Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive193

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Giano (for the nth time) 2 User:Booze broads and bullets 3 Booze broads and bullets 4 Request for analysis 5 They have not forgotten 6 Block Bahrain! 7 Block review/answer unblock request please 8 Vandalism on Deborah Frisch? 9 Article created for client 10 Persistent begging to be allowed to spam? 11 Repeatedly deleting CSD tags 12 Repeatedly moving Dominator UAV 13 Need advice 14 James Buchanan needs semi lock 15 Repeated Vandalism by User:74.71.217.181 Talk 16 acceptable? 17 User:Rob110178 Page Vandalism 18 Nkras 19 Sockpuppets of User:Himalayanashoka 20 comment removal 21 Please explain some things to this editor 22 User:MarphyBlack 23 Tommypowell (talk · contribs) 24 Suspicious spamming 25 User:Schlafly 26 Super Bowl XLI issue 27 User:Senthilkumaras 28 Move vandalism 29 Dissolving sock-puppetry 30 Block or no block? 31 Accusations_against_Israel_of_war_crimes_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada 32 Talk:Audley, Staffordshire 33 Vandalism by IP User 213.122.12.128 34 Suspected vandal only purpose account 35 My article was deleted 36 Roman Numerals vandalism 37 Edit warring at Nelson Erazo 38 User:66.159.181.175 39 Heart disease 40 Concerns about MSJapan 41 AstroTurf and FieldTurf 42 Request more vigilantism! 43 198.209.42.9 44 User:Booze broads and bullets, again 45 Clarification of blocking policy / possible unblock needed 46 User:Madchester: Deleting Without Discussion or Notice 47 Admin misconduct RFC notice 48 Evolution vandal 49 User:The_Juggernauts 50 User Fadix 51 Query inappropriate user page 52 Jboyler 53 70.16.18.21 54 User:24.211.252.124 55 Personal attacks 56 Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99 57 User talk:Puppop 58 Obsceneties in reason for editing 59 Mae Jemison 60 Fairness And Accuracy For All 61 User:Smith_Jones 62 GrahameKing did it, again (User Proto dealed with the previous Incident) 63 Foul use of language 64 Need adminn with rollback button 65 User Sikh-history - Pushing POV 66 Strange new user User:Jeff Dorlean 67 87.8.24.237 spam 68 User Sikh-history - Vandalising the Jat and other articles 69 Re : IP 62.25.106.209 70 Notability (people) 71 Stalking by WeniWidiWiki 72 User Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism 73 Re: Article Prohibitions in Sikhism

[edit] Giano (for the nth time)

Well, Giano has done it again. Is this acceptable behavior?

Do you know when I look at edits like this [1] I think you are such a nasty little troll it is amazing nobody has given you a Sicilian haircut on your cone shaped little head. LOL so pleased to have found someone like you who shares my outrageous sense of humour. Giano 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a "Sicilian haircut" is, though it does sound like a threat of physical violence to me. Also, I don't think it's acceptable per WP:NPA to call other users "nasty little trolls". So, what can be done? We've been going round and round with ArbCom on Giano for months, but no remedy ever sticks, and Giano just keeps on being Giano week after week. What to do? --Cyde Weys 19:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Damned if I can tell you what to do. The last thing I want to do is go near the Giano mess; I duck and cover whenever I see another thread. About all I have gleaned from the edges of it is that Giano and Ideogram have been being assholes towards each other for at least the last few weeks, and probably longer. I don't know who started it. It's possible that Ideogram really is a nasty little troll; it may be that Giano is an abrasive dick. It's even possible that both of those things are true.

I wish they'd both stop it, though. If there's an ongoing ArbCom case(?), I would be just tickled pink if someone could request an injunction that puts all of the involved parties on a very short-leashed WP:CIV and WP:NPA probation for the duration of this case. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For context, Giano's attention was caught by this, and the matter appears to have been addressed here. FYI, there is no pending ArbCom case at the moment, nor do I think there should be, although there has been some ongoing discussion on the "ArbCom views of IRC" talkpage which is where this stems from. Newyorkbrad 19:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is for Cyde to just ignore Giano, and for other users, such as Ideogram, to stop baiting Giano and just maybe this will descalate in time. Catchpole 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should it? Nobody ever seems to ask Giano to stop, at least nobody he considers worth listening to, so why should he not simply continue? What's the advantage to him of simply "giving in" when there's no penalty? —Phil | Talk 21:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Warned both. They are behaving like children and need to stop. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Catchpole, and would add a suggestion that people also refrain from using template warnings on the pages of established users, as Ideogram did yesterday. It's rude and provocative. We know that Giano is an established user. Without wanting to be sarcastic, I think we can assume that he is aware that there are some administrators who will block for real or imagined "personal attacks". Also, I fail to see how the "Sicilian haircut" reference (and I don't know what it means either) could be taken as a threat of physical violence. Giano is not one of my buddies; nor are the people that he's in dispute with. But I've observed a lot simply through having certain pages on my watchlist. His huge crime at the moment seems to be that he's continuing to squabble with people who are continuing to squabble with him. Everytime someone provokes him, he responds. I've yet to see one person who genuinely wants to be left alone by Giano, but who is being constantly harassed by him. I have seen some rather bitter remarks made against the ArbCom, but (a) Giano has some reason for having resentment, and (b) when I vote people into the Arbitration Committee, I expect them to be among the best Wikipedians, which means that they should be able to cope with an occasional snide remark, even if they feel it's unjustified. And the ArbCom members do seem to be able to avoid rising to the bait. Show me one single person who is genuinely trying to edit Wikipedia articles peacefully, and who is being prevented from doing so by Giano, and I promise I'll block Giano myself. Musical Linguist 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, ML, though your arithmetic is off: Giano doesn't respond every time someone provokes him, he responds about every fifth time. It would certainly be better if he didn't respond at all. For Ideogram versus Giano, it might be interesting to glance at say the last 100 edits of both users [2] [3] Note especially the last edit by Ideogram (at this moment) where he follows Giano to a page he (Giano) has just created and obviously hasn't polished yet, and (Ideogram) copyedits it. Article history here. To help Wikipedia, to please Giano? You be the judge. Giano is a user he (Ideogram) has stated needs to learn to edit Ideogram's way or leave, along with the other problem users branded as Giano's friends--me, Geogre, Ghirlandajo, Irpen.[4] (Ghirlandajo actually already left a month ago.) And of these two, it's Giano people want to ban? I don't feel I understand this place any more. :-( Bishonen | talk 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Sicilian haircut - I think it refers to the slashing of the face with a blade - it could be the throat - I vaguely remember an italian with a blade offering to do it to me when we had a gentleman's disagreement about something. --Fredrick day 23:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

To get you hair cut is slang for shooting the top of someone's head off, I assume this is a variation on this. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, my take on it was that a Sicilian haircut was one where the aim of the "haircutter" was about 6 inches too low, getting your throat instead of your hair "by accident". Curiously, searching on Google or Yahoo provides no information. Wiktionary doesn't have an entry but perhaps they don't do slang over there. --Richard 23:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, yes, if that isn't curious, I don't know what is. But why would the non-existence of the term (which I invented myself, and even I don't know what it means) stop a storm of speculation about cut throats and slashings across the face? Hey, I've got one, just as likely: I think Giano was getting his heritage haircut confused with a Brazilian waxing. Bishonen | talk 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Possibly, "Sicilian haircut" isn't inherently menacing, but, when the immediate context of that enigmatic remark is: "I think you are such a nasty little troll" and that he should get said 'haircut' on "your cone shaped little head", we can perhaps understand why the above users have so foolishly and mistakenly assumed incivility, personal attacks and bad faith. The clear fact is, any other user would be blocked (or at least universally criticised) for this, regardless of the context or the excuses. And as long as experienced users make light of it, it will continue, and those who feel angry about that inconsistency will vent their utter contempt. I submit it is time to say 'enough', and excuse it no longer.--Doc^g 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

To echo Doc above, the fact that we allow users to get away with such comments, the fact that users do not care whether or not it is incivil, and the fact that the community is completely oblivious to such a comment being a personal attack, is shocking. We should not, and do not, tolerate such attitudes towards others; we are supposed to be a friendly and welcoming place, and that trend has slipped away. As long as we allow this to continue, we will only be further denigrated into a cesspool of hate. Let me remind you all that this is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to be helping each other to expand this place, not fightint with each other about minor issues occuring on the side. —Pilotguy push to talk 03:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What is it with all the hyperbole lately? 'Cesspool of hate'? Come on. The remark Cyde linked to is your standard 'I'm going to kill you' non-threat, and generally a non-issue. More generally, can we not be digging around through people's contribs looking for things to be offended by? Opabinia regalis 03:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for gods sake let this drop. Giano has gone back to editing in his areas, and the broader dispute is, for the most part, seemingly over. There is no pressing need for Cyde (or, for that matter, anyone involved in the recent disputes) to have anything to do with him on-wiki unless they have some as yet undiscovered interest in architecture. There is absolutely no reason for this to continue on any longer - simply leave each other the hell alone. Rebecca 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I intentionally did not draw anyone's attention to this affair besides Paul August. Cyde, I appreciate your attempt to help, but I really do think we can drop this and the affair will be over. --Ideogram 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't draw anyone else's attention? Tsk tsk. [5] And why mount a show on Paul August's page in the first place? Bishonen | talk 09:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, I meant I intentionally didn't post to AN/I regarding Giano. When Geogre decided to talk to me I thought Aaron might be able to help in such a conversation. --Ideogram 10:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ideogram, you are on thin ice. Giano is a great contributor but has a tendency to rise to the bait when trolled. As far as I can tell, you started this - and it looks as if it was pretty deliberate. Giano can be rude and obnoxious, but I don't see him setting out to be rude and obnoxious unless provoked. Solution: do not provoke him. Like you say, drop it - and make sure it says dropped. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

? I thought it was dropped. Trying to put the blame on me is a great way to undrop it. --Ideogram 09:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

?Nor is trying to have the Last Word.--Doc^g 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You can have the last word if you like, Doc. --Ideogram 10:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I can have the last word instead? I used to comment on all this sort of stuff, but a few weeks ago something snapped mentally, and I just mostly ignore it now. I engaged Giano as an editor, talked to him about a few articles, and he kindly came up with some new articles. Absolutely no problem working with him. I found all this much more satisfying than the endless repeating cycles of sniping and gnashing of teeth and wailing. My feeling is that this has all become a bit of a sideshow - Wikipedia is quietly being written in the background while people bicker over stuff like this. So I'm going to go back to the articles, article discussions, content policies, content policy discussions, and ignore (as far as possible) the user disputes. Unless they are both persistent (the case here) and serious (not the case here), ignoring them is best. Carcharoth 13:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor A calls editor B an "asshole". Editor B snaps back. Then Cyde comes here indigantly asking what can be done about editor B. He doesn't mention editor A. And so its been going on for months... I agree with Rebecca above, particularly the part about Cyde not involving himself with this dispute. Giano has stated over and over again that he want's to let all this drop and get back to editing, and that he'll only defend himself when attacked. He's been as good as his word. --Duk 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Booze broads and bullets

I want to bring to attention the user User:Booze broads and bullets. The user has a track record of uploading copyrighted material (images, text copied verbatim from websites, etc.) to WP. I'm not sure how long ago the user has been doing this but the earliest on his/her talk page is July 2006. The user has been warned several times on his/her talk page and has been generally (completely) unresponsive. The user has also uploaded copyrighted images without sources, fair use rationales and often uses inappropriate tags (logo for a photo of a person). In addition, the user also consistently removed AfD tags from articles he/she edits even though the AfD articles have not finished yet. His two latest, most blatant ones are in Magic Kamison and Super Twins. In the latter case, the user removed the AfD tag twice, the second time after his previous vandalism was reverted. User has also vandalized several articles (including Sana Maulit Muli) by changing numbers in the article repeatedly even after his vandalisms were reverted. Honestly, I don't know what exactly to do with the user but I can honestly claim that we do not need uncooperative, unprocedural editors such as these on wikipedia. Shrumster 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

