Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive360

Civility issue: User:Shrine_Maiden

Over the past week, Shrine Maiden has been making repeated edits that violate Wikipedia's policies in regards to writing fiction, all on the List of Claymore characters page. First, the user added CLEARLY biased content to the page with [[1]] edit, which obviously favors the character "Teresa" over that of "Priscilla", whom Shrine Maiden admits to hating. Then, over the next week, Shrine Maiden repeatedly reverts several edits made by myself and other editors in order to continue a personal mission of Teresa-hype. Such as with [[2]], where Shrine Maiden makes his/her intentions clear with the edit summary. On the talk page, both myself and another member named Twsl have attempted to dissuade Shrine Maiden from continuing, but we are called "vandals" and I personally am accused of "acting almighty". I've even allowed Shrine Maiden to add some of his/her other statements while nixing what is blatantly POV, with little avail. Can an admin please step in and help this matter get resolved? King Zeal (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Also, please take a gander at Shrine Maiden's talk page, and main page, which strike me as very odd, especially since he/she admits to deleting old comments to the Talk page, because they were critical. Also of note is the fact that he/she admits to not assuming good faith with others, which is a result of my pointing out a double standard on the Claymore characters talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Zeal (talk • contribs) 05:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll review the situation, King Zeal. Lara❤Love 14:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

lighten up a little, dude. its clear that the comment on the talk page about good faith was intended to be ajoke, and User:Shrine MAiden's userpage is remarkably well-written and wellorganized than most talk pages. the more serious issue is the first one htat you raised, and i recommend that you stop interacting with here directly in order to avoid a conflict of interests. Smith Jones (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found it a little odd and decided to bring it up. It doesn't particularly bother me. The first issue is what I was particularly griping about. King Zeal (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The incivility issues seem extremely minor and a bi-product of a content dispute. For that reason, I recommend filing a request for comment. Lara❤Love 15:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admins here watch/read anime/manga. So I'll give a brief description about it first:

• There is this character called Teresa, the author made her the most powerful warrior ever. Teresa beat another character called Priscilla and spared her life. Priscilla released over 80% power and turned into a monster, and chased Teresa again. Teresa beat Priscilla again with only 10% power. Priscilla dropped her sword, fell to her knees, cried and begged Teresa to kill her before she completely became a monster. Teresa lowered her guard, Priscilla picked up the sword and killed Teresa with 2 quick blows. Then she became a monster and slaughtered the rest of Ilena, Noel, Sophia.
• But it was written like this in the article: "However, Priscilla pursued and attacked her in blind rage. In her anger, Priscilla accidentally released too much Yoma power and Awakened, slaughtering Teresa, Noel, and Sophia and severely wounding Ilena." Anyone who read that would think that Priscilla is super powerful, and she killed Teresa/Noel/Sophia alike easily, which is wrong and does not accurately describe what shown in the anime. I feel that I must edit it to make it more accurate. And I did.

Then what happened between me and User:King Zeal?

• On 9 JAN 2008, I added more information to Teresa's section: "cheap shot", to make it more accurate and clear history here, and added the same to Priscilla's section: here. The comments "I hate this monster" is just a cute funny summary comment for the edit (did not write it in the article)
• On 14 JAN 2008, User:King Zeal thinks that "cheap shot" is not "appropriate", and User:Twsl thinks it's "non-sense", so they reverted to the old inaccurate version: here and here
• I compromised and removed to word "cheap shot", changing my edits to describe exactly what happened in the anime, but User:King Zeal just laughed at it and reverted: here I reverted him, asking if he actually watched the show?
• On 24 JAN 2008 User:Twsl tried to call me a vandal, pretending that he's fighting vandalism: here Why adding facts to describe the subject more accurately is vandalism? So I told User:Twsl to stop labeling people who do not agree with him as vandal here. User:Twsl quickly changed his arguement to "it ain't neccessary" here
• On 25 JAN 2008 I wanted to solve this funny edit war so , I stared a talk section and tell them to talk instead of starting an edit war: here User:Twsl dropped out of the talk shortly afterward. here. User:King Zeal continued to talk
• But the talk is pointless. User:King Zeal keeps using one excuse after another to delete the word surprise attack, from "inappropriate" to "not important" to "unneccessary" to "Point of View" to "Original research". I say it's a fact, it's accurate, and it's important, User:King Zeal says "it's not". User:King Zeal said "you don't get to decide what's right and what's important". I said "same to you". In my POV, he was trying to delete accurate information so he is a vandal.
• Meanwhile, on the article, I compromised again, and did not use the word "surprise attack" anymore. But User:King Zeal again reverted without any reasons here. Now there's nothing such as "cheap shot" or "surprise attack" in the article, but User:King Zeal still deleted it. Now he thinks that the word "only" is POV.
• 26 JAN 2008. I compromised long ago and removed all the words that User:King Zeal does not agree, but he keeps reverting. The whole paragraph is about a past story, it was written in past tense for a long time, but User:King Zeal keep changing 2 lines of it to present tense: here
• User:King Zeal keeps reverting anything I write, and keeps talking about how "only" is POV. here Then he secretly reported to admins, making me into a complete fool who keeps vandalisng the article (?) here. He even took my joke in my talkpage to attack me (?) and even said that I deleted comments from my talkpage because it's critical? Oh? Why should I want to delete them? Which comment on my talkpage did I try hide? I'll re-add them if you want, but wait, the rules allow it: Wikipedia:User page#Ownership and editing of_pages in the user space and here Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. If only I could know that someday someone would attack me just because I wanna keep my talkpage clean...
• 28 JAN 2008, User:King Zeal cherry-picked one or two comments from the talk, created a new section, pretending that I am still adding "surprise attack" into the article. here First, "surprise attack" is an accurate fact. Second, I compromised and did not add "surprise attack" since 26 JAN 2008, but User:King Zeal somehow keep reverting for unknown reasons. Now he tried to make me look bad, and even reported such a minor conflict to admins.

Quick summary (evidences above):

• I added the fact "surprise attack" into the article List of Claymore characters to describe the plot of the anime more accurately.
• User:King Zeal does not agree with it, he kept reverting me. I opened a talk section to talk about it. Lots of talks, generally: "I don't agree with you" from both sides.
• Day 26, I compromised and removed from the article all the facts that User:King Zeal does not agree (like "surprise attack"). So the dispute should have stopped.
• But no, User:King Zeal keeps reverting anything I write for no reason. He even said that the word "only" is original research/POV. He said that "fiction should be written in present tense", and just keeps reverting me for no reason at all. Like here, here. But the whole article is mostly written in past tense, and he does not care.
• Day 28, User:King Zeal reported me to admins, making me look like a bad, stupid user who keep vandalising. I assume that he took it personally? Because if it's about the article, the dispute should have been over since 26 JAN 2008 (I compromised), the only reason it continued it because User:King Zeal feel he must revert anything from me...

There's this sentence right in Teresa's section: "Teresa is a cold-blooded killer who cares for no one, only helping villages because she is ordered to, and taking pleasure in scaring humans". But User:King Zeal does not care about that. Instead, User:King Zeal thinks the word "only" in "releasing only 10% power" is POV. I guess it's just because I wrote that? Shrine Maiden (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminstrator Waggers and WP:AIV

Resolved

This morning I had some free time and went on a WP:HUGGLE spree. I encountered Mmata3 (talk · contribs), a account that is obviously being used only to promote a travel website. I reported this to AIV. I received two template warnings from Waggers (talk · contribs) and an admonishment to "stop wasting our time" reporting spammers on AIV. Is this the sort of treatment that vandalism reverters usually receive from administrators working AIV? Do we actually require a notarized form filled out in triplicate for these sorts of blocks? If blocking vandals reported to AIV did not require sound administrative judgment, we could just write a bot to do it. ➪HiDrNick! 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Waggers (talk · contribs) told you the process that has to be followed before making AIV reports, namely giving new users final warnings (after hopefully giving them lower level warnings first). This is a well established process that most admins helping out on AIV follow. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Please read the instructions at WP:AIV. Report vandalism by vandals who have edited after a final warning. It doesn't appear to me that Mmata3 had a full set of warnings, if any at all, at the time you made the report. Lara❤Love 16:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You will notice that once I gave a final warning to the user, they stopped. The block was not needed, and if in the future it is needed then the final warning will justify immediate blocking. Though I will point out that an account that is only used for disruption can be blocked without warning, though that does not always mean one should. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mmata3 (talk · contribs) was actually reported to AIV no less than three times (two of which were by HiDrNick (talk · contribs)) - at no stage had Mmata3 edited (let alone vandalised) past a final warning. HiDrNick (talk · contribs) also says that Mmata3's every edit was to promote a tourism site; this isn't true. While Mmata did add an inappropriate external link a few times, most of their edits were adding information to geographical articles, the only snag being that they were written very much in a promotional, not neutral, tone. In my view, where there's any doubt, the need to not bite the newcomers overrides the need to wield a banhammer every time. Waggers (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Attacks and potential BLP violation

Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen#Osli's Double Standard: Trifunovic vs. so called Bosnian Mujjahadeen. Could an administrator check over that and redact the page as appropriate? Please be aware that 142.179.67.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears related to Dr Richard Johnstone (talk · contribs) (see Talk:Bosnian Mujahideen#I vote to delete this article). Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP there enough for us to intervene - there's a multi-party, Bosnian/Serbian fight going on over allegations that a particular Serbian researcher (Trifunovic) is a genocide denier, more on Darko Trifunovic than anywhere else. Both sides are misbehaving - the question of what to do about it, and whether admins need to apply a boot, is an open one. I'm watching - more admins reviewing wouldn't hurt. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't calling someone a "Serbian propagandist activist who wrote lies" a BLP violation? Vassyana (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Resolved

 – resolved tag for script purposes

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This bot is a replacement of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Shadowbot which was approved and running since November 2006. Was later renamed User:AntiSpamBot. --Hu12 (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:CarencroJew

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

Keep an eye on this guy -- his User page (User:CarencroJew) brags of vandalism. Corvus cornix_talk 03:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gone. Nakon 03:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He's back. Not resolved. Bstone (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x

He's hopped through three IPs tonight to avoid block (currently using 71.99.82.144 (talk · contribs)). Note that this vandal has accumulated 33 blocks in the last year, so I think all assumption of good faith is out the window. Maybe time for another range-block as he's carrying out retarded edit wars on multiple articles. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: He just changed IPs again and has blanked both this post and a relevant RFPP. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And what range do you propose? At one point, even I was in the 71.99.0.0/16 range. It's the entire Tampa Bay area with its 2+ million people. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Tampa bay? I thought it was just 65000 addresses in Virginia...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's most of the Verizon FIOS network in the Tampa Bay. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See here: 71.99.82.144 = pool-71-99-82-144.tampfl.dsl-w.verizon.net. Note the "tampfl" part of that hostname. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(Indent reset) Too easy. Block 71.99.82.* for however long is necessary. Edit Centric (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, he can traverse too wide a range. I recently reset my router and wound up with a 72.x.x.x address! You need to protect whatever pages are targeted. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now on 71.99.81.182 (talk · contribs). You guys do whatever you want. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me back that one up a few steps. Now that I think about it, where in the IP schema is he jumping around? All over 71.*? Edit Centric (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's at least over 71.99.x.x. Like I said, if you hard-block that, you might even get me! Plus several other people I know of. Too wide a range. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We could do an anon only rangeblock. That wouldn't get you are any other previously registered accounts. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I know but that's a lot of potential collateral damage over one guy that only vandalizes a few articles. We don't usually block 82.148.96.68/31 because that covers the whole country of Qatar (actually now I see it has been blocked for three months!), but there are 3-4 times as many people in the Tampa Bay area as in Qatar. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can check the report. It lists every one of his IPs I've ever spotted. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you list the relevant articles, we can protect them. It only appears to be a few. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think nat actually protected all of tonights targets, aside from my talk page (1 act of vandalism), AIV (two acts), and the handful here, though I'm not suggesting any of those be protected. I just hope that report of mine actually fulfills its purpose soon so we don't have to deal with him anymore. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Strike that a bit, please protect my talk page for a bit. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that IS troublesome! I tend to agree that the best solution is locking the targeted pages, given the wide IP range. (Wouldn't want wknight94 getting locked out because of some nimrod with nothing better to do...) Edit Centric (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

hey! watch you language! no personal attacks. take a brake, have a tea.71.99.82.141 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This user cracks me up. Enigmaman (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible language issue

Resolved

 – Article salted

Could I get an admin over at Talk:Overdrive/Preamp 250. AN IP is disputing a completed AfD and it appears to involve a possibel translation error on their part. MBisanz ^talk 06:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

the article has been SALTed. nat.utoronto 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

With no explanation of why it was salted. DuncanHill (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it has been twice re-created after an AfD had closed as it being deleted. Also, it was an improper naming fork to use a slash subsection of Overdrive. Or do you mean that the IP address needs to have an explanation on its talk page? MBisanz ^talk 06:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This quote may show a little spamy intent (and maybe a little dark magic trouble) behind this article: "If the person who has no right cause remove this article, he or she will earn judgement of hoodoo" not sure what's with that but the anon doesn't seem to get that this is the result of the AFD, perhaps someone should point him towards DRV? - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering where that quote is from, is it a deleted page, as I'm not seeing any non-deleted contribs by the IP. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That quote was added by Smallclone2 as a hidden comment to the article, when recreating it for a second or third time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre, too bad WP:NLT doesn't include a "No Religious Threats" subsection :) MBisanz ^talk 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, arbcom says any threat of off-wiki action can be prohibited, so I'm sure they'd consider hexing a violation ;-) Someguy1221 (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User removing comments from talk page

