Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

I've seen this at least twice by 2 different users, and I've only been checking at random. See for example: [1]. I've added all the domains to the spam blacklist that don't currently have external links in other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-03-13 13:48Z

Shifting IP repeats vandalism

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:50Z

Over the past week, various IP's and one user, who I suspect to be the same person, have been repeating the same vandalous edits over and over again despite being reverted, and when a higher level of warning is issued to that IP, they have switched to another. Now, they are using several IP's, each with only one edit. I am unsure how to proceed.

The following articles (as far as I know) have been affected: Leprechaun Ballycastle, County Antrim Carnlough

The following users/IP's are those I have seen to do these edits: User: Bubblesthelegend

IP: 89.240 : Opal Telecommunications, Northern Ireland, Great Britain

89.240.90.61

89.240.172.39

IP: 143.117 : University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, Great Britain

143.117.80.30

143.117.80.32

143.117.80.46

IP: 81.149.128.127 : Static IP, Great Britain

Protected Leprechaun and Ballycastle, County Antrim for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee

I know that WP:DR is that-a-way but I think this is moving over to WP:DE. Quick details:

• I asked User:Bishonen to help address Smee's WP:DE and detailed the then latest episode of Smee's WP:DE here. She politely declined and suggested asking User:Jossi.
• User:BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor had just returned so I asked him to mediate. He offered and experienced, in his words, "abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem". I asked Smee nicely to reconsider BT's offer but he did not respond.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman, edit warring with me over a simple {{notability}} tag for an WP:BLP that clearly, IMO, has notability issues.
• Smee then continued his WP:DE at The Bridge (film) with two rude reverts (likely his 5th or 6th reverts there in 24 hrs) to BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor; behavior that prompted BTfromLA to agree "I certainly see the problem." Smee also likely violated 3RR on that article but the WP:DE is more obvious and is blatant.

Will some admin please help me? This has been going on for a while but this recent is just over-the-top. Thanks. --Justanother 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive/disruptive pattern of "Justanother"

• The user in question Justanother has a pattern of abuse and disruptive editing. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block, for Comments by Admin Bishonen on his inappropriate behaviour and disruption of a previous ANI discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive214#User:Justanother_restoring_harassing_edits_made_by_a_sockpuppet_of_a_banned_user.2C_and_growing_incivility, for comments by user/respected editor Athaenara on his inappropriate behaviour. The user likes to engage in off-topic insults, name calling, and inappropriate language and behaviour, restoring edits by banned sockpuppeteer User:The real Barbara Schwarz (twice now), and other inappropriate behaviour too numerous to count. Thank you for your time, I am glad you are looking into this matter. Yours, Smee 05:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination), and TedFrank comment on disruption of Wikipedia by Justanother: This is a disruptive AfD, and Justanother should withdraw it. But the supporters of the article do themselves no favors when they recursively comment on every single input[note Justanother actively doing this in the AFD], and both sides have problems with WP:CIVIL. Thanks. Smee 05:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Since the "accused" in these situations usually says the same thing and is hardly ever believed, it seems worth mentioning that more than one editor feels that Justanother is a disruptive editor himself. I have only encountered him directly on the Barbara Schwarz article, but in doing so found myself with serious WP:COI concerns about him which he has gone to great lengths to avoid discussion of. He also appears to bait his opponents at any opportunity, an example can be seen on my talk page: User_talk:Anynobody. There are at least a few others who would agree, however it is not my place to speak for them. (However it would not surprise me if others posted similar feelings.) Anynobody 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur with both Anynobody and Smee, and will keep my comments here brief. I note Smee quotes TedFrank's comment in the AfD, and I must confess I have bitten the bait laid out for me too often, as indicated by Ted's response. However there are numerous instances where User:Justanother has indulged in WP:DE himself. Orsini 11:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Third party observations

• Justanother accurately portrays my comments and experiences above, but I have since had a bit of interaction with Smee that was much less contentious than indicated there, and that leaves me much more hopeful that a truce, at least, can be reached when dealing with articles of mutual interest to these editors. My surprise at the "abrupt rebuff" turns out to have been partly due to a misunderstanding--I had thought Smee's edit summary saying something to the effect of "don't post on my talk page" was aimed at me, but I now see that he(?) was responding to Justanother--in other words, his response to my offer to help with the problem was fairly non-responsive, but not hostile, as I had originally thought. I later reiterated my offer, which Smee politely declined. I did indeed experience the frustration Justanother talks about when editing The Bridge (film) and experiencing Smee's instantaneous reverts of my good faith edit. However, Smee eventually did read my rationale on the talk page, considered the edit, and agreed that not only was it worth allowing to stand for comment, but that it actually did represent a small improvement in the article. So, happy ending. He followed it with some friendly words about my manner as an editor. My sense is that this conflict can be resolved with a mutual agreement to assume good faith and to limit disputes to substantive article changes, allowing others to deal with the small stuff. Both editors are capable of working civily. Justanother clearly wants some sort of mutually acceptible understanding to be brokered; if Smee agrees to some sort of arbitration, formal or otherwise, I think it can. BTfromLA 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As a pretty much disinterested observer that doesn't have much stake in the issues concerned, I have been shocked at some of the language used by User:Justanother, including the f.word etc, and the way he interacts with other editors who happen not to share his opinion on scientology topics.Merkinsmum 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Justanother sometimes not politically correct with edit-warring propagandists and bigots (and yes, I have diffs) that, in addition to relentless disruptive edit-warring with me, engage in further disruptive activity such as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD. So, yes, I am sometimes short with them or sarcastic and on one noted and isolated occasion almost two weeks ago, I lost my temper and used the s-word (and the mf-word) to refer to myself on my own talk page. Sorry if that offends. PS, I have plenty more examples of Smee's WP:DE pattern if any admin wants to see. I was hoping to handle it with WP:DR but he rejected a good-faith attempt to do so and only increased his WP:DE, hoping, as always, to hide it beneath a mountain of misdirection and "who, me?" This will form the extent of my remarks to misdirection such as that already offered by four editors (Smee, Anynobody, Orsini, and now Merkinsmum) above. Thank you and please let me know if you need more diffs, including any to support my charges of propagandizing (Smee being the main propagandist) and bigotry (not Smee particularly), charges not being brought here except as background, because I have plenty of diffs. --Justanother 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh please Justanother, you know the perception "....that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD" is based upon a false premise used to manufacture a COI issue for User:Tilman, also based on faulty premises, and someone fell for that premise. The reality is somewhat different; Tilman suggested you were blocked based upon your WP:DE behavior and your support of another’s behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, which was also aggressively disruptive. I was tempted to respond to the edit you cite, but recalling Ted's observation, figured doing so there would only add to the noise. Orsini 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Shame on you, Orsini. Why not assume good faith and intelligence on the part of User:Shenme that he could correctly evaluate what Tilman was talking about. Let's make it crystal clear what Tilman was talking about by linking to the diffs of Tilman's actual postings instead of to one of you muddying the waters (as you and others continue to attempt here). Here he calls for my block after I began asking seriously about starting an AfD for Schwarz. Here is Tilman making essentially the same call for my block for bringing the AfD (actually he thinks he has a double-whammy reason for blocking me there). You know, Orsini, that your misrepresentation is disrespectful of the board if not downright trolling. --Justanother 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, please stop your personal attacks. You were warned on your Talk page, and I note you have removed the warning with a clearly uncivil edit summary. I have certainly AGF on the part of User:Shenme, and I don't believe it is me who is doing the misrepresentation. Omission of pertinent details will lead to faulty conclusions. This diff, including the preceding comments I made which appear at the top, is a brief summary of that which anyone examining Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz can clearly see for themselves as to why User:Tilman called for you to be blocked, if they care to examine it. Hint: it was not because you were calling for an AfD; try looking at your previous edit here for the basis of his reasoning, and mine, for that suggestion. Orsini 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "propagandizing" and "bigotry" are not within WP:CIVIL discourse. Criticize edits, not editors. -- TedFrank 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Ted. Discussion of propagandizing is comment on edits and is entirely appropriate and I accuse Smee of propagandizing but I am not making that accusation formally here; it is more appropriate for WP:DR progressive handling, IMO. Please see Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." As far as bigotry, I am specifically not accusing Smee of expressing bigotry but that is something that I deal with from a few other editors and I can back that up with diffs. I only mention it in the context of my replies to such, which can be a bit acerbic. Thanks. --Justanother 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:VANDAL prohibits vandalism of any kind, but that doesn't mean indiscriminately calling editors vandals is within WP:CIVIL. From what I've seen there's a content dispute, often over trivial matters, with both sides resorting to trying to get their way through attrition and every so often making a tactical yield to seem reasonable and stay within 3RR. If there's a propagandizing problem, it's resolved with POV tags and RFCs, not edit wars and repetitious AfDs and back-and-forth tattling about which neutral editor W said X about Y. That goes for both of you: whichever one of you is in the right is playing into the hands of the other by burying the issue in back-and-forth so that no one neutral wants to get involved. Perhaps Smee is POV-pushing, but you've made it near-impossible to tell by your conduct. It's much easier to conclude that everyone is in the wrong. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While following a few other outlinks, I fell into the tit-for-tat between both of these editors at the The Bridge (film) article. I find that each editor spends probably 45% of their time undoing the work of the other, another 45% looking for ways to "improve" the article in a way that the other won't like, and the final 10% doing good and useful work. Maybe that's exaggeration, but it is my perception because I have become so exhausted watching the ping-pong and sniping that I have essentially given up on that article, leaving it to them to argue over, and decided to move on to things less stressful. Neither editor is wholly without blame and while Smee's words may be less caustic, his actions are nonetheless just as tiring. My biggest concern with the situation is that it will eventually end up at ArbCom (if it hasn't before, I haven't checked yet). Both users have their trenches dug and are simply hurling their own brands of grenades. ju66l3r 14:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's an exaggeration: these statistics seem to leave out the 60% of the time spent on Wikipedia: and Talk: pages. I don't think either side realizes the damage they do to their own case by failing to adhere to WP:CALM. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I am pretty calm lately, since I gave User:JustaHulk his own account. Smee is calm in his words but frantic in his WP:DE edit-warring as BTfromLA experienced very quickly. --Justanother 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Justanother for 24 hours for several reasons. 1) The above personal attacks namely accusing users of being "edit-warring propagandists and bigots" [2] and of "downright trolling" [3] 2) disruptive removal of legitimate warnings with hostile edit summaries [4], 3) use of single-purpose account User:JustaHulk to mess with User:Smee [5] [6] [7] "remove "welcome" from someone that does not seem "welcoming" at all". I have indefinitely blocked that account as a disruptive single-purpose account as well. Fellow admins, as always feel free to comment on my administrative actions. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that Orsini did completely misread my comment, which was a face-value opinion. That Justanother did correctly point that out should be noted, though his comment may seen to be tainted. Further, a WP:NPA notice from what should have been noted as a fellow combatant is not a mere notice, but rather is likely to be seen as an incitement. (I believe that has been agreed by many here, something about ímpersonal template 'tags' for non-recent editors?) I worry that there is too much focus on "the lemming in the lead" here. Shenme 03:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My apologies [[User:|Shenme,]] it was not my intent to misrepresent you or your comment. There is far more to the reason for Tilman's request that would first appear to be the issue, and I incorrectly presumed you had relied only on Justanother's comments in the AfD discussion for the basis of your comment. A review of Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz will show there is more to Tilman's comment than Justanother wishes to cite. Orsini 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee continues - User Smee continues to edit war over the tags placed by other editors in the midst of discussions. At Tilman Hausherr (history) he pulls the same mergeto tag placed by three different editors and originally placed by a 4th editor, disrespecting the wishes of (4) editors in the midst of a discussion of the merits of a merge. After going 3RR he magnanimously declares "Will not revert again . . ." Pulling legitimate tags without appropriate discussion or agreement (consensus) is one of Smee's WP:DE practices. Sure wish one of you admins would quite enabling this disruptive editor. Just because someone has a smooth tongue does not forgive their WP:DE and my acerbic tongue does not make me the bad guy in this little drama. But I will curb my tongue so as to make other's attempts to muddy the waters a bit more difficult. Thank you. --Justanother 02:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Response by Smee

