Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive182

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 User:Rfwoolf 2 Community ban for Haham hanuka 3 Newbie admin needs a review 4 3 revert rule violation 5 tony dungy 6 Sniper 7 Content Dispute, possible 3RR violation(s) 8 Comet McNaught 9 IP User:24.47.79.127 10 Great Fire of Smyrna 11 Disruptive self-tagging with warnings 12 Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hahahihihoho 13 Reporting User: 82.23.36.174 14 defusd timebomb 15 Talk:Al-Kindi#Article renaming 16 Ongoing vandalism from Special:Contributions/66.151.224.254 17 Birdie b23 18 Scatter (Tennis) disruptions 19 WP:POINT and WP:NPOV problems at Brown people and White people 20 Reporting User:68.45.73.66 21 User:Milo H Minderbinder "editing" my talkpage 22 Block evasion by Mitsos? 23 User seems to be in fear of his/her life 24 user 24.132.108.178 25 143.254.63.xxx 26 Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg 27 Anshe Chung 28 Abusive sock puppet 29 BlakeCS' user page 30 IP address in history 31 User:SimonRebbsell1 32 DSB Worldwide spam + vandalism on Meta (spam blacklist request) 33 Not AGAIN! 34 We are not amused... 35 Personal info in history 36 User:Afshar vandalizes a promo entry 37 Report on Racial Abuse by User:Siokan 38 Reverting without discussion at "nofollow" 39 Loop Quantum Gravity article vandalism report User Sdedeo 40 JuJube's annoyances 41 Return of troll raspor? 42 Improper blocking by Darwinek 43 Phobophobia-ihatebrookie Attacked another user 44 Regarding Armenian Genocide 45 Lopez and company - sockpuppets 46 continued sockpuppetry by User:EccentricRichard 47 Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood 47.1 Further observations from Mattisse 48 Request for guidance on very controversial and sticky issue 49 Rajput 50 IP asking for assistance on my talk page 51 User:Ibaranoff24 reverting without edit summary 52 Protection needed: List of notable Georgetown University alumni

[edit] User:Rfwoolf

Rfwoolf (talk · contribs) has not made many contributions to the encyclopaedia, but one of these was a re-creation of Anal stretching (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), which was deleted and endorsed then endorsed again. At one point he asked me to userfy the article so he could rework it, which I did, but he simply reposted it minus a small amount of text, and it was deleted as WP:CSD#G4 - its third deletion under G4, by my count, so at that point it was WP:SALTed. Ever since then, Rfwoolf has been making louder and louder disgruntled noises, largely against me, as the last deleter and salter (although the previous G4s were by other admins). I have tried to be fair to him at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/December 2006/Rfwoolf but he appears unwilling to accept that this is anything other than a personal vendetta against an article which, presumably, he considers to be of vital importance to the project. He has now started causing disruption at [1] the Village Pump (is it a natural law that mis-spelled accusations of "hyopcrasy" are baseless?). Would somebody mind having a go at calming him down? Guy (Help!) 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why does he say he has more than 12 trillion edits? JuJube 22:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Funny ha-ha userbox. Teke ^(talk) 01:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oof... okay, question: does he have a copy of the article in user or article talkspace anywhere? It looks like he's trying to recreate/fix it up in the article's talk page but it's rather disorganized right now. I'll do my best to help; it's pretty clear he just didn't understand policy and now is so worked up over it he's refusing to let it sink in. I think we can fix this, it'll just take some work. —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] It was recommended by a) Deletion Review and b) the AMA Request for assistance and c) [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] himself -- that I recreate the article in my user talk page, then show it to [[User Talk:JzG|Guy] (or another admin) and if it was up to scratch they would re-instate the article. So I spent a few hours begrudgingly recreating and reresearching the article all by myself to make peace and I put on the talk page of Anal stretching only to find that your precious hypocritcal Guy has deleted all my hard work without warning and completely unilaterally. So the answer to your question was yes and now it is now no! Please encourage him to put back all my work. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um. He reposted the thing all but identical, twice. That is not "not understanding policy", it's obsessing over a truly dismal subject for an article. But whatever. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] Guy, if you have heard me at all in all these proceedings, you'll finally understand what I've said a thousand times: I didn't know what G4 was, I thought deletions took place in AfD debates, and I was trying to fix up the Anal stretching article, yes, by reposting similar content twice but in the same hour because it kept on being G4d. You then salted the article. That was over a month ago. Even though you should now understand that I won't abuse privilage by reposting the same content without templates this time, you still refuse to unsalt the article! So stop accusing me of malicious disregard for policy. If you were a bit more open and reasonable it would really help! Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left some advice on his talk page, though looking over his activities I'm not optimistic that it will do much good. Nevertheless, I'll continue to try to settle him down. FeloniousMonk 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[Interjection - if I may] FeloniousMonk, I have tried my best to be completely open to reason -- and continue to do so. I remain fully reasonable. Your pessimistic comment is either because Guy has completely misrepresented me in the above, or because you don't have a solid understanding of this dispute. I have tried recreating the article -- which was G4d and salted (even though the article should exist) -- then I tried Deletion Review which didn't help -- then I tried Request for Assistance, and my Advocate (User Talk:dfrg.msc) has thanked me for being civil and encouraged Guy to be more civil and supported my attempt to rewrite the article on the talk page of Anal stretching -- which Guy didn't object to -- but subsequently deleted my hours of work and its history without warning, unfairly and unilaterally, going against his own recommendations. So, I don't think I need to be settled down. I think if anything, Guy has done a lot to provoke me and prevent solution to these problems. It's him that needs to stop throwing his weight around and get some admins with balls to talk to him. Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, agree to disagree here. I think he has a clear lack of understanding of policy (as shown by his insistence that since he only recreated the deleted article three times, it should not have been SALTed and the SALTing should be deleted to make room for the recreated article again). I'll do my best to explain things, but I need an answer to my question — is a copy of the article residing anywhere in user or talkspace? Thanks —bbatsell ¿? 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What about User:Kingpr0n? --Calton | Talk 05:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems I am being grossly misrepresented. Guy has defiled my userpage by removing some harmless Userboxes and removing some constructive criticism on Wiki Deletion Policy without reasoning with me (and he cited WP:SOAP which has little/no bearing on userpages) -- his actions were unilateral and I have support from at least 1 admin that his actions were too harsh. Guy has further disobeyed the recommendations of Deletion Review the AMA Request for assistance recommendations and his own recommendations -- that I recreate the Anal stretching article on a talk page -- because he has since deleted my hours of work on the talk page of Anal stretching and deleted its history. He is being more than a dick. I'm considering arbitration if he doesn't come to his senses.

1. He should immediately undelete my hours of work on Anal stretching and restore it to the Anal stretching talk page
2. He should immediately unprotect my Userpage

These are two perfectly 150% justified requests -- and you admins should be assisting me with this.

Rfwoolf 09:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• That would, you know, wrong. From the DRV page:

Create the article in your user space, at User:Rfwoolf/Anal stretching, ensuring that it is reliably sourced, and not a how to guide. Then show it to me or to any other admin. If the article is reliably sourced, asserts why the topic is notable, doesn't read like a how-to guide, and is encyclopaedic, then the article will be recreated.

You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.

Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already, so unprotecting your user page before you're willing to promise not to use it as a soapbox isn't going to fly, either. --Calton | Talk 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Re: You didn't create it in your user space, you didn't create it in the linked space (the deletion log shows that nothing was ever there) AND you didn't show it to someone first.
  

You are unfortunately rather mistaken. I did create in the linked space Anal stretching talkpage (honest to God!) in fact I spent hours rewriting the article from scratch and the next day it was gone! I have asked Guy if he was responsible but he says no. I am in the process of finding out who was responsible.

Also, why does it have to be in my user space? If articles on wikipedia are collaborative, then there's no reason why articles shouldn't be collaborated on their talk page -- it's what it's there for.

• Re: Your misunderstanding regarding WP:SOAP has been explained to you already,...
  -- have you read my comments about that? WP:USER clearly says that constructive criticism of wikipedia or wikipolicy is allowed on the user talk page -- don't be so self-righteous. Now, is somebody going to admit I have a point, or try to reason with me because nobody has. Rfwoolf 14:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the article was wrongly deleted then take it to deletion review. It's what deletion review was created for. Don't troll Guy on your user page, that is not constructive. MartinDK 14:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

His issues are not just with SOAP but WP:POINT as well: [2], [3], [4], [5] I'm saddened that he has failed to take my simple advice to step back. Instead, it appears he's trying to fan flames, creating the User:Rfwoolf/Evidence subpage and continuing to follow Guy to his user talk page:[6] He gives every indication that he is refractory and willing to expand the disruption. I've urged him to reconsider both my advice and his method, but I'm beginning to suspect we are dealing with a troll, considering the source of all this concern on his part is over a deleted article on "Anal stretching"... FeloniousMonk 13:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I tried really hard to resist this conclusion, but I have to agree. The combination of the subject, the obsessive nature with which he pursues it, and his very limited prior contributions, looks very much like one of our recurrent trolls. This edit in particular [7] is deliberately provocative, inserting his editorial comments into my statement on his talk page. Guy (Help!) 13:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy I am by no means a troll. Do you believe you have been beyond reproach here? Do you believe I have no reason to be frustrated and confused? You block my userpage, somebody deletes my hours of work, you cite WP:SOAP and I cite WP:USER and instead of being civil you block my userpage, you deleted some harmless userboxes -- and all of this was after the SALTing of Anal Stretching. So in many ways I have been rather tormented by admins, yourself included. My editorial of your one post on my talk page -- which I have apologised for -- was not too inappropriate at the time considering I thought you deleted all my work -- and I wouldn't dream of doing that anywhere else but on my own talk page. I am not a troll. Rfwoolf 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose him using hello.jpg as an example image to the draft article in his user space I proposed and citing Goatse.cx as a reliable source would be conclusive proof we're being trolled, but I'd rather not wait for it to get to that stage. FeloniousMonk 14:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be unable to tell the difference between an article and yet more meta argument. At what point do we cut our losses? As to his comments above, they are utterly without merit. I did not delete "some harmless userboxes", I deleted a rant, and some random crap got swept up with it (a self-awarded barnstar, for example). And that was only the second time, the first time I removed it I managed to leave the random crap behind, but being Rfwoolf the rant had to go back of course. Oh, and I have since restored the random crap anyway, which makes the complaint doubly baseless. Felonious is right: Woolf is trolling us. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:SOAP and WP:USER, this admin has rightfully put some constructive criticism about Wikipedia and is fully justified in doing so and is fully protected by WP:USER, and WP:SOAP is irrelevant. So far this gives me even more of a feeling I was in the right about that issue. Rfwoolf 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Because it's constructive. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Everyone with a legitimate complaint that presents it in a civil respectful way should be treated with respect. Your criticism amounted to personal attacks and incivility. It has been ignored by most, and dealt with by those so inclined to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. This should not come as a surprise. I cannot honestly believe that you are so willfully blind as to not see your "criticism" for the attacks they were. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban for Haham hanuka

