password). Any reason why this is needed or even useful? --Stephan Schulz 16:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Especially when the passwords on the user page. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The password given on the user page doesn't work for this account. Probably a troll. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This account has been indefinitely blocked. --Slowking Man 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that students at Formby High School are responsible for A LOT of vandalism, sorry! --66.226.79.49 14:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Henry Middle School vandalism

Patrick Henry Middle School (Sioux Falls, South Dakota) has been nothing but vandalism since September. We're just running up a history of reverts. Perhaps a temporary editing block? --Wolf530 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USER user:Freedom skies Vandalism and blocking edits USING ADMINISTRATOR TEMPLATEs

using locking templates only admins are allowed to use in Buddhism and Hinduism. There is an editorial battle and user is calling all editorials vandalism and those who agree as sock puppets... here is the history section[13] --Saavak123 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorting this mess out:

• The article indeed isn't protected, so I've removed the protection tag
• I've asked Freedom skies not to add protected tags to unprotected articles, and pointed him at the RFP page
• Saavak123, a new account today with a remarkable knowledge of wikipedia practices and only contrubutions to this dispute is an obvious sock puppet, so I've permanently blocked him
• I doubt this is the last we'll hear on the matter, so a couple of admins adding Buddhism and Hinduism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and Hinduism to their watchlists would be a good idea.

That is all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator note This complaint is crossposted to WP:RFI. I've protected the article and am conducting an investigation. Looks like a content dispute. Durova 19:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and Editorial Gang?

There has constantly been an editorial gang on Hinduism and Buddhism. Please check User:Freedom skies, User:Finlay McWalter and user:Addhoc

I user:Saavak123 have been accused and BLOCKED by Finlay Mcwalter, then he removes editorial tags from the page!

reason for blocking: I have a new account and I shouldn't know much.

But I have edited wikipedia before, since I don't have a home computer. This is a false accusation and I have added tags to other articles in the comparison Buddhism section (which is on the Buddhism template).

Please investigage these users.

[edit] Ultimate warrior

This is Kevin J reporting vandalism on The Ultimate Warrior wikipedia page. It has not been proven that Warrior and Andrew Wright are making arrangements to complete his documentary. But User 68.239.170.229 keeps saying that these arrangements are taking place without any known proof —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevin j (talk • contribs).

I believe Kevin j is referring to the Warrior (wrestler) article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] account used for anti-semitic comments

this [14] is the one i found 1st & the user (User:Keltik31) responsible seems to have made a lot of fairly offensive & arguably anti-semitic edits & comments. does wp have policy against this type of thing? if so is this the right place to report? thnx Bsnowball 19:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well he has already been blocked once for a personal attack but I cannot see any real evidence, since that block expired, that he has 'attacked'. He is obviously very opinionated about the issues at hand and his comments reflect this. I would simply advise speaking with him on his talk page about it. If he uses personal attacks again or is uncivil then you should report that at WP:PAIN. You can also ask for comments to be made at WP:RFC if you feel it necessary.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question: there are no specific policies against anti-semitic remarks, but they are covered by Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 19:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Keltik31 victim of WP:NPA

Just reverted a rather nasty NPA made against User:Keltik31, made by User:Nosycramyrralysha. Nosy's probably an WP:SPA. I'll be keeping an eye on Keltik31's page to make sure there are no repeats, but if an admin or two would add his page to their watchlist, it would be greatly appreciated. Justin Eiler 23:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Be aware of another AN/I dealing with Keltik31 just above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#account_used_for_anti-semitic_comments. --Deodar 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USER User talk:A.J.A. clear case of Vandalism

User User talk:A.J.A. has :

1) moved page from Buddhist-Christian parallels to Christianity and Buddhism. 2) deleted most material from the page, all materials are sourced. see history before vandalism: [[15]] after vandalism: [[16]]

the user has been warned. [17] --216.254.121.169 02:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This was posted yesterday and someone deleted this message...--216.254.121.169 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Sarahjohnson22 constant vandalism

User talk:Sarahjohnson22 is constantly vandalising the Kiefer Sutherland article. Something must be done. Ryan2807 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:66.226.79.49

Please be careful about blocking 66.226.79.49 (talk • contribs) - this is a school IP, that I'm on, and it's part of Internet for Learning. Be careful about blocking the IP address, as it is a shared one for an entire high school, well, two actually - Formby High School, and Range High School, over 300 + computers have this IP, so be careful about blocks, OK?? --Colbber 15:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really wish to edit wiki properly, register an account, as you did. It is a shame that the vandalism of a few will affect so many, but not blocking vandals will affect the millions of people who use wikipedia daily–a much more pernicious effect. -- Avi 15:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does this warrant a block?

User:Netoholic is banned from reverting more than once per page per day as a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole#Remedies. He is revert warring on Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, including two reverts within 24 hours. See history.

Should Netoholic (talk • contribs) violate his ban in Remedy 1, he may be blocked briefly for a period of up to one week. Blocks are to be noted at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole#Log of blocks and bans.

It should be noted that he usually finds someone to unblock him within a few hours. — Omegatron 19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty clear arbitration infraction. I'd say so. --InShaneee 23:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked for 24 hours. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] email exposure

128.171.106.236 (talk • contribs) has been placing someone's email address on numerous pages. May be a privacy concern. JonHarder 01:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have warned him Alex Bakharev 03:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cjwright79 (talk • contribs)

This user is being intentionally distruptive, either to prove a point or to make himself laugh. I don't know.

I first learned of him from his questionable contributions at the reference desks [18]. I then spotted the article Sexually dysphemic youth, which he seemed to request be deleted. After speedy tagging it, he immediately formed a hangon having to do with WP:OR and such things, suggesting to me that the semi-request to delete it was merely bait to provide him with a soapbox.

After that, he's acted increasingly strange. He went and created another now deleted article, Super irony. He's been rude on my talk page [19], insulting to others [20] [21], and has been making questionable/distruptive edits to articles [22].

This isn't the first time he's ever acted this way [23], however he archives comments in a page which is not linked to, so people seem to miss this. I've issued a test4, but I'm wondering how to proceed from there if he keeps it up. He does have some decent edits, however most are superficial, and a few are subtly vandalism or near to it [24]. I'm also guessing that he might complain if I block him myself, because I may have a conflict of interest due to his attempts at insulting me. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A few of those diffs are concerning, specifically the "adding vandalism" to the missionary position and the redirecting "mate" to asshole" on a user's talk page. The others seem to be silly and a bit counter-productive, but I'm not sure if any of them are vandalism. I suggest leaving a message letting him know that if he continues this snarky behaviour, he'll be blocked. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he's a subtle troll. Note this edit: [25] Not by itself, but as a pattern of behaviour. He trolls a bit, then does a few good edits and sucks up, then trolls a bit more, etc etc etc. Anchoress 22:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption during polls and xenophobic remarks

Now that the shameful Jogaila's RM poll is over, there is a strong need to shed some light on processes that have been going on during this poll and before that, so that the same disgraceful practices will not be applied in the future. By disgraceful practices is meant xenophobic remarks, spamming and spamming on the brink of trolling. Such disgraceful activities reached its peak when User: Truthseeker 85.5 has tried to turn the poll into the battleground between different nations by spamming multiple inflammatory messages [26], [27] [28]. Prior to that [User:Balcer], has started disruption campaign on Portal:Russia notice board by deleting information about Jogaila poll multiple times [29][30], [31], claiming that this poll has nothing to do with Russia. Note: Jogaila was a ruler of Smolensk (Russia) and there are many Ukrainian and Byelorussian users participating in Portal:Russia so these activities by User:Balcer can't be justified by any means. Prior to that [User:Halibutt] placed following messages on unrelated Talk pages (which can be classified as WP:POINT and spam on the brink of trolling) [32], [33] [34]. Bearing all those facts in mind, one can guess what were the motives behind another campaign by User:Halibutt. Prior to announcing RM from Jogaila to Wladyslaw Jagiello (that means from Lithuanian name to Polish name), Halibutt has started to create articles about Polish personalities under made up Lithuanianized names and anounce them on Polish notice board. [35] [36] [37]. Same user was leaving messages bordering with trolling on Wikiproject:Lithuania [38],[39]. Note: Slawomir Borewicz has nothing to do with Lithuania, because it's a fictional character from Polish literature, so this is clear WP:POINT case. This campaign was accompanied by xenophobic remark [40]. Note: Lithuanians are adding suffix -as to their names, and this way user:Halibutt is mocking Lithuanian language by adding suffix multiple times. And the saddest part is that the same pattern of behavior can be seen in the actions of some Wiki admins. Recent History of Solidarity FAC poll was accompanied by xenophobic remarks, cabal voting and namecalling regarding some users by Wiki admins. [41] " nie rozumiem ataków Ruskich na artykuł dotyczący Solidarności" Translates as "I don't understand attacks by Ruskies on Solidarity article" this message was left by Wiki administrator User:Darwinek. In reply to this message Wiki administrator User:Piotrus made this remark [42]: "Co do Ruskich - coz, jest tu kilku nacjonalistow i niestety nie udaje sie 'zakopac topora', i caly czas mamy taka niby Zimna Wojne". "If we speak about Ruskies, there are couple nationalists here, and we unfortunately can't bury the hatchet and we are having constant Cold War". Note: Ruski is pejorative for Russian in Polish, and Russian and Polish languages are related, that means even though those xenophobic remarks were written in Polish, they could be understood by Russian editors and offend them. Same poll was accompanied by cabal voting [43] "PS. Zapraszam do lektury i komentarza na temat HoS w FACu, kilka glosow za moze jeszcze przewazyc szale" ("I'm inviting you to read and comment HoS (History of Solidarity) FAC, couple votes in favour might shift the balance"). Same chit chat by Wiki admins included name calling directed against User:Ghirlandajo [44]. This name calling ( Żyrandol is Polish for chandelier) continues for almost a year now [45][46] and it's time to stop it together with all disgraceful practices mentioned above by taking appropriate disciplinary actions, so it never happened in future again, at least from the users mentioned above. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• The translated comments do not appear to be xenophobia. A paraphrase: "Why would Russian editors care about the Solidarity article?" answered by "Because we have some (unnamed) Russian nationalists who won't let the matter drop, so we're stuck in the Cold War all over again." Whether anything untoward has happened or not, those comments by the two admins are not xenophobic, but rather commenting on how Wikipedia articles get influenced by real world political agendas, and one is lamenting the fact that the clock is being turned back by nationalists. If "Ruskie" is pejorative in Polish, I would have to take your word for it. I take no position on the talk page notices or any other matters, just the lack of inappropriateness (or at least obvious inappropriateness) of the administrators' exchange. Geogre 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • The list of ethnic slurs qualifies "Ruskies" as a pejorative term. It was introduced into English-language discourse of the project by User:Halibutt, if I recall correctly. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Dictionary of Polish language gives straight forward definition of Ruski - Ruski pejorative for Russian[47]. Normative word for Russian in Polish is Rosjanin, not Ruski. You can use Wiktionary also [48] Russian - "Polish: rosyjski, ruski (pejorative)"-- Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While maybe not "classically" xenophoblic, these nationalistic excesses need to come to an end. They are not consensus building, and are truly giving more and more credence to the belief of the existence of a cabal. One that is networking and sockpuppeting some kind of agenda. And not a good one either. I believe that "E. E. DUDE" is right, and I agree with him. Dr. Dan 04:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is a problem but I am not sure this board has a solution to it. We are not a dispute resolution institution we can only block/unblock editors:

• User:Halibutt indeed behaves somehow strangely lately but he have made enormous contributions to the project and earned his right to be unpunished for mildly disruptive behavior. Still he apologized for the asas joke and I do not expect he would continue Alex Bakharev 12:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• The relations between editors from Poland and Lithuania, Poland and Russia, etc. are sometimes less cooprative than we would like to, but I do not see how we could use the administrative intervention to solve the problem.
• There was no abuse of administrative tools and incivility was not of a blockable grade.
• Truthseeker is already blocked for his vote canvassing and harassments. I have reasons to believe that he also used multiple accounts in the infamous Jogaila vote but this fortunately had no effect on the vote results, so he is not the subject of WP:RFCU.
• Darwinek contributed a lot into the subjects of Russian geography and his remark on the Piotrus talk page is the first time I could suspect some sort of hostility towards Russian editors (or indeed his hostility to anybody). As far as I know Darwinek is not a native Polish speaker, so he might not mean any insults. (Factually he was incorrect, only small fraction of Russian editors has any interest to Polish FAC discussions and we are almost always divided in our votes).

