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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point - it may as well be a student prank. We will see what the accused replies; According to posts below, he admitted to this. One way or another I'd expect that the involved teachers should stress to students that 'vandalising Wikipedia is as bad as breaking a window in your local shop' and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and never can be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are also other IP ranges, such as the following:
  • 71.56.0.0 - 71.63.255.255
  • 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255
• Both of which are utilized by the city of Dekalb, Illinois, home of NIU.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SQL access is not necessary. Checkuser can do it. Raul654 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email to the professor (it's spelled Pierce, by the way), who acknowledges that he did indeed make this assignment. I told him I would be forwarding the informaton to the president of the university. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: he acknowledged this in an email reply to you? OOC, did he apologize or is he arguing he did the right thing? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He acknowledged this and tried to justify his actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have passed Professor's Pierce's reply on to the Northern Illinois University office of public relations, and have asked them to pass it on to the school's President. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's that uncommon task for university profs to set - I've seen it used a couple of times on courses (generally the prof will commit the vandalism and then revert). One use is to show why wikipedia should not be used as a source (Study skills context), the second is to show that wikipedia is to open to abuse (with an INFO-SEC context). --Fredrick day 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fredrick, if one wants to prove the violatile nature of Wiki's, that's what sandbox and one's userspace is. I teach, I talk about Wikis, I do use my userpage to demonstrate those issues - but I'd never thought to vandalize a real article even for a few seconds to prove to my students what can be proven as well on my userpage (as messing up real article's history and allowing a reader to find vandalised info during the few seconds it takes one to revert a change is simply bad). That said, I encourage examples of 'good editing' - I prefer to show my studnets how easy it is to add interlinks or copyedit articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great but you are coming from a perspective of domain expertise - many of the people doing this, don't understand wikipedia beyond a) "it's that free-speech website that anyone can edit and add anything about anyone" b) "this is the place that students cut and paste large sections of their assignments from". I'm not excusing anyone but that's just how it is. --Fredrick day 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - so it is our job to educate them. A very good way to to it in the academia is to ask them to read this article from Journal of American History (I do suggest sending it to the professors involved in this incident).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I finished checking the NIU class B.

• Edits that concern me and should probably be verified:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wheeling%2C_Illinois&diff=101685760&oldid=96451410
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Wooden&diff=101268126&oldid=101232824
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michigan_State_University_Residence_Halls_Association&curid=4575200&diff=102152804&oldid=92396515
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huntley%2C_Illinois&curid=111373&diff=101151565&oldid=101050130

• Vandalism:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brookfield_Zoo&curid=1207234&diff=102039931&oldid=101862270 (Uncaught)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steroid&curid=141922&diff=102024168&oldid=101770838

The other ranges are too large and dense to check easily. Raul654 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I just plain undid the questionable edits that you listed (except for the Wheeling one, as you beat me to that). One was a fact changing thing, the MSU one could not be supported, and the Huntley one was not supported by the reference (there are five Pacific Islanders in all of Huntley, Illinois, which has a 0.00 percentage of the population, not 0.02).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

5/16,719 = 0.000299 or approximately 0.03%. That wasn't vandalism. Can an admin unrevert and de-warn the editor? Jd2718 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave all of the above {{Test4im}} warnings, and a {{SharedIPEDU}} with the link to Northwestern pointing to this discussion. I say we have an extremely short leash -- A minimum one month IP block (including user registration) on the next obvious case of vandalism. This cannot be allowed, IMO. -- Avi 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor Pierce's reply

This was Professor Pierce's email reply to me:

They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

I then replied to him that I would be passing his response on to the University President, and he relied:

It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth is he talking about? I tell my students not to trust Wikipedia, and that if they do, they're likely to get things wrong, and get worse results; that's what most of my colleagues do (though most sensible undergraduates don't need to be told). Why does he have to tell them to vandalise Wikipedia in order to get them to work sensibly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I tell my students Wiki is a great place to start their research - but a very bad place to finish it. We are moving towards a level of quality with every fact properly referenced, but of course we are just an encyclopedia. Undergrads (and grads, and even professors) may find reading a Wiki article on unknown subject useful to get a general gist of relevant info, but then they should have enough knowledge to go to academic databases. Although I think increasingly we will have high quality articles on obscure subjects that may not even be covered well in English academic works (I challenge anyone to find a better English biography of this person then we have :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is what I do too (good starting point). I also point them to the excellent resource here Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia. i can't imagine endorsing vandalism , they really need to actually do it to know it is possible? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I smell WP:POINT violations. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for Mr. Pierce. If you want your students to learn about the dangers of using wikipedia, have them search for five unreferenced figures in this encyclopedia. They can use the random article button on the left side of the screen. Have them verify those figures. Chances are that some of the figures will turn out to be wrong. You will get your message across to your students, they will hopefully learn from it and we will know which information is incorrect. Aecis^Bravado 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have another suggestion. He could get his students to improve an article on Wikipedia, and verify it.

As an aside, this professor has very little technical knowledge about Wikipedia, especially as we have the revert function and don't have to rely on printouts to restore the article to its previous state. Yuser31415 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Geez the same pointless experiment over and over. Don't these people realize they can just look into the history to see how we react to vandalism? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Very few people who are not editors realize what Wikipedia really is. I am not suprised at that, this is only to be expected. I would however expect an academic to read up on what other academics have done with Wikipedia: WP:SUP and WP:ACST are the two links that Professor Pierce should look through as soon as possible and Rosenzweig's article in JoAH should be obligatory reading for anybody thinking about 'teaching' and 'Wikipedia' in the same sentence.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Page break for readability

I have no qualms with a prof making a real-time point by inserting erroneous info into an article while the class watches on a screen, and then reverting it right then and there. But asking the whole class apart from oversight of the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) needlessly takes the point too far.

Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. This has to be admitted and, yes, possibly expected. That said, this does not appear to be the case here.

The response letter composed was probably hasty and not done in the most effective manner. All that needed doing was to remind the prof that, for class research projects, he must first get IRB approval - which he would certainly admit to - and if he does the project again, you would report it to the university's IRB. IRB approval of research projects is a time-consuming, tedious task. This would have probably been the end of the matter. If not, if it occurred again, then the letter should go to the IRB, indicating the prof's class is doing research not under their approval. That really would put a stop to it. CyberAnth 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would assume that the professor was doing it as a research project. Professors and students also have to abide to a code of ethics (I know I have to in my university), and violations usually are taken seriously. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the description, it certainly appears as though it were a research project - one NOT done under the IRB. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. If asked by several users, I would be happy to write a second letter to this prof along the lines of what I am speaking. CyberAnth 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to prove to your students that glass shatters, you buy a sheet of glass and a hammer. You don't ask them to throw rocks at the windscreens in the parking lot. yandman 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but that analogy is seriously not correlative. CyberAnth 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do have qualms with a professor illustrating a point by vandalising and immediately reverting an article. The same demonstration could easily be carried out by editing a sandbox or previewing the article without saving it. —David Levy 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had further discussion with Professor Pierce. I asked him if he felt that if a newspaper had false information, his students should steal all of the copies out of the vendor's box, and if he found something wrong in Encyclopaedia Brittanica, would he encourage them to rip the page out of the book, but he doesn't see the analogy. I also mentioned that we have seen an increase in vandalism from NIU IP addresses which, despite his claim, he had not reverted, and he apologized for the extra work entailed in fixing that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, isn't there an essay about this? Something like "Use Wikipedia as your first source, not your last source?" Because it does strike me as a very good topic for one, and something to hand to frustrated professors and the like while at the same time asking them not to vandalize to make a point. Heck, the suggestion of the alternative assignment of properly citing an uncited article and noting inaccuracies (instead of vandalizing) alone sounds like a very worthwhile thing to mention to people. Bitnine 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is legitimate research regardless of the approving body. Defacement of websites is illegal in the US, not that we ever take legal action, but that fact certainly invalidates the legitimacy of the experiment. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Defacement of websites related to hacking, yes, and that would apply to the WP main page which is closed to editing. A very public website that invites anyone to edit and that claims to be an encyclopedia and that has multiple published reports on its problem of vandalism is a very, very different matter. CyberAnth 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Academic use, WP:CW and Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Special:Cite actually links to the last one. —xyzzy_n 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

defusd timebomb

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

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

I was told that I should have AFD it instead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:POINT and WP:NPOV problems at Brown people and White people

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

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has moved on to claiming other editors are "...filling it (the article) with ridiculous fringe ideas..." [1], which violates WP:AGF. At the same time LSLM (talk · contribs) is also adding insults like Some users here who like to classify people in colors just try and ignore that basic fact. [2]. The talk page is rife with these two editors talking past my attempts to discuss the actual article and the content in it (including a complete diatribe with links on how parts of the world hate Americans) and only want to see the article as a racist rant (which it has nothing to do with). Am I being unreasonable here? ju66l3r 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

LSLM (talk · contribs) has already had another entry here which wasnt responded. [3]

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

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

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

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

• Admin note. I've blocked User:SqueakBox for one week for violating his personal attack parole in relation to this report at WP:AE

Trouble on Uncyclopedia

Pardon my inexperience, but I don't know where to put this. It's a little more controversial than your standard page protection issue, so I'm putting it here. Uncyclopedia just went through two AFDs in one day. Both were speedy kept, and several people ahve been advocating a re-write due to poor sourcing (very little third-party references) and such. So I get started on it, and pschemp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) reverts me twice without so much as an edit summary. When I revert back and ask her about it on her talk page, she protects it, then reverts to her preferred version again. Now she's saying I'm "vandalizing" - yeah right. Can someone unprotect the page, due to her protecting it over a content dispute, so editing can resume? Milto LOL pia 01:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp made one error, that much is clear. Protecting the page is inappropriate when simply blocking you stops you. I can't comment on the rest. --Deskana (request backup) 01:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, removing tongue in cheek humor from an encyclopedia article is VANDALISM all right. It's definitely worth a mention that the site's potato mascot did not found the website. Milto LOL pia 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I never made any comment on anything you did. I simply said that really, pschemp should have blocked you rather than protected the page. Whether that block/page protection is appropriate is something I didn't comment on. I'm not well versed enough in the situation to understand it. --Deskana (request backup) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

pschemp will also be a bit tiffed when she sees some of your commentary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, my bad. Milto LOL pia 01:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I believe she protected it because you added {{unreferenced}} repeatedly, when there are nearly 3 dozen in-line citations, and a citation referencing the "content free" portion (from what I can see).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but we're currently discussing the validity of those cites, such as citing Uncyclopedia's "content-free" article as evidence of it being such, when it clearly says so on the Main Page; a link to an unhelpful Uncyclopedia page is not a good cite. Many other cites are self-references to Wikimedia or not third-party sources. ANd she was revert warring over other stuff too, without so much as a glance at the talk page, where all this was being discussed. Milto LOL pia 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Meh, my sex is irrelevent. Repeat insertions of tag that is false = vandalsim. I did you a favor Miltopia, by not allowing you to get to 3RR. pschemp | talk 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You're doing me a favor by hindering me from improving a poorly sourced page, revert warring me with no edit summaries, calling me a vandal, ignroing the talk page, and wildly assuming bad faith? No, you are protecting a page that you are in a content dispute with after boorish edit warring. Milto LOL pia 02:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism? O rly?