I have not edit warred on those particular articles. A merge tag is inappropriate if a majority of editors or even a large minority of editors are opposed to a merge. An AFD is more appropriate, in order to assess consensus for a "Merge" decision. In any rate, this is most certainly not "disruptive" behavior. Incidentally, it seems that this user above is the only user utilizing this word "disruptive" in this situation with regard to other individuals - whereas multiple other individuals have used the word "disruptive" with regard to Justanother's own caustic behavior. In any event, I am removing the page Tilman Hausherr from my watchlist. I am also not going to be monitoring this page WP:ANI on my watchlist - so as to avoid conflict and possible baiting into a back and forth discussion with the user in question. I would most appreciated it therefore if an editor (not Justanother) will inform me of how this proceeds. Thank you. Yours, Smee 02:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Request on WP:AIV and WP:RFC/NAME for User talk:I Want it that way

This User made the following comment on Backstreet Boys discography "Note2:Hi: I want speak with you I don't think black and blue sale just 15 million and this not with mind seven years just sale 15 million and they best boyband in the world, And your digit not true ever . take care before I wiping you from Wikipedia and I ravage your computer because you nuisance just here This user is also appears to be using multiple names Micheal-Nicks, Batguy, Richard Jone, Kmnmo, and has been extremely disruptive over the past two months (daily). All attempts to warm him of his/her errors and repeated removal of edits has not worked. Can someone please look into this and please take action. 59.124.99.83 16:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

User is referring to [8] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonawiki and sockpuppetry

The person who registered the Jonawiki (talk · contribs) account is causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies and Talk:Star Wars Galaxies, where he is using his sockpuppet Magonaritus (talk · contribs) (and vice-versa) to circumvent policy and influence an RfC. He has previously done the same at Upper Canada College and the relevant talk page for over a year. His demeanour is generally abrasive, and confrontational. All-together the user has violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:NLT, WP:NOT#SOAP, WP:VAND, WP:POINT, and, of course, WP:SOCK, leading to edit wars and the pages being locked. Evidence has been outlined here. This user needs to be blocked. --G2bambino 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: User:Jonawiki is now causing issue at Monarchy in Canada to make a point. --G2bambino 18:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I am now looking into this — One of these has contacted me concerning wiki-stalking with regards to the complainant. Will post my findings. WormwoodJagger 19:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I don't mean to sound suspicious here, but User:WormwoodJagger is not listed as an administrator. Nor am I sure how anyone has contacted him about possible wiki-stalking, as I see no evidence of such, unless the intervener has contacts with the user(s) in question outside of Wikipedia. --G2bambino 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I was contacted inside Wikipedia concerning wikistalking. I can't say anything more until I've completed my invesitgations. If you have any further questions, please follow procedure and post on my talk page 74.110.212.198 22:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No - I am not comfortable with your investigating anything. Your anon IP's edit history points towards you being aligned with the user(s) I have identified as disruptive and possibly sockpuppets. An actual administrator should handle this case. --G2bambino 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- you are not qualified to make that decision. I have been called in; it is too late. Your edits on Star Wars Galaxy have implicated you in a wiki-stalking invesitagtion that far exceeds only your minor contributions. Your assertion that I am aligned with others has been noted, and put on the record. Again, if you would like to discuss this further, please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page. All best, WormwoodJagger 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy ^talk 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I violated a whole lot of policies... I thought I was following correct protocol... I'll recuse myself. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:FCYTravis

He has created an edit war on Attachment disorder and is not acting in a manner consistent with conduct I'd expect of an administrator: trying to build consensus and agreement, not start an edit war. It seems that the problems have been created by User:FCYTravis. Before he entered the picture, there were no problems. His approach to the disagreement on content is to merely blank large sections of the article, despite other editors willing to build consensus by collaborating to improve the article. He has a history of this on this subject (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FCYTravis ) for example. DPeterson^talk 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

He is now making Personal attacks. This is not appropriate behavior for an adminstrator. See diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAttachment_disorder&diff=115761100&oldid=115749523 DPeterson^talk 12:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. FCYTravis is being disruptive. He has previously been found to be disruptive and numerous complaints have been filed against him regarding his conduct on this and other, related pages. JohnsonRon 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course you concur, given that you're a single-purpose account devoted to defending DPeterson's POV. You (and others like you) magically appear on Wikipedia whenever a controversy around attachment therapy and related articles. The more you attack me, the more I'm tempted to take this whole mess to ArbCom. FCYTravis 18:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with DPetersons and JohnsonRons statements. He is not personally attacking anyone and he did not 'blank' large sections.--DorisH 17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding blanking, see diffs: [9], [10], [11], which clearly shows that several editors wanted the material to remain and be edited not blanked. DPeterson^talk 17:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All three editors are single-purpose accounts operated in order to distort consensus and own articles related to attachment theory. How convenient. FCYTravis 19:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the type of Uncivil conduct and Personal attacks that has been described. The editors in quesition have overlapping and diverse and distinct interests...yet FCYTravis continues to make unfounded statements that are inflamatory...This is not conduct I'd expect of an administrator, who, I'd think, should act as a model. DPeterson^talk 19:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And yet they essentially only show up to edit Wikipedia when people question the POV-pushing on attachment-related articles. How convenient. FCYTravis 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is a misrepresentation and a false allegation, again appearing to be a Personal attacks, certainly uncivil. To look at the history of one editor of the article in question, I see a variety of edits over time. [12] DPeterson^talk 19:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree, most of their edits are to subjects relating to psychology or sociology, but that's too broad for the WP:SPA label. Addhoc 19:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Those article subjects (Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, Candace Newmaker, et al.) are all related to the issue in question. Please examine the editing patterns, and how the editors disappear for long periods of time, only to reappear when needed to push a POV. FCYTravis 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account describes exactly what I am perceiving. I disagree with Addhoc: the surprising thing is that they are not making edits to 'subjects relating to psychology or sociology' but almost only to subjects relating to Attachment disorder and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy, as well as to several diagnoses like BPD and PTSD where the symptoms are similar and a confused parent might diagnose their own child with Attachment disorder instead. If they were interested in better coverage of psychology topics in general they would have made edits to a greater diversity of articles within that entire field. Please examine the edits on articles and talkpages like Advocates for Children in Therapy, Attachment therapy, John Bowlby, Attachment theory as well as those named above.--DorisH 11:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that DorisH is part of the disturbance at Attachment disorder and an RfC has been filed and validated regarding her conduct. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DorisH DPeterson^talk 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is reviewing this might also want to take into account the large number of RfCs this 'group' of SPAs has filed on other users during their history here on Wikipedia, not to mention mediations and the like. It is part of how they work to defend the texts they own in order to push their POV. The target-user of these complaints changes but the group around DPeterson and Co is always the same.--DorisH 14:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The only "comments" on the entire list are from the same accounts as which always show up to support DPeterson. My determination to take this to ArbCom is growing by the hour. FCYTravis 18:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsman

I would appreciate it if a neutral admin could have a word with Ombudsman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about the importance of civil edit summaries—he's been removing comments and advice from other editors from his talk page with edit summaries implying that the comments are vandalism. (rv: v, rv: v, rm vandalism).