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Any chance someone can have a chat with Equazcion (talk · contribs), who's deemed it necessary to repeatedly remove comments [3] from an article talk page? The conversation in question is on-topic, especially compared to the average dialogue on that talk page. Thanks, Chaz ^Beckett 10:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The stuff he removed amounted to nothing more than schoolyard bickering. He did the right thing in removing it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Chaz has restored those comments and I'm at my 3RR limit, could someone please remove them again, since Chaz is now unresponsive to me? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:18, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Not a revert, but this is enough [4]. — Save_Us † 11:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic, most of what's discussed on the page can be considered "bickering" in some way or another. In the past Equazcion has strongly opposed even the archiving of discussions [5], yet here he's removing comments he doesn't agree with. I support the closing of the section by Save_Us, but I strongly disagree that Equazacion repeatedly removing comments from other users (stopping only when he was up against the 3RR) is the "right thing". Chaz ^Beckett 12:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that Equazacion has made borderline personal attacks on my talk page [6], apparently deciding that I was unresponsive while I was away from my computer. I'm not looking for him to get blocked or anything, but I think it would set a terrible precedent for this type of behavior to be classified as the "right thing". I really don't want to go through the hassle of WP:DR, so would someone mind having a word with him. I don't consider this situation resolved at all. Chaz ^Beckett 12:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll recommend to all of you, stop social engineering your talk pages! I archive may page time to time when it gets to big. If I do something stupid people will know matter how clean I make it look. Now if someone wants to clean and shine their Ass, let them do it, and do not get upset but make a dif reference to what they are trying to hide. If we going to try to enforce each other to behave certain way to meet the policy, the etiquette, and the respect that we think we should get we might as well go home. If any of you are here because of AboutYou, go home. It is not even AboutUs, but AboutThem, the users...now stop fighting and go edit some pages and have a good time. Igor Berger (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I'm not quite sure I understand this comment (or at least its relevance to the matter at hand). Chaz ^Beckett 13:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaz, he removed my comments also, so what just leave him alone. It is his talk page right? Igor Berger (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's an article talk page: WT:Spoiler. I wouldn't care at all if he removed comments from his talk page. Chaz ^Beckett 13:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaz, you continued replacing comments that didn't belong on the page, and even after I pointed you to the policy that defended my removal, you continued reverting me -- simply telling me to "stop" in your edit summaries and without giving any response on my talk page (I'm still waiting for one, by the way, as you can see). Igor, we're not talking about my talk page. I didn't remove any of Chaz's comments from there. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:08, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I didn't respond because I wasn't at my computer (notice no edits from 10:50 - 12:49). Once you see that someone contests the removal of their comments, couldn't you get some other opinions before edit warring? Also you pointed out a section from an editing guideline, not a policy. I disagree that the comments were so off-topic that they required removal. Half of that talk page should be removed if that's the standard to be applied. Chaz ^Beckett 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oaky so just talk to each other and learn to agree and repspect each other..:) Igor Berger (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Then feel free to remove anything else that doesn't belong. I tried to address you on your talk page, but you didn't respond and instead reverted me again. The argument I removed was regarding whether or not a comment was a personal attack. I pasted them on my talk page and continue to wait for your response as to what makes them relevant to WP:SPOILER. I can paste them here too if you like. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:17, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'm not letting the matter drop until there's some recognition that Equazacion's edit warring and personal attacks were inappropriate and not the "right thing" or something for which he should receive "props" [7]. Chaz ^Beckett 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You edit warred just as much as I did. We each reverted 3 times. If you had a problem with my initial removal you should have addressed me on my talk page to begin with. You can't revert someone and then complain about edit warring when they revert you back. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:22, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't feel that removing comments from article talk pages is helpful, except in the case of blatant vandalism or trolling. The conversation was on the spoiler template, which is on-topic for WT:SPOILER. Sure, it wasn't the most intellectual conversation I've ever had and I probably would have redacted my comments myself if asked. That doesn't mean I want someone else decided that my comments and those of others should be deleted. Chaz ^Beckett 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) In generel, article/wikipedia talk pages comments are not blank archived unless they are made by a trollish-editor, the comment itself is completely off-topic for the talk page or it is vandalism (or a possible fourth option for removing is for privacy). Regardless, the comments were unproductive and didn't need to be made, but they shouldn't be partially blank archived in the history since the discussion itself was on-topic enough. my suggestion would to take a time-out from each other and stop bickering over the usefulness of archiving or not. — Save_Us † 13:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

to Chaz: The discussion was on-topic but the range of comments I removed were not. To Save Us: I'm happy to drop it, but Chaz doesn't seem to be interested in that. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:26, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

How about you guys learn how to refactor comments on article talk page, not delete them? Igor Berger (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

How about this, apologize for this comment and I'll let it drop. Chaz ^Beckett 13:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby apologize if any of my comments offended you in any way. You could also apologize for saying "what don't you get about removing other peoples' comments" even after I pointed you to the guideline that says users can do precisely that in this situation, but I don't particularly care. So can we drop this now? Equazcion •✗/C • 13:35, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

That's a textbook non-apology, but I'll accept it as I'm tired of this dispute and have useful things to do. Chaz ^Beckett 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unblock - January 29th

Resolved

 – Unblocked

The following blocked IP's were found to be not running Tor, or running tor with a no exit policy preventing open relaying. Regards, Mercury (talk) 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done If you're going to be doing this every day, consider putting the date in the section header to avoid multiple sections with the same title. All the IP talk pages need {{blockedproxy}} removing. Neıl ☎ 12:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Finished removing the templates from the talk pages. — Save_Us † 12:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Francis pullen

Resolved

 – Storm in a teacup

The above-referenced user was created solely for the purpose of creating a namesake article in what is manifestly WP:COI (see [8], [9]).

He/she brazenly and arrogantly used the same username, with no attempt to even make an effort at positively contributing to Wikipedia and evidently has no other contributions to make. Should be expelled from Wikipedia. 216.194.1.222 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that would help, and would refer this IP user to policy. The username, although indicating a possible conflict of interest, is not offensive so as to fall within the guideline here, but may be confusing or misleading. I will be watching for future developments. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats/Pure Hostility

Resolved

 – Blocked

Woke up this morning to find these gems in my history...[10] and [11]. More importantly, I noticed that after the first one, he was given a "last" warning...and proceeded to make some vague threat against my (nonexistent) children...He also left this one a few days ago on Spartaz's talk page. --Smashville^BONK! 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Kwsn (Ni!) 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Anybody have any idea what's going on with Stalkerbuster (talk · contribs)? The contributions seem a bit odd; they only include blanking two pages in the userspace of Jeff G. (talk · contribs): User:Jeff G./sockproblems and User:Jeff G./Tweety21 CS-Archive‎. Hope someone else is familiar with this, because I'm at a loss. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Tweety21 visited the hosiery department again. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you're right. Blocked for abusing sock puppet accounts. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 17:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nikkul on Poverty in India

