Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Admin abuse by [[user:Darwinek]] against [[user:mt7]]: Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply
Line 740: Line 740:
:First: Good faith edits are '''never''' vandalism. Second, [[WP:3RR]] applies even if you're right. You're an admin; you're expected to act like one. [[User:PullToOpen|PTO]] 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
:First: Good faith edits are '''never''' vandalism. Second, [[WP:3RR]] applies even if you're right. You're an admin; you're expected to act like one. [[User:PullToOpen|PTO]] 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
::Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply.--[[User:MONGO|MONGO]] 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that Slovak Wikipedia article started also by Mt7 says he is Ethnic Hungarian. So this user also knows the truth but suddenly changes his mood and start reverting like a crazy. No comment. This whole campaign probably aims at provoking my actions and destroy my respected person. - [[User:Darwinek|Darwinek]] 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


== [[User:QuackGuru]] & [[Wikipedia community]] ==
== [[User:QuackGuru]] & [[Wikipedia community]] ==

Revision as of 13:03, 21 March 2007

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Linkspamming Talk:Main Page linking to possibly explicit content

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

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

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

    User is referring to [2] -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I Want it that way (talk · contribs), Batguy (talk · contribs), Micheal-Nick (talk · contribs), Richard Jone (talk · contribs) & Kmnmo (talk · contribs) do all have a very similar editing pattern... -- Scientizzle 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a npa4 warning at User talk:I Want it that way, the account that made the attack statement. -- Scientizzle 16:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonawiki and sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WormwoodJagger, under what authority are you making these claims? You can't be claiming this authority as a member of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. That page clearly states that "Advocacy is not mandatory" and "Advocacy is NOT an official Wikipedia procedure." You state "I have been called in..." could you please inform as to who called you in. You also state "...please do not compromise this investigation any further, and follow protocol by contacting me on my web page." Could you provide details of what investigation, who set it up and under who's authority and where the protocol is posted on Wikipeda. I also find it very odd that you do not edit from September 2006, ignoring Magonaritus comments, until the 16 March. Just out of curiosity, do you deny that 74.110.212.198 is your IP? If I was G2bambino I would view your comments as a possible attempt at intimidation. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not qualified? Anyone can ask for help from an admin. It is very inappropriate for you to try and disuade G2bambino from seeking assistance under the guise of authority you don't have. IrishGuy talk 01:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite odd. Is it usual for an 'investigator' to have only 73 mainspace edits to just 13 articles, including edits to the article in dispute? I have noticed some sockpuppetry at Upper Canada College, but this is something else. -- zzuuzz(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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


    I thought I would clear the air —— I honestly thought I was an admin. I was notified about this affair by Blunders (phone). Neither Jonawiki, Magonaritus nor G2bambino contacted me. You can see here I have protected a page while I was advocating on August 25 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurofunk&diff=prev&oldid=71784370). I guess I'm not anymore, given that I was afk for a few months.

    Nonetheless: I'm obviously recusing myself. I thought, however, that, for whoever takes my place, I would offer the findings from my investigation:

    There are several indications that place non-trivial doubt on the assertion that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are sockpuppets.

    (1) G2bambino placed a request for checkuser on Magonaritus as a suspected sockpuppet. His request was declined on March 10, 2007: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser&diff=114171374&oldid=114171183

    (2) G2bambino asserts that Magonaritus and Jonawiki "always supports the opinions... of the other" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp). However, this assertion is untrue. They have disagreed 4 times:

    (3) Previous to the articles on Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies, both Magonaritus and Jonawiki have a long list of different non-intersecting editing interests:

    • Magonaritus edited O Rly?, Elephant, List of Internet slang phrases, Dragon, Harvard University, AOL, ICQ, Edgar Allen Poe, Urban Dictionary
    • Jonawiki has edited Harvard College, Old Ones (Buffyverse), Roma people, Green tea, Auction, Monomyth, Teras Kasi, Carl Jung, Monarchy in Canada

    (4) Per the "100 edit rule" as one possible test for sockpuppets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:sockpuppet#When_questions_arise), the results do not really indicate that they are sockpuppets:

    • Magonaritus has about 70 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies
    • Jonawiki has about 97 edits on pages other than Upper Canada College and Star Wars Galaxies

    (5) On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:G2bambino/temp, G2bambino makes a decent case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki. There's no crime in a user forgetting to log in every once in a while. Then he tries to show that Jonawiki and Magonaritus are the same user because they both made edits to articles about Harvard, however this link is pretty weak.

    • Jonawiki edited Harvard College to create a new section list of famous alumni. Magonaritus never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.
    • Magonaritus edited the Harvard UNIVERSITY article to add a pop culture reference. Jonawiki never touched this article. 66.208.54.226 never touched this article.

    On the other hand, G2bambino has displayed what seems to me to be disruptive behaviour, and proprietary interest in the UCC article, given his several hundred edits on the article.

    (1) G2bambino has been accused of lacking WP:NPOV:

    (2) G2bambino has been accused of violating WP:CIV:

    (3) G2bambino has been accused of vandalism and 3RR:

    Re: Wikistalking

    (1) G2bambino has been warned by an admin of violating 3RR in an edit war against Magonaritus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:G2bambino#UCC_Revert_War).

    (2) Per WP:ANI, G2bambino did not have the "courtesy... [to]... inform other users and editors if they are mentioned in a posting, or if their actions are being discussed." A check on the discussion pages of both Jonawiki and Magonaritus will demonstrate that G2bambino is attempting to get them blocked with as little notice as possible.

    (3) Reviewing several thousand contributions from G2bambino, there were no contributions to any articles on gaming or Star Wars previous to his most recent contributions to the article on the Star Wars Galaxies game. The vast majority deal with monarchy, Canadiana and sexuality.

    (4) His contributions displayed no knowledge of the Star Wars Galaxies game, just very generic edits.

    (5) It seems his sole interest in the Star Wars Galaxies article was because of the presence of Jonawiki and Magonaritus. He even admits as much at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BaronJuJu#SWG_edits: "I was merely drawn to the issue as I've had to deal with Jonawiki (talk • contribs) and Magonaritus (talk • contribs) inserting POV and highly baised edits at Upper Canada College, and noted "they"'re doing the same at SWG."

    This seems a possible case of wikistalking per WP:HAR#Wikistalking. Because of the past history of edit wars between Jonawiki/Magonaritus versus G2bambino, it seems per WP:HAR that G2bambino's edits in the Star Wars Galaxies article and his accusation of sockpuppetry have the "purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person... for the purpose of intimidating the primary target... to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." G2bambino's edits in Star Wars Galaxies seemed only for the purpose of inciting and harrassing Jonawiki and Magonaritus. Per WP:HAR#Types_of_harassment, his behavior fits wikistalking.

    I am no longer interested in this matter. Good luck! WormwoodJagger 21:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You put {{protect}} on an article. You didn't actually protect it. You aren't and never were an admin. You must go through WP:RFA to become an admin. IrishGuy talk 21:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this whole thing very disturbing. WormwoodJagger, you say that User:Blunders contacted you, but they don't exist. Of course there is User:Blunder (created 24 October 2005) but they have no edits. You provide a link to where the RFCU was removed as declined but forget to show Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Magonaritus where the reason is given. Interesting too that several of your links don't quite match what you are saying and how easily you found all these when you are not active for months. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First off, I'll note that WormwoodJagger (talk · contribs) stated originally that he was contacted within Wikipedia; he has since contradicted that claim by stating he was contacted by another user via telephone. It should also be pointed out that the user who contacted him, Blunders of the third kind (talk · contribs), was previously party to the debates at Talk:Upper Canada College involving the accused sock puppeteer, myself, and WormwoodJagger.

    Now, for Wormwood's investigation:

    1) My request for a CheckUser was not declined, it was deemed unnecessary as I'd already done sufficient work.

    2) Having your socks disagree with each other once in a while is a tactic for throwing people off the trail.

    3) & 5) Magonaritus', Jonawikis' and 66.208.54.226's edit histories cross paths more often than they diverge. If I make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Jonawiki, I also make a good case that 66.208.54.226 is Magonaritus; ergo, Magonaritus and Jonawiki could well be the same person.

    Disruptive behaviour:

    1) WP:NPOV

    • I was accused of NPOV by a user who was attempting to edit based on his own POV and not factual evidence. I was supported by other users, and the accusing editor eventually resigned.
    • Accusation of NPOV by the same above-mentioned editor.

    2) WP:CIV

    • Confronted because I called a tag "silly"; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
    • Supposedly offended user stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no breach of WP:CIV
    • Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
    • Debate with same user under 1) above; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV
    • Accused of violating WP:AGF by same user who stated he never said my actions were uncivil; no accusation of breach of WP:CIV

    3) WP:3RR

    • Automated bot reverted legitimate change; no accusation of WP:3RR
    • I removed linkspam; no accusation of WP:3RR
    • Legitimate warning of WP:3RR against myself in an edit war with Magonaritus.

    Wikistalking:

    1) Same warning already mentioned above, does not constitute Wikistalking.

    2) Agreed - did not perform the courtesy of notifying Jonawiki or Magonaritus. It does not excuse this omission, however 1) I didn't read the introduction carefully enough to take note of this, 2) I didn't want either user to stop their editing pattern and begin again under new user names. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

    3) Jonawiki and Magonaritus were indeed causing disruption at Star Wars Galaxies; I intervened to aid those who wanted to maintain balance, order and NPOV. I am free to edit whatever articles I please. This does not constitute Wikistalking.

    4) Agreed.

    5) Agreed.

    All together, this is a pretty poor collection of "evidence" - a look beyond the mere surface shows that 95% of it is groundless. The other 5% I have, or will, accept responsibility for. My motives are to see nothing but the end of disruption and strife caused by a particular user; it is not up to me to decide how that is done, hence I have notified administrators of the issue and leave it to them to deal with.