Lithuanian editors are in difficult situation - almost all their history is shared with Poles, Russians or Belarusians. They have different perspective and often even different names for the key figures. There are less Lithuanians then Russians or Poles, so they may feel like opressed by powerful cabals, but there are much much more neutral uninvolved wikipedians then both Russians and Poles together so the neutrality should win. Alex Bakharev 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As to what George have said, my response would be that, I think it doesn't matter much in what context ethnic slur was used. I might be wrong of course, maybe if aplied in genre of lamentation ethnic slurs have its place in Wiki. So it would be nice to have full list of poetic forms (lamentation, ode, epic) where the ethnic slurs are OK.

Also it would be handy if clear past contributions-allowed misdemeanor ratio was definied (for example for every 1000 edits user gets right to 1 ethnic slur, for every 5000 edits - 1 sockpuppet, for 5 FA - wildcard for 1 week anything-goes rampage).

--Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 14:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this hunt. "Ruskie" is used in English as a very mildly (now quaintly comic) pejorative, derived from the Russian pronunciation of "Russian." I was merely reading the offered translations of those lines. It may well be that there was an awful name used, in which case the two administrators were being impolite and unhelpful, but the general conversation looked like one exasperated and one lamenting person. I take absolutely no stand on what the editors did, only on those comments, which, to me, do not look like xenophobia, or even nationalism. Imagine that, in the heat of that awful Gdansk war, an American and Canadian were typing. One said, "What's with all these Polacks and Krauts arguing over this article," and the other said, "Unfortunately, we're back in 1936 all the time." The American would have been using insulting terms, but what the two would have been saying would have been not "let's go beat up one side in this dispute," but rather a more neutral line. At the very least, I see nothing in Piotrus's comments that looks too evil. That's all I'm commenting upon: the words offered as proof of admin caballism. Geogre 03:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Since my recent edits are mostly limited to creating such articles as Ateas or Palace of Poitiers, I can't say that I have watched the Jagaila vote as carefully as might be expected from a "Russian nationalist". The familiar incivility and gratuitous provocations on the part of several Polish editors induce me to post a general comment on their behaviour, however. The problem with Halibutt, Piotrus and other involved editors is that their editing may be qualified as tendentious per WP:TE. I believe that this tendentious approach arose from their intense concentration on historical Polish traumas. I advise all interested readers to check recent proceedings on Talk:Russian Enlightenment to see how historical Polish grievances are given undue weight in articles which have nothing to do with Poland. To discuss content with a bunch of meatpuppets (sometimes abusive, as Truthseeker) is very time-consuming and disappointing. It is more worthwhile to edit topics where the editors from this group are unlikely to appear. That's what makes me leave the articles on recent Polish-Russian history to their mercy. I agree with Geogre that this matter is not for WP:ANI. There is enough potential for an arbitration case in the future. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you George and Alex for replying to this; comments by neutral editors are always appreciated. I certainly agree this is no matter for ANI, but rather for WP:DR - although I most strongly disagree with EED about who is the guilty party. The above comments by EED and Ghirlandajo are a marvelous example of how one can twist facts to pursue one's own agenda. EED approach is nicely illustrated with this edit, where in reply to Halibutt civil post he calls him an 'egomaniacal troll'; anybody who would like some further examples of 'Halibutt bashing' and incivility employed recently by several editors should check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Conflict resolution - and indeed, their approach has succeeded in Halibutt loosing temper a few times (regretable, and he has been warned about this, but to see people who provoked him now using their 'success' here is rather despicable). As for Ghirla, a great content creator, but unfortunatly less than neutral and reasonable when it comes to content disputes, I'd advise any reader unfamiliar with him to take his 'neutral opinions' with a pinch of salt. For those unfamiliar with his stance, this ArbCom warning about his tendency to be incivil and launch personal attacks may be useful; and this RfC, a collection of his offensive posts from just a few months, should serve as a nice back-up to his 'credibility'; his block log is also interesting. Last but not least, lecture of Talk:Russian Enlightenment should certainly prove interesting, although I am afraid Ghirla may be disappointed as to conclusions neutral observers will draw there.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This comment nicely illustrates why productive communication with this particular editor is so difficult, not to say impossible. Everytime some bias in Polish-related content is pointed out by me, he will emphatically refute my "credibility" by providing links to an (in)famous RfC instigated by him as a response to my opposition to Halibutt's RfA some year ago. IIRC he provides these links on a public board for the 11th time, of which four times were registered on T:TDYK alone. What is this but a personal attack? I appreciate the wisdom of ArbCom which refused to give them weight during the botched attempt to launch an RfAr against myself. For the umpteenth time, I urge Piotrus to switch attention from these routine attempts to discredit my person to his own confrontational attitude, which is the subject of the current thread and which has been a problem not only (and not so much) for myself, as for dozens other editors. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, I certainly don't need to discredit you, you are doing it yourself quite well. PS. Isn't this a more xenophobic remark disrupting the poll we should be discussing?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed P.P. (Prokonsul Piotrus), that you were so busy making yet another "friendly" and personal "remark" against Ghirlandajo, that you forgot to apologize for making ethnic slurs. Do you have intensions to do so in upcoming future?

EED (aka Encyclopaedia Editing Dude) made a good point - what is going to be in the future when next vote will proceed? We will see yet another campaign which will involve spamming, raising tensions state vs state, ethnic jokes etc? To avoid such thing some actions should be implemented. M.K. 23:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• <Sigh> Please, folks, it's not about the persons, I hope. Ghirla is a wonderful editor, and so is Piotrus, and you both believe strongly in your principles -- which adds to your value as authors and contributors -- and no amount of pointing at one another is going to prevail on the substantive matters. We really do need more outside views on these matters, but American editors (such as me, certainly) are very poorly educated in the region and therefore have a tendency to either keep silent both on the reading and commenting or to very foolishly charge in based on liking one editor or disliking one editor. Are there editors from nations and ethnicities who might know the issues and yet be sufficiently historically and personally removed that they might offer neutral views? Are Estonians, Latvians, "Yugoslav" (i.e. all the nations formerly in the conferation), removed sufficiently, or have their experiences with the former Soviet and Russian regimes given them distorted backgrounds? Are Germans likely to be aware enough and yet removed enough? My point is that we need to find people who can be clear enough of ideology and ethnicity to try to solve the problems and yet knowledgeable enough to understand the issues that are setting these groups of valuable editors against one another. If such people can be found, will both sides consent to explain and accept the matters? (Yes, this is not the proper business of AN/I, but we've got to find a modus operandi sooner or later.) Geogre 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet User:Fake CliffX

User:Fake CliffX appears to be a sockpuppet for blocked User:CliffX, based both on the name and on the fact that his first edit was to make a personal attack and his third was to post a message on my talk page alluding to returning from the dead.--Srleffler 01:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friggin sockpuppetry

Hi. I think that 24.54.220.114 (talk • contribs), 72.66.192.193 (talk • contribs), and Appalachia100 (talk • contribs) are sockpuppets of Davins111 (talk • contribs). It's probably just a little kid who doesn't understand Wikipedia, but the linkspamming and warning removals are driving me crazy...admittedly, crazier than I probably should let them, but crazy nonetheless. Would anyone happen to have any ideas about what I should do about it besides revert over and over again? Perhaps that isn't even the proper answer. --Takeel 02:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done...although I had to adjust my request. "Gut" feelings on IPs and accounts do not make good arguments, so I have done checkuser for accounts with more blatant evidence. --Takeel 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Internal spam emergency

Hey admins, an intnernal spam campaign is currently underway with ANNOYING CAPITAL LETTER EDIT SUMMARIES. Please handle it as appropriate, cheers. – Chacor 14:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ALL EDITS REVERTED. If this short block doesn't stop him I'm going to block him indef and unblock as soon as he promises to stop. --Lord Deskana (swiftmend!) 15:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Swadhyayee started to spam the same talk pages again. I have blocked him for 24 hours. If Deskana doesn't extend his block, and he continues to spam tomorrow, I will indef block him myself. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Looks like Deskana has already extended the block to a week. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 216.79.33.77

This user has been warned a number of times on his/her talk page about vandalising articles, and has continued to do so (see Wallace Stevens and C++) royblumy 16:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a high school prank. In future cases, it would be best to leave a message at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (shortcut: WP:AIV). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.128.220.169

The user at the above IP address was given a final warning earlier today about vandalism to the Liger article before his most recent vandalization of that same article. Badbilltucker 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mess at Church league soccer

Page was prod'd, removed by anon. Currently home to a number of attacks and ridicules. External link doesn't work, and googling suggests the entire organisation is made up or at least very nn. Content has been going back and forth between insulting different people courtesy of edits by IPs and new users. I humbly recommend deletion (may fall under CSD attack or nn), and watching for re-creation. --user:Qviri 18:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole page should be AfD'd due to non-notability, not to mention the article doesn't read like an article. Vpoko 19:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for AfD. Vpoko 19:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mali

Please could somebody reverse the vandalism that has been done to this page? Many thanks 217.43.194.68 20:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:199.88.72.21

Linkspammer on a massive scale, repeatedly warned and rolled-back, but continues to add his link to all and sundry. CRCulver 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting the page United Nations

This page has been vandalized quite a few times. I wonder if you can protect it. Sir Studieselot 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your looking for WP:RPP or WP:RFPP? ---J.S (t|c) 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bazuka Poo

According to Wikipedia:Username, "names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body" are not allowed. Does this also cover the result of those "excretory functions"? The username in question is Bazuka Poo (talk • contribs). Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'result'? :) Yes, I think "Pool of Urine" would generally be considered more offensive than "Functioning Kidney."

That said, and pointing out that I'm no admin, 'poo' does seem to fall under the category of excretory functions, although it's pretty tame. Usually the non-biological meanings are spelled 'Pooh', in my experience. --Masamage 20:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pool of Urine is an obvious name; Bazuka Poo is not. The username policy is widely overused; a username with 'fuck' in it is an obvious block, but one with 'poo' is stretching it a lot. There's no big deal with something like "Bazuka Poo". Ral315 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. This seems to be covered by the letter of the guideline, but not the spirit, since I'd be surprised to see anyone offended by it. --Masamage 01:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernames are also names "implying an official position on Wikipedia." So what should we do with Wikipedia Scholar (talk • contribs)? Allow it, like Bazuka Poo, or ask the user to request a name change? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Scholar does not necessarily imply an "official" position. A scholar at a university cannot generally be assumed to speak for that university in any official capacity.--Srleffler 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefox question

Why is it that I see the extra tabs such as watch, protect, etc. in IE 6.0, but only get the basic four in Firefox 2.0? I'm using the monobook skin. Thanks. -- Avi 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Try refreshing FireFox's cache by pressing Ctrl-Shift-R in FireFox. It sounds like it hasn't recognized your move from a new user to a standard user. Sasquatch t|c 06:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If Avi is seeing a "protect" tab, doesn't that imply adminship? Hesperian 06:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Of course, he is an admin  Doctor Bruno  10:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried refreshing, it does not work. I don't even get the "watch" tab that every user should get. Any ideas? Thanks. -- Avi 13:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Still does not work :( -- Avi 00:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What version of Firefox are you using?
2. Do you have any custom scripts in your monobook.js? Justin Eiler 00:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• 1. 2.0
  2. Yes

Thanks -- Avi 01:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. OK, the javascript you have affects tags displayed. Try cutting and pasting ALL of the script to a dummy page, refresh your cache (CTRL + SHIFT + R), and see if the tags are displayed. If this works, then there's some form of bug with the javascript.