Resolved

 – Content dispute

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Poverty is more common in rural areas of India. Shown here are homes of farmers living below the poverty line in Maharashtra A beggar in Bodhgaya. I found no way other than coming here. User:Nikkul is continuously adding an image of homes in rural India with a caption "Low income homes in rural India". His edits are going too much problematic. First, in rural India, homes like these are quite common, and in rural India, per capita income is relatively low than in urban India. An image in a article for poverty should depict the subject very well. But farmer's homes are not well representative of Poverty. This user is also removing the begger image wikilawyering this image is WP:UNDUE. This is blatant wikilawyering and excuse. In India, many poor homeless beggers live like this, and there is no wikipedia rule that an image of a begger cannot be included in an article. He is continuously reverting my edits, no intention in engaging in a fruitful argument in constructive manner. Dispute resolution is not posiible with this editor. I think an experienced editor or administrator should look into the matter. I am getting tired with this user's disruptive edits. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC) From memory I seem to believe that there is no Wikipedia rule that determines that an image of a Manatee cannot be used in article space, either... Of course, context is everything. "Low income housing" (besides being a recent Western concept) may not necessarily indicate that poverty (or "trans or sub subsistence income") exists in an area - although economic weakness may make it more likely should incomes be reduced even by a small margin. Also, as suggested, a traditional low cost building does not mean that the locality is economically depressed, it may simply mean that semi permanent dwellings are not considered as essential as to another culture. Begging, outside of religious/cultural practice in the sub-continent, is an obvious sign of poverty, however. It is indicative of a lack of employment opportunities (if the begger is otherwise fit) and also of a welfare provision where the begger is not capable of work which are strong indicators of poverty. I will comment on Nikkul's talkpage, noting this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Why is dispute resolution not possible? I see no recent edits from you to either the aritcle talk page or to Nikkul's talk page. When you find yourself arguing against a policy, ANI is usually not the first place to try. The inability to resolve disputes with a particular user is generally established by precedence. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I suppose edit warring, for that is what it appears to be, is a matter for admin input? Anyway, I have left a message at the users talkpage. Hopefully both parties can now move forward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Well I'm just saying, ANI isn't the first step in dispute resolution, and one shouldn't assume it won't work before one has tried. But yes, it will hopefully take care of itself now :-) Someguy1221 (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC) The reason this user is giving in removing the begger image is "all beggars do not have messed up legs, this image is undue". This is ridiculas argument and apllying WP:UNDUE here is blatant wikilawyering. Many beggers have no eyes, many beggers cannot see, many beggers have no arms, amny beggers cannot walk steadily. This is the reality, the truth, it is not right to conceal it. On the other hand many beggers are physically fit. So how to judge a begger image? This begger image is right, this begger image in not right? Many beggers, as I have told earlier, forced in this profession due to utter lack of livelihood, and live more worse condition than depicted here. So placing this image is completely appropriate, using the above argumant this user is applying is ridiculas and certainly POV pushing. This user's only job in wikipedia is bigging up the India articles by placing nice touristy pictures and removing "negative material" which he is doing here. This user is mixing "low income" with "poverty". "Poverty" is defined as "condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". Low income houses, the farmer's houses are not representative for what "poverty" stands. In wikipedia, we cannot place an image of a farmer, or a farmer's house when depicting poverty. I think in an article, which completely describing poverty, only those images should be given which are well-indicative to the subject. And by that, the begger image is terribly appropriate in the article. I hope after LessHeard vanU's message on this user's talk page, this user will not disrupt the article again. But if he continue his disruptive edits, I may need help from other editors. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul, while an excellent source of images, proves problematic in the extreme about their use. For those wondering why DR isn't tried, I suggest a look at the Talk:India archives. Relata refero (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC) First,I would like to say that Otolemur crassicaudatus did not ask me to discuss this on the talk page. He also did not leave me a note telling me that this discussion was going on. This is another attempt by him to block me. He has tried to delete my userpage because I said "Being an American is priceless" User Otolemur crassicaudatus keeps deleting my contributions without giving a good reason as to why. Any edit that i have made to this page or another is always reverted by him. This is getting tiring for me and is hindering my efforts on Wiki. Poverty in India is mostly rural. Most people who live under the poverty line live in rural places. No other picture on the povetry in India page shows rural poverty which dominates over urban poverty. The picture of homes represents poverty in rural India, because these homes are where poor farmers live. I have travelled in poor parts of India and I know firsthand that these homes house people under the poverty line. Not having an image of rural poverty is wp:undue since all the images show urban poverty which is only a fraction of poverty in India. I have explained this many times to Otolemur crassicaudatus but he still keeps removing my image with an excuse that "no place is mentioned" The beggar in Bodhgaya image does not accurately depict poor people in India because they do not look like this. This man is an exception To say that this man represents all poor people in India is very wrong. A small minority of Indias poor are disabled. Most work long hours fishing, farming or as construction workers or beggars. This picture shows a man whose legs have been broken. Unless a majority of indias poor have legs like this, the image is irrelevant and undue to the poverty in india page. This is just another attempt by Otolemur crassicaudatus to make India look bad. This user bears a strong hatred towards India and would like to deride the country as much as he can. Before, he has tried inserting an image of beggars washing their clothes in a puddle in the economy section of the India article which is featured. He still kept doing this even when I told him that the image represents the poorest of the poor in India and that every country has poor people, but most do not show an image of the dirt poor on their economy sections. Because the beggar in Bodhgaya image doesnot show the truth of Indias poor, andbecause user:otolemur insists on having a beggar image,i haveuploaded Image:India poor.jpg which is more representative of beggars in India rather than a man with broken legs Also, when I say low income housing, i do not mean housing for the lower class. I should have made it clear that these homes are of poor farmers who live below the poverty line. Hence, the image is appropriate for the page. It also shows rural poverty which is significantly greater than urban poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor. Any mention of "negative aspect" of India is attempt to make India bad by this user. The farmer image is not indicative to poverty. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC) This is a content dispute. Please take it to the article or your own talkpages, or pursue Dispute Resolution. I would suggest that the rhetoric is toned down also, assuming bad faith does not help the encyclopedia. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC) I actually think Nikkul has a reasonable point here, to be honest. It seems that WP:UNDUE is being violated by use of an unrepresentative or overly polarising image in the context in which it is being used (the image could be used in several other contexts without any problems). I suggest that the users try to resolve their problems at the article talk page and assume good faith - both editors do wish to improve the article, that's obvious by the above, but just have starkly different ideas about how to do it. Orderinchaos 22:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul's image is much more relevant than a handpicked photo of a beggar. Beggars in India need not be poor, while slums are the home of the poor. OC's edits indicate a pattern of Indophobia that Nikkul has brought to light.Bakaman 00:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Bakasuprman, every single statement of yours like this is only going to make the next ArbCom workshop longer. Stop it now. Relata refero (talk) 06:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I'm not sure what this has to do with OC/Nikkul. However, I doubt arbcom will look down upon upholding WP:RS. Trolling on ANI will of course make any arbcom workshop page interesting, as would the not-so-covert veiled threats you seem to be making.Bakaman 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC) What threats? (And how can they be not-so-covert and veiled at the same time?) And I'm here in response to a request on my talkpage, so that's hardly trolling. And what this has to do with OC/Nikkul is that you poison the atmosphere with words like "Indophobia". Which is what I am reminding you to stop. Relata refero (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC) And similarly low-income housing is sometimes misused (by putting it on rent by those who supposedly need it). The fact is that vast majority of beggars are poor. Also, you allegations of Indophobia, as a way to solve disputes, are a violation of WP:CIVIL.Bless sins (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC) There is nothing incivil about calling a spade a spade. I pointed out that his edits, indicate a pattern of Indophobia. Incidentally, wikistalking is a clear violation of policy, unlike spurious allegations of incivility. Nikkul's image is much more germane to the situation, and OC's forum-shopping does little but to exhaust the time and patience of more productive editors.Bakaman 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I found the beggar's image on the Begging article. I removed it since there already was a representative for India. Perhaps this is related to this incident--Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I have worked signifiantly with Indias poor. I have travelled in rural maharashtra and given firsthand help to people under the povety line. I have also worked in urban slums. Last time I was involved with a project, it was in Worli, Mumbai. I established a school for slum children. The teacher we hired were from the slums. They were paid 200 rupees per month (less than a dollar a day) to teach slum children. After a month of volunteering, I was invited into one of the teachers homes. I was surprised to see that though she lived below the poverty line and though she lived in the slums, she had a color TV, a stereo player, an sofa, electricity, and running water. The point im trying to make is that India's poor do not have broken legs and most are not beggars. Of those who are beggars, they surely do not look like that man in Bodhagya. User:OC's excuse is "Many beggers have various disabilities. It is a blatant excuse by a POV editor." which really is not the case. This user is being very uncooperative. He removed my pic of rural poor homes and so i asked him to please not insert the beggar image until this dispute is resolved.He has reinserted that image again.[12] He has continued to edit war even when I asked him to hold off on the image and I told him that I wouldnot insert my image until the dispute was resolved. Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If you think Mumbai is representative in any way, you have a problem. Relata refero (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The image of the beggar is relevant to the article and should remain. The image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like, especially to those unfamiliar with the subject of poverty in that country. I don’t think the picture of rural homes in the countryside really portrays poverty at its most extreme. The photo in question looks more like and old country town in a rural setting where the inhabitants would not be rich or to poor, but would be able to support themselves by living off their own crops and lives stock and fend for themselves by living off their own land, unlike the poor beggar with broken legs begging in the streets to make a living. To someone unfamiliar with the subject this picture does not portray poverty but a rural lifestyle. The user in question seems to have a bad habit of wanting to get his photos into articles regardless of relevance or quality. [email protected]. (talk) 03:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Nikkul, whether you find the image offensive, or not in accordance with your work with beggars, that is not relevant. Some time ago there was a huge debate about whether to have a picture of prophet Muhammad, or whehter to have the Jyllands posten cartoons. The result in both cases was that though the image may be false, it'll still be included because wikipedia is not censored. If you have a copyright related objection, then by all means, remove the image.Bless sins (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I believe that both pictures should be included. Only adding the beggar would make the article look like a Human zoo as if all poor Indians look like him. On the other hand, retaining the houses alone would seem to tell us that the poor of India are rather well off (although the accompanying pictures seems to balance this). Besides I don't think that OC is knowledgeable or familiar with poverty. Last time I encountered him, s/he called tuberculosis as a non-serious disease.--Lenticel (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am not opposed to having a pic of a beggar because it does represent poverty I AM opposed to having that image of the beggar because it really does not represent beggars in India or in general Just like a terrorist does not represent the people of Pakistan, this image does not represent beggars. A beggar with such deformations is an exception. I have uploaded an image (Image:India poor.jpg) which shows what most beggars look like. I think this picture is more relevant and more appropriate. I also think that the rural homes image is important because Almost all of India's poor live in the rural areas Most of India's rural population is involved in the agricultral industry Most of Indias poor farm for a living and live in homes like these I have been in these homes and I know that these people live on less than a dollar a day There is no image of rural poverty on the page But MOST of the poverty in India is Rural Nikkul (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Your comparison is unfair. If you included a picture of a terrorist, in article called "Pakistani terrorists", that'd be ok. We are not including a picture of a beggar in "India", but rather "Poverty in India". I agree both images should be included.Bless sins (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Another problem we have here is "he said, she said" (figuratively speaking). Nikkul speaks from his/her personal experience. While I respect his/her personal experience, I don't think it holds a lot of credibility on wikipedia. I One problem I do see with the image this: how do we know this beggar is in India? He could be in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka etc.Bless sins (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Have a look at these images [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. I think this begger in Bodhgaya is much "wealthier" than the others. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Has nobody thought of the possibility of using an image showing an intermediate situation between the two shown above, both of which do seem a little pointy in this context ?DGG (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) The Bodhgaya beggar image is appropriate here. The only reason given for its deletion is "this is not typical beggar". This is a fallacious and anti-Individualistic argument. Adam.J.W.C. has given a good argument that "the image is relevant to text and gives a clear description of what poverty in India (at its most extreme) is like". Many poor people have television in their home. Will it be right to include an image of a television set from a home of poor people with a caption "Shown here a television in a poor home. X% poor people of Y country has low price television like this". Will it be appropriate? The farmers home, yes it is true that rural area has low per capita income. But this is typical in all countries, per capita income is generally low in rural ares than urban ares. In an article whcih is depicting poverty only, only those images should be given which illustrate "lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water". The image is showing rural situation, rural lifestyle. Many Sadhus in India do not have high income, in that sense an image of a Sadhu also can be included in the article. But it is not going to build a good article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC) If the houses pictured are actually the homes of poverty stricken people in India and a significant proportion of poverty stricken people in India live in similar homes, then it is probably a useful addition to the article as an illustration of living conditions. In terms of whether to use the picture or not, the question of whether similar (or identical) houses are also owned by people who are not poverty stricken is irrelevent(although it that should probably be mentioned in the article). Guest9999 (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Man husking rice by throwing it into the air. The imege shown here is also rural image, is also showing poverty. But will this image appropriate in an article for poverty with a caption "Poor man in rural India husking rice"? In the same sense, the farmer's home image is also inappropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Look, this user is not making any sense. His arguements are pointless and unsourced. All I am saying is that: Just like color of skin does not indicate poverty, a disability does not indicate poverty either. Almost all of Indias poverty is rural. Almost all of Indias poor are farmers. This user keeps deleting the only image of rural poverty Nikkul (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) ANI isn't the place to have conversations about content, only about user behaviour that requires admin intervention. Take it to RfC or mediation, unless OC can come up with other examples of Nikkul being problematic. Relata refero (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I is not dispute resolution

What you are looking for is outlined at the dispute resolution page - a third opinion, an RfC, or mediation. Administrators are not content experts necessarily, and it doesn't appear that evidence is presented here of activity requiring administrator intervention. If there is such activity, please present diffs below in a concise manner. ^Avruchtalk 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Nikkul (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Muscovite99

Stale

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There has been an ongoing content dispute over several articles involving Russia, Putin, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., with this user and User:Biophys on one side and User:Frjohnwhiteford on the other. For the most part, this is of no interest to ANI. However, the narrow issue of uncivil personal attacks by Muscovite99 against Frjohnwhiteford may need to be addressed. The relevant info is summarised in this RfC/U, on which I have made the only uninvolved comment. Note that, of the five diffs listed under "Evidence of disputed behavior", the final two took place after I made my comment at the RfC/U. It thus seems that Muscovite99 is aware of what he's doing and has no intention of changing his behavior, and a short block (which I have no authority to enact) might be appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 was engaged in personal attacks not only to Frjohnwhiteford, but attacked other editors as well. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Muscovite99 for more details. This is not a dispute between two editors, Muscovite99 and Frjohnwhiteford, but a dispute between Muscovite99 on one hand and other editors on the other. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The case about User:Frjohnwhiteford has been at WP:COI noticeboard. Can anyone review if it was properly resolved? See [19]. User:Muscovite99 is a newcomer (less than 700 edits). I do not know if he was really uncivil, but no one issued any civility warnings at his talk page.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He was issued numerous warnings on the talk pages in which he engaged in the attacks, and he responded with more. The RfC was posted on his talk page, and he has engaged in at least two additional attacks. Claiming that he is a newbie (which is questionable, given his pre-existence in Russian Wikipedia, where he has engaged in the same behavior) cannot possibly hold any water at this point. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 is not a newcomer in WP. He has over 5000 edits in Russian WP and numerous warnings on his talk page there. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The WP:COI/N thread ended in a consensus that Frjohnwhiteford has no serious COI. But that is not relevant to the issue at hand here, which is Muscovite99's incivility. He has 17,000 edits at Russian Wikipedia, so the newbie defense is limited in its utility. He has persisted in his behavior despite warnings. If not a block, then I think we need at least a stern warning from someone who can back up their words with action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I see WP:WEIGHT problem towards User:Muscovite99. If he is right or wrong we should give him WP:AGF we can always hang him later..:) Igor Berger (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not the content dispute, but civility. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI noticeboard[20]. User:Frjohnwhiteford is a Russian Orthodox priest who was involved in several Orthodoxy-related disputes with users Martintg, Malick78, Muscovite99, and me. I believe it is he who creates the problems rather than all others. User Jeepday tried to mediate the dispute between Frjohnwhiteford and me, apparently without much success [21]. Singling out Muscovite99 would be unfair.Biophys (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If any warnings to be issued, one should also warn User:Frjohnwhiteford who was making bad faith accusations [22].Biophys (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Frjohn was out of line in accusing you of bad faith on that occasion, but it was a single incident. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by all means read the COI/N thread all the way to the end, if you want some context as to the dispute underlying the incivility. There is also this. However, Muscovite99 is being singled out because only he has made sustained personal attacks. It would be nice to have an admin give an opinion on this. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99.--Addhoc (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the links:

• [23]

• [24]

• [25]

• [26]

• [27]

• [28]

• [29]

^Avruchtalk 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(Adding comment from RFC/U discussion section with diffs embedded) ^Avruchtalk 22:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Muscovite99 continued to engage in personal attacks after being warned to stick to the issues. Accuses several users of vandalism including an administrator [30]. User accuses others of vandalism and violating WP:NPOV when only he a persistent history of being warned for violating WP:NPOV on the said (Vladimir Putin) article [31] [32] [33] has been blocked for violating the 3RR on that article [34].--Miyokan (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All links by Avruch are copied from a old RfC above. All links by Miykan are edits by other users, not by Muscovite99. The links are very old. Nothing is going on right now... Biophys (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These pertinent diffs establish that Muscovite has a extended history of disruptive editing and ignoring warnings, giving context to his most recent uncivil attacks of Frjohn despite being warned. This most recent attack - Talking to you i am beginning to understand why the whole world hates americans: it is one thing to be just an idiot but an idiot who teaches others and intrudes into other people's affairs is the whole different kettle of fish - is truly disgraceful, taking place after warnings were made at RfC/U. It thus seems that Muscovite99 is aware of what he's doing and has no intention of changing his behavior.--Miyokan (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that was before RfC and long time ago. Such case should be handled by issuing a warning to a WP newcomer with less than 700 edits here (per "WP:do not bite newcomers"). The problem has been already addressed by filing an RfC about this user. No one is going to investigate what he (or someone else with the same name) was doing in Russian WP, since this is hardly related to English WP.Biophys (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

These two diffs post-date the RfC. I think I remember seeing M99 acknowledge being the same person as the identically-named user on Russian WP, but I don't have the diff now. In any case, very little that is new is being said here. Admins should have enough information to decide whether a block, a clear warning of consequences (my preference), or no action is appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:ANI is not to "punish" users, but to prevent an ongoing and significant distraction. I did not see any serious problems during last 24 hours or more. If you want to punish this user, you should ask ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of ANI, as its name indicates, is to notify admins of incidents that require their attention. Preventing an ongoing disruption was in fact why I initiated this thread, only 13 hours after the most recent personal attack. If M99 has behaved himself since that time, then good. There is no talk here of punishing, and no need for Arbcom. This is a simple case of personal attacks that, IMO, merited at least a warning from an admin. Unless an admin comes along and expresses interest in looking into this, I see no point in further conversation here. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AN/I is not dispute resolution

Looking at the above, including the links I reposted from the RfC for convenience, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of recent violations of policy requiring administrator action. If such activity has occurred, please place diffs below in a concise manner that administrators can react to. Otherwise, the RfC that you have already begun should be the right step at this point to address the above concerns. ^Avruchtalk 21:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Users: 70.149.54.8; 70.149.54.148; 72.148.141.77; 68.215.78.163; 76.119.17.209; and 76.190.182.205

Resolved

Repeated vandalism on the Chinese zodiac pages and deliberately editing inaccurate compatibility data on each page (Rat, Rooster, Tiger, Rabbit, etc.). These IPs are supposedly done by the same user. IPs never bothered citing their sources of inaccuracies with Zodiac pages and attempted to blank their own talk pages. Request that said IPs get blocked and banned from further edits.Dibol (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to follow up on it or not?Dibol (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

links

• 70.149.54.8 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 12:41, January 18, 2008
• 70.149.54.148 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 12:52, January 29, 2008
• 72.148.141.77 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 19:38, January 27, 2008
• 68.215.78.163 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 12:45, January 28, 2008
• 76.119.17.209 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 19:44, January 28, 2008
• 76.190.182.205 (talk · contribs) ← last edit 21:51, January 24, 2008

Banning IPs isn't gonna happen...and you adding a blocked template to the IPs' talk pages doesn't actually block them...In the future, Dibol, please follow the procedures laid out in Wikipedia:Vandalism--apply warnings and, when appropriate, report the editor(s) to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Since the addresses you have listed here have generally been inactive for a while, they won't be blocked. I will leave a warning for 70.149.54.148. — Scientizzle 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yamashita's gold

User:JimBobUSA is engaging in non-consensual deletion of referenced material from this article.