    It should be drawn to the attention of those involved here that Roguegeek (talk · contribs) has filed a proper suspected sock puppet report. --G2bambino 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't appreciate the aspersions being cast on my name -- it's a little ad homine(o?)m. As for 'conveninence': as I said, I was conducting an investiagtion. As for withink wiki -- within wiki community. Now leave me alone -- please! I made an honest mistake and am really feeling beat up on (sniff).... Have some faith! Good luck! WormwoodJagger 23:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You called G2bambino a wikistalker and attempted to intimidate him with authority you don't have. You probably shouldn't be complaining about aspersions as you have tossed the mud yourself. IrishGuy talk 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    G2bambino IS a wikistalker (see above). I never attempted to intimidate ANYONE -- I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. Clear? WormwoodJagger 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. You specifically pretended to have authority you don't have and told him what he could or couldn't do. Saying things like "I have been called in; it is too late" is most assuredly attempting to intimidate. IrishGuy talk 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No IrishGuy talk . I WAS called in & I SIMPLY ASKED HIM TO TALK TO ME USING MY, UM, TALK PAGE. THIS IS HARDLY CONTROVERSIAL. And G2bambino HAS ADMITTED TO WIKISTALKING JONAWIKI TO BUILD A CASE AGAINST HIM. WormwoodJagger 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WormwoodJagger, you did not ask G2bambino to contact you on your talk page. You invented some non-existant protocol and procedure and then told him that was where he was to contact you and implying that he was not to post here any more. As to your remark about G2bambino wikistalking Jonawiki. Well to ID sockpuppets you have to look at the edits they are making. Frankly, I too think that your purpose was to try and intimidate G2bambino. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I'm finding this very upsetting -- I'm not sure why CambridgeBayWeather and IrishGuy are even piling on me, here. If you go through my edits, you can see I thought I was an admin, when clearly I'm not, and I thought I was following correct procedure by having G2bambino's questions about my legitimacy moved to my talk page (you're wrong to assert that I did anything but ask him to follow protocol and not plug up the Jonawicki sock puppet discussion with anything else). I was asked to look at him in terms of wikistalking and, as you yourself note, without knowing his intentions, nor without having completed my invesitagtion, it certainly seemed as though he was wikistalking. He's had you explain his position very clearly now, and I am no longer suspicious, though I must say you two seem to work as a team, in my experience, as this reminds me very much of Upper Canada College last March. Furthermore, I don't care what you think my purpose was, anymore. Please stop wikistalking my posts here, and let the people who *can* resolve the matter of sockpuppetry do so. I will not be logging into this account nor checking anything for the next ten days, becuase, frankly, I feel like I'm being wikistalked and harassed when all I want to do is explain myself. I may even start a new account and close this one. Good day sir! I said good day! (imagine a Fez accent :). WormwoodJagger 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please stop making silly accusations. This is an ongoing thread. If CambridgeBayWeather and I (or anyone else, for that matter) chose to reply to comments, that isn't "wikistalking". While you claim that you were asking him to follow protocol...it was a protocol completely made up by you. I'm also not sure how you could assume you were an admin. Who confered these admin powers on you? IrishGuy talk 19:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think you are going to get much of an answer. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wait for the next person to pop up in this dispute and claim to have authority, and also to be an administrator. Then you can ask for an answer :) Daniel Bryant 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do we have a policy for this?

    Do we have a policy for dealing with edits such as this [3] - personally I rather resent it - I spent a great deal of time an deffort on that page - do we remove it - or are we forced to look at it for ever. I don't think it is the time or place to start a thread on the subject there. Giano 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Such as what? Please provide the diff of the edit that concerns you. Sandstein 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point Sandstein, I forgot to include it I ammended now. Giano 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    seems a very sensible suggestion to be me - I'd fail any student who used wikipedia as a source - it's a good starting point but that's it. --Fredrick day 13:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See cite .. dave souza, talk 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I also agree with the comment that Giano links to: of course Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be cited in a scientific paper. Jimbo said as much also, I think. That's not a slight on Giano's editorial abilities, but simply a reflection of what we are - a general encyclopedia. And of course we don't delete comments in a discussion; that would be vandalism. Giano, if you disagree, just make a polite reply. Sandstein 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, not by our standards, nor the standard of most academic groups. This is not a bad thing, we are an encyclopedia and thus should only be the starting point for research. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the problem, and considering the poster is a sixth grader, it's good advice; it is an accurate statement of fact, and most teachers don't accept Wiki as a source. We don't accept ourselves as a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The particular article may be very good (for sure!). All Giano-heavily-worked-over articles may be very good (right?). Other individual articles may be very good (of course). But it's still much too early in the day for teachers to treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference work, as opposed to a useful research aid/starting point. The quality is much too variable for that. Metamagician3000 05:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable" It is the "extremely" I object to, even in light of recent events, I do not think the project is that unreliable. Giano 09:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another case of people whose imaginations and understandings extend from A to B, I'd say. No, Wikipedia is not extremely unreliable. In fact, it's extremely reliable. It is not totally reliable, of course. As the Science editorial review showed, Wikipedia can be the best source of information available to a student. Professors who allow no citations to Wikipedia are morons or think their students are. Those who allow Wikipedia to serve as proof of anything are as bad. Wikipedia is an invitation to research more, but it is research. It can never be the last word, but not allowing it at all is foolish. The "extremely unreliable" edit is vandalism, Giano. It should be treated as vandalism. It would be no more to the point than someone going in to the Pol Pot article and inserting, "a very evil man." He may have been a very evil man, but we're NPOV, even about ourselves, in article space. Geogre 12:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid you are just plain wrong - there is no other way to describe it. In no way, shape or form is that comment Vandalism. --Fredrick day 12:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A comment on a talk opining that Wikipedia is not a reliable source cannot possibly be construed as vandalism, seeing as vandalism is defined, narrowly, as a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Personally I wouldn't cite WP any more than any other encyclopedia, but that doesn't diminish my appreciation for it. Mackensen (talk) 12:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it is not vandalism in the traditional sense, but it is certainly undermining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If the whole project is "extremely unreliable" because it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - what are we all doing here? - What is the point? Why bother with text at all - why not just print a catalogue of suitable published references under each title and leave it at that. Of course there will always be mistakes - that is a risk everywhere in anything - but if we think and believe the project is extremely unreliable - then that is very concerning indeed. Giano 13:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but it's adding it that looks like vandalism. There are already pages that say that Wikipedia is not 100% reliable. We already put that in footers. To then go in and add "extremely unreliable" looks like an opinion being inserted, not a modification of a policy page. I'd read that as an insult to my article, if I were writing it, myself, and a bit of spray paint that I'd have to scrape off the walls. Imagine you were writing something on Goobers, and someone comes along and adds, "Really, really, really, really speculative" to a statement that said, "The origin of the word is speculative." Maybe it's a clueless edit, but I can see it being highly unwelcome and insulting (hence vandalizing). Utgard Loki 15:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    A clearly well intentioned comment is not vandalism, even if it hurts your pride. Wikipedia:Vandalism says almost exactly that: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." A slightly thicker skin, or stiffer upper lip, is advised. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think AnonEMouse - you are rather missing the point. It is not question of putting up and shutting up - it is a question of - is there any point at all writing a page, if the second it is finished complete with references etc, someone can come along and say on the talk page this is "extremely unreliable" - if it happened anywhere lese the editor would be asked what specifically is unreliable? If we the people writing this are happy to be branded "extremely unreliable" then there is little hope for the project. Giano 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, I looked for "Giano is extremely unreliable" in that edit, and couldn't find it. I merely found "Wikipedia is extremely unreliable". Taking a look at the number of articles which have been edited to consist of the equivalent of "Eric is gay" in any given 24 hours, I'd have to say that's pretty much correct. Despite that, most of us still, somehow, find the will to live, and soldier on. Sigh. It is a hard and lonely road we walk, we few, no more than a million or so of us, Wikipedia editors. So defamed. So troubled. So misunderstood. On that last point, being misunderstood, I didn't mean to write anything about shutting up (and, in fact, can't see where I did - but heck, that's two things I can't see. I must need a new prescription. Do you know a good optometrist for mice?). If you wish to rebut on the talk page, and mention the Science study, or a dozen other good things about Wikipedia, go right ahead, and you'll find lots of supporters. That's why they call it an Article Talk page. Just don't call people who disagree with you in good faith vandals. At most, visigoths, please.--AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just say it's a work in progress. I'm going to go and check our article on the Visigoths, now. They were a very interesting Germanic tribe. Metamagician3000 01:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is pretty reliable because of people going around trying to make sure that it doesn't tell the world that Eric is gay. Therefore, having that insertion is an insult to the vandal hunters, the deletion hunters, the information adders, the editors, and the writers. An Alan is not going to welcome a Vandal saying that he's a barbarian. Utgard Loki 17:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, sorry: wikipedia is not a reliable source.--Vidkun 17:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    disappearance of the shadowbot thread

    Apologies to those who contributed to the new shadowbot thread: this edit by Irishguy for some reason deleted eight days of threads. -- TedFrank 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What the...? I have no idea how that happened. My apologies. IrishGuy talk 19:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not your fault... It happens a lot lately. My theory is that the code that catches edit conflicts occasionally lets one through. --Edokter (Talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if it's a glitch from trying to edit at the same time a bot is archiving? -- TedFrank 10:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A bot is just a user. When someone hits the Edit button, he gets a copy of the current revision. When someone else hits Edit at the same time, he gets the same. The problem occurs when both editors try to save their revision; the database gets two different versions based on the current revision. The first is accepted, the second editor gets a warning that there is an edit conflict. Now... Databases can be slow. That means it takes time for an edit to be fully entered into the database. If the software sees a second edit being presented, while the first is not yet completly saved, it might not see the edit conflict and try to save that revision as well; overwriting the first edit. --Edokter (Talk) 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt that's the problem, at least not the database's fault (but maybe a bug in MediaWiki). The main function of databases is guaranteeing this kind of thing doesn't happen. See also Database transaction, Isolation (computer science), ACID. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:23Z

    Banned user edits - against policy (Daniel Brandt)?

