Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive181

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:LetsgoPhillies 2 Vandalism by User 71.70.92.135 on Waccamaw Page 3 Sasfatpogobsqalt 4 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 5 Mr.Kannambadi and his elitism 6 thejps being abusive to me 7 Spammer account - created on behalf of a website 8 Even more Primetime 9 User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions 9.1 My research 10 Lucy-marie consistently deleting warnings on own talk page and other problems 11 Chris Rix 12 Daybreak Community 13 User:TSLcrazier 14 Move of Homophobia to Misohomo by User:Topses 15 Repeated old vandalism 16 Immediate attention needed at Stephen Colbert 17 Mastcell wikistalking 17.1 Comparison of contributions 17.2 Unwanted attention 17.3 Perception is reality 17.4 Request for the admins 17.5 Personal attacks 17.6 Wikistalking 17.7 Redux 17.8 Resolution? 18 Violation of recently closed ArbCom case 19 User:Yarillastremenog 20 Improper article for deletion protocol used by [48]SuganthinifromJaffna 21 User: 70.134.225.98 22 Blocked ip editing from other ips in same domain 23 Racial percentages of Sean Paul 24 User:Sarenne 25 Impersonation of Hamsacharya dan redux 26 NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though 27 Persistent trolling by User:193.219.28.146 on Talk:Ass to mouth - 3RR violation? 28 User:Siokan 29 Help me!! 30 "United Front Against Deletion" 31 Edit war and likely sockpuppetry at Shinigami (Bleach) 32 New Art Dominique (talk • contribs) sockpuppet 33 In lieu of WP:PAIN… 34 Controversial 3RR violation

[edit] User:LetsgoPhillies

LetsgoPhillies (talk • contribs) This user admits to being a sock puppet for evading a ban here, and the user's talk page states it's a revenge account for the purpose of vandalizing. -- Kesh 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is listed in "Highways problem". V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by User 71.70.92.135 on Waccamaw Page

I'm a Waccamaw Indian tribal council member and viewed the current page on Waccamaw. There were three incidents of vandalism on November 15, 2006 for the page showing the same user at 71.70.92.135 IP address. I will try to undo edit to correct, but I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia editing. Also, is there anyway of finding out the source? If this is possible, please email to </email removed/>. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.139.40 (talk • contribs).

The IP you mentioned resolves to Road Runner Holdco LLC. Crimsone 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sasfatpogobsqalt

Sasfatpogobsqalt (talk • contribs) is constantly removing the speedy tag from the article he/she created, Edy Syquer. He/she has been warned to stop and refuses to. Heimstern Läufer 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This sound like a job for WP:AIV. To the Wikicave! JuJube 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries now, the article's been deleted. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Are comments on this IP's talkpage considered worrying to the community? Personally, I don't care about the farcical accusations that the IP is leveling at me, but I do wish an outside person to give some perspective on the matter, as I don't seem to have a clear head on the matter anymore. Constructive criticism welcome. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant references to the "Dear Reader" of the talk page is very Victorian, and very trolling; it's a recognized invitation of the audience to draw conclusions prefaced by the author. I say leave it alone and walk away. Teke^(talk) 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I say just semi the talk page and leave content on it; he can't complain he was "censored", but he can't keep trolling. Patstuart^talk|edits 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr.Kannambadi and his elitism

Mr.Kannambadi (with his loyal friends) is removing the cited info at chalukya and rashtrakuta with other articles. he wants to push the POV of historians of his region and deleting my Marathi language and even English language citations. He is framing his own rules and bullying me by inventing new rules that google books and regional language books cannot be used in wikipedia. he has two books which I have quoted yet he is removing the info from those books as well also from the reputed source of Britannica encyclopeduia. I have given details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting . He is harassing me by asking ID no. but the book which i have (and he had claimed he has located them) are of 1924 AD which obviously dont have Id noes. Please help.Sarvabhaum 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] thejps being abusive to me

Hi, i hope you can help me. Im having a big problem with an administratorcalled thejps. When i joined i didnt know what i was doing and broke a few rules. I wasnt abusive but went about changing articles the wrong way. I was banned for 2 weeks which i completely agreed tp. Since i have come back i have followed all the rules, discused everything, have not edited 1 article and been overly polite to everyone. Wherever i start adiscussion on the discussion page thejps keeps following me and telling everyone to ignore me,that my POV is wrong and calling me a trol! All i want to know is how do i report him and warn him off. I enjoy reading articles and have only started a few discussions, yet i feel i am being taunted to react so he can ban me again. He has really taken it peronnaly, how do i stop him? Iwould appreciate any advice, thanks a lot. My email is hidden cheers Daveegan06 10:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed your email, it can still be seen by bots. We can use the email this user link from your userpage if you have an email set for wikipedia. Viridae^Talk 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you want to indent like I have here, use a : at the start of the sentence, spaces just put the text into an endless box. The more of them you use, the more indented it is.

Like.

This. Viridae^Talk 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Onto the actual issue. I saw the talk page comments you made/The JPS made that tipped you to making this report, and have to agree that The JPS was being a little over the top in his critiscism, I believe you being perfectly civil and not trolling at all, I would like to hear from The JPS as to why he took it that way. Viridae^Talk 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The JPS has been notified about this thread on his talk page. Viridae^Talk 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for what could be interpreted as being over the top. I will continue to monitor the user in a less vocal way. My concerns about the editor are based on the fact that most of his edits are ideologically motivated. The JPS^{talk to me} 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spammer account - created on behalf of a website

Mad gamers (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has consistently added links to the MadGamers website in many computer/video game related articles. See Half-Life 2, CS: S, Half-Life, CS: S again, RTS, CVG. The same message, with links, posted to the articles. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even more Primetime

Yes, it's tiresome. Looks like Primetime (talk • contribs) hasn't given up: his newest sockpuppet, Ad astra per aspera (talk • contribs), like a previous one, has once again nominated Panaca, Nevada (an actual town) for deletion. He also moved the previous nomination here, so someone will have to fix that by reverting the move, too.