This is in spite of prolonged and torturous discussion of the above matters at the talk page. He frequently engages in wikilawyering, by making false accusations of breaches of policy, and/or asking for references, when they exist already or are not required. I recently refused to discuss the article with him any further, because appeals to WP policy, reason, compromise and consensus seem to carry no weight with User:JimBobUSA.

He has attempted to delete referenced material in two instances over the last few days. One attempt was reverted by User:Flying tiger.

Since then he has taken to removing another entire paragraph, which is also referenced.

I think a simple warning to the effect that he must:

• respect credible sources
• not delete referenced material

...might do the trick. Thanks.

Grant | Talk 08:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a content dispute for which the sources have been meaningfully challenged. If you can't arrive at a consensus, seek dispute resolution, with appropriate warnings to avoid violating 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Someguy. Grant, please take a deep breath and engage with the valid criticisms raised. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If you looked carefully at the entire discussion on Talk:Yamashita's gold, you would see that User:JimBobUSA has ignored my suggestions of formal dispute resolution. I find it interesting that we are now supporting the deletion of material from not one but two different reputable sources in one article. Anyway, I don't have time for this. I withdraw the "incident". Grant | Talk 10:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did look at it. You appear to be reverting more than just JimBob. Me, for example. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at it too, and weighed in on the talk page. Meanwhile, Grant62 appears to have left the project after four years thanks to this response. Relata refero (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He says he's taking a Wikibreak, not leaving. Neıl ☎ 16:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

On the article talkpage he says he's "out of here". I do think we shouldn't be sending away long-term contributors to diverse areas by being aggressive and/or accusing them of ownership, especially of articles that attract trolling. Relata refero (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If he can't stand the heat... John Reaves 18:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

...then we should try turning the thermostat down. Relata refero (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for reducing the stress on people single-handedly resisting relentless POV-pushing, but that's not what's happening here, I think. It's a pretty minor article, and a pretty minor conspiracy theory. It really does need much better and more diverse sourcing. Guy (Help!) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Minor articles, however, rarely have sufficiently diverse sourcing; that is because they tend to be about minor subjects. My point remains that a heavy-handed response to a long-running dispute - a slow edit war from late November - resulted in someone choosing to leave. Relata refero (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hu12 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires

In the ongoing AfD located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War of Empires, Hu12 has twice edited out portions of debate relevant to the discussion. I reverted the first via WP:UNDO, then Hu12 took them back out. Hu12 left a note on my talk page, claiming:

Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning. Discussions which are general and unrelated directly to and not in response to Keep or delete !votes are better served on the talk page. This is acceptable in order to retain consistency. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Except in this case, the debate was directly relevant to the good faith effort on the part of the article creators, and their attempt to keep the article. I should note that as the nominator of the article in question, it is entirely inappropriate for Hu12 to "refactor" the supporting arguments, leaving four Delete !votes. I am led to believe that Hu12 is attempting to skew the debate by hiding the debate on the Talk page.

It should be noted that this "refactoring" would be considered discussion page vandalism anywhere else in Wikipedia, ({{uw-tpv2}}), I do not understand why it would be permissible within AfD -- RoninBK _{T C} 10:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(didn't realize the above was all posted by the same person, re-factoring and moving my own comment to the bottom) I agree that, as the nominator of the AfD no-one should be moving other people's comments in that manner. Hu12 should revert his/her edit. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

AFD is not a vote. Removal of discussion that makes it look more like a vote should be avoided. Kusma (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The comment of mine above was reposted here from Roninbk's usertalk. I brought this to Afd merely as a contested prod removed by an Anon IP ^[35]. My opinion was formed after further review. Here is the AFD prior to moving the anon discussions to the talk page. If there were !Keep votes those would have been left on the main as would any replies directly related to !votes. There is no malevolent adjenda, nor was I conspiring with the Forces of Darkness. The large chunks of discussions which were general and unrelated directly to and not in response to Keep or delete !votes were moved to the discussion page. I can see how this could be mischaracterize to seem unreasonable or improper, however my actions were in good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The gist of the discussion you removed was "please keep". Please at least note on the AFD when you remove discussion like that. Kusma (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

My remaining question is why is this kind of refactoring considered to be an acceptable practice on AfD? Hu12 is not the first person that I've seen attempt to edit out comments like this recently. According to WP:REFACTOR, it's one thing to correct indentation and formatting, it's another thing completely to redact whole paragraphs. Where is this trend coming from? -- RoninBK _{T C} 13:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If its general argumentation between editors/off topic/not constructive towards the object of the AfD, then it is not unusual for comments to be moved to the talk page for clarity of the main page. This generally occurrs only in AfDs with long paragraphs of comments from multiple people where following the actual AfD discussion becomes difficult. ^Avruchtalk 15:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Such moves should of course be done by someone who is totally uninvolved in the actual issue being discussed. For someone who is doing it who is actually involved in the debate and removing arguments that oppose his own, is clear disruption. Although I have not been involved in the discussion of this article, I have been in other similar discussions--so I leave it to some other admin to restore the material and propose sanctions. DGG (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

99.230.170.157

Resolved

 – Stale

Above IP vandalised after final warning. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

a) that goes to WP:AIV, and b) you're topic-banned from posting in Wikipedia: namespace. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:40, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

The IP appears to have been blocked twelve hours ago by Mr.Z-man. Topic ban aside, the report looks to be stale. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is in the Wikipedia namespace as well, so if the user is indeed topic-banned from all WP namespace pages, perhaps that topic ban needs to be rethought to at least allow for vandalism reporting. Natalie (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Florentino floro

Please check out Florentino floro (talk · contribs)'s contrib. I believe the editor has been acting in good faith, but has ended up adding a large number of irrelevant external links (need I say "spamming articles"). Sometimes it's in the form of a sentence or two blurb summarizing a recent news story, and sometimes it's just an external link to a news story. The main site being linked to is "gmanews.tv". Also, these links (or 2 sentence blurbs) are often being copied on multiple articles. I just a) wanted to run it by other editors to make sure that linking to the most recent news story on a given topic from a non-notable news cite isn't generally a good practice and b) ask for help in going through the edit history (and reverting where necessary), because it is quite extensive. What I imagine is going on is Florentino floro checks his favorite news cite every day, and adds links to wikipedia articles which are discussed in the news. While I can imagine some instances of this being ok, I think as a general practice, this should be avoided. Do others agree? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could start a thread in WP:PINOY where both him and I are members. Mind you that gmanews.tv is owned by one of the largest news networks in the Philippines so it is not non-notable. I have encountered the user a lot of times and I believe he is generally too enthusiastic in editing the Wiki, I think he is just slow to change but changes nonetheless. I also advised him to edit on Wikinews as his style is better suited there than here.---Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His style of editing leaves something to be desired but it is generally helpful rather than destructive. At the very least, he mostly adds relevant material that can be later edited into better prose in the articles. --seav (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Twsl's behaviors

1. 28 January 2008, 16:08 - Deleted an image from an article, writing "fix" [36]
2. 28 January 2008, 16:11 - Very quickly afterward added an "orphaned" tag to delete the image [37]
3. 29 January 2008, 12:46 - Reverted to delete the image again, writing "fix" [38]
4. 29 January 2008, 13:07 - Deleted a good chunk of a talkpage [39]
5. 29 January 2008, 13:08 - 2nd revert. No reason given [40]
6. 29 January 2008, 13:16 - Added an "orphaned" tag again [41]
7. 29 January 2008, 13:22 - 3rd revert. [42]
8. 29 January 2008, 14:22 - 4th revert. [43]

Does he need a little warning or something, please? 123.19.34.196 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a three-revert rule warning. Technically, he could be blocked for having made four reverts. He also claims that the deletion of talk page comments was inadvertent. I'm not sure it's really a mistake, so if any other admins want to investigate, feel free. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Deleted a comment about image, saying "blah" [44]
2. Deleted the last warning pretty quickly :) [45] 123.19.34.196 (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For me, there is no reason to keep those warnings after i've read them. You can also see that I wrote: "noted". Meaning that I understood what Elkman said. Thanks. Twsl (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup. Deleting warnings is allowed, and even good, because it shows that the user has seen them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure the editor might have seen them, but does not learn anything from them and continues to edit the way they have all along, like this Hashmi, Usman who just keeps removing deletion tags too but continues to add non-notable articles and categories, and ignores anyone who makes constructive suggestions to him without any discussion seemingly possible. Twsl is likely the same type but there is little we can do to get through to such people and hope their edits are reviewed. ww2censor (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's some great style you have there. :) Comparing me with someone else, while you don't even know me, or even bothered to look at my history to see things that I did to actually try to improve articles. And here you are, bragging about your knowledge of bad people and because of your experience calling me one of "those types" as well. :) Seriously, please post your frustrations somewhere else please. This part is about me and things that I did wrong. The talkpage-removal thing was said to be allowed, so it isn't an issue. Period. Don't try to debate here whether it should be allowed or not. There are other places where you can do that. Thank you. Twsl (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Also. I deleted that tag because that fair use rationale was fixed. So the warning became invalid. If you bothered to investigate this matter a little bit you would have known. Instead of come here and act almighty :). Twsl (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you are offended, but I don't "act almighty", nor do I brag about my knowledge of bad people. Those are your inferences. Yes I did look at your history and to my way of thinking I suggested that you could "likely" be similar in type to the example I gave, I did not say you 'were one of "those types"; again that was your inference. Yes, indeed I agree that deletion tag removal is allowed on user talk pages, so please do not infer more than is in the words I wrote. You obviously had good reasoning to make the deletions you did but there are others around who unfortunately don't learn anything from discussion of such topics, even one-on-one on their talk pages. ww2censor (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalized userpage deletion request

Resolved

Deleted 2 revisions. Orderinchaos 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please delete the following vandalized user talk page from my userpage history: [46]

Thanks, JGHowes ^talk - 18:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really a good reason to delete. John Reaves 18:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It is plainly a libelous statement and, as I do not edit using a pseudonym, should be removed per WP:BLP, viz., "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space". Please reconsider. JGHowes ^talk - 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you want the whole talk page deleted, or just the one vandalism edit? The vandalism was reverted and is no longer on your talk page. If it's a problem that it's still in the page history, an admin could delete the talk page and then restore every revision except for the vandalism and the revert. There's also Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, though I doubt they'd do an oversight for a fairly typical case of talk page vandalism. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just asking that an admin. delete that one vandalism edit. There's only the one page after that--the current reverted version. JGHowes ^talk - 19:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no technical means of doing that. (think single revision deletion is in development). Really serious problems can be oversighted but this doesn't fall into that category. It's childish vandalism only. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the issue, I've blocked the IP in question in light of the contribution history. — iridescent 19:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a reasonable request, I've deleted the two revisions. Orderinchaos 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aztec

Did I miss a renaming conversation somewhere, or is the move from Aztec to Aztes a simple case of move vandalism? It sure looks funny the way it is now, but since moves can get admin-level complicated, I thought to ask here. -- Michael Devore (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The article was moved, twice, to "Aztes", but I don't see that spelling (or transliteration) explained or even mentioned in the article itself. "Aztec" is good Nahuatl and is the spelling used in Mexico, where Nahuatl is a living language. Also, the mover seems to be a single purpose account. So I'd revert it as mere vandalism and post the usual notifications on the user's Talk. Incidentally, "c" is often soft in Spanish, as in "cena"; the user may simply be illiterate. Pete St.John (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

c is soft in Spanish when preceding an e or an i, but not at ends of words, and not in the Spanish language version of "Aztec", which is Azteca. This wasn't a mistake. The z, on the other hand, could be soft, in the Castillian version of Spanish. Corvus cornix_talk 21:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the contribution history of the user (300winmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)), and it looks like most of his edits aren't good-faith edits. Someone who's been working on one of the relevant WikiProjects would have a lot more credibility in renaming this article than someone who's only been here for a couple days. I warned the user. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

JustAHulk flaming on Jimbo's talkpage.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:JustaHulk is an edit-warrior for Scientology. He posted on Jimbo's userpage a couple days ago, complaining about anti-Scientology bigotry on wikinews. Then, today he posts another thread, entitled, "Wikinews is a crackwhore." [47]

He said that admins on Wikinews "pimp her out for the lulz" and called the people on wikinews /l/osers. I considered blanking the section and just sending him a warning for incivility or personal attacks, but I'm not an admin so such warnings don't carry the same amount of weight.

