Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive341

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Anon IP block request 2 216.229.196.86 3 Deletion campaign directed against Theosophy & Ascended Master Teachings articles 4 user:209.254.252.186 5 Golden Compass controversies 6 User:Alexbot 7 Craig Wolff 8 Date warrior 9 Category: neofascism or Neo-fascism? 10 Nazis? 11 Sockpuppet of banned user 12 Re: Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user 13 Film article vandalism? 14 User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs 15 Steve Ignorant and Schwartzeneggar 16 Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl 17 Edit warring on several pages 18 Threats to continue Disruption on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language 19 User not getting the point about copyrights, still lying 20 User:Despres 21 Possible malware 22 Problematic employee POV pushing on Employers article 23 Harassment by User: MrWhich 24 User:Neptunes2007 25 User:Amalgamut00 26 User:Dc76 and User:Edokter 27 User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:Ezhava 28 User:Clique Smasher 29 Comments by User:Timeshift9 on User talk:Brendan 30 IP editing on Cliff Hangers 31 Apparent uproar over cancellation 32 User:Countmein1990 a possible sockpuppet of User:Clockworkgirl21 33 User:Destroyerofthewiki 34 Incivility, Personal Attacks by Agha Nader 35 Attempted "outing" of User:Brendan by User:Shot info 36 Talk page conflict at John Lennon 36.1 Checkuser results 37 Sock-puppet attacking me and Wikistalking 38 User:Planoclear! halfready 39 Dealing with unresponsive IPs 40 Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall deleted, now on DRV 41 Persistent vandalism from 76.179.156.162 42 Wildfirejmj 43 Post-credits scene 44 User_talk:130.22.190.5 45 A group of vandals? 46 User:Grado11 and vandalism/personal attacks 47 Andy Pettitte entry 48 Edit war and more on Internet Infidels 49 Possible problem user 50 Difficult sockpuppetry and privacy situation 51 Disruptive editing at Global warming 52 Creation of a single-purpose account 53 Reporting intimidation and assumption of bad faith by admin 54 White supremacist 55 User:Curious Blue 56 Help request: Copyvio check User99.248.77.71 57 Help request: User:Suchwings1 58 I would like to make a complaint. A COMPLAINT! 59 user name used without permission 60 24.61.9.215 POV and 3RR violations 61 3RR allegations at Animal testing 62 NPOV POV edits by User:Pimpbrutha 63 LukeHoC creating autoforwards to dates 63.1 Solution? 64 David D. is stalking me 64.1 Plagiarism 64.2 Genetic pollution is a regular "scientific term" 65 User:Johnbod 66 Pgillman and spamming for Call Reassurance 67 User:216.68.49.2 68 User talk:149.254.192.195 69 Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins 70 User Check 71 Beh-nam reported by White Cat

[edit] Anon IP block request

Hi! I am having trouble with an IP (212.219.189.5), who keeps reading inappropriate content onto the RGSAO Wiki page. It will take to long to explain the background (involving schools merging), so I will spare you.

I have given warnings, reverting many times.

Could you please block this user. They have also been a problem to others (see their talk page).

Many thanks, Dewarw (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user is vandalizing after reated warnings, it's better to notify the admins at WP:AIV first, they will get to any sort of block a lot quicker there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, to me. [1] It seems you two disagree over whether pupils from the merged school are considered alumni of the new school. I do notice that this IP has not decided to discuss, though — so, if it happens again, please report them to WP:AIV with a short explanation. --Haemo (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, have done so. It is a dispute in a way, but I am right, and have given reasons to the anon ip why. The alumini of RGSW school is on the RGSW page. There are no Alumini for the new school. The IP also randomly, without any discussion/reason blanked the RGSW page and redirected it to RGSAO. For no reason!

The first few times, I thought that it was eg. ignorance. However, the anon IP just reverts with no reason. Thanks for your time,Dewarw (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is just a content dispute. Warning the user for vandalism isn't going to help the situation. The edits by that IP suggest that they think the school should only have one page, not two pages (one for the old and one for the new). --- RockMFR 20:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 216.229.196.86

Please block Special:Contributions/216.229.196.86. His/her whole work is vandalism. Here is just one of many: [2].

Thank you. 19:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If the user continues to vandalize after repeated warnings, it's better to contact the admins at WP:AIV instead. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion campaign directed against Theosophy & Ascended Master Teachings articles

I am a homeopathic physician with 27 years clinical experience. One week ago on 6 December I saw that the tone of the Homeopathy article was so POV that it was as if it was a non-encyclopedia article that would be better titled "Criticism of Homeopathy". I wrote a number of comments and suggestions on how the the article could be improved to NPOV standards. I was personally attacked by the "skeptics" that had attached themselves to the article.

Then the tactic in the last several days changed. Several of the anti-homeopathy POV editors went to my user page and checked out my "user contributions". The harrassment started as they started messing with those esoteric/Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles I had worked on - with derision and mockery, and eliminating 3 of them by "redirects" to another not identical article (which I reverted) with no discussion or consensus. Each of these 2 editors had essentially made those articles unavailable.

You can see the derision and mockery directed at new religions that developed in the 20th century that were based on Theosophy at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Walled_gardens_of_woo

I've written some comments there. However the tone became increasingly nasty when User:Fireplace tried to discredit me by dredging up 2 false asccusations that I was a sock puppet.

They have been going to the articles in the "Ascended Master Teachings" category and attempting to get rid of them. See: "Category:Ascended_Master_Teachings"

User:Adam_Cuerden has repeatedly deleted an entire large section of the article on Saint Germain at: Count_of_St_Germain Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the 2 individuals who have been "redirecting" and deleting (all without discussion or consensus) a number of Theosophy/Ascended Master Teachings articles over the last several days.

Examples:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guy_Ballard&diff=prev&oldid=177296689

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Master_Hilarion&diff=prev&oldid=177174228

The Great White Brotherhood article was deleted by User:Adam_Cuerden without discussion nor consensus on 12 December 2007. Arion (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Great White Brotherhood article was an almost exact duplicate, as of when I deleted it, of parts of Advanced Masters Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a duplicate of Ascended Masters as anyone can see if you compare the text of the two. However - - if it had been a duplicate, your action of deleting it unilaterally with NO discussion or consensus was contrary to accepted Wikipedia policy. Arion (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Copying text from one article to another with no attribution is problematic for copyright reasons and does not add useful information to the encyclopaedia. Adam would be entirely justified in deleting any material that is a straight duplication of another page. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember, this is not a content dispute. An editor who was interested in improving a particular article would discuss and cooperatively work together with the other editors of that article to improve it to the highest level of academic excellence. The problem in this situation is that Adam Cuerden ignored Wikipedia protocal and simply deleted the entire article - without discussion nor consensus - thus throwing out the many hours of volunteer writing, referencing, and refining by many editors over the last several years. The article was treated as if it were trash, and just thrown out. This was not a show of respect for the other editors. Arion (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There were factual inaccuracies placed in the "I AM" Activity article by User:Fireplace as of result of his relying on an error-riddled article from Los Angeles Magazine. I just made edits that corrected a number of factual inaccuracies in this Wikipedia article, and gave specific citations to actual source documents to verify those edits. Within one half hour these corrective edits were reverted by Adam Cuerden (a Wikipedia administrator). What kind of explanation can possibly justify such action - again made without discussion nor consensus? Arion (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user:209.254.252.186

209.254.252.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

From the talkpage: "How can I block our students from vandalizing wikipedia from this shared IP? As you can see from all of the warnings above, our students have not been editing angels. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)." That says it all I suppose. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't generally block on request. I'm certainly reluctant to block this considering it's only had one 24 hour block. Whois checks out that it is an education establishment however. I'd say no block just yet, but I'll defer judgement to another admin. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The last time I saw a request like this, I posted a note asking them to identify the school using the SharedIPEDU template, and then subscribe to the RSS feed linked from that template. That would notify them of vandalism, so that they could take appropriate measures internally, and it would also show that the school's administration monitored the page - notifying students who might think twice before vandalising. It would also permit logged in users to edit. It's not a great fix, nor does it sound like it's what they want, but it's the best we can do in the absence of blocking. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am a teacher at this school. I have reverted some edits by our students. If I didn't we would probably see more blocks. Editing Wikipedia is not something that teachers would assign, so I would prefer to see a long term block. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The only constructive edits in the contributions from this IP address are mine. The rest are nonconstructive edits from students. I really don't want to continue to use my time to revert edits from our students. I just looked at the conditions of the schoolblock template. They look fine to me, so please consider using it for us. --209.254.252.186 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to note, that although I (and I think other editors aswell, but I am speaking only for myself) very much appreciate your effort to keep vandalism at bay, but that from the Wikipedia point of view, it is not your personal responsibility to revert vandalism made from your students. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Since its basically impossible to establish this users identify definitively, it should be recommended that he/she contact WMF or ArbCom and disclose his/her identity and signify authority to make a request on behalf of this institution. Otherwise, who says it isn't one more example of unconstructive editing on the part of a student? Avruch^Talk 21:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats related to the block request. SharedIPEDU is a fine alternative. Avruch^Talk 21:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the same teacher from before. I am at home now, so I have created an account. I realize that you can't confirm my identity as a teacher, but please be practical here. Realistically, the template that is on our IP address now is not going to be effective. Students won't see it. A block of one hour or one day will have no effect when the next student comes along and decides to make unconstructive edits. Please consider a long term block. --EtonTeacher (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this over and over and I've decided to block the address for 6 months as a school block. If students wish to edit, they can still create an account at home and edit in school with their account. I think it's best to respect the wishes of a school, especially when they are making efforts to combat the vandalism coming from their addresses. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your attention to this request, Ryan. The six month block will carry us through to the end of the school year. I highly doubt anyone will complain, except for the thwarted student vandals.  :-) --EtonTeacher (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Compass controversies

This issue is in regards to IrishTraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This individual has been adding information to the Coca-Cola and Burger King advertising articles about a controversy that does not exist as far as I can tell. He claims that Catholics are protesting these companies because of their association with The Golden Compass (film). The only two sources he quoted are primary sources of dubious qualifications that are heavily biased, and in those sources BK and Coke are only mentioned in passing as partners with Warner Brothers.

Four or five separate editors have removed his contributions, and he just reverted them. One editor warned him with a NPOV level 1 warning and I warned him with a level 2 NPOV warning. I have explained why the additions are suspect and need better sources to justify this inclusion. I explained then just outright told him what he needs to do to make this contribution acceptable for inclusion in regards to issues of article tone, proper secondary sources, reliable sources, and WP:NPOV (his entry reads poorly in this regards). In an attempt to find a source that validates his entry, I did several searches on Google, the New York Times and USA Today and could not find any reference to Burger King or Coca-Cola as being at the center of any controversy in regards to their association with the film.

My searches:

• NY Times
• USA Today
• Google

I am thoroughly exasperated with his hardheadedness and am afraid I am no longer partial in the matter. Could some one take a look at this issue and maybe deal with the issue on an administrator level before exasperates someone else?

- Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

I am not uninvolved with IrishTraveller (though I am uninvolved in the content dispute), but I would advise administrators looking at this report that this is a content dispute, that IrishTraveller is a bit hot-headed but otherwise fairly reasonable, and that prior steps of dispute resolution have not been tried. I mention the last bit, because I think that if prior steps were tried and consensus formed via a third opinion or a request for comment, that this post might be unnecessary as IrishTraveller might concede that consensus is against his or her position. --Iamunknown 20:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for a truly uninvolved party to look at the issue as a matter of course, this is an attempt to get a third opinion, that is all. As I said to you, I am not looking to get a newb screwed over here. - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

Obvious trolling/POV pushing. Looking at the sources, they say nothing about CC/BK being criticised, just that CC/BK are sponsoring the film. Will ^(talk) 21:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the text and commented on the talkpage; it clearly violates policy as the sources don't actually support the text in any way. I've also cautioned IrishTraveller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) about signing with another username as I see that as a rather deceptive practice.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"A rather deceptive practice"? Um, Isotope, as of IrishTraveller's last contribution, his username was "Blohme". It was renamed less than an hour after his last contribution --Iamunknown 21:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm this; I clerk at CHU and saw the request. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• (ec) Ah, I'd missed the fact that he'd been renamed as Blohme (talk · contribs) shows as unregistered. I've stricken my warning.--Isotope23 ^talk 21:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Alexbot

Alexbot is a bot, that is currently seeking approval. It was approved for trial, 50 edits. However, it has done well over 2000, and in addition to what it was approved for, running unapproved scripts. See this and this for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxred93 (talk • contribs) 14 December 2007

It stopped editing about 8 hours ago. I don't think a block is necessary here. Mr.Z-man 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Wolff

Some time ago, a user named Victimofwolff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) continually added claims of harassment to the Craig Wolff article. The user was eventually indef blocked. We now have a new user and IP (User:59.101.21.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), NYUjournalism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) doing it again. Can we stamp this one out earlier than usual? -- Mark Chovain 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocking NYU based on TP warnings and edits. The IP has no edits, deleted or otherwise. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP does have edits, the link above is just messed up: 59.101.21.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). --barneca (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP above does not have any edits to the Craig Wolff article, unless the edits have since been oversighted. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

118.68.94.96 does. There may have been an error in the original report. IrishGuy ^talk 23:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There was: That wasn't the first IP stated. However, he's stopped after that one edit to the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 02:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date warrior

Carnun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is back to his same routine following his latest block. [3] --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, before his edit, there were two different formats in use in the article. He standardized them, at least. Horologium (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked at that too quickly. However, he still hasn't responded to any comments at his talk page about this or sockpuppetry. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category: neofascism or Neo-fascism?

There seems to be a battle of the bots (and one assumes some editors) over whether the category should be named Neofascism or Neo-fascism. Both are used by scholars, while Neofascism seems to be the preference of many recent scholars (as is antisemitism, but that's another battle}. I think an admin needs to figure out what is going on, and see if there can be a sensible discussion someplace. Thanks.--Cberlet (talk) 22:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Category:Neofascism was listed for speedy renaming as Category:Neo-fascism. Removed here, added to the CFD working page here and then the bots do their stuff. Being pedantic, it should have languished for another 3 hours or so being ignored at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy, but that's a fairly trivial detail. Anyway, this says we should only have Category:Fascism, doesn't it? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nazis?

Wikipedia:FTN#Walled_gardens_of_woo

On questioning whether pages on obscure aspects of Victorian cults (Theosophy, Ascended Master are notable:

“

The free interchange of information is how advancement in science and humanity in general occurs. Censorship has never led to progress. Just look at the "dark age" of Europe when the "all-powerful" church decided that it would control what people said or thought, all in the name of superstitions that it proclaimed to be the whole "truth" and all that it disapproved of to be "heresy". Look at what censorship did in Nazi Germany where mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals occurred and no one even knew until much later how extensive it had been. Look at Iran today where homosexuals are being widely executed and the government censorship merely parrots the line that "there are no homosexuals in Iran"! Today that same mentality would smother access to subjects that it deems "fringe" and "pseudoscience". You have no right to make that value judgement when dealing with sourced and referenced articles, no matter what the subject matter. Using that tactic is simply not the way to build Wikipedia into the academic and NPOV encyclopedia that it is intended to be. After the "thought police" go after the new religious movements of the last 150 years, what will be next? Excising all the "irrational beliefs" and superstitions in Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc. etc.? However about removing all articles based on various world mythologies and the individual figures in those mythologies? Where will the censorship end? Arion (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Amen. —Whig (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

”

Just to note, "Arion" is actually User:Aburesz - I've asked him to please change his signature to one that isn't a completely different user.

Then it happens again here:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Master_Hilarion#Master_Hilarion.2C_et_al

“

Your badgering of my position seems both hostile and intolerant in pursuit of your desire to destroy these articles. You note above your surprise at being compared with the Nazis. They espoused a ruthless, modern and scientific view of the world which led them to burn the books of which they disapproved. The WP:FANATIC essay encourages us to take a more relaxed view of our work here and it seems quite pertinent. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

”

I realise that people get a bit obsessed about religion, but can someone appeal for calm, and/or throw out some warnings? One doesn't really like being told one is a Nazi simply for attempting to follow Wikipedia notability policy. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Are four threads on this necessary? east.718 at 23:30, December 14, 2007

Um, sorry, have you posted in the right place? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet of banned user

Officer Coon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Another one, seems to be a sockpuppet of User:Hayden5650. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, somebody else can slap the sock tags or whatever on his page. east.718 at 00:50, December 15, 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Thanks East. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Big problem caused by "61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*" IP user

This is a reply I made earlier to the said above section ("Big problem caused by '61.5.*.*/61.94.*.*' IP user"), but I decided to move it to the bottom so it would be read by admins and because the said section was swamped with later reports making any reply to that section unnoticeable.