(Officially, the previous Panaca troll was Justin322 (talk • contribs), whom I now assume was a Primetime sockpuppet, but even if he wasn't it's still abusive sockpuppetry, just by a different puppeteer.) --Calton | Talk 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the last version of the original nomination by Calton and moved the new nom to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada (2nd nomination). Obviously, should be dealt with as seen fit? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions

An editor called my attention to an ongoing dispute at Srebrenica massacre. I've done some poking around, and I'm greatly troubled by what I see:

• Bosniak (talk • contribs) reverts any attempts to introduce neutral point of view terminology (for example, an editor changed the subheading "Denial of the massacre, revisionism and scepticism" to "Critical views" to make it less POV-laden).
• he repeatedly introduces information in blatant violation of WP:BLP ("...accused of raping Bosniak women...") and has been adding this information despite warnings since August ("...accussed of participating in Serb-run rape camps..."). This information has no reliable sources and has in fact been widely discredited.
• Bosniak accuses editors of "vandalism" when they make any changes contrary to his POV, using edit summaries like "rv to Psychonaut - Jim Douglas, this is not your personal web page to vandalize. Your vandalism will not succeed." and "rv to Psychonaut -- Jim Douglas, read discussion page before attempting to vandalize article". It should be noted that the user in question was discussing the issue on the talk page.
• Anyone who disagrees with Bosniak is labeled a Serb apologist. Bosniak even goes so far as to compare their "destruction" of the article to the mass murders itself: an egregious violation of WP:AGF, to say the least.
• The user threatens to have another user blocked for asking him to cease making ad hominem attacks, violating WP:CIVIL.
• Bosniak persistently removes Serbophobia from the Anti-Bosniak sentiment article as part of an ongoing effort to make a point; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bosniakophobia, an AFD the user was blocked for disrupting (see also this edit, where he falsifies votes for his bad faith nom of Serbophobia.)
• The editor canvasses user talk pages, enlisting aid to preserve his POV within the article (characterizing the other editors as "genocide deniers"):[1] [2], [3]
• The editor's userpage is in itself a soapbox and clearly demonstrates his POV agenda.

The user had two previous AN/I reports, one in November and again in December. He was blocked for one week after the November report (in which he disrupted AFD processes). He lodged this complaint on AN/I against the admins who rolled back his soapbox canvassing, and it was suggested that he be blocked for two weeks if he acted again in this manner. It is clear that this user has not learned our policies concerning WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. I confess that I do not have much knowledge of the tragedy at Srebrenica, but it is very clear that this user is interested in promoting a very particular POV to the exclusion of all others. Attempts to deal with this user are persistently met with accusations of vandalism, allegations of being a Serbian apologist, and threats to have users blocked or banned. I would like to ask for other administrators' input on how to handle this situation. -- Merope 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend pursuing dispute resolution, starting with a Request for comment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That may actually work if the editor were to be interested on dispute resolution, but looking at his contribution history it is easy to realise he is "on a mission". As a matter of fact, there is an ArbCom decision on Kosovo (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo), which although not directly related was used in the past as rationale to block another user for disruption (Osli73). Regards, --Asterion^talk 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We can also add to the list of grievances that he's a serial and unrepentant copyright violator. He has a history of contributing text and images without permission of the copyright holder, and continues to do this despite conspicuous warnings on his user talk page. In fact, the most recent violation occurred just a few hours ago; see User talk:Bosniak#Congress of North American Bosniaks. For reporting such policy breaches I have been labelled a "Serb [who] defends Serb interest on Wikipedia", as have many other editors. —Psychonaut 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he may need another block, and quite possibly a community ban, given that he has not ceased soapboxing and violating copyrights. It's becoming clear that he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia and its community. I'm not sure if dispute resolution would work effectively in this case. --Coredesat 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As User:Bosniak has apparently decided there's no point in paying attention to my "Serb propaganda", I've asked one of his friends to have a chat with him. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My research

I, as a completely unconnected person conducted some research into the conduct of this user. I'm unable to make any judgements as to the quality or actuality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the topic, but the pattern of behavior is clear.

Srebrenica massacre - edit warning

• 04:49, 20 January 2007
• 23:21, 19 January 2007
• 05:16, 19 January 2007
• 21:26, 18 January 2007
• 21:34, 17 January 2007
• 20:19, 16 January 2007
• 07:55, 16 January 2007
• 22:47, 15 January 2007

Soliciting help in edit war

• User_talk:Bosniakk - 17 January 2007

Incivility and personal attacks

• Ethnicity as an insult: (edit summary) "Duja is a Serb; stop reverting and deleting our comments. This is not your personal page. We have freedom of speech here." 17 January 2007
• Insulting labeling: (edit summary) "(rv. Is Hadzija new provocateur?)" - 07:55, 16 January 2007 (2 more with similar language: [4][5]
• Incivil edit summary: (rv. Jim Douglas is a Serb apologist) - 22:47, 15 January 2007

What I see here is the aggressive pattern of an activist... someone who is here to push a point of view. (every revert changes "criticism" to "revisionism", etc). I don't know if a short-term block will get the attention of this user or not, but it might be worth a try. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If a community ban is the only solution, then by all means. My problem is what would stop him/her of creating a sockpuppet. (Well, I guess these would be easy to spot anyway). --Asterion^talk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think he's worse than Gibraltarian and/or Beckjord (although I do NOT condone the behavior of these two people either), so I think that if he were to be permabanned, his user talk page should also be locked to prevent him from soapboxing on it. Scobell302 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough he does remind me of User:Gibraltarian. --Asterion^talk 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Any sockpuppets should be easy enough to spot, given this user's behavior pattern. --Coredesat 20:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Truth be told, I'm hesitant to call for a community ban because I feel it would result in martyrdom and a plethora of socks, but they would be easily spotted. The user, however, runs a blog on this subject and would likely recruit meatpuppets to his purpose, which would be more difficult to control. -- Merope 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure whether meatpuppets would be a big problem - take Beckjord for instance: at one point he posted a notice on his website calling on his supporters to revert to his preferred version of Bigfoot, but with little success; the notice was eventually taken down. Scobell302 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything User:Bosniak does in retaliation for being banned couldn't be much worse than the situation we already have with pro-Bosniak POV warriors and policy violatiors. In the past month we've already had to deal with the likes of Bosniak (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bosoni (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ancient Bosoni (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bosniakk (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), Bosna 101 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. —Psychonaut 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a point of staying out of this discussion, but I didn't want to leave Bosniak's comments above unanswered. No, I'm not "on a mission". I explained how I came to be involved in that article here, in response to a suggestion that I was acting on some hidden agenda. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

<reindent> I've blocked Bosniak for 31hr for violating 3RR: [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]. His comments above further cement my assertions that he fails to recognize WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Any editor interested in this discussion can see that the above-named editors have in fact participated on the talk page of Srebrenica Massacre, explaining the WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but this user has failed to recognize their contributions. -- Merope 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that outburst removed any doubts I had about a long-term (not sure how long) or indefinite block. I would now support one since it's clear that he has no respect for policies or guidelines and is here to push a POV. --Coredesat 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen happening on Srebrenica massacre, a page that I've followed for years and where I sometimes try to mediate, I've come to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to conduct a discussion on Talk:Srebrenica massacre in User:Bosniak's presence and thus I fully support a long block. And I implore all people looking in the matter to watchlist Srebrenica massacre; my experience is that User:Bosniak's fear that Serb apologists will vandalize the page is unfortunately well founded. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Earlier today I did some minor reformatting of the Srebrenica massacre article, which consisted entirely of what I thought to be noncontroversial typographical changes: replacing hyphens with dashes, trimming whitespace, fixing indentation, etc. You can view the diff between my first and last edits today. User:Bosniak seems to have flown into a rage over this, accusing me of "deleting important paragraphs of the article", "total desecration of the facts", vandalism, and genocide denial. I asked him politely three times to identify the information he alleges I removed from the article, but he refuses to do so, instead responding with insults, further accusations, and personal attacks. See User talk:Bosniak#Srebrenica massacre 3 for details. —Psychonaut 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have increased the duration of the block to 1 week in the light of the evidence produced against this user; after seeking permission from the orginal blocking admin (Merope). (ref. WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Add WP:CIVIL to the list. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy-marie consistently deleting warnings on own talk page and other problems

I recently left a warning on Lucy marie's talk page in about her recent conduct.