I don't feel it would be welcome or productive for me to bring the matter up with him, as I was involved in a conflict with him sometime last year (in which he decided I was a pharmaceutical industry 'shill'). Please note that Ombudsman is currently subject to an ArbCom-imposed probation due to his history of tendentious and disruptive editing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically (and it's a rule I disagree with), he's allowed to remove whatever he wants from his talk page. His implication that they are vandalism is wrong, but still it's his talk page :( ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, for reference, the probations states"Ombudsman is placed indefinitely on Probation. He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article concerning a medical subject which he disrupts by tendentious editing" so that wouldn't apply to his talk page. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I read this as the problem is the edit summaries, not the warnings removal. Natalie 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me too; none of the messages he removed were vandalism, so his edit summaries are wrong. Acalamari 23:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Me three; the only time I've ever removed anything from my talk page as vandalism is when it's along the lines of 'U SUCK'; I see nothing nearly as bad here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, they're not vandalism like he claims. Nothing wrong with someone telling him to play nicey nice. But think about it this way: He obviously doesn't want anything negative on his talk page right? Wouldn't he just remove your message/warning about edit summaries the same way that he's remove the other ones?⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 23:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify—yes, my concern was about the incivil implications of the edit summaries. They imply (pretty directly, and completely inaccurately) that the editors whose comments were removed are vandals. I fully agree that an editor can remove whatever comments he wants to from his talk page, as long as he's polite about it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it, and if nothing else at least notified him that this discussion about his behavior is ongoing. MastCell 23:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though I check back later or watch the page to see if it gets removed. Acalamari 23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that he is of course welcome to remove any comments he sees fit; if he does so with a civil edit summary. Just as long as he takes the advice, there's no problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's removed my note with an edit summary stating "rm comment from unwelcome user", but he didn't call it vandalism, so I guess we'll call that success. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this has probably come up before, but isn't this an inappropriate username, for the same reason as 'Administrator' would be? — Dan | talk 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, because we don't have any roles named "Ombudsman" (that I know of). As far as I understand it, the policy is to prevent people from pretending or tricking other people into thinking that user has abilities they don't have. Natalie 23:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the Checkuser Ombudsman, but that is a pretty weak connection. No reason to block for it. Prodego ^talk 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that new users who don't realise that there is no "ombudsman" role have been mislead. This has been debated in the past (e.g., [13] [14] [15], and has been requested to change it [16]. --Limegreen 00:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It would appear at least one anonymous editor was bold enough to query the authority implied by Ombudsman's moniker. [17] Makes you wonder how many more interacted with him and his "extreme and troubling positions", and made a similar assumption without checking... Rockpocket 00:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Should probably read the diffs produced by the previous editor rather than reproduce them, sorry. Rockpocket 00:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth taking this through WP:RFCN? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. For all I know Ombudsman may be the fairest of all admins, but it does concern me. We need a proper discussion. Xiner (talk, email) 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the username issue has now been taken to WP:RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Linky: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names#Ombudsman (talk • contribs) —Psychonaut 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Benjiwolf (2nd)

I need another admin take a look at the absurdity of the user that is the subject of this report. He has declared we can do nothing to block him because he'll just rack up 100's of IPs. He trolls from page to page, complete with photo-illustrations of this "benjiwolf" character that he is playing (see the report above) and has already used 13 IPs and one (to our knowledge) registered account to avoid blocks. I quite honestly don't know what to do with this one, as range blocks will have a heap of collateral damage. On top of all this, I'm leaving in the morning for Spring Break and will not likely have much time to invest in this over the next week. You can find the first SSP report here. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second AuburnPilot's request. Basically, User:Benjiwolf has abandoned his accounts and is editing from a bunch of IPs, mostly from the 83.78.*.* and 83.79.*.* ranges, as well as User:129.132.239.8. He's been trolling the talk pages of a couple of articles, including Talk:Ann Coulter, Talk:Glyphosate, and Talk:Polar bear. He just found his SSP case, and has made several strange posts there, with nice pictures of wolves: Template:Ssp. A range block will cause too much collateral damage, but perhaps 129.132.239.8 could be blocked--it's been blocked as a Benjiwolf sock before. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Korea history

Moved over from WP:CN:

When Korea history (talk · contribs) first showed up here, my immediate thought was that the name was inflammatory and perhaps showed a desire to edit war, but I decided to see how things would develop. Well, his/her edit history can show now, I think, that he/she edit wars, rarely discusses his/her edits, rarely puts in descriptive edit summaries (and when he/she does, does so in an inflammatory manner), and shows general disrespect to all who disagree with him/her. RfC was tried (and, while my summary was endorsed by two others, including another admin (Mel Etitis (talk · contribs)), was removed due to the lack of a second certification. I believe, however, that the user's behavior (which has only gotten worse since the RfC) warrants a community ban. A point of disclosure (in case it isn't clear already) is that I have had editorial disagreements with him/her, but I believe that I tried to deal with him/her in a reasonable manner, and that attempt to deal reasonably was not reciprocated. --Nlu (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to the RFC, (even if deleted, admins can look at it)? Diffs of other form of dispute resolution? Diffs of behavior? GRBerry 20:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No user blocks in the account's history. Suggest alternative forms of dispute resolution: Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, or maybe a polite referral to mentorship. Please review the model for dealing with disruptive editors at WP:DE#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors. The ban proposal looks premature. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to the RfC is here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Korea history. --Nlu (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The user did not join a RfM with regard to Goguryeo, and rarely responds to anything that others write on his talk page -- including a couple Korean editors who have tried to communicate with him in Korean as to his behavior. (Since I don't know Korean, that is what I surmised from the garbled Mac OS X translation widget's rendition.) Most of the steps on WP:DE have been tried (other than blocking, which in this case, I feel, would require as much consensus on doing it as banning), with no effect on the user's behavior. If anything, behavior's getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A couple examples of the post-(failed) RfC behavior:

1. [18].
2. [19]
3. [20]

--Nlu (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but why hasn't this resulted in even one user block? Consensus about community bans is that things don't leapfrog from let's sit down and talk to you're outta here. They get a 12 hour block, a 48 hour block, a one week block, and we hope they get the message and adjust to site standards without needing to get booted from the project. If you did convince other editors at this page to community ban at this juncture I doubt the remedy would withstand an appeal, which means arbitration and all its attendant headaches. What exactly is the reason no blocks have been implemented? Durova^Charge! 04:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Because for me to block him/her would be a conflict of interest, and despite my calls for help on the subject, no other administrator has responded. That's what it comes down to. --Nlu (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You always take the side opposite mine. You shouldn´t force your ideas on other people. Only because of a different opinion, openly assail the wrong idea. Korea history (Korea history) 22:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu, please post links to the threads you started at WP:AN or WP:ANI to request impartial review and action. Durova^Charge! 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and I must say I misremembered; what I wrote wasn't Korea history-specific; it was a general request for intervention in Goguryeo and related articles due to edit warring; it wasn't a specific conduct issue with regard to Korea history, nor was his/her name specifically mentioned. Thought here: should I move this thread to WP:ANI in light of that? In any case, Korea history, the issue isn't my POV or your POV; it's that you can't seem to comply with policy. When you are removing citations to reliable sources and replacing them with non-citations to non-reliable sources, restoring grammatically incorrect versions, removing wikification, &c., it's getting to the territory of vandalism, and the behavior is thoroughly unacceptable. Further, you are not discussing your edits; you don't respond to people's comments; and your behavior is getting worse. --Nlu (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be a very good idea to go to WP:ANI. Ideally we want to turn this sort of person into a productive editor. If short blocks achieve that goal, so much the better. Come back here if the problems continue. Durova^Charge! 18:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect Nlu, We can't endorse community ban on the basis of one or two wikipedians. I suggest to put a neutral massage on related wikiprojects and invite others with both positive and negative attitude about him/her to participate in this discussion. For example you can write "There's a debate to ban Korea history (talk · contribs) in Community noticeboard. Because of his/her participations in Korea-related articles I invite all of the wikipedians who know him/her to write their idea about this issue in here." Template:Sa.vakilian--04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Will do that. Meanwhile, I'm moving this thread over to WP:ANI. (Will leave this thread up for about a couple more hours before removing it, but going to copy and paste over now.) --Nlu (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear what I'm asking now: in light of the discussion on WP:CN, I am asking other admins to review the situation and give Korea history an appropriate block in light of his/her behavior. --Nlu (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

And right now, I'm asking for an immediate block. He/she is currently continuing to assert, even though both Korean and Chinese sources agree otherwise, that Battle of Salsu involved over 300,000 deaths, and is inserting that unsupported POV into multiple articles. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I am getting no response, and since then, we have behaviors such as this, I have given him/her a {{test4}}. If this is a conflict of interest, so be it. --Nlu (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the user's behavior is not just directed at me, at least. See [21], [22]. He/she also apparently sees every attempt at curbing his/her behavior as harassment.[23] --Nlu (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nlu asked WP:KO members to partake in the discussion about user Korea history. First of all, I am shocked by the very existence of "community ban". The recent trend of establishment of arrogant and bureaucratic policies in Wikipedia is reflected here. Anyways, I'm confident that Korea history is acting in his unique, Korean ways - his behaviors are not a purposeful or rebellious. I'd like to ask admin Nlu to reconsider.

• Kritik of Nlu's examples of failure to comply.

• 1: That Nlu listed this as a example of failure to comply really angers me. Allow me to explain the logic (from the perspective of Wikipedia procedurals) behind my opinion individually, I would have done the same thing here. This looks more like CPOV of administrator Nlu.
• 2: I'm not quite sure on what Korea history did wrong here.
• 3: This dispute should be seen plainly from the perspective of Wikipedia procedurals. Conflicting viewpoints.
• 4: The CPOV-KPOV wars on China-Korea related articles should be attributed to this edit. From Korea history's viewpoint, "the people north of Anju" are described in his sources under Korean pronunciation. The question of whether or not to use Chinese or Korean to name disputed titles, etc. spill over to here.
• 5: There is no dispute here. The 2 editors are working under good faith on the article "Battle of Noryang", the last naval battle of the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). Both of them celebrate the triumph of the Chinese-Korean alliance over the Japanese fleet.

• Conclusion

• Nlu is overusing his powers granted as an administrator. To ban a user on these grounds is ridiculous.
• Nlu, as an administrator, changed the way he views disputes and discussions. Anybody who challenges his edits are rebellious, or harassing,. Not a matter of difference in opinion, personal character, or usages of different sources.
• The CPOV-KPOV disputes spill over to here. Using his/her administrative powers, Nlu should stabilize the disputes & satisfy both parts in order to prevent these "harassing" acts by not only Korea history, but also other KPOV AND CPOV editors as well.
• The CPOV editors are just as bad. The salon.com's article on "history wars" used talk:Goguryeo as an example & specified an instance in which CPOV editors cussed at Korean editors.
• Korea history is acting Korean. That is, not all Koreans act this way, but there is this type of personality which is extremely aggressive against any attack on his/her country (=patriotic?), easily angered & easily inspired (in other words, emotionally unstable), & if you're friend w/ him/her, s/he's the best friend you'd ever have.