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] I don't see any vandalism here. Just some cleaning up of highly unencyclopedic tongue-in-cheek humor and confusing templates, replacing them with links. Where is the vandalism? Milto LOL pia 02:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding {{unreferenced}} falsely = vandalsim (especially when previously asked to not do it by Sean Black). pschemp | talk 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, knock it off with the running around in circles. I've said several times that it was poorly sourced and that it was being discussed on the talk page, and every time you simply say "SORRY YOU WERE ASKED NOT TO ADD IT". There was a good deal of talk page discussion that you completely ignored. Clearly my edits were in good faith, and I don't need your or Sean Black's permission to point out that article's shortcomings. Milto LOL pia 02:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• To be honest, that article does require a tag. It's not {{unreferenced}}, but it is either {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}}. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I found that out, but it ws already protected, so I added it to the talk page instead so the people who actually pay attention to that will see the problem. Milto LOL pia 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we agree to unprotect the article? I don't see it as a sin to have been using the wrong tag by mistake, and the diffs I've seen from Miltopia are well in keeping with policies like Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. But I don't want anyone to spark a wheel war. Grandmasterka 02:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, users are requesting uprotection at Talk:Uncyclopedia already. I don't see the horrible harm that required protection to begin with either. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his edits first (which other users didn't agree with) sure. But repeated insertions of something people in the page didn't agree with is not cool. pschemp | talk 02:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think adding the wrong tag is vandalism. Should he have added the right tag to begin with? Sure. Does he have a point about the quality of the references? Yes. This isn't a content dispute either, so there isn't any point to the protection. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Miltopia agreeing to work to get consensus for his changes. If he wants to change from vandalism to adding content, he needs to do that. pschemp | talk 02:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't need consensus for initial edits in the least - if that's your only problem, you have nothing to worry about. Your accusations of "vandalism" are starting to sound hysterical - clearly we have a consensus that the article needs to be unprotected and tagged, but you refuse because you want me to do it on your terms. Let's just cut the crap and get to work on the article already instead of playing out this foolish battle of wills. Milto LOL pia 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You do need consensus after people repeated revert you. Which is what happened. pschemp | talk 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't comment on much that's going on here, but there's one point about which I have to say something. Acting against consensus is not, in itself, vandalism. Adding a tag that one believes to be appropriate is certainly not vandalism. That's true, even if the one adding the tag is completely misguided, or simply wrong.

Vandalism means making edits in a deliberate effort to make Wikipedia worse. Doing something that you believe to be appropriate is not an attempt to make Wikipedia worse; it's a good faith edit. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Using administrative tools in a content dispute isn't cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll unprotect if Miltopia agrees to get consensus for his changes first. What you don't get is that I could care less about the content. I'm not involved in a content dispute, I reverted vandalism. pschemp | talk 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I had a number of good-faith, sensible edits that you were reverting without comment. Those were content edits. So far your only characterization of it as "vandalism" is because I was "asked not to add the tag". It's pretty obvious that you're the only one who thinks I was vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You made repeat insertions of something you didn't have consensus for. Get consensus first. I personally don't care what the content is, i care that you work with the other editors on the page. pschemp | talk 02:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing there was a disagreement on (as in, not blind "vandalism" reverts) is the tag. We now have a consensus for a different tag. There is no problem. Milto LOL pia 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where? pschemp | talk 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, right here. Milto LOL pia 02:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What, you and Tito? You need to discuss that on the talk page of the actual article. That's where we get consensus about articles. pschemp | talk 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"..I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally." - Newyorkbrad.[12] Sigh. Miltopia, don't do anything reckless, discuss changes beforehand. Pschemp, remove the protection, it is inappropriate. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I say again: Using admin tools in a content dispute is NOT cool. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. It wasn't a content dispute. pschemp | talk 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It might b e helpful if you could add something to the discussion other than "NO U". THe only people who "reverted me" used sysop tools to prevent my changes - Sean Blac via rollback, and you via protection. If it wasn't a content dispute, where's the "disagreement" coming from? No one else reverted me. Milto LOL pia 02:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• (edit conflicts) We shouldn't need "consensus" to include something that two editors disagree with and which resulted in full protection by an involved admin during a content dispute. This is a wiki. Nevertheless, I've voiced my opinion on the talk page. Grandmasterka 02:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected. Now, how hard is it to get consensus about contested edits? pschemp | talk 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Nothing to see here anymore, move on... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^_^ Milto LOL pia 03:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

UTFP (Use the fine talk page) though, or else! :-P --Kim Bruning 22:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollback/Popups/Whatever

So, does the 3RR apply to blind reverts via popups or rollback? I just got another revert via popup with no edit summary. I think it's stupid that the only one of the four of us reverting who has managed to use the talk page and use edit summaries would be blocked for 3RR for re-reverting. Milto LOL pia 03:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR applies to everything but vandalism. Looks like someone else thinks your edits are controversial. Interesting. pschemp | talk 03:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like they also weren't considerate enough to use an edit summary or the talk page, choosing instead to blindly edit war. Depressing. Milto LOL pia 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to reverting policy violations. And even if it did, I would choose to Ignore All Rules in those cases. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia Gaming the system?

I'd like some feedback on this as I feel this is a case of a user walking a very fine line. Here I warned Miltopia about 3RRing on Uncyclopedia. And, he responded so obviously read my warning. His first three reversions 1 2 and 3 were the addition of the {{unsourced}} tag (and all within the space of 20 minutes). One hour after my warning he went back and added the {{reliablesources}} tag 4. Does this seem like a blatant case of gaming the system to anyone else? No action has been taken at this time Glen 04:00, January 22, 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to be the only one to think so [13]. Editors on the page have expressed that the tag should remain deleted, so I wouldn't block this time, but if he does it again after all this mess...pschemp | talk 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood the rule and have stopped editing. We're done here. Milto LOL pia 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I also wasn't the one to re-insert the tag. You have Tbeatty to thank for that. Milto LOL pia 04:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor update - pschemp is now continuing to revert on the page, despite "not caring about the content" and then refusing discussion on her talk page or the article's talk page. I wonder what else this could be than gaming the system to take advantage of my 3RR paralysis. Milto LOL pia 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'll ping an uninvolved administrator or three to look into this. Administrative tools should not be used it a content dispute. period. It's damaging, and it's unwiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already gone over, and pschemp has already reverted me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

section header

Why do we tolerate disruptive influences from Encyclopedia Dramatica like Badlydrawnjeff and Miltopia? Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oops, neither of us are sysops. Milto LOL pia 05:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He can ban me as an "ED sysop troll" if that'll satisfy his appetite...-DESU 05:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't know. Why do we tolerate people randomly calling Badlydrawnjeff a disruptive influence? Maybe we should make everyone disclose their IP, and then infiltrate ED so we can checkuser the accounts there and then block everyone who also edits here. After all, being on ED automatically makes someone disruptive! -Amark moo! 05:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit I'm no saint, but BDJ does more for Wikipedia than most of the people who harass him. Er, he also hasn't edited ED in almost a year.

Oh look, ED is being brought up again by the same people who claim ED editors are all here to troll... Milto LOL pia 05:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• At what point is someone going to step in here? --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • When someone who can actually do something about it shows up. I'll continue making fun of the idea that all ED editors are trolls until that happens, if you don't mind me doing so.
  • Maybe we should trick people who we don't like into registering an ED account so that they automatically become a disruptive influence? -Amark moo! 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not. I'm having a hard enough time distancing myself as is. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's a much easier way to cause disruption. Just keep nagging the administrators to ban some people. Oops. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As an uninvolved reader of these boards, I've rarely seen Hipocrite post something without bile in his throat. It's beginning to wear thin. - Merzbow 07:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but are his main space edits constructive? BenBurch 07:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • It's starting to come to the point where it doesn't matter. Creating a negative atmosphere on any namespace in Wikipedia is a Bad Thing^TM. We really shouldn't encourage it. Deny recognition and move on, I'd say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Besides, are they? The vast majority of his edits are provoking fights and worsening disputes. Milto LOL pia 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Hipocrite is a troll. We get it. Really, really. I don't care. Just ignore him, and he'll get bored or blocked. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not helpful in the least.--MONGO 17:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And his statements are? I'm curious as to why you're defending him here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You assume bad faith on my part and all I am trying to do is put out a fire.--MONGO 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith at all, I simply don't understand why you're defending him. You're not putting out a fire when you're merely starting another one in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, some fo the fervor has died down. If he's so eager to get away from me that he'll bar communication on his talk page, maybe this can just blow over. Which would be best for everyone involved. Milto LOL pia 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I was getting at. This is, however, apparently "unhelpful". I wonder who this must be "unhelpful" to, since it seems like it would be pretty damn helpful to the Wiki to block and ignore a disruptive editor. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just so everyone is clear - if you had buttons, you would indef block me? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• It does not matter, as I do not. I would fully endorse someone blocking you for disruption, however. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be at odds with your normal approach of asking us all to AGF with regard to editors like Ilena? Have you seen the attack page on ED? I'm not defending hipocrites actions, his blunt swearing is definitely a problem, he is too easily baited and i think he also admits this. Where i draw the line is your comment " it would be pretty damn helpful to the Wiki to block and ignore a disruptive editor" since he is a lot more produtive than other editors whom you give a long leash of good faith. David D. (Talk) 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well it's funny you call him productive, since you're the first person I know that has used the words productive in the same sentence as his name. If we're dealing with attack blogs, it's worth mentioning that I have at least fifty attack blogs you there solely dedicated to attacking my person, and you don't see me getting angry about it (actually, I find how much of a limb these guys go out on most of the time quite funny). For a long time now Hipocrite's been testing the community's patience, much longer than Ilena, and my patience with him is simply worn threadbare. I think, given how I have been with Ilena and others in the past and currently, it would speak somewhat for how much of a problem this is, or at least how much of a problem I think it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"I have at least fifty attack blogs", not sure what you mean by this?

I have had my fair share of disagreements with hipocrite but i defend that he is productive. If you really need diff's to back this up I'll start digging but i don't think it is necessary. Note, i'm not defending his behaviour, rather his productivity. Hopefully these issues will resolve themselves such that the antagonists here can avoid each other. I have also found myself supporting BDJ in the past, so i agree with Steve's summary below. David D. (Talk) 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to conjecture that a single attack page justified his behaviour. If that were the case, I have fifty odd attack blogs that I'm sure would amount to one heck of a justified rampage :) Really though, off-wiki stuff stays off-wiki. A fundamental lack of the ability to do this is exactly why Ilena has issues. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My only point was, yet you defend Ilena, it seems like a double standard. You are saying hipocrite should know better, why not Ilena too? I am not endorsing the behaviour.