Her recent conduct including creating multiple disputes on one article, deadlocking the article and keeping it at a factually inaccurate version (incorrect quotes and references) for a month, a duplication article split, and carrying her dispute to other articles. [10][11]

She deleted my warning, and left me a rude note on my talk page, saying that she had deleted my warning because she had stopped editing the various person articles a week before.

I replied to her explaining why I felt the warning was important, but not to worrry about it, that it wasn't a big deal. I then restored the warning on her talk page and left her a slightly modified removewarnings template warning.

She took this as her cue to hide the warnings instead by taking them off of her short talk page, removing them from her short talk page and instead adding them to her 38 kb archive page.

I replied to another comment she left on my talk page explaining that the removewarning note on archiving did not mean that she could archive warnings she disagreed with or to hide them and referred her to the Help Desk.

When she didn't unarchive the warning, I did instead, and left a note about the archiving on her talk page. She responded to that by deleting the warnings yet again, and asked me what authority I had to leave a warning on her talk page (she seems to be under the impression that only administrators can warn users).

My warnings on Lucy-Marie's talk page

Lucy-Marie's comments on my talk page

I would appreciate assistance in handling this situation. I got in way over my head. I'd read a few of Lucy-Marie's comments when editing the various person's articles, so I knew that she had a habit of continually reverting people's work and was a POV pusher and it didn't really matter if she was presented with evidence that what she was saying was incorrect, but she'd never been particularly hostile (I thought) and was at least sorta attempting to discuss things with people, even if only to tell them that they were wrong. I thought a gentle warning from an outside party showing her that she'd gone so far in her edits as to tred on quotations and references might pull her back a little.

I didn't expect her to be rude and hostile from the get-go, to ignore all authority and show no respect for anything offical or the person she's currently disagreeing with. I kept trying to get her to take her problems with the warning to the helpdesk, but she seemed to think that it was easier to simply constantly revert warnings, and for the moment at least, it has been. She has no warnings on her talk page, and instead I have comments on mine with her complaining that I'm harrassing her. I haven't had any interaction with her before this, but I've read her comments on the person articles' talk pages and her talk page and I don't think any amount of "fact" I could point her to would help, because it would be coming from me. I've also now seen her get angry (vandalism), and I'd like to avoid escalation. She obviously does good work on Wikipedia when not getting into fights with people, so I'd really appreciate if someone could step in.

I think she needs to be warned--looking back at her edits she not only edited quotes and references (which she may not have noticed), but she changed the intro of the article (to avoid using the word personhood) which is having consequences now as the future role of the article is debated, and put in other POV pushing lines which couldn't be taken care of because of the deadlock. It took three separate people to revert her edits on non-person. She reverted back giving "no reason for revert" as her reason for reverting back, even though a reason was provided and there was an ongoing Rfc about whether persons was a word where even the dictionary definition she gave for people used the word persons 5 times to define people.

Which is why I warned her originally. And her subsequent behavoir, removing multiple warnings multiple times also I feel needs warning. This isn't a case of a newbie not knowing something (for example, if I'm screwing this up completely, or this is the wrong place, let me know), this is someone who's been warned multiple times but doesn't believe that they are valid or that other people are right. This is someone who has NPOV and a million other Wiki policies linked to her in talk pages reglarly and ignores them anyway. Thanks for any help you can provide.TStein 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If I were an admin, I'd probably have asked for a block based on her behavior related to this. JuJube 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And you'd have been told that blocks aren't punative.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is really best to avoid putting warning notices on the pages of users whom you are in dispute with. They seldom help, and mostly tend to inflame the situation. And the user is perfectly entitled to remove them. If civil discussion is failing, I suggest you try one of the approaches at dispute resolution e.g. mediation or an RfC. This is not really a matter for admins.--Doc^g 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I wasn't in a dispute with her at all. I had zero contact with her until I warned her--our only contact and dispute has been about the warnings and her violation of Wikipedia policy in removing them. I wouldn't have had a problem with her going to the help desk or somewhere else, I had a problem with her deleting them--making a uniform decision that she was right, and I was wrong and it didn't matter what wikipedia policy or convention was, she could do what she wanted. This was especially problematic as it was exactly the behavoir I was warning her about.
  • When I came to the persons article and saw the dispute, I originally never intended to warn her or anyone else about what I saw as a content dispute on the person article. I came to the article when it was deadlocked over the "persons" v "people" issue and over the "personhood" v. "being a person" issue--the article was deadlocked because everyone who had commented before was seen to have a bias. I had no prior edits on the article or any associated articles and unlike the Rfc debacle, I didn't know anyone on the article beforehand. I provided sources and fixed the problems. In the following days, I found that what was going on was much bigger than a content dispute, and I saw to what extent Lucy_Marie had knowingly violated Wiki policy to POV push. I looked carefully at edit histories and comments, and saw that there were points where she had blatantly lied to other editors, and when she was told that her edits had changed quotes she still deadlocked the article leaving quotes and references incorrect for a month to push her POV.
  • I saw what I felt was a fairly serious problem, and was probably the only person who saw the extent of it and couldn't be considered biased--I'd had no interaction with her or any of her articles. I left what I thought was a fairly mild warning, which spiralled quickly out of control.
  • There's nothing that we need additional comments for, so an Rfc is entirely inappropriate. I wasn't leaving a comment about a content dispute on her talk page, so we don't need dispute resolution or mediation. There was a dispute on the person article, between herself and everyone else, and she's apparantely no longer interested in editing the article and the dispute doesn't exist anymore. I wasn't involved in the article when the dispute did exist anyway, and the dispute was about the correct pluralization of the word "person" something that can and has been looked up several times. I really can't help someone if they can't understand or don't want to listen to every dictionary, including the one that they cited.
  • Also, if users can simply delete warnings if they don't like or disagree with them, why is there a template warning about removing warnings? Does that only apply to certain warnings? Can only certain users use this template? I'd appreciate some clarification, especially as I thought that user talk pages (and their archives) were supposed to be records. TStein 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. It is clear that users ARE entitled to remove warnings and are not obliged to archive.--Doc^g 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Rix