After some more poking around, the user vandalized the Little Big Superstar, Walang Kapalit, Rounin (TV series), and Pinoy Big Brother (season 2) articles by pasting the AfD that he had cut from one of the previous articles mentioned. The user clearly has an agenda, as the article he vandalizes in a negative way are about TV shows by the ABS-CBN network while the articles he vandalizes positively are about TV shows by the competing GMA network. Possible WP:COI? Shrumster 20:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, everyone has his/her biases, WP:COI can't be applied here, unless s/he's a GMA employee or something. Also, some "vandalism" has a point; (although I haven't investigated that much) there no sources for nationwide ratings, and the Mega Manila ratings are the ones that are always published in the tabloids. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism", by definition, doesn't really have a point though. While everyone has biases, they would do well to keep that bias off Wikipedia. And whether what info is appropriate isn't really the issue here. It's the seemingly arbitrary changing of supposed facts without sources that bothers me. Shrumster 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The point is does s/he include a source on his/her contribs? Are the text in question sourced? If the answer on both questions is no, remove the ratings, if yes for the first question, retain the Mega Manila ratings, if the yes for the second question, retain the Philippines ratings, if both yes, retain the Philippines ratings. --Howard the Duck 06:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Since both appear to be unsourced, I have commented out the entire section until a reliable source can be found for either. That should stop this from turning into an edit war for a while. Shrumster 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In line with the official Incident Report, User:Booze broads and bullets has removed the AfD tag again from the Super Twins article, twice, after Howard the Duck restored the AfD tag that Booze deleted before. Edit history. I placed a level 3 (assume bad faith) warning on his talk page. User seems to be uncooperative and ignores any attempt to communicate with him by any editor. Shrumster 15:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Booze broads and bullets

Booze broads and bullets has removed AfD notices again and again, despite severla warnings and even though the AfDs on the articles for which he removed the notices are destined to be Keeps (because of new, verifiable (though lacking sources) information). --- Tito Pao 16:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

user:Booze broads and bullets was fully warned, and continued to remove the AfDs, so I blocked him for 24 hours. If the user continues, the next block may be longer. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for analysis

Could an admin see this discussion and how it applies to this CU request? See does any action need to be taken? Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] They have not forgotten

See peppersreturns.ytmnd.com - my view on this is that if they can take multiple non-trivial reliable sources to WP:DRV then we can discuss it, otherwise per WP:BLP it should stay deleted. Regardless, I think DRV is the first and only place it should be discussed for now, and if others agree I will help to police that. I also think we should not remove the links from WP:DT until after a deletion review. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't he (Peppers) deleted per an Office action? I'd think mystical legal incantations trumps any chance of recreation, neh? Syrthiss 13:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It was Jimb0wn3d with the comment that it should not be re-created before Feb 21 07 at the earliest. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should remind Jimbo of the approaching deadline. He has every right to just extend it. Chick Bowen 16:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody mind linking me to the decision on this? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

See this link. Chick Bowen 23:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

(looking at the log entry) Hm, it doesn't look like he said "it can be created again after 2007-02-21". Jimbo said "[...] and if anyone still cares by then, we can discuss it" (emphasis mine). Which I believe means the page stays deleted unless a pretty good argument is made otherwise, on DRV or elsewhere (RA perhaps). --cesarb 07:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV strikes me as the right venue as well, and the standard should be, as stated above, multiple non-trivial reliable sources. WP:BLP should be good. Expect a lot of trolling.--Jimbo Wales 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This controversy predates my becoming active here, but I have now read the entire history of this matter, which I find exceedingly sad and disturbing. Sourcing, important as it is, is only one of the issues. There is also the matter of whether this article can ever be anything other than an attack page against a non-notable person, subject to immediate deletion in any event. It can't, and therefore, inviting an attempt at re-creation to be followed by further discussion represents an invitation to drama while serving no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the snopes article is a reliable source. Also, the website that has his sex offender info is obviously reliable, but that can only be used to confirm minor details on his page. Another source would be the news article about the state of ohio sex offender's office getting too much traffic to his sex offender page they were considering shutting the service down. The problem with that link is the page was taken down, but from my reading of WP:RS websites that go down can still be used as reliable sources as long as you state they are no longer working. So no, I don't see a sourcing issue with Mr. Peppers. The other issues are what we should focus on. VegaDark 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block Bahrain!

No one responded when I attached this report to an earlier Iraqi dinar vandal section, so I'm putting it in a new section.

UPDATE: I asked to have a checkuser done, and jpgordon found dozens of socks Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iraqi_dinar_vandal. They all come from one IP block owned by Batelco, the government-owned Bahraini ISP. I have emailed Batelco and asked them to stop their abusive user and haven't even received a reply. So -- can we block Batelco? Can we block the creation of new accounts and stop anonIP editing from those blocks? Can someone with more clout than I have contact Batelco and tell them that access to WP will be blocked unless they police their users? We've blocked whole schools for continuing abuse. Zora 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear...I've issued some controversial blocks but I wouldn't go near this one with a ten dinar pole. Durova^Charge! 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the devs preferably should contact Batelco to get them to start sending XFF headers. Outside of that, no, we should never, ever intentionally block entire countries. This happened accidentally about a month and a half ago when the entire country of Qatar was blocked for a couple of hours; disregarding the PR backlash (which was not insignificant), it simply shouldn't happen because it doesn't help the encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Explain the XFF header bit. I want a solution to this -- because it's been a year and I'm darn tired of being harassed. Furthermore, I think there's a strong chance that other vandals will pick up on the angry Bahraini's tactics. Zora 04:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

m:XFF project. —Cryptic 05:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, that looks promising. Has this been added to someone's TO-DO list? How long might it take to implement? If it isn't on someone's list, do I post on the project page for that wiki to ask someone to do it? Zora 05:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki has supported it for ages, it's up to the ISP to implement it on their end, then let us know so that the devs can verify that they are doing so correctly and add them to the trusted senders list. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block review/answer unblock request please

Can someone look at the block of Sable232 (talk · contribs) for 3RR on the page Mercury (automobile). He and the other involved user MercuryLover05 (talk · contribs) have been blocked by seperate admins for 3RR, after I warned both of them. If you concur with my block and with my opinion that it was a content dispute, you might like to address the handing out of vandalism notices during said dispute as well. All opinion appreciated, I am going to notify the user of this thread. Viridae^Talk 06:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• At first glance, it appears to be a content dispute. I would also support cautioning Sable232 (talk · contribs) against calling a content dispute vandalism. Also I would support telling them both about mediation, either formal or informal. Good call. Regards, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 06:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure - Sable232 is a well-established good-faith user who specialises in this kind of article, and there's what looks like a pretty clear case earlier in the article history where he successfully headed off some sneaky vandalism. He may have some genuine basis thinking he's dealing with another vandal, but it's hard for us to just take his word for it when he's done nothing to substantiate it - just edit warred - and any vandalism is not obvious. On that basis, I can't see anyone undoing this block. It would have helped a lot if there had been discussion on the talk page. Metamagician3000 11:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be willing to answer the block request? Viridae^Talk 11:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay ... as a bit of leniency, I'll reduce the blocks slightly (to run for 3 hours from now ... given that they've already been blocked for some hours). I left some comments on Sable's talk page and will also comment on the other one. No criticism of you; as I said, it's just a bit of leniency. We'll see what happens. I'll check their behaviour tomorrow. Metamagician3000 13:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sable has apologised. I think that area is going to be all good. Viridae^Talk 20:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on Deborah Frisch?

I was patrolling (for the first time) on anonymous edits and found that Deborah Frisch appears to be vandalized. But as I don't know the subject matter, I can't really tell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Frisch&curid=6915928&diff=105534060&oldid=103053547

Could somebody investigate?

Clemwang 09:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a case of vandalism, but it's certainly not NPOV. I've excised most of the addition, and requested a citation for what remains. Shimeru 10:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I removed a bit more per our policy on biographies of living people. With something like that the citation needs to be added when the material is added. If not, the material needs to be removed until a citation is provided. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm, true. I'd intended to leave it for a day or so because there had apparently been a source, though it was a dead link when I checked it. I suppose the removal is more prudent. Thanks. Shimeru 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article created for client

We have a new user at deletion review saying that they created an article for their client [6] This makes alarm bells ring in my head, but I can't find the relevant discussion which led to MyWikiBiz being blocked. If nobody who knows more adresses this item soon, I'm going to overturn the prod (per policy) and list at AFD because I'm not certain that WP:CSD#G5 applies. I hope someone that knows more can sort this out first, given the volume with which those bells are ringing. GRBerry 16:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See [7] for the link to MyWikiBiz's community ban. This account has vandalized WP:V, see [8]. Vandalizing, trolling sock, probably. Anyone want to drop the banhammer? I really don't think we need users like this. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is copied from [9], and is a biography of a living person with no reliable sources, so it should not be undeleted. —Centrx→talk • 17:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What Centrx said, and even from that notability look dubious at best. Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with the deletion review, redeleting as a copyright violation. I haven't dropped the banhammer or flagged as a sockpuppet, leaving that to an admin with more experience in those areas. GRBerry 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• We Assume good faith. Does the new user know about the applicable policy(s)? It appears Marion Mayger (talk · contribs) perhaps made this edit in error rather than as blatant vandalism. I believe a judgment to the otherwise could be assuming bad faith. I could be wrong. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, come on. How many people are there out there writing WP biographies for money? And if you can find your way to DRV you know enough not to insert some promotion into WP:V. AGF does not mean we abandon common sense. At the very least we should give out a final warning that writing articles for money is not on. Or maybe WP:RFCU? Moreschi ^Deletion! 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

We agree that at least, a final warning would suffice on the user talk page. However, I am thinking that with the limited contributions with this account, perhaps this user may have other interest in editing and improving our encyclopedia other than promotion. I don't think one incident (if I understand this history correctly) is banworthy/blockworthy, unless there is a precedent or policy I am unaware of. It is my hope the user will understand the warning and not write further promotional articles. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The new user has since described herself as the article subject's "Personal Manager". I now believe we have a typical case of a PR person with a conflict of interest, and I am proceeding on that basis. GRBerry 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the link is at WP:AUTO against vanity pages, and that's really just getting back to the fact that no interested party (employee, consultant, child, spouse, survivor) should be writing a biography or corporate profile. Essentially, violation of this principle is not a blocking offense by any means, if it's an article. If it appears to be an organized campaign (which is often the case when a person is hired to mess with us), then we block to prevent future disruption of our policies. Needless to say, we are victimized by employees pretty regularly despite our wariness. So many people chase the vandals that we're missing some of the sneaky self-promotion. At this point, Wikipedia's Alexa rank means Google page rank boosts, and therefore our articles are money. Since we don't accept pay, we're not going to start offering free advertising. Geogre 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent begging to be allowed to spam?