If that doesn't work, try going back to FireFox 1.5.*. Justin Eiler 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

My IE works, so I think I'm going to stick with that for now. Thanks for your help!! -- Avi 00:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked user User:Yas121 is back as User:JEBenson

User:JEBenson has made his debut editing on October 23rd, a day after User:Yas121 has been blocked for two months for racist personal attacks & trolling. His contributions revolve around the same heated subjects Yas121 has dealt with. His biased edits are of the same style discussed here. According to JEBenson's talk page, he used an anonymous proxy for editing, which is congruent with a blocked user attempting to hide the link to his fresh sockpuppet. Please look into this matter, and have a nice day :) 88.153.64.65 11:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only has he been sockpuppeting as JEBenson, but also as User:E Jaffe and User:Geniusofall1. And valid editors have no need to edit from all sorts of open proxies and zombie machines. I'm blocking the lot, and resetting Yas121's clock for 3 months starting now. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Intangible removeing things

User talk:Intangible removes things from many articles and reverts people on many articles. For example on operation Gladio he deletes a big section and then threatens to report me when I restore it which seems a bit odd but then when you look into what articles this person edits and how he eidts you can see that he likes to delete and change alot of information that dosent fit with his views, I think somebody needs to talk with him and explain to him that you cant delete things just because you dont like what they say. So that is my request someone that will talk with him The Green Fish 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Intangible is under arbitration probation. Post some specific examples here or at WP:AE. Thatcher131 14:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. The material User:The Green Fish wants to keep adding is already at Belgian stay-behind network. From my previous AN/I request (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive141#The Green Fish (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) & sockpuppetry):

• The Green Fish (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Lokqs (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Weedro (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 83.249.79.25 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Seems all to be the same user, according to their style of editing, behaviour, and article editing history. I came across this user after edits on Classical liberalism, Operation Gladio and Belgian stay-behind network. In the first this user was reverted by another user [49]. In the second article, Operation Gladio, this user removed a fact flag, and re-inserted material that is already available at Belgian stay-behind network [50]. In the latter case, this user tries to re-insert conspiricist information all linked to one source who is not an expert or writer about the Belgian stay-behind network.

Is a checkuser warranted here, or should this be dealt differently? Thanks for any help. :::Intangible 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do something about this user. Now his edits removed [51] the hoax flag added [52] by User:Morton devonshire. Intangible 16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick look of what is being fought over here shows that most of it is already tagged with fact tags, thus it is not vandalism to remove it; if anything I would question the restoration of the disputed material when it is being restored without citing sources. Not to mention that the same user removed the hoax tag without giving a reason. Brimba 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding those accounts, I can confirm by CheckUser that all three are sockpuppets of SuperDeng (talk • contribs), and I think they have been used abusively for reverting in tandem and supporting each other on talk pages. Dmcdevit·t 18:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Indef blocked the sockpuppets, blocked SuperDeng for one month, since these accounts were created during a previous 2 month block for disruption. It might be time to talk about a community ban, just based on SuperDeng's block log and this recent activity. Thatcher131 19:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be for at least 6 months. It's very obvious that he isn't going to improve. It's sad because he could be a good user and we've given him plenty of chances, but goodness. How many blocks is he up to? --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxy question

How can one tell if an IP is a suspected open proxy. I hve seen that edits that add a large number of "///"'s, especially around quotes, have been suspected as such. What about a case like this: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=66.211.32.50 where the WHOIS comes up blank, is that usually indicative of a zombie/open proxy that needs blocking? Thank you. -- Avi 00:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• You can list them at WP:OP. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• You can also search for them using search engines. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Any editor/IP that introduces the slashes is an open CGI proxy and is to be blocked immediately. Naconkantari 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack page for deletion

Wikipedia:Resysop_Tony_Sidaway, despite the title, is actually a page full of personal attacks. I saw this on WP:MfD, but an attack page of this nature shouldn't require a formal deletion process. Action against the creator should also be considered. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. The article and its redirect have been deleted. This editor, FiLOyR5 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), knows too much of wikipedia and its admin history for a newbie. This has to be someone's sock. But who? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Fireblox (talk • contribs)? Username seems fishy and his edits too don't look as if he is new to wiki. - Aksi_great (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

FireFox (talk • contribs) impersonator, see Special:Listusers. Enter FireFox in the search box and you'll see an immense list of impersonators. Indefblockable as troll and vandalism-only account, as far as I'm concerned. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 17:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user. See his latest edits claiming himself to me the communism vandal. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another related user blocked. See Moonstar12 (talk • contribs) - Aksi_great (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm a "supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.". Who knew? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys (talk • contribs)

I have blocked Fys for breaking 3RR on Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) inspite of discussions going on here . The relevant post at AN3 can be seen here. After making the block I came across Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and saw that Fys (previously admin Dbiv (talk • contribs) is already under probation. I am not aware of the details of the case and hence cannot judge whether Dbiv has broken his probation with his edit-warring at Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency), or whether he needs to be banned from the article or blocked for a longer period of time. Can someone please review my block and make the appropriate entry at the arbcom case if required. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request of this user, as it is quite evident that he is wikilawyering and gaming the system. The user also evaded the block and revert-warred with another user as an anon IP. The evidence of which is here. This edit which he made after he was blocked. This edit establishes that it is indeed the same user, who was known as User:Dbiv earlier. The user is removing warnings and decline templates from his page. Feel free to block him for a longer duration. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: The block duration is now 48 hours. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have banned Fys from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it for one week, per the terms of his probation. --Slowking Man 13:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

don't forget to log it on the arb case page. Thatcher131 13:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the reminder. --Slowking Man 13:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL being edited while protected.

WP:EL is currently protected due to an ongoing dispute over the guideline. However, the page has been edited twice so far since it was protected (29 October), without the change being mentioned on the talk page first, or time given for people to object. I'm going to ask that the people who made those edits, Dmcdevit (talk • contribs) & Mushroom (talk • contribs), please explain their actions. --Barberio 03:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, take a deep breath and assume some good faith. Next, did you check the edit summaries? One edit restored info lost during vandalism some time ago, the other was per a long discussion here about YouTube. Consensus of the community doesn't always occur on the talk page of the article in question, and yes, its hard to keep up with every forum for discussion, but perhaps a talk with the editors in question could have cleared things up instead of coming to the Incident board? Shell ^babelfish 03:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, the discussion on WP:AN never brought up any proposed changes to WP:EL for discussion. Just the idea that 'something should be done'. If the change that has been made had been put up for discussion, several legitimate objections would have been made to the actual edit, and suggestions on a better text to use. (Because I would have made them.)

If the guideline should have a line about anonymous sites is currently being discussed. Breaking protection to put it back in is circumventing the discussion.

I'm not making any assumptions about why this happened, just that it has. The root issue here is that people should have been given a chance to discuss this on the talk page before any edits were made to a protected guideline. --Barberio 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It can always be removed when the discussion about anonymous sites concludes, if it's decided that that line shouldn't be in the guidelines. Remember that there is no "right" version during a dispute. — Saxifrage ✎ 03:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly continue discussing and the page can be changed when consensus is reached. It appears that neither of the admins who made edits were involved in the revert war that lead to the protection. Its quite possible they're not aware of the ongoing discussion and that particular dispute; a quick note on their talk pages will usually resolve those type of situations. If you have a concern that administrator priviledges were abused and you don't feel you can talk to the administrators, WP:RFC is the correct place to bring forth those concerns. Shell ^babelfish 04:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter that the admins who made the edits were not involved in the dispute. The rule is to discuss first, this rule is to avoid people breaking page protection in ways that worsen the dispute. In both cases, the edits have been objected to as being inappropriate for the guideline.

Accidental changes are okay, but should be reverted as soon as the mistake is known about. --Barberio 12:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

When you say "in both cases", are you also referring to the edit which restored content blanked during some old vandalism? --bainer (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion as to if the line should be included or not. --Barberio 17:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion. Firstly, you only contacted one of the editors involved before posting here and then didn't wait for a reply before posting here. I think you should in future wait longer as people do not spend their entire lives on here waiting for messages on their talk pages. Both editors have entered into dialogue with you about this so it seems that discussion on this issue is a little unneeded.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing protected pages is not an 'non-issue'. It's something that should be rarely done, and for specific reasons. It should be stomped on hard, and immediately, when people do it. Page protection is an important 'emergency stop' on content disputes, making this weaker by saying it's not so bad to break page protection will seriously damage that. Yes, people can do it by mistake, and yes they should be given a chance to fix their mistake, which they have been in this case. But it's still important to stress that breaking page protection without a clearly acceptable reason is a very bad thing. --Barberio 22:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but as I said, you did not approach both editors and then give them time to respond. Instead you instantly jumped over here and posted about it. What do you expect to happen? Both editors have started discussing it with you so this has become, to me anyway, relatively a non-issue. Why not go back to the talk pages and carry on discussing?

Also, to clarify, I agree that editing protected pages is a bad thing but both edits were done in good faith in order to a) restore a (what was seen as) non-vandalised version and b) add a line that was discussed elsewhere. Neither admin is 'in the wrong' here and it should simply be a case of asking them to revert their edits and giving them time to do so.-Localzuk^(talk) 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I posted because two people had done it within 24 hours, and I wanted no one else to come along and think it was okay.

Mushroom has reverted his edit, and I consider that matter settled equitably.

Dmcdevit has not, and refuses to do so despite saying he had not noticed the page was protected and would not have made the edit if he had. Instead telling me to 'find another admin to do it' and making bad faith accusation about my motivations. [53] --Barberio 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:StevenCrum

StevenCrum (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) uses his user page to publish his original research on the falsehood of the relativity theory and related subjects. Furthermore, he also posted his claims of falsehood on the talk pages of these articles. To top it off, he submitted special relativity for a GA review on the grounds that the math in that article was wrong, whereas it can be easily shown that his own theory is false. I've reminded him not to use his user page to campaign against relativity and related subjects per WP:UP, but that was dismissed by him. Errabee 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone to watch. He seems content to restrict his activities to talk pages for the time being, and despite some belligerance, doesn't seem to be causing too much trouble. I would encourage the GA people to speedily close the review of special relativity, as he opened it on invalid grounds. Actually, I see that it has already been archived – good! –Joke 20:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For what its worth he put special relativity on GA review twice. The second time almost imediatly after the first was closed. I warned him about WP:POINT on his talk page. --Salix alba (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, he now claims to have the cure for cancer. Errabee 03:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He just posted an extremely long winded response [54] which basically concludes with saying that we're all vandals intruding on his private space, and that he's going to ignore anything we say from now on. WP:MFD perhaps? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it. It seems this user will not listen to reason. Errabee 16:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improper full protection of Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates by Omegatron

Omegatron was recently involved in a content dispute over Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. Omegatron reverted the page to his preferred version, and fully protected it. This action is inconsistent with the letter and the intent of the protection policy, which states that

Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved. Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection. Admin powers are not editor privileges — admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. If you are an admin and you want a page in an edit war in which you are somehow involved to be protected, you should contact another admin and ask them to protect the page for you. Not only is this the preferable method, it is also considered more ethical to do so as it helps reduce any perceived conflict of interest.