There has been a tremendous amount of vandalism going on at the Chris Rix article with several IP's, and one account created under the name Creiree (merely to remove any negative comments about Rix [12]), continually vandalizing the article. Several editors have reverted the edits and left warnings on the user's talk pages to no avail. Attention and a checkuser of the new account name Creiree would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. —Mets501 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The check user is minor though as the user has done 2 edits thus far, the constant vandalism is the issue. Quadzilla99 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been fully protected. This was rather annoying though as he/she created an account to avoid 3RR. Oh well... the problem has been solved for now. MartinDK 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daybreak Community

There are an IP only accoutn and 4 registered users are hammering in the smae links to Daybreak Community and connected entries (like Daybreak and Utah and property entries) - you can see the talk page for a list of them and the history for the back and forth revisions over the last month. As more accounts have signed up and got involved and this happens a number of times a day now I was wodnering if someone could look into this in more depth (check if they are all sock puppets that kind of thing and it maybe that the link they are trying to add should be blocked). There are a few of us working on reverting the vandalism but it is getting to be a pain. Warnings have been issued but they tend to spread across accounts so it takes longer for them to reach critical levels and the only banning so far has been temporary. (Emperor 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Looks like a pile of socks to me. Since you appear to have an IP to work on, how about filing a WP:RFCU case "A"? In the meantime if the vandalism is getting too hard to deal with, you might wish to request semiprotection on the articles. Yuser31415 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over and the tip. I'll get on that now. (Emperor 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Cool, I see you've filed a WP:RFCU. I added the code letter for you. Cheers! Yuser31415 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I added another one (Perpetualmachine) -- the one that deleted your comments above and also re-added the spam links. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and spotting another account. They have also taken to blanking their user page too. (Emperor 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

I blocked them all except the anon, per the confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#151.118.128.232 (not that there was really any doubt: they don't get much more obvious than this). Have we blacklisted the spamlinks, or do you think we should? Antandrus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend blacklisting the spamlinks, and at your discretion blocking account creation for the IP. This is the kind of thing we can do without. Yuser31415 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree - they are awfully persistent so I suspect a number of measures would be needed to stop them. Thanks again for the help - its the first time I've had to take things this far and your help made things go smoothly. (Emperor 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] User:TSLcrazier

User:TSLcrazier, has been causing a lot of trouble lately with Disney Channel articles. He constantly uploadeds images with no copyright info, or a source. He is also mass producing episode articles with little to no information, having only a sentance saying its an ep from what ever show, and an infobox, occasionally it contains the same summary SENTANCE that is on the list of episodes. He also has a habit of removing deletion tags from any article/image he creates. ([13] & [14] for example) His contributions have been causing a lot of editors much grief trying to fix all of his work. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(originally started as a seperate thread, this was merged when I noticed this thread)This user is being a bit of a problem editor. He's uploading lots and lots of photos without fair use rationales (though they can be used under fair use), and seems to ignore rules as he sees fit, such as removing AfD tags, which he's done before and been warned for, if I remember correctly, and has done it again today. He generally seems to have the attitude "Screw the rules, I'll do what the hell I want", which is a dangerous attitude for someone without knowledge of the rules to have. What can be done, here? I was tempted to block him but that seems way over the top. --Deskana (request backup) 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody going to comment on this? We could use an outside opinion. --Deskana (request backup) 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he's blocked now for a week, (thanks CambridgeBayWeather), and there's a couple of new warnings and explanations on his talk page. I really think this is the only thing we can do with a user as uncommunicative as this: he's made no contributions to the talk space, excepting a page move, and here is his solitary contribution to the user talk space [15]. Even if there is a plausible fair-use rationale for these images, he has to begin giving source information. Antandrus (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move of Homophobia to Misohomo by User:Topses

I believe this action constitutes WP:POINT. I can't find "misohomo" in any dictionary, only 17 results return on Google. Would someone change it back? Joie de Vivre 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already fixed it. Sorry for the interruption, and thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning at his Talk page not to do that sort of thing. It looks as though Topses (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a bit of a problem editor in general, though, creating unsourced stubs on non-standard notions in linguistics, and on minor notions that are already part of longer articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated old vandalism

I really do not know what to do. User:VinceB repeated his vandalism,[16] for which he was blocked in October.[17] He is persistently trying to Hungarize official geographic and personal names in other languages. Moreover, he moved an article about a region in Slovakia to its Humngarian name,[18], though this kind of moves contradicts WP:NCGN, has been reverted by admins in the past,[19] and was refused by a poll at Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. He also removed a category in a funny way (hiding it into a comment).[20] Can anyone deal with him please? All the previous warnings and blocks of that user can be found at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1. Tankred

In all truth, this looks far more like a content dispute than vandalism. In the block mentioned his "vandalism" was the removal of messages from his talk page, and even then the blocking admin said the block was primarily for edit warring. If you look at his block logs, they are all for edit warring and NPA violations. --Wildnox(talk) 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am sorry, you are right, that old incident just triggered an edit war , which lead to VinceB's block. But what to do with that recent disruptive edit,[21] which is both against WP:NCGN and the consensus reached in a previous case Talk:Spiš#Requested_move? Why do we have any naming conventions, if they are not protected? Similarly, if you have an article called Petar Zrinski and you delete any mention of this official name from a link to that article, leaving only a Hungarian version of the name ("[[[Petar Zrinski|Péter Zrínyi]]", is it a content dispute or vandalism? Tankred 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was no consensus to move, it was a disruptive move, just move it back. As for the other thing, it is a content dispute, POV pushing most likely, but still a content dispute. --Wildnox(talk) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate attention needed at Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert History A revert every three minutes (automated bot?) - Immediate attention needed... wasn't sure where to put it. /Blaxthos 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mastcell wikistalking

Closing pointless and fruitless finger-pointing discussion to save everyone's sanity. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violation of recently closed ArbCom case

In the recent changes channel, I found that Evanreyes (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) was moving several episodes of the series My Name Is Earl to disambiguated titles, which recently is found to violate the arbitration committee ruling on naming conventions. I originally reported to AIV, but this is something that should be posted here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is currently one page that I cannot move back due to the editor editting over the redirect, Stole Beer from a Golfer should be at Stole Beer From A Golfer (it seems that every episode uses capital letters in each title).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Were they a party to the arbitration? If not then there seems to be no reason to believe they would be aware of the situation and may indeed have been acting in good faith so diving in with a block would seem harsh. I've posted a warning to their talk page. I would guess the right place for these would actually be arbitration enforcement --pgk 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not aware of the arbitration case when I made the moves, and apologize for what I now see is a blatant disregard for a standing policy. I've fixed all the disambiguation changes I've made. However, the capitalization changes I've made should stand. Regardless of how the producers wish to name the episodes, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which overrides the show's conventions. Therefore, Stole Beer from a Golfer is correct, as well as all of the other naming changes I made. Evan Reyes 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason you should have been aware of the arbitration case; most editors have probably never been near an arbitration case. That's why the arbitrators cautioned admins not to enforce it in a "mechanical" fashion. Thatcher131 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yarillastremenog