Earlier today Anonymous251 (talk · contribs) was blocked for spamming after having been warned to desist — all edits involved the addition of similar external links. The user asked to be unblocked to be allowed to place an appeal on the talk page of each concerned article whether the link should be added. Another admin turned down his reason on the basis that he had been asked to stop and didn't. Because of this the new user JamesStan (talk · contribs) is clearly the same person, and has engaged on what can only be described as spamming article talk pages with pleas to get this site included in articles. The site the user is interested in is nothing more than a glorified news search engine that gathers articles from on-line news outlets. In general, I'd say it contravenes WP:EL 9 and the links aren't worthy of inclusion. Does anyone want to work this one out? — Gareth Hughes 18:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for what it is worth, I agree that it doesn't agree with WP:EL. Wikipedia is also not where news is published, as per WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Mdwyer 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll rollback everything and leave him a note. -- Steel 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Post it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam too and someone will monitor links to the sites he is spamming. --BozMo talk 19:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Spamming sockpuppet? I have just the thing here... Guy (Help!) 19:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly deleting CSD tags

There have been repeated deletions of a "db-nonsense" template on Jim Lethbridge. If I shouldn't be reporting something like this please let me know. Tanaats 19:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted. There are templates uw-speedy1 up to uw-speedy4 for warning users who remove speedy deletion tags from articles they created. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeatedly moving Dominator UAV

• N328KF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - editor keeps moving the article I recently created Dominator UAV to Aeronautics Defense Dominator, while discussions about building a consensus for the appropriate name for the article are occurring at Talk:Dominator UAV. Please move the article back to Dominator UAV, warn the editor N328KF and allow us to arrive at a consensus. In addition, N328KF has moved several other related articles, without first discussing them on their talk pages, to support his arguments. Thank you Headphonos 19:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have looked into this. First of all, N328KF (talk · contribs) is activley involved with wiki project aircraft which has naming conventions and such for articles related to aircraft. Also, editor Akradecki (talk · contribs),also involved with the project agrees with this move. This title moved to is in accordance with naming standards set forth by the project. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need advice

82.109.42.1 (talk · contribs) has continued to change the numbers in the Baloch people article from "5 to 6" million to "12 to 15 million", although despite warnings, has failed to cite any sources at all. I'm probably not allowed to block him/her for this, but I'd appreciate if someone could give me advice as to what to do. Attempts to contact the user haven't worked. Khoikhoi 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-error1}} is a good test - if the IP in question doesn't reply, then it's likely they are acting in bad faith. If they do answer or just stop changing the info, they're acting in good faith. Simple (and all flaws are your own risk :)? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. But my next question is: what should I do if the anon doesn't stop? Khoikhoi 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Then block. What are the alternatives? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Haven't a clue. :-) Khoikhoi 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prior Bio was associated wth errors, therefor i removed it.Thanks.Paradoxdept.

[edit] James Buchanan needs semi lock

(I'm not sure how to report this, but...)

IMHO, the section, "Rumors and speculation about Buchanan's sexual orientation" in James Buchanan is too tempting a target for school boys. Can we semi-lock this down?

See WP:RFPP. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Vandalism by User:74.71.217.181 Talk

The user in question appears to be participating in repeated incidences of vandalism, despite being warned multiple times by various users. I request administrator intervention in this matter, and contend that a block is in order.-- EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Go to WP:AIV. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sent to WP:AIV. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] acceptable?

[10] in which I was called "donkey's son" and "moron" by user making 7 reverts on a page who is throwing around shabby accusations of sockpuppetry (see above discussions).Bakaman 04:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think all but a few admins won't be able to act on this without a full translation - all I can get out of it is that he claims to be Bangladeshi, while BhaiSaab is a Pakistani, and something about you editing some subject. And I'm probably wrong. Picaroon 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

user:MinaretDk has been blocked by me for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Rama's arrow 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It reads

“

Ari Gadha'r baccha, ami BhaiSaab na. BhaiSaab shaheb ekjpon Pakistani, Ami Bangali. Thor user page bole thui naki Bangla'r project'e, Bangla bujos? Na beakkol'er mothon edit koros je subjecte thui kicchu janos na? Bangali'r and Pakistani's parthokko bujish na?

”

[11]

Hey you son of a donkey. I am not BhaiSaab. BhaiSaab is a Pakistani. I am Bengali. (Derogatory form of your) userpage says your a member of the Bengal project. Do you even speak Bengali? Or are you just a dumbass who edits things you know nothing about? Don't you know the difference between Bangladeshi and PAkistani?

There. Ask Tarif Ezaz (talk · contribs), Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), Usingha (talk · contribs) or Antorjal (talk · contribs) to verify the translation.Bakaman 21:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rob110178 Page Vandalism

My user page has been vandalized several times today. I am fairly certain that the vandalism is being conducted by puppets of BWCNY since a few days ago I launched an RfC on him. He claimed to be taking a break but shortly after the RfC and subsequent announcement of a break, my User Page has become semi-regularly vandalized. BWCNY has also made some comments that seem to allude to the fact that even though the user is on break, they knew about the vandalism on my user page. The following users have received UWs from myself, but I wanted to know how to check to see if it is not one in the same:

User:Rob110078a

User:Release4mars54

User:Indigo547

Any assistance provided would be appreciated! Rob110178 05:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If I understand your question correctly, you would like to see if the listed users are the same user. Request for checkuser may be a place to start. Regards, Navou ^{banter or review me} 05:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Request listed at checkuser. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The RFCU has confirmed two names. Where do we proceed from here? It appears that these actions show that the point of an RfC is now moot due to BWCNY's actions. Rob110178 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nkras

I know Nkras (talk · contribs) has been here before, but the situation at Marriage, Traditional marriage movement and associated articles is getting ridiculous. Nkras appears to be a religious Jew who is deeply upset by the presence of same-sex marriage in the articles and has been edit warring for some time to minimise, if not to eradicate its mention. He's started creating articles such as Marriage (Judeo-Christian) and Marriage (post modern) specifically to separate SSM from "normal" marriage. He has repeatedly referred to "GBLTIXYZ POV pushing" and has announced his determination to "edit the article to protect it's credibility, and will remove any edits that are attempts to push a POV and violate the NPOV of the subject matter."User_talk:WJBscribe#Marriage_.28Judeo-Christian.29 He's also making personal attacks, not only on editors because of their sexuality, but also with comments like "colecan is an exceptionally vicious editor, selectively edits a quote to defame, and is a real passive-aggressive thug."User_talk:Rbj#Marriage_edit_war. It's nasty, unpleasant and I would appreciate an admin warning/blocking him. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for your compliment describing me as a religious Jew. I take that as high praise. Concerning this current action, the block is retaliatory. I am being considered disruptive because I oppose a number of editors' POV pushing, and they are gaming the system in order to exercise prior restraint. It is a misrepresentation of fact that I dare to eradicate mention of the Ssm sacrament from Article:Marriage. My edit comments prove otherwise - I am in opposition to giving Ssm undue weight. Leaving that, coleacan should be read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and the Riot Act, for posting ""Eating pork is kosher.... You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly." — Nkras, on kashrut and the Talmud" on coelacan. Will you have him remove his absolute misrepresentation and resulting slur, then will an admin take appropriate action against coelacan for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? This has not been noticed by established editors. No wonder. It's not even on your radar screen. You quote WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV and WP:NPA for your own ends and to rid your walled garden of editors with who question your authority and hegemony. It's probably time to move on anyway. I can see that opposition to the cultural nihilists at wikipedia is met with unrestrained fury. coelacan, jeffpw and any other random editor or can game the system against anyone who dares to breach their authority or politics. Oh well. Welcome to my auto-da-fe. Nkras

Above comment made by IP 216.207.146.74. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to make a post about him myself. I am an admin, but I've been involved in the situation before, so I want another impartial admin to take a look. Nkras was indefinitely blocked earlier and unblocked by Theresa Knott who gave him a second chance but has declined to get involved this time. The indefinite block was for repeatedly reposting a deleted POV fork Traditional marriage at various titles, and making comments to the effect that he will never accept a "consensus" that defines marriage differently than the biblical definition he prefers. Although some of his opponents stuck up for him after the indefinite block, saying it was too harsh, Nkras has never retracted his effective threat to continue POV pushing, and has in fact continued the behavior, "teaming up" with User:rbj to continue trying to cleanse the lead of Marriage of mentions of marriage other than man-woman marriage, and has effectively recreated Traditional marriage at Marriage (Judeo-Christian). Not to mention his consistent incivility and frequent personal attacks. In my opinion, we should return his indefinite block, as nothing that led to the block has really changed. Anyone wanting to investigate should note that he blanks his talk page, and much of the history is buried in the blanked archive of his talk page. Mangojuice^talk 13:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note previous discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive172#Disputed indef block of User:Nkras. Mangojuice^talk 13:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. We really do not need people whose sole purpose here is to mount a crusade to fix things which they think are "broken" in the outside world. He had a second chance - he blew it. Theresa said: "What he does now will prove me right or wrong". Sorry Theresa, he proved you wrong. Pity. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I was one of his opponents who challenged the last block he received, in the hopes he might come around and become a positive contributer to Wikipedia. I see now I was not only overly optimistic, but wrong. I support this block, and thank the administrators for this action. Jeffpw 14:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

After a glance at the history of this editor, that indef block appears to be a good call. Sandstein 15:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well I've been wrong before and no doubt will be again. I too support the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I followed this when User:Rbj was reported for a 3rr violation (whom I subsequently blocked for 48 hours). Rbj had apparently told this user to attempt to game the system by "team[ing] up our quota of reverts" [12] and the ensuing edit wars were a product of that. All in all, I am in accordance with JzG's decision to block.--Jersey Devil 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block, given that he failed to meet the conditions for his previous unblocking. --Coredesat 19:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Endorse, as original blocker of Nkras the first time around. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, 100% endorse the block as someone who attempted to engage in discourse with him/her the first time around. Clear POV pusher who would edit war and POV fork his/her way to getting his definitions of marriage in, believing them to be immutable truth, and, as above, refusing to accept any contrary consensus. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"The only people I fear are those who never have doubts." --John Kenneth Fisher 23:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets of User:Himalayanashoka

Indef. banned user User:Himalayanashoka has been using sockpuppets to push disputed POV edits on the India page (see page history) and personally attack editor User:Fowler&fowler (see edit summaries and the most recent example). Any suggestions about what can be done ? Abecedare 18:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, checkuser requests have been filed and semi-protection requested. The article is currently (full) protected, which prevents any useful edits from being made. Abecedare 18:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See this archived thread. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 18:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The questions I still have are:

• Is there a way to deal with the sockpuppets en masse (IP range ban ?) or do they have to be dealt one-by-one ?
• Can edits by these sockpuppets be undone without fear of violating the 3RR rule, under the "Reverting actions performed by banned users." - or do we have first have to wait for the checkuser results in each case?

I am still waiting for the page to be semi-protected rather than full-protected. Abecedare 18:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

He's not making any effort to be subtle. As far as I've seen, every one of the socks has showed up out of nowhere and proceeded to make virtually the same series of POV edits with identical edit summaries. When it's that blatantly obvious, I'd go ahead and (a) revert the edit with an edit summary indicating that you are reverting edits by a sockpuppet of a banned user; (b) report the sock to WP:AIV with the diff that demonstrates why it's obviously a sock of an indef'd user; and (c) add the new sock to WP:RFP for official confirmation. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment removal

This editor removed my comments here, and the same here. I did ask him about it but he removed my question. Can someone explain to him, it's not really the done thing to remove other people's comments on article pages without good reason? (the actual content dispute is a different thing and not of interest, and I've asked uninvolved 3rd parties from the music project to take a look) --Fredrick day 21:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked him why myself. Let's see the result. Wow, ANI is busy today :). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is ErleGrey's response [13]. That's why I find it useful to AGF. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain some things to this editor

Here. --Ideogram 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• What things? To which editor? Guy (Help!) 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) appears to be new to Wikipedia; he seems to be engaged in WP:OWN, edit-warring, fails to understand basic Wikipedia article standards, false accusations of vandalism. Kaldari (talk · contribs) is trying to reason with him but some admin tools may eventually be necessary. --Ideogram 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, they may. Eventually. If the content dispute escalates. And dispute resolution fails. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case. I'm really not sure how to handle him. I will do what I can. --Ideogram 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:MarphyBlack

MarphyBlack (talk · contribs) I find a comment on the [Ermac] page that is questionable. The line "This is the only instance in the history of Mortal Kombat where a rumor led to the creation of an actual character." is untrue as the game series has one more such instance (Evidence: [14] ) The character was only a rumour in Mortal Kombat 2 But he was developed into a character later. So Ermac was not the only rumoured character to be developed into an actual character. I've tried deleting the line, rephrasing, and adding a fact flag to the line but they've all been reverted by marphyblack.--Iamstillhiro1112 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tommypowell (talk · contribs)

I'm involved with a conflict between this user so I'm bringing this here.