---

Well, let me outline the ones that I recognized. You will recognize the diffs even if I label them differently. "N edits", which I will use in this list, actually show the end result after the number of edits mentioned. Starting with the red flags that alerted me about it in my watchlist:

• In Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, the user added Digimon info. The two anime are never related. The diffs are as follows:
  • Five edits by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs)
  • Irrelevant spam by 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs)
  • An edit by 61.5.0.16 (talk · contribs), supplanted by edits by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs). L337p4wn (talk · contribs) reverted one edit, but was reinstated by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs). That was further supplanted by this by 61.5.68.126 (talk · contribs) before it was reverted back to the last clean edit by a good faith IP user.
  • Four edits by 61.5.0.125 (talk · contribs). It was reverted, but same user did this before he was blocked and the article protected.
  • Roughly five days after protection expired, ten edits by 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) reinstated the Digimon info, only to spotted and reverted by Circeus (talk · contribs).
• User 61.94.40.139 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch Pure. The said TV show is basically the second season of Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, and like the parent program, it is not related to Digimon.
• Several users try to tie the above title to Digimon Frontier. First are three edits by 61.5.68.60 (talk · contribs) before I reverted them. Then 61.5.68.189 (talk · contribs) did five edits. The next IP editor never recognized the vandalism, but I did and I reverted the article.
• Several Digimon character articles were also vandalized, either connectin to Mermaid Melody or Pier 69 jokes, inserting random titles, or having them "killed":
  • Davis Motomiya: this edit by 61.5.0.125, this edit by 61.94.40.139 (talk · contribs), and this by 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs)
  • Takuya Kanbara: these two edits by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs), and another two edits by 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs)
  • Joe Kido: this by 61.94.40.100
  • Cody Hida: this and this by 61.5.0.125, and this by 61.94.48.171 (talk · contribs)
  • T. K. Takaishi: this by 61.5.0.125, this by 61.94.48.171, this by 61.94.48.145 (talk · contribs), and these two by 61.5.68.243 (talk · contribs)
  • Sora Takenouchi: this by 61.94.40.105 (talk · contribs)
  • Marcus Damon: this by 61.94.40.105.
  • 61.5.71.82 (talk · contribs) also vandalized Veemon ([4]), Armadillomon‎ ([5]), and Hawkmon ([6]).
• The Filipino Channel is a channel shown outside the Philippines for overseas Filipinos established in the 1990s. Several editors changed the year of establishment to make it look like it was shown since the 1960s in the Philippines, even added slogans and affiliates. But he never posted references to back up the claim. The diffs are:
  • Four edits by 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) before being reverted by Howard the Duck (talk · contribs).
  • Two edits by 61.94.40.69 (talk · contribs). The second edit was reverted.
  • Two edits by 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs), supplanted by three edits by 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs), then three edits by 61.94.48.118 (talk · contribs) and five edits by 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) before everything was reverted to Aspect's edit.
• What happened to The Filipino Channel article was also done with the ABS-CBN News Channel, which was established in 1996. User 61.94.48.145 (talk · contribs) did these two edits.
• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation‎ and Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation are two different companies and are not related to each other. But vandal edits insist that they are, again without confirmed info.
  • An edit by 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) on Banahaw Broadcasting Corporation started this.
  • On ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, 61.94.48.203 (talk · contribs) did these two edits. 61.94.40.69 (talk · contribs) did these three misleading edits. A week later, 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs) did this.
  • DYCB-TV was also casualty because 61.94.40.236 did this, and there's no Filipino Channel Cebu (The Filipino Channel is a channel aired outside the Philippines, as I already mentioned).
• Five editors removed information about the Brazilian version of Carrusel without any reason and replaced it with a remakes section featuring totally unrelated anime titles. The Brazilian version currently needs a citation, though.
  • 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs) did this, implicating Ringing Bell.
  • 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs) did this, implicating Nutcracker Fantasy.
  • 61.94.40.186 (talk · contribs) did these two edits, implicating Unico.
  • 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs) did these two edits, again implicating Ringing Bell. It was reverted, but 61.94.40.100 did this again, but this time it was Unico.
  • The last time was this, by 61.94.40.253 (talk · contribs), again implicating Nutcracker Fantasy.
• Rosa Salvaje and Marimar suffered the same fate as Carrusel.
  • In Rosa Salvaje's case:
    • 61.5.68.166 (talk · contribs) did this and implicated Unico. 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs) supplanted this, with Fantasy Knights being added. Finally 61.5.0.125 did this, replacing Fantasy Knights with The Sea Prince and the Fire Child, which interestingly was not touched.
    • 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs) did five edits; this time, it is back to Unico.
  • In Marimar's case, the section about the the Philippine remake was replaced with another unrelated remakes section.
    • 61.5.0.125 did these two edits, implicating Ringing Bell and A Journey Through Fairyland.
    • 61.5.68.127 (talk · contribs) did this, this time it is Nutcracker Fantasy.
• Muchacha italiana viene a casarse is unrelated to Rosa Salvaje, but 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs) did these two edits without citing proof.
• Unico, Nutcracker Fantasy, Ringing Bell, and A Journey Through Fairyland, as well as Puss in Boots and Glass Mask were not spared, connecting them to telenovelas without verification and proof.
  • Puss 'n Boots: this edit by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs), five edits by 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs), and three edits by 61.5.68.43 (talk · contribs)
  • Glass Mask: this by 61.5.68.200 (talk · contribs)
  • Ringing Bell: this by 61.5.0.26 (talk · contribs), these two by 61.5.71.28 (talk · contribs) which are supplanted by these two by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs), this by 61.5.0.125, this by 61.94.40.186, and this by 61.5.68.127 (talk · contribs).
  • Unico: 61.5.0.76 (talk · contribs) did eight edits, 61.94.40.131 (talk · contribs) did ten edits, this one by 61.94.40.178 (talk · contribs), five edits plus this one by 61.5.69.51 (talk · contribs), this by 61.94.40.186 (talk · contribs), this by 61.94.40.236 (talk · contribs), and the latest one is this by 61.5.68.188 (talk · contribs)
  • Nutcracker Fantasy: three edits by 61.5.0.76, and two edits by 61.5.68.188.
  • A Journey Through Fairyland: two edits by 61.5.0.76
• Wataru has been vandalized twice. It was ridiculously linked with Strawberry Shortcake through this edit and then these two by 61.94.40.253. 61.5.68.130 (talk · contribs) compounded this through five edits. In connection, 61.94.40.253 also did these two edits on List of DIC Entertainment productions.
• Sanrio is also vandalized multiple times, adding Televisa without thinking if Televisa really did the titles listed in the Sanrio article (Sanrio and Televisa are not business partners). Cases in point:
  • Three edits by 61.94.48.159 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.5.0.76 (talk · contribs)
  • Five edits by 61.94.40.27 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.5.69.227 (talk · contribs)
  • This one by 61.94.40.236
  • This one by 61.5.68.188
• Several Sanrio characters have their articles vandalized, once again presented as being "remade" into telenovelas or connecting it to Televisa without proof:
  • Usagi Yojimbo: three edits by 61.94.40.27 (talk · contribs)
  • My Melody: this by 61.94.40.27
  • Keroppi Hasunoue: [7] this by 61.94.40.27, and then this by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs)
  • Badtz-Maru: two edits by 61.94.40.27; then this edit undid the previous two, but it also removed the "description" without reason.
  • Pochacco: Three edits by 61.94.40.27; Pocchaco and Kaiketsu Zorro are absolutely unrelated.
• Dogtanian and the Three Muskehounds and Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses are two unrelated shows, but 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs) did this. Furthermore, Barbie in the 12 Dancing Princesses was again ridiculously connected to a Doraemon movie: 61.5.71.69 (talk · contribs) did these two edits while 61.94.40.100 (talk · contribs) did these two. List of Doraemon media was concurrently vandalized as well in relation to this: 61.5.71.69 did two edits, while 61.5.68.89 (talk · contribs) did four edits.
• I've also discovered Metamorphoses (film) (which was not listed above) was not spared by adding unrelated telenovelas: this by 61.94.40.27 and this by 61.5.68.89.
• Futari wa Pretty Cure was also vandalized twice: three edits and four edits by 61.5.71.82 (talk · contribs); and then two edits by 61.5.68.81 (talk · contribs)

61.5.68.188 has also vandalized these just today:

• Magic Knight Rayearth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (three edits, by connecting them without reason Grand Theft Auto)
• Slayers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (two edits, for the same reason as Magic Knight Rayearth)
• Caridad Bravo Adams‎ (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (three edits, how would a telenovela writer create stories for Hello Kitty?)
• List of ADV releases (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (this edit, TV Azteca and Televisa never produced Hello Kitty's Animation Theatre as far as I know.)

Whew! That's as comprehensive as I can get. But I hope this very long list will help because his (or whoever these users are) edits have become a chronic problem. Not to mention, some are not even aware that this is going on. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

---

(Reposted by 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 00:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

I've blocked the following five ranges as being the smallest and covering the whole issue here.

• 61.94.40.0/24 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 61.94.48.0/24 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 61.5.0.0/24 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 61.5.68.0/23 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)
• 61.5.71.0/24 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS)

Should this individual return beyond these five blocks, I will look into it and try to elucidate as small a range as to prevent collateral damage.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But when this same guy vandalizes again, even if it involves another related article, be assured that I'll report it here. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Just send me a talk page message. It's easier.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 10:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to state, i'm impressed by the thoroughness of Nanami Kamimura's report. ThuranX (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Film article vandalism?

There were a string of OTRS complaints about obscene images on film articles about 1 hour ago.

Was there some sort of sneak vandalism of an included template?

I checked the history on Template:Infobox Film and didn't see anything. Can people look around and see if something else was done?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Followup- it was four articles people reported seeing stuff on, Trust the Man, Disturbia, The Simpsons Movie, and Casino Royale (2006 film). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the mailing list. Cbrown1023 talk 01:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That template calls on a whole bunch of other templates, some of which may not be protected. Likely one of those has been vandalized, which means the vandalism is more widespread than we know yet. I've been adapting tons of templates to Wikinfo, and have been finding a few that really should be protected, but aren't. I've been reporting them to RPP as I find them. - Crockspot (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:BKLisenbee William S. Burroughs

This user has been editing a lot and as an example of his edits vs. his stated edits see

[8]

This is pretty drastic POV editing covered by a pretense of civility. His stated edits are "corrected spellings of Tangiers to the accepted Tangier for consistency,"

opiumjones 23 (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a fairly old edit that has since been rectified. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Ignorant and Schwartzeneggar

I don't know if this is the correct place to post this, but on article Steve Ignorant states that Ignorant's birth name is Steve Williams, however on Schwartzeneggar the article says "Steve Ignorant {born Oscar Thompson}". I would like to know whats going on, plus a source/sources to back up the right one. —/* abadafa */ +C0 03:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block of User:Kitia by User:BrownHairedGirl

See User talk:Kitia. BrownHairedGirl has apparently been in a wide variety of disputes with Kitia lately, and today blocked her for 24 hours for a copyright violation. Specifically, see History of Warsaw, which was forked out (seemingly legitimately per WP:SUMMARY) from Warsaw). It's not clear to me that Kitia understands what went wrong. Also, I wonder a bit about that copyright violation but I haven't looked into it. Was that text actually copied from the website wholesale at some point, or is it possible that the copying went in the other direction?

I'm posting this here because BHG said that she would raise the issue on WP:ANI herself but it's been about 5 hours and she hasn't done so despite making other edits, probably an innocent oversight. Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on these edits from September 2005, it appears that the Wikipedia version is probably the original. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Note Kitia is a boy. Neal (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much to Mangojuice for kindly filing this report, since I didn't get time before I went to bed. I'm afraid that I ran out of time after doing the checks on the history of the two versions, which confirm that the copvio was actually the other way round (I have posted the full details at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio)

The first thing is that I am aware that the block might have been seen as inappropriate, because I had indeed been involved in a variety of disputes with Kitia, but I nonetheless thought that an immediate block was justified because material identified removed from Warsaw#History was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warsaw&diff=177968576&oldid=177967334 reinstated by Kitia], after previous discussions about the copyvio when Kitia had twice forked the content to a standalone article (see User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw, User_talk:Kitia#History_of Warsaw_copyright_problems, User_talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw_again and User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Re:History_of_Warsaw)

It is only in retrospect that I have pieced together the entire history:

1. At 23:42, 8 December 2007 Kitia copied the text of Warsaw#History to History of Warsaw, intending to split per WP:SUMMARY, but without any edit summary to explain that it was a split. History of Warsaw was tagged 1 minute later by CorenBot as a copyvio of http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, and Kitia then performed 3 rapid edits, presumably in the hope that a few tweaks would resolve the copyvio, and removed the {{csb-pageincludes}} tag, all without a note in the edit summary. The {{csb-pageincludes}} tag was restored by Guroadrunner, and removed 10 minutes later by Kitia, again without comment.
2. I spotted the the problem two days later on Kitia's talk page, saw that the copvio tag had been removed, and the article remained substantially a copyvio, so I atgged History of Warsaw for {{db-copyvio}} and left an {{sd-copyvio}} note for Kitia[9]. I had no reply at all from Kitia, and at this point I was unaware that there was a fork involved.
3. On Dec 14, I spotted a further note to Kitia from Corenbot (see User talk:Kitia#History_of_Warsaw), so I speedy deleted the History of Warsaw and left a note for Kitia deploring the recreation of deleted content.
4. Kitia's reply was then to explain that the material was a copy of the history section of Warsaw, and asking that it be undeleted. I relied pointing out that a content fork was not appropriate anyway, and then went off to check Warsaw#History ... where I found that it was indeed nearly identical to http://www.luketravels.com/warsaw/history.htm, so promptly edited that section to remove the copied material, and left a note at Talk:Warsaw#History_of_Warsaw_copyvio.
5. Kitia commented again on my talk page, accusing me of being horrible and nasty etc[10], asking me again to recreate the History of Warsaw article, and threatening to involve other admins, to which I responded that a report would be fine[11].
6. I then discovered that Kitia had reverted the removal of apparent copyvio material from Warsaw#History, so I restored he removal and blocked Kitia for 24 hours.[12]

So despite the fact that the coyvio eventually turns out to have been a false alarm, a copy from wikipedia (rather than the other way round as it appeared until the early hours of this morning), I still think that the block was justified. Rather than take any of many opportunities to discuss the apparent covyio (or to ask why a few textual edits don't make a coyvio OK), Kitia chose to edit war. It was only through the research of others that the exact nature of the copyvio became apparent.

As can be seen on Kitia's talk page, this editor has a long history of disruptive editing, which had already led me to warn that an ANI report might be necessary. Most of the problems relate to Kitia's habit of reverting (usually without comment) anything (s)he dislikes, and refusing to discuss the problem. So far as I am aware, Kitia is very young (about 15, I think, from one comment somewhere), and could probably benefit from a mentor to guide him/her through wiki procedures.

The content forking which took place here is one example of this. The guidance at WP:SUMMARY says that when an article gets too big and a section is split out, it should be replaced by a summary, but instead Kitia just created a content fork. A mentor could perhaps explain to Kitia how to do this sort of thing properly, but I don't see much evidence that Kitia would listen, although I hope I am wrong.

In the meantime, what to do about the block? It seems to me that although Kitia was acting in more good faith than was apparent until the last minute, it was justified for the edit-warring ... but I will not oppose its lifting if anyone thinks that's appropriate. However, I think that the real issue here is the need for mentorship of a young editor who doesn't understand wikipedia processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the block, which was made correctly, but for the wrong reason initially. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on several pages

• ZRX222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3RR Warning
  
• Kabul-Shahan2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 3RR Warning

See their contributions. They keep reverting eachother on several different, but related pages. They've both received a 3RR warning from myself, but they continue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any particular articles I should be looking at? east.718 at 05:35, December 15, 2007

Never mind, I just blocked them both. east.718 at 05:40, December 15, 2007

[edit] Threats to continue Disruption on OpenEdge Advanced Business Language

A previous situation with Ninjadude9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was reported, see → Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive339#Disruptive_editing_on_OpenEdge_Advanced_Business_Language. This tendentious editor continued POV pushing on this article in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from multiple editors. It appears Ninjadude9 now has gravitated to personal attacks and threats to continue Disruptive editing. ...'I'll play in and out with him until the end of time" ^[13]. I've tried attempts to communicate the problem in the edit summaries as have other editors (Emergeo and BLACKKITE), this user has also been warned on his talk. Perhaps another aproach to Ninjadude9 is needed? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the attack and threats of disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User not getting the point about copyrights, still lying

User:Rtr10 has continually lied about the copyright status of images. He (ludicrously) claimed that Image:Huckabee with flag crop.png‎ was his own image (the picture has been part of Mike Huckabee's facebook application for a while now, and it's obvious he didn't take it anyway. This user has been warned countless times since I told him I would report him to be blocked for lying anymore: [14]. Someone please block this user. I'm sick and tired of us giving 18 warnings to people who outright lie about copyrights. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, but we can't prevent anything if we don't use them. Sorry if I'm being snappy, but I've too often watched people lie. Over. And. Over. And. Over. after many warnings, and then I'm told, again, to warn the person. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user indefinitely. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Despres

I am quite concerned with User:Despres. S/He is personally attacking editors on his/her talk page, and threatens to delete the user pages of other users, see this diff. On his/her talk page, I noticed s/he was recently blocked on I believe December 14, 2007 for making death threats. H/she nominated GlassCobra's talk page for deletion (diff) and the user who blocked him/her, Jusjih, received the same treatment (diff). In addition, his/her user contributions suggests a history of attacking and threatening editors. I believe, myself, that this user should be blocked, as s/he apparently didn't learn from his/her first block. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Noticed same treatment to User:Master of Puppets, see diff. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked him for a month for his personal attacks, and disruption. I was just on my way here to get feedback on it, when I saw the thread. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible malware

User:Nspect58 uploaded a Windows executable as the (now-deleted) file Special:Undelete/Image:VietNavyDO.gif. My antivirus isn't saying anything about it, but I don't have a spyware scanner, and I'm not about to try running it on a Windows machine to find out what it does. --Carnildo (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, suspect a virus or other malware. GDonato (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problematic employee POV pushing on Employers article

LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I had a problem with a user Tamec making pov-pushing edits such as removing the controversy section on an article about a sparkling wine called Armand De Brignac which is a brand that is owned by Sovereign Brands LLC. This is the article in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_de_Brignac

Tamec is Scott D. Cohen, the marketing director for Sovereign Brands, the company who owns the Armand de Brignac brand. He stated on the talk page that he didn't not work for Sovereign Brands, I outed him with proof after this on the talk page and he edited my comments out of the talk page. I am wondering what to do? I have more evidence that Tamec is Scott D. Cohen below.