This user is using personal attacks and is engaged in revert war. I asked him politely several times to provide proof of the salacious pictures he is inserting in the text and as a responce I get insults like stupid and degenerate.[43] I also challenged the validity of the salacious picture he is inserting in multiple topics on Wikipedia and would like a fair use rationale on it reviewed again.[44][45] I would like to ask for administrators to intervene and protect the article until the decision on its deletion is confirmed. I would also ask that the aforementioned user be made aware of the inappropriatness of this behaviour and the language he is using. --Chuprynka 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him about the personal attacks. I'll need someone else to look at the images - I can't do it now. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuprynka started the personal attacks [here] by claiming I was 'avid viewer of pornography' that is a totally unfounded allegation posted in response to the source of the documentary video which as these links show [[46]] and [[47]] is NOT a pornography movie. I ask you to warn the user to make make personal attacks in this manner. --Yarillastremenog 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Yarillastremenog made a legal threat on his talk page, and I have blocked him 24h and pointed him to WP:LEGAL. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think calling someone an "avid viewer of pornography" is a personal attack, even if it is a few points shy of civility, compared to saying someone is "obviously too stupid" to understand something, which is clearly one. JuJube 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask administrators again to protect the page I mentioned from edits until the decision on its future has been made. The revert war around it still rages on, it is very disruptive. I also hope that the questions about the picture I raised above will be adressed in due time. Thank you.--Chuprynka 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper article for deletion protocol used by [48]SuganthinifromJaffna

This user, as can be simply seen from his contributions [49] is tagging multiple pages for deletion, without putting a pointer into AfD, aseveral times even puttinjg in his "deletion" vote into an already closed but kept AfD. Maybe someone should talk to him and explain to him the correct process for AfD on an article?

A brand new user who's edits consist of AFDing articles? WP:AGF doesn't mean we stick our heads up our arses right? --Fredrick day 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'M just totally unsure what kind of intervention is needed here. Help from an experienced admin would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like it must be some user who knows how articles are deleted, i.e a sock of some existent user. I would keep an eye out for any existing user who consistently votes in favor of his deletions and open a WP:SSP case on him then. Eli Falk 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the fact I see none of his Ad listed in WP:AfD. That's a major concern to me?--Ramdrake 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

All AFD's created by the user were deleted by me, Race and intelligence AFD was kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the R&I AfD was removed as well by User:Mytwocents--Ramdrake 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations) looks eminently AfD-worthy, in fact. Is it a PoV fork, or is there some other reason for such a peculiar article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User: 70.134.225.98

he/she has vandelised the siamese cat page again after it was reverted last time, i though i should reported here.

You should probably post that on [50]. This is more for long-time troublemakers. HalfShadow 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked ip editing from other ips in same domain

An anonymous ip has been stalking my edits and warring across several articles. His vandalisms earned him a block. [51]. One issue also is that I have been attacked similarly before by another ip from what looks like the same domain system [52].

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.34.17 http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.49.93

This attack is similar in tone and content to that old one [53] for which he is blocked. Now, another ip from the same domain is making attacks against me of the exact same nature, evading the block [54]Rumpelstiltskin223 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racial percentages of Sean Paul

A line continues to be removed from a Sean Paul article relating to his racial percentages. The line in question is "Racially, this means that Sean Paul is 62.5% White, 25% Chinese and 12.5% Black". This is based on testimony which is already shown in the article. However, I calculated the percentages and posted them, because it is in general easier to understand. Since many users will be going to the Sean Paul article specifically to find out about his racial background, this information is important. The user Guettarda has removed it, stating that it is original research. However, in my opinion, this is not original research, but a simple math calculation that anyone could perform in their head. The only difference is, this makes it easier for readers who are less math-saavy than I am. I have once again replaced the line, but I informed Guettarda that I would report the issue to administration to find out what should really be done. Rhythmnation2004 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it's not original research then you will be able to cite a reliable secondary source which says precisely this. Otherwise, it is original research. Quite why anyone would care about these percentages is an exercise left to the reader. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Have you tried WP:DR? What administrators abilities are you looking for? I find Third opinion is a great venue for such things. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the issue of what value it adds to the article, the "percentages" (to 0.5%!) really are not supported by the source - "mixed black and white" does not necessarily mean half and half, while "Portuguese descent" does not mean pure Portuguese, especially since he claims descent from Solomon, making the family Portuguese Jews (like many in the Caribbean) - after 500 years in the Caribbean, the default assumption is that these people are mixed, not that they are unmixed. So the "percentages" are not in keeping with the available information - the info is too vague. Guettarda 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Generally, when a person says they are "mixed black and white", that usually means that it's half and half. It's not as if Sean Paul is perfect when it comes to the English language. He speaks the typical lingo of Jamaicans, who always consider "mixed black and white" to equal half Black and half White. And Portuguese Jews are white - since when are Jews a separate race? That's a little bit Hitler-ish, if you ask me.Rhythmnation2004 15:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue this on the talk page of the article in question or take it to dispute resolution. This is not the forum for this sort of thing.-Localzuk^(talk) 15:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're 100% correct, articles can only include information that's verifiable, not based on facts that might "generally" be true. SuperMachine 15:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) #1, this is a content dispute and doesn't belong here. #2, without a clear-cut source, this constitutes original research. #3, "race" is an extremely fuzzy concept (which many people don't realize) and calculating the exact percentage of one's racial affiliations is laughable to me. #4, why would the average reader care? Grandmasterka 15:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And #5: implying and insinuating that another way of thinking is "a little bit Hitler-ish" is absurd. Please leave such rhetoric out of this. Wikipedia is not a chat room. Aecis^Bravado 15:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that this editor seems to have a thing for original research and then making uncalled for comments when he does not get his way. I to the editor would suggest that you study wikipedia policy a bit more closely, especially [WP:AGF] when interacting with admins and other editors. Especially if you plan to take a 4th run at RFA. --Fredrick day 16:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I hadn't seen that. Slightly odd considering I'm neither adminned nor a crazed Michael Jackson fan, but I won't hold it against him. Trebor 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As others have said, this is not the place for this discussion. However, seeing as it's here: Giving percentages to 0.5% is false precision. I doubt anyone is the world is 100% one race (I don't think race is well defined enough, for a start), so the chances of anyone being 50/50 between two races is pretty much 0. It's much better just to state the approximate races of his ancestors and let the reader decide how to interpret it. I don't think it is really original research though, it's just misrepresentation of verifiable facts. --Tango 16:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as a recent channel 4 show indicated (anyone remember the one I'm on about - they genetically tested various people), even if you know your family tree back - 6 or 7 generations, your ethnic mix is far more complex than that. It's a nonsense to come up with such numbers. --Fredrick day 16:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Tango, it is original research as he is taking the vague descriptions of the persons racial heritage and drawing his own conclusions from them - namely the figures. -Localzuk^(talk) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There was no intention to interpret the facts. The editor sincerely thought that was what the sources said, and was simply representing those facts incorrectly. It was bad research (which is excusable - being able to fix people's mistakes is what makes wikis so great), not original research. --Tango 00:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I was not saying that Jews aren't white (although in the English-speaking Caribbean Portuguese weren't "real white", which is why they tended to intermarry with the light-skinned mixed lower middle class, rather than the white upper class descendent from the plantocracy or the upper middle class originating from the English civil servants). I'm saying that Portuguese Jews were expelled almost 500 years ago, and that after being in the Caribbean for 500 years a lot of them would have intermarried. With respect to "mixed black and white", this means just that, mixed. In the English-speaking Caribbean we have families who have been mixed for 200 years, and have continued to marry mixed people. They had their origins not only in slavery, but also in the "poor whites" (mostly Scots and Irish indentured labourers who were sent to the Caribbean in the 1600s and 1700s (see redlegs for the Bajans), who often intermarried with the mixed lower middle class). So to say someone is "mixed black and white" says nothing about the proportion of each race; there is no reason to take it as "half and half". Guettarda 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Sarenne