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive146#haham hanuka (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). A community ban was proposed for this user previously, with many people endorsing either the ban or an arbitration case instead. He has a very extensive block log for edit warring, disruption, evasion, etc. That was two months, and since then, neither happened, but has continued his disruptive behavior. He just violated 3RR yet again at Adolf Hitler [8], and persists in calling those he disagrees with "vandals". Previously, it was brought up that he is banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia, with his user page saying he was a troll. I'm not inclined to give him any more of our patience. I've gone ahead and implemented the ban, but this is up for review, of course. Dmcdevit·t 09:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse permanent ban. Was only recently edit-warring on Adolf Hitler; also looking at all those blocks, I think the community has given him enough time to reform. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Has been a fairly disruptive force in Wikipedia, and he hasn't changed his ways. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 12:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse as above. Bucketsofg 14:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban. --Coredesat 19:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Khoikhoi 20:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, he has shown he cannot edit without being a disruption. --Wildnox(talk) 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. General Idea 20:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse BenBurch 20:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse • The community has been very patient with this user, but I suspect the community's patience is worn threadbare. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed userpage to appropriate template, suggest notifying WP:LOBU, no comment. 68.39.174.238 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, a noxious bot reverted me; someone else will have to do it instead. 68.39.174.238 21:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse. Amazed he lasted this long. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie admin needs a review

Claytonchilds89 (talk · contribs) was reported to AIV for vandalism based on his having removed speedy tags from a number of articles. Upon review, the generic vandalism warnings he had received did not specifically mention removing speedy tags, and I had intended to warn rather than block. However, when I reviewed the content of the articles themselves (listed on the userpage), they appeared to be vicious attack articles on members of an obscure band, and the user appeared to have usernamed himself after one of the people he was attacking. These were the user's only contributions and I therefore blocked for creation of attack articles, WP:LIVING violations, and bad username.

The user has posted an unblock request denying that anyone was attacked or that his username is an impersonation, not explaining further but referring to another user's page for verification. Upon reviewing that second page, it appears that the attacked individuals and the entire band may be fictional characters rather than real people, although the articles I deleted contained no indication to this effect. If that is the case, the articles were still properly speedied as nonsense but the block should be lifted forthwith. Inasmuch as I have made enough of a mess of this situation in my first night as an admin (sigh), I request that someone else take a look at this quickly and fix any mistakes I may have made. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Your attack pages argument still stands, so I would not withdraw the block even if your allegations of WP:LIVING and (possibly) WP:UN were incorrect. Attack pages are not tolerated.

Yuser31415 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would think that if the only people attacked were fictional characters, that would hardly be an attack worthy of blocking. The plot thickens with accusations against a previously uninvolved editor now appearing on the blocked user's page, so this does call for a quick review. Newyorkbrad 05:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the characters are indeed fictional, a block would be/would have been in order for time-wasting nonsense and disruption. However, if user promises to be good (and the pages were not referring to actual people), I would recommend lifting the block at some point in the reasonably near future. IronDuke 05:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These two users are not here to build an encyclopedia. 3 nonsense attack pages, accusing a good vandal-fighter of being "racist" all over the place. Block should stand and Clayzer should be blocked too. —bbatsell ¿? 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

... Hmmm, WP:RFCU ??? Yuser31415 05:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No point to it, really. Teen-age friends, probably talking over AIM or some other sort, screwing around. Happens all the time and the potential for long-term disruption is minimal. Teke ^(talk) 05:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Decline the unblock request. I personally don't do an indef block if the user is responsive in any form, in hopes of rehabilitation (even the immature ones). I'm a bit naïve that way though. Anywho the articles the user created were seemingly based on his/her friends and were nothing but playing around with Wikipedia, followed by the usual "I wasn't doing anything wrong!". It's a preventative block for sure, I have no doubt that the recreations would continue. You did fine, Newyorkbrad, confidence comes with practice. Teke ^(talk) 05:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Clerk note' • If you have suspicions regarding socks, for which you have evidence. please refer them to Requests for Checkuser. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I understand the basis for requesting a checkuser here and I don't think they would consider the situation to call for one. The result here strikes me as a little harsh if there were no real band members being attacked, but I'm sitting here dwelling on this matter and probably can't think straight about it. I apologize to pretty much anyone I ever second-guessed for an admin decision before. I'm going to bed. Newyorkbrad 05:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll get used to it. This is nothing; wait until you get people declaring conflict of interest based on classifications of editors only they recognize. Or maybe having people randomly say you're incompetent. And don't forget the inevitable situation when you block someone like this guy. -Amark moo! 05:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Brad, get ready for new messages about things that you would have never gotten messages about before. Being an administrator isn't fun, it's a voluntary acceptance of extra responsibilities and with that comes demands for accountability. Conflicts will happen most every day, it's why I took three months off after having the bit for a month. I had to get my head together. You'll do fine. Teke ^(talk) 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

NYB, it is best to make a case and leave discretion to whether or not it should be investigated to the presiding checkuser. They deal with these cases for large parts of the day, all day, and (no offense intended) better suited to make such a jdugement call. It is also beneficial in that, even if the case is declined, it puts the user "on the radar", and further cases of suspected sockpuppetry will be given much more gravity. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

this case doesn't follow wikipedia's blocking guidlines for isolated vandalism. if anything it needed a little rewording.--Clayzer 06:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith that Clayzer does not understand how things work, so I'll explain.

Clayzer, administrators have the ability to view deleted edits, including the last in which you called Newyorkbrad a racist who doesn't understand Canadian folklore. The bottom line is, these sorts of contributions are neither encouraged nor welcome, we are building an encyclopedia. Please edit constructively to the project. Teke ^(talk) 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hi, Clayzer. How did you find this case? Yuser31415 06:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And may you please reword your statement, as I don't seem how it doesn't follow Wikipedia guidelines. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

i stumbled upon it while trying to go to top gun the movie. but being from the southern ontario region i have heard the story. and i kinda got caught up in the whole hoopla.--Clayzer 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• That made no sense to me. At all. Please provide context. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Is someone here thinking the same thing as myself? Yuser31415 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nah, Yuser, the case is clear without the extra work. Teke ^(talk) 06:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clayzer, your knowledge of Wikipedia policy regarding vandalism is based on your experience with your account that was created when, exactly? Newyorkbrad 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is someone here thinking the same thing as myself? Yuser31415 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's just go nuts, clearly we need to use all of our admin powers to deal with this mess. We should call in the FBI and the IRS and the CIA to catch this sneaking user.

I think it is undeniable that the block was in error, since it does not follow any of Wikipedia's blocking guidelines under the reasons given. However, the administrator in question has noted his mistake and seems to show remorse, so his admin priveleges should not be revoked. The Canadian traditional folklore of TopGun: Mach 2 is greatly respected by most Canadians, and will continue to live on in the hearts and minds of all those loyal to the fictional band members. 24.36.77.43 06:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Block quote

Stop evading your block. Yuser31415 06:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What kind of anti-climatic, un-sarcastic reply was that? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, I was referring to WP:BLOCK (not "blockquote" :)). Whether or not I am in error, I am seeing telltale signs of at least three sockpuppets here. Pardon me if I am incorrect. Yuser31415 07:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Deny recognition and move along folks, nothing to see here. Teke ^(talk) 07:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are in error, unless sockpuppets involve logging out of my Claytonchilds89 account and making an edit with only my public IP showing. In that case, you are correct, I am sockpuppetting. Teke is far more intuitive and intelligent than yourself, he had myself and Clayzer nailed to the wall long before you started calling for an unwarranted and utterly idiotic sockpuppet investigation. You should listen to Teke more often, he appears to understand the online world of idiots better than you, likely through more firsthand experience. You will learn someday. 24.36.77.43 07:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trolls don't indimidate me. An admin will be along to block you soon. Implying that I am an idiot is a nice juicy personal attack. Claiming that you are indeed a sockpuppet and then indeed evading a block will help too. Cheers. Good will overcome evil. Yuser31415 07:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yuser, don't feed the trolls. Seriously. He admits that I called them out, it should end there. Don't even respond to this post- let the thread die. Teke ^(talk) 07:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a static IP, blocked for a week for the trolling and personal attacks, block evasion, blah blah blah. Message left on the talk page. Teke ^(talk) 07:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 revert rule violation

This user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ju66l3r

Has violated the 3 revert rule in the White people article. Veritas et Severitas 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears you did too. Neither of you revert again, and neither of you will be blocked. Yuser31415 22:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Page has now been protected. Trebor 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the article page and served warnings to both editors to discuss first (well, it's more of like they have no choice but to discuss on the talk page). --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The proper place to report such activity is at WP:AN/3. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

...Though it might be rejected out of hand due to the circumstances surrounding the edit-warring. Oh well, all's well that ends well. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good thing it was brought here (WP:KETTLE comes to mind, since both editors violated). Never mind. Yuser31415 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I was not out-right reverting the content of that page. I also made an attempt to incorporate their edit in a more appropriate place and in a more appropriate way in an effort to compromise and was told that it "wasn't convincing" (whatever that meant) and was reverted again. If their edit was B and the page was at state A, then I went B->A, B->A, Compromise text, B->C. I will have to review 3RR but I felt that because I had introduced a new version that a revert to that version was not in the spirit of the rule since I was working towards compromise on this issue and they were simply ignoring my efforts and reverting to make a point. ju66l3r 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, 3RR is interpreted very strictly. The 3 reverts is an absolute limit. Even 2 partial reverts can be enough to get you a block in some circumstances. Edit warring, however nicely done, is still edit warring. It's best to just go to the talk page, and if that doesn't help, request backup. --Tango 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I recognized that I was reaching a problem situation. I went to the talk page and was ignored, even after drafting compromise text in the article. So I did come here to request help (please see the AN/I section just above this one). ju66l3r 00:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not part of the dispute resolution process, it's for getting the attention of admins. Admins exist to do chores, not to make judgements about content. --Tango 11:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to vandalism, but unless you are completely sure the other user's edits are being made solely to deface Wikipedia, don't revert more than three times. Cheers! Yuser31415 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] tony dungy

I reviewed your history of Tony Dungy. The piece blatantly referred to him as a "pure bread Negro". This is racism in its most guttural form. Shame on you Wikipedia! 70.153.135.113 07:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Kay Marsh

Don't worry about it; such edits are normally reverted within a very short space of time by dedicated RC patrollers and article watchers. Cheers! Yuser31415 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been addressed and the article has been semi-protected. Gab.popp 10:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sniper

The page "sniper" linked to from royal marines has been removed and replaced with useless banter by a user. I apologise that I am unfortunately not able to replace this page due to a conciderable lack of knowledge, however i would like to report it, as if someone else is able, this page needs reviewing.

It's been fixed. Thanks! By the way, why don't you take five minutes and go here? yandman 10:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The page appears to have been reverted 9 minutes after the vandalism occurred.