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
I labeled the article NPOV and posted on the talk page about my concerns. After I asked Tamec if he worked for Sovereign Brands or if he had any financial interest in this article, The user Tamec stated that "I don't work for Sovereign Brands nor to I have a financial interest in the article.". After he said this, I found out through a Google search that he was Scott D. Cohen, Marketing Director for Sovereign Brands and linked to two pages where he used the screen name Tamec on the talk page, the first being on a dating website and the second on his personal flickr website in which he stated he worked for a beverage/alcohol company in SoHo, New York which is where Sovereign Brands is located. He deleted his profile on the dating site and edited his flickr site to remove the incriminating information. My comment about this was removed from the talk page. You can see on this page that Scott is mentioned as the Director of Marketing at Sovereign brands: http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2006/10/is_the_champagn.html You can see on this Business Week page that he mentioned he put up the de Brignac website himself; "And the website? After I got off the phone with Berish, Scott told me he put up the site himself.". Scott references this in his personal Livejournal here: http://forsooth.livejournal.com/189679.html and posts a good amount about his company in these posts: Mentioning the CEO's dog, Brett Berish: http://forsooth.livejournal.com/178354.html Answering e-mails for 3 Vodka, a brand owned by Sovereign Brands: http://forsooth.livejournal.com/148453.html http://forsooth.livejournal.com/147484.html He also posts pictures of the Armand de Brignac wine on his livejournal on these pages: http://forsooth.livejournal.com/207787.html http://forsooth.livejournal.com/190978.html http://forsooth.livejournal.com/189157.html He also links to his personal website in his livejournal profile that identifies himself as Scott Cohen. He also writes for the webzine Tiny Mix Tapes under the nom de plume of Tamec, he references this in his livejournal, where he links to articles on Tiny Mix Tapes. When you follow the links from livejournal to Tiny Mix Tapes you will see that the articles are credited to Tamec: http://forsooth.livejournal.com/211502.html I'm not sure what to do now so I am contacting an administrator for their advice and to see if they can do anything to mitigate this problem. Tall Midget (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Tamec does seem to be the person you claim he is, principal author of the WP article about the product sold by the firm for which he is marketing director. He just does not seem to have been very good at covering his tracks, despite his denials. [15], old homepage [16],[17] (There are more like this, just in case any should mysteriously disappear.) Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what to do? Other than broadcasting that the editor is likely to have a conflict of interest and suggesting he is spectacularly inept at hiding his true identity it seems that he is not violating policy in attempting to keep his RL name out of Wikipedia. Is the editing of the concerned article(s) so disruptive as to require warning the editor, or even executing sanctions? Have they removed sourced material with no explanation? Have they edit warred? If the answer to the last questions is yes, then they should be warned appropriately and be dealt with by the usual processes. Has anyone mentioned this to the editor, or that this discussion is happening here? I shall check. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon review of the three recent edits by Tamec I doubt that they are that controversial. Yes, there has been some allegations regarding the companies products that have been removed, but the allegations were unreferenced. Unless the comments can be sourced they should stay removed. Unless there are other concerns regarding this editor I think this is pretty much cleared up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a clear-cut conflict of interest. Tamec is using WP as a billboard to advertise their product and remove any adverse criticism. This must have happened before. But he is also denying any involvement with the product; his bluster and obstructiveness on the talk page is therefore disrupting the project. Mathsci (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As commented, the criticism had no sources. If sources are provided then the allegations can be returned. Further, WP:COI does not disallow parties editing - it requires them to be especially scrupulous in their contributions. From my review it certainly doesn't appear that the article needs tagging as an advert, there are many edits from a variety of viewpoints - which also negates any question of notability. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand somebody (not me!) could put the article onto AFD, explaining that it reads like an advertisement, was created by a spammer and let the community decide. Mathsci (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think AfD is a viable option. While the article certainly needs a thorough scrubbing, it is nonetheless about a notable subject and AfD is not meant to be substitution for clean up. I posted a note about the issue at the Wine Project to see if there are any takers in helping with the clean up. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 14:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that is the most appropriate avenue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I should have clarified more about what I considered POV pushing, I suspect that Tamec was editing under this IP address which resolves to New York city, where his business is located: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.23.245.171

The only thing that really bothered me is when he removed the controversy section, then removed it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tall Midget (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment by User: MrWhich

This began as an exchange about one of my ArbCom votes, which escalated to a point where I asked MrWhich not to post to my talk page again. He's continued to do so. His conduct is highly improper and tantamout to harassment. When another user, User: Jeffpw intervened independently and asked MrWhich to stop posting to my page, the guy then started posting to Jeff's talk page. I don't know what this guy's problem is, and I don't much care. Would someone please intervene and get him to stop harassing other editors? Thanks. Rather than providing diffs, the simplest thing to do is to ask that an admin check the talk page edit histories of the parties involved: User talk: deeceevoice, User talk: Jeffpwand User talk: MrWhich. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The user had a similar pattern of disruption and refusal to disengage under his old account. I do not know why his older contributions did not get transferred to his current account. Jeffpw (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So now we're outing a vanished user as a result of a bit of fun? Wow. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do. Nothing "escalated." Deeceevoice forbid me to post at her talkpage, saying she would delete without reading the post. I found this pretentious and funny, and posted perhaps two or three messages in that spirit. Nothing angry, threatening, or in any way harassing. I attempted to engage User:Jeffpw on the matter, as he was accusing me of harassing her, but he simply deleted my questions and pointed me to WP:HARASS, which I had already read before. I read it again, and did not find that I violated any portion of it in my dealings with Deeceevoice. In fact, in my last post to her page (and also in the edit summary, since she claimed to not be reading my posts), I made it clear that was my last post to her page. Still she brought it here. I apologize to whichever admin looks this over for wasting their time. Mr Which??? 10:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It is generally accepted as harassment to poke people "for fun" when they have clearly indicated that they wish to be left alone. Heck, some people might even call that trolling. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's policy somewhere? And if you can honestly look at what I wrote, the tone I wrote it in, and the fact that my last note at her page made it clear that I was finished posting to her page, and you think I somehow deserve a block, I guess that's your call. As for Jeff outing a vanished user above, what of that? Mr Which??? 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and decency should not have to be made policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said, look at the actual messages. And then check out this diff, where--after I've made it clear that they've outed a vanished user--DCV leaves a note saying she considers the matter closed, with a winky after it. How is this acceptable? Especially given that BEFORE she opened this thread, I made it clear I was not going to post at her talk page again? Mr Which??? 10:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CIVILITY#Examples. Taunting someone who clearly indicated that they wished to be left alone. I have no opinion on what Jeff wrote nor did I say that you should be blocked. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not taunting, but even if I concede that, how would the relatively minor "infraction" merit both an AN/I post, after I had pledged to not post to her page anymore (a pledge I have been keeping, though they continue to discuss me there) and outing me as the vanished user in Jeff's diff? Mr Which??? 10:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Which has already left a note on DCV's talk page that he would not be editing his/her talk page again. Why then, are we having this discussion? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question, Nick. And now that I've been outed, I'm uncertain how to procede. Is there any way to simply delete this nonsense, and oversight it, or at least make it so that only admins could read it? I had some serious RL concerns that caused the need to vanish. I decided to use this account (a previously approved, but seldom-used, legit sock of my former account) to vanish into. I must have forgotten to have them oversight those diffs that Jeff dug up to out me. Can we take care of this problem? Mr Which??? 10:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually invoked right to vanish, you should not have put that tag on your userpage. Tagging your page seems to invalidate the concerns that right to vanish address. I do apologize for making you uncomfortable, but how was I to know you were a vanished user when the tag was on your page and you had tagged it yourself? Jeffpw (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As it appears that there were at least a couple of admins who took the DCV complaint seriously, I have compiled a list of all the diffs since DCV forbade me to post at her page. It's much easier to see how frivolous the complaint is when viewed in this way than when simply pointed at talkpage histories.

At Deeceevoice’s page

Diff 1

Diff 2

Diff 3, in which I let her know I won't be posting on her page anymore.

At Jeffpw’s page

Diff 1, in which I explain that I was simply joking around.

Diff 2, in which I try to get to the bottom of what he feels I did wrong. Both were simply deleted. He never tried to engage me on what part of WP:HARASS he felt I was violating, but simply reverted my posts on sight. Mr Which??? 11:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Could an admin please deal with this underlying frivolity, so that we can oversight, delete, whatever, the link that outed me as a vanished user? Mr Which??? 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Between that tag on your new userpage, my salting of your old user talk page, a secret checkuser being run on you and this thread, it's already too much of an open secret. Get in touch with me if you need to vanish again. east.718 at 15:02, December 15, 2007
    • I just noticed that you said a "secret checkuser" had been run on me. When did this happen, and who requested it? Mr Which??? 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • An arbitrator thought you were being disruptive during the Durova/!! fallout, and contacted me on IRC concerning the results. east.718 at 16:23, December 15, 2007

It was no secret who MrWhich was, as his behavior has not changed. The first thing I did when dealing with his questionable behavior related to the Mercury (talk · contribs) recall was check the history of his userpage, and sure enough, the sock tag was there. MrWhich, you weren't "outed". - auburnpilot talk 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So this is just accepted? AP, an admin, can make this statement with impugnity? As for the secret checkuser by an arb during the Durova thing, there is a definite irony to that. For the record, AP, if a user wishes to vanish, even if you (or anyone else) thinks it's "no secret", what Jeff did (uninentional or not) constitutes "outing." Period. Mr Which??? 18:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your own user page states who you are. That is a fact, not just what I think. If a user wishes to vanish, he/she shouldn't immediately start using an account that is so blatantly attributed to the previous account. As for the secret checkuser, per policy there is no requirement for the check to be revealed on-site. - auburnpilot talk 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop it. Now. I've made it clear that the tag is a remnant (in an old version of my page) from before I vanished that somehow as not oversighted. That you continue to post it is blatant bad faith, and must stop immediately. Mr Which??? 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Neptunes2007

User:Neptunes2007 continues to upload copyrighted content, after several explicit warnings, including a last warning. I ask that someone please block this user. The Evil Spartan (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe an admin should talk to him first. He might listen to an admin. If he doesn't, then yeah, block--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 11:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Neptunes2007's userpage, "her". Her latest apparent copyvio, Kleicha, was tagged by CorenSearchBot and appears to me to have been subsequently reworded sufficiently from its source to no longer qualify as copyvio (though I may be wrong). Anyone else have a view? Tonywalton ^Talk 12:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's still a CV then. east.718 at 14:54, December 15, 2007

[edit] User:Amalgamut00

User:Amalgamut00 only seems to exist to spam wikipedia with links and reviews from a non-professional/non-reliable site. The only intention here seems to be self-promotion. See contributions [18] --Neon white (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've block the editor for 24 hours and warned him about spamming, also cautioned that a repeat of spamming for reviewbusters.net may result in it being blacklisted. Gnangarra 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Dc76 and User:Edokter

Please advise on what should be done for the following users:

User Dc76 repeatedly edits against the reached consensus on the Balti talk page[19], repeatedly engages in edit wars, repeatedly personally attacks and simply insults me.

Here are examples of personal attacks of User Dc76:

On the other hand, adding Russian names to city districts in a country where Russian is not official, is, IMHO, nationalism. It has no historical basis, these districts were never Russian. They were built by the inhabitants of Moldova, and everyone has got a share in work. The appreciation goes to people not to ethnic groups. German cars are good because German engineers are good, not because they speak German.

- for your information, not only the locality Balti received the city status under Russian Empire, but also most of the existing districts in the city were built during the Soviet Union time in a city where Russian population was predominant.Moldopodo (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You see, I also could blame you to be Vladimir Zhirinovski, and ask you to prove you are not... I think you should re-read the dictionaries in all the languages you know for "good faith".

Moldopodo, You say "Secondly this is an open lie, as I have given enough sources that Balti is a largely Russian speaking city" - Well, that is an open lie. You personally largely use Russian. Don't generalize. You say "the inhabitants who have Moldovan as native language (those who came from villages recently)" - This is ethnic hatred. They were born in the city, they did no come from anywhere. You are promoting Soviet-style city vs. village hatred, but don't worry, we, the city natives will cut short your elan of hate.

- for your information: if this is not racism from the side of User Dc76, then I guess there is a problem on Wikipedia and somebody should really take care of it.Moldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

You, dear, might be coming from God knows were, where you were a burden. (Otherwise you wouldn't ever say about inhabitants of the city "came recently". That - frustration- is the only logical explanation that comes now to my mind.) I, like 100,000 more people, was born in this city, and live in it. I can scan my id card and email it to a sysop for proof! Suggesting to look for the translation of the word Bălţi in a Russian dictionary is ludicrous. It is like looking for the translation of New York in Chinese, justifying that there is a Chine Town in it. :Dc76\talk 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

- for your information, the word 'balta' (in Romanian) and 'boloto' (in Russian) have the same etymological roots, however, not only contesting the translation to swamp (please see Balti talk page with plenty of references to online dictionaries), moreover, UserDc76 inserts a link to a dictionary simply in Romanian (explicative and not translation), and deletes the links to translation dictionaries and to Russian explicative dictionary as wellMoldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

- User Dc76 actively deletes reference to Balti steppe (Beltsy steppe) as well, obviously not knowing much about the city of Balti. It is an easily available information on internet, Encyclopedia Britannica including. Nevertheless, User Dc76 dletes this information as well. Also User Dc76 edited respectively the article on Geography of Moldova on English Wikipedia to make sure that her/his imaginary theory is proven at least somewhere.Moldopodo (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I am afraid that Moldopodo does not know well enouth the Romanian language and therefore makes his confusion Moldopodo, this is ridiculous. Do you know Romanian? Tell honestly! If you don't know the language of your own country even at a very-very simple level, proved by the fact that even with a dictionary you make mistakes in a word that means the name of the city you live in, then please... give us a brake with your super-knowledge of the language you don't bother learn even at an elementary level. Alternatively, go to the library, pick up a dictionary, and make a small effort to learn a few words in the official language of your own country. It is a very simple language to learn, it is not Chinese or Hungarian to have to learn from zero. Foreigners come to Moldova and in 1 year speak the language. You live there for 20+ years and don't bother. Instead you blame people of nationalism. And what is your lack of knowledge of Romanian, not nationalism? Noone asks you to write literature, but 1,000-2,000 words anyone can learn

• User:Edokter, when I asked to check the legality (according to Wikipedia rules) of User Dc76' actions, and namely whether there was a personal attack (from the side of User Dc76), said that she/he cannot even examine my request whether there was a personal attack from User Dc76 at all, and this goes without even mentioning any applicable sanctions to User Dc76. At the same time, User Edokter promptly and expediently fulfills requests of User Dc76 in my regard. Namely deleting references to vandalism on my talk page by User Moldorubo clearly related to User Dc76.