• Sarenne (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been warned more then 4 times and has continued to disrupt articles on Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Planetary Chaos (talk • contribs) 23:33, 21 January 2007.

Those warnings are all from you over an issue that is not vandalism, and on which there is a live discussion. Please settle your disputes through talk page discussions. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Put shortly for others reading this: The issue here is using SI prefixes in articles where our sources quantify numbers using binary prefixes. I believe that WP:NPOV and WP:V will always override MOS guidelines. The MOS says that converting from binary to SI in articles fine, but I'm of the opinion that doing so where our sources are explicit in using another format is decidedly not fine. Wikipedians don't usually have the leeway to restate what a reliable source says with different units of measure, just because some people prefer that measurement. Apple (and publications who report on them) almost never use SI... as a result, neither should we.

Sarenne's edits have now been reverted by no less than five different established editors, and yet this single-purpose account still insists on pushing changes on a wide number of articles (though limited in scope almost exclusively to Apple consumer hardware articles). They're claiming "consensus" by pointing to a discussion from a year and a half ago, but if this many editors are reverting their changes, then this mission of theirs needs to be put on hold, and discussions need to happen BEFORE wide-ranging changes are made.

Sarenne's talk page is not the appropriate venue for this discussion. I've started a discussion on the issue of SI prefixes here, and I hope people with an interest will participate. -/- Warren 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Warren, that seems like a reasonable course of action. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation of Hamsacharya dan redux

The user previously impersonating Hamsacharya dan as Hamsacharya duh (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is back, this time as Senior Hamsacharya (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). He's also incompletely nominated Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) for deletion. I think this article has survived AfD twice. Either the nomination should be reversed as done by an impersonator, or completed. Up to the admin answering this, I guess. A Ramachandran 00:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to report this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names as a problem username, which doesn't fully address the problems you've noted, but may jumpstart the process of getting the account blocked. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/NoToFrauds, as there's a history behind this... A Ramachandran 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NLP update – Incivility, argumentative editing and COI – Some positive improvements though

Hello all. Further to the previous notifications on the NLP article [55] [56] [57]: The most constructive effort now seems to me to be the encouragement of a civil atmosphere that allows editors of different viewpoints to get along [58] and to present an article that includes all relevant views “presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[59]. There are some problems remaining:

• Despite being reminded of the importance of civility for constructive editing - some editors (possibly the same one) are continuing to be uncivil by demanding blocks in edit summaries ([60] (under “serious examples”)) [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]

• Editors ignoring suggestions to civilly discuss edits (diffs as above)

• Some editors (possibly the same one) persistently restoring argumentative phrasing [66] [67] [68]

• Editor trying to marginalize (ignore) critical discussion by using spacing [69] [70] [71]

• Continued obscuring of relevant science views eg [72] [73] [74]

On the positive side:

• Editors have stopped actually removing critical discussion from the talkpage:

• Concerning evidence for sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry: Some editors are editing using predominantly single use accounts [75] [76] [77] [78]: The recent COI issues on the article are perhaps more important [79] considering the cultic issues inherent in the subject. Apart from this I see no evidence of any sockpuppeting actually going on in the article.

• There has been some compliance with Cleanuptaskforce suggestions. Also - though they do tend to try to marginalize critical suggestions critical influence shows some effect and there is a delayed positive response towards some of those suggestions afterwards.