All the best. (Wikimachine 03:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

The issue here isn't Korea history's views. (I've had fairly spirited disagreements with people with views that are similar to Korea history's, as Wikimachine himself/herself knows.) The issue is that Korea history stepped over the line; look at the contribution history, and I don't think anyone, anyone can justify his/her behavior. It's Korea history's actions, not views, that is the problem. As the links I've cited shown, Korea history wasn't just reverting; he/she was reverting without discussion, restoring edits with worse grammar and style and less proper citations, and escalating in his/her behavior. Further, he/she was reverting everyone that he/she disagrees with -- not just me, and not just people with "CPOV." (I believe that is oxymoronic; there shouldn't be such a thing as "CPOV" or "KPOV"; Wikipedia is about "NPOV.") In the case of Battle of Salsu, for example, he/she was restoring edits without citations, and when pointed out at the sources don't support his interpretation, simply ignored the sources. He/she was even reverting people with "KPOV" just because he disagreed with them as well as to wording and as to factual characterizations. The behavior is not acceptable. Frankly, it was getting tiring to, in good faith, write lengthy explanations for my edits to have him revert without any explanation. Agree or disagree with my edits, at least come up with some reasons supported by citations, and further, don't wipe out my grammatical corrections as well. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If Korea history reverts my edits, I won't protest them because I know that they were all done under good faith. And I'm sure that all other editors at WikiProject Korea don't mind him either. It's for them to decide, not a single individual administrator, Nlu. If he causes too much ruckus, let us petition for his expulsion. At the same time, I'll try to talk to him on this issue. (Wikimachine 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC))

Again personal attack by Biophys

User Biophys already earlier made a personal attack against me due to his unstoppable edit warring see the whole matter here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive78#If_this_a_personal_attack. He was warned by administrator Alex Bakharev here and personal attack was removed.

However, Biophys has created an article which he titled Internet troll squads, which is based on single unreliable source - immigration advertisement newspaper with circulation less than 5 000. And on the talk page to this article Biophys has created section entitled "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?" diff, where he invites everyone to his talk page entitled "Vlad" - User_talk:Biophys#Vlad. At this page user CPTGbr [alleges], that I and administrator Alex Bakharev are working for the Russian government. Considering that user Biophys entitled his section on the Internet troll squads talk page "KGB trolls in Wikipedia?", it is clear that Biophys publicly slanders and defames me and Alex Bakharev. As you could see from my IP address (which is not proxy like in Biophys case), I can't be man working for KGB. I would like to stop this unstoppable continuing harassment by user Biophys. It seems that his only business in Wikipedia is discussion of other Wikipedians, rather than discussion of the articles. I pretty much understand his desire to republish blog La Russophobe and all other anti-russian sources in the Wikipedia, but this has nothing to do with personal attacks and with discussion of reliability of these anti-russian sources.Vlad fedorov 04:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking into this. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

CPTGbr given final warning for accusations against Alex Bakharev. Biophys given a warning about civility. Internet troll squads nominated at AFD. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the intervention.Vlad fedorov 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to protest nominating this aricle for deletion based on the false peraonal accusations by Vlad. The article Internet troll squads and its talk page does not include a single word about any person. It was Vlad who decided that article is about him and Alex Bakharev. I have never claimed this anywhere. Ithink that Internet troll squads is a very interesting and general topic. There is nothing personal here. Besides, I was not the person who opened this question. It was someone probably from Germany. See Talk:Federal_Security_Service_of_the_Russian_Federation#Infiltration Biophys 19:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Most likely it was you, Biophys, who used that proxy from Germany. Long before this anonymous message appeared, you posted information about troll squads on your user page when you had a conflict with me over FSB article editing (clearly for harrassment of me). So how you could reconcile the fact, that this anonymous user from Germany conviniently appears just in time when you have received a warning over your another uncivilty and Politkovskaya article was blocked by Alex Bakharev because of your edit warring with me? Moreover, why you then started discussion about KGB trolls in Wikipedia by inviting everyone to this discussion? Haven't you violated Wikipedia rule that we discuss articles, not editors?Vlad fedorov 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong. I did not invite anyone to my talk page to discuss Vlad (User_talk:Biophys#Vlad). To the contrary, I wanted to stop this and therefore said: "Please, do not use my talk page for this purpose." (see Talk:Internet_troll_squads). Biophys 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You said it because you wished to prevent yourself being penalized for violations of Wikipedia rules. But you have invited everyone to disccuss personalities of users of Wikipedia as KGB trolls.Vlad fedorov 05:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats AFD

• List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

In the light of the ongoing RfAr (linked above), I fear a case of vote stacking and other nonsense might happen on this AfD. I ask administrators to monitor this case for disruption of any kind. -- Cat ^chi? 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs as requested

• Augustgrahl (talk · contribs) nomination
• Artaxiad (talk · contribs) vote
• Aivazovsky (talk · contribs) vote
• Vartanm (talk · contribs) (check userpage history) vote
• Fadix (talk · contribs) (check userpage history) vote

5 out of 8 deletion/merge votes came from Armenian voters

In addition 4 of the 5 Armenian voters are an involved party in the arbitration case. The other one is a proposed involved party

-- Cat ^chi? 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a delete vote stacking building up. -- Cat ^chi? 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The reporting of incidents traditionally involves posting diffs here. A cursory check through the contributions of Augustgrahl (talk · contribs), Artaxiad (talk · contribs), and Aivazovsky (talk · contribs), didn't show any canvassing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

People can get others to vote for them without posting on their talk pages (not that I'm saying that's the case here). Yonatan ^talk 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Email may be a way to do this. I just am not completely convinced that all these Armenian (based on their talk page) editors popping out of nowhere on a newly created articles AfD is a mere coincidence. -- Cat ^chi? 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block, need double check

I've blocked User:Gwenboy indefinitely, as he appears to be engaged in a sophisticated hoaxing campaign. Edits such as this one, linking to an article created by the user, seem plausible (the article even cites several sources), but from everything I can find are completely false. Need a sanity-check on reasoning, and also we should be looking out for hoaxing, seems to be quite a bit of it recently, and this subtle kind can be terribly hard to root out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing the article deleted per WP:BLP. This is concerning. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the article, just remove the unsourced information. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I went ahead and deleted the article before I read this message. The entire article is unsourced if you ignore the fake references, and this seems like exactly the kind of things WP:BLP says we should take down. Did I misunderstand something? Xiner (talk, email) 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox policy - Essjay controversy again

What is the official policy on article sandboxes? When Essjay controversy was protected yesterday, I made a sandbox page for two very specific purposes, linked off the Talk page (include an image yay/nay, and where; and the placement of ONE sentence). my aim was to hash out the stuff amicably there rather than have article edit warring another week. User:QuackGuru, who has been very contentious on the Essjay talk page (and posted here on ANI previously, two days ago), has been... alternately I think trying to help, but has been hindering equally. His own user page is a hyper-sourced copy of the Essjay article now also. what is the proper decorum/handling/rules/policy for development sandboxes? I ask because Gwen Gale and I both agreed to Speedy delete request the sandbox I made, but QuackGuru is now contesting my desire to delete the sandbox I created. We decided to remove it after he added a prominent banner on the article talk page advertising it. What to do here? - Denny 05:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

With respect, you don't own the article. Once other folks started working on it, the CSD G7 criteria you were attempting to invoke disappeared. I hope you can work out your content dispute amicably. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to be clear then on that--hence the posting here. We are just trying to minimalize any conflict I think on this issue since it's so contentious and so many people have already disrupted wikipedia by jumping guns on the article and related pages... are there any sandbox-related sorts of policies I can refer to? Since BLP stuff is a consideration also I am curious for that angle as well. - Denny 05:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, two separate POV forks for a highly contentious article are acceptable? Did I misread the guideline? Risker 05:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats my concern also, and why I posted here. If I have to MfD my sandbox, I'll happily do that if it's the right way. - Denny 05:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no special policy for article sandboxes, and thus they are treated just like any other page. If you would like to work on content by yourself, an offline version is the only way to go. --bainer (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the sandbox I had started for MfD here. - Denny 06:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. G7 may not have applied, but G10 does, as does common sense. Chick Bowen 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Geez, if you have a sandbox in your own userspace then if someone wants to change it they can make their own copy. It is about having a place to work on your own ideas, not about owning. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There are sandboxes and there are WP:Content forks. Gwen Gale 18:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack ?

Could you advise me, is this edit an intentional personal attack against me? Should I be concerned about this? Recommendations? Advice? Samdira 07:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not a personal attack. I recommend that you provide sources for the article Agitprop. My advice is to read first corinthians chapter thirteen in the Bible. You'll be happier if you don't read ill intent in others so easily. WAS 4.250 08:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not one of the best responses to a n00b either; but then we have the assume good faith policy. :) — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia become a christianity missionary center and proselytizing business? SInce when do we recommend people find jesus before editing? ThuranX 15:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm an atheist. WAS 4.250 15:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You can read the bible without finding Jesus. I've read parts of it as literature, and of course half of it also figures importantly into Judaism. Natalie 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22. --Doc^g 15:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this li'l nugget :

Then [Jesus] turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little." (Luke 7)

Samdira, my use of that term was not a personal attack, and I believe I used the word correctly in that context... but I'm sorry if you felt attacked personally, it certainly wasn't my intention. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of it is as an attack on the user's actions, not their person. Nothing wrong here. Chris cheese whine 16:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad and Person

Rebroad came to the Person article early today and completely ignoed that it was a contoversial article.

He went to the disambig page, and edited it and then moved the Person page, "as per distinction on disambiguation page" a distinction of course, that he created.

He then edited the Person page redirecting it to Person (disambiguation) which went against long standing consensus and kept non-admins from being able to undo his move.

I've already listed undoing the move as an uncontroversial move at Wikipedia requested moves (because if someone wants it done, then can request it as a controversial move).

The whole idea of renaming it is silly if you look at the article or the talk page--the new name isn't appropriate much anyway, since the article keeps shifting between philosophy and rights associated with being a person (and people keep trying to split it).

But I'm really concerned by this editor's edits to the article. The entire process of the renaming not only ignored that the article was controversial and that splitting it and renaming it had been discussed, but was done incredibly deceptively, editing the disambig page and then using the disambig page as an excuse to change the name, when really, you don't rename an article because a disambig page says something anyway.

Then further blatantly going against consensus and making sure that an admin was needed to undo the move--the entire thing comes very close to vandalism, too close for my comfort. I'm trying very hard to AGF, but it's very hard for me to believe that this was just an experienced editor who came to the article (these are Rebroad's first edits to Person) and had such a strong point of view that he moved a controversial article and lied in an edit summary and so on and so on.