    Daniel Brandt, who is banned, posted again on Talk:Daniel Brandt. I am just curious--why does this user get to post/interact when banned when other banned users with articles (such as Barbara Schwartz) are routinely RM/RV'd out if they post. my understanding was posts by banned users were typically removed for being banned, and the usernames (if logged in) blocked as socks, and the IPs if not logged in blocked for a duration. - Denny 20:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He doesn't. Revert. Block. Ignore. --tjstrf talk 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Others have let the edit stand... and during the previous hooha (DRV/AfD/DRV) I believe Doc Glasgow (an admin) had actually threatened to ban anyone who RV'd out Brandt's edit at one point. I am not an admin so I can't block myself. - Denny 20:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant diff from before...
    I've quit for now. But is any process pillock removes the above as the post of a banned users, I will rise from the grave and block them for 1,000 years.--Docg 18:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So... is policy we endorse this, or is anyone free to RV banned users on sight? - Denny 20:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits says "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.". So users are free to rv banned users edits on sight, any block for such behavior would be innapropriate. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    to be clear, do you mean if I RV a banned user, anyone blocking/reprimanding me is out of line... or that RVing a banned user is fine, but reblocking them/their IP is not alright? - Denny 20:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I mean any action taking against a person reverting a banned user would not be appropriate as the action of reverting a banned user is explicitly allowed in the banning policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Denny, nobody is stopping you but nor can you force other editors to remove said material. Personally I think this is a case where his non-main space edits should be allowed but that is just my POV. At least he isnt hiding who he is, SqueakBox 20:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind if an editor in good standing also wishes the addition of the material the banned user is adding, then regular editorial debate should take place. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe Doc stepped in because Brandt was correcting potentially libelous/false information about a living person–himself. If that's all he's doing I'd let it stand. Mackensen (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that WP:BLP trumps anything else, if it is unsourced material about a living person being removed then it needs to stay removed. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP notwithstanding my concern is that if we do this for this banned user, the next person banned with an article can point to this and say, "Did it for Brandt". then, if we don't do this for all banned users with articles (the number will surely grow in time), it would be hypocritical to only give Brandt that luxury. - Denny 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If there is a BLP violation then we are not doing it for Brandt, but because of our policy. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WTF??? I really can't believe this rules-wonking! Three weeks ago Brandt posted some fairly level-headed observations on his own bio page. At the time, I issued a warning that they should not be removed because I suspected that some small-minded person would be more concerned with the 'rules' or with dissing Brandt than actually looking to see how we could improve out content with fairness to the subject. Here, three weeks later, someone drags this up and wikilawyers exactly as I'd feared. We are not in the business of warring with Brandt or any other 'banned user'. If they may useful posts, all good and well. This is not a battleground and we don't do vendettas. Article quality is always our overarching priority. Try creating www.wiki-soap if you need a MUD where you can battle foul fiends and other monsters endlessly.--Docg 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the right message to be sending. The message is not "If you arre banned you are our enemy forever." If someone, anyone, any banned user comes back and reasonably explains some problems with an article on a talk page, they are welcome to do so with thanks (at least from me). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't ban users in a punitive manner. If users are actively contributing to the project, there is no reason not to allow them to do so. Bastiq▼e demandez 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly disagree with either of you in that if the edit has merit, it shouldn't be reverted, but WP:BAN is abundantly clear that that belief is not policy (no "wikilawyering" necessary, sorry Doc); perhaps a change is in order to bring it closer to the blocking policy so that it states that edits by banned users may be reverted rather than the present language. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc, Brandt is banned for very good reason, and any edit he makes should indeed be reverted. He has stalked me for many months, stalking that has included contacting what he thinks are old boyfriends of mine from 20 years ago. He has posted seriously libellous material then refused to publish a correction that was sent to him, which shows he is not the honest researcher he claims to be. He tried to hound another woman either out of her job or out of Wikipedia, and succeeded in doing the latter. He has posted photographs of people without their consent, some of which were very intrusive and clearly intended to be hurtful and possibly damaging to their lives. The only person I know of who has more seriously invaded Wikipedians' lives was Amorrow, whose edits are reverted on sight so that he gets the message that he isn't welcome here, no matter how useful his contributions might otherwise be. If we don't afford that minimum courtesy to editors — that we're not going to be asked to edit alongside people who are stalking us — then we'll lose everyone that Brandt and others like him decide to target.
    It's common sense to allow corrections to his BLP to be made if he draws attention to them, but if that's his only interest, as opposed to grandstanding, he can do it by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting we encourage Brandt's general participation. But as long as we have a publicly listed article on him - and an open discussion about it on a talk page - we should not prevent his public participation in that. Removing edits that are otherwise constructive is churlish, and serves no useful purpose. Denying him a right to comment publicly on his own bio will not prevent the behaviour you indicate, indeed it is only likely to escalate things further.--Docg 00:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that constructive edits by banned users shouldn't be removed just for the hell of it or to spite them. But the key word here is "constructive". You can hardly call deriding Wikipedians and claiming we have "no sense of social responsibility" constructive in any way. If he wants to fix his article, he can either learn to keep a civil tongue in his head first, or do as SlimVirgin suggests and conduct his business by e-mail. The substantive content of that linked post could have been quite easily said in a civil, policy abiding manner as "Mentioning my draft card burning without also mentioning the amnesty is non-neutral/libelous/mean, please fix it." I find it quite humourous that a man who claims to fear for his reputation because of us mentioning his student activism, which was apparently mentioned in the New York Times and already quite publically available to anyone who cared, doesn't think that his habitually throwing about insults online is potentially just as damaging to him. If I were an employer I'd care a lot more about my applicant's present attitude when dealing with people they don't like than what their political views were during Vietnam. --tjstrf talk 00:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is precisely the problem. Commenting on Brandt's ethics, inconsistencies and contradictions is not really not something we should have any need to do. What you think of Brandt is neither here nor there.--Docg 02:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, we do have a need to do it, because of people who revert those who have removed Brandt's posts. If editors would avoid helping banned editors to evade their block, we wouldn't need this discussion. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    why not change policy then to reflect what you say is practice...? If this is true and supported shouldn't the policy on banning be changed to reflect this? - Denny 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you dig up a three week-old dead issue on an archived talk page and resurrect it here as a dramatic 'incident' needing admin attention?? It looks like you're just out for drama, and point scoring. This isn't a game.--Docg 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not out for drama or points... he posted again today to the article talk page, and I was about to RV him out as a banned user... per the written policy, but then I remembered your comment, and didn't want to get tagged by someone for a block... his post today is here. - Denny 02:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be an abuse of blocking powers to block someone for removing a post from a banned user. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also isn't that edit another legal threat? "The draft-card burning is libelous unless counterbalanced by details of Jimmy Carter's draft amnesty in 1977. That's my position. I expressed this in writing via a fax to Danny Wool on September 9, 2006. If he doesn't do something about this, the Foundation will be held accountable"- Denny 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed his legal threat as I understand my reading of the written policy pages. No legal threats, and no editing by banned users (the policy doesn't have any exceptions for their own pages that I saw), so I removed it albeit late... from the page here. - Denny 03:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned editors can stop the behaviour that got them banned, and can e-mail an appeal to Jimbo or the ArbCom. If Brandt is sorry for the harm he has brought into individual editors' lives, he can take down his website, stop posting people's personal details to other websites, send an e-mail to Jimbo expressing his contrition, and ask to be unbanned. If the only issue is BLP issues with his biography, he can e-mail his concerns to any administrator. Regardless of our opinion of him, his article is subject to as strict an interpretation of BLP as any other article. But SlimVirgin is right: it is an insult to stalking victims to expect them to have to edit alongside their stalkers. Musical Linguist 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why are we debating Daniel Brandt's block? It would be completely against common sense to block people for reverting edits of an individual blocked by arbcom. Also even if Daniel Brandt corrects info about himself, he still has to cite sources. -- Cat chi? 12:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ofcourse he has to cite sources. But his posts have been reverted also when he provides good, sourced information: [4]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Posted again

    Would someone be willing to block Brandt's IP per policy? He's still posting, but is still banned. Link to contribs. - Denny 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Calton

    Reporting negative COI, WP:VAND, WP:CIV - WP:EQ, WP:NPA - WP:ATTACK, User Calton. History of WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE. COI, with users and re: article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. From edit notes, (cur) (last) 15:57, 19 March 2007 Calton (Talk | contribs) (Nope. Obnoxious boxes? Obnoxious article.) Thanks. Telogen 20:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs... Everyone loves diffs. Natalie 21:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's talking about this. I had a dispute with Calton in the past about pushing tags onto an article repeatedly, but seriously... Let's just AfD the damn thing. It's probably notable enough. Everyone should just try fixing the article rather than putting a million tags on it. It's not really worthy of atention here. Grandmasterka 21:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See this report as well. Having a hard time assuming good faith here. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Right. I found Calton's forcing tags and comments, especially "obnoxious article," to be pushing various letters of the WP alphabet a bit too far. Admins decide, I just report. As for as User Antaeus Feldspar, you find what you need in the User's talk and history. I think the admin response was good on that. Thanks. Telogen 23:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Calton has had a history of antisocial behavior, dating to atleast October 2006. See this AFD: [5] where he verges on personal attacks against me and against User:VivianDarkbloom and comments left at my talk page: [6] on the same subject. Regarding these attacks, an NPA warning was left on his talk page, which he deleted see: [7] While these are from a long time ago, they may show a long-term inability to play well with others. Also, on February 16-17 2007, he reverted more NPA warnings on his talkpage. See dif: [8] (get a pattern?) Not sure if any of this is relevent, but take it as you wish. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Jayron32. Very helpful. I'm witnessing the same pattern. User Calton has since taken charge to revert the edits, and override decisions, of admins, see Jeanne Marie Spicuzza history. Reverted tags removed by admins. Added article to his personal AfD list, which was around for years, before I even arrived. I'm sensing COI all right, from User Calton. Other Users experienced this problem (see history) and have left it, probably out of sheer frustration. So, a bunch of editors get deterred from fixing an article and then the article gets dumped because it can't be fixed. Not much you can do if you're getting blocked and accused of this or that because you simply disagree, on principle. Call on admins for assistance. I've done all I can. Thanks. Telogen 05:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins dont' really have any additional say in what goes in articles, however, his continued re-insertion of hideous tags to game the system and avoid the trouble of an AFD is troubling, especially when coupled with a lack of response to discussion efforts on the talk page and rude edit summaries. Milto LOL pia 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I protected the page. This seems like the best solution for this. See my protection summary for details. I think it's fully deserving of an entry on WP:LAME and I have added it. Also, Calton technically violated WP:3RR, but any block now would be purely punitive. Grandmasterka 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, attempts were made to improve the article and justify tag removal, but to no avail. Perhaps I called in the Spanish Inquisition too quickly, my apologies- I'm pretty new at this. Anyone here wanting to help with another edit dispute, see Ralph Nader history and talk, esp. Atlantic Monthly. Various users have attempted discussion and compromise. The reverts have gotten out of hand. Thanks. Telogen 02:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Article that needs the community to keep an eye on it.

    (Moved from WP:CN)

    Reuben Singh needs to be on more watchlists. A very determined vandal consistantly changes it to an attack piece. As I'm currently extremely busy in real life, I'm posting this here to ask people to keep an eye on it. It's a living person. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Frankly, I don't think this belongs on ANI. I put it on WP:CN and WP:VPA because I wanted as many eyes as possible to see it. The attention it needs is not administrator specific, and being here it gets lost amongst all the other gobbledy-gook that does need attention from an administrator. I put it on WP:CN because it's something that the community at large needs to be aware of and keep an eye on. I put it on VPA because assistance is needed. Moving it from CN to ANI just seems... dumb. I thought WP:CN was supposed to be for more than just community bans. So, why was it moved? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 05:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ANI gets far more attention than WP:CN and administrators who watchlist the page can efficiently deal with and gross libel etc very rapidly. (I didn't move it btw) ViridaeTalk 10:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Watex

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:03Z

    Watex has spammed Club Penguin with the same link to a wordpress blog and alters existing links to link to that blog in the same manner and with the same link as the follow blocked users:
    Peelers (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Peele (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

    Squids'and'Chips 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No he isn't. IrishGuy talk 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now he is.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. No idea what happened there. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    False Accusations By Other Editors

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&diff=116422077&oldid=116421910

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Essjay_controversy&curid=9875104&diff=116424025&oldid=116423815

    I added info to the article and I am being accused of "disruptive" and I'm being told I have to "persuade" others before I edit. I already took it to the talk before I edited. I fixed the wikiboxes, added more detail, and added more sentences along with references. This is a very serious matter. Removal of info back up by sold references without justification or validity could be preceived as vandalism too. I want administrative assistance into this matter. Is this behaviour by other editors allowable? :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the article's talk page speaks volumes on this issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack, I explained on your talk page to please take it slow. there are 7-10 different editors all RVing you heavily with all the aggressive changes... it's not a race. your suggestion was posted on Talk under 70 minutes before you put it in. Be BOLD... but given the article history, and the desire of so many to stablize it, you need to work with them too. - Denny 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... you kinda missed the point of taking it to the talk page. The point is to discuss, not simply state things on the talk page as if they are established fact and then say "but I did go to the talk page!" And even then, you have to wait for people to comment. The time span being a day, not an hour. -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    note that User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here. I want to AGF but I think that for some reason Quack wants to WP:OWN this article heavily and I don't understand why he is not working well here with others. perhaps an enforced break from the article for a week? probation? - Denny 02:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to Amerkov I should wait a day before editng the article after discussing on the talk. FYI, most edits are made without any prior discussion. I seriously like to know if any other people agree with Amerkov. Also, is there any policy you have to talk before editing. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 05:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Amarkov. As for policy, please see WP:CONSENSUS ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Misrepresentation and honesty per ArbCom