• By the way, User Dc76 even in recent developments, uses again exactly the same aggressive language (User Dc76 calls my editing "hatred", "racism" while User Dc 76 deletes (or reverts) Russiain district names and leaves Romanian ones, etc...) as banned User Moldorubo.Moldopodo (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

• • My only action was to remove an unsubstantiated accusation. User pages are not meant to spew grievences on other users ot to be used as a soap box. That is the only reason I've removed it. — Edokter • Talk • 15:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and User:Ezhava

User:Ezhava deliberately manipulating information in Anti-Christian violence in India. On that article, he adding Sister Abhaya murder case on the mallice that it is Christian-on-Christian violence. But it was a simple rape and homicide case, not Religious violence. He ignored 3RR, despite my repeated warning he disrupting the article with POV-pushing. I need emergency help. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't solve content disputes. If the other user is edit-warring, you can report them at WP:AN3. east.718 at 16:19, December 15, 2007

He is deliberately manipulating information. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please help me immediately. Otherwise the article will remain manipilated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to select something from the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution menu. This noticeboard is for situations that require administrator intervention. We don't resolve content disputes here. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)As East.718 says, this is a content dispute. If the other editor is violating the 3 Revert Rule please report it at WP:AN3. Otherwise please continue to discuss the changes with the other editor on the article's talk page. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Both are edit-warring, I've blocked both for 31 hours for violation of WP:3RR, and both should try the suggestions at dispute resolution for future content disputes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Clique Smasher

I was just looking thru the account creation log, and see User:Clique Smasher welcoming a bunch of new users, but this person is using a template which welcomes them and points them to Wikipedia:Communist_Party_of_Wikipedia. I can't really explain very well, see Special:Contributions/Clique_Smasher, and see the actual welcome message (one example at User talk:Caddawyk). Something about this has my eyebrows arching. Yngvarr 01:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There can be a fine line between disruptiveness and silly nonsense; I can't quite decide if User:Clique Smasher person has crossed it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The CPW is just silly nonsense. Spamming it on new users is rubbing it even further. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (GMT)

User has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism. 哦，是吗？(review O) 01:44, 16 December 2007 (GMT)

Someone's fast. Next thing I see user is blocked; then I try see if I can put proper welcomes on those pages, but it's already done /sigh Yngvarr 01:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, compare Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Karmafist: "Editors who welcome new users are likely to be seen as representatives of Wikipedia. Their welcomes should thus be friendly, helpful, and reflect the priorities of the encyclopedia. Welcome messages are also an exception to the community's general dislike of internal 'spamming'. Since new users are as yet unfamiliar with Wikipedia's functioning, such welcomes should not be used as a vehicle for advocacy of any kind." Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by User:Timeshift9 on User talk:Brendan

In disregard of WP:TALK, User:Timeshift9 recently used my talkpage to personally taunt & troll (here & here) over a recent 48hr block against me as well as revert my talkpage to reinstate other unsolicited, unwelcome, unconstructive commentary (his original insertion of which looks to have been expunged from the visible edit history of my talkpage). Successive requests, via edit summaries on my reverts, for him to refrain from such behaviour went apparently unheeded. --Brendan [ contribs ] 14:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no comment on the situation, and will leave consideration of action to neutral admins, but anyone watching AN/I will have seen the back and forth amongst this group of users in the past two days. I'm starting to think WP:DR is required, although I'm not entirely sure on what issue/s they are divided. While I do not defend Timeshift's actions in any way it should be noted the "revert my talkpage" link in the above is almost 2 months old, although all the others are current. Orderinchaos 14:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Orderinchaos regarding third item being non-notable at this date. the first two are clear jerk behaviors, though. I'd say that Timeshift9 is fully aware of what he's doing, as he's been around a while. Might be a case of goose and gander? ThuranX (talk) 14:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(sorry this got lost after edit conflicts)If Brendan has asked timeshift to leave him alone then he needs to leave him alone and gloating about a block is really unacceptable and provocative. But Brendan slipping in a nearly two month old diff into that list without pointing out that it is old looks kinda manipulative. You lot need to stop using ANI like it's an over-protective mother. We aren't going to fight your (collective your) battles for you and we aren't going to be manipulated into taking sides. I think it would be good if you lot focused 100% on article content and left out any and all personal commentary, including allegations about people's backgrounds, personal motivations and so on. Sarah 15:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comments The first two instances are un-necessary and uncivil, and I will leave a comment at Timeshift's talkpage. I note that the claim of Timeshift reinstating some comments onto your talkpage, although true, is some eight weeks late. A bit late for finger wagging. I guess there is little point in asking you guys to dial it down? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason I cite the earlier occasion is to evidence that I previously requested Timeshift desist from such behaviour and that he has since ignored that request. If you check his userpage, above where I left the ANI-notice template, he has also been spoken to for similar edits to other talkpages. This is a pattern of trolling behaviour. An admin warning would be adequate. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that his comments to you during your block were trolling and provocative. But Brendan, this needs to stop and it needs to stop all round. I'm not just saying this to you, I'm saying this to the whole lot of you. If you people can't find a way to edit Wikipedia together in a collaborative and cooperative manner then you lot have no business editing Wikipedia at all. You need to work this out together, go through dispute resolution or a community enforced mediation, perhaps, (if that is still running) or we need to take all of you to arbitration and get some sanctions. There's been too much disruption and too much personalising of disputes. Sarah 15:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, while you direct your comments at an undefined wider audience ("you people"), this ANI thread is about me and Timeshift. This means your comments will foremost be (seen to be) directed at me and Timeshift. Speaking for myself, I don't know what mediation/sanction/resolution process you have in mind, in terms of which specific issues you consider apropos to those processes. What I do know is that Timeshift's taunting and personalising of disputes do indeed need to stop. That's not something I can effect and I see no role for me to play in any mediation process to that effect. I have simply come to this forum seeking that an errant user be cautioned for repeated incivility on my talkpage, a pattern of behaviour that, at a cursory glance, is not exclusive to my talkpage. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The Duggy issue is entirely unrelated to the above situation, for the record - and I've already reported that here earlier, and accepted the advice of neutral admins on the matter. The fact is that every few hours we're seeing you, Timeshift, Lester, Shot info and others posting here asking Wikipedia to do something. If we acted on every report that's being submitted, you guys would all be blocked for weeks. The WikiProject talk page has become something of a bad joke, there's stuff spinning out of control at at least two article talk pages and several user talk pages, in addition to the reports here, and this HAS to stop. I agree in totality with Sarah's comments regarding how to move forward - forget allegations, forget misbehaviour, just edit constructively, perhaps write some new articles on areas Wikipedia is yet to cover (there's plenty in the Aus politics and law areas). Orderinchaos 15:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Judging me by the actions of others is not reasonable. I am not responsible for the actions of others. My contrib history shows it is not fact that you're "seeing me" here "every few hours" lodging incident reports. Tonight I've reported two incidents that I felt warranted attention, consistent with policy and other enforcement decisions lately made, but have not otherwise lodged an ANI report in some time. Being told to just "forget" how I was blocked for something that the third-party complainant (Shot info) probably won't be blocked for (ANI topic below) and to "forget" the ensuing talkpage taunting by a twittering article emperor (Timeshift9) does not motivate constructivity, article writing and so on. Moving forward, for my part, will happen when these incongruities are resolved. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Brendan is just bitter and is hoping I can get banned so he can feel a bit better... well I haven't communicated with Brendan since then and don't particularly plan to. I have nothing further to say. Timeshift (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If uncivil behaviour (nyah-nyahing, oneupmanship and hostility towards those who express a different views on style/content issues) were to be avoided in the first place, editors would not find themselves engaging in undignified glass-jawed deflections of legitimate concerns about that uncivil behaviour. I note, because it has been falsely imputed otherwise above, that I did not seek a ban/block (per my above comment that "An admin warning would be adequate") nor did I expect a block to occur because that would clearly be punitive and unreasonable. Moreover, such a block would not have brought me any joy whatsoever. He may not believe it, but I think Timeshift9 does genuinely great work when he focuses on content and collaboration. I admire and respect the contribution he makes to Wikipedia (particularly the image content) but wish he could be a little less sensitive --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I find this odd because, as frequent contributors to Australian politics articles, they're usually on the same "side" when it comes to additions and reversion of POV - it's usually these editors up against a couple of other editors with differing views of how these articles are being run. Kind of weird, really, that this would happen. I do think Timeshift was slightly out of line here, although I've been known to make a comment or two that bordered on the uncivil. We should all drop this and focus on the articles. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 12:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP editing on Cliff Hangers

An anonymous IP continually makes unhelpful "clarifications" to the image caption on Cliff Hangers. Their first addition was to change the description to read "Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to a black contestant" [20][21][22]. When I left a note on their talk page telling them that it wasn't really helpful, and that three different people had reverted them, the IP began to clarify the contestant's gender instead, reading "Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to a male contestant" [23] and most recently, the number of contestants ("Drew Carey explaining Cliff Hangers to one contestant") [24][25]. Yes, this is a minor thing. The fact that they aren't responding to talk page comments and have been changing the subject they're "clarifying" whenever I leave a message, however, leads me to believe that they are not trying to improve the encyclopedia, but are instead simply trying to be irritating.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems like silly vandalism, if it continues go to WP:RFPP. --Coredesat 02:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nod vandalism, over several days, not really enough to warrant a page protection right now and as there are multiple IP's blocking won't work.Balloonman (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apparent uproar over cancellation

There's apparently been a cancellation of a podcast which has resulted in repeated vandalism of Paul Myers (record producer) and posting of material that I have a question about on Danny Baker.

• It might be worthwhile to protect Paul Myers (record producer) for a day or two until feeling dies down.
• An open letter to listeners by the canceled personality (from the personality's website) has been posted on Danny Baker. I don't feel experienced enough to make the call on whether it is appropriate for Wikipedia.

Thanks. Jackollie (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected Paul Myers (record producer) for a week. But is he even notable? Looks borderline, certainly. BLACKKITE 02:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Looks borderline to me as well. Don't know anything about the subject, so can't offer any arguments to the contrary. Jackollie (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• Looks borderline, but if he was awarded a platinum disc for his producing an album, would that qualify under wp:MUSIC? I know it's a little bit of a stretch, because the criteria was written for the artist themselves, not the producers, but that might be enough to keep---and enough that I didn't pose it for AfD myself.Balloonman (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Countmein1990 a possible sockpuppet of User:Clockworkgirl21

It looks to me like User:Countmein1990 is a likely sockpuppet for User:Clockworkgirl21. The user continuously reverts the birthdates on three articles: Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia , Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia and Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. When User:Alex Bakharev posted a warning on the page of User:Clockworkgirl21 and explained the consensus opinion on leaving the birth dates as they were, User:Countmein1990 appeared within two days and began making the same edits as User:Clockworkgirl21. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an obvious case. Next time you see obvious sockpuppets, report them to WP:SSP. Maser ^(Talk!) 03:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the sock indefinitely and the master for 72h Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Destroyerofthewiki

Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs) is a new user account. As well as the provocative name, the account has made a series of POV edits seemingly on the grounds of race. This includes Sukarno, Geoff Clark, Marcus Einfeld and Jeff Fenech. It may need keeping an eye on. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect this account is a sock of the above Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs). Same articles, same edits. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility, Personal Attacks by Agha Nader

I am reporting a pattern of POV editing, uncivil behavior and personal attacks by User:Agha_Nader in at least two article discussion pages ‘’300’’ and Talk:Persian Gulf. While he has been uncivil to many others (evidenced by the DiffTimes below), he has also pointedly accused me of racism (1 [User_talk:Agha_Nader#Accusation_of_racism 2]) as well as filing a stale and petty Wikiquette alert based on an ‘’unfiled’’ RfC sitting as a subpage for the user ‘’for over 6 months’’.

I have held off on this complaint as long as I can, after having sought to resolve the matter with the user himself and using an intermediary to resolve the problem (User:FayssalF, an admin) without substantive result (the subpage was deleted but not the wikiquette complaint that was copied word for word from the page), though I believe that FayssalF did make solid attempts to resolve the situation. Granted, I ‘’insisted’’ it be removed within 12 hours, so as to decrease the damage an active accusation of racism can have on an editor. Two days later, Agha Nader has chosen to take no action. These personal attacks on myself, coupled with the incivility and personal attacks leveled at other editors, and general POV-pushing need addressing, and he isn’t going to cease without someone with a larger toolbox taking a hand in matters. As another editor put it in the ‘’300’’ discussion: "…either everyone who disagrees with Nader is a racist, or he's artificially trying to prolong a dead conversation".

Incivility/Personal Attacks:
in ‘’300’’ (arguing that ‘Iranian’ needs to replace Persian in the Lead, rewriting history):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

in Persian Gulf (accusing others of POV-editing, sock-puppetry and single-purpose accounts):

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 14:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have issued Agha Nader a warning regarding his conduct (diff). Please update this section if the behavior continues, or alert me on my talk page. Thank you. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to Arcayne's ill-considered accusation here [26]. He accuses me of "POV-pushing" and nationalism. Are these not serious accusations? I have never pushed any POV. I am a very neutral editor. I edit many Iran (Persian) related articles. A glance at my talk page or contributions will show the keen observer the backlash I get from my neutrality--from Iranian editors to Arcayne. Also, you should take a look at [27], where Arcayne tried to intimidate me. Finally, I think you should take a look at the wikiquette alert, for it sheds light on Arcayne's behavior [28].--Agha Nader (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i would dare say the wikiquette alert it sheds light on edits from over six months ago, and revealed, in context, Agha Nader's uncivil behavior and pattern of personal attacks back then as well. Neutrality is not one of the hallmarks of this user, as judged from strong POV edits to articles where Iran-based issues come into play.

And what he terms as "intimidation" was my attempt to involve an admin to encourage him to withdraw his accusation of racism before it led to this very report. I gave him every opportunity to withdraw his accusation, and he responded by highlighting the 'examples' of my racism and subsequently blanked my responses to them. I am certainly not the only editor who has been subjected to Agha Nader's incivility. I am just the one filing most recently. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like an admin already weighed in, well before Agha Nader responded. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I had explicitely suggested the following:

• Agha Nader: To delete subpages which refer to Arcayne and to withdraw the Wikiquette alert as a sign of assuming good faith. Again, Agha, please withdraw it. I had asked you to do it but you asked me the same question again. It is a "yes, please. Have the courtesy to withraw it."
• Arcayne: To not set ultimatums as they produce negative effects in any mediation or conflict resolution process.
• To both contributors... Could you please give some distance to each other if you believe it is hard for you to remain calm when you are dealing with each other?

Can we achieve that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am happy to oblige. I only set a time limit bc accusations of racism can snowball if left unattended. His singular lack of response led to this filing. As for editing elsewhere, so long as he is polite with myself and other users, the two points of contact we have should go smoothly with me. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully and regretfully, I can state that I fully support this action by user User:Arcayne and agree with his observations of user User:Agha Nader. I have been the target of Agha Nader's suggestion that I am involved in sock-puppetry and have been labeled as a single-purpose account also included in his discussion page. I would ask and hope that these accusations are retracted by Agha Nader as they are baseless and damaging to my reputation. I would like to thank the involved administrators here and sincerely hope that as a result of this oversight, many positives are experienced by all involved. With appreciation ObserverToSee (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse Observer of being a SPA, I said it. He is a SPA, because he has only edited the Persian Gulf. I do not see how that is an accusation. I have retracted my wikiquette complaint. I do this in deferring to the wisdom of Fayssal.--Agha Nader (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's called AGF for a reason, Agha Nader. Asking if people are sock puppets and noting your belief that they are SPA delegitimizes their opinion and contributions. Part of this process is not to punish you but to help you become a better member of the community. If you cannot learn, this will be but one of many times you will experience this process. I guess its too much to expect you to apologize for calling me a racist, is it? I mean, it's what prompted the report. As well, deferring to FayssalF's request means you remove the wikiquette alert, not just tag it. Why does it feel we have to drag you along this process kicking and screaming every inch? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. Observer is a SPA. Single user accounts "can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda, so such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny." I did not even scrutinize him. I merely called him what he is: a single purpose account. By the way, you have called me a POV pushers. There is no evidence of that. Also you have called me and others nationalists. I have not done any of those things. I expect apologies for both ill-considered accusations. I will not give you ultimatums or threaten you and intimidate you into apologizing (which you did to me), but I would appreciate it. I retracted the wikiquette alert. If you want to erase it, go ahead. I do not see what that serves, since it will still be in the edit history. It will be archived soon enough.--Agha Nader (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very saddened and discouraged to read this response from Agha Nader. He asked me if I was a sock-puppet before labeling me as an SPA. In addition, prior to labeling me as an SPA, he claimed to have "exposed" me on his talk page [29] (in edit summary). This is clearly contradictory to AGF where he still maintains that it has nothing to do with AGF. I'm being attacked and labeled because I disagree with points Agha Nader has proposed and I have remained civil throughout. Unfortunately this civility has not been reciprocated as we speak as evident by this latest response. ObserverToSee (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is time now to get some distance to each other guys. Please avoid being in the same situation in the future. SPA can edit freely as long as they abide by the rules. If you'd be editing the same articles again, please avoid any usage of inappropriate language or mutual accusations. Any other comments before you move forward? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Agha Nader said that he removed the Wikiquette alert, which he was asked to do by no fewer than two different admins. He hasn't, and his non-apology at the end of the wikiquette alert not only doesn't serve to relent on his stale accusations there, but rather reinforces the user's beliefs that he is right and all of us are wrong. He has not retracted or apologized for accusing me of racism. In short - and for the fifth time - YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE. I find it insufferably infuriating that he takes no action unless an admin orders him to do so, and sometimes not even then.

Asking if someone is a sock-puppet or single-purpose account is not polite, civil or pleasant, and serves - as ObserverToSee pointed out - is dismiss that person's edits. I am not sure that Agha Nader has actually learned anything from this process, which leads me to the conclusion that this won't be the last time he sees himself the subject of an AN/I. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to kindly remind Arcayne that he should not shout at me. Using all capital letters ("YES. I WOULD LIKE HIM TO ERASE THEM, PLEASE.") is shouting and uncivil.

I implore the helpful administrator to look at [30]. Where Arcyane repeatedly alters my post by adding an extra indent and moving my post further down the page. I shall not speculate as to his motives or if his actions are against policy. Furthermore, the keen administrator will note that Arcayne followed me to the Persian Gulf discussion and engaged me. Again, I will not speculate if this was stalking or not, or if it was harassment. However, it ought to be noted that I started the discussion and he had not edited the article before. He only entered the discussion after our dispute over the 300 film article. What I have stated is neutral and factual. I will leave it up to you to decide on your own if his behavior is acceptable or not. I only wish to distance myself from Arcyane, but how is this possible if engages me?--Agha Nader (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you felt hurt by my use of cap letters; it might be that I felt them necessary, as you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked. You were reported her for failing t be civil. you were advised how to correct the situation, and yet you refuse to accomplish those measures if civility.