John254 15:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The situation appears to be in hand now, thank you. [55] ~Kylu (u|t) 05:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not "involved in an edit war". If you look at my edits, I did nothing but revert to the stable, rejected version. I did not "express opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection". I was actually criticized for not being involved in the content dispute. Please look at the page history.

The page is rejected. Netoholic's been banned for a year from editing the page in the past because of his disruptions revolving around it. Now that he's not banned from it, he's trying to resurrect it by changing one paragraph. The info he's trying to add is not policy/guideline material. It belongs on an informative page like Wikipedia:Template namespace. Changing the page a little bit does not suddenly validate its fundamental concept.

A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.

It would be nice if the unprotecting admin had consulted me first. — Omegatron 07:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You were involved in an edit war (reverting is an edit), and moreover, you've been a long-time participant on the talk page. You are -involved- in the page and should not have protected it. No amount of poisoning the well by talking about me, blockquoting pages, or complaining about other admins is going to change the fact that you should not have protected the page immediately after reverting to your preferred version. -- Netoholic @ 10:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What should I have done instead? — Omegatron 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No really. What should I have done instead? Anyone?

The page and its fundamental concept have been thoroughly rejected, there is a strong consensus against the page (not just a lack of consensus for it; a strong consensus against it). Netoholic repeatedly revert wars in an attempt to remove the {{rejected}} template, in spite of this consensus, and despite the fact that he's been banned from editing the page in the past for the same behavior.

I may not have done the right thing here, and if I broke a rule, I apologize, but I'm not really sure what I should have done. What would a good admin do in this situation? Banned Netoholic from the page for disruption? — Omegatron 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journalist's comment on Talk:Celine Dion

User:Journalist, an administrator, has made a threat towards another user here. [56]. Is this acceptable behaviour for an admin? If so I'm quitting, if not what can be done? Many thanks for looking --86.135.146.160 18:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Not as much a threat as a warning. Telling someone they'll regret it if they turn a talk page into a battleground? I don't see that as much of a threat. Stick to the rules and no harm will come to you. Pretty simple, really. Perhaps it's borderline incivil but I don't think too much of it. --Lord Deskana (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think that comments like that are at all acceptable. We're supposed to have civil frickin' discourse and it doesn't matter if that doesn't explicitly fall into Wikipedia:X policy perfectly. That is clearing threatening a user, vaguely or otherwise, and that is simply not an acceptable way of discussing a page. Were it not an admin saying that he probably already would've been blocked. I'm going to go leave a note on Journalist's page. Snoutwood (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't believe that Journalist is acting in bad faith, nor that this should become a big issue, but at the same time I can't hear comments like that condoned (which is what provoked my above comment). Snoutwood (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Journalist looks like he's threatening to use the Eternal Equinox ArbCom ruling against Velten. I don't know if it's considerate to give a fair warning when probation may be broken... Hbdragon88 18:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see (I had to look this up, so for the sake of reference, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eternal Equinox#Remedies). I still think that politeness is not sacrificable, and that it would have been hugely more appropriate to mention that and list it on WP:AE. Snoutwood (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the 'threatened' user's edit history, it looks like the admin was simply referencing their past behaviour and warning them not to. Ok, it wasn't the best way to say it - but then again I may be missing something (as the 'you'll regret it' part is in quotes). Maybe Journalist should come here and comment on it?

Also, to Snoutwood, no user would have been block for a single, borderline uncivil comment, they may have been warned about it but that is all.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, my point was more one of "I've seen new users blocked for saying things like that, so to say that this is perfectly O.K. for an admin is ridiculous." Snoutwood (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence to show that new users are blocked for a single uncivil comment without a warning? That is what I mean, the normal course of action is simply to warn a user - regardless of whether they are unregistered, new, an admin etc... So my comment is not that using 'incivility' (even though I don't think this is a case of that) is acceptable, but more that no user would be blocked for a single comment.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really want to go through two years worth of block logs to prove this point, and you can substitute block with warn and my point reads identically. I fully acknowledge that normally, if not always, users are warned for single offenses rather than blocked. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment I made was a warning, not a threat. Velten has had a long history of disruptive behaviour including sock puppetry, blocks, legal threats, trolling, lying the list goes on. I know from very personal experience how the editor behaves. Even after going through that lengthy RFA (and threatening to leave Wikipedia 1 million times), she has engaged in another messy battle with an Admin and has been blocked.

In essence, yes, you guys are missing a lot of things, and in no way do I feel I was out of line in my comment.

PS:Guys, can we format our arguments properly so it's easier to read? Orane (talk • cont.) 19:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Or you'll regret it" is clearly a threat, and the comment that you start off with, "all talk and no sources," reads as taunting. I honestly don't want to make this a big deal: I just got into it becuase I didn't want to enforce the impression that (what I percieve as) incivility is O.K. There's a lot of ways to say what you wanted to say without being that provocative, and at least at first perusal that appears to be one of the only comments you've made to this user on that page (which makes "all talk and no sources" sound even stranger).

I don't disagree that Velten has been a problem (I am not familiar enough with this case to have any other opinion on that issue), and am fully prepared to agree that she may be a problem on the Celine Dion page. However, I think that you could be more civil. Snoutwood (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first off, if you are adamant in believing that my comment was a threat, then there's no point in me commenting on the matter for it will do me no good. Secondly, a small note on my talk page about the issue would have been far more appropriate than coming here. What do you want me to do now? Apologise to Velten? I will not. As I said, you guys don't know the hell she has put me through. In any case, this discussion is over from my end. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Continued on talk page. Snoutwood (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Velten has been engaging in vexatious editing several places and times. As a version of user:Eternal Equinox, he has demonstrated previous tendencies toward picking at people and articles to get attention. If he is going back to his old behaviors, then the previous blocks can pick up from where they left off, IMO. He can be a serious time sink. Geogre 03:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The remedy in this case is probation, allowing Velten to be banned from articles he disrupts for a week at a time (a rather unusual limitation). Any (uninvolved) admin can apply the article ban (use {{subst:User article ban}} or post some diffs at WP:AE. Thatcher131 13:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MatthewFenton (talk • contribs)

Per WP:WAF (which I personally think is a very well written and useful guideline), I tagged a couple of articles with the In-universe template. User:MatthewFenton decided to revert these calling them [57] [58] "trolling". Regardless of whether I was correct or incorrect in adding these templates (I will note that the Leoben Conoy article doesn't even mention the name of the actor who plays the role), I don't don't believe it warrants calling me a "troll". I would appreciate it if someone would please remind him on the proper way to constructively deal with other. 75.105.178.150 17:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Your above message prooves you didnt actually read the articles.. also the time span in between edits looks suspicious and you are an anon and hence a quick conclusion leads to trolling of articles.. if you had opend up a conversation though at these articles stating what you thought was "in-universe" it would of looked much better. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Read what it says at the top: This is not the Wikipedia complaints department or the place to go for dispute resolution. It doesn't take admin access to sort out a problem like this. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if that was a bad-faith edit, nothing warrants that any other user to call that trolling. It can be contrued as a personal remark. Matthew, please assume good faith while dealing with other editors and try to discuss issues with them and more seriously don't bite the newcomers. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L}<;;;;/span> 09:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:217.235.243.238, vandalism and civility issues

Some other editors and I have reverted this user for adding comments like "edward battye rules!!!!!!!!!!!!" to the current featured article. I reported him to WP:AIV but then the user insisted that it was a mistake and that he was only reverting vandalism. This is nonetheless very peculiar as he added the same line twice and some of the reverts were about reverting his own edits (i.e. capitalising "A" and then changing them to "a" and viceversa). The user replied using explective language on his talk page and removing warnings. He seems to have quite a good grasp of wikipedia terminology to be a newbie (i.e. AGF). Recently, he has started to leave test warnings on my userpage to make a point. At the same time, he has started to contribute to the article. However, he has a big civility problem indeed and seems completely unrepentant. I would appreciate if someone else can look into this. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: I just found out he reported me for vandalism for removing his feeble warnings off my talk page. Unbelievable... Asterion^talk 22:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I added the edward line above by accident while reverting the removal of useful changes. After I got a little brathing space, I removed all vandalisms I accidently added [59] [60] [61].

I never knew about his AIV until another editor told me about it after it was already done.

I did not initially change "A"s to "a"s or vice versa.

Yeah, I did, though I never attacked anyone personally.

I did not remove any warnings except the ones Asterion added while vandalizing my discussion page.

I am not a newbie, and never claimed I was. What is it with you guys to never get that right?

I indeed left warnings on Asterion's user page because he removed discussion items. See WP:AIV for details.

I started to contribute to the article before any of this hit the fan. --217.235.243.238

Quite obviously "my removal of content" was nothing but an edit conflict causing by editing through a diff. edits screen, therefore giving me no warning of you editing at the same time. I treat all users, newbies or not, with respect and expect likewise. Asterion^talk 22:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, why didn't you say so earlier? I don't use diff.edits screen (or even know what that is), maybe you shouldn't if they destroy data.

That got me laughing, thanks! A question: If someone puts a vandalism warning on your /Talk, do you always ignore that without even looking what's going on? --217.235.243.238

I do recognise disruption to make a point when I see it, in the same way I recognise uncivil comments towards me and other users[62][63][64]. There is no need to make wikipedia an unpleasant place for anyone. Please be civil. Regards, Asterion^talk 22:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then please share with us, as I cannot see WP:POINT in any way involved.

Your (collective) rv attempts were clumsy, Daniel5127 fingering of my /Talk was misplaced, and I don't see the problem with the last one.

You, on the other hand, have an axe to grind. Calm down and take a break. --217.235.243.238

Vandalism isnt a mistake you make, you either vandalise or you dont - theres no middle line.. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 23:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

So I don't. --217.235.243.238

"I removed all vandalisms I accidently added" - yes, apparently you do. Crimsone 23:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

(Ah great, bickering about words is just what we need.) I don't vandalized, I only accidently added text that should not have been added. Vandalism implies intent. --217.235.243.238

I merely pointed out what the comment was responding to (ie, the contradictory nature of your previous words, which appeared not to have been noticed by yourself) - I'm not one for bickering. I'm merely the sort of person that explains the misunderstood. Crimsone 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please quit this bickering between the two of you. This is not the place for it. Incidentally, when you edit through page diffs, it's pretty difficult to botch up a vandalism revert unless there are multiple vandal edits and you fail to go all the way back. Even then, it isn't really botched as all you have to do is go to the correct old version of the page, and click edit to revert from there. Unfortunately, it doesn't give an indication of any edits submitted in the mean time, but it's easy enough to revert back and fix if you notice tha you've done it (and you should always check for it). I'm not even going to suggest dispute resolution as this particular dispute is quite trivial - all everybody needs to do is follow policy, and avoid making mountains out of molehills. Crimsone 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In particular I think both sides should admit they've made mistakes and get it over with. I saw this begin almost an hour ago and it's all pretty ridiculous. --Wafulz 23:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --217.235.243.238

Good to hear :) Lets hope that's the end of the matter. Crimsone 23:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

In almost a year doing RC patrols, I have never encountered a case of accidental vandalism, but I am willing to afford him the benefit of doubt. Sorry for wasting your time, folks. I should know my beans better. Good night, Asterion^talk 23:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez

Moved at Jayjg's suggestion from WP:AN - Jmabel | Talk 23:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

We've got what I think is becoming a problem with Jose(Cha-Cha)Jimenez (talk • contribs). Jimenez was a prominent early member of the Young Lords, and is one of the people keeping alive the flame of that organization. The Young Lords in their heyday were certainly notable, and—from everything I understand—Jimenez was a notable member of their leadership. However, he was not as uniquely notable as is suggested in his own recent edits. He has been doing a lot egotistical writing about himself that runs up against WP:AUTO, and from what I can tell he is not doing it all under this one account: 207.241.132.148 (talk • contribs), 207.241.134.232 (talk • contribs) and Jose jimenez (talk • contribs) are clearly him (not just based on content but on idiosyncratic punctuation).