Overall things are slowly moving forward. Civility is clearly very important on Wikipedia (as I see it in a nutshell - to “Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally) and especially for articles such as the NLP article. None of the other articles I edit on have editors who persistently restore argumentative phrasing (WP words to avoid) into the text. It seems to me that as long as civility is properly adopted and reasonably maintained though - then all relevant views can be fairly presented and constructive article proceedings can be maintained long term. Again - if I inadvertently make any suggestion or action that is not constructive then I would be grateful if an admin could point it out here or on my talkpage. Thank you AlanBarnet 07:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the article has been trimmed down considerably, which is major progress. When I was a mentor on that article, it was ridiculously large. Good work! --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement Woohookitty. Yes there's definitely room to make the whole article more concise in criticisms and in the general presentation of the subject. Redundancy can be reduced and the style can be made more encyclopedic. Moving forward. AlanBarnet 08:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Woohookitty for some positive remarks. As for AlanBarnet, the reason why he is sidelined and/or ignored by all the other regular editors is that they are all of the view that he is a sockpuppet of Long Term Abuser HeadleyDown [80]and therefore attempts to negotiate/discuss civilly or compromise with him are a pointless waste of time. Several of these editors lived through the previous mediation/arbitration marathon and therefore have experience of this. The major improvements in accuracy of citations and quotations took place in the teeth of his interference and major improvements in trimming have taken place since all editors agreed to ignore AlanBarnet as a sockpuppet of HeadleyDown thus enabling some constructive work to be done.Fainites 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Fainites. This is a good opporunity for you to try to get along with editors who hold different views from you. Some infrequent editors on the article seem to be in agreement with me concerning the need for civil discussion[81][82].. However, the prior assessments [83] [84] [85]: indicate that you seem to be part of a domimating group who encourages COI editing and the promotional obscuring of views. You seem quite resistant to reasonable admin suggestions [86]. According to policies on sockpuppetry [87] the dominating group in this case could possibly be considered meatpuppets when following the same NPOV non-compliance and can all be considered the same editor when voting about other editors. I'm not particularly interested in banning COI editors or rooting out all possible meatpuppets though - and I'm sure admin will deal with any sockpuppetry. The main solution is to encourage editors to get along civilly so they can present all relevant views in concise form without obscuring the most relevant. I believe that above all - admin suggestions and scrutiny have been helpful in improving the NLP article and I'll continue to make helpful notifications to encourage civility and constructive editing for as long as its needed. I believe its inevitable that at some time you will have to show that you can get along with editors of different views. For the sake of civil discussion and a balanced article of course - the sooner the better. AlanBarnet 05:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 4th effort gaming WP:AN/I [94] [95] [96] -- and his message is again overflowing with sugar-coated bait, arbitrary diffs, and flat-out lies. No-one has corroborated any of his stories and lies -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to all other editors indepedently deciding to ignore AlanBarnet completely -- enabling them to discuss and debate issues with sincerity. Even without an ear on the NLP talk page, AlanBarnet has nonetheless persisted in trolling both there and here. Please check out AlanBarnets talk page and you'll see his conflicts began with his arrival at wikipedia and have continued up to this date. Please, can an admin please review this situation? 58.178.97.116 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi 58. I am not gaming anyone. I have shown commitment to civility and that will continue in cooperation with admin. I believe my discussion behavior complies with how a Wikipedian should communicate on Wikipedia and follows how other admin communicate. Criticising it probably doesn't help. I believe my userpage is full of undue harassment towards me and shows a particular group's pressure to stifle criticism. If anything it shows that the more pressure I get - the more civil I become. I hope to encourage this civility reaction in others long term on the NLP article and all the other articles I am editing on. Feel free to join. AlanBarnet 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add a quick note. It has been a pleasure collaborating with 58.* and Fainites. I believe these editors tend to be on the healthy skeptical side. Together we are working on NPOV. We have systematically worked through the entire article to checking facts and references. It has come a long way on the road to become a wikipedia feature article standard. We want to promote an atmosphere in the article and discussion so that more experienced wikipedians are willing to weigh in. --Comaze 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Comaze. Judging by the past notices there is a dominating group on the NLP article (and there are COI issues) who tend to obscure relevant views for the purpose of promotion. Just yesterday Fainites and 58 added defensive writing to the lead section dressed up as criticism. The Cleanuptaskforce just asked for less defensive writing from proponents yet it was added as if its criticism. Criticism has been obscured. The science fact is that NLP is unsupported. The main criticism and concern is that NLP is pseudoscientfic and there are concerns about it being promoted as a therapy in self development and in HRM. Its fairly clear that as a group there is no substantial skepticism. It took a lot of work and even scrutiny from this ANI to make the basic fact present on the article (unsupported). The obvious solution: If more experienced Wikipedians are to be encouraged to edit there then it would help if you as a group would show that you can get on with editors who hold diffent views and who want to report straight. AlanBarnet 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense.Fainites 16:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Fainites. Professor Devilly appeared on the talkpage a while back and said he held NLP as an archetypal pseudoscience [97]. His paper also supports the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. Professor Drenth (1999) and others call it pseudoscientific. Its discussed in books about mind myths and pseudoscience and the main reason for mentioning it is because it is promoted in fringe psychotherapy - pop psychology and human resource management. Editors have persistently been suppressing that information in the lead section eg [98]. I'm glad to see that the incivil edit summary has been omitted though. Now in order to be properly civil it is necessary to discuss with all editors whatever their view. I believe most here would deem that to be in the spirit of constructive editing on Wikipedia. AlanBarnet 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I put in accurate quotations from Drenth 1999 and 2003 and also verified Devilly. Comaze was the one who invited Devilly to comment. I also corrected the references and citations and quotations from Lilienfield, another scientist who calls NLP a pseudoscience, also the other scientists who call it 'neuromythology' and the like. AlanBarnet does none of this work yet he accuses me of being part of a pro-NLP group. Alan Barnets main contribution to the article is false quotes and references and misleading summaries, eg a completely untrue entry, not mentioned in the edit summary, that three reputable scientists called NLP a cult. Do not be misled by the sugary, pseudocivil admin notices. There are miles and miles of the same misleading nonsense on the talkpage. all ignored. Fainites 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent trolling by User:193.219.28.146 on Talk:Ass to mouth - 3RR violation?

I submitted a 3RR violation report concerning anonymous User:193.219.28.146 persistent re-adding an unconstructive and inflammatory comment to Talk:Ass to mouth, because he objects to the existence of the article rather than suggesting improvements (the article recently survived an AfD). His comment has been removed by 5 different editors (including one admin) over the past few days, and the anon editor has recently re-posted the comment a 6th time today. He has been warned multiple times, and claims on his talk page that (a) his talk page comments are meant to improve Wikipedia; (b) he is not doing any reverting, others are reverting him and they shouldn't be deleting talk page edits; and (c) there isn't a precedent for reporting 3RR violations on a talk page.

My question is, is this appropriately reportable as a 3RR violation, or is there a better place to report persistent trolling? Details of the incident are documented in my 3RR report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:193.219.28.146_reported_by_User:Axlq_.28Result:.29. If there is a better place to report it, please let me know. =Axlq 00:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You're within your rights to remove the comment (within 3RR), but my advice would be to leave the comment in place and answer him. Or leave the comment in place and ignore him. He's wrong, but he's within his rights to ask the question, so long as he doesn't 3RR. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With all due respect, I agree with the anon - not about the substance of his comment, but about the fact that you shouldn't be deleting a reasonably civil talk page comment. He writes that this article is one of the differences between the Wikipedia and Britannica. Well, in that, he is absolutely correct. I personally believe that makes us more useful, but that's just an opinion. In any case, it is less disruptive to just let it stand. Trying to delete those three lines of text has already wasted ten times the effort of writing them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 00:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second this. Viridae^Talk 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not me. He was answered repeatedly on his talk page, civilly. =Axlq

I had blocked the IP for 24hr for disruption, and then saw this (and then 3RR). Feel free to alter the block. Thanks/wangi 00:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. Endorse the anon's right to ask the question again after the block expires. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What question? He didn't ask any. He posted a comment about how articles like this devalue Wikipedia. =Axlq 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone repeatedly places the same message on some one's talk page that they have acknowledged (deleting a message is the same as acknoledging that you read it) then it becomes harassment and incivility. The only time you should -ever- force a message to stay on a page is if a user is currently acting to vandalise the pedia and an easily accessible log needs to be there for a WP:AIV note. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That is kinda irrelevant - we have been removing a trolling comment from an article that has had a lot of scrutiny recently. The comment is completely non-constructive and its removal is in line with WP:TALK (ie. the second sentence, namely 'Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.') Also, as I have stated elsewhere, 4 editors agree that his comment is inappropriate for that talk page and have removed it.