Could someone please have a chat to User:kostaki1 about vandalism?

[9]Gab.popp 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, while we're here, can anyone link me to a page that explains how to warn users and if the inevitable occurs, block them? I can't seem to find much, and it'd be a lot easier if I do it myself instead of reporting things for every incident. --Dayn 10:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How to warn users: WP:TT. Where to report users for blocking (if you're capable of blocking without a report, you'll know how): WP:AIV. General information about the vandalism cleanup process (including warnings): WP:CUV, 'What to do if you spot vandalism'. --ais523 10:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To warn a user, just go to their talk page and warn them. There are templates you can use but you don't have to and I personally raely use them.

If they need to be blocked you need to contact an admin. You should do that at WP:AIV. Note that admins will not usually block a user who hasn't been warned first. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you all very much. --Dayn 10:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've reported the vandal at the Vandalism board. The Kinslayer 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Content Dispute, possible 3RR violation(s)

I'd appreciate it if an admin could take a look over at John McDonnell (politician) and sort out the situation. There seems to be a conflict between an IP user and a registered user over content on the page, i've left a note to the registered user to leave a comment on the page, but so far the talk page so no different from where I left it. Just want to get this dealed with before it becomes more of a problem -- feb^talk 10:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think they violated the 3RR there, but a load of unreferenced material is being pumped into that article. Looks like more of an advert than a wiki article. Gab.popp 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comet McNaught

Already requested semi-protect but this will hopefully get a faster response. Please Semi-Protect this article, it is getting vandalised almost every minute at the moment. Zunaid©® 11:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right about the faster reponse. I immediately took care of it. Grandmasterka 11:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP User:24.47.79.127

I have just noticed that the above user has made a legal threat to RHaworth on his user talk page, could someone look into it? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to relate to a post RHaworth made here. While I agree with Roger's critical assessment of the writing style, it may be that such undiplomatic language invites trouble. None of this is meant to excuse the legal threat of course, which is unacceptable. --Guinnog 14:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Fire of Smyrna

On RC patrol, I reverted an edit on this page, with the edit summary "Modified previous version to include objective historical research and exclude recent postings by Turkish government agents.", then I got a message:

“ Instead of flouting your bias why dont you stop supporting Turkish propaganda and let other opinions be heard. What gives you the right to allow the Turkish user Mustafa to post three consecutive edits while deleting my previous additions?

Are you aware of the concept of litigation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC).”

I ask for help in the matter, is it vandalism, content dispute, or paranoia? _→AzaToth 13:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My vote is for "paranoia", given the comment left me:

Yes thanks for your advise to "discuss" modifications with Wikipedia editors. Strange that most of them are Turkish and paid agents of the Turkish government.

Thanks for your objectivity Wikipedia! This story is bound to generate interest in newspapers in Britain and the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

It appears this editor also signed out to duck 3RR [10], after receiving a 3RR warning [11]. Seraphimblade 13:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bit of WP:LEGAL there... I'll add the page to my watchlist and leave a note on the editor.--Isotope23 14:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a legal threat, and looking at his talk page, he seems to be quite the edit warrior. I don't see why he shouldn't be sternly warned. I've been bold and tagged his essay Option on the product of two asset prices for speedy deletion. I think bringing this to AfD would be a waste of everyone's time, and he's already removed someone's prod. yandman 14:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talk page, I'm watching the article, and I've also speedied that article as an original research essay (or more correctly a math problem) and apparent Neologism.--Isotope23 14:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive self-tagging with warnings

King Lopez (talk · contribs) keeps tagging his own talk pages with warning templates, making it look very confusing as to what is real and what is fake. Also has problems with images being used without fair use, and also awards himself barnstars using two sockpuppets Dolphiner (talk · contribs) and Lioner (talk · contribs). Possibly related to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber Lopez. Currently changing various performers infoboxes and adding what appears to be unsubstantiated info, such as height.

--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 14:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've removed the confusion, with a request that he tests (if testing is necessary — I don't see why it is) in a sandbox. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hahahihihoho

I would like a few administrators to look into this case right now, as the User:Alkalada is violating a ban because he is the notorious user:Hahahihihoho. Check the contributions, and block log. He has not changed his ways and is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. Alkalada and all Hahahihihoho's socks should be banned, and the user shoudl try to get his main accoutn unbanned in the future if he wishes. —KingIvan 11:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am only putting sourced articles which you without any reason are taking away. I suggest to the modds to block Ivan Kricancic immediatly! Alkalada 14:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• These two users have been going at it for some time, it went on Elaragirl's talk page for no good reason, and now here. I'd suggest either some DR posthaste, or some strong blocks to both of them. Wikipedia is not a Battleground. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting User: 82.23.36.174

This user received a final warning for repeated vandalism on November 26, 2006. I noticed new vandalism in January 2007, removed it, reported it on the User's talk page, and am reporting this user now, recommending he/she be banned if possible.NYDCSP 15:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:AIV for reporting vandalism. Thanks for helping fight vandalism, by the way. yandman 15:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] defusd timebomb

I just blanked, and deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death

We had names of many famous people, stating they were responsible for someone else dying: Not a single reference.

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

The potential for libel was huge, afd was likely to come as no consensus or keep. Wikimedia can't take the risk of being sued for the sake of process.

So I deleted the entry to hide history, and drop a note stating should anybody readd content it must be with references.

Probably many people will complain and ask for my head, just telling you people why I did it. -- Drini 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• So if people want to reconstruct it, references are easy to come by for 90% of the names there at least. It's a kinda dumb article, though. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Deletion If it's recreated with references than yes, it could be a decent article, but as it was, it could have been a liability to the project. Canadian-Bacon 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse the deletion. Humongous BLP liability, not to mention being an entirely ambiguous and unproductive list. Who qualifies as "famous"? What constitutes "responsibility" for a death? Does it only included people convicted of murder or manslaughter, or anyone alleged to have "had a hand" in someone else's death? Seems silly to me. —bbatsell ¿? 08:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• It is worth noting that WP:V puts the burden of evidence on those seeking to add content or readd it, and that if this burden of proof is not satisified, it may be deleted. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 09:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call, of course, and we should be embarassed it was sitting around this long. Jkelly 09:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting sourcing issue. Every item listed on this list had a wikilink to an at least one other article (usually a biography, sometimes an article about the incident itself). I haven't checked them all, but those linked articles I did check did have sourcing for the death incident. So they are sourced on Wikipedia, but not on this particular list article, where each incident is just briefly mentioned. Are we now going to require sourcing of an incident in every article in which an incident is mentioned, even just in passing, or is linking to an article with proper sourcing adequate? We could have a field day if every list must be sourced on the list itself. Who wants to delete List of Australian criminals and the dozens of other related biographical list articles? Perhaps we could start using footnotes on wikilinks that say "information sourced in the linked article." NoSeptember 11:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think it is a very bad idea for an article, open for all kinds of sneaky POV and vandalism, and bound to fail to give adequate context. Being responsible for something can mean anything from failing to call the cops during the escalation of a dispute to actually pulling the trigger. The subject is too fraught with difficulties. And I don't see an encyclopaedic subject "famous people being responsible for a death". Guy (Help!) 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Then please AfD it if you think so, because I'm working on restoring it. You can help! --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse deletion as per above. If it is recreated, this should be done one item at a time; any reference to a living person without an iron-clad reference must be deleted immediately (per WP:BLP). Bucketsofg 14:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In fairness to this list, it was actually a pretty tight list. Users Zzuuzz, Jessek and Duemellon were actively removing any unsourced or incorrect listings in recent months. The items were sourced on wikipedia (just in the actual biography articles, not on this list article) and the sources would have been easy to find on wiki. At a minimum these would qualify as the equivalent of a Convenience link. There are hundreds of list articles that are in the same format (unsourced on the list itself, but just a click on a wikilink away from proper sources). We should not get too lazy when deciding to delete these articles, save the deletions for the truly bad articles, not well maintained ones like this one was. (This in no way reflects on how I would vote on an AfD of this article - I'm addressing the sourcing issues of lists only). Cheers, NoSeptember 14:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • "Sourcing" via wikilinks is probably fine when the information is readily available and not controversial; in such instances, the convenience link argument holds. However, for information that is contested, controversial, difficult to find, or -- most especially -- covered under WP:BLP, wikilinking is unsuitable as referencing. We have no means to ensure that the references in Bob the Living Person's article today will be there tomorrow, for example. This is one of the reasons that Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source. Claims about living people require reliable sources. Serpent's Choice 06:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think the deletion was a good call. In cases like this a category might be a better choice (Leaving aside the appropriateness of the topic.) Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD started by me: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_famous_people_responsible_for_a_death HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article nees to be afd. AS badlydrawnjeff is redoing it with references, it's ok. It was the unsourcing that was bad. Jeff is doing right reconstructing it with references. -- Drini 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with that call. Blatant violation of WP:BLP. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect segue (although maybe not a perfect forum) for an issue I've been thinking about: contentious categories. Categories don't have references either, and IMO such examples as 'anti-semite', 'bisexual', 'serial killer', etc constitute borderline BLP vios because they aren't referenced on the cat page (and often on the article page too). Anchoress 13:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Betacommand has closed the AFD as delete, and implemented the deletion. I think it's a good call, as the deluge of delete votes there probably lent itself quite readily to a WP:SNOW close. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Al-Kindi#Article renaming

I'm not sure what the policy/guideline is with regard to renaming discussions on Talk pages, so I thought that I'd asked here.

I made a proposal to change the name of the article to what I take to be the most common form. Anas Salloum (talk · contribs) opposed the change, on the basis in large part of Internet searches. Once I'd demonstrated that Internet search engines present "Al-Kindī" as "Al-Kindi", and so can't be relied upon, another editor – hitherto uninvolved on the Talk page so far as I can tell – suddenly turned up to support Anas. When I checked, I found that Anas has been asking editors to join the discussion. That might not be in itself a bad thing, though there's a strong suspicion that he's been canvassing editors whom he takes to agree with him in such cases.

Is this acceptable in such cases? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, no-one seems to know or be interested, but Anas has said that he was merely approaching people whom he knew to be knowledgeable in Arabic. As that is irrelevant to the discussion, I still don't understand, but I'll assume good faith.