I have been watching the persian Gulf page for many months. it was only when your civility warranted comment did I contribute, to suggest you stop. if you wish to consider this stalking, also consider that your following my edits around are a tad closer to the actual definition of stalking.

This will be my last comment on the matter, as per FayssalF's above comment. I will not engage Agha Nader again, even though he has refused to comply with the requests of the admins here and removing the wikiquette alert and apologizing (and striking through, as it has been commented on) for the accusation of racism. his obstinancy in this matter will not remove all my AGF for him, but it certainly will color my opinion of anything he contributes. His refusal to concede that he was even wrong has cost him some of my faith in him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not followed you to a single article. WP:CIV : "Calling someone a liar"..... Arcayne: "you failed to do what was asked of you, and then lied about having done what was asked." --Agha Nader (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne has followed me to Persian Gulf and harassed me there. He has now stalked me to Iranian folklore and is harassing me there [31]. --Agha Nader (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted "outing" of User:Brendan by User:Shot info

During an earlier ANI thread, in which User:Shot info successfully sought sanction against me for alleged "outing" User:Skyring (despite it since being shown by others that said information was accessible by links from Skyring's userpage), Shot info attempted to "out" me as 'Brendan Jones' -- a person apparently known to Skyring (as indicated by his subsequent comments on the aforementioned ANI thread) and possibly also to Shot info (given his sudden and unexplained mention of that name). As I was blocked for 48hrs, enforcement consistency, in the form of equivalent sanction against User:Shot info, is requested. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Weren't you the one who posted the link to the name "Brendan Jones"? Also, I think we all know you aren't "Brendan Jones". This is easily verified by anyone. This report seems rather pointy and the latest in a long line of recent attempts to use ANI as a battlefield and to manipulate admins into acting on editorial adversaries. I don't blame you for this, by the way, because you're just doing what the others have been doing for too long but this needs to stop immediately and if it doesn't we are going to take the lot of you to arbitration. Sarah 15:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I endorse what Sarah says; it wasn't an attempt to out, but another example of disruptive editing which all parties seem prone to - as is this attempt at having sanctions bought against a member of the other camp. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is seriously getting tedious - we are getting a report about once every 3 hours on this page asking admins to take a side in the intra-project fighting within Australian politics. As I said in another response, DR is probably going to be necessary if these editors cannot learn to get on with each other. Orderinchaos 15:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are you drawing the line between disruption and "outing"? This is not clear and the result is inconsistent. The name "Brendan Jones" was entirely unfamiliar to me until Shot info mentioned it. My comments in the prior ANI thread clearly reflect that. That name had not been mentioned in any circumstance prior to Shot info mentioning it. Unlike Skyring's talkpage (which apparently linked to the same/similar information that I purportedly had "outed" him with), it was not linked or attached to me in any way. Nor was I aware of the presence of that name in any links that I posted. More pertinently though, WP:OUTING states "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment [...]." Shot info's mentioning of the name "Brendan Jones", juxtaposed with comments by me, sought to "out" me as "Brendan Jones" (which falls under "posting another person's legal name [...] regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct"). Treating this action with less seriousness brings us to a perverse inconsistency: it is not OK for me to reference webpages which may indicate facts about Skyring that were already published by him (according to previous links on his own talkpage), but it is OK for Shot info to juxtapose me with similar such information from those same webpages. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that you are understanding the matter from admins' perspective (i.e. my colleagues who read this page). All people are seeing here is an endless stream of reports. Nothing is going to get sorted out this way, we're going to end up with a "boy who cried wolf" situation. Furthermore, anyone with any history on the AUSPOL project knows that you are not Brendan Jones, so the issues are a tiny bit different. Orderinchaos 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't think you are understanding this from a selectively sanctioned ordinary editor's perspective. Different application of the same rules/guidelines/precedents for different editors is unreasonable. Either WP:OUTING matters or it doesn't. If it does matter, then editors should be treated consistently and accordingly. If it doesn't matter, then my 48hr block was unreasonable (to which effect, I notice that decision generated some critical feedback in my absence). For the purposes of WP:OUTING, it is irrelevant what "anyone with history on the AUSPOL project" knows or does not know. That was not a determining factor in whether or not I deserved a block for allegedly "outing" Skyring, nor was the apparent previous presence on his talkpage of links to the semantically same information I was alleged to have "outed" him with; it should not be a determining factor in whether or not Shot info warrants sanction for its attempted outing of me. --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

In the diff you linked to, in response to your request that he retract his earlier statement that you stalked Skyring, he wrote, referring to a link you posted yourself, "Unless you are Brendan Jones, I have no need to retract anything. And if you are Brendan Jones, then I still have no need to retract anything." Is this what you are suggesting is an outing? Look, this focus on who people are in real life needs to stop. All edits to these political articles need to be scrutinised and considered carefully entirely on the merits of the edits themselves and not on who made them. If you all started doing this with all edits, regardless of whether they were made by your editorial allies or editorial foes, most of the AusPol interpersonal issues would evaporate and no one would care who each of you were in real life. Your posts about Peter were wrong but I know you're just one person in a group who are all in some sort of factionalised editorial war that prefers ANI as it's home battlefield. Very quickly something is going to have to give in this war or you (collectively) are going to see community sanctions requested or arbitration and I don't think anyone involved is going to come out of either process unscathed. From my perspective, you lot are politically minded people who are using Wikipedia politically and engaging in politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation. I'd like to be proved wrong on that and I'd like to see you all agree to sort sort of mediation as a last chance before arbitration and go into it with full intentions of finding a way to work together and end this crap. But the more and more you all run to ANI at every opportunity like naughty kids to dob on each other doesn't leave me feeling encouraged. Sarah 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to send these people to a self-imposed ArbCom over this, or to the real thing. --Haemo (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, again you refer to a collective who are not necessarily audience to this complaint and whom I have no responsibility for, influence over, or direct association with (other than coincident encounters on here). Again, my wish here is for consistency in administrative sanctions. Shot info was vigorously pointy in its pursuit of me over the so-called "outing" of Skyring/Peter (vis-à-vis links identifying the former One Nation (Canberra) Branch President 1999) resulting in a 48hr sanction for an weightless guideline breach. That being the umpire's questionable decision, namely that construed intent is the basis for sanction in these instances without due regard to materiality, I simply ask for procedural fairness in dealing with that Shot info's own concomitant infraction. How else can Shot info's spontaneous reference to an apparent real world identity "Brendan Jones" in juxtaposition with own comments be explained? The only conceivable purpose of that was to "out" me (however falsely, which is immaterial per WP:OUTING). Regarding your comment "you lot are politically minded people who are using Wikipedia politically and engaging in politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation", I can only comment for myself in saying that I respond to behaviour directed at me and others who I see as being poorly treated. I do wish it didn't have to be so. But otherwise, I'm quite comfortable that the content edits I make are neither "politically minded" nor "politically-styled dirty tricks and manipulation". Copyedits, grammar, style and article structure predominate my article edits and interests. Perhaps those political machinations you describe are present, but I suggest more likely on the part of (former) political players around here, of which I am not one. --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, here is what I put on Brenden's talk back, which he then reverted calling it "trolling" which I note is exactly the same arguement that he uses on Timeshift9 (above). I get the distinct feeling that there is much "Help, Help, I'm being repressed here" which as the CABAL tells us When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you.

[32] My explaination of what I was saying. User:Brendan is refering to this "Unless you are Brendan Jones, I have no need to retract anything. And if you are Brendan Jones, then I still have no need to retract anything." of mine. Note I was not saying he was or wasn't, instead I was responding to his demand "Please also retract your false allegation that I have wikistalked anyone." which he made in response to my "an newsgroup writer "Peter", another writer "Brendan" (who stalked the before mentioned "Peter")".

Hence the sequence of events are, I mention a "Brendan [Jones]" who has stalked (not Wikistalked) Peter McKay (sp) in Aus.Politics. Editor User:Brendan then believes this is a reference to him. Which I then clarify to make it clear it wasn't...and irrelevant in any case. At no time do I call him Brendan Jones as it is obvious that he cannot wikistalk anybody (ie/ Brendan Jones not being an editor). Brendan did strike out his comment out after I make my reply so I can only assume that he too recognised this - but choose to game on anyway. Now for the record, I don't care who our User:Brendan is in real life. I only wished him to remove his outing efforts. If an admin believes my comments are inappropriate at ANi or here, I am willing to refactor them to avoid any potential confusion. Editors should be judged on their edits here in Wikipedia, not who they are in real life. Shot info (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So I reiterate. If an admin thinks I have made a mistake, I will gladly refactor my comments. I note that Brendan was asked to refactor, didn't and was blocked over it. While he may be guilty of an innocent mistake, the 1000's of words and now the various vendetta's against myself and Timeshift once he is unblocked suggests that Brendan has a real problem with the purposes of Wikipedia. Which we all now, is not pointscoring against other editors (like what Brendan was doing against Skyring). But if the Community feels that pointscoring is acceptable to the project, then I will accept that as well. Shot info (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You yourself seem to have just "outed" Skyring" above, even after he requested that no-one post personal information about him ("I'd like to note that I am not in favour of [Lester or anyone else] posting personal information about me"). Yet again we see different standards for different editors. Your skewed hypocritical representation of events undermines your credibility. Your "distinct feelings" and extrapolation from unrelated events are irrelevant to the substance of this ANI matter. Your comments on my talkpage were removed because they were unwelcome and there was already a more appropriate forum, the original ANI topic, whereat you should, could and did express your views. Your explanation of your "outing" of me as "Brendan Jones" makes no sense in light of your earlier comment "While there is no reason for one Pete to be the other (and the other Brendan). Hmmmmm, well I guess sometimes 2+2 can be stopped before the equals sign at times?". Trying to downplay your own comments ("I was not saying he was or wasn't") is disingenuous. To borrow User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's phrasing when he gave reasons for my block, "posting of [the name "Brendan Jones"] had no other conceivable purpose than to suggest an outing of a fellow editor's real-life identity. [Shot info's] "but I didn't really say it" games now don't cut it". Or perhaps this is more fitting: yours was "nothing but a cheap, gratuitous ad personam shot". Given your evangelism about the WP:OUTING guideline, you ought to adhere to it, not traduce it while lecturing another user for the same. Finally, importantly, sanctions ought to be consistently enforced. What I have a problem with is occasions where this does not happen. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is amazingly tortured and all it seems to constitute is defending your efforts to out other users. Many admins have spoken to you on this matter, you continue to ignore them, defending your right to out users and engage in unWikipedian conduct. When are you going to realise that your behavour is inappropriate? Rather than arguing, just accept that you were incorrect, made a mistake and have moved on. But by all means, keep raging against the machine, continue to make off topic attacks, continue to edit disruptively, you are the one who will exhaust the Community's patience after all - and probably suffer for it. Shot info (talk) 06:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am simply seeking for you to be held accountable to the same standard of conduct, which presently you are not. My logic is tortured? Who are you trying to fool? It's the very "logic" you and the blocking admin used against me, in your very own words no less. And funny you should mention "realising when behaviour is inappropriate". Your utter barefaced brazen hypocrisy is mindblowing. A cursory glance at your talkpage history (here, here and here) shows that you have been repeatedly warned before about "outing" other editors -- yet on that occasion you only received a slap on the wrist. And now you get away with doing it again? Astounding. Consistency of sanctions enforcement? Pfft. Not when it comes to your repeated infractions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 06:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page conflict at John Lennon

Statement by virtually uninvolved R. Baley: Could an admin look over this section (link) at the John Lennon talk page. The editor, Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), appears to have been treated with kid gloves for a while now, but continues to post (latest? example/diff) in a most uncivil and insulting fashion towards several editors (not me --I have yet to interact with him). I recommend a topic ban (on Lennon related articles, including talk pages) for a couple of months under penalty of increasing blocks starting with a week. Thanks for your attention, R. Baley (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Striking due to Tvoz sock evidence below. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Parties notified at the relevant talk page (diff). R. Baley (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

party notified at his talk p., & expressed understanding & I assume willingness to reform on mine. If not, certainly blockable, but I think our final warning was appropriate first. DGG (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DGG, I'm all for another (or final) warning if it will work. In retrospect, coming from an uninvolved admin, it just might carry the appropriate weight. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Too lenient. R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If these problems persist, I am willing to block/page protect/topic ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not content to accept this editor's "willingness to reform". I think it's pretty clear that he's another sock of Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who also had many moments of constructive editing, amid a lot of unacceptable behavior, and the unacceptable behavior led to his indef block. Subsequently he appears to have created numerous socks which have been blocked, and it looks to me like Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) is another one, based on his similarly styled, unacceptable behavior.

• The blocked MindGuerilla requests an unblock on November 9 but the request is malformed so it is not replied to; on December 2 the request is fixed and denied, and please see the reasons given for the denial of unblock by Jehochman and Sandstein; MindGuerilla comes back in on December 3 after having been turned down, saying It's okay, I have a new account.MindGuerrilla 15:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) ; Mister ricochet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) was created 00:01 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• See these two user page edits: sock MindGuerilla and Mister ricochet
• note the shared interest in obscure photographer David Spindel among Sixstring1965 and his socks Graphics1965 and Aisumasen, now joined by Mister ricochet on Spindel's page as well as on John Lennon

The evidence is convincing that Mister ricochet is another abusive sock, and I don't think his "reform" coming so rapidly after his last bout of unacceptable behavior should be tolerated. Do we have some reason to believe that he has changed, just hours after his shenanigans on Lennon? Tvoz |talk 06:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Convincing, and have to agree. I would also recommend an admin go through the user log containing image uploads and delete forthwith. If you compare the images uploaded (with that of Sixstring), I'm sure you'll find some of the same images with false licenses attached (e.g. Lennon 1980). R. Baley (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(←dent) As I am the one who filed two other SSP reports on SixString1965's socks (here and here), I am thoroughly convinced not only that blocking Mister ricochet will be ineffective in stopping the puppetmaster from creating a new account, but would submit that such has already happened. Apparently, puppetmasters also have a learning curve for tricks. Is there a way to block the range, or is there a method by which to identify the issuing machine id?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Should I be discouraged, then, from trying to help reform people until we have proven whether or not they are sockpuppets? DGG (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, given the information presented at the time, you hit on a right course of action. I didn't get to "poking around" until Tvoz presented some evidence, at that point it looked like a clear case of socking. R. Baley (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, David - I think that it's generally a noble venture, and I've certainly seen successful turnarounds of people who just go a bit too far, and can be reformed. And as far as I can see you didn't have any reason to know that this editor was not just someone who needed some counseling or direction - so I'm not saying you should have waited. In fact your intervention on a related matter with this editor was very helpful, and seemed to work, as far as his userpage is concerned. But I commented here when I took a closer look, and realized that his style and direction was very helpful. Sixstring was sometimes constructive as I said, but he also was contentious and a problem, and his indef block was appropriate. If he returned to Wikipedia under a new name and was just constructive, I know I wouldn't be looking for any action against him, even though, technically, blocked editors aren't supposed to edit in evasion of a block. He could easily become a positive member of the community, and for all I know he has accounts that are just that - but this one was not, and I don't think we should tolerate it. I for one would never have noticed this new name if he had just behaved in a responsible way - even if he worked on David Spindel etc - and I wouldn't be looking under every rock to see if he's lurking there - I have better things to do here. But when he gets in my face, and disrupts the pages I work on in the way he did, I'm prompted to look deeper - and this is what I found. So.... I admire your willingness to attempt reform - I truly do - and I encourage you in your attempts. But this fellow's pattern suggests to me that real reform isn't likely to work, and I hate to see any more time wasted over a disrupter. Tvoz |talk 18:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the support from my colleagues. Yes, on the basis of the evidence now present, I agree Tvov is correct about the likelihood of reform DGG (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser results

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mister ricochet has proven this user is a sock puppet of banned user Sixstring1965 (talk · contribs). It seems that additional socks have been turned up. Please check the list and make sure all the socks are indefinitely blocked and tagged.- Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged a couple, but they all appear to be blocked. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - Jehochman ^Talk 19:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sock-puppet attacking me and Wikistalking

Ceedjee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Although created in March 2006, this account's edit history begins one month ago today, with a request ([[33]) to erase the history of former "several accounts".

• Around 25 November, Ceedjee came to disagree with me on the content of Ilan Pappé, a controversial ex-Israeli historian. ([34])

• Around 6 December, he also came to disagree with me on the content of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, a Palestinian leader who, in the 1940s, sought Nazi German assistance for his cause. He seemed to be very upset with me, to the point of personal attacks ([35] (later withdrawn), [36], [37]).

• On 9 December, in the midst of this disagreement, he showed up on NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade to revert one of my edits. ([38]) This was his first edit to that page, and in fact his first edit to any article not pertaining to Jews or Israel.