I'm obviously involved, I'm been working on undoing the edits, because if these changes are ones that are going to be made, they'll need to be suggested and gain consensus--something they don't have now. And I've obviously been an editor on the article before, though I haven't edited it recently, and I have opinions about the article and where it should go.

I'd really appreciate if someone could weigh in on this--this is really troubling to me, but I recognize that I'm involved and so... Thanks. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I must say I found the disambiguation page quite well laid out. It's not appropriate for Person to remain a redirect, however, so I'd actually move the disambig page over. I'm not sure many people think philosophy when they think about the term. But that's just me. Xiner (talk, email) 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a nice disambig page. And I'm one of the people who really thinks that this page needs a major overhaul and that the disambig page should probably be located at person, but this is a controversial article. No name change proposals have gone through--no content overhauls have gone through, and moving the disambig page to person has not gone through. Consensus hasn't been achieved and even if I agreed with everything this user did, I'd still want it undone so that it could be done properly, and I'd have real problems with the way it was done. The move back hasn't gone through yet (an admin is needed to do that, and apparantly I didn't give enough of a rationale) and I have an enormous problem with a person getting around consensus by moving the article and editing the namespace so that it can't be moved back. Uncontroversial moves says

"If there is any prior discussion as to the name of the article please link to it. If there is any possibility that the proposed page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section. If the move location appears as a red link you should be able to move the article using the move button of the top of the article's page"

This user has been around Wikipedia for years and should understand the difference between controversial and uncontroversial moves. The user was new to the article, and should have read the article and the talk page before moving it. If the user did, the user should have realized that the name wasn't appropriate and that there was consensus against moving the page, that the page had been tried to be moved before and to more applicable names and they hadn't gone through. The user didn't even move it to the proper spelling of philosophical, and only when the user came back hours later was this fixed. The user hasn't commented on the talk page once or made any other edits--all of this is very troubling to me.

And, in the meantime, the article sits in limbo, person is a disambig page and while this may bring editors back to the article (as it did me, I haven't had the time recently), I'm not working on the article now, I'm working on cleaning up this mess, and my time would be better spent editing or working on the proposals that everyone had last sorta agreed on. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Captain scarlet

• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• [29]

His talk comments recently look increasingly like trolling. He's been blocked for 3RR but I wonder if something more should be done regarding the hostile approach. MRSC • Talk 13:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He appears now to be demanding that his sock puppet accounts are unblocked. [30]. MRSC • Talk 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why he's gone off the deep end, but I've said something. Patstuart^talk·edits 14:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Block evading vandal

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:49Z

user:Serafin has been blocked for more than a month, and while his block is still on, he has been vandalizing articles with three different names:

• user:Patyk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 131.104.218.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• user:Blacha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

these have all been edited in Serafin's style, on the exact same articles, and include the exact same insulting edit summaries. Some times he even signs Andrew which is what he signed when he wasn't blocked. He has been permanently blocked from both the German and Polish wikipedias for the reasons he is blocked here.

--Jadger 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both accounts indef; since we've clearly had persistent problems with that particular IP address (since December, at least), I've given that one a 2-month soft block as well. Feel free to review -- the IP is or seems to be shared, judging from WHOIS, but I'm having trouble finding evidence that anybody else is using it, these days. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf name in Arabic

Hi,

Please note that there is a big argument going in the page of Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf naming dispute on Wikipedia.

Some Iranian users are trying to eliminate any minor information indicating that it is translated to “the Arabian Gulf” in Arabic language, or even it could be also called the Arabian Gulf according to some medieval maps and documents. If this term is disputed then it is controversial issue and has not been solved. As many old references and maps saying it is “Persian Gulf”, also dozens of historical maps and documents saying it is the “Arabian Gulf”[31] [32] [33] [34] that is long time before 1960's as our colleagues indicate it is the time of using Arabian Gulf by Gamal Abde Nasser.

In its discussion page, long talk and hot debate has been running since long time. But the major point that users editing this page are writing its translated name in a way not used, or even found, in the Arab world which oscillates this geopolitical issue through Wikipedia pages.

Please note that الخليج الفارسي means Persian Gulf, while الخليج العربي mean Arabian Gulf (it could be not easy for you to distinguish anyway as letters looks similar, but actually different, could be like similarity between English and Spanish). However, Persian language is basically different from Arabic.

In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended:

"when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice."

It is so witty and meaningless if one Persian user in Wiki has basics in Arabic and change names as he like in a bigotry way!

It is not accepted, in any way, to translate/transcribe a name from one language to another according to unidirectional transcription system and giving it a translated name not –basically- used in that language for the sake of political domination.

No one will accept deleting all used names for the Danube River pages on Wikipedia in all other Central European languages and adopt what just the Germans or Czechs only used to call! and so on… These are different languages and cultures, and have their own nominations for interlaced territories/resources/rivers/water bodies... etc.

The major concept adopted here by Wikipedia will open the way for other users to entitle (or rename) new pages or modify information according to their own political background using their own language to change names in other language(s). Like a French Wiki user can speak English go and delete any word of the “English Channel” on English Wikipedia and replace it with “Sea of Manch” or a British Wiki user French basics do the same and replace all “La Manche” with “Canal Anglais”! or a Muslim user changes all pages entitled “God” in all languages to “Allah”!

I would appreciate if you talk seriously with the following users and check their “User Talk” pages before

• Pejman47 ^talk
• Sinamohajer ^talk
• Barnetj ^talk
• Sorkhadem ^talk
• Ali doostzadeh ^talk

….

Please turn their attention to follow rules of Wikipedia editing and not to keep reverting additions by others without any discussion or voting. You may notice in pages history how many times they undo edits of the pages without describing minimum reasonable reason. Some of them has been warned of offensive use and vandalizing pages. You may also remind them that such violation of national geopolitical name could lead to a serious international juridical issue against Wikipedia’s users and management. Adopting fake and non-approved names in official language(s) of some countries could lead to significant political conflict lead by Arabic-speaking countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Iraq as they are sharing this water body with Iran as it is an oriented propaganda shouldn’t be lead by you, Wikipedia. Violating terms in other languages to achieve political aims is irresponsible behavior. Faking territorial names for political purposes could fall under threatening national security, illegal translation and offensive use of internet, that can cause international conflict if not indicating real term used in mentioned language. Wikipedia will be mainly responsible for the behavior and actions of its registered members.

On the other side, no one will blame Wikipedia, only in its Persian version, for adopting names used in Persian language.

Please direct them not to play geopolitical-linguistic games in Wikipedia and to stop undoing other people's edits repeatedly without voting or discussing the page. This is really not accepted and not convenient for Wikipedia’s atmosphere. Ralhazzaa ^talk 17:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I once tried to make the dispute(the supposedly dispute article) show both sides, but I was swiped..and I gave up on it..may be I'm biased because I'm from Egypt..may be..--Alnokta 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf article was on the 13th of January, and that was to take the article back to the version that was agreed upon on the talk page by the vast majority. The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf naming dispute was on the 17th of January, which again had to do with the talk that was going on in the Persian Gulf. I dont know who drew my name out of the pot...Are you sure you have the right Azerbaijani? I mean, the way you have worded your comments here, it seems like you are talking about something recent.Azerbaijani 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! sorry dear Azerbaijani.. you really looks away from this mess :P .. I was just tracing back and writing the user names who used to make reverts w/o discussions or just to fix their own ideology here. sorry again and I hope you assist in enriching the talk and give us a hand to solve this dispute. Ralhazzaa 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack

AdilBaguirov has diverted a whole section on a talk page to personally attacking me: [35] [36]

For those of you who know the history, Elsanaturk, Atabek, and Adil have continuously thrown personal attacks against me, and they have been warned by admins several times not to do it again.

He doesnt even know what hes talking about, just his usual OR. For example, not only is he attacking me, but all of his information is wrong. He is not distinguishing the Iranic culture that is till within the Republic of Azerbaijan, the Russian culture that is still within the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Turkic culture which is still in the Republic of Azerbaijan.Azerbaijani 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I copied this from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement since it seems to have no relevance to any arbitration ruling. --Tony Sidaway 18:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you let him know to look for a reply here? IronDuke 20:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I left a note next to his original edit, and now that you remind me I'll notify both involved editors on their talk pages. --Tony Sidaway 21:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. Thanks Tony for correcting everything.Azerbaijani 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it is not the first time user:Azerbaijani makes up things and directs it against everyone who opposes his disruptive editing (which is a case of its own -- and by the way, we are all part of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom that goes on right now). From those two diffs he provided, I failed to understand, what he considers as a "personal attack"? If telling him that his so-called DNA information, which uses a Persian-language Iranian state-run news agency as an only "source", is POV and biased, or that he is not an Azerbaijani ethnically (which he never denied until now, and now has actually essentially confirmed it), can be considered as a personal attack, then how about these words of his in the same thread (to which I responded, and now user:Azerbaijani tries to present me as an "attacker" [37]: "The culture of us Iranian Azerbaijani's is vastly different from the culture in the Republic of Azerbaijan. If you knew anything about Iranian Azerbaijani's, you would have known that! Your culture is completely different than ours, you have gone through 80 years of Soviet occupation, and you assume that we have the same culture? This is ridiculous. I am Iranian, dont worry about me so much about me." Here he personally assaults the entire nation of Azerbaijan, and by the way, note that he admits being Iranian, not Azerbaijani.

He goes on much further with his insults and attacks in an older edit on January 2, 2007 [38]: "There is not Republic of Azerbaijan if thats what you mean, the nation is fictitious and it is founded on one lie after another. Now you are not only trying to take our land but take away our rightful name too? Stop with your POV edits all over the place!". As you can see, user:Azerbaijani simply loves to insult everyone based on national basis and then, adding insult to injury, accuse the victim of his aggression of "POV". What an ingenuity!