50 attacks blogs aimed at you? Are you sure, what on earth could anyone do to attract such attention? David D. (Talk) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've always found Jeff and Hipocrite useful, thoughtful contributors who want the best for Wikipedia so I'm troubled by this thread. Both have a tendency to fight their corner a little over-zealously, both wear their hearts on their sleeves, but I'm not sure I'd like Wikipedia without either of them. But seriously, the lot of you, dispute resolution is over there. Hipocrite, do you want to tone the section header down? Steve block Talk 21:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, what is this crap? There are ED trolls, Jeff is not one of them. If you guys haven't realised yet that he is here to build a great encyclopaedia (for just one of the many, many possible values of "great" in the minds of the Wikipedia community) then I guess I'm not going to persuade you, but the "sport" of Jeff-bashing really really ought to stop. He has chosen between "them" and "us", and he chose us. Give the guy a break why don't you? Guy (Help!) 22:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent ill will should not be tolerated

Please review the following, which is like Sidaway+1: flagrant trolling, "totally fucking wrong", more incivility, "fucking SPAs", "Don't piss on me and tell it's raining",

Look beyond their regular contribs to filter by specific name space. Makes almost no positive contribution to the real encyclopedia, just tries to WP:OWN the Ref Desk and then trolls Wikipedia space and user talk pages incessently. Recommend community ban from Ref Desk which is what seems to work him into a lather all by itself to protect a once contributing editor who has devolved sadly :(. BobDjurdjevick 14:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, User:rootology. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that Sir Nick has already blocked BobDjurdjevick as a single-purpose account created to harass Hipocrite; otherwise I would have done so myself.

That said, Hipocrite is frequently and gratuitously incivil in his interactions with other editors. This sort of comment about another good-faith contributor to Wikipedia is out of line. To be fair, Hipocrite has been less rude that usual recently, and he has also been the victim of persistent, obnoxious trolling. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of the least of the verbal abuse he generally offers. He seems much more interested in just stirring up unpleasantry than really contributing. To be fair, I stir up a fair bit myself, but it's generally because of the controversial nature of my edits or people's unwillingness to put aside melodramatic prejudice, not because I hang around Wikipedia calling people names. Milto LOL pia 15:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked BobD-whateveritis. However, Hipocrite's comments have been incivil and disruptive. Be prepared for a block, if this kind of behaviour does not cease. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. In this case it looks like a case of WP:SPADE. Cindery is vexatious in the extreme. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

One wonderes what the purpose and goal of this emergent pile on is. If it was to tell me to me nicer to people, how does responding to a Rootology and Miltopia (Miltopia is the prime contributor to the Encyclopedia Dramatica attack page about me) generated hatefest in any way convince me that you have my best interests at heart? It dosen't. You haven't. Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a free tip - stop including me in your little attacks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite, every time we've crossed paths, it's been you confronting/complaining me. This "emergent pile on" itself is a result of another such thread started by you. How can you label this as harassment? People are just replying to what you started. Milto LOL pia 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tu quoque, anyone? It's really a fallacy, you know. Not the best kind of argument to make. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawn, it would realy help if you didn't follow Hipocrite to AFDs. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't. When something on my watchlist is AfD'd, I thnk I'm within my rights to comment on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You had an article article on your watchlist 6 hours after it had been created and you didn't know enough about the subject to know it was a penname? I'll take your word for it. But, in the future, you might help us all rest easier if you would refrain from situations that might create the illusion of stalking & harassment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to watchlist redlinks that I want to create. I have a number of Voice contributors that I'm waiting on. I don't think I need to hold abck my edits because someone wants to be disruptive toward me. You want to help us all rest easier? Do something about Hipocrite. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh huh. After seeing your performance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Dark, I'd say you need a reading of WP:KETTLE before demanding that admins "do something" to help "us all". --Calton | Talk 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Which part, exactly? Or is this just more of the same? --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Many of us love Uncyclopedia, but we do need to apply encyclopedic standards to the uncyclopedia article in the end, I suppose. Can we stay cool too? :-) --Kim Bruning 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah. Some people seem to be taking Wikipedia a shade too seriously. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry related to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(unindent) I have had a long conflict with several parties mentioned above. 999 posted an ANI complaint against me on August 21.[14] . User:999 posted his first comment on my talk page the same day.[15].. Since then I have been consistently harassed and stalked by User:999, User:Ekajati, User:Hanuman Das. It was recently explained to me by User:Ars Scriptor that they were able to do this by using User Contributions. There was one day when Hanuman Das stalked me to 39 articles. Recently two new users posted on my page within their first several edits, neither having any connection with me other than each accidently ran across the Starwood Arbitration:: User: Tunnels of Set who removed edits from my user page in addition, and User:Jefferson Anderson who posted personal attacks on me on his user page (one was removed at the suggestion of another editor) and another was removed by another editor using an IP. This all may not be related. Sincerely, Mattisse 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I'm not convinced by Ekajati and Hanuman Das being socks of each other. This edit [16] shows a clear differences between the two. Ekajati has denined the allegations [17], which I find convincing. A Ramachandran asked to be unblocked with the comment "I don't understand, please discuss" [18].

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

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

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

Several points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read Blnguyen's comprehensive reply and his comment on Sandstein's talk page. Regardless the there mentioned reasons to block Ekajati, which I find here to be highly questionable as well (after incidentally working at a same article, many users follow one-another's work often for very acceptable reasons) - if the A Ramachandran account was not being used more inappropriately more often than that of many valued contributors, there is no reason for that one to be blocked. Especially not while this account appears mainly responsible for definite Wikipedia improvements. The usage of a single PC or 2 PCs without router on one Internet connection by people living together, is not forbidden and easily explains them never to work simultaneously as welll as to usually have similar interests and viewpoints (culturally and as being able to live together). They may well keep eachother informed, and often cooperate on articles of their mutual interest, as such they may even talk between themselves and come to a consensus before making an important contribution to Wikipedia (good idea, I'd say). Even occasionally both voting on an AfD or so, does not make these people's behaviour blockable sockpuppetry: each user has the right of expressing an opinion as much as any two users living with eachother but escaping suspicious indications simply by using more expensive separate technical equipment [no socio-economical discrimination, please]; this is not like disputed POV-pushing or edit-warring together or +3RR with prevention of bans. Banning an account is only appropriate if the account is causing more harm than offering a cure, this has not at all been demonstrated for 'A Ramachandran'. Violating WP:AGF is scolded upon when it appears as an inappropriate comment; banning someone, and most certainly by a durable ban, is a lot more serious than a mere unfortunately phrased comment. — SomeHuman 23 Jan2007 16:49 (UTC)

Further observations from Mattisse

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

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

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

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

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

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

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

• My edit [23]
• JA (his first edit on my page but he copied something above that I did not write [24]
• JA post #2 [25]
• JA post #3 [26]
• JA [27]
• JA[28]
• JA after my apology [29]
• I copy my replies from his page to mine [30]
• JA [31]
• JA [32]
• I apologise again [33]
• and again [34]
• JA [35]
• JA [36]
• JA [37]
• JA puts list of rude editors on his page[38]
• JA[39]
• JA[40]
• another user advises him [41]
• JA puts Mattisse sockpuppet tag on his user page[42]
• someone else removes template [43]

The last edit summary I made asking him not to post on my page again has been used repeadedly since as an example of my harrassment of him. On January 18 he posts on my talk page again: [44] I am suspicious of him now because he posted on my page repeatedly without knowing me, his subject was sockpuppet (known preocupation of Hanuman Das and Ekajaki), he was overly invested in me as shown by his posts, after I apologised deeply three times, he listed me as a rude editor and posted the Mattisse sockpuppet box on his user page. Why would a disinterested user invest so much time in me? Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Alkivar's unilateral deletion and salting of a draft article

Wow, I am amazed. I am working on a draft in user space, mention it by link Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Rusty_trombone, and the next thing I know it is deleted and salted. This is completely uncalled for. Will someone kindly restore the page so I can continue my work on it, get it up to quality and policy, and post it? I'd appreciate it a lot. CyberAnth 04:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A full reading of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prairie Muffins might be in order here. — coelacan talk — 04:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that once its deleted, recreation of it is forbidden per CSD:G4, particularly when its word for word identical with the page that was deleted from article space. Not to mention making a copy of a page thats about to be deleted via AFD in your userspace is frowned upon. You created the article in userspace on the 7th during the AFD cycle, and made no changes whatsoever until today. You also stated quite clearly you were going against the rules on DRV "Prairie Muffins (preserved here)" ... you dont preserve AFD'd articles in userspace.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have a life outside of WP and cannot work on things full-time. Sure, I used "preserved" there, but in its AfD page I said I was going to be working on it and please not to salt it. The fact is that what was deleted was a draft. CyberAnth 05:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#WEBSPACE has nothing to do with it. Does this mean all my drafts, e.g., User:CyberAnth/Drafts/Bonny_Hicks, and my own Sandbox is to be deleted as well? Everyone's drafts? CyberAnth 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A Sandbox is acceptable unless abused (hate speech, personal attacks, etc...) ... as for Bonny Hicks, she has a valid article in article space and has not faced a valid AFD and been deemed a delete. If she had failed an afd then no she wouldnt belong in your userspace, not until you'd gotten permission via WP:DRV to recreate it.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... no. DRV doesn't give permission to recreate, it gives permission to undelete the prior version, or unsalt. If you're recreating a substantially different article, DRV is irrelevant. -Amark moo! 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the reason Bonny Hicks is there is because I saved it from an AfD.[45] As for Prairie Muffins, you deleted my draft article I was in process of working on. I'd like the information back. This is ridiculous. I'd like to continue working on it to make it a much better article. Moreover, you salted this unilaterally. Do you come along after the fact and salt every AfD'ed article? If not, then why this one? Can you point me to the policy that gives you the authority to do what you have done? If not, admit the mistake, undelete it, and let's all move on to actually building an encyclopedia instead of this ridiculous stuff. CyberAnth 05:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Was this the recreation of a deleted article, or an entirely new article? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither, it was a userfied version of a deleted article, something often done to help bring articles that fail policy up to snuff for possible reintroduction. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