• On 14 December, he again became involved in a dispute with me, this time on 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandate Palestine. He started by reverting one of my edits with the summary, "you will edit this article when you will have read 1 book on the matter. I know this topic" ([39]), then showed up on my talk page ([40]) to assert that I "don't know anything about this topic".

• Minutes later, he showed up on Serb propaganda, a fairly new and obscure article, to revert my placement of cleanup tags ([41]). He had never edited this article before, and it was his second ever edit to any page not pertaining to Jews or Israel. His revert was particularly questionable, given that the recent AfD discussion had closed "no consensus" with virtually all voters agreeing cleanup was needed. In other words, he appeared to be disrupting Wikipedia in order to pursue a personal grudge.

• That day I asked Ceedjee to cease his wikistalking and spiteful undoing of my edits ([42]), and instead of responding, he blanked his talk page. ([43]).

Could an admin please make it clear that neither personal attacks nor wikistalking are acceptable, and that Ceedjee needs to take these warnings seriously lest he be blocked?

In addition, Ceedjee should be investigated to determine whether, under his old names, he was blocked or otherwise sanctioned for disruption. I'm not calling for some "sleuthing" expedition, but if his pattern of contributions matches a known troll, we really shouldn't have to deal with him continuing under a new sock account. <eleland/talkedits> 21:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ceedjee appears not to be an Native English speaker, in fact, his primary involvement with WP appears to be in another language. Are some of his comments inappropriate? Yes, and he was warned about them. Are many of your comments inappropriate? Yes---in reviewing the history of the discussions, I found your attitude towards the conversation much more belligerent than Cee's or anybody else's. In all honesty, while he may have checked out a few of the pages you edit, (based on what I saw) I think he could make a stronger case against you. Balloonman (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

It is true that my English is not excellent but it is also true that my own attitude towards Eleland has not always been appropriate.

The articles related (even losely) to the arab-israeli conflict are "hot".

From my point of view, Eleland doesn't assume good faith in his comments and cannot prevent him from being "belligerent" and adding "flames" in them when he edits a talk page or an article related to this topic.

Step by step, this had the "bad" effect to upset me and produced some inappropriated reactions from my side.

I will refrain myself from going on with this. That would be nice if Eleland would understand his own attitude is not appropriate and that he "throws oil on the fire" ((fr) "jette de l'huile sur le feu")

Nb: I am not a sockpuppet. I only edit with this account. I have edited before with another account but I registered recently under the same name as my account on the french:wikipedia for "clarity".

Rgds, Ceedjee (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Balloonman, could you be more specific about what I have done wrong? I admit to expressing frustration in colourful terms, however, I certainly did not take to paging through their contributions and vindictively reverting them, or trying to drive them off the project with claims that they are know-nothings. <eleland/talkedits> 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your colorful terms can be very inflamitory. In several places you criticize Ceedjee and others for not speaking in clear English or being understandable (Eg attacking the messenger rather than the message.) For the most part, as a person unfamiliar with the subjects at hand, Ceed's edits looked appropriate to me... but more than that, when I read the discussion on the various talk pages (not just your highlights) I found Ceed trying to be rational, where as your comments appeared to be adding fuel to the fire. As for his "wikistalking" you... I'm personally not that worried about the few incidents you found. It is not uncommon for people to check out other edits when they are having problems with one editor. They'll do it to see if they might find common ground or if others are having the same issues with a given editor. WP:STALK includes the line, If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter. I didn't see him following you to make personal attacks or to create distention elsewhere. The handful of edits, IMHO, on the other pages were good faith edits.Balloonman (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Planoclear! halfready

I blocked Planoclear! halfready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) with email disabled after receiving over a hundred emails from this user, with one of two messages, both meaningless. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's something new. No edits, not even deleted edits, but crazy emails. Odd. No opinion, Guy (probably a support), just a musing really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

According to my server logs he's still doing it (presumably from another account) - I put some keyword blocks in my inbound filter rules and it's rejecting mail at a pretty steady rate. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good block I say, but can't we find the other account(s)?--Phoenix-wiki ^{talk · contribs} 14:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we can try. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Planoclear! halfready. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (try added at 03:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC))

No we can't. :) We need a few names of accounts to go on, as related there. JzG please share a few usernames with us there, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with unresponsive IPs

Lately, I've run across an anonymous editor on my watchlist who adds extra roads to the intersections of articles. This is fine, but sometimes he also checks if there's a shield for the route, and does so over a number of edits, clogging up the page history and making it difficult to see what the IP actually did. I suggested using the page preview on their talk page, but there's been no response nor has he changed his editing style since. Assuming this is the same user that drew the mall warnings atop this page, I'd say the user has a track record for not responding to queries from the community.

I personally find the multiple edits on each article (a recent example: one to add a shield and a route, another to fix the spelling in both, and a third to remove the non-existent shield) distracting and wasteful (in terms of efficiency), and apparently others do as well if {{preview}} exists. However, as far I know, not using page preview to find mistakes isn't a blockable offense. What, if anything can be done in this issue? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's an actual example: [44]. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing much more than telling the user really. That would be a horrible reason to block someone. Frankly, there are plenty of more users who are like this but in much larger articles; it is just a fact of life that some people won't use the preview option at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Some people forget to use the preview button...and it's not disruptive since the history gives you all those convenient methods of looking at diffs. The only times I've ever really boggled at this sort of behavior is when I see people making literally hundreds of tiny edits to one article in one day. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall deleted, now on DRV

Just posting a notification here of the DRV, as this is directly relevant to admins. Lawrence Cohen 17:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

now Overturned by a SNOW closing of the DRV. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent vandalism from 76.179.156.162

76.179.156.162 has been warned about vandalising the Brian Kenny (sportscaster) page but still continues to do so. The only edits this Ip address has made is vandalism to that page harlock_jds (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The general standard is four of the appropriate warnings (after four respective vandalisms), and report to WP:AIV if he vandalizes after the final warning. He's only received one warning so far, and there's nothing about his vandalism that would require unusual attention, so nothing an admin needs to do right now. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wildfirejmj

Wildfirejmj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been on a little spree, making three inaccurate or pov edits to evolution[45] [46] [47] then, despite warnings, going on to Charles Darwin and inserting the same creationist claim into the lead three times, even though it is fully refuted in the body of the article.[48] [49] [50] To finish off for now, Wildfirejmj claimed on an editors page to be "simply trying to balance the secular and liberal bias from Wikipedia".[51] Looks blockable to me. .. dave souza, talk 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw it at AIV and removed the report since the only edit since the final warning was to OrangeMarlin's talkpage (per above). As blocks are preventative I acted on the basis that the disruption had stopped. If anyone else thinks it actionable then go ahead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-credits scene

I have a problem with an IP editor continually adding a indiscriminate list over and over to Post-credits scene, which a third opinion agreed was inappropriate on the talk page. As I have noted in the mediation case, this user does not respond to talk page warnings, blocks, edit summaries, hidden comments (he just blanks them), or any other form of communication. The only edit summaries he uses are repeating the title, and as suggested on the mediation case there's simply no way to get this guy to stop short of indefinite semi-protection or blocking. The former, of course, would be quite unnecessary to deal with a single user. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User_talk:130.22.190.5

This IP address is used by the United States Military to add propaganda to Wikipedia and remove factual information that is embarrassing to the US government. I believe it should be permanently blocked from editing Wikipedia. You can see my comments here. Further information is located at [52]. --Afed (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just typical vandalism from a widely shared IP addrss. I see a lot of good edits from this address, and no sufficiently persistent disruption to justify a permanent block. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon looking into this further, the entire media coverage of this appears to be over just three edits made in a short time span that removed detainee ID numbers [53] [54] [55]. And for some bizarre reason, the wikileaks people decided to jump on a completely random incidence of self-reverted vandalism from almost two years ago. I reiterate that there's nothing here warranting a block at the moment. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A group of vandals?

I've come across a group of users who seem to be vandalising the same pages together. Much of it is fake biographies of living persons, all of which have remained unchallenged for the past month, because the edits looked like plausible information (all either unsourced or with fake sources.)

They are User:Aryluiz User:Rich1208 User:200.253.226.97 User:200.253.226.103 User:200.253.226.114 and User:200.253.151.119. I note the similarity in the IP addresses.

User:Rich1208 is particularly destructive as he creates fictitious WP:BLPs and edits exiting WP:BLPs with a mix of factual and completely fabricated information. The biography of Tamara Davies for example was mostly fabricated (I have deleted the whole article bar one sentence.) Several of these editors completely destroyed the biography of Ann Maria Rousey DeMars until it was rescued by User:220.240.130.134. They also vandalised Anne Archer's biography to make up fictitious information that she competed in judo tournaments and jiu-jitsu tournaments against DeMars, and others. Also the bio of Gella Vandecaveye.

User:200.253.251.119 sometimes vandalises articles, and other times fixes the vandalism caused by the others in the above list.

I spent a lot of time reverting Rich1208, and posting warnings on his talk page, but I have not gone through all of the above accounts to check for revision, etc.

I originally thought there was something sinister about all the similar IP address (perhaps a group editing together at some institution), but on reflection, perhaps it's just one user with two account names, and other instances of logging in anonymously - having a non-fixed IP address. --David Broadfoot (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grado11 and vandalism/personal attacks

I've been having a dispute for a while with several sock/meatpuppets (not sure which, but probably the former) who have been repeatedly vandalizing dive bomber and my user page. By "dispute", I mean that the puppets have been vandalizing and I have been reverting their vandalism. I listed a report at WP:SSP and the accounts and IP in question were blocked and tagged as socks. Now, another account has sprung up doing the same thing, and so I am filing a report here.

• Main account in question:
  • User:Grado11
• Related side accounts:
  • User:Peiav:-o
  • User:Mr messy
  • User:Paiew
  • User:Paievvw
  • User:128.119.23.89
• Possibly helpful diffs:
  • [56]
  • The entire page history of dive bomber
  • Edits made by the now-blocked older accounts and comments posted there.

Thanks. Paiev^Discuss! 00:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You could replace that entire long explanation with "obvious sock of Paiew (talk · contribs)." I'm making a report at WP:AIV since this is so blindingly obvious and trivial. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there was anything to be done besides simply blocking the user, as blocks don't seem to have much of an effect. Paiev^Discuss! 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are going to want to remove the indef block on 128.119.23.89 it is registered to an educational faculty per whois Rgoodermote  01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The IP was never blocked indef, just for a week. I have changed the template on the userpage to remove this false bit of information. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought I saw it on the block log, might have been looking at another one. Rgoodermote  01:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andy Pettitte entry

Hello, I typed in "Andy Pettite" instead of "Andy Pettitte" and was redirected to the correct entry, but with a graphic picture of a woman's private parts (to use polite terms) superimposed over the page. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Pettite

When I searched again with the proper spelling, the picture was gone. I figured someone would want to know about this. Thanks--hope you can fix it soon. It's pretty offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirky (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been fixed. Useight (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry I didn't sign my comments above. It's not there on internet explorer, but shows up in Firefox. Very strange--I'm not sure what to make of it. Thanks for looking into this, though.Sirky (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and more on Internet Infidels

A schism in the Internet Infidels bulletin board has spilled over into factional fighting on the Internet Infidels article here on Wikipedia. I have semi-protected for a week.

I am going to go back through the recent edit history and leave a bunch of warnings, but the article will probably need higher attention for a bit, even with sprotect on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible problem user

During my regular Watchlist scan today, I found that User:Professor Boris had made this edit to Talk:Liviu Librescu. After reverting and checking his talk page, where I found a number of warnings for posting "slander" on article talkpages, I left this warning message on it, and hoped that the issue would be resolved.

When I checked my watchlist again tonight, I found this lovely reply to my warning. Due to the incivility of his response, I checked his contribs in more detail, finding that all of his edits have been either posting antisemitic conspiracy-theory rants to article talkpages, or uncivil replies to warnings posted on his page.

I'm not sure any action is warranted at this time, but I thought I should bring it to the admins' attention for a second opinion and/or monitoring. Thoughts? Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difficult sockpuppetry and privacy situation

• Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Cowboycaleb1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks ^confirmed_suspected)
• 63.3.10.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 63.3.10.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

A few weeks ago, I asked for my username to be changed from Davnel03 to D.M.N., see here. My reason behind this move was so that people outside of Wikipedia would be unable to identify my as the Davnel03 account no longer existed. However, yesterday, a "new" user created an account under the username Davnel03, and went on a vandalism rampage, see Davnel03's contributions. Most of his edits were disruptive and vandalism to World Wrestling Entertainment roster.

Because of this, I was quickly alerted on my userpage about this. The account was indefinitely blocked as a compromised account. As I stated in my Changing Username statement, see here, I wanted to change my account name, so that no one outside of Wikipedia could find my account. However, the userpage of Davnel03 now contains a link to my new account, enabling others to get and see my account, which I clearly have stated in the past that I don't want to happen.

I also believe Davnel03, is in fact not a compromised account, but a sock of Cowboycaleb1, who was idnefinitely blocked several months back, after I presented this sockpuppet case on him. My reasons are:

• Both Davnel03 (note, not me but infact the "new" user that created that account) and Cowboycaleb1 blanked their talkpage: [57][58]
• Both users had very bad grammer: [59][60]
• Both edited World Wrestling Entertainment roster a lot, see Davnel03 contributions and Cowboycaleb1 contributions.

Can someone either:

• Remove the tags currently on Davnel03's userpage and replace it with {{sockpuppetconfirmed|Cowboycaleb1}}

OR

• Delete User:Davnel03 and User talk:Davnel03 and protect it from recreation.

Per this and this, I'm also left to believe that IP's in the range 63.3.10.1 > 63.3.10.2 are also being used by Cowboycaleb1, and suggest that they are blocked for up to a year. Please consider edits like this as evidence. Please also look at 63.3.10.1's block log to back up my claim.

Cheers, Davnel03 09:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed your new user name from the template at Davnel03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) page. This should help with the immediate problem. The account is already blocked indef. -JodyB _talk 10:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted them before I saw this. I don't really see a reason to restore them, especially since it's not a compromised account. John Reaves 10:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you go ahead and salt User:Davnel03 along with User talk:Davnel03? Cheers, Davnel03 10:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just seen that you've salted it John. Cheers, Davnel03 10:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused--does this mean whenever an editor changes his/her user name, the old name immediately becomes available for new accounts to use. If so, I'm surprised this sort of thing doesn't happen more often.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, and the possibility is pointed out on WP:CHU. It should possibly be raised a dev issue, or perhaps crats should block old usernames that have had significant edit histories upon rename. BLACKKITE 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I got around it by re-registering my old username (Orderinchaos78) and making user: and user talk: redirects. Orderinchaos 09:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing at Global warming

User Wedjj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is engaged in a campaign of disruptive editing at global warming. It's not quite vandalism, and it may not quite be 3RR (though I need to go back and count), but it's highly disruptive. Someone please have a look and act or not, as you see fit. Thanks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wedjj (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 8 hours by William M. Connolley. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, could an uninvolved admin please review this block? Connolley is heavily involved with the group that owns that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I am reasonably uninvolved (although I do occasionally discuss things on the Global warming talk page), and I think the block was entirely appropriate. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Now moot. Indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Scibaby per checkuser. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, up to a point. Connelly is an expert in the field, and does indeed spend a lot of time defending the article for POV-pushing, but I think it's rather unfair to accuse him of WP:OWNing it. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation of a single-purpose account

from request at WP:3RR, moved here by - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps}
Financialmodel appears to be an editor who has an abiding interest in proving the Eurofighter Typhoon is better than the F-22 Raptor as all of his edits seem to revolve around introducting contentious or controversial data regarding the capabilities of the two aircraft types. Can admins please look at the two articles and determine whether this is a case of fandom or something more of a sock issue. FWIW, he has already been involved in a 3R issue. Bzuk (talk) 02:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with BZUK. Financialmodel also refuses to abide by the consensus of the group. In fact his newer additions are even less relevant than his original entry that got reverted some time ago.Downtrip (talk)

After quickly looking into it, it seems to be a content dispute, where Financialmodel can't await the outcome of the discussion and repeatedly inserts the disputed paragraph, whereas Downtrip removes this every time. Both users have reverted 5 times in the last 24 hours if I count correctly. From the facts provided I see neither a violation of WP:SOCK here (sock of whom?) nor an abusive use of a single purpose account. Many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone, please AGF. My proposal is:

• request a comment as the discussion is ongoing for some time without a result
• protect the article if necessary to allow the discussion

--Oxymoron⁸³ 10:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and I will follow up with a request. The reason for the query to an admin board was that the pattern of discussion resembles that of a former banned editor, (Wikizilla) who has appeared on the talk page and article previously with sock/meat puppets. How can that possibility be determined/eliminated? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Reporting intimidation and assumption of bad faith by admin

The subject of this complaint is Arthur Rubin, an administrator.

Currently, there is a lot of activity and dispute on some emotionally charged articles related to child sexual abuse, primarily Recovered memory therapy. I left a message on the talk page ^(diff) of Abuse truth, an editor involved in the disputes, expressing interest in having an off-wiki discussion. This entire thread is here. Arthur Rubin responded ^(diff), even though I was not addressing him, with a threatening / intimidating message, accusing me of bad intentions and threatening that he can consider me a meatpuppet (what a horrible name) and violating 3RR. Perhaps he missed that I never reverted anything on the page he was edit warring with Abuse truth on. Either way, I responded^(diff), challenging his intimidation and presumptions and he persisted his argument ^(diff).