I'd still like to know the answer in principle, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you looking for the Wikipedia:Canvassing guideline? Jkelly 18:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing vandalism from Special:Contributions/66.151.224.254

Continuing to vandalize despite warning. Short term block (so I can at least clean up the latest vandalism)? Nposs 17:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked by someone else. It's usually better to report such cases at WP:AIV. Sandstein 18:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birdie b23

This user is creating articles on numerous non-notable community colleges. I deleted one, which apparantly makes me an absolute idiot and nosey moron. I'd do something but obviously I'm involved in the dispute. Can someone do something? Here's a diff, anyway: [12] Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, according to the contribs he insulted you once, and childishly so. Someone gave him a civility warning. There's not much more to be done at this point that I can see. Do drop me a note if he keeps being disruptive. Sandstein 18:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scatter (Tennis) disruptions

A number of users, at least two of whom are the same person, are playing games with this article, which I nominated for deletion. They are User:Bobfuji, User:Qwerty12321, User:ScatterTennis, and User:69.118.112.119, the latter of whom posted a message on the talk page that was signed by User:Bobfuji, indicating they are the same person and that Bobfuji used the IP to edit while he was blocked. Given the pattern of edits, it seems likely there is sock/meat puppetry going on, but not certain. Can an admin keep an eye on this? Thanks-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POINT and WP:NPOV problems at Brown people and White people

I am having trouble with two editors (LSLM (talk · contribs) and SqueakBox (talk · contribs)) who continue to edit from non-neutral points of view as their discussion page comments have stated here and here. I had previously brought up the subject of SqueakBox's poor approach to the Brown people article here. I have reached my limit of reversions allowed and discussion has been like talking to a wall as attempts at discussion and compromise have fallen on closed ears in both articles. I'm unsure exactly what to do next. I feel like both are attempting to make a WP:POINT by adding PoV statements and/or remove useful lead summary statements (that are detailed within the actual article) under the guise of being "unsourced", simply because they have both stated that the articles represent racism and ignore their historical usage (or even current usage in some cultures/places). Any help would be appreciated. I may not have handled everything as appropriately as possible, but I have tried to point out in numerous ways that their edits fail multiple WP policies. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has moved on to claiming other editors are "...filling it (the article) with ridiculous fringe ideas..." [13], which violates WP:AGF. At the same time LSLM (talk · contribs) is also adding insults like Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. [14]. The talk page is rife with these two editors talking past my attempts to discuss the actual article and the content in it (including a complete diatribe with links on how parts of the world hate Americans) and only want to see the article as a racist rant (which it has nothing to do with). Am I being unreasonable here? ju66l3r 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, SqueakBox 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what this is doing here, nor was I informed. This editor claims any criticisms of his work such as inserting POV and OR is a criticism of him. The article has been criticised as a rascist rant because that is what some editors believe it is, besides it being OR. This entry by Ju strikes me as being from an editor who cant cope with the frustration of editing and who goes behind the backs of other editors, coming here for absolutely no reason than trying to drum up support for his rather extreme POV. Its Ju who, if you check, engages in attacks and doesnt discuss content, SqueakBox 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

LSLM (talk · contribs) has already had another entry here which wasnt responded. [15]

What does no answer mean? No action required? Admin shortage? Lazy admins? Lukas19 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps indeed no admin action required. Dont know why Ju links me to white people which I have never edited but it says a lot about the quality of his report, SqueakBox 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The title summarizes 2 policy violations at 2 articles (you and one article, and the other editor at both articles). Nothing in my text above claims that you are a problem on the White people article. Please stop with the straw men. ju66l3r 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It implies it. Please stop insulting me by calling me a straw man. Where I live this is a deadly insult and I ask you not to and you continue insulting me like this, SqueakBox 23:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Admin note. I've blocked User:SqueakBox for one week for violating his personal attack parole in relation to this report at WP:AE —Preceding unsigned comment added by bucketsofg (talk • contribs)

[edit] Reporting User:68.45.73.66

He has spammed the Asperger's Syndrome article inserting profanity and derisive comments into the article. Here is the link:

1. 10:34, January 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome
2. 10:30, January 22, 2007 (hist) (diff) Asperger syndrome

Please delete or block user please... Alex Jackl 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Vandalism reports belong at WP:AIV. Anyway, this user vandalized the article in question once, and it's already been reverted. We don't block users for a first offense. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ... Unless it's really serious (such as blatantly and maliciously posting personal information et cetera). This, however, isn't serious. Yuser31415 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay thanks! I will direct that kind of complaint to WP:AIV from now on. I guess I thought it was more serious because of the insertion of profanity and CLEAR vandalistic aspect to it. Thanks for your attention. Do I need to do anything to close this issue on this page? Alex Jackl 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No, it's fine, thanks! Yuser31415 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Milo H Minderbinder "editing" my talkpage

After numerous edit conflicts, allow me to say thank you for bringing your complaints to the attention of the administrators, they have been noted and the situation will be monitored. For future reference, dispute resolution is down the hall. Happy editing. Hiding Talk 22:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is in response to Cindery's last comment) Wow, that's just bizarre, I'm not why you've chosen to re-open this whole can of worms. The blanked section had consensus to delete (that's hardly "ignoring a request not to blank") and was also removed by at least three other editors. I'm not sure how I could have possibly "ignored' your request for BLP (which a number of admins agreed didn't apply since I was just repeating info you had posted yourself) since your request to rewrite them [26] came after you deleted it for the first time [27]. It wasn't really possible to edit my comments, even if I wanted to, with you revert warring over them. I'll agree that people noticed, they restored my comment that you deleted and warned you on your talk page not to do it again, and you only stopped deleting it when threatened with a block. I'm not sure why you keep attacking me like this, could you please stop and let this thing end? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No please, that's enough. Step two in the dispute resolution is to walk away for a bit. Please do that now, thank you. Hiding Talk 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block evasion by Mitsos?

This: 85.74.136.142 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and this: 85.74.148.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) seems to be Mitsos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), evading his current two-week block and continuing to add OR material to Hrisi Avgi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), the article about the Greek fascist party with which he sympathises and on which he has edit-warred on and off for a long time.

My guess is based on the edit pattern alone. Note that the similarity of the IPs to earlier known Mitsos IPs is not a strong argument in this case, since this is a well known dynamic DSL range of Greece's largest ISP; there's an awful lot of Greek users coming in from these IPs.

Just wanted other admins to have a look first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User seems to be in fear of his/her life

SATELLITEXP (talk · contribs), who edits from the IP 209.233.252.24 (talk · contribs), created the article Sarzana (gang) about a year ago. He or she now desperately wants the article to be speedied. The first given reasons were "to protect identities and ensure safety of editors and authors" [28] and "Protection of authors and editors" [29]. User:SATELLITEXP then said "I am the original author of this article, please delete to protect my identity and safety" [30]. I have pointed out why this is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and suggested the m:Right to vanish. But is there anything else that we can/should do? Note that this author has requested a (granted) username change a year ago saying "I am avoiding evidence of my old screenname anywhere on wiki." Aecis^Bravado 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this qualifies as a {{db-bio}}? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Kill it, it looks non-notable to me anyway, I doubt we'd lose anything by deleting it and the only other edits seem to be vandalism and some categorizing so it's nearly db-author territory. --tjstrf talk 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user 24.132.108.178

has left this comment on the discussion page of the article of hrant dink (who has been killed recently):

"Its good that this man is dead. Let it be clear to everyone that whoever insults turkey insults the deep rooted nationalism of turks. SO he went to far, and faced the consequences. I say we have 1 problem less now."

i think the comment is already deleted; but to cheer a murder of a journalist on wikipedia CAN'T be acceptable !

--Severino 12:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually vandalous edits should be mentioned on WP:AIV. As it is, that is an IP addr, so we have no way of finding out who said that. See also the notorious paranoic rantings below. 68.39.174.238 03:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 143.254.63.xxx

3 or 4 ip's in the 143.254.63.xxx range have been vandalizing the Marisol Escobar page.--CWY2190^TC 17:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the page. Bucketsofg 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg

The trouble caused by User:Jaakko Sivonen might have served to distract attention from the other side in his conflict. The article on the Treaty of Nöteborg, which is about a treaty concerning the division of part of what is now Finland, doesn't mention Finland anywhere. Any attempt to introduce such a reference, including the Finnish name for the treaty, is reverted (indeed, a correction to the English and a request for a citation were twice included in a general revert when I tried to amend thengs). There's a "poll" currently in which a number of people are offering specious reasons not to allow the inclusion of the Finnish name (it's apparently "revisionist" and "counterhistorical"). It seems to me that ownership has been taken of the article by people who have their own politico-nationalist position every bit as unacceptable as Sivonen's. Could other admins take a look? If you think that I'm wrong about it, OK, but if I'm right then it needs sorting out and dealing with. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I took part in this poll, and I agree. Part of the problem is that Jaakko's behavior has been quite poor, and it's only convincing people to stay away from him. That being said, I stated my opinion on the matter. But, let's all remember, WP:M is the way to go. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anshe Chung

I've been cleaning up the article intermittently, and rewrote the section on the griefing incident to take out some slanted language and add facts. AndreasZander (talk · contribs) and Valery42 (talk · contribs) have reverted me without saying what's wrong with my version. Andreas left an edit summary saying an admin's intervention was needed, so I'm posting it here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I restored your version and put a note on the article's talk page that the article needs more reliable sources. Your edits appeared to be completely valid at a quick look. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been reverted again. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive sock puppet

of noted sock puppet User:Shran and User:CantStandYa. Stalking, personal attacks and editing my comments (all this morning). No doubt exists about who this is. Someone please block. User:Sacrificial Ram--for some reason I think he is expecting it. I have to go and wont be available for comment for awhile. Jasper23 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Reveals himself here [31]Jasper23 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Been blocked indefinately. 68.39.174.238 03:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BlakeCS' user page

There something strange about his user page that makes me unsettled. He has a list of students he knows at some high school he attends, which makes me wonder if that is at all appropriate and a possible invasion of privacy. Now, I would remove the list myself from the page, but I have already gone after him for several AfDs and other silly edit conflicts. What should be done about this? Can somebody please step in? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Asked him to remove them. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the info, since it appears to violate some policy (I don't wish to appear dense, but it didn't seem appropriate). What's our policy on posting personal information? Yuser31415 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal information is typically oversighted ASAP, but that doesn't really qualify as personal information in the oversight-removal sense, as that tends to be phone numbers posted without permission, etc. Either way, it's probably not appropriate information for a userpage anyway. --Deskana (request backup) 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Pardon me for butting in but this guy claims on his user page to be an administrator and yet he has a very short talkpage and no archives whatsoever. You'd have thought he'd also have known better than to place private information on his page. Is there any way of checking the verifiability of his claim?--Edchilvers 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I removed the userbox (check his log, no admin promotion seen). Something odd is going on here. Yuser31415 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It is interesting to note that he decided to post his deleted pages on WP:EL. If I knew the language, I'd go post there and get the pages deleted. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 02:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP address in history

Would it be a huge effort to delete the last 3 versions of my talk page (autoblock unblock request, unblock notice, self-revert for privacy). I'd rather not have my IP address in my history. Chovain^(t|c) 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this is the last version without my IP adress in it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chovain&curid=5595977&oldid=102537803

From what I can see, you are looking for Wikipedia:Oversight. Cheers, Yuser31415 01:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - that pointed me in the right direction. For reference, the page with info on how to request oversight is WP:RFO. Cheers, Chovain^(t|c) 02:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SimonRebbsell1

This user has put edits on various stars (Kelly Clarkson and Hilary Duff child abuse scandal) suggesting that they're in legal trouble for sex with underage people. Wonder if an admin could take a look and deal with him? Thanks. Philippe Beaudette 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Has now been blocked indefinitely by User:NawlinWiki. Newyorkbrad 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DSB Worldwide spam + vandalism on Meta (spam blacklist request)

24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is one of 6 accounts that have spammed links to domains owned by DSB Worldwide since September 2005.[32] These links have usually gotten reverted. Now the user has taken to vandalizing m:Talk:Spam blacklist using 24.119.101.26 plus a new Meta account, m:User:Spamhatred. Complete details on the spam and different accounts can be found at User talk:24.119.101.26. Meta vandalism diffs:[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] ... then later ... [40][41][42][43]

I don't know if Wikipedia admins can block IPs for Meta-Wiki as well, or if it needs a separate block. I think this is going to go on until a Meta admin blocks both the DSB Worldwide links[44] as well as those of DSB competitor, searchtexoma.[45]

Since this cuts across two projects and involves sockpuppetry, spamming, and vandalism, I wasn't sure where to take this, so I'm bringing it here. I'm not an admin, so there's not much more I can do at this point.