When the possibility of improving the article actually exists, yes. Cyberanth actually voted for the deletion of the article, admitting it could not be reliably sourced. The userfication was just sitting around on Wikipedia, picking up google pigeonrank. Cyberanth admitted WP:COI during the AFD, so it is probably impossible for this user to write this article. — coelacan talk — 05:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I voted it be deleted because it at the time did not meet WP policies but I did not say it could not be made meet them and I stated I was moving it to userspace where I could work on it. And - wow, oh, wow!! - when does writing a book on a subject, you know, expertise, equate to a conflict of interest??? Is that how WP really works? CyberAnth 05:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the AFD again. You said nothing about wanting to fix up the article. You just said you wanted it to be in userspace, and you did that marvelously well, having not touched it once yet. And yes, if you are writing a book on the subject, that's on a dangerous line with COI, and I'd watch out for WP:NOR too. — coelacan talk — 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the evidence suggest I have ever even once done that, Badlydrawnjeff, or are you assuming bad faith here? In point of fact, the evidence says I place articles on user space, (e.g., another example here), get them up to par, and place them into WP as an article, and then continue to work on changes in my userspace. This was an article, like Bonny Hicks, that was in the middle of an AfD that I KNEW could make a good article given work. Please undelete it so I can work on it. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I feel this issue is not as cut and dry as either side would make it. Surely a version of an article userified by an admin so a user could improve it is a legitimate practice - many sysops do this as a compromise with CSDs. However, there are of course concerns that we are not a free webost. Some leniency can be given if the user is truly improving an article in such a way, however, I see no great reason for it not to be deleted. However, salting is completely unneccesary and should be undone. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In any event, I'd like the information back. CyberAnth 05:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If the user intends to work on it and make a different version that meets the objections from the AfD I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Obviously, the user should be careful of COI and related concerns, but that shouldn't stop the user from working on a possible draft. JoshuaZ 05:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Article Drafts do not equate with free web hosting. CyberAnth 06:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, if they're just sitting there, largely unedited, consensus is that they do consitute a violation of Wikipedia not being free webhosting, and should be deleted. If you are editing it, but have some reason why you're not going to be actively editing it (vacation, health, et cetera), it would be wise to note that on the talk page of the draft. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That I am busy with real life right now doing an extra big load has been noted since Jan. 13 right at the top of my userpage.[46] It was true even sooner, believe me. CyberAnth 07:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Never mind, this is just not worth my time. CyberAnth 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  I do not believe the article will ever be notable or reliably sourced, and I do not believe it should be sitting around here on Wikipedia sponging up our PigeonRank. But as I told you before, CyberAnth, I have a copy of it on my hard drive, and if you request it, I will provide it to you in my userspace for whatever brief window of time it takes for you to copy it onto your hard drive. Then you can play with it all you like and if you ever think it's notable, make a request to an admin for the new version of the article to be created and listed at AFD to see if it survives. Let me know here if you want my copy, or on my talk page if I don't respond here promptly. — coelacan talk — 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • Like I said, this is just not worth my time. That said, and with all due respect, if you ever wish to have a look at WP through the lens of people who wish it were a reliable source they could recommend but do not, have a look in the mirror.[47] CyberAnth 10:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An option that is sometimes useful is to copy what you wish to have a copy of onto a subpage in user space; then to blank the page so it is available via history when you want it, but is not subject to critisism such as "sponging up our PigeonRank". Copy then edit so the copy is in history is a general way of saving a copy without it being live. Sometimes useful in article space too. WAS 4.250 15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Then again, the deleting admin, who is supposed to know more about such things, could just as easily have done that, don't you think? CyberAnth 09:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

But that would be doing you a favor. If you act confrontationally, such as trying to get a bunch of articles deleted, you have to expect humans to act like humans in response. First Corinthians chapter 13 has some good advise. WAS 4.250 15:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

ROFL. Pa-lease. I expect humans to act responsibly and not fall into this. I expect admins to not abuse their authority. I expect humans to act by law ("policy"), not mob rule, out of their own self interest, in realization that there can always be a bigger mob and the tides turn. I expect humans to act, uh, civilized, not like tribal monsters. CyberAnth 17:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

DSB Worldwide spam + vandalism on Meta (spam blacklist request)

24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is one of 6 accounts that have spammed links to domains owned by DSB Worldwide since September 2005.[48] These links have usually gotten reverted. Now the user has taken to vandalizing m:Talk:Spam blacklist using 24.119.101.26 plus a new Meta account, m:User:Spamhatred. Complete details on the spam and different accounts can be found at User talk:24.119.101.26. Meta vandalism diffs:[49][50][51][52][53][54][55] ... then later ... [56][57][58][59]

I don't know if Wikipedia admins can block IPs for Meta-Wiki as well, or if it needs a separate block. I think this is going to go on until a Meta admin blocks both the DSB Worldwide links[60] as well as those of DSB competitor, searchtexoma.[61]

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

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

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

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

OK, I'm back again. This person's behavior gets a bit odd after about 10 o'clock in the evening, his time. He mildly vandalized a user subpage of mine[62] and is now proceeding to "stagger" around (for want of a better way to put it) to various user space pages writing about me only semi-coherently.[63][64][65] Not exactly hardcore vandalism like his blanking the spam blacklist talk page 24 hours ago yet still odd. (If this were real-space and not cyberspace, you'd worry he might lurch in front of a car). I've wasted a lot of time with this guy's spam project, etc -- I'd love it if you rid me of this pest for a little while. If you can't, well then at least enjoy the show. --A. B. ^(talk) 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

JuJube's annoyances

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

• About my old username. Well worked under the username [66] and then I've created a new account because it was too difficult to understand the "changing username" link because I'm from a foreign country and my English is not very well. Well, I've created a new account because my old username is a name of an existing character and everytime when I type my old username into the google-web machine, my contributions also appear and also JuJube's sentences about my old username also appear. Please don't forget to tell JuJube that he should use my current username in any cases. Well, I've left you a comment because JuJube has to be stopped, as I mentioned. Sergeant Gerzi 09:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user 24.132.108.178

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

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

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

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

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

User:Rumpelstiltskin223

User:Hkelkar was banned for one year by the ArbCom as part of the Hkelar ArbCom case. I believe that Hkelkar is evading his ban using the account User:Rumpelstiltskin223. As I was party to the case, I will not take unilateral action against the user. I would like other admins to look at the evidence I have collected.

• If you look at the user creation log, the account was created on 15 November, around the time when the case was going on. The user started to edit on the same day with the first edit being a revert with the edit summary "rv".
• After some edits here and there, Rumpelstiltskin223 became completely active from 10th December (the day Hkelkar got banned).
• Since then, Rumpelstiltskin223 has made close to 1400 edits in the mainspace. He has already shown the same pro-hindu and anti-muslim bias that hkelkar had and has already been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. [67]
• Most of the articles edited by Rumpel were frequented by Hkelkar too.:
  1. 2002 Gujarat violence - This was Hkelkar's 2nd most edited article. Rumpel has 24 edits to it already. [68]
  2. Dalit Buddhist movement - Another article frequented by Hkelkar, and now frequented by Rumpel.
  3. Dalit - [69]
  4. Islam in India - [70]
  5. Hindutva - [71] (This one edited by Hkelkar in both his avatars - Shiva's trident and Hkelkar)
  6. Lashkar-e-Toiba - [72]
• Though Rumpelstiltskin223 hasn't uploaded many images yet, he shows the same style there too by uploading images from websites having a cc-by-sa license. His last upload is from flickr, from which Hkelkar used to upload a lot of pics. See [73] and [74]
• Also see [75] where it is said that Rumpelstiltskin223 is pursuing a PhD in physics. Hkelkar/Shiva's trident was also pursuing a PhD in physics.

Thus I feel that Rumpelstiltskin223 is no one but Hkelkar using a new name and probably editing from a different geographical location and I seek an indef-block on Rumpelstiltskin223 and a reset on Hkelkar's ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think this user is necessarily editing from a new location? Would a checkuser help? Grandmasterka 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We knew all the IPs that Hkelkar edited from and the college he went too. He is too clever to use an IP from the same town. I have a feeling that a checkuser on Rumpel will not prove (or disprove) anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. does that discount the use of proxies? ITAQALLAH 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The checkusers will note the use of proxies if they identify them as such at the time. Also, the checkuser was run over winter break, making it possible that Hkelkar was editing from another location but is now back at uni. Asking for a recheck couldn't hurt. Finally, checkuser can be defeated by a number of technical means both simple and complex, so sockpuppetry is always determined primarily by contributions and behavior. Thatcher131 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite unlikely. If the only source you have for "physics" is some hallucination DaGizza experienced then that's hardly proof. Hkelkar's blocks were mainly for incivility not WP:3RR. Since when does a user go from careful on wp:3RR to getting blocked for it frequently? The "facts" dont add up. If you didnt know aksi, there are way more users than rumpel that hold pro-Hindu biases (anti-Muslim is incorrect). Oh no a user of "rv", something every user uses as an edit summary, and anyone that has even viewed a page history on wiki has seen.Bakaman 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this accusation being bandied around on wikipedia before and sockpuppetry accusations abused and misused.I am not anybody's sockpuppet, and please feel free to do any checkuser that is needed. This accusation is largely based on the rants of an anonymous ip, who has been evading blocks using multiple ips from the same domain, making insults and slurs in my user page, and trying to recruit people against me. See [76] [77]Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been accused of "anti-muslim" bias, an accusation I find highly offensive and insulting, particularly in the light of my edits [78],[79]. I am not against any religion. In addition, if you will notice the 6 articles itemized by aksi_great, you will see that my edits have primarily been of a technical nature and maintainance-type edits. I expanded the article on Dalit considerably with information that was lacking [80] and I consider myself to have done the article a service. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite irrelevant if Rumpelstiltskin223 is or is not a sockpuppet. Also, I advice everybody to ignore his/her complaints about other editors. Fact is, this user is disruptive to Wikipedia and shows absolutely no desire to improve him/herself. When he/she was blocked and asked how to avoid such situations, I sympathized with him/her and took his/her question for real. I offered some advice, but he consistently refused to even look at it. Even his "thank you" was mostly a complaint about other users. When I finally announced that I was giving up AGF on him/her, he/she deleted our last conversation. It seems to me that this user is intent on having problems with other editors. Much as I believe in the good in people, I'm at the end of my wisdom with that user. I am really no fan of punitive measures, but I don't see any use for Wikipedia in further allowing this user to edit. — Sebastian 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so he's here as well, protesting my protestations of an anonymous user calling me a "Madarchod" (that's Indian slang for "low-caste motherfucker") and declaring that I am "disruptive" and should have "punitive measures" imposed on me, for reverting vandalisms by anon ips to dozens of articles [81][82][83][84][85][86] today itself,starting several articles on Hindi films,

[87] [88] [89] [90] [91] and dispelling the ongoing wikipedia-myth that Indians constitute some sort of "race" (the ignorance here boggles my mind)[92][93][94] Given your indefensible behaviour against the verifiable truth on Decline of Buddhism in India, your consistent support for a User:Iwazaki, who has said that he intends to undo the "rape of his country on wikipedia"[95] together with increasing incivility and ethnic attacks on Tamil people from this guy with no protestations of neutrality and tendentiousness from you, and your sudden declaration of hostility against me, one wonders what your intentions here really are.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is this "sebastian" person? He seems like a sock/meat of someone. Also sebastian's treatment of RaveenS (talk · contribs) and Rajsingam (talk · contribs) leave me to wonder whether he is a sinhala nationalist.Bakaman 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's unlikely that someone who has been around since January 2003 is someone's sock/meatpuppet. Grandmasterka 08:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rumpey, the evidence that you are Hkelar is pretty strong. What do you have to say to all of Aksi's other points? Coincidence? Khoikhoi 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What points? I edit whatever coincides with my interests. I am interested in Indian history, Indian politics, Religion and Politics in South Asia, Hindi Films and Star Trek. My edits show that I am neither pro-Hindu nor anti-Muslim, just interested in unbiased articles, many of which have biases against Hindus, others which have biases against Muslims and Christians that I am working on. If you see my edits to Christianity in India[96], I have edited a very neutral section depicting the Hindu-Christian conflict, and talked about syncretic Indianization of several Christians, like St. Thomas Christians and other sects who have blended Indian culture with Christian theology. I also plan to add that Christians in South India re-enact Biblical parables using Indian dances like Kathakali. Still, I was accused of being an "anti-Christian" by that Bdebbarma user [97] because of my edits to Tripura Baptist Christian Union[98] and their involvement in Christian extremist terrorism in Tripura. I do not take such accusations seriously as they seem to be the product of a narrow mind.