Also, note that just above this complaint, user:Azerbaijani is listed as a party to another case of disruptive editing[39]. It looks like he read that, and while responding to it, decided to drag unrelated people on unrelated cases into that. No thanks, don't want to be part of this game. But for such words about "ficticious" nation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, he, and not anyone else, should be reprimanded. --AdilBaguirov 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it with you guys and focusing on each other's ethnicities? Do you really think anybody on this whole project besides those of you who are parties to the arbitration case cares about whether you're Turks, Armenians, or Lapplanders? Adil, your comment which said "user "Azerbaijani", had you been a real Azerbaijani, you would have known that Azerbaijani culture is as different and unique from the Iranian culture as any other culture of the region" is, indeed, a personal attack. Picaroon 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More of Adil's personal attacks! He knows as well as anyone that there are 20 million Azeri's in Iran. I'm sick of his continuous personal attacks and I ask the admins to apply Wikipedia's rules and punish him accordingly. My comments about the Azerbaijan were about its name, not any nation. I'm tired of this user. He says I'm fabricating evidence yet the two links are there for everyone to see. This user is known to use OR, POV, and PA. He has a history of this. And oh yea, do you know why I'm in Arbcom? Because users like Adil fabricated evidence about me. I never went through any dispute resolution to even be on an Arbcom. My name was added days later by Grandmaster, under false pretenses. The Administrators are aware of this fact.

Here is Adil's previous warning regarding civility and personal attacks: [40]

This user obviously has not learned to respect other users on Wikipedia.Azerbaijani 02:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Personally I don't think either of you have. I'm not going to involve myself in this, but if you were my kids I'd spank you both and give you time-out for 'fussin. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review

I blocked TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) 24 hours for continuing uncivil spamming like this edit. Finding people whose images had been tagged by Abu badali and referring them to his rfc. My first non-vandal block, therefore I mention it here. Feel free to overturn if block is not warranted. Garion96 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to question this block a bit, although I see it was done in good faith. Being uncivil is generally not a blockable offense, and alerting users that an image they have uploaded has been marked for deletion does not meet WP:CANVAS, I think. In fact, there are bots that do just that, no? I would consider lifting the block. IronDuke 20:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The users were of course already contacted by Abu badali regarding the image. Usually the standard no source/or whatever image tag. Example, abu's image tagging message here, RFC spamming here. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Point well-taken. Nevertheless, reminding users of an issue they are already aware of is not necessarily a violation of WP:CANVAS. Also, I'm not sure blocks are really called for in CANVAS and CIVIL cases, unless they are extreme. IronDuke 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

217.207.185.114

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:48Z

This user constantly changes criminal to animal on Michael Barton. Bluedevil04 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice the user violated WP:3RR a few days ago. You might issue a warning, then report him if and when it happens again. IronDuke 20:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

That's no content dispute, it's a battle-station. Blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJH1992

JJH1992 (talk · contribs)

This user is in an edit war with another editor. In particular, I'm interested in these edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danity_Kane_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=115811144 - claimed to revert vandalism, but introduces style issues (inserting br tags in the infobox - including the date)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danity_Kane&diff=prev&oldid=115586198 - personal attack in edit summary
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PCD_%28album%29&diff=prev&oldid=115809691 - a threat to block for reverting these changes.

While some of these changes within these diffs could be considered legit, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. --Sigma 7 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One-day protection on the pages. Let's see if that's enough to sort out an incipient edit war. Looking, it appears Nobbiyo [41] is acting similarly, so best to treat this as an edit war, I think, for now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and Attacks

Right. I'm afraid this one's a little complicated.

I was going through the Homeopathy-related articles after seeing everyone talking about POV forks but doing nothing about it. By talking with the people on Talk:Homeopathy I tried to make sure I had a brake, and didn't do anything too foolish. A few got deleted, several others were improved to the point that they didn't have to be.

Now, a couple things need mentioned here: Homeopathy-related articles pretty clearly have gone through a certain amount of POV-forking and advertising. For an easy example, take Robin Murphy, ND where, when told he needed to assert notability or have it deleted, he seems to have lied outright about his qualifications. I trimmed the worst bits - which had been marked with fact tags for ages, but he had made claims like "Most well known teacher of homeopathy" when '"Robin Murphy" Homeopathy' plugged into google gets 873 hits. Um, should probably be mentioned that that's a PROD, so it'll probably be gone sometime tomorrow, unless someone deletes the prod tag, in which case I'll put it up for AfD.

There were other problems elsewhere, but many of them were fixable - List of important homeopaths got a title change, a trim of a long list of homeopaths without either articles, cites, or assertations of notability (It was in two categories: "Generally considered influential" and "Other known homeopaths" - you can see the problem of the last bit. Robin Murphy, ND, by the way, had been added to influential.

Now, this leads us to the problem. George Vithoulkas was a terrible article, with long list. I'll quote a bit of the old article in a footnote. It was a long list of searches, all of which are not for his full name, but just for his surname, with no qualifier. I found this highly suspicious - he's surely not the only Vithoulkas - and suspected the results were being gamed. It also made some quite extrordinary claims about governments showering him with awards, more of which anon. It wasn't very well cited, which something with that many extraordinary claims needed, so I nominated it for deletion.

However, huge numbers of new editors invaded the AFD and its talk page. If you'll scroll forward an edit from there, you'll see my possibly misguided attempt to end the attacks on me there, followed by Guettarda simply archiving the whole. Skinwalker pointed out to me that there had been canvassing on homeopathic forums - Here and here - possibly elsewhere, but not until after I had put up a request for checkuser to try and figure out what was going on (which I should probably close now, as it's probable they aren't all the same person).

I think I'm getting slightly ahead of myself. I discovered the George Vithoulkas page was a copyvio while trying to research claims made to me about him, and so deleted it. It wasn't extreme copy vio - no sentence stood unchanged, but there was a very telling sentence order, and pretty clear evidence that the opening of the sentence was simply tweaked a bit to make it a little different. The farther back in the history, the worse things got, back to an edit labelled "fix copyvio", before which it was straight copyvio. I did the only thing that seemed sensible: deleted the page, closed the AfD, asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page if it should be recreated.

User:LeeHunter at this point gave the third of three nasty messages to my talk page [42] accusing me of "abusing the process to delete the article". I, I hope politely, pointed out I had already asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page whether it should be recreated, and he made a short article on Vithoulkas.

At that point, the Talk:Homeopathy page promptly went to hell, becoming devoted entirely to bashing and abusing me. It's been archived, but is all available here.

User:Homeopathic, who is strongly related to George Vithoulkas, if Image:George_vithoulkas_smallpicture.jpg's copyright label is any guide, was the worst attacker. He also doesn't sign his posts, so I'm afraid some digging in the archive of Talk:Homeopathy is necessary to prove connection. Among his gripes with me is after one of the meatpuppets called the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament on a video of George Vithoulkas getting an award there "Ms. Rikstag" or something like that, I checked to find out her proper name. Unfortunately, the speaker at the time that the video being placed as evidence took place was a man, so it's pretty clear that the video either mislabelled the woman, or, if my rather poor ability to identify faces is correct, combined a video of the female speaker from several years earlier praising the award he got and saying the Swedish Parliament supported it with the video several years later, also in the Swedish Parliament building, of Vithoulkas getting the award. The faces seem to match.

This is an important claim, because without that speech, there's no strong swedish parliament connection outside of building, which was one of the things they were making huge numbers of personal attacks on me about.

I quote the last two posts before Guettardsa atchived it:

I want to suggest something. Adam Cuerden must not be editor of wikipedia any more!!!!!He is prejudiced and wikipedia doesn't need people that forge the truth. So, please I call you to VOTE: Adam Cuerden must not be editor of Wikipedia any more. Do you agree? YES or NO? Althea Khun

I do not believe that you cannot read, Adam Cuerden. Please, read again carefully. I wrote about Pubmed, isinet.com, scirus.com, british library direct, science direct. I think thay you DO NOT WANT to read. Adam Cuerden, you depreciate our common sense!!!!!!!!!! I VOTE YES!!!!!! Aristos Antoniadis

(The last in response to me pointing out the list from the old article (footnoted below) was pretty bad.)

...As you can imagine, this is extremely stressful. Please help. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put a uw-npa4im on the talk page of the IP address. I suspect the IP address may be a sock of another user that is on the talk page, and thus you may want to submit a checkuser request. --Sigma 7 20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• sigh* They were the same person? What the hell is going on here? Just when I think I have a handle on this, something new comes up. Ah, well, added it to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Dr._Krischer. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever willing to put my foot in it, I noticed that a critical review link added by User:LeeHunter wasn't mentioned in the article, so added a brief summary. User:Homeopathic has taken it up on my user talk page, asking me to "please do something about Adam Cuerden, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV", then later claiming to be an MD and a homeopath. Perhaps my suggestion that he read WP:IAC was too tactful. ... dave souza, talk 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

SndrAndrss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – The user was banned by the community.

The above user who is currently blocked (and has his block extended on March 9 for block evasion) has created a sock to get around there block (SndrAndrss10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) - looking at the contribs its fairly obvious, and a check user case has already highlighted a number of other socks. I am going to indef block User:SndrAndrss10 as a sock, but would like comments as to whether it would be a good idea to further extend the block of SndrAndrss for continued block evasion Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would fully support a considerably longer block. User appears to have a long history of bad behavior. IronDuke 20:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I extended his block to a month. His use of sockpuppets is getting rediculous. IrishGuy ^talk 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments guys, hopefully SndrAndrss will see the light now Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• For what its worth, the original blocks were for making unilateral changes to football templates and 3RRing. The new sock seems to be making brand new templates, not disrupting old ones. So while it is definitely block evasion, I'm not seeing any other blockable acts by the new account. —dgies^t_c 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Yeah I understand that, but this is the second time its been an issue with the current block, which is why I feel an extension is required, the 1st time, certainly I agree it should just have been a reset block, however, continued abuse of his block merits an extension in my opinion Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As Ryan noted, this isn't the first time this has happened. When he uses the unblock template, he admits to using sockpuppets and says he will stop if he is unblocked. He shouldn't have to be unblocked to stop using socks. He shouldn't be using socks. IrishGuy ^talk 20:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't realized how persistent he has been. Sounds reasonable. —dgies^t_c 20:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that a community ban of this user is currently being discussed on WP:CN, where it has unanimous support so far. Sandstein 20:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive, Disruptive, and Racist Attacts