Thanks for your help, --A. B. ^(talk) 06:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Only meta admins can do admin stuff on meta, although there are a few that hang out here. I know User:Essjay and User:Naconkantari are meta admins, you could tell them. (I imagine Naconkantari will know about the problem already if it has to do with the spam blacklist.) Grandmasterka 07:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked him on Meta. MaxSem 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm back again. This person's behavior gets a bit odd after about 10 o'clock in the evening, his time. He mildly vandalized a user subpage of mine[46] and is now proceeding to "stagger" around (for want of a better way to put it) to various user space pages writing about me only semi-coherently.[47][48][49] Not exactly hardcore vandalism like his blanking the spam blacklist talk page 24 hours ago yet still odd. (If this were real-space and not cyberspace, you'd worry he might lurch in front of a car). I've wasted a lot of time with this guy's spam project, etc -- I'd love it if you rid me of this pest for a little while. If you can't, well then at least enjoy the show. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please do not protect that user page, User:A. B./Sandbox10 -- the "SEO World Contest" spammers that have vandalized it today have given us some interesting leads on other spam domains they use on Wikipedia. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not AGAIN!

According to the tag on Image:Vitrification1.jpg, it's {{PD-USGov-DOE}} from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Unfortunately the Commons version of that template doesn't state what ours does, EG that National Labs are NOT necessarily USGov, nor PD. In this case, PNNL explicitly copyrights their stuff as noncommercial, see http://www.pnl.gov/notices.asp . As far as I can tell this image should definately not be on Commons, and I think last time it was removed from the main page. Hoping I haven't missed anything... 68.39.174.238 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, PNNL does a lot of govt contract work but is not part of the government. However, work done for hire is treated as though it belongs to the hiring body. This is a tricky one, regardless of PNNL's claimed copyright. Needs a more expert review. Thatcher131 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the "work made for hire" concept applied primarily to employees, not independent contractors, or in other situations only when expressly agreed by the parties. In this context, the contract between the government and the lab would probably define who owns the copyright. Agree a more detailed review is needed. Newyorkbrad 03:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression works done for hire had copyrights assigned to the hirer (In this case the Government), not PDed because their employer does that. I thought I saw that somewhere around here, but it was so long ago I can't remember where or even if... 68.39.174.238 03:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As Brad said, it would depend on what is in the contract. The link you gave above says that the contractor gives the government a non-exclusive license to reproduce the materials in question, which I would assume would imply that the contractor still owns the copyright and they are not PD. --BigDT 05:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We are not amused...

...by the recent spate of IP vandalism to poor Queen Victoria; it's assuming almost Helen-Kelleresque proportions. Any chance of some semi-protection for a while? (On the other hand, I suppose one might feel grateful that the kids doing the vandalism have even heard of her... Robertissimo 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to the page for a few hours, sprotection might not be needed. I've added the talkpage to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. And you might find future requests better suited for WP:RFPP, though I can see why you added it here as you got a much quicker response! --Deskana (request backup) 03:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

These might be the same folks who were attacking Victorian fashion and may also be attacking Victorian morality. (I don't keep close tabs on the latter article, but I do see lots of rvvs there lately.) It took semi-protection to stop the attacks on Victorian fashion. Zora 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right - my bad in not going to WP:RFPP; I don't use it often enough and find the description in the header above ("to report improper protection or request unprotection," which omits the central "to request page protection") perhaps not quite full enough. You're right, as well, that the vandalism isn't constant, but it's certainly been consistent over the past several days; perhaps it's just that I think the poor lady would herself find it so mortifying. Robertissimo 03:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess she's lucky she's not around to read it, I bet President Bush wouldn't be thrilled if he looked at the page history of his article. I've watchlisted the page anyway, so I'll try to keep my eye on it. Don't worry about putting the report in the wrong place; it wasn't so much "in the wrong place" as "not in the right place" anyway! --Deskana (request backup) 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal info in history

This edit appears to contain a personal phone number. I suggest removal of that revision. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's gone, much thanks to User:Physicq210. --Deskana (request backup) 03:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Afshar vandalizes a promo entry

Dear admins, User:Afshar has no any useful entries in Wikipedia, except the guarding function of his own promo article in which he tries to convince the world that with some simple experiment he has disproved a fundamental principle in quantum mechanics. User:Afshar repeatedly reverts posts that summarizes results opposing to his own. Such papers have been released in respectable e-print servers Georgiev, D. (2006); Qureshi, T. (2007). One of the arguments against my edits is that I put link to my own work, so it is original research, however it is unserious objection taking into account the fact that he himself is promoting and vandalizing an article created by his own sock-puppet. Afshar's sockpuppeting was proved in the year 2004, and since then he is threatening various wiki-editors who do not support his promo editing with legal issues, and his latest strategy is to remove posts from the discussion page Talk:Afshar experiment concerning ideas of improving the main article. Thus with his actions/deletions/reverts/and moving of sections from the discussion page to other pages User:Afshar interferes with the editing process of his article, so that wiki-editors willing to improve the text are impeded in their work. I suggest that User:Afshar is blocked from editing the article Afshar experiment and the associated discussion page. If the mentioned user wants to contribute something substantially to Wikipedia let him edit any other topic he wants, but I suspect he does not intend to contribute anything to the encyclopedia, except for patrolling on the edits of his promo entry. My own contributions in areas of quantum mechanics, biophysics, mathematics, and molecular biology, with full length wiki-articles can be easily verified. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Although this notice is somewhat verbose, the issue is worth looking at, as this guy Afshar seems to WP:OWN the article about his own experiment. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I opened up a neutrality discussion and applied an approperiate template for the main page. Hopefully he will respond to that at the very least. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Admin, User:Afshar is not the first one to open promo entry. Some already blocked scientists have opened their own autobiographies, presented novel theories, etc., and now are blocked from Wikipedia. However, I don't think such an extreme punishment should be imposed of the mentioned user despite of the numerous personal attacks, threats and vandalism. I think it is enough to be prevented this user to interfere with the editing of the Afshar experiment article. Instead (I hope) this user may contribute to any other field in physics and help improve Wikipedia as open source encyclopaedia. Danko Georgiev MD 05:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the user contribution list, Carl A Looper seems to be a sock - his only edits are at the Afshar experiment article, and they are pushing Afshar's points. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Afshar's refuses to acknowledge outside edits with the statement --

"...if you believe science is a democratic process in which just anybody can participate, then allow me to inform you that is certainly NOT the case."

Afshar continues to remove criticisms of the experiment which blantingly pushes an unbalanced view onto the article. An admin may need to jump in to deliver at the least a warning, or to add commentary to the neutrality discussion at Talk:Afshar experiment. Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Report on Racial Abuse by User:Siokan

Today i'm receive a message from User:Siokan in my talk page and told to give me some advice. However i'm shocked when read up this e-mail:

I'm Siokan, Wikipedia user. Why do you edit football matters? Your country is very poor and you Malaysians are garbage in every way. (History, sports, education etc) I know you like football but I wouldn't imagine Malaysian football would receive so much exposure. Malaysia has nothing to do with international football competitions.
Oh well. I've given up on the edit battle. I don't want to waste my time with inferior race like you.

This is totally unacceptable, with the racial abuse, uncivil and even personal attack. I don't deserve this kind of "advice".

I hope admin can help me to advice, i think one editor should not affected by his country environment. --Aleenf1 05:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Well, on Wikipedia posting such a message would be the way to get blocked for personal attacks; however, if this was in an email it's going to be hard to confirm and prove. You might wish to block messages from that email adress at this time using your eclient. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Aleenf1, please forward the email to myself or another administrator. Communication between users outside of Wikipedia is typically none of our concern, but if this user has contacted you through Wikipedia (through the Special:Emailuser function) then all the normal policies on communication should apply. --bainer (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting without discussion at "nofollow"

You may want to take a look at what's developing here. I realize that my personal commentary in the article may be unwarranted, but other large swaths of properly-cited information are being deleted in the process. To me, at worst, this looks a lot like a cover-up to protect Wikia.com links. At best, it's an unnecessary, unilateral attempt to minimize the whole story behind the recent "nofollow" decision. --JossBuckle Swami 05:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Criticism of Wikipedia belongs on the mailing list and discussion pages, for the most part. Original opinions and personal point of views should be avoided in encyclopedia articles. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter, could you please itemize the elements of this content that constitute "criticism", "original opinions", or "personal point of views" (sic)?

In particular, on the English Wikipedia, after a discussion, it was decided not to use rel="nofollow" in articles and to use a URL blacklist instead. In this way, Wikipedia contributes to the scores of the pages it links to, and expects editors to link to relevant pages. However, Wikipedia does use rel="nofollow" on pages that are not considered to be part of the actual encyclopedia, such as discussion pages, and Wikipedia projects in languages other than English also use it in articles.^[1] Following increasing spam problems and an edict from Jimmy Wales, rel="nofollow" was added to article-space links again in January 2007;^[2] however, the various interwiki templates and shortcuts that promote other Wikimedia Foundation projects, the for-profit entity of Wikia and its wikis, and other domains, appear to be unaffected by this rel="nofollow" policy.