    (moved from Talk:Essjay

    So doing my own research on the Essjay thing I found this interesting tidbit from 2005 -- it seems Essjay started an arbcom proceeding against someone named User:Rainbowwarrior1977 and had him banned from wikipedia, one of the charges being that he claimed he had a law degree. Check out the opinion here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rainbowwarrior1977, esp. the "Misrepresentation/honesty" subsection. So is that binding precedent for everyone else? If so, then the arbcom or Mr. Wales erred when initially overlooking Essjay's misrepresentations. Hallibrah 02:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbcom does not make policy. WAS 4.250 05:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Arbcom deals with behaviour. Gwen Gale 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    So does that mean their decisions in one case are not binding to others in similar circumstances? Hallibrah 23:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no ArbComm case against Essjay, who is now a retired Wikipedian and has no special privileges. None of that has anything to do with this article, which is about the controversy that arose when a specific editor/admin (etc) was found to have claimed credentials he did not hold. I suggest if you wish to pursue this further, you go to WP:CN or another forum. Risker 23:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Given I agree with Risker's take above...) Mind, I can't speak for arbcom but yeah, they do say they're not a court and I've never heard of an arbcom decision being cited as a precedent in any reliable sense. Think of it this way, the community (with Jimmy Wales' ultimate permission, guidance or whatever) makes policy. Arbcom scolds editors who have taken WP:BOLD way too far too many times. Lastly, Wales in his management and public roles simply isn't under the same rules (observation, not criticism). Whatever he said about Essjay, whatever mistakes he made, whatever helpful things he may have done, have aught to do with editing the wiki under WP policy. Gwen Gale 23:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See also: ex cathedra. Regarding the Arbitration Committee, it could be said that they are effectively the constructors of policy within very specific areas such as de-adminship and formal banning. Arbcom doesn't write policy, but it is the sole body of enactment for certain rules so its actions (or trends therein) are those policies. (This is aside from the fact that since our arbitrators are all highly respected members in their own rights they can exert quite a bit of personal influence as normal policy page editors.) --tjstrf talk 00:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But don't they decide or at least more specifically define what the rules are? Like when they said "misrepresentation of qualifications is unacceptable" back in 2005, there was NO policy regarding that at all. If they didn't mean their statement to be binding, why even bother specifically ruling on it? Hallibrah 02:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have good questions, Hallibrah, but this probably isn't the best place to get them answered; as far as I know, none of the people regularly editing this article are members of ArbComm. You might want to try the talk page for the Arbitration policy, where members of ArbComm are more likely to see your questions and respond with more accuracy than any of us could. I hope this is helpful. Risker 02:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok I'll move this thread to WP:ANI for now, thanks, Risker! Hallibrah 03:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This may not be the best place for this thread either, unless this specifically requires administrator functions. WP:CN or the Arbitration policy talk page, as suggested above, or Village Pump are infinitely better places. Natalie 03:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Specifically, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) may be your best bet. --tjstrf talk 07:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an excellent example of irony, but I don't know what can, or should, be done about it now. MastCell Talk 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok i'll move to Village Pump Policy, thanksHallibrah 23:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkspam via mass image upload

    If you look at the contributions of Anantashakti (talk · contribs), you will note that this user uploads lots of cc-sa images owned by Himalayan Academy Publications, with an added pious commentary and of course a link to his organization. None of the images has any noticeable encyclopedic value, and since they are unfree, we are not keen on having them. Still, the user is not directly violating any policy, and I am not sure how to deal with this. dab (𒁳) 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree. The images appear to be clear and often of high quality. Whether the subjects are promotional I could not say, not having much experience of Indian religious art. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RFA canvassing

    Resolved
     – Canvassing rolled back, user blocked

    It's been noted at the RFA page, but thought I should mention it here. Comments like this have been going around by User:JohnHistory in attempt to garner opposition to User:Clawson's RFA. In fact, he's canvassed nearly 50 users regarding it.

    It's not even a good opposition, he's just bringing up some content dispute they had over whether the red baron was jewish or not.⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this issue has been resolved on his talk page. John Reaves (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think JohnHistory knew it was the wrong thing to do, since he's now brought it up on the RfA talk page after I asked him to. – Riana ঋ 09:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Possibly, but "Maybe you will support the opposition too??? JohnHistory 09:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)JohnHistory" has me wondering if he actually got the concept of not canvassing. ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 09:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that kinda made me bang my head against the keyboard a little bit. Just a little. – Riana ঋ 09:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user's canvassing is disruptive. If he continues to canvas, a block is a no-brainer. If he's stopped canvassing, it seems to me that a block would be punitive, as it cannot dampen the impact of the canvassing already done. If checkuser show he's otherwise disruptive as an anon, he should be blocked for that. I'd also strongly support admin roll-back of as much of the canvassing as possible, to prevent more users from seeing it. --Dweller 11:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have posted to the user's talk page, asking him to stop. --Dweller 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's gone to bed for the night, ([9]) possibly before seeing my message. Can I request rollback on the canvassing? --Dweller 11:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support roll back, and I'm more than happy to it is there is support to do so Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 11:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note, I have blocked User:JohnHistory for disruption for 24 hours, after many warnings he preceeded with this, if anyone feels I was wrong to block, I am more than happy to review it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. – Riana ঋ 12:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an on going dispute and general mess. A, very, short version is that a new editor user:DrParkes made some sweeping changes to the Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu article, these were reverted with a requests for discussion by several users, including myself. It turned into an edit war & DrParkes and User:Loudenvier were banned for 3RR violations, DrParkes was then re-banned for attempting to bypass the block. After reaching my 3rd revert on the BJJ page, I decided to look into the other articles edited by DrParkes, and I added citation requests & removed some POV comments, these edits were reverted again without discussion, then when sources were added my attempts to format were reverted, can't be sure of the exact order but DrParkes 3RR ban came into force and the same patten was followed by an IP [[80.34.17.209]. At this point other editor involved in the BJJ article had also looked at it and edited, as some of the edits DrParkes had made to BJJ had linked to them. At this point user:Kentkent started editing in a similar manner to DrParkes, but with comment on talk pages, claiming to be a friend, an edit war to maintain the AfD tag started. There are now a growing list of possible sockpuppets User:Kentkent, User:Kbenton, User:Jamesthorburn, User:80.34.17.209 and User:Steely_eyed_eagle_hawk) who have only or mainly edited the Barry Ley (or deleted Blaggers) articles. I requested the admin that banned DrParkes to look at this and he has refused. Some help is needed however to sort out the mess. --Nate 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not intending to state the obvious but users with a long history of constructive edits are having their work targeted which is affecting a number of well developed articles. This is becoming a real problem.Peter Rehse 11:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for you time, hope it calms down now--Nate 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Verdict

    A sockpuppeteer who has recently been recieved a community ban (see here) has evaded his block and started to not only vandalise articles and upload possible copyvios but is starting to threaten me on my talk page. The admin I usually report this to (User:Yamla) seems to be offline at the moment but could I please have an admin look into this. The evading sockpuppets are BatistaTheMan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Sebastian P 12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Oakster Oakster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Oakster 11:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:479240555_l.jpg "Back of Verdict" pretty much settles it: Oakster Oakster is clearly a sockpuppet. He admits to it. Not very opaque, is this fellow? Looks like someone already did the banning, though. Adam Cuerden talk 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've just noticed a fellow Wikipedian has reported him for banning as well. Thanks anyway and I apoligise for any inconvenience. -- Oakster  Talk  12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All blocked. – Riana ঋ 12:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With approximately 80 known sockpuppets and many more waiting in the wings, I've started fully protecting articles this banned user targets. If he is threatening you, I advise that you simply delete the threat. If he emails you, don't respond. He starts with minor intimidation, moves up to threats of physical violence, then eventually he'll express a desire that you die or maybe even threaten to kill you himself. He was also caught violating privacy (an action for which oversight was required). He will also likely claim that you are stalking him but note that WP:STALK does not apply if you are following submissions of a banned user so you can undo them. --Yamla 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    not simple vandalism?

    Can someone help with the sneaky vandalism from 76.20.34.20[10]? There doesn't seem to be a place to report and I haven't time to clean it all up. I've done Gulf War but there could be other pages - some edits look good, some aren't (example changing the start and end dates of the Gulf War which didn't get picked up for one month[11]). - Ctbolt 12:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Proxy IPs from India blanking citations

    Resolved
     – Both articles semiprotected

    There are different proxy IPs from India blanking out cited material from Aguirre, the Wrath of God shown [12], [13], [14] (some examples) and Apocalypse Now (shown [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22]. Could some admin take action and semi-protect the article? Thanks. Real96 14:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. – Riana ঋ 14:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneaky vandalism

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 07:01Z

    Just like the note above, I'm not sure where the appropriate place to report this is, so I'm putting it here. Denny Seiwell (talk · contribs) is either knowledgeable about a suspiciously wide variety of topic, finding lots of little errors and correcting them; or he is making nothing but sneaky vandalous edits. I can't figure out how to determine which, other than to ask experienced editors such as the admins here to take a look. Thanks. Deli nk 14:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sneaky vandalism. Some are hard to tell without specialized knowledge, but this edit is clearly minor vandalism, this edit is highly unlikely, and this edit is directly contradicted by this official source. However, just as a stopped clock is apparently right twice per day, this edit seems to actually have the correct information (It was one of the earlier ones I decided to research, so I was conflicted at first - I think preponderance is vandalism after all). I see TedFrank (talk · contribs) has already reverted all of DS's contributions and warned him. I'll second the warning, but will ask about the University of Yazd bit. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Denny Seiwell is a semi-famous musician, so there are probably Wikipedia:Username policy issues as well. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, other than the University of Yazd date, which I honestly think was just luck, I can't find a single undisputably worthwhile edit from this account, and it's been around since June 2006. Rather than warning, I'm going to block per WP:U#Blocking "inappropriate or borderline inappropriate usernames that are coupled with vandalism". --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since admins rarely get enough thanks: Thanks everyone for looking into it! Deli nk 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing it out. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Curious Gregor SSP counter-accusation

    Curious Gregor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) responded to my opening Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor against him by making the counter accusation: diff from my userpage, "Pete Hurd had accused me of being a SockPuppet. I thought in the manner of corporate law I would bring a countersuit." Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd. I don't want to revert his accusation against me on my userpage myself, but I invite an admin to consider doing so. Pete.Hurd 14:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Does Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd fall under some CSD? If so, it should definitely be deleted.
    Although not an admin, I've removed the notice about sock-puppetry from your page. The other part, though, I've left - I think it should be responded to, not removed. Od Mishehu 14:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'll move his rant to my talk page, but it's a bit too laughable to merit a detailed response. Pete.Hurd 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    65.67.234.254

    Definitely needs to be blocked for a while, for repeated vandalism. anonymous6494 14:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You will probably get a faster response at WP:AIV. MastCell Talk 16:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been taken care of. Thanks though. anonymous6494 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Twsx

    Hi, I'm having problems with this user. Recently, I closed an AfD which he started as keep. He didn't like that, and left me a rather rude message saying "Just letting you know that you failed your duty as a wikipedia administrator today. Not only did you not care to acquire an overview of the debate, which would have lead to no consensus, you also failed to really read it." I didn't particularly like being told I "failed", since I didn't, and no admin can "fail" since we're all volunteers. I told him this, but despite that he continued telling me I "failed", even though I explained my reasoning he wouldn't have it. This discussion is located here. I told him to take it to deletion review if he was unhappy with the result. I thought that would be the last of it.