I am presently engaged in re-writing Mukti Bahini, a predominantly Muslim outfit. I am also getting material on historical attitudes on Islamophobia and anti-Arabism,articles to which I have already added information if you look at the history page. Where is this "pro-Hindu" and "anti-Muslim"/"anti-Christian" bias of which you people speak please answer me?

Whenever my edits seem to portray other religions in a negative light, well, it is not my fault that (according to Muslim editors) "partisan hacks" like Amnesty International and BBC [99] showcase the Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh at the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists. It is not my fault that scholars and academics have written lengthy articles and books criticizing the Fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami[100]. If you don't like it then go contact the academics who wrote those articles. Attacking me on some cooked-up sockpuppetry charge will not be productive to wikipedia thaa.

I do not know how I can prove to you of my identity, since you do not know who I am and I am under no obligation to give you my personal information. I have edited many articles across many topics, and this aksi_great has conveniently cherry-picked a few that I have edited and then yell "Aha! Sockpuppet". I can do that to any two users. If you give me some time, I can manufacture such a case against other users too. If you want to do a checkuser to settle your doubts, please do so. However, do not keep bothering me with such spurious charges simply because you people want to keep your unacademic biased articles biased forever, since that will not happen, irrespective of what you do to me or anyone else. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many more articles where there is similarity between their edits:

• Goa Inquisition was one of the last articles edited by Hkelkar [101]. For example, Hkelkar made 10 consecutive edits to the article on 7th December. Rumpel's first block was on 16th December for edit-warring on Goa Inquisition.
• Rumpel's 2nd block was for edit-warring on History of India with User:Siddiqui. Hkelkar also had a history of editing that article, and reverting Siddiqui using popups. See [102], [103].
• Rumpel's 4th block was for edit-warring on Anti-Brahmanism. This article was also heavily edited by Hkelkar and Hkelkar's previous avatar - Shiva's Trident. Hkelkar had edit warred with other users like Ikonoblast on the article. Rumpel is currently on a reverting spree on the article.

I could go and investigate each article that Rumpel has edited. Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, see above. Second of all. I hardly doubt that your statement above has any merit at all, given the articles that I have edited (and only I) and, so far nobody else has (almost). least of all this user of which you speak. I will compile a list for you in a few minutes below: Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

These are the articles that I have edited that almost nobody else has:

• Mr. India 2 (2007 film) [104]
• Rajneeti[105]
• Banaras - A Mystic Love Story [106]
• Anthony Kaun Hai[107]
• Aparichit (2006 film)[108]
• Chand Ke Paar Chalo[109]
• Adharm (2006 film)[110]
• Criticisms of Star Trek[111]
• Chittisinghpura massacre [112]
• Bogoliubov Prize for young scientists[113] (I came across this article as I was searching the "New Pages" Special page and it was in baaad shape so I did a few google searches and improved upon it, more cases of this are noted below)
• I have done maintainance work on countless articles (tagging mew articles for categorization, categorizing them, Afd'ing bogus new articles). Example is Fareed Armaly [114].
• Another example is Template:Maurya Empire infobox which I created from scratch and added article according to my interests in ancient history of India[115].
• It is highly interesting that aksi_great accuses me of "Hindu bias" because User:Devanampriya accused me of the opposite. According to him I am a "Eurocentric anti-Hindu" for wanting to include Greek and Aramaic as some of the principal languages of the Mauryan Empire[116]. Yes people, I am a some sort of soot-boot-pehena-sahib determined to defame Hindu culture apparently in direct opposition to aksi_great's accusation.
• Here is one article that I have created regarding Mauryans (who were BUDDHISTS, not HINDUS). Mantriparishad[117]
• Deanna Troi [118].
• Tractors in India [119]
• Mumbai Godfather article I created and wrote single-handedly [120]
• Bangla science fiction[121]
• Klingon language[122]
• Klingon starships [123]
• Akira class starship (Star Trek) [124]
• Defiant class starship (Star Trek)[125]]

and, finally,

• Human penis size, where Indians are being portrayed as some sort of "race"[126]

Do you want more? How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding History of India, aksi_great says that this other user hkelkar has "also revert-warred against User:Siddiqui on that article using popups". Here is the history page of that article [127]. I see no such popups by this hkelkar so that statement is a falsehood

I am not on a "reverting spree" on Anti-Brahmanism. I have removed edits that carried racist propaganda, and ,in fact, haven't edited the articele in quite some time.Henceforth, kindly stop making up edits and conjuring up false scenarios, then relying on your colleagues to bolster your bogus arguments by saying "Oh, that is soo convincing".Right, that's subtle! Rumpelstiltskin223 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When did I say that the articles that I have mentioned were the only articles you have edited? Hkelkar has been banned by the ArbCom, and it is my duty to not allow Hkelkar in any form to edit wikipedia for 1 year. I have tracked Hkelkar's edits for a very long time leading up to the ArbCom case. I feel that I have gathered enough proof that you are indeed Hkelkar. The similarities are too close to be co-incidences. If the administrators want I can produce more similarities. If they are not able to decide about ban-evasion, I am prepared to ask the ArbCom for intervention. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Al-Kindi#Article renaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ongoing vandalism from Special:Contributions/66.151.224.254

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

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

Block-evading sockpuppet?

I think HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) may be the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

After I reverted some of his edits to Atlantis, HalfOfElement29 accused me of incivility in a rather bizarre thread on User:Dbachmann's talk page (see also User talk:HalfOfElement29). Despite several requests HOE29 hasn't explained why he thinks I've been uncivil, and has accused me of being part of "a deliberate attack campaign" against him.

At the risk of justifying HOE29's feelings of persecution, I looked at his user contribs. In GoodCop's third edit, he adds what could be called an "enemies list" to his user page, naming User:ScienceApologist as the leader of a "religious pseudoscience cult" that includes several editors/admins. In the next edit, he blanks his user page, with the summary "protection from the cultists". These edits occur on 31 May 2006; the account then remains inactive until 2 December 2006, after which it's in regular use. Anyone who puts up a list of allegedly-misbehaving editors on their third edit has probably edited under another account. In this case, I think it's the indefinitely blocked user GoodCop.

This Statement by GoodCop in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience asserts the existence of a "wikiclique" that includes several of the users on HOE29's "enemies list", with ScienceApologist as their leader. The similarity of these two lists is pretty conclusive, in my opinion, but it's also worth noting that several of GoodCop's edits exhibit what could be labeled paranoia--this oppose vote on Saxifrage's RFA, for example (and be sure to look at the discussion that kicks off), and two posts to WP:ANI (here and here). The misguided accusations of incivility in those posts seem similar to HOE29's present accusations of incivility (though at least in his ANI posts GoodCop was specific about what he thought the offenders had done wrong). In addition, GoodCop and HOE29 edit similar articles--they have a common interest in genetics and race, editing Haplogroup and related articles, and both have edited Iraq War.

By the way, if I have been uncivil during this incident, I will certainly apologize; but I would appreciate being told how I have been uncivil. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin discussin

• To the evidence can be added an odd edit summary "tick". Both GoodCop and HalfOfElement29 typically add material with the phrase "added fact/ " (with a detail to follow after the space). That is unlikely to be coincidental. Bucketsofg 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Both edit the article Haplogroup and Iraq War . Bucketsofg 19:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• This edit of GoodCop should be compared to this one of HalfOfElement29 from six weeks later. Note the lack of capitalization and spelling of "aboriginies". Bucketsofg 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm convinced that HalfOfElement29 is a sock of GoodCop. Anyone think otherwise? Bucketsofg 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Refactored. Some comments have been moved into the next section to facilitate admin discussion Bucketsofg 13:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I concur that HalfOfElement29 is a sock of GoodCop. Similar styles, similar interest in fringe archeology topics and the article haplogroup. BTW, element 29 is copper. Element's edit of June 1 to his talk page against ScienceApologist was made the same day GoodCop was calling ScienceApologist names at Static universe. However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which he was indef-blocked in the first place. The edit cited in his block log [128] is acting out by someone who was blocked a day earlier for personal attacks, but not as bad as some others have made. Four edits later the thread was removed [129] and there seems to have been no further discussion. The first comment to Element's talk page was pretty hostile too, "I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Wikipedia." Perhaps Element would like to revise his answer above, accept some responsibilty for incivility, and consider changing his approach to other editors in return for a one-time-only get out of jail free card. Thatcher131 04:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Offering him some kind of reprieve might be a good idea. Before doing so, I'd like to invite comment from the blocking admin, which I've done. Bucketsofg 05:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Copied from blocking admin's talk-page: :The indefinite block I issued to GoodCop was for legal threats he made against users. He also tried to show authority as a cop and using "investigations" and demanding this and that to be done. I do not have checkuser and I think the evidence for checkuser is way too old. I will not reconsider my block for GoodCop. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• In light of this, and HalfofElement's aggressive and inappropriate response, I don't see any recourse than to perma-block User:HalfofElement29. I'll leave this message here for a few hours in case some admin thinks otherwise. Bucketsofg 13:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Further discussion

I know the person who editted as GoodCop. He was the person that introduced me to editting wikipedia. I am not him, however.