Thanks, I'll appreciate that. --JossBuckle Swami 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole paragraph has a serious tone problem. The last sentence explicitly. The less more subtly. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loop Quantum Gravity article vandalism report User Sdedeo

You may want to compare loop quantum gravity article revised on 15:34 Sept 27 2006 and 17:35 Sept 27 2006. User Sdedeo deleted half of the article. If you carefully look at the discussion, you will see that many people saying that the old article was much better. And if you know some loop quantum gravity, you will know that the deleted part was a very important content. Without it, one doesn't get a complete picture of what loop quantum gravity is all about. What can you do about Sdedeo? or Can you undelete the half of the deleted article? I can't do it, because I don't know how to upload pictures. 124.54.118.8 08:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a version of the article before it was changed by the user you mentioned, [50], go nuts. Viridae^Talk 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JuJube's annoyances

This user (Danny Lilithborne (now JuJube)) has to be stopped. A long time ago, we were having a long argument about heights and weights of Street Fighter-characters. There are many different versions of the heights and weights of these characters. Now JuJube has removed these Heights and Weights because this is too difficult to verify. Other users have asked him why the heights of these characters have been removed and JuJube blames me and says that these things have been removed because of my "constantly editwarrings". But to me, he said that the heights have been removed because this is too difficult to verify. Well, JuJube harasses me and I'm afraid that if other users would add the heights and weights to these Street Fighter Characters that JuJube would blame ma again and I'm also afraid that he would add a sockpuppet-shield to those users who would add the heights. And these problems are very frustrating for me. Please do something against JuJube and I'll be very happy. Thanks. Sergeant Gerzi 09:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• About my old username. Well worked under the username [51] and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm also helpless and I can't defend myself against JuJube because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not well. So I ask you to help. Sergeant Gerzi 10:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds more like a personal issue with the user than an 'incident'. Gab.popp 10:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes but JuJube has to be stopped and that's why I added a commento to the administrators' noticeboard because I have a complaint against this user and he also harasses other users. Please help me out or give me a link where I can describe my problems. Sergeant Gerzi 16:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You can learn how to resolve your disputes at WP:DISPUTE. --Yamla 16:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the issue here is a content dispute. Here's some background: as an anonymous user and as Lieutenant Dol Grenn (talk · contribs), the user in question would constantly add false height and weight information to Wikipedia; not just Street Fighter character articles, but also the pages of various wrestlers and the heights at List of tall men, among other things. Per the SF character, he claimed as his source a webpage with a Flash fan-port of SF2. The edit warring got to a tedious point, and ultimately the best solution was to simply omit the height/weight from the SF pages altogether as trivial information.

Since this happened, the user, who changed his name to Sergeant Gerzi (talk · contribs), has been harassing me because he feels that if an anonymous user changes the heights/weights, I will blame him. I do have reason to believe he still attempts to insert his erroneous information every now and then as an anonymous user, but I've decided not to edit war over something as silly as this. And since then, Kung Fu Man (talk · contribs) has re-added the statistics. Again, it's not something worth losing sleep over.

That's what's going on here in a nutshell. JuJube 09:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Just to chime in, I added back that info without realizing the reason for it's removal believing that it was significant to the articles. I have to state flatly also that while I've been here on Wikipedia I've never seen Danny Lilithborne/JuJube harrass anyone despite himself getting flamed a few times and has handled things always within WP's guidelines. Gerzi's claims of harrassment are unfounded: the most that'd come up about the guy *at all* was JuJube telling me why the measurement info was removed and who was behind the edit warring, and as you can see on my talk page that was done in a very professional manner.--Kung Fu Man 10:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Return of troll raspor?

By patterns of behavior, I believe we are witnessing the return of sock puppets of banned user User:raspor at intelligent design and related articles. Suspected sockpuppets:

• 70.108.89.17
• 71.166.165.104
• Thomas Morgan --Filll 03:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hosiery blocked. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper blocking by Darwinek

Darwinek (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) recently blocked Gene Nygaard for "constant bad faith disruptive edits" and "vandalism" However, he was actually involved in a content dispute on the articles As-Salif and Marek Špilár. I have unblocked him, but I think another admin definitely needs to review this. I also noticed Darwinek making edit summaries like "learn Czech motherfucker" and "stupid ignorant". I think things have gone out of hand... Khoikhoi 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I might say that despite having a long group discussion in WT:CRIC last year, where it was reached consensus that because Sikh cricketers bearing the name "Singh" and Muslim cricketers named Khan, etc, are always known by their first name, Gene repeatedly flouts this. This is despite having been party to the discussion. See the history of Harbhajan Singh and Yuvraj Singh (also Talk:Yuvraj Singh for example. Every now and then, Gene drives past and hopes we aren't paying attention, and switches it to "Singh, Yuvraj" again. He also does it for some other analogous things, etc, some of which still stand. There have been RfCs in the past about Gene doing his thing on these sorts of cat sorting and formatting, patterning issues before. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've gotten very frustrated with Gene whenever I've been in a dispute with him as well. However, I think Darwinek should've gotten someone else to block him, or made a report about him here. Blocking him himself wasn't a really good idea. Khoikhoi 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Darwinek's improper block, User:Blnguyen

However, if you participated in that discussion, you ought not lie about it here.

First of all, first-name indexing is a property of a category, not of a person.

Second, the decision at WikiProject Cricket, with which I took issue, was specifically to first-name index the cricket players from three specific countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Oman. (Addition: there may have been one more, but it was not India. Gene Nygaard)

Third, after lengthy discussions, the specific compromise there was that for those three specific countries, the "compromise solution: catgeorize as [[Category|last name, first name]] outside cricket related categories, and preserve current categorization of [[Category|article title]] within cricket related categories."

Fourth: Neither Yuvraj Singh nor Harbhajan Singh are from the specific countries for which WIkiProject Cricket decided on first-name indexing for the cricket categories related to those coutries. Both are from India, whose cricket categories are sorted on a last name, first name basis.

Fifth: Like Darwinek, Blnguyen has not discussed his reversions. Gene Nygaard 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gene removes diacritics and does not respect other editors. Three editors on the talk page told him Marek Špilár is a correct form and even this he put Marek Spilar there (there is a redirect from Marek Spilar to Marek Špilár already). I do not understand why he is doing his disruptive edits. Also As-Salif is another one, arabic native speaker ANas and Mak told him As means the so he should not put it into category, which I seconded on the talk page, see [52]. But he was and hi is still doing that. Darwinek just stopped him after several warnings. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I just lost my mind, that's right. I won't make the same mistakes I used to make. It was just another emotion. It was running through my veins. But the truth gave me its devotion and something in me changed. Next time I will ask somebody not involved to review the situation and consider blocks. As for the insults, I showed my regret for them and blocked myself for violating WP:NPA. It was against the rules, I was subsequently unblocked but haven't made any edits during that "detention time". - Darwinek 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Darwinek. Khoikhoi 10:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phobophobia-ihatebrookie Attacked another user

I was RC patroling and came across a suspect username. First edit was to attack another user [53]. Looks like a sock of User:Phobophobia. [54]. Prometheus^-X303- 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like an ongoing problem. Prometheus^-X303- 11:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already blocked, also went onto create User:-ihatebrookie- which I blocked and then (presumably) User:Glen is a mug ;)  Glen  11:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One would guess this user is also responsible for User:BrookieSmellsBad. Seraphimblade 11:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Armenian Genocide

I'm not sure this is the proper venue, but for lack of an alternative: I have a problem on Armenian Genocide. 88.229.27.68 (talk · contribs) and 88.230.232.165 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same user) continue to put unreferenced and highly pov original research into the article [55]. I have reverted him, but I'm either on the brink of 3rr or I may have crossed it by now. I have explained myself on the article's talk page, and I have told the IP to argue his case there as well. AIV is not the place to go, since this is a content dispute, not vandalism. I'm not too keen on page protection, since there's only one problem user. I won't block the user, since I'm involved. I would appreciate some assistance on this. Note that the article has been unprotected only two hours ago. Aecis^Bravado 01:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also have been reverting the contributions of 88.230.232.165 (talk · contribs), and I think that semi-protecting the article is probably best. (I actually hate semi-protection because of the ugly notice that then gets plastered at the top of the article, but I don't see any other way because 88.230.232.165 is so persistent.)--A bit iffy 02:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection is for vandalism. Full protection is for disputes. This is a content dispute, no matter how disagreeable and POV the material in question. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that continuing to reinstate the disputed section (about a dozen times in the last 30 minutes) without using any talk or user talk page counts as disruptive editing bordering on vandalism... Aecis^Bravado 02:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I tend to see it more as a content dispute, despite disagreeable user conduct by both sides (3RR comes into mind). I have fully protected the article. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, isn't it not allowed to cite the Turkish Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia, for the matter) as a reliable source? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting another wiki is indeed not allowed, per WP:RS#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. Aecis^Bravado 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. If it's anything it's trolling, not vandalism. Thanks for fully protecting the article. I expect the normal editors to return to the article tomorrow (or today, European time). A discussion on the talk page will then tell us how to advance from here. Aecis^Bravado 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has returned: SharkSmile (talk · contribs) has created the fork Evidence against Armenian Genocide. I fear that this won't be the last fork we'll see. Aecis^Bravado 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lopez and company - sockpuppets

Further to the above - Disruptive self-tagging with warnings

King Lopez (talk · contribs) created more sockpuppets that were blocked last night Dolphiner (talk · contribs), Lioner (talk · contribs), Steven Lopez (talk · contribs). Snake Lopez (talk · contribs)

He almost certainly is the same all of these Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Cyber Lopez

The following need blocks: Bleak Lopez (talk · contribs)

Created more sockpuppets last night e.g. Baldo Lopez (talk · contribs) (copied my profile) and Don Lopez (talk · contribs) (copy of another profile)

Possible other sockpuppets Jack Lopez (talk · contribs)

Suggestions are welcome - his latest post on my talk page indicates he is not about to stop --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 13:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] continued sockpuppetry by User:EccentricRichard

RJWH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is an obvious sockpuppet of User:EccentricRichard/User:Vox Humana 8'. See his edits. — CharlotteWebb 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To provide some background, this user's original account, ER, was blocked for edits such as these. He did not contest this block. He started editing with a sockpuppet to evade the block (Vox Humana 8') and after edits such as this with his new account, plus his block evasion, I indefblocked that account. This one he contested, and he has since called me a "bullying, cowardly hypocrite". He claims that his original account was compromised by a phishing attempt, which doesn't hold a lot of water with me, but I will leave this account for other administrators to block or not as deemed appropriate. —bbatsell ¿? 16:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

At a request from an arbitrator, I've run a checkuser that has determined with a high degree of certainty that Ekajati (talk · contribs), A Ramachandran (talk · contribs), and Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs) are all the same person. It is suggested based on behavior and the timing of the account creation that these are all the same as the "retired" Hanuman Das (talk · contribs), but that account is too old to check. Please take a look at this and take any necessary actions. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Ramachandran (talk · contribs) was created 12 hours after Hanuman_Das "retired". Here is an analysis from wannabe-kate's tool, of their editing patterns, with common articles edited, labelled in bold

A Ramachandran article edits:21 Mantra, 21 Bharatanatyam, 19 James Branch Cabell, 18 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 18 Shiva, 15 List of vacuum tubes, 15 Yoga, 15 Brian Cutillo, 10 Bön, 10 Tantra, 10 Spirituality, 9 Dr. MGR-Janaki College of Arts and Science for Women, 9 M. G. Ramachandran, 9 Lu Sheng-yen, 9 Sahaja Yoga

A Ramachandran article talk edits:13 Michael Roach, 6 Bharatanatyam, 2 Michael Roach (disambiguation), 2 Tibetan Buddhism, 2 Dharmic religions