I've tried to warn him gently on his talk page, and to suggest what might be some more appropriate topics for him to write about, but it isn't getting any results. I don't want to get into a war with him, and I don't want to drive him away: this is a guy who doubtless could bring a lot to Wikipedia if someone can get through to him what this is actually about.

I reverted several of his edits once at Young Lords; he has re-introduced roughly the same, anonymously. I would appreciate if a few more people get involved in this, because I don't want it to get personal. - Jmabel | Talk 02:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like in the roughly 24 hours since I wrote this, no one has touched the Young Lords article. Again, I'm asking that someone else look in on this, because I don't want this to get personal between me and him. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[End moved text] I've protected the page on a version that will, ideally, deal with WP:AUTO issues and hopefully bring him to the Talk: page. Please let me know if that helps, as I don't really know anything about this topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming bad faith

Timelist (talk • contribs) has been adding the following description to several articles relevant to journalistic fraud, "consistently conned, fooled, and duped the newspaper and its readers, over and over again, on many important news stories" (e.g., New York Times, Jayson Blair, The New Republic, Stephen Glass, etc). I left a note on Timelist's talk page explaining to the relatively new user that these edits were POV and created an unencyclopedic tone through hyperbole. In response, Timelist blanked my comment on his/her talk page, said "Why are you trying to minimize the seriousness of journalistic fraud?" on my talk page, and, after I cautioned Timlist to adhere to WP:AGF, wrote "Please do not cite policies you don't comprehend." in an edit summary reverting my edits to an article. Aside from the POV and WP:NOT problems inherent in Timelist's edits, I found Timelist's post on my talk page and edit summary to be evidence of bad faith. Perhaps Timelist needs to be encouraged by others to adhere to WP:AGF? · j e r s y k o talk · 01:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your objections to me in a coherent way before wasting the valuable time of administrators. I'm a reasonable person and am willing to listen to coherent arguments. I just prefer straight talk in encyclopedias, not ambiguous terms like "journalistic fraud" Timelist 01:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Timelist just implied that I have some sort of "personal agenda" despite my pleas to assume good faith and explanation that, in my nearly two years of editing here, I have followed a consistent pattern of fighting POV and unencyclopedic language (which explains my dealings with Timelist, it's certainly not because of some "personal agenda" relating to journalistic fraud). I think this behavior reiterates the need for someone else to remind Timelist of AGF. I don't plan to discuss this situation with Timelist any further, for what its worth. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

All persons have agendas. How is this assuming bad faith? Let's not take up valuable time and space playing word games Timelist 03:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, saying that people have personal agendas is considered assuming bad faith. We are not here to impose our ideologies upon the encyclopedia; rather, we are here to build it as the most impartial possible. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen far too much edit warring and hostile edit summaries. If you continue in this way you could very well be blocked.--Jersey Devil 04:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] linkspammer with sockpuppet?

Mccain.blogging seems to be an SPA account for a linkspammer. this edit might be a sockpuppet judging by the content. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 08:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, now that's what I call responsive. Thanks :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 09:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sun newspaper's report on the Borat article

On The Sun's website, here, it has falsely claimed that Wikipedia has banned users from editing the page - yet, it's still editable by anyone, and it looks as if this report could be giving Wikipedia a bad image. I've already watchlisted the page; please do so, as vandalism seems to be becoming more frequent. --SunStar Net 11:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is semi protected. --Salix alba (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fairly customary when we're getting slashdotted, but these two are going to be lingering sores (except that The Sun's report makes the Borat article "in the news" and therefore eligible for the slashdotted template & s-protection), so we're just going to have to sit on top of them as if they were toddlers in traffic. Geogre 20:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia may be put into legal trouble 65.0.101.151 (talk • contribs)

This user has placed personal information on Wikipedia without consent and should be permanently blocked. Wikipedia may be held liable for this user's actions. Please refer to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sasha_Sokol&diff=85990352&oldid=85834424

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paulina_Rubio&diff=85989277&oldid=85923346

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thal%C3%ADa&oldid=85989528

History info should be cleaned up and the named "person's" info should be removed as there is no proof the named person created the links (spam). Wikipedia could be held liable for defamation. Please remember that IP numbers may be shared by multiple users. Please refer to 65.0.101.151 (talk • contribs) contributions page.

Jack 11:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

May I ask you not to make legal threats? All further correspondence should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with these reverts of your atrocious linkspam. —Cryptic 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, he has done nothing wrong apparently, unless a specific diff is found... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

65.0.101.151 (talk • contribs) violated privacy issues, which can lead to legal action. Starblue9 13:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

User's first edit... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dont post personal info on the web then. "To every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 13:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering the IP adding the linkspam appears to have started the "flinging personal information about" thing (check out the history in the Sasha Sokol link above) - the complaint is rather curious, no. *headshake* Not to mention that 65.* seems to be doing a fine job of removing advertising links and material from a number of articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia’s double standards?

I've noticed that for a 3RR report some users received 2 weeks block and others received nothing.

On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior User:William Mauco (a correspondent for Tiraspol Times see the end of the article - an on-line newspaper which supports Transnistrian regime and Russian expansionism), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice [65], [66]; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" [67]; I simply received no reply in the fourth case [68], and in the last two cases, which took place in 4th November, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the respective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user [69], [70].

I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. It seems for me a pattern of 3RR violation with some admin's acceptance. I myself have violated the 3RR once some time ago because of said edit warrior (I also didn’t receive a block, I refrained myself from Wikipedia for 24 h after that violation).--MariusM 12:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have notified the user in question. I believe that he will be making his comments shorty. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 14:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nearly Headless, thanks for the chance to comment. Most, if not all, of the above is misleading, starting with the now-almost-daily disqualification from MariusM that I write for the Tiraspol Times[71] (he uses that frequently on lots of pages against me as a way to imply that I have a conflict of interest.) I have merely a single unpaid guest comment once on the OpEd page, which is the section where Letters to the Editor go. My own nationality (I am from India) and that of User:Alex Bakharev (from Russia) is also wholly irrelevant to any technical evaluation of 3RR. MariusM himself has violated 3RR more than the single instance which he claims but it is not my style to report anyone, and I very rarely do so. Another admin, User:Firsfron, has commented on some of this and may want to give his thoughts on the current debacle. I personally feel that I am being wikistalked and continually reverted by User:MariusM and I have already discussed this problem with a third admin, User:Khoikhoi. He has followed the problematic issue as well. I have not been wanting to take action yet, but I am concerned about the increasing hostility of this situation and will probably need to file an RfC if it escalates. - Mauco 14:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Mauco, if you claim that I violated 3RR more than once, please prove it. I have the same feeling as you, as being wikistalked. You were reverted not only by me, but by other users also. I mention that tommorow I will not be on the internet, but from aftertommorow I am ready to meet again with my friend Mauco and answer at all his concerns about me. I call him a friend as I talk with him more than with my wife - talk pages of Transnistria related articles in Wikipedia prove this :-) .--MariusM 18:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maurius, I believe that you should take this to WP:RFC as I believe that it is a serious matter. Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 13:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying non-civility

• Kaltenborn (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Randazzo56 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• many AoL edits

There seems to be an AoL user who is frequently adding racist and non-encyclopedic information to articles, such as Tom McCahill or Angus MacKenzie (since deleted). If I had to guess, Randazzo56 is the "good cop" and speaks as if truly interested in improving Wikipedia but Kaltenborn is the ID he uses to write non-civil obscenties and other slams against users[72]. From my talk page, it's clear that he frequently logs in/out and signs on via AoL proxies in order to have any overt vandalism cleaned up and attributed to an AoL IP. I didn't put the two accounts together until it just seems like Kaltenborn is interested in too many of the same articles as Randazzo56, such as Batmobile, Bonnie and Clyde, Tom McCahill, Talk:Dual-Ghia. Finally, their edit style for talk pages is highly similar (Randazzo56: [73]; Kaltenborn: [74]). You'll notice the use of the 2-word phrase as a section title, followed by the rest of the sentence, and they both never sign the correct 4 tilde, leaving the date off.

Any suggestions on how to handle this one? He's become an annoyance and frequently acts as if I'm ruining his articles when I remove non-encyclopedic content (has WP:OWN issues). ju66l3r 15:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Did I get ignored? ju66l3r 13:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrika paprika

Greetings. A user by the user-name of Afrika paprika had made serious violations: edit-warring, POV and original research-pushing as well as numerous violations of the blocks he received by creating sockpuppets such as User:Zrinski and various IP anon. He got blocked by User:Pilotguy after these mistakes. I am requesting here his unblocking, as I think that an indef block is far too harsh towards him. Note also that I am not a wiki-friend of his, nor that he asked me to have him unbanned, but practically, his worst nightmare. Note our extensive argument at Talk:Pagania. Finally, User:Hipi Zhdripi received only a "limitation to one account and one-year ban from Kosovo-related articles" after an arbitration about Kosovo - and Hipi (by collective opinion) deserves a lot bigger punishment and should've received 40 community bans by now. I think we have to treat all equally, as this gives the picture of the traditional stereotype when regarding the Yugoslavs (a Croat in this case), whereas the Albanian seems to be favored in a way, regardless of the fact that he's a young Willy on Wheels! (and Afrika only a minor offender). And lastly, I am starting a movement to ban banns since I consider then highly unappropriate (with the exceptions of self-requested ones, useless/damaging bots or just thin-headed vandals).

With heart, --PaxEquilibrium 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You say right on the bottom of Paprika's talk page that blocks are meant as punishment. It is specifically mentioned in our Wikipedia:Blocking policy that blocks are not punitive but preventative (not to be used as "punishment") and that blocks can be used to prevent disruption. Paprika appears to have caused nothing but disruption, from viewing the whole talk page. Thus, an indef block is not "too harsh", it serves its purpose to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Grandmasterka 20:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But such an opinion itself is POV. I guarantee that I can affect Afrika paprika and make him/her into a productive member of our society. He may/will be useful to the project. I once again repeat, Hipi had caused so much disruption, that he deserves to stand by Willy's side. Likeways, User:Dardanv is the Father of sockpuppetry (with a dozen of sockpuppets found & identified, unknown how many more others are there). It is thus that it's too harsh. Anyways, an indef ban is simply/practicly a waste. Isn't a timed (at least one-year-or-similar-type) more appropriate? --PaxEquilibrium 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption, edit warring, and incivility

Fix Bayonets! (talk • contribs), who was indef blocked a few months ago for a legal threat but was let off the hook after convincing me and others that he was going to engage in thoughtful discourse, has, since being unblocked, engaged in numerous edit wars and is pushing POV in multiple articles (Sons of Confederate Veterans, Southern Poverty Law Center, League of the South et al). While Fix Bayonets' contributions provide adequate evidence for my description here, two examples from today are George Allen (U.S. politician) and Sons of Confederate Veterans. Note that aside from edit warring at George Allen, Fix Bayonets also has violated 3RR there (which Fix Bayonets has been warned about in the past). I don't know what else to do about Fix Bayonets other than report the behavior here for now. I will consider starting a user conduct Rfc if it is deemed appropriate, but I'm concerned that the edit warring and POV-pushing will continue in the meantime. In any event, one could say that Fix Bayonets got lucky to be unblocked at all after a legal threat. Fix Bayonets' behavior after the unblock are a violation of the trust placed in him by established editors. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the SCV article, the consensus was to remove "Lost Cause" material, as it belonged in "Lost Cause" article. Therefore, I and other editors agreed that Walter Williams quote would be treated in the same fashion. But all of the "Lost Cause" comment was not deleted. I assumed this was merely an oversight, as I assumed good-faith -- that is the reason I removed the remaining "Lost Cause" sentence. If ALL the parties concerned (SCV editors) would comment, that would be more appropriate than Jersyko's bad-faith ad hominem attacks.