You who are reading this board should know that the reason that Akhilleus is making this attack is because he deleted some very informative additions that I made to the article Atlantis, under false pretenses. [130] [131] [132] Later, I notified User:Dbachmann that Akhilleus was removing large amounts of information from the article Atlantis, often under false pretenses. Unfortunately I did not know at the time that Dbachmann and Akhilleus were associates, though Dbachmann, unlike Akhilleus, has not yet made any clear and significant policy violations. Akhilleus was evidently inflamed by the fact that I had exposed his actions (especially his use of false pretenses when editting), albeit to a person that would not stop them. He then initiated this revenge attack campaign against me. I saw through his deceptions, and did so in a fully civil and non-personal manner (at User talk:Dbachmann and then later at User talk:HalfOfElement29), which made him even madder, such that he escalated his attack by searching through my edit history for 'dirt' that he could get on me. [133] I pointed out his attack campaign on User talk:Dbachmann, and continued to point out his persistent deceptions, which made him escalate his attacks further (i.e. making this WP:ANI post, an underhanded attempt to get me banned indefinitely because I had exposed his deceptive tactics). Said attack campaign is an extreme violation of Wikipedia:Civility, not to mention WP:NPA, and is worthy of whatever administrative measures are used in response to such offenses. Well, now you know what's going on.

As long as Akhilleus has drawn attention to this matter, I ask that all of you look at his edits to the article Atlantis, and especially those in which he deletes the content that I added. Since Akhilleus is evidently not confident that the community will support his edits, I also do not think that it will.

HalfOfElement29 03:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to complain, but I do not find this RfC placed by HalfOfElement29 to be neutrally worded; nor do I find the discussion at Talk:Atlantis#Request_for_comment:_Content_deleted_by_Akhilleus to be entirely fair. To be honest, I feel that Element is being somewhat uncivil. If I'm being oversensitive, please say so; otherwise, I think the RfC ought to be reworded. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI everyone,

Thatcher131 was a hand-picked commentator by Bucketsofg. [134]

[135] -If you know what articles that blocked user editted, and who his editting rivals were, you'll see the significance of this diff.

Oh, and [136]

Now, look at my third and fourth edits in early June 2006. Now any neutral third parties can see what is happening.

"Perhaps Element would like to revise his answer above, accept some responsibilty for incivility, and consider changing his approach to other editors in return for a one-time-only get out of jail free card."

-Extortion to make false admissions is highly uncivil. I also find your extortion humorous, since getting blocked from editting wikipedia isn't exactly a great tragedy to me. Rather than indulge your sense of dominance with extortion, I'd prefer that you flat-out block me by comparison.

HalfOfElement29 06:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an additional diff that is related to the second diff in my last reply:

[137] Look at the notice that was deleted in the edit display, and who it was signed by. Also look at the notice at the top of the then-current version of the article. Notice who it is signed by.

HalfOfElement29 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Birdie b23

This user is creating articles on numerous non-notable community colleges. I deleted one, which apparantly makes me an absolute idiot and nosey moron. I'd do something but obviously I'm involved in the dispute. Can someone do something? Here's a diff, anyway: [138] Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

143.254.63.xxx

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

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

Reporting User:68.45.73.66

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

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

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

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

Scatter (Tennis) disruptions

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

Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg

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

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

Anshe Chung

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

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

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

User:Milo H Minderbinder "editing" my talkpage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can someone please ask Milo to stop. Thanks,-Cindery 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These are the edits in question: [139] & [140]. Milo, your actions are out of line. (wrong+wrong = right?)---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the situation: Cindery's talk page contains a section that is entirely about me. User talk:Cindery#Stop it. In this section, she makes the false statement that I restored material that she repeatedly blanked (ironically, on this very page). When I asked her to clarify or responded with a correction, she deleted my response. When I deleted the false statement, she restored it and filed this complaint. JS, if you go back a couple more diffs on the history of her page, you will see where she deleted my response to her false comment. My actions were merely a response made necessary by her insistence on editing the discussion into a biased and false state.

I have a very simple request for any admins who read this and may take action - either allow me one sentence of response to correct the false statement, or remove the false statement, I'd be fine with either. Obviously, I realize that users have the right to blank their talk page, however I find it deceptive to blank selective parts of a discussion instead of the whole thing.

I'd be more than happy to supply diffs if there's any doubt that the statement is false (on the history of this page, Cindery removed a comment of mine several times and it was restored each time by editors other than myself). Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you are fixated on trying to revive and escalate a dead argument. You should be dropping the issue. You have absolutely no right to "edit" my talkpage, and you are in high-escalation mode, blanking a section of my talkpage, and inserting phony npa tags. It's harassment. Post a screed giving "your side" or something on your own talkpage, and leave me alone.-Cindery 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to drop the issue once the false statement about me is removed, or if I am allowed to respond to it. You insist on "leave me alone" but you refuse a request to remove a false statement about me (leave me alone)? If you're truly interested in "disengaging" as you put it in your edit summaries, simply remove the false statement about me. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For starters... this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. Unless someone is arguing there is a policy violation in all this sniping, this is the wrong place to bring this. It should probably be pointed out that you don't own your userpage Cindery. Removing a response to a thread is not the best idea, even if you feel you are done with the conversation. That said, I don't think this constitutes a personal attack. The bottom line: you both need to chill out.--Isotope23 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with Milo, and everything to do with ending on a nice note between Spartaz and I, since we have not always seen eye to eye. But--that's completely irrelevant. The issue is that no matter what Milo thinks, he absolutely cannot blank a whole section of my talkpage, edit war to blank my talkpage, insert phony npa warnings etc--that's disruptive, and it's harassment.-Cindery 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that Milo H Minderbinder wanting to respond to your allegations that he blanked content goes so far as being "disruptive" or harrasment, though I think he went a bit far in wiping out the whole thread twice. At this point I don't see any reason to take any action against anyone here and I suggest you both drop it.--Isotope23 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would the Mediation cabal be of any help? (typically you contact them early, while they can still sort stuff out, rather than late :-) ) --Kim Bruning 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Kim, unless I miss the mark this appears to be more a behavioural dispute than a content one, and I don't think it's in MedCab's remit to address behaviour problems (though I may be wrong). Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Medcab is mostly when people are disagreeing with each other or fighting, whatever the reason might be. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict):If Cindery considers the blanking disruptive, I'll simply add my response to your false comment and ask that she not delete it.

Considering the whole reason that section of the talk page exists is because you deleted my comment here on ANI many times (I'll provide the diffs if anyone would like to see them), for which I did not request admin action, I think I have been incredibly understanding and tolerant. But I will not accept you lying about the situation you created and refusing me the opportunity to correct your flat-out lies. I think my simple request to have my side remain a part of that discussion is perfectly reasonable and modest. One comment on a talk page correcting a falsehood. Please let my comment remain and let this situation end. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I request that Milo be briefly blocked to cool down, for the above personal attack ("flat-out lies" etc.) and for continuing his disruption by editing my talkpage while this discussion was ongoing.-Cindery 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You both are about 1 edit away from a cool down block. Seriously... you both need to let it go.--Isotope23 21:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you find it acceptable for editors to make false statements about other editors on talk pages? Do you find it acceptable to selectively delete individual comments in a thread? Heck, is it acceptable for a user to delete someone else's comments here on ANI (five times [141] [142] [143] [144] [145], all of which I let slide)? I can see why you want to cool things down, it's a reasonable call and makes perfect sense. But with all due respect, I think Cindery's actions have been disruptive, and I think letting them continue sends the wrong message. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. Yuser31415 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought blocks were intended to stop disruptive behaviour? She was deleting my talk posts yesterday, and she's still continuing to do it now. I'd like to believe that she won't do it again, but that remains to be seen. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: I deleted Milo's posts after politely requesting that he rewrite them with care not to violate anonymity/ WP:BLP (and more to make him stop and consider what he was doing/could be about to do. He was clearly upset and I didn't think he was in the frame of mind to consider his actions carefully, and I don't think he was fully aware of the BLP/anonymity issues he could violate if he wasn't more careful. The order of events is: first he ignored my polite request not to blank a section at Barrington Hall, [146] and responded by blanking the section again. [147]. After I reported it here, he ignored my polite request re anonymity and BLP [148]--so I did what I felt I had to do to make him stop and think, and it worked. People noticed; Milo slowed down; someone else told him to rewrite it, the upshot is that he was more careful. It protected him from maybe accidentally doing things I think he would have regretted as much as it protected me.) Now he has returned long enough after-the-fact re the ANI report that it should be over/no one else has anything to say about it anymore, to add argumentative comments to my talkpage, blank my talkpage, post phony warnings, call me names, etc. I just ask that he stop.-Cindery 22:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

(edit conflict, this is in response to Cindery's last comment) Wow, that's just bizarre, I'm not why you've chosen to re-open this whole can of worms. The blanked section had consensus to delete (that's hardly "ignoring a request not to blank") and was also removed by at least three other editors. I'm not sure how I could have possibly "ignored' your request for BLP (which a number of admins agreed didn't apply since I was just repeating info you had posted yourself) since your request to rewrite them [149] came after you deleted it for the first time [150]. It wasn't really possible to edit my comments, even if I wanted to, with you revert warring over them. I'll agree that people noticed, they restored my comment that you deleted and warned you on your talk page not to do it again, and you only stopped deleting it when threatened with a block. I'm not sure why you keep attacking me like this, could you please stop and let this thing end? --Milo H Minderbinder 23:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Abusive sock puppet

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

Reveals himself here [151]Jasper23 20:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

BlakeCS' user page

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

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

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

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

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

Block evasion by Mitsos?

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

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

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

IP address in history

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

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

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

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

User:Frank Lofaro Jr.

I have issued a test4 warning to Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs) for having created, just a few minutes apart, Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong and Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank. A sudden burst of trolling from what appears to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk)

User seems to be in fear of his/her life

SATELLITEXP (talk · contribs), who edits from the IP 209.233.252.24 (talk · contribs), created the article Sarzana (gang) about a year ago. He or she now desperately wants the article to be speedied. The first given reasons were "to protect identities and ensure safety of editors and authors" [152] and "Protection of authors and editors" [153]. User:SATELLITEXP then said "I am the original author of this article, please delete to protect my identity and safety" [154]. I have pointed out why this is not a criterion for speedy deletion, and suggested the m:Right to vanish. But is there anything else that we can/should do? Note that this author has requested a (granted) username change a year ago saying "I am avoiding evidence of my old screenname anywhere on wiki." Aecis^Bravado 23:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Crustaceanguy

I have indef. blocked Crustaceanguy (talk · contribs) for a sudden burst of vandalism, consisting of making nonsense redirects over and over again. The redirects are all removed from his contributions, so you can't see what he was doing, but there were about eight of them that I deleted. Another compromised account? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this guy's only been here a week, few actual article edits. Name is just similar. Fan-1967 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look more closely, he has zero edits to article space. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I take it back. one. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Crustaceanguy has promised to stop making disruptive edits, so I have unblocked him. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistant disruption with fanfic fodder

Due to my watchlisting of several pages (and the WikiProject I started), I have been persistantly dealing with the edits of Prmax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There has not been a single verifiable addition to the encyclopedia by this user, and he has solely contributed to other articles by adding his fan-made stuff to lists on pre-existing pages ([155]) or overwriting pre-existing pages with his false information.