Plus, I didn't want to violate the whole "don't edit other people's comments" thing, and I didn't want to see him explode even more after seeing his comments removed.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"called the people on wikinews /l/osers" Am I really such a bad writer? I said "You know, I could really care less if some group of /l/osers wants to go after the Church of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is a big boy and can take care of itself." Is that really not clearly referring to Anonymous? --JustaHulk (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It'll probably be gone by the time I send this, but I'd actually be inclined to let that stand - JAH might be using some dubious language but it does look like a good faith attempt to bring an editwar to Jimbo's attention. (I know zilch about the subject and wouldn't trust Wikinews to tell me the time, so am not going to judge who's the Evil POV Pusher and who's the Guardian of The Truth here.) — iridescent 19:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I have been dealing with this since last Spring. JustaHulk, a/k/a, Justanother (talk · contribs) has been put on notice many times that this sort of behavior is not acceptable. I suggest an uninvolved administrator place a block to stop this, and then remove the trolling from the talk page, per WP:DENY. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS and this recent thread. We should not indulge bad behavior or it will become more extreme. JustaHulk is not a new user. They know how to make a proper complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jonathan, you know I love you, Bro, but this sort of statement: "has been put on notice many times that this sort of behavior is not acceptable" usually goes better when accompanied by "many" diffs to illustrate the "many times". --JustaHulk (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it should be removed from Jimbo's talk page because of the revolting language in the section header. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, Squeak, move with the times... Everyone is saying "Wikinews" these days! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know any crack harlots, LHU? Does Hulk? remember they are living people too, and well I am sure they live close to you and indeed to most of us. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to formally lodge a complaint here regarding User:JustaHulk/User:Justanother's language in this particular portion (in addition to the whole trolling rant) : "a group that really really should know better, allows a propagandist (and, at 5000-6000 edits per month, likely a full-time paid propagandist) to take over one of their projects.". Uncalled for, violation of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc., etc. I agree with Jehochman (talk · contribs)'s assessment, above. Please see this - where JustaHulk agrees to leave this issue rest, providing that both he and I abide by Jehochman's warning to stay away from each other. I heeded that warning. User:JustaHulk/User:Justanother did not (though at the time he said quote "Works for me." in response to Jehochman) - and is back here on ANI not that much over 48 hours later. How long will this disruptive abusive harassment and trolling be allowed to continue? Cirt (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cirt, as I really do not see how it can get any worse as regards the activity I find objectionable and as I think I have stated my case as clearly as it can possibly be stated, I can pretty much say that I am done now. You know, Cirt, I am really not trying to hound you off the project - we got along just fine until this WikiNews thing. What I am trying to do is shake people here up and perhaps get just a few to realize that if you were anti-gay, anti-black, antisemitic - just about anything but anti-Scientologist - your activities would have been reined in a long time ago. It is a very sad commentary that I pound on this point and pound on this point and make hardly a dent in the curtain of prejudice, lies, and bigotry that many, no doubt otherwise compassionate and open-minded, people have drawn tight around their intellects and their hearts. Not everyone here, of course, but many. There are many here that are not so tight-bound and these are a blessing. I just wish they were a bit more vocal. Cheers. --JustaHulk (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Everyone has had a chance to calm down, and nobody has been blocked, yet. Wikipedia and Wikinews are big wide spaces. There are lots and lots of problems that need attention. Much as just one or the other of you may be creating problems, I ask the both of you to ignore each other. Leave that problem for somebody else to solve; we have millions of users who will deal with it eventually. If you would like something to work on, come to my talk page and I will point you to a mess that you can help clean up. We have many. Thank you, and good evening. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editor repeatedly making unsourced and POV edits

24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs) has a significant history of adding unsourced information and POV to articles, especially Shoplifting and Winona Ryder. His style has been to write long essays in articles with no citations. This has been discussed repeatedly with him by several editors. Two editors have even tried to help him learn how to find reliable sources and make appropriate citations. A previous ANI was made here, resulting in a block. He stopped editing for a while. Now he has come back with the same problem. If Wikipedia policy is explained to him, he responds on his talk page with another long essay and complaints that Wikipedia and editors are trying to censor important information, then he continues with the same pattern of editing. He either can't understand, or simply doesn't want to comply with rules and guidelines. He has been given many warnings and several final warnings, the most recent from me a few minutes ago. Ward3001 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, to begin with, I'd stop spamming his talk page with final warnings. It doesn't seem to be working, and it loses its effect somewhere around the 10th time. It appears that the editor is working in good faith generally (albeit with a definite POV for the articles he/she edits) but can't seem to manage the referencing process or understand the importance of referencing. Probably a good case for someone to adopt (if he can be convinced to register an account) rather than escalating blocks, at least at this time. ^Avruchtalk 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left some messages on his page about accounts, referencing and adoption. We'll see what he says, if he responds. If he ignores the messages and doesn't improve appreciably, then perhaps blocking is in order. Otherwise it would be premature. I've also hat/habbed the long history of previous warnings. The warnings are still there, just behind a collapse box. Since it appears to be a static IP, this doesn't strike me as a problem. Ward3001 disagrees, however, and I've told him on my talk page that he is free to undo my edits if he likes. ^Avruchtalk 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I don't disagree with the proposed solution for dealing with 24.166.188.91 (talk · contribs) (at least for now). What I disagreed with was Aruch's unilateral decision to hat/hab a naive user's talk page without asking or even explaining it. Ward3001 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User page as a lesson plan?

Resolved

 – WP:AGF, user contacted

I'm not sure what User:Hashim100 is doing with his user page. It appears to be some sort of mathematics lesson plan, including "Homework" sections. Editor has been unresponsive to questions on their talk page, and the only edits are to this lesson plan. Pairadox (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From fractions to quadratic equations in one userpage lesson! Who needs elementary school? If he continues to not respond to messages on his talk page, an MfD would be in order. ^Avruchtalk 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need such a process for? There's Wikiversity that might be useful, of course, if he doesn't respond, I might just delete the page so he'll talk. Maxim_(talk) 23:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete a userpage to force someone to talk? What, exactly, is the problem with the userpage? DuncanHill (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest this includes to many lessons to be a homework, he might be copying the text of a math book though. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23,:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well unless we can confirm that, I dont think deleting seems helpful, what harm is it doing? Tiptoety ^talk 23:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a very heavy-handed approach to get him to talk. has anyone notified him of this thread? ThuranX (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, it could well be that the user is taking notes or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

<--Just did. Give them time to respond. Tiptoety ^talk 00:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(OD) This editor is very new. I see no problem in how he's using his user page. Who cares? It's a user page. Secondly, I don't read the comments left for him so far as overly friendly. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Do we have a WP:Welcome Wagon around here for new editors?Wjhonson (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was concern about a possible copyvio that prompted me to list it here. Pairadox (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we know where it's vio'd from, it's speculation. I'm inclined to leave it. - Philippe | Talk 00:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Second that, leave it (unless we know there is a copy vio), lets WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 00:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd normally say "leave it", but this user has zero edits to all pages other than his user page, and seems to be violating WP:NOT#HOST. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be, as CHQ suggests, a copyvio, or if not, still an abuse of space. And when it's deleted they will respond. I've been editconflicted at least 10 times, I'm sick of it, if you need something from me, I'll post at my talkpage because this is insanity. Maxim_(talk) 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The user started editing on the 27th inst. - he hasn't vandalized anything, he hasn't been uncivil to anyone, he hasn't violated BLP, he has asked that if there are any problems that people should email him, let's assume good faith and newness here please? Oh, we dont have a "welcome wagon" but I have given him a welcome box - I know I would have been utterly lost when I started without one. DuncanHill (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(OD) Agree with DuncanHill's approach. Please don't bite the newbies. We might be expert editors here, but many people come here not really knowing what's expected and not. There's no long list of things to read before you can start. So let's all assume good faith and offer the editor a cookie for doing something constructive.Wjhonson (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't strike to me a completely n00b. He knows how to use use <math></math>, something I have no clue how to use. Maxim_(talk) 00:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he's just trying to figure out how Wikipedia's math syntax works, and using Wikipedia:Sandbox won't keep the edits around long enough. If that's what he's doing, then he probably knows more MediaWiki math markup than I do, since I've never used it. (I've never had to write out differential equations for stuff on the National Register of Historic Places.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

...or maybe he's used a wiki before, or edited as an anon... c'mon, this is a bit insane. No harm done right now. - Philippe | Talk 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed....time to archive. Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

$\lim _{admins\rightarrow suspicion}{\frac {AN}{I}}=\delta (userpage)$ I think this explains the situation. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 00:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:216.234.201.161

This ipadress has been vandalizing wikipedia for quite some time. Recent vanalism includes: [48] [49][50] [51] and alot more. Check the talk page and contributions for full list of vandalism--DurzaTwink^TALK (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just gave it a final warn. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When it breaks the fourth warning ({{uw-vandalism4}}) or similar Level-4 warning, report it to WP:AIV. And please don't bait the user; it encourages them to keep vandalising. Link above changed to one with User: prefix. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

71.177.64.10 adding links to Blue Gold: World Water Wars

71.177.64.10 (talk · contribs) is adding text that smells like spam to dozens of pages. Here is a representative example:

Documentary film Blue Gold: World Water Wars by Sam Bozzo

I have reverted the most egregiously irrelevant ones, and issued two warnings. He shows no sign of slowing up, however. I have to go off 'net for a while, so I'd appreciate it if others could keep their eyes open. I'd also appreciate input on whether I'm being overly paranoid (and the links should stay) or insufficiently vigilant (and the other links should go). Bovlb (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all of them have been reverted or delinked, and the user has stopped. Bovlb (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IP Legal threats

I've blocked 76.189.163.253 (talk · contribs) for legal threats [52] on Talk:Permanent makeup (beware, the talk page is totally unthreaded). The IP may well be static, as it's been editing on this single topic since October, but I've blocked for one year, since it's an IP. Acroterion _(talk) 02:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorse, they've been vandalizing Permanent makeup for months now, concentrating on that sole article. Corvus cornix_talk 03:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a residential Roadrunner cablemodem IP. Technically dynamic, but capable of holding IPs long term. It's still resettable, however, so don't long-term block. 206.246.160.221 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Free image replaced by FU one

Resolved

Image:LAX.jpg has been replaced by a fair use image that was then added inappropiately to illustrate a living person, the image is still linked in several airport related templates, can someone revert? 24.138.195.107 (talk) 05:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Mr.Z-man 06:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New problematic user

I had earlier posted on this page about a new editor who first edited in Decemeber who has been particularly belligerent and has recently gone so far as to explicitly stated that he does not care about wikipedia's policies or guidelines. This user is User:GabrielVelasquez. I regret to say that I have come to the conclusion that this editor is not so much interested in helping wikipedia achieve his goals, but rather in using wikipedia as a platform on which he can make unsupported statements. I have at this point lost all patience for this individual. In my previous thread here at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#New editor engaging in POV Personal attacks, etc. I was advised that this individual should be blocked for a week. Given his newness, I chose not to do so. However, since then he has continued in the same vein of attacks on me and others, refusing to provide verification of his own statements, and even making a comment on my user talk page that he didn't care about what I and my "admin buddies" say. I am at this point washing my hands of this individual altogether. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you did well to step back--the involvement was becoming over-personal. As for what to do about him, I suggest a final warning from someone else not to engage in further disputation. DGG (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this user creating Talk:Nontrinitarianism/References and stating at the top of the page "THIS IS NOT A TALK PAGE, They are all quotes. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE."? I was going to speedy/prod/MfD this page, but saw all of the drama on his talk page with John. For the life of me, I can't figure out what to do with this page now. Any suggestions? --12 Noon ^2¢ 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is that he is, as he says, a non-adherent of the Jehovah's Witnesses who has repeatedly stated that he believes that his nontrinitarian beliefs are being underrepresented by a cabal of trinitarians, basically including every Christian who adheres to trinitarian beliefs, or about 95% of them, I think. He has repeatedly indicated that he sees himself as being a fighter against systematic bias, and has even contacted Jimbo to complain that his beliefs are not being presented in the way he wishes. He has indicated that he believes that that page is a way to counteract the bias he perceives by the Christian cabal. I have repeatedly suggested that he move it to userspace, as it is eligible for speedy deletion, only to receive demands of what policies the page violates, seemingly believing that everybody is inherently obligated to answer each question he poses. I have come to conclusions regarding this person which I will not state here. My best guess would be to see if the page is still there tomorrow, and if it is nominate it for regular deletion. He has regularly expressed disregard for policy regarding his own conduct. I think it might be a good idea to indicate to him that policy applies to him as well, as would be demonstrated in the deletion discussion. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just stepping in to note that this same user was, at least as of yesterday, fighting on Gliese 581 c and Talk:Gliese 581 c to try to keep inserting an unsourced and completely speculative paragraph making claims that the exoplanet's existance can't be "proven" until at least 2018 due to the speed of light (or, at least, that's the most sense I could make of it); when his claim there was refuted, he proceeded to continue trying to maintain the paragraph while denigrating the claims of possible habitability on the discussion page. I also note User:Dr Henry Draper, which was registered as a new account during the dispute, and has an edit history consisting of setting his user page and user talk page, and then diving into the Gliese discussion feet-first and not having edited any other articles. Just thought it might be relevant. Rdfox 76 (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the IP address 142.132.6.8 has recently left a comment on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page and my own user talk page. The edits are in the same linguistic style as Gabriel's own, although the IP tries to indicate it is from a different person. I believe that this probably qualifies as abusive sockpuppetry. The IP has also specifically called me an "asshole" on the Talk:Nontrinitarianism page, by the way, and has displayed so far as I can determine only an interest in articles Gabriel Velasquez previously edited. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Threats

Advice is requested on how to handle this edit, which invites the reader to kill a named person at a specific address: [53] It appears to be schoolchild vandalism. Kablammo (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Send a request to [email protected] to have it removed. A block would be warranted as well. ^Avruchtalk 22:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Block is already done, just send e-mail to the list if you haven't already. ^Avruchtalk 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(EC x 2) - I have blocked them for 72 hours as a stop gap measure. Other admins are welcome to adjust the block. I have also notified the ISP's abuse address. - Philippe | Talk 22:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Contact the police department in the local down and inform them there has been an explicit death threat at that residence on wikipedia. Bstone (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit looks oversighted. The IP was 24.184.241.191 (talk · contribs) for anyone considering contacting the police. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall it being an explicit or implicit threat. It was basically "Here is X's address, go kill them". John Reaves 22:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bstone , Jimbo always said to contact the authorities if there are threats like that. People should learn not to be idoits on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a public place. --Rio de oro (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The actual text, with name and street address redacted, was:

make sure you kill [name] first then, come to her house at [address] levittown Ny and kill her because if you dont then her teacher will kill her because her teacher gave her a book report to do in ONE week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. remember to kill her

Kablammo (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by administrator, blanking out comments.