embargo (talk · contribs), has continually leveled offensive and unambiguously racist remarks on talk pages, [43] and edit summaries, [44] [45] despite being asked to stop. [46] [47] --emerson7 | Talk 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly recommend immediate block. "Jewish garbage"? Zero tolerance. IronDuke 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Support block too. A note to the filer: diffs are preferred to links to page histories. Beit Or 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've given him a two-week block, though that could increase if consensus to do so is met. Anyone want to weigh in on the length? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I like giving people second chances, where possible. If the user in question could make a sincere promise to cease the bigoted attacks, then two weeks is just about right. If he refuses, a longer block may be in order. IronDuke 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is a good call. Block for six months if he persists after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say that was an excellent block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, extremely lenient given outright racist crap like this and this. Our patience with such people is remarkable (and not conducive to encyclopedia-building, imo). If he does the same upon return an immediate block/ban is in order. Raymond Arritt 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How many editors of this nature have turned around and become well-behaved and productive contributors? If the answer is zero, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked on sight.Proabivouac 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Incredibly lenient block. The blocked user now claims he was "provoked" into being blocked. [48] I would reverse it myself and change it to an indefinite block but I don't want to start a wheel war. So if there is consensus here for such a move state your opinions below.--Jersey Devil 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

post of WP:AIV asking IP to be permablocked

This was just posted on AIV: 209.36.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this is shared proxy server at Fork Union Military Academy where I am Director of Communications. Recommend this IP Address be blocked from anonymous editing as there have been many, many instances of anonymous users abusing the editing rights. CaptDan FUMA 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe it's a illegitimate request, but it seemed like a bad idea to give an IP an extended block because some guy showed up and asked nicely. Not sure what to do. Natalie 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone blocked them for 3 months Natalie 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that we shouldn't do that sort of thing blindly -- at least make sure the person's story checks out, WHOIS the IP and such. In this case, it looks like the IP was shared and the story at least makes sense. I see it's been given month-long blocks, previously and not too long ago. We should be wary of these requests, though, I'd hate to see some random person wander in, tag some random dynamic home ISP's IP as shared, and get it blocked for six months because "the school admins asked." :x – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you were going to do a permaprotect, only do so if the request comes by e-mail (an obviously real one). Cbrown1023 talk 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to know my instinct was in the right area, even if it turned out to be a moot point. Natalie 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Groupempty (talk · contribs)

Resolved

This user has been creating multiple useless templates and images and appears to only be interested in being disruptive. The user has also made some positive edits, but they don't seem to understand that we don't need templates telling people to write in big text as some users are legally blind.

Some of his creations include: Template:HappyPatsDay!, Template:Blocked2, Template:typo, Template:Blindusername, and putting an account with no contributions who just happens to be the alternate account of a sysop on AIV. [49]. Also the delightful image Image:Cannotsee.JPG.

So, um. Perhaps this user should be blocked? Cowman109^Talk 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by JzG, by the looks of it. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And page protected. Happy Saint Patrick's Day! Picaroon 02:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:46Z

The user has repeatedly tried to insert an identical poorly-formatted and turgid unencyclopedic essay of questionable provenance into multiple articles, and has repeatedly created inappropriate articles. When ‘Scientific-Wisdom’ was prod'd, he created Scientifc wisdom and Scientific wisdom; today, he has responded to the AfD discussion of "Scientific Community of Practice" by creating Scientific communities of practice. (All of his edits, including reversions, have the "minor" box check-marked and are made without talk-page discussion. Multiple editors have tried to reason with him with no response. See generally User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions and see also the pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific). -- TedFrank 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is IMHO disruptive editing, I have left the user another (final) warning and would support a block if he continues to disrupt -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Aye, his/her "push-to-talk" button seems stuck in transmit mode (sample communication | here). Support block if no appropriate reaction to most recent warning. Pete.Hurd 02:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  On a related note, Scientific Community of Practice has been deleted, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice has not been closed... Pete.Hurd 04:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  AfD now closed. Final warning issued, next stop in case of further disruption: WP:AIV. Sandstein 07:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Profession

Resolved

 – Recommend discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-18 09:45Z

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes

I suggest the removal of all non-professionals (ie. podcastors, beach bums) to another page. A lot of the categories are nothing close for being professional.

--Cahk 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like an "incident" -- would you be willing to move this thread to WP:AN or the village pump, or perhaps the talk page of whatever relevant userboxes page? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Azerbaijani violating the ArbCom injunction of having to comment on Talk pages for edits

User Azerbaijani has violated the ArbCom notice [50] on page Ganja khanate mandating to discuss every edit/change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganja_khanate&diff=115928170&oldid=115724564 ] in the Talk page of that article [51]. Despite his edit being at 22:23, March 17, 2007, as of right now, more than one hour later, he has still not made any comments for his removal of one word. Meanwhile, I have shown his edit being absolutely incorrect on that talk page. --AdilBaguirov 03:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement is here. Naconkantari 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, more false accusations (you can try hard Adil, but it wont work). The Arbcom injuction is for REVERTS, not edits (you know this very well, as you ahve the injunction on your very own talk page and have read it yourself). Here is where you can read the Arbcom injunction:[52] It clearly states: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. I did not revert your edits (reverting your edits means that I must have deleting the entire quote that you added!), I simply removed something which you had typed int he quote which was not in the original quote. I reverted none of your edit. Here is the diff of the version before your edits and my edit: [53] If I had made a content revert, which I did not, my version would look exactly the same as Aivazovsky version! Does that look like a revert to you Adil, because it certainly doesnt fit into the definition of what a revert is. I'm really getting sick and tired of your personal attacks, your stalking, and your campaign of trying to demonize me on Wikipedia using false information.Azerbaijani 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Your wikilawyering is not constructive, Azerbaijani. A revert is any action which undoes the work of another editor, and removing content added by another editor - even if you just remove one word of it - is a revert. You certainly don't have to undo every change made in a given edit, or restore a particular old revision, to have made a revert.

You are both treading a fine line. Any more reverts contrary to the injunction will result in blocks. --bainer (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Settle down both of you and stop accusing each other of crap. Neither one of you is acting like a saint and you're definitely not acting civil. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, next door to your left. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)

BZ(Bruno Zollinger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been derailing Talk pages with lengthy personal opinions (which he describes as "commentaries"), and ignoring pointers to the talk page guidelines, since at least last November (judging by Talk:The Lathe of Heaven/archive1 and his own user talk page). And he's made not a single edit to an article. An administrator's attention to this user might be helpful. I myself feel, after looking through the account's edit history, that such consistently distracting, useless, and unproductive behavior ought to be ban-worthy, but I'm not sure whether policy supports this, since it all seems to be done in good faith (albeit misguided and policy-ignoring). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there is a previous RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger), and an apparently identical user has been banned from the German Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the German indef block rationale reads: "hat aus sperrverfahren von sommer 206 nichts gelernt; benutz WP weiterhin ausschließlich für diskussions". This translates to: "Hasn't learned anything from block in summer of 2006, continues to use Wikipedia for discussions exclusively."

I'll be bold now and block him for 48h for talk page disruption, with the understanding that the next block may be indefinite if he persists. Please review here. Sandstein 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) ArbCom Violation

Resolved

AdilBaguirov is in violation of his parole, he removed my quote previously with no mention in the talk page, the author of the quote is a regional expert and a third party there is no reason to remove it unless he wants to suppress info. Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. My addition, [54] his removal, [55] Artaxiad 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please provide a link to the relevant ArbCom case and the parole violation that you quote- that would help greatly in assisting you. Teke 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the link, [56] Artaxiad 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Please post your report of the violation to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Apologies for the run-around, but there are administrators there much more aquainted with these situations. Teke 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I am going to issue a block based on the violation. But do take future complaints over to the arbcom noticeboard. Teke 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Artaxiad 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) for five days for the injunction violation and as an escalating pattern of behavior. This is the user's fifth block in four weeks, previous blocks were for 3RR violations and gaming the system. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Teke 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Vegetto's Redirection

Resolved

 – Content dispute, does not belong here.

Hello there fellow wikipedians (yes, that includes you Administrators). I have a complaint (duh!)

For the past day now (yeah 24 straight hours, can you believe it?), i have been trying to figure out why a Dragon Ball Z character by the name of Vegetto does not have his own article. My first step was to take the initative and create the article. My first attempt was disrupted by a user by the name of Nemu. Nemu immediately redirected the article which i was willingly working on, and told me on the Vegetto Talk Page that, "because nobody disputed it being an article, the unanimous decision was that it would never becoming an article EVER!" So hence, the redirection.

So what's my case? I would like to write the Vegetto article. However, i have been consistently stopped. Users on the Dragon Ball Project have all told me that "you will never be able to create the Vegetto article, because they all said so". Even though i have tried to discuss the situation (peacefully at first) many of them, especially Nemu, have insulted and ridiculed me. Now i'm not sure as to why they do this, maybe because their numbers far exceed my own (and i mean it literally, i am by myself) or that i'm just a "new guy" so why should they give a damn?

I would like to report this incidednt, because i feel voilated the priviledge of being given the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject. I should not be judged and be mis-understood because of the failures of past users. I kindly ask for the dedicated time of an Administrator, to check this situation out.

For further investigation, Visit Here, Here and Here.

I thank you for your help, and understanding! Muchas Gracias! Gooden 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a content issue, not an administrative problem. This does not belong here.

On the merits, I think you are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. A user has pointed you to an extended discussion, the consensus result of which was to merge this character description into another article. This is also what our guideline WP:FICT says: 'Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters.'" On Wikipedia, you must work within consensus; you do not have "the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject". If you want to do that, please do it on your own blog or website. In this case, you must first engage your fellow editors in discussion, persuading them to change consensus, and only then may you create this article. Sandstein 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that also mean that i have to work with the them all. Are you saying the presence of an article is impossible? You say that i have to discusss the matter with my fellow contributors. How can i do anything when they will refuse to listen? Also, it seems that everyone around here has come to some sort of agreement that this character is a "minor" case, i do not understand why? I mean, talk to me here! I still need some kind of recommendation for the entire situation. Gooden 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere recommendation is: accept that you are alone with your view - that's quite clear from the long discussion here -, forget about it and find something else to edit. That is enough now for this noticeboard. Do not edit this thread further. Sandstein 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

O'Donoghue

O'Donoghue has made a large number of edits on Ireland related articles over the last couple of weeks, using both his account and a number of IPs. I believe there is strong evidence this editor is actually El chulito, as he has also harassed Vintagekits in a similar manner to El chulito. There's a checkuser also involving several other accounts that has yet to be filed that I was thinking of adding to, but I can't really class it as A or C so I'm reluctant to add the information to that and request the checkuser, so I'm listing it here as recommended.