And I add that other Administrators[75] and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article. So I am not some crazed "lone wolf" at Wikipedia. {Even Jeseyko admitted that the SCV artcile was not NPOV when I began editing it.(SCV talk -- j e r s y k o talk · 15:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC).}

Regarding the George Allen article, my edit was reverted 4 times, as indicated here. You will notice that prior to the 4th revert by the other editor, I requested an RFC and had kindly requested no more reverts. --Fix Bayonets! 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion does not need to take place here, but rather at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans. In any event, Fix Bayonets!'s claim of "consensus" is simply false. The consensus is here, and it was to remove a description of what Lost Cause is in the article text, not to remove sourced criticism of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that just so happens to mention Lost Cause, as Fix Bayonets! did here. Relevant diffs from George Allen from today: [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko is aware that his description of the consensus reached at article SCV is incorrect, as can be seen from the 1st paragraph here.

And regarding the George Allen article, my 3RR request was valid:

• 1st revert: [81]
• 2nd revert: [82]
• 3rd revert: [83]
• PER TALK PAGE, I (FIX BAYONETS!] THEN STARTED AN RFC, AND REQUESTED NO MORE RVs: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]

Time 3RR report made: 21:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)--Fix Bayonets! --Fix Bayonets! 22:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've actually a huge number of reverts to that article today, as have a number of other RC Patrollers. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fix Bayonets! has now altered my comment on this very page with this edit. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jersyko, I renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then updated your link so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote")... though I believe that User:L0b0t had originally named that section... not you. As I did not alter any actual relevant text (i.e., your accusations) you had written, your last accusation is unfounded, as are the rest of your accusations.--Fix Bayonets! 23:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. You changed the title of the subsection on the talk page containing the consensus I was referring to, then changed my link here to point to the correct subsection. I would merely note that the change in the subsection title was misleading, as it made the conversation appear to be about something that it was not. · j e r s y k o talk · 23:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Jersyko, your continuing ad hominem attacks and shrill accusations are disruptive and in violation of Wiki policy. I had asked that you allow discussion to take place on the SCV talk page, and you have responded frantically with more unfounded accusations. Again, I had renamed the SCV Talk page subsection-in-question and then updated your link so that Administrators and RFC respondents can MORE QUICKLY SEE which exact issue we are talking about (i.e., the "Lost Cause and Williams quote"). I believe that neutral parties will clearly see that your attempt to "spin" and skew facts concerning the consensus reached are not appropriate. And again, I respectfully ask that you allow the OTHER SCV editors comment on the issue, instead of continuing ad hominem attacks against me.--Fix Bayonets! 23:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think User:jersyko is the disruptive one. Fix is just trying to prevent slander on Wikipedia, and jersyko is encouraging it.--Bedford 23:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh. Ok then. I find it a little amusing that my contributions to Wikipedia are suddenly in question, and I'm beginning to think that arbitration is approaching, though I hope not. · j e r s y k o talk ·

It's more than a bit rich to see someone who was indef banned for making legal threats, who is a pov-pusher, 3rr violator argue that someone who points this out is "slanderous". Fix Bayonets!'s pov-pushing and policy violations (detailed above) mean productive users must waste valuable time dealing with him, and not writing articles. I strongly ask that an admin look into this matter. --Zantastik talk 00:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, the below edit is a fine example of the type of problems I and others are trying to address at the SCV article:

"By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs.”

– name of editor isn't imp., the Issue is

Obviuosly, there are editors who take a very hostile stance against the SCV, and there are other editors who are happy to stand by and watch those types of edits be made and do nothing about it. I suggest to you, User:Zantastik, that such edits violate Jimbo Wales' vision for Wikipedia:

"...[W]e don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."

– Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: Wikipedians by politics; emph. in original)

And that is why I and other editors, including at least one Administrator, have observed that the article was not compliant with WP:NPOV. Therefore, with all due respect, I again ask that you cease ad hominem attacks and allow the concerned editors to comment on the "Lost Cause"/Williams quote issue on the SCV Talk page.--Fix Bayonets! 00:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fix Bayonets! appears to have engaged in POV pushing and unhelpful editing activity. -Will Beback 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Bebeck, you are one of the editors who have defended and guarded the POV edit I quoted above or others very much like it. Again, in my defense, other Administrators[86] and editors have agreed with my assessment of the SCV article -- that it was a poorly written biased article in violation of WP:NPOV. And it is apparent from other comments that others agree with my understanding of the exact nature of the "lost Cause"/"Williams" consensus --Fix Bayonets! 01:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot has happened since September 13th. The SCV article was almost completely rewritten, for one thing. I fail to see how any of this is relevant to continuous POV-pushing, edit warring, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You have now heard from at least two editors who were parties to the consensus state that they disagree with your assessment (of that "consensus"). Instead of continuing shrill ad hominem attacks against me on this page and elsewhere, why don't you attempt to re-address the actual matter in dispute (SCV "Lost Cause" and Williams quote). If you want the Lost Cause material to stay, I and others editors had stated that it was only appropriate to include referenced rebuttal. If you don't want the Williams quote (the rebittal), it is only fair that the "Lost Cause" material be removed from the SCV article. Even if you refuse to negotiate here, levelling accusations is not the way to resolve the matter. We can take this matter to a fair and impartial group of Wikipedia mediators. And again, I have cross-referenceed other Wiki pages to this sub-section, so I am asking you politely for the third time to not re-name the SCV talk page subsection.--Fix Bayonets! 01:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Bedford didn't say anything about the consensus, but rather accused me of supporting slander. Again, I'm not seeing the relevance of all of this to edit warring, POV-pushing, and today's 3RR violation on your part. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This has turned from a conduct complaint, which an RfC will do, into a content dispute, which does not belong here. Please use dispute resolution unless you people need us to do anything. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have gone with my original thought and started a User conduct Rfc. I'm starting one now, thanks for the reply. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would also point out that it didn't turn into a content dispute until Fix Bayonets tried to turn it into one (successfully, I see), despite my efforts to focus the issue. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP-hopping vandalism of British National Party

A self-proclaimed "army of editors" [87] editing from a variety of IP addresses has descended on the British National Party article, which has duly been {{vprotected}}. This "army" appears to be a single editor, as the IPs share a common writing style, and a common ISP, BT: specifically BT-CENTRAL-PLUS IP pools There was some warm-up vandalism on other articles, notably Finale, prior to this, with some generic admin-baiting [88]. See [User talk:86.138.21.45] for warnings given. Please keep a watching brief on this, in case this recurs, or morphs in other directions. -- The Anome 00:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some sample IPs:

• 81.153.125.112 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.140.140.64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.138.21.45 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.137.26.50 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.147.110.228 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.137.61.0 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 81.129.56.101 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 86.143.234.224 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 81.154.35.120 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

-- The Anome 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term POV pushing, sock-puppetry and other disruption

I started a RFC recently to find out if I alone in seeing a disruptive pattern to a user's edits. Well, I received a fair amount of support from well respected users. Devilmaycares (talk • contribs) has already been blocked from editing once and has been warned with nearly every template out there.

In the course of the RFC I was made aware of another editors suspicions that this user was a sock puppet of User:Grazon. With less then 300 edits under his belt he did seem to have a strange amount of knowledge of the ins/outs of wikipedia. So I investigated further.

My first step was to compare the edit histories of both accounts. One of the first things I noticed was that these two accounts never edited the same articles, except for one exception. Seeing as both accounts edited similar types of articles that seemed very odd.

The next thing I looked at was what days of the week did they edit most often in the month of October. Well, they both seemed to favor the end of the week, but that might not mean anything.

The second to last thing I checked took a bit of extra effort. I found days where both accounts had edited on the same day and I noticed something interesting: A clear pattern of switching between accounts can be seen. If these were different people then it would stand to reason that the "editing sessions" would overlap, or be in very different time periods, right? The edit histories showed a something very suspicious. The account would switch off editing and often with 2-5 min in between. Not just once... a ton of times. See my evidence if you wish to confirm it for yourself.

Now, with renewed confidence I checked one last thing... block logs. I noticed something interesting... when Grazon was blocked Devilmaycares would suddenly start editing. This has happened three times. (Compare the Grazon's block log to Devil's contributions for those days.)

Based on all the above... I think this user has created "Devilsmaycares" as a single purpose account with the intent to disrupt wikipedia. I recommend a long-term block for the Grazon account and a indef-block for Devilmaycares account. ---J.S (t|c) 01:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cross posting to WP:LTA - I guess thats a better place for this ---J.S (t|c) 07:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trolling by page move, was: Botched long Series of Redirects

MRNA Display -> mRNA Display A botched attempt at fixing the name, via move, has resulted in many redirects and the page not loading.Lancepickens 01:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have moved the same page nine times. This is a Bad Thing.^TM Anyways, have you decided on a final resting place for the page? Until then, we don't know what all the other pages should end up pointing to. Picaroon9288 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't ever do that many moves ever again Lance. :\ And besides it's impossible to begin an article name with a lowercase letter. See technical restrictions. semper fi — Moe 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This smells like trolling. Block Lancepickens (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Levisimons (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) please. Kavadi carrier 01:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please. semper fi — Moe 02:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced gossip and violation of BLP policy

User:71.82.137.219 is seemingly obsessed with the Bollywood actress Bipasha Basu and arrives once a day to add completely unreferenced gossip about her romantic life. No references; this is a living person; we must be careful. We revert him and he returns again to add the same gossip. I have posted on his talk page, asking him to stop posting gossip, and he never replies. He has never engaged in any discussion with any of the other editors. (He has added gossip to other actress articles, but he doesn't seem to be as persistent there.)

Do we have to just keep reverting him and hope that he'll give up and go away, or does the BLP policy allow for blocking a persistent gossip-poster? Zora 02:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned again. I would certainly be willing to place a brief IP block (with account creation enabled to encourage him to register) if he keeps it up. Thatcher131 02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed his stuff -- and some other stuff that maybe should be restored, but that's a side issue -- and he immediately replaced it. Minutes after you warned him and cleared out the article. I don't think he knows how to read messages on his talk page. Or how to read the discussion page for the article. Zora 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please leave him a notice to which page it is in question; in this case, I'm moving the prior discussions to my header so the IPuser can reference which page this criticism is lodged against. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyWikiBiz active?