I find this behavior unbecoming of an admin and would like for somebody else to examine this and have a word with him about abusing his admin status for the purpose of intimidating other editors who may not share the same point of view with him, thereby causing harm to the Wikipedia process. If it is the opinion of the 3rd party investigator that If I have erred in any of this, I would certainly like to know that as well.

Thank you, Daniel Santos (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the diffs you have provided, and to be honest, I might have assumed the same thing as Arthur Rubin, as your comments is phrased in such a way that it would look like what Arthur Rubin has stated, a "plan" to push you POV, in other words, meatpuppetry. Well, that's my 2₵. nat.utoronto 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Arthur's original message, to which you reacted very aggressively, was civil, accurate and appropriate: he was trying to help you avoid being accused of meatpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and I am still learning the ins and outs of wikipedia. This is a particularly difficult article because Wikipedia articles do get read widely and both editors are writing out of both personal and professional experience as well as a human concern that readers not be hurt by what they find in wikipedia. However, as a human being, it seems to me that both Arthur and Daniel have been a bit out of line and need to take a step back.

• Daniel responded to Arthur rudely. Daniel clearly felt that a personal boundary had been crossed (who I befriend/talk to/work with). Violating a boundary is bad, but there are kinder, calmer and more diplomatic ways for Daniel to have firmly told Arthur that he felt a personal boundary had been crossed. And I think it is also important for Daniel to have considered the possibility that at least part of the motivation behind the warning was a well-intentioned attempt to keep Daniel from doing something he might later regret. Finally, on the article talk page, Daniel is making POV accusations rather than focusing on the sources.
• Arthur along with Daniel is allowing himself to get caught up in POV pushing arguments - which are rarely effective or valuable in improving wikipedia. The only thing it produces is fights and shouting matches. Wikipedia is not a voting engine. He who has the best sources and the clearest lines of argument supporting their quality and relevance will eventually get heard. All the collusion in the world will not help people with lousy sources turn them into good ones. Furthermore when someone involved in an argument begins warning his opponent that mere cooperation (even for NPOV purposes) is tantamount to disruptive editing and meat puppetry, it gives the appearance of trying to suppress the improvement of the article's representation of a particular point of view and hence interference in creating NPOV (all notable points of view documented and duly weighted). If the warning had been limited to specific behaviors that were actually disruptive or triggered by statements that showed intent to disrupt (e.g. a threat I'll revert you till the cows come home), then and only then would such a strongly worded warning have been appropriate.

A way forward might be for both of you to acknowledge to each other that both have wikipedia's best interests at heart but are struggling for a common vision of how to best protect the interests of Wikipedia (well written reliably sourced articles) and its readers (helpful, not hurtful information on psychology and therapeutic options). Use your clearly common and strong interpersonal skills to come up with an acceptable solution - going to third parties (RfC, Mediation, etc) as is warrented. Egfrank (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You should roam around some controversial issues here before elevating something like this. To me, this seems like nothing. JMO. Tparameter (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White supremacist

I don't know if this is the place for this, but I think someone should know about it besides me. A new account, Pieter L White (talk contribs) has just used his first two edits to place a rant on Ten Lost Tribes all about how the ten lost tribes of Israel have become the "white nations of the world." He's only two edits into his Wikipedia career, but I figure it's best to have an admin start watching him asap. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a special place in my heart for racist editors. I'll try to keep up, but ping my Talk if things get out of hand. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Curious Blue

I have blocked Curious Blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); CheckUser indicates that this is IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which is in turn Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Curious Blue has been trolling user:Orangemarlin. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request: Copyvio check User99.248.77.71

If anyone has some spare cycles, can I get some assistance reviewing all the contributions by 99.248.77.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? They edited a bunch of chemistry articles, in one case ( Paal-Knorr synthesis ) inserting a whole other web page as copyright violation. I haven't IDed such in the other edits but I'm too tired to be confident that I've looked hard enough and I have to go sleep now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I went through this IP's edits, and found one more page with copyvio info, which I removed. Od Mishehu עוד מישהו 10:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help request: User:Suchwings1

User:Suchwings1 disregards consensus reached on the Balti talk page, namely on the absence of decision on usage of diacritics in the spelling of Balti in English language. No official decision was taken by administrator in favour or against the usage of dicritics in the name of the city Balti. However, uncontested evidence was presented on the right spelling of the name, including Britannica Encyclopedia, of the city of Balti without diacritics in English language, as an established geographic name for Balti city in Moldova. Suchwings1 has not left one single message of explication for its edits on the Balti talk page. Moldopodo (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

[edit] I would like to make a complaint. A COMPLAINT!

My name is Christine and i was recently classed as a sockpuppet of that imandrewrice bloke. Im not him! IM NOT! really. Yo fiddle stix Ricestormdramadesk (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nice when the sockpuppets take the time to announce themselves as soon as they register, isn't it? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And another one. Spurious, some offensive, barnstars reverted. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Somebody please file a request for checkuser and state reason 'F'. For evidence, grab a few diffs, and also link to this thread. State that we need a checkuser to block the underlying IP(s) and identify any sleeper sock puppet accounts. It is better to resolve this problem systematically than to play whack-a-mole. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Doing that now (but that RFCU page is making my eyes bleed) Tonywalton ^Talk 14:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done (I hope - could someone who's actually done one of those before, unlike me, do a quick checkcheckuser? Tonywalton ^Talk 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that guy is persistent. Jehochman that has been tried, as Morven says he keeps changing his IP. I thought he had given up by now though. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the school address is softblocked and the other editing occurs on changeable DHCP ranges Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who expected this thread to be about a dead parrot? Guy (Help!) 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your all jews! with juice! catch ya later crocodile! Turkeyhazel (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another turkey goes into the pot. Time for WP:AGF has long run out. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] user name used without permission

the user name snideology was signed to a post without authorization. [[61]] the post did not show up on my (snideology's) contribs, and i am unsure how someone could use my name without it being recorded. post's IP addy is 69.156.179.180. how can one prevent their name from being used without authorization? thank you--Snideology (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• You can't, unfortunately; all we can do is warn, revert and block anyone trying this trick, which is what happened to the IP in this case. BLACKKITE 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It's done by hand typing the sig vice using the tilde's, just as one can hand type a fake email, header and all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, any user could easily copy any signature and use it as their own. All that we can do is revert the edit and warn/block the user. For example, I can put your signature right here: --Snideology (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC) — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 04:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24.61.9.215 POV and 3RR violations

The IP 24.61.9.215 is being disruptive in his editing of the three Blood+ articles: Blood+, List of Blood+ characters and List of Blood+ episodes. He appears to believe that one of the character's names should be spelled Hagi instead of Haji. On December 15, 21:29, he changed the spelling on the Blood+ article[62]. I reverted and noted in the edit summary that we were using the official English anime spelling[63]. He went on to the episode list, and over a series of 3 edits changed the spelling there along with some other NPOV issues, so they were reverted as having too many inaccuracies[64]. He changed the spelling again on the episode list[65] and I again reverting, asking him to stop and noting which spelling we were using in the edit summary.[66].

The IP continued changing the spelling on both the episode and main page repeatedly, and as he continued to ignore the edit summaries and left no edit summaries of his own, I started considering his actions vandalism. He also began doing the same on the List of characters pages. I left ascending levels of warnings on his page, first for failing NPOV, and finally for pure vandalism. In an attempt to deal with the issue, I started a conversation on the talk page (Talk:Blood+#Haji/Hagi) so editors could come to a consensus, since both spellings are valid though the articles have consistently been using Haji. He ignored the talk page topic and continued to just change and change without remark. I finally reported to ARV and an admin left him a 3RR warning. A second editor pointed him to the conversation. His response was to just continue to change.

He has now changed the 3 articles 15 times[67], despite the warnings, requests, reverts, etc. He refuses to dialog or even acknowledge others at all. At first I presumed good faith because during his November appearance, he made good faith, though NPOV violating, edits. However, at this point he seems to just intend to just keep changing the spelling no matter what anyone else says, and it is getting very disruptive. Collectonian (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The same edits are now being done by a new IP, 172.194.5.183, which are close enough that I suspect the user just changed IPs in light of the notice here. Collectonian (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR allegations at Animal testing

TimVickers has just been accused of a 3RR violation in the Animal testing article on his talk page by an admin involved in a content dispute with him in the same article. The admin also warned him that "he would be reported" if he continued. [68]. Looking at the revision history, it doesn't appear that Tim, as good faith an editor as I've ever seen in the project, has violated the 3RR policy. I'm requesting that a neutral admin review the article's revision history [69] to see if the 3RR warning was appropriate, and, if so, to confirm the warning for Tim, and, if not, to take appropriate action with the admin that issued the warning and the "you will be reported" threat. Cla68 (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind being reminded about policies on my talk page, however I must admit that I was a little puzzled about this. The talk page of the article gives some background about the discussions. Anyway, I'm off home to cook dinner and feed my cats. This isn't any kind of emergency. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To make a review easier, here are the diffs of Tim's "offending" edits: [70], [71], and [72]. In each case he appears to make a good faith effort to add additional references to back up his edits, which are then reverted by two other involved editors/admins. Cla68 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see this as 3RR. He was even providing sources when requested, and still reverted. This looks like an editorial dispute rather than breach of policy. the_undertow ^talk 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to review it. Do you mind placing your opinion on the talk page of the editor who issued the 3RR warning? Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally a 3RR vio requires a 4th revert, where is it? (Please remember that the 3RR applies to reverts after the third within a 24 hour period (not calendar day);) — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Actually, SlimVirgin is correct, she said if he does it again.... — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other edit by Tim within the 24 hour period is this one: [73] and it isn't a revert, but the addition of more info. Cla68 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing three reverts, Rlevse. Am I overlooking something? the_undertow ^talk 01:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the three links above, they don't have to be letter-for-letter reverts/matches each time. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The first seems a simple addition, not a reversion. the_undertow ^talk 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The last comment on Talk:Animal testing suggests that these editors may have worked out the content dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope that the 3RR warning wasn't a tactic used by one of the involved editors to try to "win" the dispute. Cla68 (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Although SlimVirgin and I have quite robust discussions, like Talk:Animal_testing#Editing, we tend to work quite productively together. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope that I can learn to be as calm and patient as you are. Cla68 (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible to get angry when you have a kitten sitting, purring on your lap. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR warnings are frequently given when soeone has made a third revert. That said, if he was making edits and further sources were being requested, it certainly strays into not 3RR territory, something kind of moot because it appears that Tim does not intend to continue editing that section. Viridae^Talk 04:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll certainly edit that section in the future, but since the material is now incorporated in a way everybody seems happy with, with three independent reliable sources, I think we can all relax a little. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Err, sorry. Not forever. In the 24 hour period. Good to see it resolved amicably. Viridae^Talk 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me by e-mail that I had better respond on the record to the accusations by SlimVirgin that I am "stalking" her eg diff. To be honest I have always just ignored the rare personal attacks, diff and implied threats diff that arise in these discussions and waited for everybody to calm down, before re-engaging in discussion of the issues. I am not particularly concerned by this, since in an emotive subject and I suppose it is normal for tempers to get a bit frayed. However, if people are curious about these allegations I suggest you compare SV and my contributions to assess the overlap, and see if the contributions on the rare pages where our interests we do overlap are good-faith attempts to improve the text or not. Anyway, its probably best to note this in an open way so that the community can review the matter. People with any questions or comments are welcome to discuss this on my talk page, but I'm going to be catching a plane in a few hours so I'll probably get back to you after the jet-lag wears off. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim has been personally attacked by the editor in question before [74] and, as far as I know, has never responded in kind in spite of that editor's efforts to bully, bait, and belittle him. Cla68 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(Found WiFi at airport) While I appreciate your support Cla68, let's not get back into that drama again. While wider community involvement might be necessary if problems continue, as I said I don't take these attacks too seriously and consider the matter closed. More eyes on the Animal testing article, and a wider variety of contributors to the talk page would of course be helpful, particularly from some of the administrators who have more experience of dealing with controversial subjects than I do. The past posts on the talk page are particularly interesting, since discussions on how best how to apply policy have been common. Anyway, let's minimise the drama and gt on with contributing. Hope you all have a good Christmas. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV POV edits by User:Pimpbrutha

Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs), blocked indefinitely on account of their username (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Destroyerofthewiki) has reappeared as Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs), editing the same articles and inserting the same NPOV POV material. He also seems inordinately focused on Marcus Einfeld's Jewishness and continues to want to insert NPOV POV material into Aboriginal politician Geoff Clark's article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's good, if he's putting in NPOV edits. It's the POV edits we don't care for. ;) Maser ^(Talk!) 05:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I need to read what I am writing! Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I was just kidding. We know what you're talking about, Matt. You'll make a fantastic administrator. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

May I recommend an IP check? Maser ^(Talk!) 05:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They're both blocked for disruption and bad behaviour anyway. No need. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins for more on this. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LukeHoC creating autoforwards to dates

User:LukeHoC has been creating dozens of new article redirects from individual dates (i.e., 23 February 2008 to February 23) for many, many dates today; is this something that should be condoned, or is it an issue that should be addressed? I'm reluctant to suggest otherwise, not knowing current WP policy in this regard... --Mhking (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, would delete all of the pages he created like this. It is absolutely an unreasonable thing to do (creating redirect pages for every day of every year). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary... That's going to take some time to clean up. — Edokter • Talk • 16:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put a note on his talk page asking him to stop, and alerting him to this conversation. Hopefully, he'll come on over to discuss this and how best to clean it up. --Mhking (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop and think before criticising other user's contributions. I am doing this because at the moment the way the date formats work in Wikipedia is U.S. centric, in breach of the long standing policy that all variants of English have equality in Wikipedia. The redirects will allow people to use British English dates in auto-generated footnotes without creating red links. If you check you will note that such red links exist for most days in 2007, and for some dates in other years. They will proliferate in the future. I have asked the user who has made a false and hurtful attack on me for this constructive contribution to Wikipedia to make an unreserved apology to me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If these links are deleted, that will be a deliberate restoration of hundreds of red links. In my opinion, that would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What red links are you talking about? The date formats work so that any correctly linked date, e.g. 23 February 2010, should show up in the format set in user preferences. There shouldn't be any links to individual dates such as 23 February 2010. JPD (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that there are hundreds of these red links. Just click on almost any of the redirects I have created for dates in 2007. LukeHoC (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that {{cite web}} requires ISO date formatting (which is not that commnon in the U.S.!) to work optimally. If the date is entered in ISO format, then it will appear like this: 2010-02-23. If it is entered in some other format, it will give a link to a particular day, which in general will be a redlink even if it is U.S. format. It would be good to make the template easier to use, but in the meantime fixing the formats would be better than creating redirects. The user date preferences will do the rest. JPD (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

2010-02-23 is what you want it to show? Can you not see that that is a completely unsatisfactory format. If the last number was 12 of less, no-one would know whether the day or month was appearing first. (In the real world, where people have never heard of ISO format that is). LukeHoC (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Luke, Your actions are completely pointless; Mediawiki's automatic date formatting already takes care of what you are trying to accomplish... ie, dates formatted like [[2006-09-25]] (citing format) result in 2006-09-25, depending on how you set your dating preference in Special:Preferences. Notice the year is linked seperately, as it should. You redirects do not accomplish anything, except loose the link to the year. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

(adding additional portion of conversation)

I'm sorry, but I cannot apologize. I don't see this as constructive in any way, shape or form, despite the North American-centricity of many WP articles. Those that have a more worldly-focus cite internationally formatted dates. This appears to me to be a complete waste of resources and counter to the standards previously established for Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you just don't understand the issue. There should not be any restriction on use of British date formats on British articles, but American users have created a systemic bias in the way the standard citation notes work. The so called use of resources issue is a complete red herring, as the resources required are minimal (and a great deal less than my own contribution the fund raising drive, which will not be repeated, if you drive me away). I am appalled by the horrible way you are treating me. LukeHoC (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a waste of resources to clear red links that have been created by a great variety of users? How many red links have you cleared today? This is good tidy editing work, pure and simple. On the other hand, deleting the redirects would be premeditated vandalism. LukeHoC (talk)

I am a bit of a BrEn zealot in the appropriate places and I believe I understand the issue here. I have to concur that LukeHoC is misguided; the links are completely unneccesary and will be a maintenance nightmare. If a fix is needed, this isn't the way to do it. Ros0709 (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree, and think it is unnecessary. It would be ideal for you to add {{db-userreq}} to each of the pages, as that will make things easier. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this just creates a bulk of unnecessary redirects. I appreciate the thought behind the action, but it is misguided.--Atlan (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? It is a fact that I have cleared hundreds of red links. Please explain why wikipedia was better when they were still in place. LukeHoC (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also important to mention that the users reasoning behind all of this (changing redlinks to blue) is unfounded. I've checked several pages that he's created and nothing links to them, except his own talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely false. There are hundreds of red links. Look again. LukeHoC (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point. What he means is, that most redirects are orphaned. No articles link to them (to be expected, really).--Atlan (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit unnecessary, and the user shows no sign of letting up, as the edits are going on at this moment. Perhaps this should be brought to WP:RFD for discussion, and as a show of good faith, LukeHoC would cease to create new redirects until the matter is discussed there? Tarc (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody here is in favor of keeping these. Why take to RfD? IMO, they qualify for speedy deletion per WP:SNOW. And if the user continues to be disruptive, perhaps a block is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did find one with a link, and fixed that. Note also that {{citeweb}} does already allow for entering dates for the access date in either "British" or U.S. format without links using the accessmonthday/accessdaymonth and accessyear parameters. (I think there shouldn't even need to be separate DM and MD parameters, really - the template doesn't treat them differently.) These efforts are simply misguided. JPD (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solution?