El chulito - Example of link formatting - [57]

O'Donoghue - No edits between 16 August 2006 and 1 March 2007, then makes this edit on 10 March with an edit summary of violation of mediation agreement on use of "Volunteer" with reference to this mediation which finished in February which El chulito was involved in. Examples of link formatting - [58][59][60][61][62]

216.194.0.99 Edits Vintagekits' talk page, then edits as El chulito to add his signature.

216.194.3.132 - Example of link formatting - [63]

216.194.0.248 - O'Donoghue edits Vintagekits talk page, then 3 minutes later the IP corrects the previous edit. Adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article, which is a category O'Donoghue created.

216.194.1.39 - Similarly, adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article. Example of link formatting - [64]

216.194.3.140 - Example of link formatting - [65][66][67][68]

216.194.3.125 - Edits Daniel McCann and Eddie Copeland, which he's also edited using two of the IPs listed above - 216.194.3.140, 216.194.0.248 216.194.3.140.

Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

All those IPs come from the same company MetTel, Inc. Due to that fact, there appears to be come puppetry involved, although whether it is sock or meat I wouldn't know. IrishGuy ^talk 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007, again

Parker007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), feel free to review. I've blocked him for a week because the previous, shorter blocks had no effect. He resumed running the same bot after each block. He also blanked his talk page a couple times while I was trying to leave him a note to this effect. Perhaps he has exhausted the community's patience. —freak(talk) 09:27, Mar. 18, 2007 (UTC)

Yes - 17 edit per minute is far too high, with a bot flag or not. Martinp23 09:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Having interacted with him several times, he has exhausted my patience, at least. – Steel 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block. I have told him many times on wiki and on IRC that he may continue editing in this fashion if he obtains a bot account. He has not done so and should stay blocked until he obtains a bot or decides to stop. Naconkantari 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block review for Dr. Steller

I've blocked Dr. Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats in the form of this edit; see their user talk page for a translation. This block is open to review here. Sandstein 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a standard legal threat case with a German language twist. Good indefinite block.--Jersey Devil 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That was the best thing to do.-- Carabinieri 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have a policy for this?

Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this [69] - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there. Giano 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now. Giano 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the comment in question is violative of Wikipedia policy, and so should be allowed to remain (perhaps marked with a {{unsigned}} tag). --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring / Saskatchewan articles

Continued edit warring on Saskatchewan political articles between 70.73.4.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Brad Wall [70] and Saskatchewan Liberal Party [71], despite repeated previous warnings and blocks. Tearlach 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A message

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian#Final decision I would like my main account to be unblocked. I will just stop the edit-warring, personal attacks and whatnot, it ain't good for anything. --¤~Gibraltarian ^(talk) 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should we take this to WP:CN? I have no fundamental objection to giving Gibraltarian another chance, but I was not really involved in the massive cleanup of his problem behaviour last time. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevenson-Perez

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been rather enthusiastic in posting a distinctly idiosyncratic view of a particular concept, Scientific Communities of Practice. Everywhere. I have blocked the account, for reasons stated on the user talk page, anyone is free to unblock if they feel there is no further likelihood of disruption. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you find these people? – Steel 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Note AN/I case about a dozen sections up (where the userlinks template does not make a redlink to his talk page, very odd that it does here). Pete.Hurd 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've fixed that. – Steel 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ed g2s disruptive edits and deletions

Well, there are many problems. First, the user ed g2s has been deleting images from the Evanescence articles, because according to him the use of album cover images violates thes Fair use criteria. This is totally fake, and it can be proved. Nirvana (band) and Nightwish have images of album covers, and these articles are Featured articles. If the use use of album cover images is forbidden, then these articles would never have passed the FA. Now, he is also contradicting himself, because he has also deleted an logo ([[:Image:Evanescence early.png, an earlier logo of the band). Logo are not album covers, so...? He has deleted it with no reasons. The only thing he said was that the use of the images hasn't been discussed. What's that??

Some edits he made (deleting images):

• 14:42, March 14, 2007
• 14:43, March 14, 2007
• 17:23, March 14, 2007
• 18:45, March 14, 2007

Another problem is that he has nominated an free-use image created by me, Image:EV-In.svg, with a very vague reason. He says this is a derivated work of the Evanescence logo. It would be a derivated logo if I would have copied the Evanescence logo and added something like some lines or whatever. Here's the discussion, but it's going nowhere.

And the last thing, he has tagged the Image:Evlithium1.jpg for deletion. This is a fair-use image, but many of the contributors in the Evanescence articles including me, reached a consensus. (this.

Also the fair use rationable stated the reasons why we are using a fair-use image by now.

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. While Evanescence is a very popular band and would probably be easier to get user-created pictures of than most, the fact remains that in general it's incredibly difficult to get good free use images of bands. The reasons are two-fold: the majority of user-contributed images are going to be from 1) dark concerts with bad lighting, where the band is spread across the stage and difficult to see, or 2) individual members posing with a fan. Highly unlikely that a decent picture of just the band outside of a concert setting could be found. (Check the fair use rationable for more reasons).

You should also check this discussion.

I really don't understand his reasons. I can even compare the fair use rationable of the main image of Nirvana (FA) with the rationable of the Evanescence (GA) rationable. The Evanescence images is very very very detailed.

Well, I hope these problems end and we can continue our Wikipedian lives normally... Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Ohmefentanyl by User:Nuklear

This doesn't appear to be vandalism, so I'm posting it here rather than on a vandalism-specific board. User:Nuklear has made several hundred edits to Ohmefentanyl over the last few days. These edits mostly seem innocuous, but some seem to be problematic, inserting text like "The author has personally bioassayed (±)-OMF2 but is disappointed that not more physical data was made available" and "The founder of Hochemicals© is the overall master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime. This important & extremely fundamental principle will become deeply embedded in the readers mind, his thoughts, his ideas & his daily philosophy. —Immediate & generous capital payments must be donated to his lordship, on the double, without any precondition whatsoever. Failure to comply will most definitely lead to draconian measures being taken, likely resulting in death (though not to oneself), without any remorse, or reconnaissance of any description."

I'm concerned that, among other things, the article is being turned surreptitiously into a manual for drug manufacturers to produce this substance with the intent to use it as a narcotic. Content that suggests this to me includes:

• "It will become apparent to the reader in later sections that there are important and complex distinctions that can be drawn between the subsequent isomers through studying their pharmacology."
• "HC1abcd is the Hochemicals© code for the four most active isomers of 23HOMeF." (see information on Hochemicals here and here; it seems to me to be a somewhat dubious organization)
• "HC-1a is already 13K x stronger than morphine. If a p-fluoro atom is then incorporated into the phenethanol tail, the resultant compound has recently been reported to have a potency of 18K x morphine! ;-)"
• "Professor Q speculates that "there is a good chance that this compound could be made more powerful still, [...] Even if ED50 doesn't go any lower, one would expect duration of action to increase by a factor of three or so...""
• "Those skilled in the art will also acknowledge that these formulations are representative of so-called prodrugs"
• "However in a real-world environment, the dosage [of carfentanil] is so vanishingly small that it is difficult not to overdose even if one is careful; Although it must be conceeded that opiate naïve individuals are at magnified risk, in the event of exposure, relative to hardened addicts who may already have significant tolerance."
• "Introduction of an α-Me into this molecule would probably compliment it nicely. It will also be apparent to the veteran narcologist, that organometallic addition of XMEt to the direct product of the Strecker synthesis gives a pharmacophore common, to both methadone and ketobemidone. Such SAR overlap is thus likely and might be expected to have a favorable outcome with regards to creating unexplored agents with a longer duration."

I really have no idea how to procede with this article, its subject being something I'm not familiar with at all, but it looks to me as though the editing User:Nuklear is undertaking is not appropriate and should be stopped. JulesH 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nuklear has now requested, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl, that this article (which they have written) be deleted - and I have obliged them. That's it for now, I guess, but I am as puzzled as anyone else about what the hell this is all about. Sandstein 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I have blocked User:Nuklear for 48 hours for his disruption on the AfD and more generally through his confused contributions. Sandstein 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied user page

In light of the Essjay scandal what may once have been seen as just laziness on the part of one user, should probably be looked into. It appears that User:Sue Rangell's user page is largely lifted from User:Nesbit's user page. User:Sue Rangell also claims she is on the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University (sic), although User:Nesbit does not. I asked both if Sue was Nesbit's sockpuppet, Sue said no[72], but then deleted the question and her response a few minutes later.[73] User:Nesbit was, not surprisingly, surprised at being asked if Sue was his sockpuppet and apparently more surprised to find he had so much in common with her.[74]

I looked at User:Sue Rangell originally because she is pushing very hard for a stunningly crappy article Sonoma County, California to be made a FA after being here, on Wikipedia, only about a week.[75] (Her first edit was creating her user page.[76]

I really don't know what is going on here, but her aggressive pushing of her "FA" without it having met any FA criteria is simply strange, as is her user page being a copy of another user's. KP Botany 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a pure copy, she's added quite a bit of stuff. I know I copied my userbox setup from another user's page when I first started, and this user isn't doing anything particularly nasty, so it appears to be fine. Logical2u_{Review me!} 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ARe you serious? Oh, maybe you are looking at her just freshly edited version. This was copied:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

From user Nesbit:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

And here is Sue's lists of interests:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

• Cognitive psychology
• Concept mapping
• Knowledge representation
• Educational psychology
• Educational technology
• Instructional design
• Interaction design
• Learning object
• Multivariate statistics
• Meta-analysis
• Multimedia
• Qualitative psychological research
• Self-regulated learning

Among my recreational interests are:

• Artificial intelligence
• European history
• Northumberland
• History of technology
• History of science
• Science fiction
• Music theory
• Music Synthesizers
• Jazz
• Computer programming

Here are Nesbit's:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

• Cognitive psychology
• Concept mapping
• Knowledge representation
• Educational psychology
• Educational technology
• Instructional design
• Interaction design
• Learning object
• Multivariate statistics
• Meta-analysis
• Multimedia
• Qualitative psychological research
• Self-regulated learning

Among my recreational interests are:

• Artificial intelligence
• European history
• Northumberland
• History of technology
• History of science
• Science fiction
• Music theory
• Music Synthesizers
• Jazz
• Computer programming

And she edited her programming languages boxes.

Something funky is going on. Sure, I copied my user boxes, but I didn't say I shared all the same interests as another user, and I didn't claim I was on the faculty of a university that doesn't exist or one whose name I can't spell. KP Botany 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)