Tommypowell (talk · contribs) has been strongly enforcing listing the dates of birth for figures whose notability has been questioned (as evident by recent AFDs that did not reach a consensus), in particular Kara Borden. In this case, while it is nearly impossible to locate any source to verify her birthday, in addition to the fact that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons specifically says to ere on the side of caution when the notability of someone is in doubt, Tommy Powell continues putting the date of birth of the subject of the article as found by an unverifiable source only in google results that cannot be accessed without a subscription and leaving the results in the edit history ignoring the guidelines to ere on the side of caution. This wouldn't be a problem if there were multiple other sources to verify that source, but the fact that no other source can be located that is verifiable and easily accessible would mean, in my opinion, that the date of birth for the subject of the article is best left out. Multiple users have been reverting Tommypowell's inclusion of this source despite being asked to find a better source, so I'd like to see if someone thinks something should be done. There is also a similar story in Shasta Groene where the date of birth is listed only in a passing mention of the births section of a newspaper, which is borderline acceptable at best as it shows the difficulty of obtaining any sort of a date of birth put forward to the media. Once again the AFD debate in that article was no consensus. Cowman109^Talk 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tommypowell (talk · contribs) has been notified of this discussion. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 16:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to see a clear policy statement on dates of birth. My reading of the BLP is that they are included where "widely available" to the public. I would hazard to say that if I can find a suject's birthdate within 90 seconds using google it is "widely available". If the subject isn't notable they shouldn't be in Wikipedia in the first place. I will note that the dates of birth for both Kara Borden and Shasta Groene have been in their articles since 2005, without complaint. They were not put there by me in 2005 but by other users. The couple of pro-censorship editors first tried to take town both articles on grounds of "notability", only to be shot down by the majority-noteability is not temporary. The concern about dates of birth on Wikipedia is identity theft. Where the date of birth of a subject is readily available to anyone in the world with internet access that concern is moot. We had a vote on this in the Shawn Hornbeck discussion and these handfull of censors were voted down by the consensus. I will abide by whatever decision Wikipedia makes though it seems absurd to me to censor birthdates readily available on google. Tommypowell 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. Additional listing if WP:BLP is applicable may be appropriate at the BLP notice board. Additionally I would recommend some sort of informal or formal mediation regarding this. Failing mediation, WP:BLP intervention, and other measures at dispute resolution; an Arbitration case may be necessary as this appears to continue as an ongoing issue. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 20:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've posted this to the BLP notice board, and don't particularly like being referred to as "pro-censorship". Any efforts to remove the birthday were done in an attempt to follow my interpretation of WP:BLP, and there certainly wasn't any shooting down at the AFDs, as they were closed with no consensus. AniMate 01:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicious spamming

Hmmm. Would an (meta?) admin care to blacklist [15] and [16], please? Some IPs (such as 80.130.250.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), 220.225.82.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)) have been adding the links to numerous articles. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Add 80.130.218.29 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), 80.130.249.98 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), 220.225.82.158 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), and 80.130.252.43 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) to the list of spammer IPs. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this is a spam war. The 80.130.xxx.xxx editor in Germany is adding .indianfootball.com links and removing those of his competitor, soccernetindia.com. The 220.225.82.xxx editor in India is doing the reverse. I've noted this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam for folks to look at.

There's a persistent rumor on the "black hat" seo forums that Google and other search engines refer to Meta's Spam blacklist as an input when compiling their own blacklists of search engine spammers for removal from search results. This may or may not be true, but usually we try to warn spammers before blacklisting. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I gathered that. However if you feel like warning 20+ users, after tracking them down, good luck ;). (Actually I don't see the point, from my experience people don't stop spamming whenever money is concerned.) I remember seeing a good deal more of this stuff a few weeks ago, but I can't remember whether I reported it or not. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Schlafly

In the course of a run-of-the-mill content debate at Talk:Jonathan Corrigan Wells User:Schlafly started making personal attacks, and with 24 hours has expanded the incivility offsite to his blog. Specifically, a reminder to him about WP:NPA and the need to follow policy [17] resulted in: [18]

This sort of behavior by Schlafly has gone on many months now; he's resorted to personal attacks directed at the editors of intelligent design-related articles, and me in particular, on his blog a number of times previously: [19][20][21] In the past this was easy enough to ignore since he clearly ignoring policy and coming off crankish, and tended to attack and then disappear for a several weeks. But the number, tone, and frequency of attacks by him at Wikipedia is increasing.

I'm done trying to show him the benefit of following policy, and I'm certain that normal DR channels like RFC would be a waste of time with him, but someone else may yet think they can salvage this situation by having a word with him about civility and resolving conflicts, not expanding them or fanning the flames. FeloniousMonk 21:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I am watching him and so is JoshuaZ. Neither of us likes what we see. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I added a formal warning for him to follow policy after I saw him continuing to argue with uninvolved admins leaving suggestions on his talk page. FloNight 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Bowl XLI issue

Someone protected this page but set it to expire way to early. Someone please re-protect for a day or so. John Reaves (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Er, WP:RFPP? My favourite page :)? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone brings an issue here, it usually makes sense to just deal with it and refer the person for future reference to another page. There is little point in bouncing people around to different pages. --Centrx→talk • 04:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I knew what I was doing, this was much faster. The page was re-protected in a matter of minutes. I'm pretty sure the protection was set to expire too early on accident. John Reaves (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to delete comments (like this one and above) that have been taken care of speedily to reduce the size of this consistently long page? John Reaves (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. The bots come along to archive inactive threads older than one day. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Senthilkumaras

(Moved from WP:AIV Essjay (Talk) 09:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC))
Senthilkumaras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ***needs an investigation*** - I first found this page created which appears like as jibberish. User creating it has a lot of edits and a page, but appears to have injected nonsense through wikipedia on indian pages (easier to do for an english wikipedia?). Typing this I just noticed his last edit was May 2006, so probably already banned, but the page (pages?) he created still exists. I think an admin, possibly with knowledge in the indian community, needs to look at this user and created pages and possibly clean up anything left. May be the wrong place to put this but hopefully it gets moved to the right direction.

Examples: odd number changing name changing? user will add appearent nonsense without citing sourses more nonsense which is later deleted — Virek 07:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move vandalism

Someone just moved Barack Obama to Iraq Saddam Hussein Osama. Could an administrator move it back, delete Iraq Saddam Hussein Osama, and protect Barack Obama from moves? BuddingJournalist 09:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment the page history is at Iraq Saddam Hussein Osama. Moving it back to Barack Obama will require admin tools now there is content there as well. WJBscribe 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An admin should probably block User:HereIsJohnny as well (I've reported to AIV). Boy, this is a mess. BuddingJournalist 09:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Help! Special:Contributions/HereIsJohnny BuddingJournalist 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User blocked and all page move vandalism reverted. Leftover redirects have been deleted. Sigh. WJBscribe 09:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissolving sock-puppetry

A few days ago I brought here the case of Benio76 (talk · contribs), who had been blocked as a sock-puppet of Olivierd (talk · contribs), but who had provided evidence that she wasn't his sock-puppet; after the comments here, and consultation with the original blocking admin, I unblocked Benio76. Since then, the other account accused of being Olivierd's sock-puppet, Zelig33 (talk · contribs), has been unblocked by MacGyverMagic as not sharing IP addresses with the other two. Olivierd remains blocked for using sock-puppets; now that his supposed sock-puppets have been cleared of the charge, he's asking (reasonably) to be unblocked too. I'm about to unblock him, but I thought that I'd explain what I'm doing here in case anyone thinks that I'm wrong.

I should add that, while I don't have any worries about Benio76's future behaviour (and I don't know anything about Zelig33), Olivierd's User page does suggest that an eye needs to be kept on him — but it's nothing for which he could be blocked, much less indefinitely. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed it, but when I was leaving an explanation of the unblock at Olivierd's page, I found an earlier refusal to unblock by User:WinHunter, with the reason: "Checkuser block is final". This was before Olivierd had mentioned the unblocking of his supposed sock-puppets; I take it that Checkuser blocks aren't literally final, and that my unblock was warranted. I'm sorry to have trodden, however lightly, on WinHunter's toes, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Block or no block?

Can someone double check for me that User:FiLoCo is not blocked from editing? I unblocked the user 2 February, but I've had four or five emails over the weekend from him asking to be unblocked, claiming he still can't edit. Proto::► 09:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He was unblocked by you on 2 Feb, no subsequent, jimfbleak 09:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

He has edited since you unblocked [22], there was an autoblock but that was removed on the 2nd also [23] --pgk 09:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See, that's what I thought. Thanks guys. Proto::► 13:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations_against_Israel_of_war_crimes_during_the_Al-Aqsa_Intifada

may simply need advice/clarification rather than intervention: this adf was closed with 'no consenesus with strong encouragement to merge', that last 'little' caveat looking rather odd given the opening of the closing statement. this has been taken by many editors to mean they can simply blank & redirect the page. there is currently an edit war over this. given that the afd (suprise, suprise) was somewhat contentious, is it the case that it should go through a formal merge proposal etc?  ⇒ bsnowball  13:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Audley, Staffordshire

An anon contributor keeps removing a valid CSD spam request from this page. Could an administrator remove the page? Regan123 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by IP User 213.122.12.128

This fellow usually with begining IP numbers 213.122 has been continously vandalising the Prohibitions in Sikhism page. He keeps reposting his unsubstantiated lines and deleting valid refrences from the article. Please can you deal with this annoying person, or at least warn him. --Sikh-history 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected vandal only purpose account

New user account Linear Model (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is making many small edits which look like normal edits but all cases which I could check are introducing false information into the articles. I believe account is created only for being vandal. Hevesli 09:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have increased the block length from 12 hours to permanent, among other things for this edit. Does anybody have a different opinion? - Mike Rosoft 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My article was deleted

I wrote a math stub called Mescher's Method. It was redirected to Quadratic equation even though some info in my article was not in the other article. My article was about a method of factoring a quadratic trinomial into a pair of binomials, but that is not even mentioned in the article it was redirected to. Help! Zbl 14:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still there. Mescher's method. It does need some cleanup though. --Deskana (request backup) 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I just fixed it. Zbl 14:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Numerals vandalism

198.180.131.17 appears to be a repeated vandal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.180.131.17

I've reverted his latest edit of roman numeral L = 40, but all of his other edits appear to be vandalism as well http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_numerals&oldid=105698606

Bperry7 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place to go to for vandalism. Just a note - remember to warn vandals with an appropriate template (see WP:UWT) and wait to see if they continue before reporting them. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When I warned the vandal, they replied with this perfectly legitimate comment. What should be done? Nothing? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what an "official" reply would be, but I'd be honest. I'd just say that you don't know, but to ignore the warning if they really didn't do it, but state a block will be an inevitability if it proceeds to vandalise. You can just tell them to create an account and remember not to let others use it if they would like to edit, and that would solve all problems. We're not exactly responsible for others' using other IP addresses, and there's no other option is there? Perhaps we can check if it's a shared account, like a school? --Dayn 14:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second. He wouldn't get the message unless he went on Wikipedia, but he said in his quote that he had never edited wikipedia. I think he is only faking that he is two different people. Zbl 15:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

However, one must assume good faith in case it is the truth. The quote states that they've never edited Wikipedia before; not never visited. As is now on that IP address' talk page, it seems to be a shared IP address by an industry... so being treated like any other shared IP address is my guess. --Dane ^~nya 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring at Nelson Erazo

User:Lakes contends that the Avalanche Style Ace Crusher is a finishing move of Homicide (Nelson Erazo) in TNA but many people disagree. There is a war going on about whether or not the move should be bolded or in regular text (Lamest Edit War Ever, anyone?). I don't consider it a finisher and don't think it should be bolded.