Hanuman Das article edits: 144 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 100 Tantra, 100 Nath, 67 Thelema, 52 Gurunath, 47 Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, 44 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, 39 Dattatreya ,38 Mahavatar Babaji, 32 Lu Sheng-yen ,29 Obligations in Freemasonry, 29 Haidakhan Babaji, 26 Neem Karoli Baba, 25 Barbelo, 25 Hermeticism

Hanuman Das article talk edits: 188 Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 46 Gurunath, 38 Nath, 33 Mahavatar Babaji, 26 Jahbulon, 22 Michael Roach, 20 Thelema, 13 Hermeticism, 13 Tantra, 13 Stella Matutina, 13 Satguru, 13 Sidhoji Rao Shitole, 12 Starwood Festival, 12 Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn 11, Tantra/Archive 1

What sticks out, apart from from the general overlap, is the editing to Lu Sheng-yen. In the last year, only five registered users (excluding vandals, single purpose accounts, vandal reverts, and typo fixing) have edited this article. Of these, three of them are Hanuman_Das, Ekajati and 999, all parties to the Starwood case, all of whom are on one side of the fence. Similarly a look at Michael Roach shows the same thing, very few people edited this article, so both articles are likely to be obscure, and a new user appearing, immediately after the retirement of another, editing with the same viewpoint, editing on a similar set of articles, especially two common articles which are almost inactive. So all the socks have been blocked and the owner also blocked. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ramachandran, I have a hard time believing. I've had a few interactions with him, and he seemed like any other new user. He didn't have any people complaining to his talk page, other than one friviolous complaint about a NPA warning (which was most certainly deserved). How high is this degree of certainty? -Amark moo! 04:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they are related, but you might want to check Young Skywalker (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log • checkuser) as well. In reference to this AfD which was nominated by Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs). Contrib history shows this user submitting articles for deletion by the sixth edit and using proper wikipedia nomenclature. Seems kinda' strange, but maybe it is a coincidence. Even weirder is the overlap in the userpage content and theme of Tunnels_of_Set (talk · contribs) and Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs) - both of their userpages had primarily kaballah content, and edited occult articles. - WeniWidiWiki 05:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something not right here about Hanuman Das being a sock of Ekajati. A little poking around shows that:

1. Hanuman Das has been on Wikipedia quite a bit longer than Ekajati
2. Blnguyen is also one of the five regular editors of Lu Sheng-yen and it looks like he may have had a dispute with Hanuman Das
3. There are a number of notes from Hanuman Das on Ekajati's talk page asking her to help him with Buddhist topics. One is a note thanking her for helping with Lu Sheng-yen. I don't think their both editing that article can be taken to mean anything, if there is actually no confirming checkuser.

Just my 2 cents. 999 (Talk) 07:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. I don't see any report of abusive conduct on either of the other two socks. What did they do? The tag says they committed "abuse, libel, or ban evasion." It is my understanding that even if they are socks, they have to commit an abuse to warrant being blocked. My opinion is this: I don't believe that Tunnels of Set is Ekajati at all. The articles he edited are not at all the sort she edited. A Ramachandran is more believable, but I don't see any misbehavior on his part. And for the reasons I've given above, I don't think Hanuman Das and Ekajati are the same user at all. They collaborated, yes, and the evidence of that is on their talk pages. 999 (Talk) 07:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I have had a long conflict with several parties mentioned above. 999 posted an ANI complaint against me on August 21.[56] . User:999 posted his first comment on my talk page the same day.[57].. Since then I have been consistently harassed and stalked by User:999, User:Ekajati, User:Hanuman Das. It was recently explained to me by User:Ars Scriptor that they were able to do this by using User Contributions. There was one day when Hanuman Das stalked me to 39 articles. Recently two new users posted on my page within their first several edits, neither having any connection with me other than each accidently ran across the Starwood Arbitration:: User: Tunnels of Set who removed edits from my user page in addition, and User:Jefferson Anderson who posted personal attacks on me on his user page (one was removed at the suggestion of another editor) and another was removed by another editor using an IP. This all may not be related. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP edit was me, not logged in at the time. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - There were several instances when 999, Ekajati, and Hanuman Das left notes about me or my alleged sockpuppet Timmy12 on each other's pages alerting each other about information they aready knew about. Therefore I interpreted those posting about me and Timmy12 to be for appearance only. Mattisse 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by Ekajati and Hanuman Das being socks of each other. This edit [58] shows a clear differences between the two. Ekajati has denined the allegations [59], which I find convincing. A Ramachandran asked to be unblocked with the comment "I don't understand, please discuss" [60].

All users do share interests in spiritual matters, Tunnels of Set is clearly interested in the Aleister Crowley and related stuff, the other are more into Yoga and Indian spirtuality. While there is an overlap there is considerable difference in the editing pattern of ToS and the others. Ramachandran had a unique interest in valves which was not shared by any of the other contributors.

Overall I'm quite skepical of sockpuppetetry and I'm not sure the block have really helped the arbitration. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any support for the notion that Hanuman Das and Ekajati are the same person. They have similar intrests, but have engaged in discussions on talk pages for a LONG time, and have mentioned extremely different past histories in these discussions. Both their editing patterns and their use of language differ. Furthermore, the tag stating that the supposed use of socks was for "abuse, libel or ban evasion" seems totally unsupported. And it seems that no attempt was made to allow Ekajati to address these accusations before action was taken. The arbitrator who initiated this has taken what IMO seemed to be a position advocating one side of the Starwood issue, made proposals (unlike the four arbitrators who actually signed in and accepted the position), and has now recused himself. I am very confused about this whole turn of events, the timing within hours of another involved party's call for a ban on me, the pressured withdrawal from Wikipedia of two other involved parties, and the fact that NO such action was taken against the proven use of 18 sockpuppets by Mattisse (who comments above). I hope I am mistaken, but there is the appearance of something very wrong. I think Ekajati has been unfairly treated here. Rosencomet 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Several points.

• A number of editors have brought up the fact that blocks are warranted for sockpuppetry only if one of the accounts is "abusive" in some way. In my opinion, at the very least, Hanuman Das harassed Mattisse.
• Salix Alba brings up an intersting point in that Ekajati did not endorse the RfC against Mattisse. Indeed, Ekajati did not even edit the the RfC at all, and requested that his/her username be removed from the RfC. Salix Alba interprets this as a difference between Ekajati and Hanuman Das. Hanuman Das and Ekajati otherwise seemed to act in unison, so this is a rather notable fact. However another interpretation might be that a single user wanted to avoid using two accounts in a single RfC, knowing that such an action would most certainly be a violation of policy. Both interpretations are, however, conjecture.
• I assisted Hanuman Das in being unblocked on a previous occassion. I had great misgivings about this. I like to be forgiving. I like to give people second chances. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. And I like to try to work things out with people who have been disruptive. However, after I encouraged the unblocking of Hanuman Das, I became concerned that I was enabling behavior that was disruptive to other editors, even if it was something that I personally could forgive. I helped Hanuman Das out of a indef block once. This time, I fully support an indefinite block (even if there is a chance that the grounds of the block are mistaken.
• I am concerned about the quality of evidence for blocking Ekajati. Although there are good reasons to support the idea that Ekajati and Hanuman Das are the same, I lean toward the "beyond a reasonable doubt" school, (at least in cases that involve a block of more than a day or two) and I'm not sure if that threshold has been met.
• I do note that a common trait between Hanuman Das and Ekajati is a rather incessant nagging about the fact that Mattisse was not given a lengthy block in August for sockpuppetry. (diffs available upon request). I think most editors would have moved on, but Hanuman Das (until his retirement) and Ekajati have not been able to let go of this. I felt that this similarity is worth noting, although I repeat that although I find the Ekajati/Hanuman Das connection plausible, I don't think the evidence meets the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

--BostonMA ^talk 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, I find this all quite plausible. I think Hanuman Das, plus any of his sockpuppets/sockpuppeteers, should have been blocked indefinitely when s/he made this vicious personal attack. The block for that was insufficient, imho, and s/he then voiced elsewhere the intention to use sockpuppets to violate WP:POINT (which resulted in a longer block). The editing patterns between Hanuman Das and Ekajati are quite similar. Ekajati's intense focus and seeming obsession with sockpuppets in the Matisse case also made me suspect s/he was using sockpuppets, due to the possibility of psychological projection being a factor. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a longer post on my talk page in response to a few inquiries I had. I checked HD and AR against Ekajati and there are no overlapping editing periods at all, although they frequently stop editing and the other begins editing within one hour, and often less than half an hour changeover. However, there is never any overlap. This pattern is statistically absurd. It is not as though it is because they are in different time zones, because the changeover happens at different parts of the day. Also, as I mentioned above, AR registered the same day that HD "retired" and edited two obscure articles which HD edited, and was only edited by five-six other users in the last year. The CU said that they were all unrelated except that it confirmed Ekajati and had no data for HD (expired), so that leaves a very unlikely probability that we have a new user on two articles which only six people edited in a year, the same day that another retired, which also interleaves edits with Ekajati, as did HD which also interleaved with Ekajati. Thus Ekajati has been engaging in large scaling 3RR evasion, block evasion of Hanuman Das and large scale AfD vote stacking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Hanuman Das made precisely the same observation about Mattisse and Timmy12, here or more readably here. Nobody who signed the RfC took it seriously. Do you? 999 (Talk) 02:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did some comparing myself and found that User:Blnguyen's assertion about no overlap between H.D. and Ekajati isn't true. I found several examples: on November 14, Ekajati starts editing at 14:24 and ends at 15:05 and Hanuman Das posts to Mattise's talk page at 14:59. On November 13, Ekajati starts editing at 14:51 and ends at 15:24, while Hanuman Das post on Ekajati's talk page at 15:08. On November 1st, Hanuman Das startes editing at 15:43 and ends at 15:54, while Ekajati edits Tantra at 15:51 and posts on Hanuman Das' talk page at 15:52. I'm sure more examples could be found. 999 (Talk) 13:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above, I believe all parties should be unblocked. A part of Blngyugen's "proof" has been shown to be false. IF H.D. and Ekajati are NOT the same, then there have been no policy violations. 999 (Talk) 14:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I read Blnguyen's comprehensive reply and his comment on Sandstein's talk page. Regardless the there mentioned reasons to block Ekajati, which I find here to be highly questionable as well (after incidentally working at a same article, many users follow one-another's work often for very acceptable reasons) - if the A Ramachandran account was not being used more inappropriately more often than that of many valued contributors, there is no reason for that one to be blocked. Especially not while this account appears mainly responsible for definite Wikipedia improvements. The usage of a single PC or 2 PCs without router on one Internet connection by people living together, is not forbidden and easily explains them never to work simultaneously as well as to usually have similar interests and viewpoints (culturally and as being able to live together). They may well keep eachother informed, and often cooperate on articles of their mutual interest, as such they may even talk between themselves and come to a consensus before making an important contribution to Wikipedia (good idea, I'd say). Even occasionally both voting on an AfD or so, does not make these people's behaviour blockable sockpuppetry: each user has the right of expressing an opinion as much as any two users living with eachother but escaping suspicious indications simply by using more expensive separate technical equipment [no socio-economical discrimination, please]; this is not like disputed POV-pushing or edit-warring together or +3RR with prevention of bans. Banning an account is only appropriate if the account is causing more harm than offering a cure, this has not at all been demonstrated for 'A Ramachandran'. Violating WP:AGF is scolded upon when it appears as an inappropriate comment; banning someone, and most certainly by a durable ban, is a lot more serious than a mere unfortunately phrased remark. — SomeHuman 23 Jan 2007 16:49 (UTC)

[edit] Further observations from Mattisse

(unindent) These new users have an unusual style of editing and choice of talk pages to post on (the same as Hanuman Das, Ekajaki, and 999) Never before have new users posted for no reason on my page. This does not normally occur. User:Tunnels of Set said I was stalking him. Stalking is something Hanuman Das, Ekajaki, and 999 have been accused of in the past. Is this WP:POINT? User:Tunnels of Set posted on my talk page out of the blue on January 6.