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=187822197&oldid=187822026

Steel359 blanked out my comments from another user's page, not his own page. Isn't this vandalism?

Avruch did the same thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=187811916&oldid=187811568

Why do vandals get blocked but administrators who do the same thing do not? Fairchoice (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about you or your editing or your disputes, but Guy has asked that the front part of his talk page be kept for the time being for expressions of condolence for the death of his father. There is no reason for you not to respect that, and since I assumed good faith on your part I moved the comments to the section he has indicated be set aside for such things. ^Avruchtalk 01:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, didnt we pretty much just discuss this? [54]. Take a chill pill. Tiptoety ^talk 01:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x Firefox) Dude, nobody is against you. You posted a comment at JzG talk page, and Avruch moved it according to JzG wishes (check User talk:JzG#Kidness, he says I thank everyone here for their kindness. I would ask that any Wikipedia-related stuff goes at /wp-stuff for now., as you can see here. Why you assume the worst out of everybody? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And that's the question worth exploring. – Steel 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another question worth exploring is how a brand-new editor does a REDIRECT as their very first edit, then bluelinks their talk page with a trivial message as their second edit, uses proper template syntax on their fourth edit, etc. This extraordinarily rapid ascent of our learning curve is most admirable, and it would be helpful for other editors to know how such intimate familiarity with Wiki procedures can be learned so quickly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone's already asked that [55]. Hut 8.5 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I've just discovered that Amaltheus has edited a comment of mine on his talk page to give the appearance that I was involved in a fictitious attack dialogue.

I left a message on his talk page here on 21 Jan.

I see today, at User talk:Amaltheus that it has become part of some fictitious dialogue under the sub-heading 'Harassment'. I never participated in this conversation.

This is a serious violation of the Talk page guideline. Under Behavior that is unacceptable, the guideline says:

Don't misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context.

and

Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Note that Behavior that is unacceptable ... are of sufficient importance to be official Wikipedia policy. Violations (and especially repeated violations) may lead to the offender being banned from Wikipedia.

Could another admin please look at this? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a diff of the edit in question? Nakon 01:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't assume the worst. Snalwibma removed all the comments, and Amaltheus restored them. He just forgot to restore the title section. I see a lot of quarreling in his page, so I would give him the benefit of doubt that he just forgot to restore the title of that section. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not assuming 'good faith' here because I see personal attack. Apparently, Snalwibma (talk · contribs) here on 09:27 22 Jan did remove comments directed at Snalwibma that built up under the sub-heading that I added 'Please'.

Then, on 3:25 24 Jan (two days) later, Amaltheus refactored my comment into an attack dialogue. See here where Amaltheus uses the edit summary of 'Restoring stuff. I think enjoying speculating about my having a mental illness doesn't make one the best judge of "appropriateness." My comments had nothing to do with this. Amaltheus has created a fictitious argument with me in the middle. This is seriously the worst I can imagine. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me if I am wrong, but the only difference between what you posted and what he restored is the section title? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And, what comes before and after my comment. Amaltheus has changed the context of my comment to make it appear as if I am attacking him. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that he was rather exalted, however I think his summary (somewhat offensive, yes) was directed towards Snalwibma, not you, since he was the one who removed the comments. My point is that he wrote a reply to Snalwibma, who removed it including your comment, and then Amaltheus restored it (although not in the original position). Refactoring the page to put the comments in order could be possible, do you want that? I am not sure if a block would be right, but that is because of my own event interpretation (which differs with yours). However, another admin can disagree with me and take different measures. Did you warn him that the talk was restored in a different position taking it out of context? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 02:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, I have no desire to communicate with Amaltheus on the talk page if he is deleting and constantly refactoring the page. Just look through the talk page edits; that alone goes against Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines where it says "Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it." Amaltheus deletes pieces here and there. To me, Amaltheus is playing games and manufacturing discussions to suit himself. I think an outside admin should delete the ficititious dialogue including my comment, and warn Amaltheus. I actually think a block is warranted in this case but I'll let a cooler headed admin decide. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If anybody is reviewing this, please just note that the "edited highlights" restored by Amaltheus to his talk page represent a gross misrepresentation of what actually went on, omitting (for a start) all the provocation from Amaltheus himself that led to the comments he has preserved for posterity! Also, he did not by any means simply restore what had been deleted - he edited it and inserted comments of his own, and (as Wassupwestcoast says) left a piece of Wassup's unrelated text in a misleading place. Throughout, Amaltheus has deleted swathes of comments from his talk page, including the polite and friendly ones. I suggest that the whole sorry and misleading mess should be deleted from his talk page (perhaps in such a way that it cannot be restored), and he should be told to behave with at least a modicum of civility towards others. Snalwibma (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Map overwriting Megistias from Thispoems

Megistias (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Thispoems (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

User Megistias talk is overwritting my maps.[56]They are reliable sources and appropriate to the claims made and references.The map is not based only on these sources but even by Arthur Evans,which also worked passionately in the history and archaeology of Albania and Greece.It was not self-made but I did got help with his sketch maps. plus from writters and historians like,Thucydides,Plutarch, and Appianus etc.I worked hard for that map by reading and researching so many books.I do respect his references and I don't go and delete his maps nor I overwritte them.Please some Administrators, stop this abuse,it's not nice at all.Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I did upload a new map with my sources and you can find it here [57].Thank you.--Thispoems (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly a pretty map, needs better focus. Would this be considered a content dispute and thus not really for AN/I? Where is the map coming from? Creating your own map and putting it on an article would constitute original research, no? ^Avruchtalk 01:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - The difference is that Thispoems map includes Macedonia, and Megistias map does not. ^Avruchtalk 01:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Avruch, and thank you for your time.The map is coming from my readings and research in Balkan history.Can someone overwritte my map if it has the reliable sources and appropriate to the claims made and references? The reason, I am here is because Megistias talk attitude,(more like a bullie) was rude.He din't even let me talk to the discussion page,is that fair? If I am wrong please do forgive me, for posting this incident in here.Thank you--Thispoems (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold on Thispoems.I explained in the talk page and your sources are truly wrong and you also used Original research.Megistias (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Other than the fact that you use Original research and wrong at even that.You mention Plutarch in example but he writes that Epirus and Macedon is Greece.He wrote the lives of Greeks and Romans and Pyrhhus with Alexander are Greeks.And other than the fact that Evans is outdated the sketches he made dont include

epirus or macedon [58] [59] .So what exactly are you doing?Your secondary sources dont agree with what you quote.Megistias (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't conduct your content disputes here on ANI, okay? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that this dispute is subject to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia and that Megistas has been placed under supervised editing as per the remedies of this case. I'll put Thispoems on notice of the remedies. MER-C 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

MER-C, can I request that "warnings" with {{uw-balkans}} should only be done if a claim of actual disruptive behaviour is being made? That's our usual approach to administrative warnings, we don't give them to editors just in case they might do something disruptive in the future. We warn editors when they have in fact done something disruptive. Warnings are for letting people know they will be sanctioned if they continue doing what they have been doing, otherwise it's quite confusing both to them and to onlookers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at Free Republic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Article Full protected for 1 week and ArbCom asked for guidance SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Eschoir, an individual who has a serious (and unanswered) WP:COI problem (see here) is starting an edit war again after being blocked 24 hours for a WP:3RR violation for edits to this article, and within a few hours after a one-week protection of the article has expired. [60] These edits have not been supported by consensus, they have not been discussed on the Talk page, they give too much WP:WEIGHT to criticisms of the Free Republic forum, the article is under ArbCom probation, and to make a long story short, Eschoir is literally begging to be blocked. Please stop him before the edit war that Lawrence Cohen has openly declared here becomes a fact. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's an arbcom violation, report to WP:AE — Rlevse • Talk • 03:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A community-based solution would be best in the short term. Eschoir is relentlessly trolling on the article Talk page now. Take a look at the most recent section. I've asked him three times to stop chopping my posts into an incomprehensible mess with his responses, and he takes joy in continuing to do it because he knows it annoys me. This time a lengthy cooling-off period is in order, to protect the project from his incessant trolling. Samurai Commuter (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't do anything without consulting ArbCom first, considering there's lots of evidence in a current ArbCom case that both accounts (Neutral Good and Samurai Commuter)are possible/probable socks of the banned user User:BryanFromPalatine, who has a long running dispute with Eschoir, even though I would ask Eschoir to back off on that article, as there are WP:COI concerns. SirFozzie (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is probably something that should go to WP:AE, especially since a bunch of the involved users are participating in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waterboarding. But if anyone is moved to take action on this complaint, bear in mind that it takes two (at least) to edit war. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit war is seemingly dying down (no reverted reverts) thanks to vassayana and crotalus horridus who can't be accused of bias. Consensus may be emerging, all sides may be standing down, and Samurai Commuter can go back to his vacation.

'

I'm leaving on a red-eye flight for a long anticipated vacation with my family in the morning, to a warm foreign country with no Internet access. I have been caught by complete surprise by this dastardly subterfuge, and will have no time to even start preparing my defense until I return on February 18. This underhanded ambush can wait until then. Both Free Republic and Waterboarding are fully protected, so no harm would be done by the delay. Samurai Commuter (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)'

Eschoir (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why am I being dragged into this when I haven't even edited that article in main space weeks? Because I said I would remove material once if it was added on behalf of a banned user? Related evidence to the complaint above is here. Samurai Commuter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a disruptive SPA who does nothing but push a matching agenda as BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), right down to the legalistic stalking and harassment of Eschoir (talk · contribs). Lawrence § t/e 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious. Neutral Good, who has never edited FR article, wants me blocked to stop you from beginning an edit war there, because Samurai Commuter has TalkPage concerns with me. Got it?Eschoir (talk) 05:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry navel gazing reminds me of the classic dilemma of what am I looking at now? Obviously, I'm looking at now. Is this when I'm supposed to begin edit warring? Lawrence § t/e 06:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's review your usual crop of distortions and half-truths, Lawrence. Every sockpuppet accusation you've made against me resulted in an official finding of  Unrelated. You got away with a 2RR and an instant full protection after you got it the way you wanted it, which seems to be your signature. You did this eight days ago, not "weeks" ago. And it's been full protected for seven days, so you couldn't edit it even if you wanted to. Neutral Good (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I think there's officially nothing else we can do. Seeing that Samurai Commuter has yet again gone on to Free Republic and significantly edited it, I have full protected the page on the so-called M:The Wrong Version for one week, and placed a request on the ArbCom Waterboarding proposed decision talk page for their consideration regarding the past ArbCom case, whether the conduct of all involved on this article should be considered in that case. With that, I think we're done here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Janos Kurko removing info from articles and silently edit-warring

For weeks now, Janos Kurko (talk · contribs) silently removes alternative names from articles on Romanian localities (including Focşani, Moldova Nouă, Drobeta-Turnu Severin, Sviniţa etc.). This is the large majority of his contributions so far, with the exception of adding Romanian names to articles on localities in other countries (further proof that he is pushing a POV) and a long edit war on the article Palinka, where he edits against consensus for days on end, and does not use the talk page. I have so far left him three vandalism warnings on his talk page for removing info, and a 3RR warning - I think a temporary block is in order, because he has not stopped so far. Dahn (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 24h and warned of possible topic ban under WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment needed please