Miamivince63 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This was the second edit of this user. Damastakilla keeps removing the move's status as a finisher, and several people (including me) keep reverting him. To me he seems to be a sockpuppet of Damastakilla. ↪Lakes (Talk) 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you dare put this on me. Me - the one who has two edits - had the common sense to bring it to the attention of the community; you have just been edit warring which is making it worse. Go ahead and do a checkuser on me; you'll find I'm not Damastakilla, although I do agree with him. Gain concensus; don't edit war, Lakes.

18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for content disputes. Please go to WP:3O or WP:RFC. Also, if someone should violate WP:3RR, please warn and then report them in the proper place (there is a link on the top of this page). Srose (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.159.181.175

I have already reported this at WP:AIV, and the user has been blocked for 19 hours, but I wanted to get a lot more eyes to watch this User, as they have been making insidious false edits for a month now. Check their contributions at 66.159.181.175 (talk · contribs). The user has been adding false birthdates for voice actors, and adding several non-existent animation titles to lots of different actors' filmographies. The films don't show up as even existing at imdb.com, let alone having these actors associated with them. This is just a heads up incase the IP starts making the same edits when the block expires. It looks like they have also used a couple of other anon IPs in the same range during this time, though not as often. Corvus cornix 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have looked through the contribs and they all appear to follow that pattern. I will lengthen the block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heart disease

Not sure this is the place to put it, but the "Heart disease" page is going through many changes for the obvious worse, by registered users, its changing too fast for me to correct.. MBlue2020 18:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a short semi-protection. -- Steel 18:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about MSJapan

I have some concerns about this user. He appears to have a sort of "ends justifies the means" attitute toward Wikipedia and appears to have been actively attempting to get an editor on the other side of a content dispute blocked.

This involves the article Obligations in Freemasonry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The first irregularity occurs in Talk:Obligations_in_Freemasonry#Removed_oaths, where the user makes this comment claiming that the text in the article did not match the source. Several editors subsequently compared the article with the source, but found his allegation to be untrue. He then went on to remove the quoted text using the same false reason in the edit comment.

Since then, he has been pursuing the user who pointed out the falsehood, attempting to get him blocked for various trumped up reasons, labeling him as "disruptve", a "POV-pusher", "anti-Masonic" and claiming he is a member of a particular organization which I do not believe he is, and finally going around to various admins attempting to find one who would block him: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

I find it hard to believe that MSJapan is acting in good faith here. I don't believe his claims of disruption or other labels applied to the user are true. Could somebody take a look at this situation? Jefferson Anderson 18:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please also see my post Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clarification of blocking policy / possible unblock needed above for clarification on this user's non-sockpuppet status. Jefferson Anderson 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AstroTurf and FieldTurf

There is a minor revert war going on at AstroTurf and FieldTurf due in part to a user (Tygast411) who is an admitted employee of French, West, and Vaughn, the PR firm handling the re-launch of AstroTurf by its manufacturer.[32] Someone with more authority than I have should probably take a look. --Selket ^Talk 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note posted on user talk. Should be fine as long as he sticks to Talk pages. If not, then we have to... help him learn. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been in communication with SFC regarding the COI policy and I will adhere to the requests of WP. However, I would appreciate it if someone could take a serious look at the concerns that I have placed on the FieldTurf talk page. Selket recently made an edit to the FieldTurf article in response to a concern I posted and I appreciate it. Thank you. Tygast411 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like someone has reverted all of the changes you guys recently made to the FieldTurf article in favor of FieldTurf. Hopefully you guys will show this person the same amount of attention you have shown me. And hopefully, they are as willing to follow the policies of WP as I am. Good Luck. Ben 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request more vigilantism!

I take it we all know what happened to User:Molobo...Well here is another one User:Samian with edits like this [33] it is IMO not a content dispute but pure and simple Trolling and a hardcore violation of WP:NPOV, WP:POINT. So User:Samian is the person who is making this edits, and also trying to impose his own convictions (again forgetting WP:SOAP). I have requested a WP:AIV, but User:Netsnipe, though otherwise... So what do people do? The behaivour is certainly disruptive, and again wrt Molobo or even User:AndriyK it took a whole arbitration and endless rfcs to finally make the admin take a ruthless approach into getting some sense into these disruptive users. I advice the admin to take my hint this time, because with the previous two it was endless revert wars and after two or three times, they learnt how to evade 3RR, but their pattern did not change. See Russian Architecture's history or St Volodymyr's Cathedral for that matter, and I do not want to endulge in endless revert-wars all over again.--Kuban Cossack 13:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The actions of User:Kuban kazak can be labelled only as pure hypocrisy. What may have been a simple content dispute now threatens to revert to an edit-war, so to speak. User:Kuban kazak has decided to flavor up certain articles such as Magomet Yevloyev: he has accused me of "imposing my own convictions", but does shortening his edit so that it adds relevance and cuts back on needless repetition [34], as well as correcting accepted grammatical errors [35] qualify? I ask the administration to judge for himself or herself.

As for User: Kuban kazak's own embellishments, I have had to change loaded and politically inaccurate terms such as insurgent with rebel [36]. Objective and internationally-accepted news sources such as the BBC [37] and Reuters [38] have also used the term rebel over insurgent. Thank you very much for your cooperation. -- User:Samian 19:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 198.209.42.9

I noticed this user's vandalism on the Belmore, Ohio page. I then looked at his edit history, and most if not all his edits are vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Revtor07 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] User:Booze broads and bullets, again

This same user is repeating the same acts for which he was previously blocked...that is, removing AfD notices even before the AfD discussions for the articles are finished. I've reverted his edits, but I won't be surprised if he re-reverts it again. --- Tito Pao 19:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs? --InShaneee 20:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any removals of AfD after the block yesterday. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These were for today: [39] [40] and [41]. These three pages, if you'll note on the history, he has previously done the same. It was only on the other day when I reported him here and when he was blocked for the first time. --- Tito Pao 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All of those were before the block I gave yesterday[42]. A simple mistake, I am watching the user's talk page for future problems. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! No problem with that =) --- Tito Pao 20:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of blocking policy / possible unblock needed

Is a block of an alleged sock account directed against the account or against the alleged sockpuppeteer?

The reason I ask is that Frater Xyzzy (talk · contribs) was misidentified as my sock. His account was blocked but he continued to edit without logging in (i.e. as an IP). A subsequent checkuser cleared him of being my sockpuppet. He requested to be unblocked [43] providing the checkuser results as evidence and was unblocked by Yamla [44] but then blocked again by Blnguyen [45].

I don't believe this is fair, since it is my understanding that the initial block was never directed against him as an individual, but rather directed at me to prevent me from using the account as an alleged sockpuppeteer. As a distinct individual from me, he was never blocked for any reason. This is why I ask, in such a case, was the original block directed at him as an individual, and if it was not, is it fair to re-block him for "evading" a block which was never directed at him as an individual and which thus was never intended to apply to him? Jefferson Anderson 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also note this case raised on WP:SSP related to these accounts.ALR 19:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked the blocking admin about this. I'm waiting to see his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Both he and I keep getting attacked over this now disproven accusation. I'd like to get it cleared up. Jefferson Anderson 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Madchester: Deleting Without Discussion or Notice

I have experienced an issue lately with the wikipedian Madchester who deleted an article with no notice (simply cleared it out and redirected the page). I reverted the page back to the old version so that potential reviewers of the conflict would be seeing more than just a redirect arrow, and was summarily smacked with the "red Hand" on my user talk page, accusing me of vandalizing per the 3RR rule...

After looking around Madchester's talk page, I realize that this problem has arisen many times before (cases in which Madchester deleted information, etc.) Granted, the article that was deleted was fairly trivial, but it's the conduct and not the deletion that bothers me.

- Thomasmallen 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The page in question was Eddy Curry Line (which now redirects to Eddy Curry). Thomasmallen's version is here; it's completely unsourced and reads like OR. Madchester was correct to redirect it, and he explained on Thomasmallen's talk page why this was the right course of action. Thomasmallen, you received the "red Hand" because you reverted the page three times and were in danger of a 3RR violation. This warning is a common courtesy to try to help you avoid a block. In short, I see nothing wrong with Madchester's actions here. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, and it should be pointed out that despite the header, nobody deleted anything here... The article was simply boldly redirected.--Isotope23 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight: I can't revert it (but he can). I can't revert it and make changes to improve it, as I had done (categories, etc) without being threatened with a block. And there can't be a discussion about it either? Whether it's bold or not, it's not giving the old article a chance. Thomasmallen 21:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said that (at least not that I can see) and looking at it the warning was a bit premature as I only saw 2 reverts... that said, neither of you would be allowed to revert more than 3 times in an edit conflict, so this is not a case of "he can, you can't". That said, the aritcle before it was redirected appeared to go against our policies against original research, it was unverified, and cited no sources. It also was not clear why this is in any way an important concept deserving of a standalone article, so my opinion is that the redirect should stand at this time. That said, there is a talkpage for the article that you could discuss your concerns on as well as present any evidence why you feel this shouldn't redirect to Eddy Curry. Beyond that you could request a Wikipedia:Request for Comment so other editors could get involved and weigh in on this.--Isotope23 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

'tope (can I call you 'tope?) is correct - you were at two reverts, not three. My mistake. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy of "give new articles a chance". An article must be verifiable and have a notable subject from the beginning. If you can't do that, create an article in a sandbox first. When you are getting in a revert war, the wrong thing to do is revert one more time. That accomplishes nothing. Since the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to make an addition, you should have gone to his talk page and tried to convince him why this should be a separate article. —Dgies^t c 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin misconduct RFC notice

Hi all! As it has now been moved into the 'Accepted' category on WP:RFC/UC#Uoap, I think it's appropriate to post a notice here that a Request for Comment has been initiated by Shaundakulbara (talk · contribs) about my use of administrative privileges. It is available for review at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Chairboy, and I look forward to receiving feedback regarding my actions. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely it should not be in the approved category. It was placed there by the person who started it and does not appear to have been certified any other editors, though a number of statements have been made. WJBscribe 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it back to the candidate pages section and explained the certification requirement to Shaundakulbara. WJBscribe 23:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution vandal

We have had a series of accounts committing the same vandalism to Evolution, Talk:Evolution, and the user and talk pages of anyone who reverts them (namely, replacing each page with the text of Genesis). The Evolution talk page is already protected and the main page is semiprotected. The vandal seems to have built up a store of usernames to use for this attack (they are all two-word usernames consisting of two random common words). Is there some way to do an IP check and general block? The usernames are: Electric free, Red lorry, River flowing, Boring bus, Busy ironing, Vain vase. Thanks, NawlinWiki 22:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason to protect either. They're using sleeper accounts. Also, I've listed these at WP:RFCU#Evolution—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's almost as if this is some kind of spambot or script. All accounts have the same editing pattern: user page, user talk page, Talk:Evolution, Evolution. Over and over again. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:The_Juggernauts

It appears that this user account has been setup to advertize something on the user page. The user has no substantive edits. -- Mufka ^{(user) (talk) (contribs)} 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be something that was userfied. Seems likely. Speedily deleting a userpage, however, is rare, at least in my experiences. Logical2u_Talk 23:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• It appears blatant advertising. I do not csd a userpage lightly, however, I think this is the best course. It has been done as such. Disagreements are free to revert. Navou ^banter / _{review me} 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I deleted both user page and talk page Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Fadix

To the attention of administrators: for some time now, a few users have been comitting recurring attacks on my persona, with one, Fadix (ix), being particularly obsessed and persisting with daily insults both on my Talk page and on other Talk pages. Despite the previous detailed report to the Administrators [46] no action was taken and case forgotten.