It is been established that these redirects are a problem, and should probably be deleted. Now, I ask, what would be the best venue? RfD or just delete them per SNOW? - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are they a problem? Are they somehow doing harm? Redirects are extremely cheap and ones like these can have some use. east.718 at 18:51, December 17, 2007

They are clutter, and prone to abuse because no one has these on their watchlists. — Edokter • Talk • 18:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that as long as something isn't "doing harm", the are acceptable under our inclusion guidelines? - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The standards of inclusion for redirects are different than articles. We've also got some tens of thousands of unwatched pages, but don't delete those just because they are at risk of vandalism. east.718 at 21:16, December 17, 2007

Delete per CSD R3. — Edokter • Talk • 18:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought so. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David D. is stalking me

David D. (Talk) has been continuously stalking WP:STALKING the articles I contribute to for more then one year, I have made several requests to him not to stalk me on wikipedia and make his contributions randomly but he keeps it up (check my talk page archive 5), now its been more then a year since he has been stalking me, his behavior has started to cause considerable stress now and I loose my motivation to contribute to wikipedia, I think an Administrator should look into it and advise him not to track and stalk me. Completely unacceptable behavior. Atulsnischal (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record i posted the comment above from Atulsnischal, it was originally posted on my talk page and at Talk:Genetic pollution. Since this has been an ongoing complaint from this user there is clearly a need for an outside opinion. David D. (Talk) 05:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden text below is off topic

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Is the problem with the removal of this piece of text after Atulsnischal pasted it into animal husbandry, food security, agricultural biodiversity‎, genetic erosion, genetic pollution, green revolution and others? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) It was my removal of that from a few articles, but not close to all instances of it, that initiated the stalking response (for the record others include High-yielding_variety, Hybrid, Biodiversity, Agriculture, Genetically_modified_food and Genetically modified organism). I used google to find that text in many different articles. It's basically activist spam. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) For the record, I note I was too hurried writing above, I was referring to the text that I placed and commented on at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. David D. (Talk) 13:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Our initial interaction occurred over a year ago when I began trying to sort out several articles he had started (Some include Asiatic_Lion_Reintroduction_Project, Kuno_Wildlife_Sanctuary, Asiatic_Lion and Gir Forest National Park). There were redundancy problems, copy and pasted text again, as well as massive external links sections that I tried to prune down, as well as massive "See also" sections and no references. He was not happy that I removed many of the external links despite the fact that many of them I returned as cites in the text between <ref></ref> tags. In my opinion all my edits were constructive and i tried to mentor him to added citations in a format that were more user friendly. Still he ignores this advice. This is pretty much in line with his attitude of ignoring anyone who critiques his work regardless of whether it is constructive criticism or not. This refusal to discuss changes with myself and other editors is a massive problem. In short, Atulsnischal has ownership problems, POV problems and does not conform to wikipedia style. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Leaving aside the question of whether it's "activist spam," it's a copyvio. See here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC) OK, I just realised that TimVickers example is not the specific one I had a problem with. The activist spam bit I had a problem with is seen on the genetic pollution talk page at Talk:Genetic_pollution#Soapboxing_removed. It is very normal for Atulsnischal to copy and paste several paragraphs into many different articles. This is a problem since the context of the paragraphs is rarely relevant to the articles and is rarely an improvement. If Atulsnischal was serious about imporving the articles he would rewrite the points for each article so they are coherent and relate to the article he's adding the material to. Now it seems his stuff is copy and pasted from others. These lazy contributions to wikipedia, copy vio, no context, bad formatting etc. waste a significant amount of time for editors that have to clean up after him. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC) You mean the example I found wasn't the only one of these boilerplate POV additions? Dealing with a systemic copyright violations like this necessarily involves tracking a problem user's contributions. I think you did exactly the right thing here. Tim Vickers (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC) I can assure you most of my attempts to help his articles over the past year have barely been touching the surface of the problem. I was hoping he would become more familiar with what is acceptable at wikipedia with some gentle prodding. As my prods became harder his response was to cry WP:STALKING and spam our conversations to many article talk pages, some not even involved in the dispute. For one example, see Talk:Asiatic Cheetah, note that none of the comments that appear to be my edits are my original edits, as is the norm, he copy and pasted the whole conversation from other talk pages. David D. (Talk) 14:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC) A warning for copyright violation is simplest, and unarguable, then, if he does it again report him at AIV. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC) This might work for some of his problematic content but he has a strong need to use the term genetic pollution for invasive species. As far as I am aware this is not correct usage. So, for example, all the links to genetic pollution he adds to articles related to invasive species are not copyright issues they are just wrong. Except this is a complex issue since the term has been misused in the past by journalists, but NOT by scientists. He quotes the minority articles as proof that his usage is correct despite its practical absence from the scientific literature. The term appears to be used heavily by conservationists as a political haymaker. I think the easiest solution is to make the genetic pollution article a truly NPOV article that explains the political usage as well as the biological usage. But Atulsnischal continually edit wars to maintain his vision of the article, one that focuses on political drama and invasive species. It is a very misleading view and unscientific, IMO.David D. (Talk) 15:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this has drifted away from the stalking issue to the content dispute. Should I just move this discussion to the genetic pollution page? This might be more relevant there. David D. (Talk) 15:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That would probably be best, as there doesn't appear to be any substance to the "stalking" charge and no clear need for urgent administrative action. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello who are the guys sitting here making decisions, I am saying this user is consistently stalking the articles I edit for over a year and is a regular bother to me, is more then ONE YEAR!!! of harassment not enough for you guys. Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Format for clarity" indeed. David's actions appear to fall under the portion of WP:STALK which states that: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, no interest in the case, but you appear to have accidentally removed comments here, that I put back here. Lawrence Cohen 20:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please someone who knows his responsibility as a admin tell above mentioned user to stop WP:STALKING me, this has been going on for more then one year now. Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hidden text below is off topic

This discussion has been archived. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
[edit] Plagiarism And regarding this article [75] what copyright issues are you talking about, I wrote this particular article my self and have mentioned the sources. Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Above Tim Vickers was citing your addition to mutliple articles of the following text related to genetic erosion. Below is your text and the bold text is verbatum from the pdf cited by Raymond Arritt above: "Genetic erosion in agricultural biodiversity is the loss of genetic diversity, including the loss of individual genes, and the loss of particular combinants of genes (or gene complexes) such as those manifested in locally adapted landraces of domesticated animals or plants adapted to the natural environment in which they originated. The term genetic erosion is sometimes used in a narrow sense, such as for the loss of alleles or genes, as well as more broadly, referring to the loss of varieties or even species." You don't think the wording is similar? David D. (Talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Wrote the article from the cited sources I have mentioned, never seen source mentioned above. Though if others feel above source is credible, then this may be cited too when improving the original article, I am too tired to assist with Genetic pollution article now and taking brick bats personally for modern science, others will hopefully assist in time, currently it lies severely vandalized (Start from here for refrence [76]). Atulsnischal (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) So why is your text almost identical? You must have plagiarised someone else who had already plagiarised this article then? Seriously, what are the chances that your original text is almost indentical to the pdf? David D. (Talk) [edit] Genetic pollution is a regular "scientific term" Hi there. These large scale edits you are making to promote the activist term "genetic pollution' are a serious NPOV problem. Can we resolve this through discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Hi Tim, Genetic pollution is a regular "Scientific term", find out....., start from here this version of the article [77], edits from here on just desecrate the article and are nothing but vandalism, mass slashing of article to 2 or 3 lines and wanting to erase it completely by merging it with Introgression etc. Improve the article if you can in time, thanks. Examples of usage of term "Genetic pollution": “Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels, he warned. By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is, he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be what we today call a wolf.” from Italy's Wild Dog Winning Darwinian Battle, By Philip M. Boffey, Published: December 13, 1983, THE NEW YORK TIMES. Accessed 16 December 2007 Butler D. (1994). Bid to protect wolves from genetic pollution. Nature 370: 497 Atulsnischal (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Atulsnischal you are straying off topic here, this is content dispute not stalking related. However, i have rebutted these points before, as you conveniently refuse to discuss. Again see: 1983_aticle_in_NEW_YORK_TIMES..... and Definition_of_genetic_pollution on the talk page of genetic pollution. David D. (Talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Johnbod

First, I'd like to point out that I took this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Johnbod without any response at all. Now to the dispute: During what is otherwise a perfectly normal dispute over content on Domestic sheep, Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been especially snide and abusive. He has made unhelpful comments such as "Perhaps someone who actually knows about sheep will happen on the article." and called me an idiot. So far the argument has cooled, mostly due to other editors joining in. I would simply like someone from outside the discussion to make it clear to him that name calling and such is not acceptable. Immediately before calling me an idiot, I reminded him to please not be rude. Any help would be appreciated, VanTucky ^talk 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If VanTucky makes a habit of reverting and rereverting changes en masse without, as subsequent discussion has revealed, making even the most cursory checks on whether link corrections are valid etc, then for him I expect it is "a perfectly normal content dispute". Personally I can't remember when I last encountered a ruder WP:OWNER, but I am not going to continue in view of his attitude. Anyone with the patience to read the "discussion" will be able to make their own judgement on the matter. Johnbod (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To say that I have ownership problems with the article is patently absurd if you look at the history. More than four other editors have made multiple edits in the past week to the article without any objections from me, and one (LaraLove) was even at my invitation. VanTucky ^talk 07:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of any other issue (which may hopefully be resolved by other methods of dispute resolution); what I have to say to the original request by VanTucky is that any editor saying that another editor is being "an idiot" leaves themselves liable to warning and eventually sanction if the language persists. WP:NPA. I ask Johnbod to please avoid such language in future. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to recommend to everyone - even in the midst of an incident - that people not walk further down the path of confrontation by characterizing other editors actions, no matter how seemingly justifiable the comment. A passive voice, even used to actively report an incident, will let any offensive wording speak for itself. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If we are are going into grammatical subtleties, I would point out I didn't 'call him an idiot', but asked him "Please don't be an idiot" when he asked for the second time for details on how to find an entry in a dictionary. Johnbod (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Subtleties notwithstanding (I never said 'call him an idiot', I said 'any editor saying that another editor is being "an idiot"'). What you said published your opinion that he was actively being an idiot. That is unacceptable and has to stop. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Loud and clear. VanTucky ^talk 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this has run its course...am marking it resolved. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pgillman and spamming for Call Reassurance

This user has been repeatedly warned on spamming articles and links by several different users for Call Reassurance. User has previously created an article at Call Reassurance, which was speedy deleted under CSD G11 along with a handful of other articles relating to the company producing the product, Database Systems Corp.. User has recreated this deleted material at Care (Call Reassurance) despite these warnings. User has also uploaded an image which they released under PD-self, though it is doubtful they own the rights. All material ought to be deleted under CSD G11 and some action taken to prevent the user from recreating it. Thank you. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• User's edit history reflects a single purpose account dedicated to promoting the company Database Systems Corp. and their related products. User ought to be blocked under that criteria. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I have compiled a summary of domains spammed (5), deleted articles/redirects/images (28, some more than once), warnings (6 + block) at User talk:Pgillman#Spam-tracking data. When I get the time, I'll add the domains to the spam blacklist. --A. B. ^(talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:216.68.49.2

The account seems to be a vandalism only account and I ask for blocking or permanent banning. Their edits are here. They have been warned numerous times on their talk page. The most recent edit was this. Your help is appreciated, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Copied to WP:AIV for speedy action. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning, but I don't think that will stop the user in the least. They've made it clear they don't give a crap about people warning them. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They've only made one edit in the last few days. Why do you fear a vandal spree? David D. (Talk) 19:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

They may make edits only every few days, but the user will be back and will repeat the same actions. The user doesn't care abot warnings as you can see from their talk page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:149.254.192.195

Take a look at that. Amazing. Another vandalism only account on steroids. I'm gonna ask for a permanent ban. Look through the user's contributions and almost all their edits have been reverted by other users (I rv one edit that the user did today). I realize you guys usually go for a warning first, but in this case (per the numerous numerous warnings and blovks on the user's talk page) a warning won't do anything as the user clearly doesn't care what others do or say. After all it's vandalism only account. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A number of people (incl administrators) have also noted that the account may be a sockpuppet account

"In my opinion, after reviewing the recent contributions of this IP, this IP is at this time being used only by User:Homoman11. For that reason, it should remain blocked in order to prevent further vandalism."

It seems in fact, that the only reason this account has not been permanently banned is because it's a roaming IP address so it might only be one user using that IP address doing the vandalism. However, if you look at the talk page it seems the account is being used only for vandalism by one user who keeps getting away with it by claiming it was another user per the account being a roaming IP address. It should be banned, though, and I think wikipedia should have a policy against all roaming IP addresses as this only creates a problem with vandals it seems. If someone wants to edit wikipedia that bad, they can make an account or not use a roaming IP address. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A lot of ISPs use dynamic IPs, and that adds up to millions of IP addresses which potentially lock out millions of users. There are alternative strategies to deal with dynamic IP vandals: Semi-protection of their targeted pages, autoblocks, and as a last resort, range-blocks. Long-term disruption can be dealt with reports to the ISP, see WP:LTA. x42bn6 Talk Mess 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a wildly dynamic/shared IP assigned to T-Mobile's users. east.718 at 18:52, December 17, 2007

So you suggest we do nothing? Is that your solution? Look at the user's talk page. A list of warnings and they've been blocked before. So we should do nothing let them continue? They show no signs of letting up, so let them continue, right? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that is nowhere near the worst I have ever seen of talk page warnings for an IP. There are two goals that conflict here: (a) being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and (b) protecting the encyclopedia from vandalism. The current way of dealing with IPs - especially dynamic IPs - seeks to balance those two goals. See [Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses]] for more info. Add to that that blocks are not punishment, they are prevention. So yes, if you see more vandal-edits from this account, report it at AIV. Pastordavid (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted: User:DavidYork71-familiar admins

There have been a series of new editors popping up at Rape making some quite controversial edits to the article that, at first, were changing it to suggest the victims of rape were more at fault than the attackers, and now have moved on to some less emphatic adjustments suggesting that rape is a valid sociobiological selection method. Needless to say, there's a bit of a fuss over these edits.

Several of these accounts have been identified by Checkuser as being related, and associated to User:DavidYork71; however, one, User:MannaOfTheMessiah, was found to be unlikely by this checkuser. This confuses the issue somewhat, and I think we'll have to fall back on the duck test more than checkuser data.

Which brings me to User:Unwhitewasher, the current campaigner there. This editor is using the same MO as previously identified editors - major edits marked minor, passive-aggressive combative style, etc., and even a 3RR report on another editor. I'm not familiar enough to make a specific call saying "yes, this is a sock," and couldn't do anything about it if I was, so I'd ask anyone with knowledge of this editor to please drop by and take a look. This disruption has been running for more than two weeks now on that article, so some added watchlisting would be greatly appreciated. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, David was operating from an Australian government IP. I wonder if Alison's finding of "Unlikely" WRT MannaOfTheMessiah encompassed other Aussie IPs (i.e. home, internet cafes, etc). Thatcher131 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Lemme just re-run the checkuser again here and go into some more detail. It was a while back .... I'll also check the latest incarnation - Alison ^❤ 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. Confirmed for Unwhitewasher (talk · contribs) = DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) - can someone please file a quick RFCU to track this as there are a billion other socks under here. BTW, Destroyerofthewiki (talk · contribs) and Pimpbrutha (talk · contribs) + incarnations are also York socks. Also, to re-iterate, MannaOfTheMessiah (talk · contribs) is not a DavidYork71 sock - Alison ^❤ 21:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recheck - I'll bang up a quick report on RFCU for you to work with and refer back to here. (Still surprised Manna isn't the same guy, but there you go. Maybe he's found a friend...) Tony Fox (arf!) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DrKiernan (talk · contribs) is familiar with DavidYork; if you still need help, you might contact him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This also exists and could probably be tidied up by those that know how - Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MostPimpBruthr. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they are unrelated. Similar editing patterns, negative checkuser results. Probably just a similar editing pattern, and nothing more. Maser ^(Talk!) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Check

User I.P. Check request for: User:Dc76, User:Suchwings1, User:Constantzeanu, User: TSO1D, User:Moldorubo, User:Nergaal. Thank you --Moldopodo (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

I think you want Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser... — Scientizzle 21:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of these are already confirmed DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) socks - Alison ^❤ 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beh-nam reported by White Cat

I do believe Beh-nam (talk · contribs) is being somewhat honest by making himself more identifiable. Given he is blocked indefinitely, I see a problem. A range block may be necesary. -- Cat ^chi? 22:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)