Resolved

Ling.Nut (talk · contribs) has redirected his talk page to his user page, but continues to be an active editor. I have explained to him that the talk page is not his to control in that manner, and it is for the use of the community as much as it is for his own use but he refuses to remove the redirect. Opinions on action please? As it stands he is impossible to contact on wiki without removing the redirect, and although he apparently has email enabled, that doesnt change the fact that the redirect should not be on a talk page as it restricts communication. Viridae^Talk 04:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ling.nut has most likely done this as he really needs to work on his dissertation; if it's a big issue, I'll be glad to e-mail him and discuss other options. What is the preferred method when a break notice doesn't work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I think something in your post caused his FA/GA stars to appear at the top of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I put a copy of his talk page here instead of the links I meant to. Viridae^Talk 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just put the break notice, and log out. There should never be a redirected talk page for this situation. Viridae^Talk 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That fixed it; it was quite strange to see that ANI had three featured articles :-) I will email Ling.nut. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed his redirect and adviced him that is social engineering and malware to redirect talk page to user page but he came to my talk page saying that he does not believe me Igor Berger (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I e-mailed him some options for how to deal with the situation; can it not become a federal case while I'm waiting to hear from him? He really needs to work on his dissertation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. I undid Igor's actions before seeing this discussion, but stand by my revert. This should be worked out quietly with Ling.nut - I know first hand how Wiki can interfere with Diss writing very easily. --Veritas (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please, no one is clamoring to talk to Ling.nut right this instant, he isn't in the midst of any conflicts, this doesn't have to be resolved right this instant; let me try to work this out in a way that won't cause undue stress to an exceptional editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Veritas no problem with your revert as long as the issue is being dealt with. This is the guidelines of Wikipedia:User page Igor Berger (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting a talk page to user page is a violation of WP:refactor Igor Berger (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I promise to stay on top of this and keep ANI posted as soon as I hear something, if not tonight, first thing tomorrow (almost bedtime here). I understand the issue, but please think of the person and give me time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Igor, what on earth are you on about? "Redirecting your talk page to your user page is Social engineering (security) which is Malware" is, umm, not true, not to mention needlessly inflammatory. How is this a violation of WP:REFACTOR, either? Please don't exacerbate a relatively minor situation with nonsense. Maralia (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that Ling.Nut did this as a social engineering technique, but some vandals may do it as such. Looks like Ling.Nut just wants free time for {{wikibreak}} Igor Berger (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It was already established above, before your bizarre warning to him, that he was probably doing it for a wikibreak. Throwing social engineering and malware links at him was an enormous (and extremely tenuous) leap of bad faith away from the situation as presented. Maralia (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If you look at my edits to his page I did not acuse him of anything but tried to fix the redirect with an advise. As he reverted I gave a stronger warning, but walked away when User:Veritas reverted me. So please WP:AGF on my part. And I am sorry if I seemed like I came out too hard. Igor Berger (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You most decidedly did accuse him of something: "Redirecting your talk page to your user page is Social engineering (security) which is Malware" is not 'an advise' but rather a blatant attribution of devious motives. If that truly wasn't your intent, you need to do a much better job of communicating. Maralia (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If I did accuse him, I apologize for it. I tried to help without knowing the whole story, as it seems for all of us trying to help each other under stress and vandalism. User Ling.Nut my apology to you if I made you feel bad, but I was just trying to help everyone involved. Igor Berger (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Use some discretion, friends! please. First of all, the def of a redir on yout talkpage as malware is... unusually creative and entertaining. Second of all, if you're looking for ways to nail down vandals/trolls/ etc., the redir talk page thing should be the bottom of your list.. not even on it. Like giving an overdue library fine to John Gotti. By the way, I think this is instruction creep and bureacracy at its most egregious... Ling.Nut (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not instruction creep, it is simple logic. The user talk page is for people to communicate with you, people wiolll want to leave you messages regardless of wether you are busy or not. Viridae^Talk 06:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut that is how we got Al Capone, on technicality..:) Now I understand why you want to redirect your talk page, so you can write your dissertation. You are to popular and you like wiki too much. It is an addiction! Igor Berger (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he could "retire" and have his pages locked down, which has been done. But that seems pointless and a waste of time when he could just redirect his page until he comes back. If he doesn't want messages on a page he can't resist checking, there are ways for him to go about it. It just seems easier to leave him be. Ling, I can block you for a while, hun... that will keep you away. Just give me cause. ;) Lara❤Love 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Lara! can I insult your heritage, or your birthplace, or current location, or simply your punctuation foibles? Any one of those might do the trick. Seriously, whatever... I dunno what to make of all this. Tempest in a teacup, though I've been guilty of making those on occasion. I dunno. If there's a rule somewhere about not redirecting your talk page, I'll probably get around to following it some day or other. Seems a waste of editors' time to chase after such things, though. Ling.Nut (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Lara, prescribed vacation? Is that what blocks are about? Take two aspirins and see me in the morning..:) Lin, you can just call her a Troll, that should get you blocked for a while... Igor Berger (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent) OK I un-redirected my talk. Nothing to se here. Move along. :-) Later! Ling.Nut (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for banned user

Resolved

I don't normally report this kind of thing but: User:Ghanadar galpa, a sockpuppet of banned sockpuppeteer Hkelkar made several problematic edits over the month plus he was around. I spent some time reverting a fraction of them yesterday. Today a brand new account leaves a message on the talkpage of User:B Nambiar who proceeds to revert all those changes with an identical message. Sometime during this I told Nambiar that under WP:BAN banned editors aren't permitted to edit WP, and if he wishes to reinstate a series of edits he shouldn't do so wholesale but should discuss each on the talkpage. He hasn't done that, pasting a boilerplate message on talkpages. Advice please. Relata refero (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocked, warning left on reverting account's page. Will keep an eye out. BLACKKITE 15:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

30 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents.

As an aside, I actually have a subpage, if anyone is willing and inclined to run thru a couple of hundred IP addresses in one run, please leave a message on my talk. I do apprecriate the help. Regards, Mercury (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done All unblocked, and talk pages cleared of {{tor}} tags. Feel free to dump the rest at User talk:Neil/TOR and I'll run through them all. Neıl ☎ 13:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Rapid fire vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Alexf

Looks like User:David A's pal is back, this time as JohnnyJonzz4.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I know, I know, this should go to AIV, but this user has one goal, to revert anything David has done, and s/he moves fast. Pairadox (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like User:Alexf blocked it. Pairadox (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nestor Aparicio

Please could someone semiprotect Nestor Aparicio. It is currently receiving incredible amounts of vandalism! Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've sent a request to WP:RFPP, which requests like this need to go. I've been busy this mroning and haven't had a chance to help clean the vandalism, as this is on my watchlist. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Something else I've learnt. Thanks. MSGJ (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the IP vandals are moving to WNST now as well, sent a request for that page to be protected. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Both pages have temporary full protection. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected both pages for a week. I live in Dallas-Ft. Worth and a local sports talk radio station (KTCK) intimated that listeners should vandalize the page. Both stations have representatives at the Super Bowl and a dispute between on-air personalities arose which caused the recent spate of vandalism. It's likely that the calls for vandalism will continue until Friday, and likely into the early part of next week. Already three accounts have bypassed the semi-protection between the two pages. Full protection would avoid any additional sleeper accounts from hitting the pages, as well as new accounts that get autoverified between now and the expiration of the protection. Let me know if you need any additional info on this. Caknuck (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Morgan...again

Morgan Wright (talk · contribs) is currently blocked indefinitely for telling another editor to kill himself. However, he is currently still editing under an IP, likely from work rather than his home computer, 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs).--Veritas (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I recommend filing a report at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably not useful, as it's a ComCast dynamic IP. It's obviously the same editor, so I've blocked it for a short time, but that is unlikely to be a permanent solution. BLACKKITE 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator vandalizing by blanking out article talk page

Resolved

 – no action needed. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be corrupt and let an administrator commit a wikicrime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AExpelled%3A_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=187779679&oldid=187776706

I reported it to AIV and someone blanked that request. Corruption? Fairchoice (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's just like the message I just left on your talk page says. WP:AIV is not for supposed complex abuse, which you are claiming this is. It looks like a content dispute to me. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you noticed, but in this next edit that the administrator made, he reinserted your comment at the bottom of the talk page, where it should have been inserted all along. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Er It appears the user simply moved your comment to the foot of the talk page and then replied to it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And plus David Sousa also responded on your own talk page. nat.utoronto 21:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. souza blanked out my comments. He didn't move it to the bottom until after AIV and after about 7 minutes. Cut and paste doesn't take that long but ok, lets drop this in (over) AGF. Fairchoice (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste and reply may, though. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your legal threats Fairchoice, perhaps an admin would care to block? Accusing another editor of committing a crime is clearly a legal threat and thus why should we listen to a word you say. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What legal threat? If you say that complaining about administrator misconduct is a legal threat then all complaints to AIV are legal threats and all complainers to AIV should be blocked indefinitely. Let's not try to intimidate non-admin by accusing people of legal threats. I am not a zealot like others here on wikipedia. I neither want to smear intelligent design nor promote it. There are too many zealots trying to promote it and too many zealots trying to smear it. Some of them have made threatening comments to me. Fairchoice (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He means this. We don't commit crimes here, we commit wikicrimes as much :-) -- ReyBrujo (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Call the wikipolice :) Orderinchaos 21:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot malfunctioning again

Resolved

 – Thank you for enlightening us, Mr. Cobi. —Glacier Wolf 23:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot reverted the edit to Johhnyjacobson (talk · contribs), as seen here. However, ClueBot never warned the user, as seen by his/her talk page history. I can see that this was happening earlier. Can someone get into contact with the person operating this bot? Glacier Wolf 03:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For it to miss one once in a while is not uncommon. There are several reasons that ClueBot will revert, but run into an error while warning and just give up. Mainly server load. If the database lag is more than 10 seconds, ClueBot will forget about warning users so as not to run the db lag up any more. If the WMF servers returned an error, ClueBot will give up. If there is an edit conflict of sorts, ClueBot will give up. Earlier it was missing it because the servers were returning errors (well not exactly, someone changed the MW software that made it and ClueBot incompatible until I fixed it, essentially the servers were telling ClueBot that it wasn't logged in, even though it was). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

22 yr old male seeks 9 yr old female friend on Ref Desk

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

An anonymous editor using a Swedish ISP is (probably) trolling the Reference Desks. Check out

• 85.225.48.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 85.225.50.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

In a nutshell, the user claims to be a friendless 22 year old who's given up on finding a girlfriend, but who wants to "befriend little girl[s] (age 5-12 or so)"; he says he "find[s] them extremely adorable and this appeals greatly" to him. He claims to already be in webcam contact with a 9 year old who is "unfortunately" in another part of the country. (Original post: [61]; reposting: [62], [63].)

Given his other contributions, I'm inclined to assume that he's a particularly obnoxious troll, rather than a genuine pedophile. (Racist trolling: [64], [65], Vandalism tantrum: [66], [67], General abuse: [68], [69].)

Beyond block the IP fir a bit and removing the posts, is there anything else that can/needs be done? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We could contact the police department for an investigation, just like when we contact them when someone claims he is going to bomb some place, but who knows how to contact them in Sweeden? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hardly seems necessary for what is likely just a bit of trolling. John Reaves 16:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Dentren seems to be an active editor who is in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden. S/he also self-identifies as Category:Wikipedians in Sweden. It may be a bit of an imposition to just contact some random Swedish user and ask if s/he'd be willing to call the police (or thinks there'd be any reason; I don't know how Swedish law enforcement handle such situations). Asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden might be pointless, as that project seems a bit quiet. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there is anyone in imminent danger here. I'm not sure this situation calls for further involvement beyond what has been done. Ronnotel (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also think it is trolling, but if police or even my ISP finds me asking in a forum how to get contact with little girls, they will want to have a chat with me. Scaring a troll may make him realize Internet is not for that kind of things. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Notify [email protected] and let them decide if the users should burn in hell or not. _→AzaToth 16:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to look at:

• 85.225.50.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.225.48.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (innocuous on its own, but perhaps not in the context of the above IP's contribs?)
• 85.225.51.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (ditto)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a troll then. But it has been two days in a row asking the same question. If he does so a third day, he is an idiot who should get a scare. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, he came back, didn't wait for a third day. The question has once again been deleted from the Miscellaneous Reference Desk. --LarryMac | Talk 21:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked 85.225.51.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)} now, but I'm considering a rangeblock of 85.225.48.*-85.225.51.* (or thereabouts) to deal with the floating IP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty wide range for a vandal. I will contact the WikiProject Sweeden to see if anyone is able to contact the police (or at least give us some insight about how to report this kind of stuff). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Should we inform the police or something. This guy could be a perv or something. You guys dont want some Dateline thing from happening. You guys must stop this pedo-sicko from "hurting" innocent kids. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rio de oro (talk • contribs) 22:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I already said that if it is a mistake, he will get a good scare. I have told him this was not the right place to ask that kind of thing, yet he continued. I say call the authorities and leave them handle this idiot (anyone insisting on having that asked is nothing more than an idiot). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The usual plan is to drop a note to User:Mike Godwin (WP legal counsel) ideally via e-mail and not on his talk page, advising him of this thread and the various IP's. Pedro :  Chat  22:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message at WikiProject Sweden to get someone from there give us insight of how to report this kind of stuff (maybe they have something like tips.fbi.gov). We can contact Mike for this as well, although we don't need legal counsel right now (we need to know if this user is breaking the TOS of the ISP he is using, or how to contact the police to request more information about how this is handled). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw your message, but I think it's a bit overkill to contact the authorities for what looks like a troll. --Krm500 (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just sent a mail to Mike as well. We are used to contact the police when someone leaves bomb notes at articles about school. I believe it is, at least, a breach of the terms of service. We should at least contact the ISP and let him know this, leaving up to them whether they should contact the user or the police. But what if he continues because the ISP does nothing about that? -- ReyBrujo (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The likeliest explanation may be misappropriated account info, e.g., the user's kid brother getting revenge for something. Clues would be when a blatant confession of any kind of noxious or humiliating behaviour is inconsistent with prior prose style, e.g. "...may be misappropriated.." followed the next day by "...my winki is tini!!!!!!!!!" although in that example the parallelism of the two mispellings is too witty. Pete St.John (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question about admin editing a protected page