I disagree with the earlier editor who said it is wasted time removing them. If they stay it leads to other users adding similar comments which are also pointless (for example just prior to this silly incident there was another anon who went on a bit of a rant about it being anti-christian). Keeping a talk page tidy and on topic is just as important as actually working on the article in my opinion.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue has restarted. I removed the comment (and that of a supporter as it would have been redundant without the thread opener). It has been reverted again. Can this talk page be semi-protected to avoid this? Also, the block imposed seems to have no deterrent effect. Mallanox 01:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only has the issue restarted, but the anon editor has already violated 3RR yet again -- and has promised to keep doing so on his talk page. =Axlq 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Siokan

This user is totally denied the cleanup in the few articles, Special:Contributions/Siokan. Few days ago, i make the cleanup in few articles for Asian football competitions with the appropriate Manuel of Style. However, in this days, this user are reverted my cleanup with unapproprate reason "degrading a page" without remark my cleanup editing. With the account just create in this New Year, i believe that he is not read the Manuel of Style of Wikipedia and even not browse any examples as references to editing he articles, while like to edit with his style. I hope admin can resolve this problem. Thank you.

I having talk to him regarding my cleanup editing, he seems arrogantly denied it and not accepting my cleanup. --Aleenf1 16:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a word with him. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, the work was reverted back to old version. However, this time is from Special:Contributions/210.253.171.2. I suspect it is a same user to do it. Please help me again. And i won't revert back to cleanup version until problem resolve. Thank you. --Aleenf1 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me!!

I tagged an article for a speedy delete. Mike_Gaun and an editor of the page. This wikipedian User:Ncole vandalized my talk page and removed ALL of my tags on the Mike_Gaun page. In my mind, this requires and immediate ban. The article Mike_Gaun is a memorial not wiki content. Admin needed! Thx --Zrulli 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Calmness, calmness. No, it doesn't require an immediate ban (although continuing behavior of the same type might result in a block, which is notably different from a ban). The page has been deleted. Don't worry. Yuser31415 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "United Front Against Deletion"

User:Criscokoenig seems to be quite intent on making a WP:POINT, after his autobiography was flagged for deletion. See [99], [100], and many other similar edits. Seraphimblade 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this user has just been blocked for 24 hours. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He was blocked for 24 hours only? I would have indef-blocked as a vandalism-only account. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed the block to indefinite. I was wondering that myself - 24 hours seems way too lenient in this case, especially as the user in question has no good-faith edits aside from creating the page that ended up getting deleted. --Coredesat 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked 24h to stop his spree, but wanted to scroll through the contribs before an indef-block to make sure there weren't legit edits in there. If we're comfortable that this isn't a regular editor who just went off his rocker, I have no objection to the indef. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail from the user claiming that his original intent was not to vandalize (but to edit Will & Grace-related and other articles), and he agrees with the 24-hour block and not the indefinite one. I'm going to AGF and reduce his block to the 24 hours. His edits should be monitored when he returns. --Coredesat 04:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not. But one chance only. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and likely sockpuppetry at Shinigami (Bleach)

An edit war has been ongoing between 67.186.73.164 (talk • contribs • count) and Mekryd (talk • contribs • count), both of whom have reverted four times in today. I only chose not to report them at WP:AN3RR because neither had been warned. Now, TrueAnime (talk • contribs • count) is making the exact same reverts as the anonymous, which makes me suspect sockpuppetry. I have reported this here because I'm uncertain exactly what to do in this case: if this is worth taking to Checkuser or if it can be handled without this. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Art Dominique (talk • contribs) sockpuppet

The latest Art Dominique (talk • contribs) sock, who is vandalizing RFCU requests. An RFCU was filed against some folks who AD doesn't like, and when they were proven to not be socks or puppetmasters, he began attempting to re-add more and more to the RFCU (in spite of Essjay telling him that the evidence had already been reviewed). [101].

The Art Dominique sock insists on trolling this RFCU, re-adding info that has already been checked. [102] [103].

• Virtual Realities (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 213.216.199.6 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

The "Virtual Realities" is pretty clearly an Art Dominique sock, based on AD naming conventions, the consistency of huge, tedious piles of misinformation, and continuous trolling and stalking of Petri Krohn (talk • contribs), Whiskey (talk • contribs) and Illythr (talk • contribs). TheQuandry 04:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In lieu of WP:PAIN…

…I would like my fellow administrators' opinions as to the acceptability of the following edits. Am I being a bit too sensitive, or is this a tad over the line?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jakew&curid=8980070&diff=102367812&oldid=102366949 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TipPt&curid=4554553&diff=102366338&oldid=102245504

-- Avi 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He pretty much invited that by saying "So why is it bad that I am this person?" -Amark moo! 04:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, to answer the question, I think that's not really crossing the line. Rude, yes, but not really over the line. -Amark moo! 04:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a troll and a "circumfetishist" (learn something new every day) in their AfD isn't very cool in my book. Especially when it's being done based on Google results rather than on-wiki activity. I think it does cross the line into PA territory, but I can sorta see it being interpreted either way. Sorta. —bbatsell ¿? 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's highly questionable if the someone is spotless in terms of on-wiki record. But as some of the opposes on that RfA show, he is not. -Amark moo! 05:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that he doesn't have the right to bring up off-wiki events; it's up to individual !voters to determine whether that holds any water with them. My main issue is with the uncivil tone with which it is written and the name-calling. —bbatsell ¿? 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert such edits on sight per policy WP:CIVIL#Removing uncivil comments and warn the user suitably. Yuser31415 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say I look askance at critical mentions of the off-wiki activity of fellow editors unless it 1) violates WP:COI and/or WP:AUTO, or 2) involves off-wiki activity specifically designed to disrupt WP (and even there, caution would be advisable). I don't see evidence of Jakew disrupting WP, so the comments would seem to violate WP:CIV, at the very least. IronDuke 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial 3RR violation

This IP has violated WP:EW on article Ateneo School of Law. However, I'm not sure exactly what motives the user has for doing so; but since my attempt at conversation has been ignored, I'd be tempted to treat such edits as spam, blanking, or vandalism. I request third party input in this case. Yuser31415 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a fourth revert to the article; after both a 'spam4' and '3RR' warnings, followed by a legitimate request for civil conversation, I can only assume the editor is acting in bad faith. Yuser31415 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(S)he's just explained his/her reason in the ES. Wait a minute while I look into this ... Yuser31415 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)