I stumbled across this page [89] (copy saved here in case it disappears) which seems could imply that User:MyWikiBiz is actively editing using sockpuppets. Quick checks of a few of the articles appear to show significant edits by various user accounts over the last month or so, since being blocked by Jimbo on 5 October. I was unsure where to post this. — Moondyne 06:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is not a bad place. The Oct 27 timestamps indicate that they're still up to something, but I looked at a few of the files and they are just copies of our articles (e.g. Chris White (musician) and Katsuko Saruhasi, which were written almost exclusively by AlisonW and Pschemp). ×Meegs 07:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User:MyWikiBiz can do anything he wants on his site. Anon wikipedians are allowed to edit wikipedia. Including adding GFDL NPOV encyclopedia articles. NPOV is the key here rather than assuming bad faith by anons. - (unless a pattern develops, and his past history is not encouraging ... ) WAS 4.250 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

MWB has had some meatpuppets for a while who were willing to add GFDL articles up here. Socks are possible, but it probably isn't needed. *sigh* ---J.S (t|c) 07:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh I refused to unblock MWB in an email a few weeks ago, so I wouldn't be surprised if he's doin gsomething odd with artilces I've written. Two of those there are ones I've linked to from my userpage so goodness knows what he's getting at. Probably some weird revenge since I told him to go talk to Brad about it. pschemp | talk 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs)

When will something be done to stop this abusive sockpuppeter, now confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ruy Lopez? JBKramer 11:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Z Lopez (talk • contribs), newest incarnation, not yet blocked. JBKramer 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a sockpuppet. I strongly suggest you perform a checkuser before accusing me of such things. JBKramer is assuming bad faith, and vandalizing articles based on this. Z Lopez 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

T Gholson (talk • contribs) - back. JBKramer 15:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Z Lopez (talk • contribs), I recommend you run a Checkuser. T Gholson 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

F Sandoval (talk • contribs) = pattern. JBKramer 17:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What pattern? Please explain. T Gholson 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not stupid thank you very much. You have one chance to straighten up and join the community as a responsible editor. Thatcher131 18:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tag removal

Moved to WP:AN#Image_dispute Proto::type 12:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block review: Sheiknazim2

Being a totally green (less-than-24-hour) admin, I'd like to place one of my first blocks for review here. Sheiknazim2 (talk • contribs), a new user, raised a few red flags this morning by creating a blatantly cut-and-paste religious screed about a sufi teacher he is evidently associated with, Sheik nazim, removing speedy tags from it, uploading unlicensed images for it in multiple copies, and then linkspamming to the Sufi sect's website. I gave a few warnings, to which he seemed responsive, but when I saw him resuming the insertion of his links just now I blocked for 8 hours. Now, on second sight, I notice that the articles he was now inserting the links in just conceivable might qualify as legitimate, because the articles actually deal with this sort of Sufi sect and have lists of such organisation external links. If you feel these latest insertions were legitimate, please feel free to unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walled garden / spammers

Im deleting this page because [Dan T] did not even discuss the copying of this article into here, and also that Wikipedia does not start to look like a LINK FARM and also because it says on top of this page that This page is not the Wikipedia complaints department anyhow how do I know [Dan T] is not one of Guy's sockpuppets anyways,,,,,,,,lol Fact Finder 14:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not anybody's sockpuppet. I was trying to do you a favor by copying your comments somewhere where somebody might actually notice and respond to them, instead of on an old archive page where further discussion is not supposed to take place. *Dan T.* 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan T, I know you were trying to help and dont get me wrong I do appreciate it I wasent really after any discussion because it was only a response on the written record (accusation) Dan, ;) Fact Finder 15:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia User Guidelines in one place

Im just wondering if its possible to have all the information that a new user in Wikipedia could access in one place or page instead in multiple places at the moment, this way it would speed up the information uptake which is enormous, Fact Finder 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RULES - and remember that policies supercede guidelines. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A better introduction for new users (I think -- it was good for me!) is The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, it outlines our policies in a nutshell. If the Five Pillars doesn't answer a new user's questions about Wikipedia rules enough, I have to wonder if they intend to engage in wikilawyering; the details of the policies only become important to people engaging in borderline behavior (or, as is their real purpose, to those monitoring borderline behavior). Mangojuice^talk 14:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mangojuice, Fact Finder 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JBKramer (talk • contribs)

User has been repeatedly accusing me of Sockpuppetry/block evading, without the evidence of a CheckUser. I have requested that he perform a CheckUser request against myself, {(User|Z Lopez}} and 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs). He has refused, and is constantly wikistalking me and reverting any edit I perform. Please assist. T Gholson 16:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

T Gholson (talk • contribs) is transparently a sockpuppet of blocked 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs). JBKramer 16:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

According to your contribution history, you can be a sock of Stirling Newberry (talk • contribs) and other various users. Please prove your point with a CheckUser. T Gholson 16:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that T Gholson's talk page is empty, indicating that you've never tried to discuss this with him. --Masamage 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What is there, exactly, to discuss? As an IP address he was blocked for continuously harasssing me. He has returned after resetting his modem, or finding an open proxy or internet cafe to continue such harassment. Review the editing history of the IP address, and that of the series of new account just created. Is this user going to get yet ANOTHER strike before they are out? JBKramer 17:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to review his entire editting history, but I'll believe you if you provide diffs showing objectionable behavior. Also, why not do a checkuser? It can only help. --Masamage 17:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

His editing history is extremely short. It begins with false edit summaries, and procedes to the same pernicious talk page attacks on me that his old IP address started. His edits are almost uniquely to the pages the IP address edit warred over, (and some random article he has only recently edited to dupe some into believing he's here to do more than troll). This is EXACTLY the same pattern of behavior as the multiply blocked IP editor. JBKramer 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User is also reverting warnings on his talk page. T Gholson 16:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm convinced based on contributions. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ruy Lopez to start with; Z Lopez (talk • contribs), T Gholson (talk • contribs), and F Sandoval (talk • contribs) look like the same guy. Clearly a single purpose editor making specific edits to inflation and deflation related topics and now with a beef against JBKramer. You can update the checkuser request if you want but at some point the if it quacks like a duck clause of WP:SOCK has to come into play. Thatcher131 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've offered to unblock if he admits the previous sockpuppettry and will stick to one account and start following policies like NPOV and not using misleading edit summaries. There's no long term harm in giving him a chance to join the community the right way. One second chance is all he gets though. Thatcher131 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Peeking back over at this, it looks like it's in pretty good hands. Thanks for your patience, JBKramer; I'm still learning the best way to go about these dicussions, and your responses to me are all very fair. In the future, when I'm about to get offline I won't precede it by involving myself half-bakedly in disputes. ^^; --Masamage 07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-capitalism (talk • contribs) (third time) & Vision Thing (talk • contribs)

Following inaction by admins (here and here), Anarcho-capitalism is double teaming with his ally Vision Thing to push their POV on the Anarchism article. They are insisting on representing the factual statement that most anarchists reject anarcho-capitalism (borne out by the first line of the Capitalism section "Most anarchist traditions not only seek rejection of the state, but also of capitalism,") as Peter Marshall's opinion here, here and here. Enough is enough. Donnacha 17:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. As such, the Administrators' Noticeboard doesn't have a mandate to act here.--Rosicrucian 18:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the preceding complaints (here and here). This is far more than a simple content dispute, this is consistent POV-pushing - which continues. Donnacha 19:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Use dispute resolution, please. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but, according to [[90]], I, User:WGee and User:Full Shunyata have all properly requested administrator intervention in relation to User:Anarcho-capitalism as outlined in point 5, yet nothing. It's not a dispute, it's a disruptive editor who "Is tendentious", "Rejects community input" and has successfully "drive[n] away productive contributors" (including myself for a period) and his main (remaining with the banning of thewolfstar and Hogeye and their socks) ally. Donnacha 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And as such, it should be taken to requests for comments which is part of dispute resolution.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You and your anti-capitalist allies should gang up against me in an organized attack to try to get me blocked from Wikipedia. But, I must warn you without evidence you probably won't be successful. So far none of your claims have been substantiated. And there is no way to substantiate them because they're false.Anarcho-capitalism

[edit] User:Super Grand Am

Vandalizing a few pages. Created Pupu blowjob, for example. I reverted a few, but I'm not sure about some others, user contribs here. - Peregrinefisher 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied war crimes during World War II

Not sure where to post this because it is not vandalism or a direct breach of the 3R rule. So for the moment I am posting it here until advised that there is a better place.

On 1 November 2006, User:Mitsos was asked after a numer of times of doing so

• (cur) (last) 09:40, 8 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv if you continue you will be reported to an adminstrator)
• (cur) (last) 08:41, 11 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)
• (cur) (last) 10:46, 12 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)
• (cur) (last) 18:59, 12 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)
• (cur) (last) 20:29, 13 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)
• (cur) (last) 09:08, 15 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)
• (cur) (last) 10:34, 17 October 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv I won't talk about the same things again)
• (cur) (last) 14:27, 1 November 2006 Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block) (rvv)

not to use rvv when reverting good faith edits by other users, see Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II#rvv:

Mitsos regarding you use of rvv (reverting vandalism) in the "edit summary" of the article which shows up history of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism

and also Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also assumptions of bad faith. Blocking can be expected in such cases.

After accepting this the first time I pointed it out to him/her "Ok, ok... Mitsos 17:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)" (s)he choose to do the same thing again today, see Revision as of 13:22, 6 November 2006 (edit) Mitsos (Talk | contribs | block (rvv this is vandalism the article is blanked). Please could an admainistrator block user:Mitos as this is a clear violtion of the warning in the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule "Note that reverts in edit wars in which one side describes the other side's edits as vandalism are generally not only contentious reverts, but are also assumptions of bad faith. Blocking can be expected in such cases." --Philip Baird Shearer 18:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Briefsism/The Cult of Briefsism

Why is this page protected from being recreated?? It ain't no hoax, it's a parody religion and it's real!! Why it is locked i don't know... but it's real, I can say! It's nothing to do with Stephen Colbert (his only link with it is that he is a follower of it!).

Please, admins, undelete this page... it's worth it! --Llloydfere 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Justin Eiler 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This didn't fly on Deletion Review, and it won't fly here I'd imagine.--Rosicrucian 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:G4gamer33 request

I have not done anything wrong, I just do not feel the need to have this account anymore, I don't have as reliable sources as I thought....Is there anyway my account can just be deleted? Or does it have to be blocked? Either way, I do not want it wanymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G4gamer33 (talk • contribs) .

Comment G4gamer33 requested a namechange after this post, so no further action from AN/I may be necessary. Justin Eiler 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flame war at Talk:Armenian Genocide

For the past few days, there has been a discussion at Talk:Armenian Genocide about the alleged pov nature of the article. This is now rapidly descending into a flame war, with personal attacks such as "You are a pathetic individual." The two users in the flame war are THOTH (talk • contribs) and Xargoth (talk • contribs). According to the latter, my "prejudice and biased moderation is obvious in this matter." Because of that, and since I was involved in the discussion before it erupted, I don't think it's right for me to do anything. I would appreciate it if another admin kept an eye on the discussion. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've dropped a reminder not to discuss other editors, their possible nationalities, and their possible motives for editing. --InShaneee 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hardly a newbie...

Just in case this rings a bell with anyone, Super Grand Am (talk • contribs) created and propagated scatological references then, when blocked, created Grande Am (talk • contribs) to do the same, them attempted to create such usernames as Grander Am (talk • contribs), Superior Grand Am (talk • contribs), Fast Grand Am (talk • contribs), Grand Am on Wheels! (talk • contribs), Grand Am the Milkman (talk • contribs), demonstrating both a persistence and a knowledge of serious issues. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you disable account creation when you blocked these accounts? Scobell302 21:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But of course... so, what does that tell you? :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a CheckUser request to find the underlying IP(s) could be appropriate here... Scobell302 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reminds me of Nintendude (talk • contribs). Graham87 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a possibility... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block request for legal threats: User:Fakir005

I'm requesting another admin to look at Fakir005 (talk • contribs) recent comments left on both my talk page and her/his own, especially [91], [92], [93]. I feel a block for legal threats is warranted, but someone else do review/execute since I'm involved. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't been warned yet, so I dropped him a {{threat4}}. See how it goes from here - any more, and block away. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, I had given him a {{threat2}} here [94], yet he continued (ie, [95]). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... still, now he's on his absolute final warning (level 4, see WP:TT), so any more threats and he wll have no excuses. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]}

The best thing to do when someone posts a legal threat is to block them, which is what I have done. I left a note for him on his talk page as to how he can proceed.--MONGO 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And check this out. He's still posting loud, novel-length rambles, and even mocking the block. I think this is a sign that his talk page needs to be locked sooner or later. Scobell302 20:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the last, just blank/protect the page, and move on. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But who's going to do that? I can't, because I'm just an ordinary user. Scobell302 21:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ZimZalaBim did. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Fakir005 reappeared as Bimzalazim (talk • contribs) (a play on my user name) and engaged in the same disruptive activities. I've blocked and labeled as sock. I have since received an e-mail from this user continuing to berate and accuse me of being a sock/conspirator of Zedo, along with a "demand that you unblock mty computer wiith IP Address of 65.88.66.155 immediately and restore my contribution immediately" (sic). I have no intention to unblock, but will forward the e-mail to anyone who wants to review the situation. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I got a similar email though as far as I can see, I had nothing to do with this situation or any of the articles involved. I responded to the email indicating that the reasons this user was blocked were different from the reasons the user was claiming, and noting that only the blocking admin is meant to undo blocks. --Yamla 00:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Generic Character and talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan

I've tried to keep this brief, but that doesn't work. Hopefully it's to the point.