    I then came across this page. I saw this AfD closing had been logged, and I had been labelled as "incompetent" (here's the original adding of it). I removed the word incompetent, then told him I had done so on his talk page. He replied informing me yet again I had failed greatly (even though we'd discussed I hadn't failed), then he altered the wording to say "Incompetent decision to keep was made by User:Majorly" - which I still count as an attack on my judgement. I again removed the incompetent part, but then the wording was changed again, this time saying the decision was incredibly competent, but was against policy... since it was following policy I removed it, only to be reverted by popups. I asked him to remove it on his talk page, twice and responded neither time, so I removed it one last time, only this time I was reverted "as vandalsm"! He left a message on my talk page asking me to stop vandalising the subpage. All I've done is removed the attacks on my judgement, and throughout he's been really unhelpful and uncooperative. I'd like an opinion of what to do about this. Thanks a lot. Majorly (o rly?) 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable. Either put it up for deletion review or drop it. Sniping at other editors because you didn't get your way is uncivil. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear, the above comment is addressed to Twsx (talk · contribs).
    I did drop it after trying to convince him to at least explain his decision for. I have lost my temper in the first message and acted uncivil to a certain extend. This is unforgiveable and i apologized for it 5 minutes later and once again yesterday. All of this happened within a timespan of 3 hours [23], after that, for my part, the topic was done. I "log" my actions and participations on a subpage for later use (comes in hand with a couple of things, such as re-created speedy'd newpages as example). I understand that as with every other page, personal attacks are not welcome, so with some reluctance, i removed them. As it is now, the "log" reflects pure fact without any personal attack, which is why Majorly's last edit definitely constitutes as inproper. I would also like to note that Majorly did not behave perfectly innocent himself, such as calling me a whiner (which is relatively irrelevant, as i never made any move to have his decision evaluated or similar) and saying i was "making ad hominem attacks" while the only person pushing the topic was he himself.
    In conclusion; Majorly made his decision, i accepted it right away, but told him my opinion about it anyway, which lead to a discussion that kept going on for 3 hours. Eversince i was fine with what happened. The person keeping the discussion up, is Majorly. I will give my comments to whatever may come up in this discussion here, but for now, this is everything i have to say. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 17:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Twsx should definitely try to be more civil from now on but we should also let bygones by bygones. However, in the future, I would suggest before you post your opinion of other people's actions, I would seriously recommend you consider whether it is constructive or not... Sasquatch t|c 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem of his "Log" remains. He insists on retaining the language, "Incredibly competent decision to keep against policy." ("against policy" being the key words, and the dripping sarcasm notwithstanding). He has reverted to keep the language in there while identifying their removal as "vandalism" (which is, of course, laughable). If you believe the closure was against policy, open a deletion review. As above, it is not acceptable to take the course you have taken, namely: insulting the closing administrator on their talk page and denigrating their closure in your userspace. If you continue to refuse to have the deletion reviewed, you must stop immediately. I think we all know why you won't do it — you'll find out that it was an acceptable closure and an accurate reading of consensus — so you continue to snipe from afar. It's uncivil and incredibly inappropriate. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be entirely fair here, the vast majority of 'keep' arguments were specifically based on criteria which were listed as "dubious" notability criteria at the time, and which are now explicitly listed as outright "invalid". The remainder of the 'keep' arguments weren't backed up by anything other than personal assertions, or the desire for journalists to treat porn more seriously.
    In short, no actual valid arguments for 'keep' were really made.
    Consensus isn't supposed to be counting the numbers (10 keep, 7 delete, in this case); it's supposed to put significant weight on the strength of the arguments themselves.
    I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with the decision anyways. I'm mostly an inclusionist that thinks that the policy is too strict. However, it's pretty hard to deny that notability was not proven in that afd, as defined by the policy at the time, and that it definitely wouldn't pass the test if it were based on today's current notability criteria.
    Nobody is obligated to take it to deletion review unless they wish to reverse the action taken in the afd. But a person is more than entitled to say that it was a wrong decision. Wikipedia doesn't support the level of censorship that you're proposing.
    The 'incompetant' arguments were uncalled for. I think even twsx admits that now, right? However, he certainly seems to genuinely believe that the decision was contrary to policy, and, objectively, I tend to agree. I'm allowed to say that: It was against wikipedia policy. Big deal.
    The 'incompetant' (and 'competant') problem: that was a serious problem. But arguing about whether or not a person is allowed to say they think a decision actually followed policy? That's just silly. Bladestorm 19:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant notability guideline is WP:PORNBIO, which allows for more subjectivity in determining notability than I am normally used to because of the genre's general lack of coverage by normally reliable sources, and the keep votes were in line with that guideline, unless I'm misreading something. At any rate, this isn't deletion review, so this isn't the place to debate that. Saying, "I don't believe the result was an accurate reading of consensus" is different than "KEPT AGAINST POLICY" (especially since notability guidelines are just guidelines) and saying that the administrator is incompetent (which, until earlier today when he removed it due to this thread, his Log page stated clearly). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make sure it's clear: All accusations of 'incompetance' were entirely inexcusable. Not arguing about that part; only whether or not a person is allowed to believe that something was 'against policy' or not. (basically, the extent to which wikipedia should be censored)
    As far as the guidelines are concerned, the primary arguments were based on the number of google hits, the number of films, and the nomination for an award related to her chest.
    The google hits and # of films are explicitly declared "invalid" criteria for notability in the current draft of the guideline, and they were labelled as "dubious" at the time of the afd. The award that was cited in the "keep"s wasn't even notable in and of itself, so even if she'd won, it wouldn't really have mattered. But, in this case, she didn't even win. She was merely considered for a non-notable award. Bladestorm 20:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    About that edit i made after this entry here has been made: [24]. I didnt mean to cloak anything, all i wanted to do is remove whatever insult there was left, as i do agree and regret that i did make inappropriate namecalling. Bladestorm found good words for the case; my behavior was under the belt. However, while i believe it is my right to express my opinion about an administrators decision, this topic seems to be about my logpage, which does represents a short personal memo about my opinion without any attack, and nothign more. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested, there is some interesting, at least tangentially related discussion of whether it constitutes a personal attack to call an administrator's decision something like "incompetent" (as opposed to calling the admin himself or herself that) in the workshop of the InShaneee arbitration case. Newyorkbrad 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AfD close = valid; I would have done the same. Even if it ended up as no consensus, I would have kept the article by default. The personal attacks by Twsx were uncalled for. The user is allowed to comment on admin actions, but it really shouldn't resort to namecalling and such. In the future, I advise Twsx to be more careful with his words, and to politely discuss a situation with a user. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threat

    A death threat was left on User talk:216.23.242.78. As such, I have blocked this IP address indefinitely and forwarded the information along to the high school in question. Once this matter has been dealt with by the high school, we should unblock the IP address. It is currently blocked anon-only, though, so it should not affect users who are signed in. This address was previously blocked by another admin for six months. --Yamla 16:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you've done the right thing; I've seen some pretty nasty messages, but never one like that. I've seen IPs where they've threatened to have my account deleted, but death threats...how common are they? Acalamari 16:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    From schoolchildren? Probably not that uncommon. Genuine death threat? I hardly think so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much - some of our less mature vandals will make death threats the minute they are blocked, but real threats are (thankfully) few and far between. Natalie 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not genuine, but we should treat all such threats seriously, regardless of their likeliness to manifest. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet Another Sockpuppet of JINXTENGU.

    Resolved
     – blocked

    JINXTENGU has given himself away again with this edit to Persian Poet Gal's talk page. Acalamari 16:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cute. Blocked. Natalie 16:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; that's the third one I've reported here in less than five days. Acalamari 17:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Homeopathic

    Homeopathic (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is almost certainly George Vithoulkas, or someone closely related to him. For instance, When a photo Homeopathic uploaded was deleted, the copyright status on the webpage was changed.

    He has been making extreme POV-pushing edits to George Vithoulkas, and any attempts to lessen the POV have led to him complaining. I realise that content issues aren't germaine here, but this is beyond content issues to him trying to remove all negative content.:

    The critique article you've used as reference is by someone who does not believe in Homeopathy, nevermind the general 'neutral' tone and titles. The author, Anthony Campbell, in his book concludes that Homeopathy is not proven and suggests the effects are due to placebo
    Book summary. This critique is against Classical Homeopathy, not Vithoulkas himself, who is simply expressing Hahnemann's Homeopathic point of view for health and disease, nowdays accepted by most Homeopaths (the critique is dated 1978). Besides there was a newer edition of Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy printed on 1980, with very possitive comments by the Homeopathic community ::Amazon.com. At the time of print of the very first edition of Science of Homeopathy, at the Royal Hospital, only Homeopathic Polypharmacy (combinations of homeopathic remedies) were being used, and that only for minor health issues. Campbell and the establishment felt threatened, and hence this negative critique. Science of Homeopathy is a standard book used in almost all homeopathic schools around the world - the fact that it has been translated in 20 languages is a proof of its acceptance. And please do something about Adam Cuerden, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV (please compare the edited versions) ::Homeopathic 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote in question is here, and is from the British Homeopathic Journal.

    I don't know what to do with him. If I had my druthers, I'd block him, but... Adam Cuerden talk 16:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE

    He's now making legal threats: [25] (this makes it easier to read) I've changed two things he objected to on my talk page to an exact quote, and a more exact paraphrase of his argument since this, but I somehow doubt it'll placate him. Adam Cuerden talk 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to provide more detail about User:Homeopathic's legal threats. Here [26] and here [27] he uses edit summaries to threaten legal action over the George Vithoulkas article. I warned him [28] about WP:NPA and WP:NLT, after which he continues to make legal threats: [29] and [30]. I am becoming very concerned about this situation, and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could intervene. Thanks! Skinwalker 16:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a hawk when it comes to fighting legal threats but to me it seems like he's skirting just outside the realm of what warrants an instant ban. Let us know here if he crosses the line solidly. I'll drop a note to stop even alluding to a possible lawsuit. --Golbez 16:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the article on the wrong version, let's work this out shall we. --Golbez 16:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Are there actually any sources for this article which are not in some way connected with advocacy of homeopathy? Guy (Help!) 16:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. Frankly, the subject seems largely invisible outside of pro-Homeopathy sites, and that weird Right Livelihood Award. (Have you ever poked around the R. L. Award website? They criticise the Nobel prize for not awarding enough science prizes to the "south". Big freaking surprise, given there's only two not-particularly populous first-world nations in the southern hemisphere.) Adam Cuerden talk 16:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be a bit slow, have just noticed this [31] "Dave, i'm just letting you know Adam inserts FALSE information on Vithoulkas' WP page, obviously intentionally. Just a friendly note, WP and Adam himself can be sued for this. Hope you resolve the situation.Homeopathic 16:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)" which is perhaps superseded by later events. One thing Adam's not picked out from the interview which was the source of the contested views, it indicates that Vithoulkas has fallen out with "his students from the UK in the 1980s", which may explain a bizarre comment by an anon supporter of Vithoulkas on my talk page at 13:08, 19 March 2007: "it seems that you have sided with the wrong guys". There appear to be rival factions in the homeopathy world. .. dave souza, talk 20:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to play devil's advocate: if there are no independent sources on this guy, should we really have an article about him? MastCell Talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seemed pretty borderline to me. Critical review of The Science of Homeopathy from the British Homoeopathic Journal looks pretty independent. User:Homeopathic recently added other articles from the same source which are very uncritical, reading rather like advertising magazines. His books do seem to have made it onto Amazon.com, though Amazon.co.uk didn't seem to be selling them themselves, essentially referring buyers to second-hand dealers. .. dave souza, talk 00:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an AfD, but it got overrun by meatpuppets (See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive216#Meatpuppetry_and_Attacks) and then, after I early closed due to copyvio, it got promptly reconstructed. (And Vithoulkas changed his copyright terms to release his CV under a free licence - NOT that we should use it!)
    He's very extreme and anti-conventional medicine, and that seems to have made him a darling of extreme homeopaths and altmed types. Adam Cuerden talk 07:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jiaur Rahman: general mayhem