• [61]
• [62]
• [63]
• [64]

Why are these new users posting on pages of people mentioned in the Artibration? And why does 999 leap in to defend them by using my edit summaries as instances of harassment as he did with Jefferson Anderson as described below. Is it because Jefferson Anderson posted on Rosencomets page? All this seem so interwoven to me. (999 started harassing me last July, the other two in August.) Mattisse 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect 999 to interject here, as there is hardly a posting I make that he does not. Mattisse 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Yeah, because I'm waching this page and interested in the discussion JUST LIKE YOU ARE. And again you conveniently leave out the fact that Tunnels of Set explained in his first post on your talk page exactly why he was posting. here. You know, it only takes a few seconds to liok on your talk page history and find these things out, Mattise, so perhaps you should start telling the whole story instead of leaving out part of it. It's beginning yo look like you are purposely trying to get other users in trouble, as you have been doing all along. And this begs the question, Why did you put Tunnels of Set on two watchlists before he had ever posted on your talk page? 999 (Talk) 18:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is that against the law, 999, or a reason to accuse a person of stalking on their talk page when they have never interacted with that person? Mattisse 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but don't you think it rude? Did you even answer his question? (I'd look at his talk page history, but I'd rather have you tell me, since you're here). 999 (Talk) 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent} Jefferson Anderson shows up on my talk page on January 12, having had no interactions with me before and posts the following many posts all on that day, then lists me as a rude editor on his user page along with a Mattisse sockpuppet box. January 12 sequential diffs:

• My edit [65]
• JA (his first edit on my page but he copied something above that I did not write [66]
• JA post #2 [67]
• JA post #3 [68]
• JA [69]
• JA[70]
• JA after my apology [71]
• I copy my replies from his page to mine [72]
• JA [73]
• JA [74]
• I apologise again [75]
• and again [76]
• JA [77]
• JA [78]
• JA [79]
• JA puts list of rude editors on his page[80]
• JA[81]
• JA[82]
• another user advises him [83]
• JA puts Mattisse sockpuppet tag on his user page[84]
• someone else removes template [85]

The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: [86] I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, you are involved in an arbitration in which both you and Jefferson Anderson are parties. You should not be posting this here, but rather on the arbitration pages. I'm here to defend Ekajati, who I think has been blocked unfairly. What are you here for? Also, I note that you have conveniently left out the fact that you asked Jefferson Anderson to help you, here! Somehow, I think this explains why he posted what he did on your talk page. 999 (Talk) 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

999, I innocently thought that originally also. But that does not explain why, after I appologised three times for my mild replies that he took enormous offense to, that he posted his list of "rude editor" (consisting solely of me) nor the sockpuppet box on his user page with my name. Mattisse 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss this any further with you here, because it doesn't belong here. Submit your evidence on the arbitration page and I will be happy to refute it. 999 (Talk) 19:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I will first give J.A.'s advocate a chance to refute it. Are you posting here instead of in the arbitration to evade J.A.'s advocate? Because he is probably only watching the arbitration pages and since J.A. is blocked, he can't defend himself. Please take this to the arbitration you are both parties to so everyone involved can see and respond to your evidence. 999 (Talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as Mattisse has decided to comment here, I'll add my two cents. I think her comments have nothing at all to do with the issue of whether or not Ekatati has used sockpuppets. Mattisse is, of course, an expert in such usage, having at least 18 documented sockpuppets to her name. But her comments here are all of the "they've been mean to me, too" type, and that is not evidence that they are the same person. Several people are annoyed at her behavior, for the same reasons, and if the issues seems to be "interwoven" as she says, there's no surprise since SHE is the WEAVER! She has a history of playing one person against the other, creating fake articles and blaming them (and other actions of hers) on other people (including her grandchildren and visitors to her house), pretending to be people on BOTH sides of the same issue, claiming not to KNOW which sockpuppets are "really hers", and generally causing chaos. (She claims to be a psychlogist; perhaps she's gathering data for a book on instigating confrontations. I know of no other motivation for her bizzare behavior. :-))

Also, may I remind everyone that Mattisse declared on the Arbitration page that she had withdrawn from the arbitration. I find it frankly AMAZING that she is engaged here in a discussion about blocking someone for the use of sockpuppets, and that the person being discussed ISN'T HER!

And I think that the blocks that have been put on those accused of being Ekajati should be lifted if only to allow them to defend themselves more readily. Even if there WERE a sockpuppet use in there somewhere, there is no evidence that there was ban evasion, libel, or any other malicious purpose to it. I think this action was precipitous and hasty, and I wonder if it was partly done to prevent Ekajati from participating in the Starwood arbitration. (It's odd that Hanuman Das was driven away, and Ars Scriptor as well, and unfounded attacks have been made against Jefferson Anderson. Does anyone else see a pattern here?) Rosencomet 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for guidance on very controversial and sticky issue

There is a user Avraham ben Avraham, who persists on placing unsubstantiated, improperly referenced, not to mention extremely POV edits on the page Messianic Judaism. See the history for examples. Having studied Talmud in the original Aramaic for over 25 years, I can affirm that his statements are NOT supported by the Talmud as is currently printed, and how it has been printed for around 200 years. There are commentaries which state that there are many statements, censored by medieval Christian priests, that do refer to Jesus in the Talmud, but that is not whom this user is quoting in the paragraph Messianic_Judaism#Jewish_objections. I contend that this is patent WP:OR (Have anyone pull out a folio of Talmud in the Original Aramaic and check for themselves).

The next paragraph, Messianic_Judaism#Jesus and the Talmud is also complete WP:OR. He is bringing disparate sections and "claiming" they refere to Jesus when no such mention is made. That is original synthesis at best, blatant POV at worst. Secondly, he brings statements about R' Eliezer which directly contradict the text of the Talmud itself, and I could go on.

I do not believe this is a content dispute (as ALL of the errors in his ostensible supporting posts are easily verified by someone who knows the Talmud, such as myself), but removal of edits against wikipedia policy. But before I take action, I wanted to ensure I was reading the situation correctly.

Thank you. -- Avi 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nasty. I have left a note, I hope it helps. If he continues then we will have on alternative but to block him. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• ANd this is a content dispute as one editor is adding information that other editors don't think should be there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute. I have no problem with him adding the information if it can be properly sourced. He is claiming sources that do not exist and he is engaging in original synthesis of bringing two disparate sources, one of which does not even mention Jesus, and then claiming they refer to the same thing without outside, verifiable, reliable sources to confirm. My own personal opinion as to the truth of the matter is irrelevant, as we require VERIFIABILITY, not truth, and the information and "sources" that he brings do not confirm his statements. Have I clarified my problem? -- Avi 18:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rajput

Dear Sir, rajput page is being hijacked by batchman. he edited out 2 weeks worth of work by many editors into the version he likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&oldid=102614732 is the work of many editors which was wiped out by batchman.

Regards, Kshitij

This appears to be a content dispute and Dbachmann reverted to an earlier version of the page and then protected it from further editing. Apparently he reverted to the Wrong Version.--Isotope23 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, Not the WRONG VERSION!! Egads, batten down the hatches, spread netting over large buildings, prepare for anthro-arachno scaling of notable structures! -- Avi 18:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I semiprotected because an anonymous editor insisted on completely overhauling an evolved article, ignoring protests on talkpages, and marking his revert-warring as "m". Let the user come to the talkpage and learn how to argue a proposed change on Wikipedia like everyone else. Changes to the present version are welcome, of course, as long as people manage not to trash the entire article structure in the process. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant semiprotected...--Isotope23 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP asking for assistance on my talk page

Copy and pasted from User talk:Moeron#did not make changes, but wikipedia said i did:

Today I was looking at wikipedia, looking up some things on the russian revolution. At the top of my page there was a note saying that I had "new messages (last change)." I found a note from you and 5-6 others that said I had made changes to pages that I have not visited, nor had edited. I was wondering if you could tell me more about how something like that could happen. Is it possible that since I access this computer via work at a school, that a student or someone could hack in and post on wikipedia using my IP address? It's odd, the activity is all within the past few months.

The IP was 202.54.248.130 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS). Doing a quick WHOIS, it appears to come from a school/college in India. I wanted to post this here, though, and get possibly an admin to verify and then possibly put up the appropriate "This is a school/university IP" tag on the IP talk page. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a dynamic IP supplied by Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited, not a school. -- Avi 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ibaranoff24 reverting without edit summary

could an admin send a polite msg to the above user to stop reverting all additions of "plot" templates (which request improvements to overlong and/or confusing plot summaries in some film articles) without giving any expln of why he feels it should be removed? his edit summary consists of "rv" which is hardly acceptable. i would do it myself but being a humble anon would probably be ignored. the user appears to be suffering from a degree of WP:OWN. furthermore, the user has reverted a valid copyvio investigation request. 82.27.251.102 19:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest talking to him about it first. Patstuart^talk|edits 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

i would rather not as judging by his user contributions he seems a rather stubborn character, liable to attack me personally for daring to question his perfect articles. i see from the copyvio reversion he is labelling the edits vandalism, so i doubt he would appreciate my "kind words"! thanks anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.27.251.102 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I reverted much of your edits because it seemed to me that there have been little use for them on most of the articles. Judging from these edits, and attempting to report me for being a good editor, you seem to be trying to start trouble instead of trying to actually contribute to articles. I'd suggest that you just knock it off. (Ibaranoff24 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC))

• Actually, I think he has a point; a lot of these articles have huge plot summaries with little to no real world application: see WP:FICTION. I encourage you both to assume good faith, and to use each other's talk page to discuss, rather than just reverting each other. Patstuart^talk|edits 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection needed: List of notable Georgetown University alumni

Multiple users are vandalizing List of notable Georgetown University alumni. Protection and reversion is needed. --Kynn 20:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Requests such as this belong on WP:RFPP. I've looked at the article. One vandal-only account is indefblocked, the other has a warning. The page itself doesn't need protection at this time. -- Avi 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)