Despite repeated warnings in the past and filing of a complaint before, the attackes have been escalated by (ix) to personal insults, even threatening using one of our real life affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting our views (myself, like some other targets of (ix), post under our real full names, unlike my courageous attacker), and threats or actions which expose such Wikipedia editors as myself to political, religious or other persecution by government, my employer or any others -- all of which contradicts Wiki policy of civility [47] and no personal attacks [48]. At the same time (ix) is a self-professed liar -- "Do you want to know why I ended up here; I have lied" (in bold, 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [49]

Here are the latest examples of Fadix's insults, such as of racial and ethnic character, by clearly trying to show self-professed superiority of one nation over another:

"all indicators such as average national IQ (Armenia having the highest in the immediate region), regardless of the fact that intellectuals are leaving the country clearly show that on average, Armenian scholars are much more credible. When the comparison is made between a Diaspora average scholar with an Azeri scholar, then, sorry to say Adil, you are off the mark. And your arguments just support my point, your childishtic “the rich rich Diaspora.”" Fad (ix) 19:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [50]

Then a barrage of personal attacks and insults:

"your stupid intimidations"

"Your psychosis"

"your delusions"

Then a happy comment that his attacks and insults have not gone unnoticed and are irritating:

"I guess I got a sensible nerve there."

(all of the above from Fad (ix) 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC), [51]

Also, here's the "legacy" of user Fadix: [52]

I request that this be put to an end, as user Fadix is having a detrimental effect on the Wiki community and the health of the discussions. --AdilBaguirov 02:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Query inappropriate user page

Hi. Please take a look at User:VirtualEye. Is this inappropriate content for a WP user page? --Dweller 13:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be taken care of, lets see if it sticks. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is some contention about removing this page, it has been blanked, if you disagree discuss here. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Step one until this discussion is over and there is consensus stop blanking his user page. Can you do that or Not? --- ALM 15:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Step two, I have read WP:USER sometime ago when my user page was on ANI. Tell me what is wrong with his page according to WP:USER? --- ALM 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I left the page blank because I feel the poem[53] violates the username policy in that it is clearly campaigning a point of view. I personally think it is a fine poem, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish one's polemic works. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"What can I not have on my user page? Polemical statements" Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy violation and secondly more bad user page was allowed in past after discussion on ANI. I will like to see that how you people can justify in change the rules this time. --- ALM 15:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Can you point to this discussion? If the userpage indeed states that the Qur'an encourages terrorism, as you say, then the decision not to remove it was plainly wrong, and should be rectified. Wikipedia is contentious enough without having editors screaming at one another from userpages.Proabivouac 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a policy violation, I spelled it out for you above. I understand you are upset that you believe a double standard is being applied. If you can explain in more detail how, I can look into this and perhaps resolve your concerns. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That was about User_talk:That_Guy,_From_That_Show!#Please_suggest dicussion about [User page]. However, I think it was changed now after second discussion on ANI. --- ALM 15:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That also looks like a clear policy violation, I am glad it has been removed. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

User continues to revert it.Proabivouac 03:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me but may I ask if the policies are just to threaten the Muslims's pages? When some Christians or some Islam-hatered people have their user pages full of stuff then everybody forgets what is policy. There are many many user pages fully based on Christianity, Zionism and Islam-hatered, but nobody will object, why? because wikipedian personally dont dislike that. When I write something only and only about my religion and my point of view of suppression, then come people with full equipments and policies.

A page on wikipedia can not be banned just because the truth is bitter, or some people dont agree this to be true. For instace, there are hundreds of atheist wikipedians on the site, but then can simply blank the pages advocating the existence of God, infact they have to tolerate them even then dont agree with that and think that to be stupidity to believe in God, right? But in contrast, Why would american wikipedians like the content on wikipedia about Islam which they personally dislike or think that to be bitter? All the international peace organizations like Amnesty International and even UN opposed the War on Iraq and the killing of Afghanis, but just because most of wikipedians and internet users come from American Background in domination so why would they accept this to be a fact? Any opinion or observation which clashes with the American Patriotism that is slashed with the thing called "Wikipedia Policies".? And even that would be so, I did not name any other party in my poem except my own, i.e. Muslims. Being killed by who? I did not mention that is to be judged by the reader 'neutrally'. right?

I would ask in the context of my poem, to Wikipedians who keep on refering me about Policy thingy,

• Where did you hear first that Osama bin laden is terrorist?
• Where did you hear first that there is an org called Alqaedah?
• Where did you hear first the yelling about terrorism terrorism..... ?
• Where did you come to know about Islamic fundamentalism?

That is called American Media and government. And most of you just follow that but dont admit it, why? because it will violate your patriotism and Policies, right? I dont buy this.

The articles on wikipedia work like this:

This world is a jungle, and whatever the King of Jungle says, other animals start speaking about that just because of the fear and influence of the King. And there is an organization in the jungle, called Wikipedia which takes the chirping and peeping of the majority of animals to be a fact. That King of Jungle is currently America.

I dont accept somethings just because everyone is telling about that, I look for the originator or that disinformation. Simple is that.

And now go immediately blank my user page or even ban it. I give a damn to biased Policy threats, and only care about fair use of the weapon called 'Policy'. VirtualEye 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jboyler

Could an admin look into this Jboyler (talk · contribs) User talk:Jboyler and talk page history. I'm not sure how to approach this, however, the content may not need to stay on the talk page. Thanks, Navou ^banter / _{review me} 00:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The user subsequently went on a rather profane personal attack spree and continued to vandalize articles, so I blocked him per a request on AIV. Since it was the second block in a very short period, I upped the period to a week. I would strongly welcome a review of the block period, and would not oppose an adjustment to the duration; up or down. The user's talk page would appear to have been protected by another admin as well. Kuru ^talk 03:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 70.16.18.21

Vandal 70.16.18.21 (currently active) has made six damaging edits within the last ten minutes to Venezuela, Loyola Blakefield, and Calvert Hall College High School. Kugelmass 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:AIV. —Dgies^t c 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have stopped half an hour ago. As noted, report to AIV if resumes. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.211.252.124

FYI, this isp user deleted most of my user page because I redirected a page they created. That's great, real great. --Tainter 01:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally inappropriate conduct by the IP, obviously. The IP has been final-warned and appears to have stopped. If this happens again, bring to WP:AIV (you can link this thread if you want). Let me know if you need any help restoring your page. Newyorkbrad 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

I'm currently having major issues with Pyrofyr throwing personal attacks on a website (Ghost-Land.net) and its owner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_Online&diff=105792492&oldid=105678686 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghost_Online&diff=105792492&oldid=105679659

I'm requesting to have this user removed and ip banned.

Ghost Land 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs do nothing to show personal attacks. In additon, note the difference between a block and a ban. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Banning policy. --Deskana (request backup) 15:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's okay calling people for homosexual rapists? Sorry for the temper but still.

Ghost Land 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not okay to insult people. It is just that those links do not show any insults, perhaps a technical error. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Check this diff. The user in question changed the description of an external link (which should not be there in the first place) to "Pitiful fansite run by a homosexual rapist". That's what the OP is talking about. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Note also that this is a battle over a link to a fansite. I'm no expert on WP:EL, but I would think such a link to be inappropriate. Up until 26 January, there was a comment within the article stating that such links would be removed in accordance with the guidelines. However, several fansite links are now present. — MediaMangler 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the fansite link section, that kind of thing is against WP:EL. The offending user has been warned. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99

Also see incident #User Sikh 1 - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism.

Continously vandalising the Prohibitions in Sikhism page AND ADDING ORIGINAL RESEARCH. He keeps reposting his unsubstantiated lines and deleting valid refrences from the article. Please can you deal with this annoying person LOOK AT HIS EDIT HISTORY. AND HE HAS BEEN ADVERTISING HIS WEBSITE ON HIS WIKIPEDIA PERSONAL PAGE- AGAINST WIKIPEDIA RULES. HE HAS BEEN WARNED MANY TIMES OF VANDALISM AND ADDING ORIGINAL RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA PLEASE DEAL WITH HIM. --Sikh 1 17:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, don't shout, and second of all, I don't see that you have first tried to converse with the other user about your concerns either at User talk:Sikh-history or at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism. As for the two IP contributors, those IPs are apparently used by lots of different users, and I still don't see an effort to address your concerns about OR and linkspam on Prohibitions in Sikhism. Mangojuice^talk 17:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These coversations have been happening with him since october 2006 and other members are fed up with his constant vandalism--Sikh 1 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop shouting. This appears, for the most part, to be a content dispute, and while Sikh does seem to have some issues with original research, I think calm discussion WITHOUT calling him a vandal is the way to solve this. His userpage (which appears to be an advertisement) may warrant a second look, though. --InShaneee 20:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else reading this: I also find it a little odd that Sikh1's first edit in two months was to warn sikh-history. --InShaneee 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone deleted stuff from here... returned --Selket ^Talk 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that I am not vandalising but correcticting unverifiable research. In Sikhism meat eating is not prohibited, the coode of conduct for Sikhs clearly states so. http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html. These people are distorting facts. I am trying to restore a neutral point of view. They are also leaving abusive messages on my user page. I have also removed original research. Thanks --Sikh-history 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Look he has been warned many times not to push his views onto other people and using his website to push those views and interpretations. If continues edit warring he must be warned and he takes warnings off his talk page to hide his bad reputation. If you got nothing to hide why try to hide the warning you have been given and DO NOT use YOUR SITE WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM to promote your views.--Sikh 1 23:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sikh 1, Sikh-history is correct. While I'm not sure whether his content is appropriate, you need to calm down and stop being so confrontational. --InShaneee 06:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to cause so much conflict, but I cannot sit by and watch Points of Views being added to artciles. They must be Neutral for Wikipedia. It is clear some people here like Sikh 1 do wish to do so. See the coversations of Sikh 1 pages about me. I have removed original reserach and added back verifiable links. --Sikh-history 07:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Puppop

Is this acceptable? Zbl 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean this:

Never mind, I just created a new account that will not vandalize and edited the article. Puppop 14:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Technically it's a problem, but as long as he/she keeps his/her nose clean then there isn't really an issue. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the new account (Poppup). Using a new account to evade a block is forbidden. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You what? I think the first unblock reason was sufficient. If there are no objections, I will unblock. Excelsior!El_C 19:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in wheel warring, and will not specifically object to an unblock. However, I did want to point out that the user vandalized again two weeks after initial vandalism warnings and has not contributed anything productive yet, made a mild personal attack on his/her talk page (the "idiots" bit), and violated WP:SOCK (which could be chalked up to policy unfamiliarity). For these concerns, I would not unblock myself, but again, I will not object, given that the user has been attempting to convince us that he/she will contribute productively. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, and I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant to this situation, but User:Zbl seems to have taken a keen interest in Puppop because Zbl has accused Puppop of being a sockpuppet of User:SupaSoldier. I'm not entirely certain why Zbl wants Puppop to be unblocked so that s/he can face sock charges, but that seems to be Zbl's motivation. Just an Fyi. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose an unblock. Users who suddenly cry "I'll stop vandalizing" when they're indef-blocked don't impress me. And the use of a sock account to evade a block is particularly troublesome. The user needs a timeout, at the least. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a very simple matter to re-block if the experiment of unblocking fails. Friday (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to wheel-war either, but I am not swayed by Friday's argument. Users who wait until they're indef-blocked before they have a deathbed conversion are all too common and I don't find them even a little bit credible. I won't beat the dead horse any longer, but that's my opinion. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case (since there is no risk of wheel warrning), I am unblocking. This, since I did not find the objections persuasive (these being mostly limited to generalizations which come across as excessively bureaucratic. Let's give this very new user a fresh chance and see what happens. Bending the rules toward such an end, in this case, is, in my opinion, desirable. Anyway, I hope all of that makes sense. Thank you. El_C 21:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's worth the chanse of getting a productive editor out of this. The worst that can happen is we get a revert some vandalism and reblock them.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsceneties in reason for editing

I was wondering if it was ok that 68.252.186.97 (talk · contribs) put down as a reason for editing List of Avatar: The Last Airbender minor recurring characters, the following statement : "WHO'S THE DAMN MOTHER FUCKING COCK SUCKING ASSHOLE BITCH THAT ERASED MY INFORMATION?!?!?!?!?!?". Is this considered simply a form of expression ? It doesn't give much credibility to his input, which was also hard to understand. --Jackaranga 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I've suggested the editor might want to consider our civility standards. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And I've removed the revision in question, so that the edit summary no longer offends our readers in the page history. Admins can still view it. Thank you, Jackaranga. Bishonen | talk 09:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Mae Jemison

The page for the astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison is bogus. Please delete entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.243.239.48 (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• It is not bogus, but has been so severely vandalized its too hard to revert. All versions are fake or contain stupid swearing. Someone needs to sort the fake from the real, will be very hard. --Jackaranga 03:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Someone fixed it now. --Jackaranga 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

When all else fails, revert back a long ways. --Carnildo 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness And Accuracy For All

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)/NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu)

He continues a defamatory post about me that I've removed twice and asked him not to repost.

• Initial PA
• My initial deletion 22:41, February 5, 2007
• Readded by FAAFA
• Again I ask not to readd it
• Readded with PA in the comment section as well

Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) aka NBGPWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has a long history of personal attacks and disruption. He's been warned numerous times in the past yet persists. --Tbeatty 06:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a politely-worded comment on Fairness And Accuracy For All's talk page asking him to desist. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

While he absolutely should not have re-added it once it became obvious that you were not amused (as Doug has noted in his comment to him), in my opinion it was pretty clearly an attempt at a satirical joke; perhaps some thicker skin/assumption of good faith would alleviate similar problems in the future? Just a suggestion which you are, of course, free to acknowledge or ignore. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users or new users, absolutely agree with you and if you had posted it, I may not have even reverted it. But his talk page and NBGPWS block log as well as his extensive history of personal attacks, disruption and baiting leaves a very short leash. Two requests to cease followed by 2 repostings are certainly enough for anyone, let alone someone with his history. JzG has left two warnings in the last week for his baiting of a different user. --Tbeatty 07:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. He's certainly been in his fair share of disputes. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 07:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I blocked FAAFA for 24 hours for this [54] edit summary among other things. I really don't see how comparing other editors to Stalin helps build an encyclopaedia, and he has, as TBeatty notes, been warned many times, and blocked numerous times under his old account. There's no excuse for his not knowing better by now. Guy (Help!) 07:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Smith_Jones

Smith_Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a persistent and insidious vandal. Does not read like a newbie and sometimes makes valid edits such as the creation of a dab page or a WP:NPA apology plus refactoring of the relevant talk page. Could be a sock puppet of a user with a grudge, might be worth a checkuser. See my recent contributions here for an overview of the repair work. This does not include vandalism caught by others. All in all a persistent vandal who ignores the warnings on their talk page and several previous shorter blocks. AvB ÷ talk 11:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

PS On the surface everything looks OK, just a good faith newbie editor. However, on a very minor scale, and although I'm sure this is not the same person(s), this is still vandalism following the HeadleyDown pattern. To get an impression of what this user is about, one has to go over the user's talk page and read the comments left there by good faith editors. AvB ÷ talk 12:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GrahameKing did it, again (User Proto dealed with the previous Incident)

Grahame King deleted two weeks of discussion [55] at February 3th. This is the incident reported here.

And now, some background:

Grahame King made another deletion at January 29th [56] too, and he was warned by an administrator (User:Proto) about that kind of behaviour [57].

The deleted text is about a RfC (accepted by GrahameKing [58]) we should have in the immediate future. Once I presented the preliminary paperwork for the RfC in January , GrahameKing made his first deletion of a discussion.

I still presume good faith, so I suggest a talk with this User.

The guy seems to be worried about the discussion being present at Google, because he says that the content is "defamatory" (it is not, because it is sourced).

Randroide 08:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted Grahame's deletion of text, and explicitly warned him (rather than asking him). If he does it again, he will be blocked. Proto::► 09:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIAC, case closed. Thank you for your attention, Proto.Randroide 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foul use of language

To Whom It May Concern:

As I'm unsure who I should address this too, I'll just state the problem. While I was searching for an article on Lunar Eclipses for my niece, I came across some foul language on the Reference page of this article. It seems someone has went in and did some editing of their own. I wasn't sure if you were aware of it or not, I figured I should at least report it. Thank you for your time and attention.

Sincerely,

Daisha Colony Spiritdancer25@hotmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.253.69.217 (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• It appears to be fixed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• That vandalism was deleted at 10:19am PST, one minute after it was added to the page. Sheer dumb bad luck they even saw it at all. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need adminn with rollback button

Saliyalk (talk · contribs) has been doing a spam run on Bollywood-related articles. Could someone with a rollback button please revert any of his edits that haven't already been reverted? He's now been warned. Zora 09:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Grandmasterka has hit them all. ×Meegs 11:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Sikh-history - Pushing POV

In Sikhism eating meat is NOT OK or a settled issue. This user is intent on trying to push his pov and trying to present a picture its ok and he uses his website to do this WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM. He has been warned MANY times by other SIKH wikipedians not to do this but he carries on.--Sikh 1 10:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism in Sikhism is a POV. I have used unbiased verifiable soources to demonstrate Vegetarianism has nothing to do with Sikhism. Regards--Sikh-history 10:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange new user User:Jeff Dorlean

Jeff Dorlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a WP:POV editor who also left message on my talk page. User's userpage is clearly fraudulent claim as well. I am not sure whether this is too serious for WP:AIV where I normally report vandals. MKoltnow 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned indefinitely for trolling. Sorry to bother you. MKoltnow 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. He was probably blocked thanks to you bringing it up here. ~Crazytales (AAAA and ER!) 14:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 87.8.24.237 spam

87.8.24.237 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) 87.8.24.237 is apperantly spaming user talk pages seen here please talk to him. Cocoaguy 従って _contribs^talk 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why this person contacted you, but they contacted me because I removed a speedy deletion request on a userpage. This person was not spamming, but rather had a genuine concern.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 12:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Sikh-history - Vandalising the Jat and other articles

He has be causing a constant problem with POV, promoting his website WWW.SIKH-HISTORY.COM and interpretation pushing on MANY articles and has been WARNED many times.--Jat78 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

ALREADY posted above. --InShaneee 06:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jat78 you are telling untruths. Why did you remove my dispute tags without discussion on the page?. That is againt Wiki policy. You are also abusing your position as Vandal patrol. Please take note. I have tried to add a neutral point of view to his article since this article is biased.--Sikh-history 07:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to STOP making PERSONAL ATTACKS on other wikipedian before you make the situation even worse for yourself your're building a very bad reputation for yourself by pushing your POV and deleting sections from articles. You cannot decide whats OK and whats not we wikipedian will decide.--Jat78 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you shouting. Stay cool.I am not concerned with reputations but only the facts. I want to ensure articles are unbiased and contain Neutral Points Of View. Your article on Jat clearly contains points of views, but I am not concerned with those. I am only concerned with those concerning Nabha, Jind and Patiala. These are not Jat Kingdoms and have never been so. They are Sikh Kingdoms, and I have provided several verifiable sources to back that up on the Patiala page. Nabha, Jind and Patiala wre one of the 12 Sikh Misls (Phulkian), an undisputed fact. To claim they were part of some pseudo Jat Confedracy exists only in your mind friend. You still have not answered why you removed the dispute tag without discussion, as that is againt wiki principles? Please answer.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't have this discussion here. Move it to the article talk page or one of your user pages. --Ideogram 13:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

According to User:Sikh-history this is a group account. This is against Wikipedia policy, if I am not mistaken.

It was a group account, but now it is one user as it was pointed out that a groupd account maybe seen as dodgy.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off, take a breather, and come back when you are capable of assuming good faith and having a reasonable discussion. --Ideogram 10:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am willing to have a reasonable discussion, and I even put dispute tags on the Jat article, however Jat78 removed them without discussion. I think we need some sort of third party arbitration over the issue of Patiala, Nabha and Jind at the Jat article. These should not be listed as Jat Kingdoms, but as Sikh Kingdoms. There is some propaganda of a murky sort going on here that wiki editors are unaware of, but I am knowlegable in this field (or so I am told :p). I still think Jat78's action in adding warning to my page are beyond his jurisdiction and he has no authority to do so. Please remove these warnings at once or allow another Admin to review them.--Sikh-history 13:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : IP 62.25.106.209

Hi this person keeps reverting article Prohibitions in Sikhism. He keeps deleting verifiable fact. What can be done? --Sikh-history 14:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:3RR and WP:AN3. --Ideogram 14:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability (people)