    Can an admin take a look at what User:Jiaur Rahman has been up to? Things like moving his user and user talk page to article namespace, etc. I'm getting confused just trying to follow what he's done. --Minderbinder 17:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He created his user page, then moved it to Watercolour Artist. I have tidied this up, and will ask the user not to do so again. He also tried to add "© Jiaur Rahman 2006-2007. All rights reserved." on WP:ICT as a copyright tag to be used. Hmm. Neil (not Proto ►) 17:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've db-empty tagged Jiaur Rahman (talk · contribs)'s creations JIAUR RAHMAN & -- Scientizzle 18:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind about deleteing Template:Ph:Diff, I guess it's used at Help:Diff... -- Scientizzle 18:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Check out his false copyright tagging of a copyrighted picture tagged as "wikipedia screenshot". ⇒ SWATJester On Belay! 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Kataraisdabest (talk · contribs) - block review requested

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:59Z

    I've just blocked Kataraisdabest (talk · contribs) indefinitely. S/he has not made any constructive edits since registering the account, and instead blanked Adult Swim twice. S/he apologized, but then created Katy&inuyasha three times and the talk page four times (all were deleted as either nonsense or G8). After getting a level 3 warning, s/he left for a month, but came back and started making posts on his/her user page and various user talk pages (the user page had previously been deleted in a MFD). After Kataraisdabest posted on my user talk page, I left him/her a final warning, as Wikipedia is not MySpace and the user seemed uninterested in contributing (I posted a reminder that this is an encyclopedia) - this incivil comment resulted, and Kataraisdabest was blocked, and here I am. Could someone review this? --Coredesat 17:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fine. I'm sure Wikipedia will cope without him/her. – Steel 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me. Veinor (talk to me) 18:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The block seems to improve Wikipedia, so I support it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fine to me. IrishGuy talk 18:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me...the only thing I might suggest is apply a {{welcome}} tag with any lower-level warning, to give the user a better chance to figure out what/why/how they were doing wrong and perhaps get them to become useful contributors. -- Scientizzle 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians

    About: Wikipedia:Association of International Wikipedians:

    This appears to be an unapproved WikiProject of sorts. As placement in Wikipedia namespace would appear to misleadingly imply official Wikipedia status, I was tempted to speedy delete it, but I'd like input on this.

    Also, the page was created by AINW (talk · contribs), whose only two edits were to the page. Based on its claim of use of items created by Wikimachine (talk · contribs), I am suspecting AINW to be a sockpuppet of Wikimachine. Opinions wanted on this as well: is this block-worthy on AINW? (I don't think that Wikimachine should be blocked, but he should be warned for doing this, I think.) --Nlu (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'm missing something obvious here, but, as far as I know:
    1. WikiProjects don't have to be "approved".
    2. Using sockpuppets ("alternate accounts") non-abusively is generally permitted.
    (The group is a rather bad idea, of course—it's entirely redundant to the regular translation projects—so I have nothing against deleting it. But it ought to be done for a legitimate reason.) Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It probably belongs in meta, see m:Category: Wikipedian associations. That is, in any case, where my association is, the m:Association_of_Incremento-eventuo-darwikian-delusionist_Wikipedians Bucketsofg 18:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, "approval" may be the wrong word, but it bypassed Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. --Nlu (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creating it here instead of on Meta is a newbie mistake. I don't think it's block-worthy. Even if it were a WikiProject that wasn't "officially" proposed at WikiProject Council it wouldn't be a blockable offense. I would just transwiki or MFD it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:57Z

    rather unorthodox method to speedy delete articles

    Hi, I noticed a user recently moved an article into a user's namespace recently as a way to avoid needing to suggest the article was a candidate for deletion (See here). Is this an acceptable practice? --Rebroad 18:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    While very much good faith move, I dont know about it. I think it opens the doors for alot of possible bad faith. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted. There have been many proposals for expiremental deletion but i think the way ti stands, regular deletion is the current acceptable practice. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not acceptable. 'Userfying' an article is only permitted once a page is about to be deleted once it has followed proper procedures, usually for the purpose for improving the article. Moving it for the purpose of (speedy) deleting, bypassing WP:CSD, WP:AFD or WP:DRV is simply not done. I would revert the move and speedy-tag it. --Edokter (Talk) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh please. This article would stand less than no chance of surviving an AfD, userfying and leaving a message on User talk:Walljordan it was just someone trying not to bite the newbie. I would simply have changed it to a redirect to person, probably, but Miss Mondegreen went to more trouble. Why would we discourage that? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by Lordknowle

    I am requesting a block of Lordknowle (talk · contribs), who has been disrupting the article at Knights Templar (currently at GA status, and trying to get to FA). Lordknowle, who claims to be a PhD in the subject[32][33] (yes I've told him to read up on the Essjay controversy) has been repeatedly adding a link to his own website,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] and been inserting false information into the Knights Templar article,[46][47][48] either using his own website as a source,[49] or trying to obfuscate the issue by citing what appear to be valid sources, that in actuality have nothing to confirm the information that he's adding.[50][51] When challenged, Lordknowle throws out a wide range of personal attacks,[52][53][54] some of which are violating WP:BLP policy,[55] and has been trying to intimidate other editors out of the discussion by saying that if they don't have a degree in history, they shouldn't even be participating.[56][57] He has also falsely accused an editor (me) of copying information from his website for the Wikipedia article.[58]

    A clear consensus against Lordknowle's actions has been achieved on the talkpage (see Talk:Knights Templar#Inappropriate external link), but he continues to edit war to re-add the false information and his link to the page,[59] along with other information in support of his group.[60][61][62] He is also now bringing in meatpuppets to try and support him: HexTokis (talk · contribs) and Blakescottage (talk · contribs).

    In addition to the on-wiki actions, Lordknowle has also been sending me a series of harassing emails, with a large quantity of venom and personal attacks (I can forward these along if anyone would like to verify this).

    In summary: Lordknowle's website of http://www.templars.org/uk appears to have just launched a new version on March 10th,[63] so the recent activity on Wikipedia seems clearly designed to try and drive traffic to the site. My recommendation, after discussing it with others, is that Lordknowle be blocked from Wikipedia for a "cooling off period" of a few days or weeks, and then if he genuinely wants to return to Wikipedia after that and work in a cooperative and collegial fashion, he would be welcome.

    Administrator assistance is requested to address this issue, before it further escalates and completely derails the FA process. Thanks, Elonka 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The constant personal attacks and harassment are what concern me. The content disruption is pretty weak sauce for a block (although this sort of thing has led to bans in the past), but the harassment deserves a fairly stiff block, particularly if Elonka can forward or post some of the emails she's received. Philwelch 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Characterizing the cited diffs as personal attacks is going a bit overboard, IMHO. Of course I am not aware of the actual content of any of the e-mails mentioned by Elonka, but they are off-wiki. Looking at the situation from a neutral stance, I see no reason to endorse either vendetta. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it okay, during a content dispute about the Knights Templar, to go on laborious tangents about Elonka's character? Philwelch 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was. I don't think that a temporary block will diminish Lordknowle's animosity because Wikipedia makes for a poor vehicle for any sort of effective behavioral modification. Lets focus on helping them resolve the content dispute. The personality clash and ensuing bad faith accusations are unfortunate, but that is a personal matter between these editors. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the three diffs may count as incivil. But I believe that this diff constitutes a personal attack, in the sentence "Maybe I should write a self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications, but there again, I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited.:-)" The "self-promoting entry page on my life, career and publications" obviously refers to Elonka's user page. By saying "I don't think that I could be so vain or conceited", he's automatically saying that Elonka is vain and conceited. I call that a personal attack. AecisBrievenbus 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Firstly, I object to being called a meatpuppet. Although new, I have been trying to pour oil on water on here in relation to your squabble with LK. The term meatpuppet (which I have now looked up) is not very welcoming to someone who has tried to resolve the issue. It also seems very hypocritical for you, Elonka, to be nicey-nicey in your welcome statement and then use this sort of language. It seems that Elonka really does have some real issues here. But to start bringing people like me in, when I'm trying to pacify the two of you seems more like desperation with no logical argument. I would disagree with your often used expression of 'concensus'. On the Talk page of the article in question, Elonka has been supported by three people (some names also appear here) who have personally contributed to her own Wikipedia article. That is not the basis for impartial concensus and should be considered in that prejudicial light. As to LK's academic qualifications, I know what he holds, as we have visited his library to research rolls and other archives. He is most definitely the holder of a doctrine and to accuse without knowing the fats is plainly rude and unnecessary. This now just seems to be academic jealously and I am frankly shocked at this attitude. As to breaches of policy, Elonka has equally labelled LK with the SPA tag when it is obvious that he is not. He has not been party to any vandalism at all. As to private emails, that is a matter for email providers to sort out, not Wikipedia, even if such emails exist. I am astounded at the manner in which this complaint has been raised considering the Talk messages that Elonka has sent on my introduction to Wikipedia. I am not happy at all. HexTokis 22:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not really all for "voting" on blocks, but the personal attacks, uncivil tone, and "shut up and let the expert do it" attitude are a cause for concern. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd strongly support investigation of HexTokis to determine if he is a sockpuppet of Lordknowle. I don't think any action should be taken until that matter has been looked at. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blakescottage (talk · contribs) looks questionable too, also a first-time editor who turned up to defend Lordknowle. Tearlach 12:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Elonka's report for 3RR was denied by me. There were only 3 reverts, and she showed 4 reverts when she included a consecutive revert as two separate reverts. It does appear that Lordknowle has been quite incivil, but I don't think such blocking action is warranted in this case. Nishkid64 00:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've full protected the article. DurovaCharge! 02:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, something exceedingly unpleasant is going on at User talk:Lordknowle. I think I am going to have to block Lordknowle for either trolling or a potentially compromised account. Newyorkbrad 12:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. See that talk for more details. I think this moots the prior discussion above, at least pending further explanation or if there is sock activity to be dealt with. Newyorkbrad 12:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TruthComesOut

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:51Z

    User TruthComesOut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalised the article Richard Bridgeman, 7th Earl of Bradford with offending and unsourced material at different times (see [65], [66], [67], [68] and [69]), which contradicts WP:NPOV, WP:LIVING and WP:ATT. He was warned four times not to do this (see [70], but has removed these warning and uses now his talkpage instead to spread this material (see [[71]]).

    It is only speculation, however I think, he could be a sockpuppet of User Ghost rider1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and User Oracleatdelphi1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who have shown similar behaviour on this article. ~~ Phoe talk 20:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC) ~~ [reply]

    I've deleted the talk page as it clearly breaches BLP policy. If anyone thinks he should be blocked, feel free to press the button. -- Nick t 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, having spent time going through all of the edits, they're exceptionally controversial (some also included edit summaries which could be considered libelous in their own right) so I've deleted all of them. I've indefinitely blocked the user until we can decide on a suitable length of block or whether a community ban would be more suitable. -- Nick t 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Banned User:Israelbeach mounting concerted AfD POV-push?