This user conducted a merge of two articles on Sunday: which was fair enough. It was contested by myself, User:MRSC, User:G-Man, and also my nemesis, User:Bailrigg. You can see Talk:Metropolitan Borough of Wigan for the discussion. Our civil attempts to explain why we thought the article should not be merged with sarcasm ("as I look into the sky - I see no large letters up there"), accusing other people of wiping comments, and no real attempt to respond why. I was happy to accept this was all in good faith, and begged as one editor to another, to please stop the merging whilst and keep the status quo, on the talk page. At 22:11 he notes that "all editors are equal" as if I was somehow abused power or even made any threats. He claims to be making "real positive" edits to the article at the time. this would be the edit, which added paragraphs of text from Wigan's website. This is not something that can be done accidentally. User:MRSC reverted the merge again at 23:05, he reverts back with the edit comment "Continuing to edit and add references here (So not 3 revert rule). The last edit was simple vindictive and personal vandalism by another editor." He is question as to what this means and refuses to explain what this means

At some point when adding <ref> ref tags, he manages to fail to close one in this edit. Easily done, I know I have. MRSC notes here the problem at 23:29, that there is a "syntax error", which is causing most of the article not to display.

At 23:49 here and [96], he accuses a "clever programmer" of "vandalised this article - so it ends at the begining of the "Wigan Town" section", and claims that "you know you are". I note the problem here and insist upon an apology for this accusation. I then correct the error for him, and get accused of weasel words, whatever that is supposed to mean in this context. He is describes this entire process as "wikilawyering", a term usually reserved for discussing procedural issues, when i have noted i'm only only after discussing substantive content issues. After being asked several times, he still will not actually participate in the talk page discussion about the merge, choosing instead to talk about the sin tax and accuse people of being in a cabal.

I discovered yesterday morning about the copyvio, and quickly discover some more in his edit history. He doesn't treat this copyvio at all seriously, claiming that it wouldn't have been a problem if the cabal had got off his case. He also in this edits insults the writing I had done on the article on Monday, expanding it out from a stub to a reasonably big article, and adding many many references. he slaps an unsourced tag on it, even though the article at that point had 18 footnoted references: far more, ignoring duplicate references, than when he had removed the same tag himself.

Today he has been mainly removing the image Image:Wigan coat of arms.JPG from places. See Talk:Coat of arms of Wigan for fun. Whilst at the same time being concerned about non-fair use of a logo on an article about that logo, he trivialises his actual documented plagiarism and refuses to disclose other copyright violations he has made. He claims somehow it is possible to copy and paste text from a website into Wikipedia (changing the grammar as appropriate sometimes) without intent! Although I have not done an extensive search through his history, these edit to Prescriptive Barony also appear to violate copyright (but are at least generally cited to where they are stolen from) and this creation of the article, which I have since put in copyright problems.

It is clearly difficult to get through to this user. He has ignored polite requests and derides our attempts to discuss issues as "wikilawyering", and calls us a "cabal", and just now again. I wonder what other administrators might think are appropriate courses of actions. I am particularly concerned about his unrepetant record of copyright violations. Morwen - Talk 19:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have appropriately responded to his continued blatant and clearly intentional copyright violations with an indefinite block. The wikilawyering and trolling is just extra. Anyone seriously disagree? - David Gerard 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Look at his response. What do you think? Scobell302 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously an error in judgment there. What a lovely person we've blocked. (/sarcasm) Nice shot, Mr. Gerard. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry on Ascended Master?

Could someone take a look-see at Theoschela (talk • contribs), Aburesz (talk • contribs), Pverity5 (talk • contribs) and Bob8080 (talk • contribs)? They have that sockpuppet vibe to them. Thanks! - Richfife 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to report this at WP:RFCU, where someone will be able to check to see if it's the same user based on their IP address, or some such thing hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 22:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to read the green part at the top of this page before compiling a request. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 22:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Playing politics in pro wrestling

I wish to report a vandal with two IP's from the same provider (likely the same person) who is playing petty politics with the order of Australian promotions on the Professional wrestling in Australia page. I have now reverted this vandal twice. The IP addresses are;

219.90.230.143 & 219.90.187.203

What he has done is (for purely promotional reasons) moved EPW to the top of the list. I have put the list in a non political order, with the largest fed with the most members (PWA) first, and EPW second with the single feds in an accepted state by state order. The first edit put EPW ahead of PWA. The second edit was more obvious, putting EPW on top and shoving PWA further down the list.

I don't wish to see Wikipedia caught up in petty local politics. Adelaide (where the ISP is located) is a hotbed for this sort of behaviour and the sooner it's nipped in the bud the better. It's just possible that this vandal may know me and may be looking to upset me but I have no proof of this as yet. I do know a couple of Adam Internet users who are recognised troublemakers.

This should be watched IMHO. It is my view that the current order is politically correct and should be retained as such. If needed we may have to go to a consensus on the matter. Curse of Fenric 22:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a pretty lame edit war to me. Instead of trying to be politically correct with which promotion is bigger, just list it in alphabetical order and move along. semper fi — Moe 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands right now, yes it may be a bit lame. But if it isn't nipped in the bud now it could escalate rather seriously. Better to be safe than sorry.

On putting it in alphabetical order - I don't know about you, but in my view that would make it look ugly. Given the multi member status of both PWA and EPW. That's why I put them first to start with (along with the size thing), so that all the single feds are grouped together. Curse of Fenric 22:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, would you rather risk making the list a little "ugly" or continue to escalate a silly problem? I wouldn't choose the latter. semper fi — Moe 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'd be escalating it by keeping the order that's there now. The escalation would be from this IP who hasn't got the courage to create an account - if he or she is that stupid to revert the change for a third time. Curse of Fenric 00:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually - strike that. The alphabetical order doesn't look as bad as I thought it would so I changed it to that. I don't think it will stop this vandal, but I could be wrong. Time will tell. Curse of Fenric 00:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of threatened new attack from Krystiandl

User:Krystiandl has made contact with the WMF office and is threatening further mischief. Please do not hestitate to shut down any such activity.--Brad Patrick 22:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 75.2.250.145 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

From my Talk page:

Reported on WP:AIV:

"75.2.250.145 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) - User is stalking my talk page; leaving harrassing comments and demanding an apology for something that I did not actually do to them. When I remove their comments, they leave more. I have warned them on their talk page, but the user removed those warnings; in addition to other warnings from other editors. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I warned the IP editor regarding their actions and received this follow-up from the original plaintiff:

I have no idea why they were targeting me, and *not* the person who actually accused them of being a sock. Before that, I was legitimately trying to hear their side of a content dispute (in Talk:Neil Patrick Harris).

Now, looking at their other edits, they are in a constant state of POV pushing and vandalism. See: Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Pat Quinn (politician), John P. Daley, St. Ignatius College Prep, Tammy Duckworth, Talk:George W. Bush, and numerous others. I don't want to get involved in this, as they have already targeted me; could you look into this? Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the user has been accused of being User:Joehazelton, a recently indefinitely blocked user. There's definitely a similar pattern to their edits and comments. -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 23:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have also received notice that my adding this notice may well bring me to the attention of the NAACP?!? (aeropagitica) 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty extreme...I'll warn him about the legal threat. --InShaneee 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That extreme edit is just a common belief held by many Progressives. I didn't make it up. 75.2.250.145 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to post people's beliefs in such a manner. --InShaneee 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I am sorry. 75.2.250.145 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia vandal control

Can someone naturally nicer than me keep an eye here? The guy has been adding templates for a new organisation he started. He means well, but a kind bit of guidance is required and I don't feel I'm the man to do it. Thanks. --Guinnog 23:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Nor am I, I'd probably be a bit too biting right now. I just removed a couple templates. They should all probably be userfied, or wiped. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, great. Wikipedia:Wikipedia vandal control. It looks like a Wikiproject, but made to look more official. Does this have to go through MfD? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to just delete the whole lot and give him a warning. Then I thought, maybe someone else can do it nicer without biting him. Any takers? --Guinnog 00:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

all he's done is Sandbox, two other edits, and this? [97] Hrm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, I've left him a note about why this project is not a good idea, along with a welcome message. We'll see what happens next. His Vandalism Control Program pages are now all listed at MfD, anyway. Newyorkbrad 01:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Brad. I think he is closing it down now. --Guinnog 02:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need the following modifications to monobook.js

Hello,

I'm not sure it's the right page, but I need the help of someone with admin rights.

I'm currently rewriting Wikipedia:Translation the (much better) way I did it for fr:Projet:Traduction

This new system creates one supbage for each translation process (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) ; those subpages can be inclueded and looks like this :

Ok, the deal is that when a wikipedian wants to make a traduction request, she should be able to click on Wikipedia:Translation/Name of the english article and to see it initialized to the following text (with no extra newline at the end) :

{{subst:Translation/Initialization|{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|~~~~|
<!--
    Follow the instructions below to propose a translation. 

    WARNING: Do not erase!
-->


1. Indicate the original language of the article here (for example: de fr ja es it pt...)
|two-letter language code|

2. Type the name of the original article here (for example: Liberté)
|Original name here|

3. Please briefly explain why this article is worth translating
|reason here|

4. Please leave a comment if you wish to do so
|comment here|

| 5. You're done! You may now save this page.

}}

Unless you have a better idea, I request an administrator to add the content of User:Jmfayard/monobook.js to Mediawiki:Monobook.js (like it was done in fr:Mediawiki:Monobook.js)

Thanks, Jmfayard 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't need any javascript to do this, if I'm reading it correctly. Instead you can use the "localurl" or "fullurl" magic words and the preload function, like so:

[[ {{fullurl:Wikipedia:Translation/Name of the english article | action=edit&preload=Template:TextYouWantInTheEditBox }} | Wikipedia:Translation/Name of the english article ]]

Which should give a link to Wikipedia:Translation/Name of the english article and automatically fill the edit box with the contents of whatever template you specify. Then all you need to do is make sure that any substs in the template are wrapped in <includeonly> and you're set. I can help you with this if you need it. This option would be greatly preferable to modifying the Monobook.js, which is of course loaded on every page view (when using the monobook skin) and should be kept free from bloat. --bainer (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of libel

User:Paul Hartal is persisting in accusing editors and third parties of libel against his alma mater, despite being warned by multiple users that it may be interpreted as a legal threat. The discussion in question is at Talk:Columbia Pacific University. I am not sure if claims like "So-and-so is libelling (third party)" constitutes a legal threat per WP:THREAT, but this editor is being quite tendentious and I would appreciate if an admin could look into the matter. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback already did. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)