In addition to this, he has repeatedly created his fan fic pages in the main space. This list includes Power Rangers Rescue Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AFD'd, WP:SALTed), Dairyuu Sentai Acceleranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and just today Power Rangers Relic Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I also have a strong feeling that this user is the same as Solarmax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also performed similar edits with Power Rangers Delta Hunters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and was the first to create the Rescue Hunters article, and has been blocked. I have assumed good faith with this user (Prmax), but he has worn my patience thin with his creation of another hoax article and has ignored any and all contact with him on his talk page due to the intermittent contributions by the user (he does not seem to know what he doing is wrong, as he created a new account to do the same things with it after the first was blocked).

There is nothing that we have done that has stopped him. Under a week after the four day block on Prmax expired, he continued to work on the fanfics, and I only managed to find it today because of the edits he introduced into established series' articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:SimonRebbsell1

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

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

User:NuclearUmpf posting identifying information

Somehow he has obtained my name. He has posted it numerous times[156][157] and I've asked him to stop. I believe this is a blatant policy violation and he is using it as a form of intimidation. Please delete the post (not revert it). Tbeatty 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a mess for an Oversight user to fix up, though deleting the diffs would be a good temporary measure. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages Deleted and restored w/o personal information. Request for Oversight sent. Good Luck! -- Avi 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On the one hand, the full first name John when the user's ID is JSmith may not seem like a big secret; yet, he has the right to keep it to himself, and there's really no excuse. It looks like Nuclear is trying to make a point in relation to a previous allegation which I have asked him to drop. I will not be a happy admin if this comes up again. Thatcher131 02:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless I misread those diffs, there was more than that, including a location of residence. Won't say much more for privacy reasons, but admins can still see it until it's oversighted if they are curious. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I only saw a first name, unless there was more that was oversighted before I got there. Regardless, Zer0 tolerance for a repeat performance. Thatcher131 04:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just the first name. TBeatty (see no first name), would email me and its included in their email (see didnt post that either), which is how I got it, not that its rocket science, there is really only 5 common T names for someone who would stereotypically have the last name Beatty (assumption as above with Smith). TBeatty refuses to let me post the emails they sent me unfortuantly, so this game of "I dont know how he got my name" continues. --NuclearZer0 13:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, I have no recollection of emailing you or any record of it. And as I have also said, you have my permission to post the emails to your hearts content, just not any personal information like email address and name. --Tbeatty 15:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Point is, without Tbeatty's permission to post his real name, doing so is completely unacceptable and is definitely tenacious editing. Since NuclearUmph was perviously known as the user ZeroFaults, the ArbCom remedy here needs to be applied in this situation if no formal apology and promise to not do this again is not forthcoming.--MONGO 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Armenian Genocide

I'm not sure this is the proper venue, but for lack of an alternative: I have a problem on Armenian Genocide. 88.229.27.68 (talk · contribs) and 88.230.232.165 (talk · contribs) (presumably the same user) continue to put unreferenced and highly pov original research into the article [158]. I have reverted him, but I'm either on the brink of 3rr or I may have crossed it by now. I have explained myself on the article's talk page, and I have told the IP to argue his case there as well. AIV is not the place to go, since this is a content dispute, not vandalism. I'm not too keen on page protection, since there's only one problem user. I won't block the user, since I'm involved. I would appreciate some assistance on this. Note that the article has been unprotected only two hours ago. Aecis^Bravado 01:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Afshar vandalizes a promo entry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not AGAIN!

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

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

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

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

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

We are not amused...

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

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

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

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

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

Personal info in history

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

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

Return of troll raspor?

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

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

Improper blocking by Darwinek

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gene removes diacritics and does not respect other editors. Three editors on the talk page told him Marek Špilár is a correct form and even this he put Marek Spilar there (there is a redirect from Marek Spilar to Marek Špilár already). I do not understand why he is doing his disruptive edits. Also As-Salif is another one, arabic native speaker ANas and Mak told him As means the so he should not put it into category, which I seconded on the talk page, see [159]. But he was and hi is still doing that. Darwinek just stopped him after several warnings. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Report on Racial Abuse by User:Siokan

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reverting without discussion at "nofollow"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loop Quantum Gravity article vandalism report User Sdedeo

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

Here is a version of the article before it was changed by the user you mentioned, [160], go nuts. Viridae^Talk 09:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting user Pesmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I was looking at a notorious copyright violator's upload log yesterday and tagged some of his earliest uploads as no source, no fair use rationale, etc. Lo and behold a new user Pesmn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) pops up right after I tag these images and his only edits are to install popups, create his user and user talk pages, then revert my taggings. Anybody smell a reincarnation here? Flyingtoaster1337 10:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks suspicious to me. I think this should be repoted at WP:CHECK, given that Primetime is a major sock-puppet master. Eli Falk 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Phobophobia-ihatebrookie Attacked another user

I was RC patroling and came across a suspect username. First edit was to attack another user [161]. Looks like a sock of User:Phobophobia. [162]. Prometheus^-X303- 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Can someone conclude this case?

The evidence gatherer has admitted that he tagged 2 legitimate users so can someone conclude the case? Bowsy 11:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin rollback war btwn two admins regarding controversial MFD

There's a rollback war between Ta bu shi da yu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), it seems, on user talk pages regarding the MFD for Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. It is absolutely unacceptable, but I think TBSDY's messages in the first place are a cause for concern; "As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again?" – Chacor 11:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I rollbacked Ta bu's edits which constituted a violation of WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS; it is obvious he doesn't understand my reasoning. I left him a note on his talk page as well – User talk:Ta bu shi da yu#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. My actions were endorsed by another administrator. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, TBSDY's recent edits are quite questionable. Might have been better to ask for opinions before rolling back, although it's understandable why you did so. His rollback of your revert would then constitute revert- (or rollback-) warring, though. – Chacor 11:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I request another administrator to further rollback his edits. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What, and further disrupt the talk pages of people who most likely wanted to be told that someone had put the article in question back for deletion? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This kind of votestacking is unacceptable. There are rules against this sort of thing. To see it in action on such a large scale is deeply perturbing. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As you are part of Wikiproject deletionism, I'm wondering what your take on the following situation might be: 1. List an article of AFD, appropriately. 2. Have community consensus by move to the Wikipedia namespace. 3. Have someone relist it on MFD. Sound fair to you? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

From User talk:Ta bu shi da yu

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia

From various talk pages of Wikipedia Revelvant diffs –

• [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193], [194]

It looks like the deletion police are trying to circumvent a previous AFD again. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia. As you voted keep, could you cast your vote again? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, could you explain your rationale for soliciting keep votes for this MfD? Aren't you aware that this is not acceptable? — Nearly Headless Nick 13:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I care very little. After the whole GNAA debacle, I see how very easy it is to bypass AFD. All you need to do is say: move this to another article name. Once this is achieved, resubmit to AFD. I figured that all those who voted in support of the keeping the article should be made aware that there is was some campaigning going on to remove the article, for no good reason in particular. Are you saying that the editors should not have been told what is going on? Hmmm... hardly seems very fair now, does it? - Ta bu shi da yu 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Nick is right, this kind of one-sided votestacking is unacceptable. Please stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

(edit conflict) I've asked TBSDY to stop the vote-stacking. On the other hand, for Nick to continue reverting it wouldn't make very much sense either, because the users in question will get the message anyway, it can't be undone (they'll all get the "you have new messages" and will find the message in the history, no matter whether it's been deleted from the page). Insisting on deleting such messages has in the past not helped such situations very much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would like, I can also alert the others who voted delete. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fut. Perf: I have never intended in any of my statements that I wish to rollback Ta bu's edits further, after he has resorted to wheel-war. I seek intervention of those not-involved. Ta bu: I can see there was only one user who "voted" (sic), delete in the AfD. You do not point out discussions to users, if they are interested, they chime in themselves. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, yeah, I know it's not voting, that just slipped out. I might note that if they aren't aware of the MFD, then they can't exactly chime in. Not everyone has the article on their watchlist, and not everyone montiors MFD or AFD. Who has the time? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There are administrators and experts who willfully keep a watch on WP:MFD and would make better statements than – Keep per consensus on the previous AfD (sic); which is ludicrous. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ludicrous? The community decided to do a particular thing, then someone else decided to get it reversed (inadvertently, this is true). - Ta bu shi da yu 11:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Response from TBSDY

The reason this whole situation has come about is because the previous AFD, which was to keep and move to the Wikipedia namespace, was not honoured. I realise this was done in good faith, but do you know how completely annoying and upsetting it is to have a clear consensus, with many many editors wanting to keep the article, then have someone else come in and try to get the blasted article deleted again? Really, this is deletion through attrition. Surely that's not fair to those who supported keeping the article? - Ta bu shi da yu 11:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be fair. But that is no excuse to canvass for votes, and then revert-war when told that such canvassing was not acceptable. The correct thing would have been to leave your keep vote on the voting page and let others discover the page for themselves. When you say "Actually, I care very little. After the whole GNAA debacle, I see how very easy it is to bypass AFD", it makes it difficult to AGF. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll stop the rollback. However, if any admin feels the urge to block me, or anyone wants to desysop me, feel free. Heck, you can even take me to ArbCom if you want! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry this had to happen, Ta bu. I always look at you in respect, and would ever will. Could you kindly revert yourself? Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I won't. Like I say, please take me to ArbCom. At least one other editor is upset with the fact that the deletion camp decided not to listen to them and is trying to make this deletion through attrition. This MFD should never have occured, as I quite appropriately and properly put it to AFD at least once, and since then nothing has changed. The whole debacle disgusts me, and just highlights the fact that you can bypass AFD discussions more than easily if you really want to. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hold with the partisan rhetoric please! 'Deletion camp' 'decided' - that's the language of conspiracy. I'm interested in discussion, logic and debating what's best - not rhetoric and camps. I don't recall participating in any AfD - I saw the Mfd and expressed my opinions. You then took it on yourself to badger me, accuse me of 'bandying around' policy, and then spilled it onto my talk page when you didn't like my views. Can't we just debate the issues and cut out the paranoia. There is no deletionist cabal!!!--Doc^g 12:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes? And if I had not been monitoring the article, then I would not have been made aware that it was up for deletion again. Sound fair to you? Then I would also not have participated, and possibly it might have been deleted. I'll tell you what, let's hypothetically say that there is an article I don't like (let's say Christian views of women). Why don't I try to get it to AFD every 6 months or so. Eventually, I may just get it deleted. Sound like a fair thing to you? Heck, we did it with the GNAA article, why not other articles? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think a deletion nomination is inopportune, then you call for a 'speedy close' - if others agree with you, then that's generally what happens. That's happens, and I'm not sure that there's any other way. If you want to propose a hard and fast policy against second nominations, then do so.--Doc^g 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Incidently, as for badgering you, sorry if you took it that way. My question on your talk page was genuine one - after all, you take one position, but Wikipedia has many areas that are in opposition to this. I should also note that you wish to make a policy that was rejected an actual policy! Good lord! Is it any wonder I feel the way I do? (for those who don't believe me, please see the following "Sure, many people here, on this page, have concerns (some legitimate). Others have opposed it outright. Perhaps we can't generate a consensus here to tag this as policy. I don't actually care. However countless times MfD DRV etc. have in fact accepted the arguments and deleted stuff. So, that's very generally Wikipedia practice, and if it remains so we can maybe write up the policy at a future date when it is less contentious (or again, maybe not)." WP:DENY). Sheesh. I find the whole idea of pushing policy through via attrition (as this is what it seems to me that you are trying to do) to be a less than honourable thing to do. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Attrition? No. Wikipedian policy is formed by practice and consensus not be legislation. Just as making WP:DENY a guideline wouldn't force anyone to feel bound by it in their contributions to deletion discussions, so tagging it as rejected, doesn't mean people can't take the view that it is good practice. We settle that in debates. The fact is that in many deletion debates (involving far more people than those arguing on the WP:DENY talk page) the community has bought the arguments rehearsed on that page. We have reached various deletion consensuses on that basis. We've also not deleted other stuff where the 'hey this is actually useful for fighting vandalism' case has been made and accepted. We will continue to have these debates, and we will continue to reach a mind on a case-by-case basis. Maybe the consenses will go one way, maybe over time you'll be able to convince people otherwise. That's really th onyl way of doing it. Unless we start saying "hey you can't vote that way, that is/isn't an accepted/rejected guideline.--Doc^g 13:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, do you accept that the other AFD should have been taken into account? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was once a cabal, but it got deleted... Andjam 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