    Joel Leyden (who used to edit as User:Israelbeach and numerous other sockpuppets) appears to be canvassing off-wiki support for a concerted push to "send Arab propaganda anti-Israel news groups and blogs to AFD", apparently in revenge for the deletion of the Wikipedia article about his own website. He's using his Yahoo group to coordinate this push with "several Israeli and Jewish groups." It would be worth keeping an eye on AfD for a week or two to see if this amounts to anything much. I'm not going to dignify his rants by linking to them, but look on a certain kooks' forum (which I think we all know!) for "Arab Propaganda Sites to be Deleted - AFD's, Israelis To Create AFD for all Arab propaganda sites". -- ChrisO 20:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It shouldn't be too hard to recognize suspicious AfDs that might pop up...--Isotope23 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of message

    I had posted an in-good-faith message to User:FeloniousMonk/Talk. An anonymous IP 151.151.73.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) user removed this message and in the edit summary claimed I was a troll and "chronic" history of PA. Well, the "Attacks" he's referring to probably include those that FM accused me of making earlier this week, or the ones Guettarda accused me of over a week ago -- both of which were misunderstandings and through which my posting was attempting to resolve:

    I feel this would let me recover lost faith, and of course, bolster my arguments that my other pages were done in good faith. (me)

    Since this IP user has several warnings on his page (one of which is from me, but that was made after his above removal, before I noticed it. It was a warning to another removal of his, but one that I cannot complain about here.) and since this move was blatanly vandalism and required experienced use, I propose he blocked for at least 48 hours. --Otheus 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure blocking would be the correct thing to do, but I don't think the IP's actions are suitable either. Even if someone has made a personal attack in the past that is not a reason to revert every talk page edit from that editor afterward, unless they are personal attacks. What might be relevant to one edit is not always relevant to another. Yuser31415 20:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of full disclosure, is this what you're talking about, when you refer to his first infraction for which you warned him? Because this really seemed unnecessary, and I can certainly see someone watching everything you say afterwards far more carefully.
    Ultimately, I did regret posting that; I should have and ultimately emailed my condolences privately. --Otheus 22:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't to say that he was right to remove your comment from FeloniousMonk's talk page, but it certainly suggests that he is not a simple vandal. I'm not entirely sure what you think a block will accomplish here. There's no (supplied) proof of a desire to disrupt wikipedia... so... what's the point? Bladestorm 21:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see your point. I was careless in not noticing the correct sequence of events here. I only noticed that the removal from FM's talk page came before my warning on his talk page, so I assumed the removal from FM's talk page occurred before the removal from Guettarda's talk page. I was careless. I apologize to all. Furhter, my repost to FeloniousMonk's page still stands, so I guess no real harm done. --Otheus 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read all of Geuttarda's comments to Otheus' talk page over the last few weeks. He's been trying to get Otheus to stop making personal attacks. Then when Geuttarda leaves in disgust Otheus removed the redirect of his talk page to his user page Guettarda made and left an oblique personal attack in which he gloats at his leaving: [72] Guettarda was one of the few admins who's bothered to stand up to Otheus' chronic subtle trolling and abuse of the system, so it's not surprising I suppose. I stand by removing it and the "comment" from FM's page in which he trolls FM, again gloating over another perceived victory over someone who has stood up to him and won. Otheus has been one of the least honest editors I've come across, as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated. 151.151.73.169 22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparently this is the same user. Many of his criticisms above are factualy incorrect, and at best, assume very bad faith:
    • The only attack Guettarda complained to me about was one he mistakenly thought I made toward him and nonetheless apologized for. (There is a caveat to that; FM AfD'd several user pages I created, which I intended for evidence pages in an ongoing dispute, "attack page"; Guettarda repeated FM's claim these were attack pages, a claim I fully contend is invalid. The pages have since been deleted per his nomination.)
    • Second, I did *not* remove the redirect of Guettarda's talk page. It was still there and intact and functioning.
    • Third, there was no chronic trolling! I don't know where this user gets this idea, and frankly, that's very offensive. I'm not even sure what he means by trolling here; the WP policy page on trolling certainly does not apply to me.
    • Fourth, there is no abuse of the system. Wow, that's pattently offensive!
    • Fifth, how can I gloat over someone who (paraphr) "stood up to me and won"?
    • Sixth: "as his bogus framing of the issue above demonstrated [his being one of the least honest editors]". An anonymous IP user removes two messages I had left on User_Talk pages, and I had just been on the scalding receiving end of something similar. Removing one page was offensive, but doing it twice to different users is a pattern.

    --Otheus 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh, just to reiterate, I drop the dispute request. I agree with Bladestorm's response. --Otheus 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in the interests of disclosure, User:FeloniousMonk has filed a checkuser request on me. CHECKUSER#Otheus Thus, if the user above also believes it to be the case that I am the IP users in the checkuser case, his descriptions (trolling, disruptive, dishonest, etc) would be rational. (I know checkuser will come back negative, but of course, what good is my word?) --Otheus 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin abuse by user:Darwinek against user:mt7

    (the same description in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek too!)

    user:Darwinek was in revert war with user:mt7

    4 reverts in only 23 min and user:Darwinek is admin!

    user:Darwinek personal attack against user:mt7

    • personal attack Nr. 1 [77]
    • personal attack Nr. 2 [78]

    [79]

    but Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used say:

    Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited.

    That is a very serious violation of admin rights, and after revert of another page and revert of Tamás Priskin and blocking of user:mt7 only tree minutes - a very hard working and very cautios admin.

    --S.novak 07:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved from WP:AN/3RR to WP:AN/I. Nishkid64 22:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    good news, personal attack now [80] --Mt7 09:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I must say this behaviour is indeed troubling. Darwinek was revert-warring on the Koloman Gögh article, breaking 3RR himself two days ago, then (just minutes after his own 4th revert) blocking his opponent for 3RR. Admittedly a valid 3RR offense on a different article, on which Darwinek wasn't himself involved, but about a similar topic and as such part of the same overall dispute situation. Adding a rather taunting comment on the blocked opponent's talk page ([81]). Then continuing the same revert-war until today, calling his opponent "schizophrenic" ([82]). The dispute is one of those silly nationalistic POV-pushing matches where people have to be "claimed" for this or that nationality; both sides are equally at fault there. When S.novak added the report to Darwinek's old RfC (true, a stale RfC from last year about a totally different issue), Darwinek simply reverted it without any comment. This isn't looking good. That said, someone deserves a slap with the wikitrout for combining this report with an uncalled-for personal attack ("dishonorable"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not the first time I hear of Darwinek's bad mouth. Blocking someone you're in a revert with is even worse. I propose a proper long block for repeated incivility and abuse of sysop tools. He knows it has no place here, but he also knows that he will typically get away with it as before.--Konstable 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes it happenes to everybody, because everybody has blood too hot sometimes . They were edit warring both, I welcome them both to the calm discussion on the talk page of that article with a cup of tea. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but a cup of tea is a wholly inadequate response. This either needs a new RFC of straight to Arbcom, unless—at a minimum—Darwinek apologizes here and to mt7 and takes a voluntary 24 hour break for his 3RR violation. Thatcher131 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can somebody please translate "personal attack number 2"? Also, "personal attack 1" is a diff to another revert, not a personal attack. PTO 12:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mt7, or whoever he is, is a nice example of user who doesn't know what is he doing. I started mentioned article, he later properly added mentioned person is Hungarian. But after recent dirty war on HU Wiki he started whitewashing articles about Hungarians from Slovakia on EN Wiki. I reverted his edits, and will do so until I will be user here. Point is I am not Hungarian but he is Slovak. Bashing Hungarians is a strong element in Slovak society, now transformed also to Wiki. He claims he used three sources, saying all prove Gögh is Slovak. Bullshit. I can speak Slovak and no of these three "sources" say anything about his nationality. No source also says he is Hungarian but it is most probable, he is. He played for Czechoslovakia national team because he was a citizen of that country but that doesn't mean he was Czech or Slovak. Mt7 edits are thus strong campaign against national and ethnic minorities and will be always reverted. He has even deleted cat "Hungarians in Slovakia" from Hungarian people who were born in Slovakia, lived there and later represented Hungary. This is vandalism. Only reason why we are here is he is whining and trying to camouflage his vandalism as content dispute. Period. - Darwinek 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First: Good faith edits are never vandalism. Second, WP:3RR applies even if you're right. You're an admin; you're expected to act like one. PTO 12:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Darwinek is the one reverting the vandalism, so 3RR doesn't apply.--MONGO 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that Slovak Wikipedia article started also by Mt7 says he is Ethnic Hungarian. So this user also knows the truth but suddenly changes his mood and start reverting like a crazy. No comment. This whole campaign probably aims at provoking my actions and destroy my respected person. - Darwinek 13:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:QuackGuru & Wikipedia community

    User is again making unilateral moves that are very WP:OWN. He created this article and feels he has control over it moreso than others. He tried to speedy it, and was advised that it can't be a Speedy canidate. Then he Prod'd it, and I asked him to AfD based on policy if he felt it needed to go for legitimate reasons. Then he redirects it to Wikipedia in response, puts a speedy tag on Talk:Wikipedia community, and removes every single link from a variety of articles back to Wikipedia community. To cap it off he solicits a new admin here to delete the complete history. I want to AGF but User:QuackGuru has been brought to WP:ANI on this article four times previously. here, here, here, and here, and yesterday here for similar very aggresive, speedy aggressive acts. Can someone please look into this? his idea of concensus is to throw a hand grenade, and its getting tiring... multiple editors have complained. - Denny 22:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_community&diff=prev&oldid=116620563 An administrator redirected it. I did not. I removed the the links to the redirect. I believed the talk was indistcriminate information to speedy delete. :) - Mr.Guru (talk/contribs) 22:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And you solicited him for that... after being checked by a couple of other users. His status as an admin as Conti told you on your talk page gives him no special rights/authority for content... so you instead asked him to delete the history... to cover tracks? All your edits have been repeatedly checked by others and stopped for over a week, because you are being hyper-aggressive. Why are you unwilling to compromise to the community wishes/concensus? - Denny 22:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything QuackGuru is involved in is a silly dispute, but that doesn't make it any less obnoxious of him. He has no understanding of consensus, his idea of a discussion is to go and declare things as if they were royal edicts, and he claims we're "locking him out of" articles if we revert him. I can't even figure out what his motives are any more, beyond just wanting things to be his way. --tjstrf talk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Guys, I came into this because I came across the article. Regardless of how silly he is, it's a pretty mediocre article and deserved to be redirected, which is why I did it. There's nothing on the article that isn't already in the main one and the AfD was only no consensus because a handful of people wanted to give it a chance. It's not looking any better so I redirected. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He didn't solicit me, I was the one who put the merge tag on the article in the first place. He removed and then readded it, then mentioned that he realized none of it was worth merging, which I agreed with. No one posted on either talk page to disagree. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean he solicited you to use your admin powers to "erase the history" to discourage people from recreating the article, in that cited diff, or he wanted to use your admin powers to aide him in a content dispute. attempted admin abuse by proxy, I suppose... - Denny 01:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User creation flood

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:50Z

    Does anyone else find it odd that the user creation log is flooding recent changes? Or is this a fluke of some kind?--VectorPotentialTalk 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only since around 2004 or 2005, I forget the exact date, there didn't always used to be a visible log for user creations, which is why some older accounts don't show up on the user creation log at all, take for instance Jimbo Wales, no entry in the creation log--VectorPotentialTalk 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment of editor Philip Gronowski