Edit-warring on Wikipedia:Notability (people). There was a brief pause but one of the parties has expressed an intention to resume here. It looks like this will continue until someone gets blocked or the page gets protected. Somebody please intervene. --Ideogram 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you call this intervention. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that attempted discussion so far has been unproductive, to put it mildly. There was a failed MedCab attempt here. I think the parties need some "guidance" but I am at a loss as to how it might be provided. --Ideogram 21:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• There haven't been any edits in two days. When I came here for intervention, I was told to go the dispute resolution route. That failed, and Radiant has apparently ceased being disruptive, so there doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't intend to "resume" anything other than institute the consensus version that existed for years, so don't worry. This is the exact same route I took at WP:MUSIC with no problems once "discussion" died down ([59][60]), and something I plan on doing at WP:WEB once things appear to be dead as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: The page has been fully protected [61] per my request [62]. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Lame. Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wait until it's unprotected, then. If you want it resolved, you know who you have to go to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• So what you;re saying is, if it's unprotected you'll resume the edit war? C'mon, Jeff, you know that's not smart! Guy (Help!) 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be anything to resume. Radiant has appeared to cease the disruption, so there's no apparent problem. The question should be whether he plans to continue to push his own agenda. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Judging from your comments, I believe it would be useful if the page stays protected until you two have forgotten the whole thing. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have a long memory. Since I have no interest in bumping the conflict up to the next level with Radiant (this is similar to what he pulled at WP:CREEP), we'll simply sit at a stalemate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Look, do you have a personal feud with Radiant? Seriously, I suggest both of you knock this off now before one of you ends up blocked. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what's to knock off, we haven't been in contact for three days. Maybe sometime someone will block him for the disruption and tendentious editing, but it would be punitive at this stage, so I guess there's nothing else that can be done. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• (arbitrary undent) Kettle, meet pot. ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Spoken as someone with little knowledge of the situation, IMO. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Indeed. Radiant appears to be engaged in a good faith effort to reduce the Byzantine complexity of our rule base. More power to his elbow. I'd have thought Jeff would be onside here, but apparently not. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Funny, I see Radiant as being engaged in an effort to simply force his view of the project on everything, regardless of whether consensus exists or not. Whether I agree with your (or his) intents here is irrelevant - those seeking the change have not made even the slightest bit of effort to gain consensus, and that's a major problem. Unless consensus is being abandoned along with everything else here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• That's interesting, as I would describe Radiant's efforts as moving in exactly the opposite direction, increasing the redunancy and complexity of the rule base, coupled with an obsessively bureaucratic attitude that strikes me as surprising and disappointing. Further, the comments here alone demonstrate an unhelpful personalization of this conflict on the part of both parties. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• And there we have the problem: I am quite willing to discuss this, but Jeff is more interested in making derogatory remarks than in actual discussion, as should be obvious from his comments here. That is precisely why mediation didn't work out. Last week, Jeff stated that he would basically continue his harassment until I gave in regarding the underlying issue. As long as he keeps up this destructive approach, I don't really see this debate going anywhere. >Radiant< 11:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Kind of have to agree with Peter here. Look, both of you have been around for a while. You know enough about how this place works to sort this out yourselves without kicking off more pointless wikidrama. No one seems to be assuming much in the way of good faith, which might be a good start. You both have the best interests of the project at heart: bear that in mind and work from there. But that does not require this mutual attack session. Moreschi ^Deletion! 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Good faith only needs to be extended for so far. That line was crossed quite a while ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There has not been a single moment where you've shown any willingess to discuss anything, Radiant. If you're really willing to discuss it, prove it for once instead of playing the victim card. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You've said that you want to distance yourself from your past at Encyclopedia Dramatica, but ironically your edit patterns with respect to this issue are quite similar to those associated with ED. For instance, making allegations about the issue but not substantiating them, denying facts because "you don't see them that way", persistenyl attacking the people who disagree with you, and forum shopping are all indicative of wikidrama. I just said that I was willing to discuss if you would lay off the harassment; you respond by denying that I want to discuss, and adding a personal attack. You don't seriously think that that is a way of resolving anything, I hope? >Radiant< 12:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's some evidence of what I've had to put up with: this just occurred today, with the typical snark and snarl, and he has yet to even comment on the talk page. He's also started in here as I've watched this burn slowly without his "input," and have you taken a look at WP:CREEP? Yup, I'm the bad guy, that's certainly the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that editing and getting change to happen on policy and guideline pages is so slow. That is as it should be, but something does need to be done about the complexity of the existing set of pages. If anything, I would suggest that Radiant (and maybe jeff if he wants to) draws up an overall plan, and identifies key pages that need working on, and more discussion. Maybe we could even set up a way to have a permanent !vote disucssion page for policies and guidelines, so it is clearer at a glance how consensus is changing from one month to the next. People who read the page and talk page and agree to it, can 'sign up' to it, and those that have concerns can address them. If people later feel the page has changed, they can come back and recast their !vote. Kind of like an indefinite, open-ended RfC on the consensus status of the page, with subsections for specific changes. The talk page would be used for discussing changes to wording, and things like that. Keeping the !vote disucssions open indefinitely would avoid a small group coming along and changing things, but would make clear if consensus really is changing. Would anything like this work, or would it go too much against the spirit of 'voting is evil'? Carcharoth 12:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we already have Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies - but is that used enough? Carcharoth 12:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That might not hurt, but you've reached the crux of the argument - consensus. I'm not opposed at all to the slow burn of the way policies/guidelines evolve, because it assures us that consensus is being reached. It's why I originally reverted the change, and continue to implore Radiant to actually discuss this on the talk page, which he's failed to do. If there's no consensus for such a change, we shouldn't be making it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• We have RFC/Policy and we have the WP:VPP. The main problem appears to be that Jeff is working under a different definition of "consensus" than most of us; his definition appears to boil down to "if he disagrees with something, there can not be a consensus". Similarly, he has the habit of citing "consensus can change" if he wants to ignore precedent, and claiming "we need consensus for changes to the long-standing version" if he likes the precedent.
• The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to Jeff making a sweeping change to a page stable for over a month, and demanding consensus from the people who disagree with his change, because he claims there was no consensus for the stable version. >Radiant< 12:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:BIO/WP:MUSIC issue boils down to w.marsh making a sweeping change to a page stable for years, and not discussing it on the talk page. It's worth noting that, even though w.marsh disagreed with my reversion, he didn't revert back. Many have agreed that we need consensus for such a massive change, only one person is ignoring consensus in order to implement a preferred version. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I just know what I'm getting from you, that's all. *shrug*. I know better than to expect any less than bullshit like that last statement. >Radiant< 13:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• • The difference is only one of us is being honest. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sheesh, will you two listen to yourselves? This is not about anybody taking unilateral action, the changes have a lot of support and the old version has more than one supporter too. Why is it necessary to personalise the dispute? No, don't answer that, just don't do it, please. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with JzG; you guys are killing me here, and I like both of you. Is there any hope I or someone else can take you both into a small room and work this out? You're both making like circling sharks at this point... -- nae'blis 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff has left Wikipedia, according to his userpage. --Ideogram 17:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. "'Apparently, all I really needed to do was sleep things off a bit...I'll be back in full force on Thursday, 8 February" Other than that, I'd like to second Nae'blis. I like both Jeff and Radiant, and it's a real shame they're fighting. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking by WeniWidiWiki

I'm being stalked by WeniWidiWiki, who keeps bringing up a now disproven case of sockpuppetry. I am feeling harassed by this. Here is the checkuser which cleared me of operating Frater Xyzzy as a sock and yet WWW keeps bringing it up on a regular basis: [63], [64], [65], [66].

Could someone please ask this user to stop stalking me? Jefferson Anderson 22:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want people to believe there is a connection between you and Frater Xyzzy, could you explain why in this AMA request you said "Note: Frater Xyzzy tells me that he has a registered WP email address and requests that an Advocate contact him by email. " Addhoc 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a connection, we know each other. But we are located in different cities and he has been unfairly blocked as a sock of me. He asked me to get him an Advocate and I am doing so, so that I don't have to play that role. He can't put in a request for hos own advocate because he can't edit. What is one supposed to do, leave a friend blocked unfairly? Jefferson Anderson 23:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. If he's got email set up then he could just email an advocate. The check user confirms that you are separate people. Thanks again, Addhoc 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see how that could be true. A checkuser can provide evidence that two accounts are likely to be the same person, but absence of evidence via check user doesn't actually confirm that two accounts are seperate people. How could it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon's check on 4 Feb may not have gone far enough back. UninvitedCompany ran a check in January (posted at RFAR/Starwood here. JeffersonAnderson has admitted that he and Frater worked at the same employer, which uses a proxy/firewall for internet connections, and that he joined Wikipedia to help Frater in a dispute [67]. They both edited several of the same AfD's, so it is possible this is at least a case of meatpuppetry. Frater now claims to have moved to Seattle. There is more evidence, and I am 49% convinced that Frater and Anderson are related to further sockpuppetry by Hanuman Das and Ekajati as described at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Workshop and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood/Evidence. However, if Frater and Anderson are currently editing from different cities, it may be that at least that part of the story is true. Thatcher131 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I really need to make a template explaining to people what a negative Checkuser results shows. When it says "No IP evidence" it means exactly that: there the editors in question have not used the same or closely related IP within the period under examination. It means, "no, checkuser does not prove sockpuppetry". It does not in any way disprove sockpuppetry. Checkuser is a useful tool for proving sockpuppetry. Not the opposite. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical means are a supplement to the decision process, they're not conclusive. What you've got is an IP address, you have no indication of what is behind that address. I happen to know that the address that I'm on at the moment has some 300,000 possible people behind it, the argument that Jefferson and Frater have used in the past. Equally the IP gateway that I'm behind is located some 200 miles away from my present location and provides service to the entire UK. My home IP address is located about 10 miles from my current geographic location and I could edit from it within about 20 minutes of leaving work.

Equally it is possible to work through two geographically discrete IP addresses from the same physical location. In the space of about 10 metres I have choices of the address visible through this edit and several other systems, one of which would give me an address on a different continent and 8 times zones away.

It depends on how the Secure Managed Interfaces are configured as to how much information you can get from them about what's behind.

The point is, a technical check supports other evidence, which is why the SSP case emphasises behaviour and style.

ALR 10:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Addhoc 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I kind of wish you hadn't deleted your paragraph, because it now looks as if I was responding to jpgordon with something that's probably a glimpse of the blindingly obvious to someone with CU tools!ALR 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Non- Verifiable Facts and Vandalism

See previous incident #Vandalism by IP User User:Sikh-history/195.92.40.49/82.36.147.99

Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) keeps adding warning to ban me on my page for no good reason. He also keeps adding non-verifiable facts and a Point of View to Prohibitions in Sikhism article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 07:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The issue of non-verifiable facts is a content dispute and needs to either be resolved on the article's talk page, or failing that, can use one of the available means of dispute resolution.

The warning being put on your talk page is clearly inappropriate and I have asked him to desist doing this. —Doug Bell ^talk 07:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sikh 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Is still vanadalising my page by adding warnings. Please do something about this. This is harassment.--Sikh-history 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a strongly worded warning to Sikh 1's talk page. If the harassment continues, you can request any admin to block. —Doug Bell ^talk 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as soon he was unblocked, various IP's started spamming the Prohibitions in Sikhism article resulting in the article getting locked. Unfortunately, it is difficult to be reasonable with this rather emotional fellow. See conversation on above page and also my page. Thanks --Sikh-history 15:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is unlikely to be a connection between this user and the anon ips. Please concentrate on trying to discuss with him in good faith. --Ideogram 15:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Its hard but I'm trying friend :p --Sikh-history 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Article Prohibitions in Sikhism

Hi, I am having real problems with a Vandal or a group of Vandals who keep deleting, reverting and changing things on the article. The things they keep deleting are refrences and verifiable facts. Please can someone help. I do not know how to follow the three revert rule, as I am not that proficient with wikipedia. Please help.--Sikh-history 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to go to WP:RFPP. Don't bother reverting the page until you get it semi-protected. --Ideogram 14:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully protected the page from editing for 48 hours to allow some discussion to occur here.--Isotope23 14:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see it has been fully protected. In anticipation of your next question, you will not be able to edit it until it has been unprotected, even though I know you feel the wrong version has been protected. What you are supposed to do now is try to engage the other parties in a discussion on the article talk page and reach an agreement on the contents of the page. However, my guess is the anon ip's will not discuss. If that proves to be the case, you can ask for the page to be semi-protected and at least the anon ip's will not be able to edit war with you. --Ideogram 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's always the wrong version... Just an FYI, semi-protection is only to stop ongoing pure vandalism to an article from many IPs. It should never be used in an edit war between a registered editor and IPs because doing is basically just penalizing one side of an edit war. The idea of protection is to make both sides step back and discuss changes before making changes. On another note, I've started a discussion on this at Talk:Prohibitions in Sikhism if anyone cares to participate.--Isotope23 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your input.--Sikh-history 16:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)