TINDC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is one. It consists of a few people in the UK, and a few people in the U.S. Yeah, yeah, conspiracy theory, I know. However, try asking for checkuser rights. Maybe they've dealt with it now, but they tend to ignore people. However, to be honest, I really don't care what people think of me for saying it. I've been round long enough to know how things work around here. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Errrm, you may have misread my acronym. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Could you clarify? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Using administrative tools in a content dispute is simply unacceptable. A rare lapse can be forgiven. Further abuses may result in desysopping. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, who are you talking to? - Ta bu shi da yu 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Response from Andjam

I don't like canvassing, but I was glad to be notified in this case. I put time and thought into arguing keep last time, and I don't want those thoughts casually ignored. Andjam 12:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely what made me so mad. I mean, that seems to be the standard these days. If you don't like the article, keep on adding it to AFD until the original people who opposed discussion don't notice, then get it deleted. Heck, you might even get an admin to speedy delete it for you! It's happened before, no doubt it will happen again. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Further wheel-war

Administrator bainer closed the MfD debate, and has been reverted by User:Ta bu shi da yu. I pray an uninvolved party look into the matter. – [195]. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so. 5 people wanted it merged, yet there are at least 30-50 people participated in the MFD! Lest any damage be done to the article due to this, I reverted. I do urge an admin to have another look at the AFD and close it. It's certainly not a merge though. Anyone can see this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The page says do not modify it. You can always go for an appeal. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And in the meantime have the page entirely screwed up and redirected? I don't think so! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I just got a message on my talk page that Bainer doesn't care about the debate, and so imposed his own view on things. Why have an AFD if we are going to ignore the results?!? - Ta bu shi da yu 12:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Beacause it is a discussion, not a vote. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that a good proposal has been made. Personally, I feel that once my proposal had been made, the best thing to do was to relist it and start the debate again. Explicitly reframe the debate to find out who supports the idea of a merge. Put a merge tag on the article, get people talking about that. Then carry out whatever consensus emerges. Incidentially, you do realise that the result of merge means that it is effectively kept until the merge is performed. In this case, if you keep quiet, it is entirely possible that nothing will get done. But I think I'll go and replace the MfD tag with a merge tag. Possibly the material is not even wanted over at the other pages, so an exact merge location still needs to be sorted out. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking. So what you are saying, is that we must sneak around behind people's backs and pretend that we should merge the page, but in all likelihood we won't. Riiiiight. Seems disingenious to me! Then, on top of this, the other articles might not even want the merged material, so they won't accept it. They revert out the material, and then we have now changed this from a merge to a delete. Sounds great! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was suggesting you might have chosen that course of action. I'm impressed you didn't, but are still fighting your corner. I've lost count of the number of times, after a merge result, people drifted away from an XfD and lost interest. Let's just have the merge discussion and see what happens. The MfD closure is at the moment too vague to actually do anything just yet. Carcharoth 13:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting it through DRV, and have swapped the merge tag with {{delrev}}. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• sound of hands being washed* See User_talk:Thebainer#What_on_earth.3F. That's really all I have to say about this. --bainer (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we please not use the term "Wheel War" when no actual admin actions (delete, protect, block) are involved. This is an edit war at most. NoSeptember 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid to say that we both used the rollback function, however it hasn't proceded any further. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was interesting. Ta bu shi da yu is pretty much one of the sanest people on wikipedia. For him to get bitten by "the process" is pretty much indicative of something amiss there. (As if we didn't know deletion was broken, but still, nice to have it confirmed yet again by an independant observer.) --Kim Bruning 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV

Starts anew – Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 23. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Side Commentary

This seems to be more about fixing all policies in general rather than just deletion. If there can be this much ambiguity into what a "consensus" is by people who are apparently "trusted" by the community(it's funny how that is always seen as a one way street), perhaps its time to better define what consensus truly "is" and what the roles of administrators and participants are. Just H 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Zsero

User:Zsero is repeatedly adding a link to a website whose historical accuracy and integrity is in dispute, isurvived.org, to Hiram Bingham IV. This issue came up before, and User:Webville was blocked for repeatedly spamming the site (see Talk:Hiram Bingham IV, User talk:Webville, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive129#User:Webville_2). Zsero has shown no interest in actually discussing the issue, opting instead to ignore consensus and Wikipedia procedure and repeatedly add the link unilaterally. I suspect that he may be Webville; either way, his conduct on this matter has been inappropriate and discussion does not seem to be leading anywhere. -Elmer Clark 12:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This "consensus" seems to consist of nothing but Elmer Clark's diktat. He has decided that one version of events will be published on WP, and all reference to any other view, even merely as an external link, will be suppressed. It seems to me that he is the one on the soapbox here. The fact that he would suspect me of being a sock puppet for another user, and would articulate such a suspicion without providing any basis for it, speaks volumes. I continue to maintain that the view expressed at the referenced web site is interesting and relevant, and for all either I or Elmer Clark know it may be true. AFAIK neither of us has any particular expertise in the matter, but he has chosen to champion one view to the utter exclusion of all others, and doesn't see the need to provide any basis for this choice. I will not submit blindly to his orders. He doesn't own WP or the page in question, and my right to edit it in good faith is the same as his. So unless and until I am convinced that the links don't belong on the page, I will continue to keep them there. Zsero 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried dispute resolution? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

soliticiting admin feedback on proposed perma-block

Hello fellow admins. I'd ask for you to review the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block-evading_sockpuppet.3F, where I've come to the conclusion that HalfOfElement29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a sock of GoodCop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who was indefinitely blocked last November. An indefinite block is in order, I suggest, but solicit your feedback one way or the other. Bucketsofg 13:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Lopez and company - sockpuppets

Further to the above - Disruptive self-tagging with warnings

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

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

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

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

Possible other sockpuppets Jack Lopez (talk · contribs)

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

continued sockpuppetry by User:EccentricRichard

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

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

Requesting block

Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Mr. Darcy has warned the user here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I had already warned him several times on User talk:71.247.255.190, including once with the "approved warning template". --NE2 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again (on R68 (New York City Subway car)). What am I to do? --NE2 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved this down since no one seems to have seen my recent posts. --NE2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning so that he cannot deny knowing that it will result in a block. Next instance will result in a block. I think we should assume good faith here, so it should be a 24h-ish block. —bbatsell ¿? 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for guidance on very controversial and sticky issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rajput

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

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

Regards, Kshitij

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

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

User:Bosniak again?

I have recently blocked User:Legal Provider of Bosnian picture for having an inappropriate username. After checking the contribution history, I realise the views expressed are relatively similar to block User:Bosniak, who was blocked for reasons explained here. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether I should request a checkuser. I reckon User:Bosniak may have used sockpuppets in the past (i.e. User:Bosniakk, with two "k"), but editing while blocked may deemed reason enough to request a community ban as discussed before. Regards, Asterion^talk 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IP asking for assistance on my talk page

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

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

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

Block of Unre4L

I request the input of administrators (and others) regarding a 1-week block given by me to Unre4L as a result of his recent behavior on Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India. I am of the opinion that such behavior is a legitimate reason to view this editor as a repeatedly uncivil editor who does not respect NPOV (by having an agenda to avenge the "ripping off" of Pakistani history - see his userpage statement and other comments) and playing a disruptive role on Wikipedia. I feel sure that he has repeated his violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT and WP:DE.

Some specific examples of this include

• "Indian trolls," and a reassertion of his attitude that Indian editors are "ripping off", "vandalizing" Pakistani history
• a rather loaded and insensitive statement regarding 160 million people being "denied their history"
• loosing his cool and lashing out at another editor upon a point he's guilty of being arrogant/uncompromising himself
• accusation of "some people" trying to have this article "deleted alltogether"
• insulting comments towards deeptrivia and Dangerous-Boy.
• insensitive and totally unnecessary accusations regarding Indian and Pakistani perspectives of history
• More examples: more accusations, [196], [197], [198]

Other relevant links

• a violation that resulted in me blocking him

[199]

• Unblock request denial. The reviewing admin's advice of seeking mediation is akin to a previous offer made by me.
• an edit that seems to hint to a degree of paranoia about the intentions and conduct of editors across national origin
• The RfC on History of Pakistan, 1st RfC on History of India

Relevant policies

• WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
• [200]
• [201]: I think that his behavior does construe disruptive editing, as his comments on Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:History of India are characterized by obstinacy, unwillingness to respect other opinions, a rejection of community input and more clearly WP:TE. In numerous comments, he seems insistent on taking the view that nobody else but him is making a serious effort at dispute resolution.
• WP:BP: A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

In his favor are two points - (1) he actually started RfCs on Talk:Doosra, Talk:History of Pakistan, Talk:History of India and (2) at Talk:Doosra, he seems to have conducted a proper discussion. When I unblocked him, I did it after he supposedly committed to seek mediation, but it seems my original blocking rationale is still applicable as all his latest behavior fits those criteria. Rama's arrow (3:16) 19:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)