    See [83] and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AZJustice for full the backstory. Basically, Don Murphy or someone acting on his behalf harassing User:Philip Gronowski and me and asking people who frequent his message board to attempt to identify me. Any suggestions? --BigDT 00:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    In view of the implied threat of real-life harassment from what appears to be an identified, publicly known individual, this situation should be brought to the attention of the WP:OFFICE immediately. The conduct promoted in the blog thread you have quoted is completely unacceptable.
    However, I will add that although in no way should Mr. Murphy (or the person misusing his name) derive any advantage from his reprehensible threats, Don Murphy is a sad excuse for an article and clearly raises serious BLP and undue weight issues. Newyorkbrad 02:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Harassment by User:Oh not again

    Resolved
     – —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-21 06:50Z

    A new editor, Oh not again has appeared with the stated intention of harassing me [84] [85]. He has already made a bad faith AfD on Tobias Bamberg claiming it is unreferenced, even though the article has a reference section. These actions mirror an editor who has used multiple abusive sockpuppets against me, User:Stopthepowermad34. His sockpuppets can be seen here. IrishGuy talk 00:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I was watching it unfold. Obvious sockpuppet/troll/harassment account; it's now blocked. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I wanted another admin's opinion rather than simply blocking him myself. As I said above, I'm 100% positive it was another sock of Stopthepowermad34. IrishGuy talk 00:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Violation of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute policy

    At Political views of Lyndon LaRouche, NPOV issues have been clearly raised on the talk page, in a manner consistent with the guidelines of Wikipedia:NPOV dispute. This is supported by numerous editors on the talk page. However, two editors, User:SlimVirgin and User:Cberlet are refusing to respond. Instead, they simply revert the NPOV tag. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuos Vandalism After Many Warnings

    Resolved
     – blocked

    User 203.21.25.110 is vandalising wikipedia severely, after being given '7' warnings, and has not yet stopped. I request he should be blocked. Wikipedian64 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been done. See his talk page. Next time use WP:AIV for this. Daniel Case 02:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The UPN Vandal

    172.132.195.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)


    Resolved
     – blocked

    User:DJvac has been adding a list of links to MSN Search Live's bird's-eye view of every store in the upstate New York Tops and Wegmans supermarket chains to the respective articles (even if they were relevant to the article, they all redirect to the main MSN Live search page, making them useless for their intended purpose).

    He has not responded to any of several users' (myself included) efforts to discuss this on his talk page. I have never had a problem with a user like this before. I have exceeded three reverts on the Tops article and requested it be protected; it may happen on the Wegmans article as well. At this point I consider him a vandal but I would like some guidance as I don't want this to degenerate into mutual accusations of 3RR violations. If there is any administrative action that can be taken, please don't hesitate to do so. Daniel Case 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No need to protect the articles when only one editor is causing the same problem on both. If he doesn't get the point now, he can be blocked at any time for disruption. He's been warned. - Taxman Talk 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever. I only made the protection request because I didn't feel like having to explain a 3RR violation and felt that was a better solution. Could some sort of clear warning, cease-and-desist or be blocked, be made on his talk page by an admin? There isn't any such warning now. Daniel Case 03:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is being disruptive, he can be blocked, regardless of whatever 3RR. —Centrx→talk • 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 48 hours. —Centrx→talk • 03:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. Will keep you posted if he returns afterwards. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible vandalism en route

    Checking the creation log, I watched the following get created one after the other: WikiHistoryReader, WikiHistoryReview, and WikiHistoryReviewer. Three names that similar doesn't bode well. IrishGuy talk 02:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    D'ye suppose, as with calculating the area under a curve, he's trying to reach just the right username by a process of progressive approximation? -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This could also just be someone with a similar name setting up doppelganger accounts to prevent impersonation. Worth watching, but may not be anything nefarious. If it is a doppelganger, of course, they should add the appropriate template. --TheOtherBob 04:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it may very well be benign. The thing is...most doppelganger accounts I have seen made were created by the original account. These were all created anonymously within about 15 minutes. Hopefully, it is nothing. I just figured if one causes a problem, now other admins will know which other two will most likely be immediately activated when one is blocked. IrishGuy talk 07:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting vandal-only account

    Resolved
     – blocked

    This guy's a blast. He made 21 un-deleted contributions, plus the creation of one particularly... tasteful page. From sodomy, to sedated pedophilia, to sacrificing humans, to necrozoophilia, to sexy puppies, to sadomasochism, to hermaphrodites, to wikifying, he's got it all. It makes me sick, frankly. And the funny thing is—he was warned once. I was hoping that

    1. An admin could block him for maintaining a vandal-only account. Blocking policy states that vandalism will lead to blocking, and this is clearly the case. Let's think preventatively here.
    2. Also, a suggestion that people should warn vandals, especially bad ones. If you notice that someone isn't warning vandals repeatedly, please use {{subst:uw-warn}}. Of course, don't do this to bots :)

    That's all. GracenotesT § 03:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You should have reported him to WP:AIV and made clear it was a vandalism-only account. That would merit an indefinite block.

    As it is I think his username is inappropriate and will report him on those grounds. Daniel Case 03:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked as vandal only. Daniel's right that WP:AIV is generally faster. Natalie 03:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Psst... I'm pretty sure the reason Gracenotes posted here was for item #2 on the list (plus the general observation itself). —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's right :) "The Parable of the Unwarned Vandal" GracenotesT § 04:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Radio station Nova 106.9 – vandalised by own staff?

    At 10:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC), I requested semi-protection for page Nova 106.9, which was declined for not enough recent activity. Since then (today), the page has been vandalised three times, all by the same IP address. However the latest edit suggests that the vandalism is being done by the station's own on-air staff [86]. What could/should be done about this? Seo75 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's still vandalism. That it's being done by the article's subject is irrelevant. Report the IP at WP:AIV if it continues past warnings. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evergreens78

    Ok, now I don't want to bite the newbie, but Evergreens78 is obviously not acting in good faith, I don't think he'll ever be a decent contributor if he doesn't know that Wikipedia is serious about its policy, and his behaviour leads me to believe he's not a newcomer anyways, but I'll get to that later anyways. Anyways, my concerns are:

    • The user self-identifies as a troll, and his userpage flagrantly violates WP:CIVIL with its attacks on Americans, such as an upside down flag, references to using the flag as a cum-rag, and comments belittling 911. Now I know this may cause a knee-jerk reaction "Oh no we shouldn't stifle political speech", but I hope everyone will see the difference between political speech and deliberate antagonism, which harms the civil atmosphere Wikipedia needs for good editing. Everything seems to indicate he's mostly just here to cause trouble.
    • I'm inclined to believe that the user is a sockpuppet created for venting antagonism at Wikipedia, or at least someone with extreme hostility to Wikipedia as well as familiarity with it.
    • His first edit was removing a faux-"New messages" line on a user's talk page [89], a current hot-button issue on Wikipedia. At the least, this indicates he's been on WP for long enough to be looking at people's talk pages, and he knows Wikipedia code reasonably well.
    • His second act was listing a page for deletion [90].
    • Among his first edits were adorning his userpage with userboxes (just check out the histories for User:Evergreens78 and User:Evergreens78/Boxes, indicating familiarity with the WP community. Among these was evidently a parody of WP's editcountitis, with a userbox first indicating 20,000 edits (outrageously high)[91] then 20 edits (possibly parodying counting every edit)[92].
    • He successfully created a new image[94] with valid inclusion criteria, something newbies often bungle, indicating knowledge of Wikipedia's image policies.

    So, basically, I strongly suspect this is either sockpuppet created by a user for trolling, or an IP who's been on WP long enough that he should know the policies. In any case, his flagrant violations of Wikipedia's policies on content and civility deserve some kind of official action, or else I doubt he'll ever be a useful contributor, if that's even possible. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone has opened a case on him/her. Cla68 06:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I saw that and wasn't surprised that someone else thought he (I'm pretty sure he, given User:Evergreens78's userpage) might be a sockpuppet. I didn't find that case particularly convincing tho. Given how long SSP's sometime take I think Evergreens78 at least needs a sanction or a block to help avert any more harmful editing even if SSP cases are pending. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 07:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued attacks from aged accounts at Armenia

    The banned user Ararat arev (talk · contribs) has managed to get the Armenia page semi-protected today, although this hasn't really worked, since he's now using very old accounts to bypass the protection. Does anyone think it's time for full protection? He doesn't seem to be giving up. Khoikhoi 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough is enough, I've fully protected the page. Khoikhoi 05:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not sinply block the old accounts as abusive socks? Eventually he would run out of accounts. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been blocking all of them, but he seems to have an endless number of socks. I'm not sure how he got them as well, some of them appear to have been registered in 2005, but he hasn't been here that long. Khoikhoi 05:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    perhaps he has but we didn't know. Seems like semiprotection is a good way of drawing them out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Coulter fiasco

    User:Tuben seems intent on disrupting this article as much as possible, as there are two Robert Coulters one of which is his boss which he states here.

    His Robert Coulter was speedy deleted as NN on 11 February, after being moved from Robert Coulter to Robert I. Coulter.

    Since then he's blanked the page of the other Robert Coulter, and on two occasions changed the article to his Robert Coulter.

    He's then decided that his Robert Coulter should be at Robert Coulter and moved the other article accordingly, but hasn't created an article for his Robert Coulter yet.

    User:Weggie has since moved the article to Robert Coulter (politician) creating a double redirect.

    I'm tempted just to move Robert Coulter (politician) back to Robert Coulter to put an end to this ridiculous saga, but I can only imagine there will be more problems. so could someone with a mop please move it back and delete the redundant redirects, and possibly move protect it please? One Night In Hackney303 07:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did just that. The organ builder is described as promising or up-and-coming or some such weasellery - we can wait until he's up and come, I reckon. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Message on my talk page

    I have received the following message from User:The pink panther. Could anybody make any sense of it? - Mike Rosoft 10:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Potential targets for vandalism

    please keep an eye put on these pages:they have been named as users in a steroid scandal and edit wars and vandalism seem likely.

    the list:

    MLB

    Boxing

    NFL

    Bodybuilding

    Pro wrestling

    A quick google news search for steroids brings up this ABC article as one of the results. Linked articles above. MER-C 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I found THIS. Anchoress 10:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint moved from WP:AIV

    Bulk copyvios of our content on a blog

    I found THIS BLOG containing uncredited content from WP while searching for copyvios on the Jaipur article. Further investigation yielded the unauthorised copying of content from our elephant article as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the nectarine post was also stolen. I've got to go to bed so I can't take further action on this now; what should be done? Anchoress 10:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It might be a good idea to contact the blogger and let him/her know that Wikipedia needs to be attributed according to the GFDL. If the blogger doesn't respond, contact the Foundation. There really isn't anything here that can be solved with admin action, since it's outside Wikipedia. --Coredesat 11:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For the recod, a review of his profile [97] reveals over a dozen such blogs, all pumping out copyvio Wikiarticles. ThuranX 11:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm guys, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." - The content on WIkipedia is free for anyone to share. Sfacets 11:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:GFDL and WP:COPY#Reusers' rights and obligations. They can't just copy it and not attribute it or release it under the GFDL themselves. --Onorem 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluebat needed

    Can someone posessed of either saintly patience or an evil rogue streak please visit 1B6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He seems to think that reverting this "perfectly good" edit [98] was admin abuse. Thus far he has called me a bastard and an asshole for making this change. Thread on my Talk [99] (soon to be archived to dev/null using Troll-B-Gon) makes it pretty plain that his real agenda is something else. I don't see much evidence of anything but trolling from this user right now. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=116767920"