Resolved

Is it just me or did admin Adam Cuerden use his administrative abilities to get around the full protection, edit the article and then admin Ryan Postlethwaite, who set the full protection, reverted his edits? It certainly seems that way from the diffs and history. I am incredibly disturbed by this. Is a report to AN/I the appropriate place or right to ArbCom? Bstone (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidential edits to articles that are protected by adminstrators are commonplace. I will assume you are ignorant of this, rather than assuming bad faith on your part, but I would note that you did not asked Adam why this happened, and did not review his talk page where he stated he was unaware of the protection when he made his one edit. Please be more through in your future evaluations, instead of hastily jumping to report users you are in conflict with. You may wish to ask users why they took actions before reporting them in the future. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

PutponOnToast, you've already Talk:Homeopathy#Adam_Cuerden questioned me of acting in bad faith so I wonder why you're reneging on it now. Notice the huge number of question marks and interrogatives. I didn't come here going "ZOMG Adam is a rouge admin and is break page protection" but rather calmly came wondering how the situation is. There is no formalized procedure for this so I am sorry I did not consult with you before hand, but since you've already accused me of bad faith I don't see much of a reason in further discussing this. Good day. Bstone (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I've questioned if you are acting in good faith. What led me to doubt your good faith was:

1. You asked on the article talk page and then promptly reported it at ANI (you did not wait 3 minutes for a response at the first location you sought input from)
2. You did not review the talk page of the user in question
3. You did not ask the user in question for an explanation
4. There is a history of "oh so concerned" users asking for such sanction in bad-faith (cf Profg)

So, let me ask you - do you have an ulterior motive for filing this complaint? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your questions have been asked and answered. Good day. Bstone (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you ask Adam why he made the edit? Why didn't you wait for a response at the first location you complained at? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He probably just hadn't noticed yet. It doesn't say "STOP THIS ARTICLE IS PROTECTED, ARE YOU SURE?" it just works. ^Avruchtalk 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It says in normal size text at the very top in red, "WARNING: This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it. Please ensure that you are following the protection policy." However, it's easy to miss, as it's in the general header block. Orderinchaos 21:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be incredibly surprised if Adam did this on purpose. Adam is doing his best to help us resolve this difficult situation and certainly is not interested in making things worse.--Filll (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems clear Adam just made a mistake. Not being an admin (and not wanting to be one) I don't know what their screen looks like when they go to edit a fully protected article. Thanks so much to those who responded to my concern in good faith, without deciding to shoot the messenger or question why I was bringing it here. Bstone (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the individual admin's setup, the screen looks something along the lines of Image:Adminprotwarning.jpg. You can see the warning at the top of the page, but I've overlooked it once or twice. - auburnpilot talk 17:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have overlooked that from time to time. This is an honest mistake, not abuse. Nothing to see here folks, move along. _(1 == 2)^Until 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Back when I had AWB on my main admin account I more than once inadvertently edited protected articles. When I switched over to having a second account which has no admin access for AWB edits (User:Orderinchaos 2), I stopped getting complaints :P This seems to fall into the same category. Orderinchaos 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I changed the section title to be less strident given that nothing bad actually happened here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, User:Jehochman is now reverting an edit to the template which distinguishes between an article being "homeopathy-related" and an article that had homeopathy included/excluded. This is a VERY IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. Homeopathy-related articles will be interpreted as articles which are content-wise related to homeopathy when some of these articles may not be so judged by community consensus. Imposing this boilerplate with the message that the article is homeopathy-related confuses the issue and misleads editors. I have proposed better wording, but User:Jehochamn has fallen back on false claims of "consensus" for the bad wording. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

ChampagneSocialist

Resolved

User:ChampagneSocialist is showing signs of being more or less a single-purpose account, or possibly sockpuppet, to repeatedly remove mention of fascism from the lead of Right-wing politics‎. Apparently no willingness to discuss, just reverting over and over.

Since I'm engaged in the article myself, it would probably be inappropriate for me to be involved in the matter as an admin. Could someone else please keep an eye on this? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. It appears to be slow or low-grade edit-warring, but I added a strong suggestion to go to the talk page and work it out. If the editor continues to remove material without discussion, then I'll see what needs to be done. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Block page broken

Resolved

I softblocked a school IP just now ([70]), and when I tried to click on the block log option, instead of going to the correct block log, it went to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&page=User:%241

What's making that happen? Neıl ☎ 17:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a bug. _→AzaToth 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See m:Migration to the new preprocessor _→AzaToth 18:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks AzaToth. Neıl ☎ 20:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Massive vandalism on Beth Ostrosky

Resolved

I've come spontaneously to this article three times in the last hour. There's obviously a massive effort by multiple IPs and sock puppets to mess around big-time.

Please, someone who has the ability to do this (unlike me): semi-protect the page, and burn all the sockpuppets. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Article is sprotected. I'm watching for any more vandalism. Nakon 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to If (MSI album)

Resolved

 – Protected

This needs looking at by someone with more experience than I – the vandalism is going crazy, and I don't have any knowledge of the subject to remove it. Cheers — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

RFPP'ing would be appreciated — alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected for a month --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to subsequent recurrence of vandalism, fully protected for a week. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I put the false album covers uplodated by the vandalizing user and possible sockpuppet account up for speedy deletion. Nate • (chatter) 02:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – indefinitely blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert

FYI, Money blues3 (talk · contribs) just blanked Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and Walker High School (Atlanta, Georgia). Also, the user blanked the talk page of Moneyblues (talk · contribs). - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

*tap tap* Is this thing on? :P - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 06:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they've been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. --jonny-mt 07:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Koalorka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has called me a racist three times today, twice before a warning[71][72], and then in response to a warning about WP:NPA, this user responded by saying "I'm well aware of that policy thank you. You should however consider toning down your racist rhetoric."[73] Yahel Guhan 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left the user a comment.[74] Bless sins (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The user in question clearly holds a racist attitude and manifests it through his/her postings, I believe racism should not be tolerated on Wikipedia and has no place in the 21st century. Koalorka (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think your comment speaks for yourself. You continue to make attacks in spite of a warning and a report against you. Yahel Guhan 05:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

And it does about you too, not once have you denied it. Koalorka (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Koalorka has been blocked for 24-hours, having continued the attacks. El_C 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I am back and my ban was almost grotesquely humorous. Turns out I was blocked by an admin with a glamorized image of a murderous socialist thug on his userpage and one that views indigenous Europeans as unevolved and illiterate, ripe for exploitation. How can someone with such racialist, cynical views even be considered for the position of admin?! Either way, I will notify and consult the broader administration staff about this incident. This type of uncontrolled and arbitrary harassment cannot be accepted. Koalorka (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling another user a "prejudiced, anti-white bigot," "Semitic persuasion...Self-hate and anti-white/European bigotry," etc., is a sure way to get yourself blocked around here. Calling the blocking admin "racialist" does not inspire confidence. El_C 09:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanticizing a genocidal communist brute and professing Jewish supremacy [75] does not inspire confidence either. Especially coming from an admin..... Koalorka (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read that section you linked to? I am truly amazed that some people can try so hard not to understand things....Relata refero (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pretty serious accusations you're throwing around; I'd appreciate it if you could back them up with evidence, such as diffs. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, this has already been archived. Why did you bring it back? Are you in that much of a hurry to be blocked again? JuJube (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was moi.^[76][77] The Stormfront Talk page is poisonous enough, so I moved it here; plus, I get to save him the trip. El_C 10:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see... well, the last question (directed to Koalorka) still stands. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry again for the confusion.El_C 10:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Which question would that be? Why was I blocked in the first place and under whose authority? Koalorka (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were you blocked? Anyone can tell that, for attempting to harass other users. Seriously, try toning down the language a little, it goes a long way... — alex.muller (talk • edits) 10:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I guess I should have taken it to that particular users talk page, questioning his motivation, rather than slugging it out on a article talk page. The reaction was still unwarranted and would certainly espouse the belief of a leftist "cabal" running Wikipedia. That's why I found the ban humorous and grotesque. As soon as I hit the banning admin's user page BAM a huge portrait of Lenin and Che, which left me laughing for a good few minutes. Koalorka (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why in situations like this, people's own personal agendas tends to supercede common sense and good manners. The reason for the block is pretty obvious given your attitude and lack of repentance. JuJube (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So perhaps I'm missing something, but the block's expired now. If Koalorka stops the unconstructive editing they've been doing recently, and nobody else has any other major concerns, can't this section just drift into history? — alex.muller (talk • edits) 11:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't appreciate the ongoing insinuation of racism or Jewish Supremacy, which are of course false, on the part of Koalorka. Does he have a license to employ these comments which border on hate speech? El_C 11:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

To me, it's a major concern, Alex.muller. Maybe if you too were on the receiving end of such epithets, you'd also view it as such. El_C 11:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These are merely my observations. It could all be coincidental but certainly does not help with impartiality. Not that I particularly care or wish to inflame the matter further. Koalorka (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Those are not observations, they are provocations. El_C 11:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User Koalor you talking Flame and Provocation, but the only one I see doing it is you. So take a Chill and stay WP:COOL Igor Berger (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm very cool, thank you for the concern. But if you haven't noticed, I'm the only one that was blocked in a punitive way for challenging some controversial views. Koalorka (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So what! I've been blocked unfairly as well. Life goes on. Time to move on! Igor Berger (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not an unfair block. User was warned not call Yahel Guhan a racist, but responded to the warning by repeating the insult against her. A 24 hour block for this conduct is mild. El_C 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That of course is your opinion. Regards. Koalorka (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Any further observations of "anti-white bigotry," "semitic persuasion," "Jewish supremacy." etc., and you'll be blocked without warning. El_C 11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"These are merely my observations... Not that I particularly care or wish to inflame the matter further." - if that's the case, I strongly suggest that you keep such "observations" to yourself. WP:NPA is clear - "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Wikipedia is a collaboration, and that means we welcome users from all walks of life and with all sorts of political views. You were blocked for making a personal attack and any other administrator would have done the same; El_C's political views are irrelevant. Waggers (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. I just hope it weren't the admins political views that brought upon such a quick and severe reponse in my case. Koalorka (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was far from severe considering the gravity of the offense. El_C 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Enough! Comment on content not on commentator! Igor Berger (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Too me it was considering I've never been blocked. Anyway, we're about done here. Lessons learned, no Jewish conspiracies etc, let's all get back to editing our areas of expertise. Koalorka (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That dosen't matter, you were warned and you deliberately kept going. 24 hours is a standard duration. El_C 11:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

24 hours is quite usual for a first block, and you were warned in advance. Given the highly insulting and inflammatory nature of your comments, you were quite lucky a) not to have been blocked immediately and without warning, and b) not to receive a longer block after ignoring that warning. Any further nasty comments or speculation about another editor's race, religion, or motivations will draw much longer blocks without further warnings. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single purpose account involved in edit wars and racism accusations

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinitely. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Donchev (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Please take a look at this one. This is clear a SPA that accused accused me and other editors of racism. The only purpose of this account is edit warring census numbers and add wrong numbers on Romanians page. If you can't outright ban this kind of persons at least they need a slap on the wrist. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I bring source from important American journal that say that up to 2 million Roma declare Romanians and he not accept it. However he put Moldovanians as Romanian, even when Moldovanians didn't say Romanian in census. This is double standard, and can be explained only of racist to Roma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donchev (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Indefblocked. ~ Riana ⁂ 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Donchev, the article Romanians is about the Romanians, not the Roma people. Cocerning the Roma people, see this article with cenus data and estimations. If you say that some Roma from Romania declade themselves Romanians, than I can say the same thing about the Roma from Bulgaria who declare "Bulgarians", the Roma from Hungary who declare "Hungarians", the Roma from Russia who declar "Russians" , the Roma from Slovakia who declare "Slovakians"etc. Would you dare to modify those articles too? Besides, I already explaned in your talk page that some Roma from Romania also declare "Hungarians" (in Transylvania) and "Turks"(in Dobroudja). --Olahus (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Safavid dynasty, baboons, etc.

Resolved

Can someone please, address these edit comments: [78], [79], [80]. A new contributor Azerbaboon (talk · contribs · logs · block log) continues making reverts, assaulting an ethnicity in his edit comments, calling people as baboons, and removing a link to spelling in the language. Also, here [81], [82], [83] are the links of anonymous IP vandalizing Azerbaijan page, calling same Azeris as baboons or their language as baboon language back in November.

Interestingly, there is another frequent user of baboon word [84], [85], who was a party involved in first Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case and was placed under supervision per second Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom. So perhaps, a little investigation in regards to violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL may be necessary. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with whatever's causing these conflicts, but the edit summaries are unacceptable, this Azerguy is obviously here to make noise and should be indef blocked immediately. JuJube (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this Azerbaboon person is apparently not Tigran. So nothing doing there. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadly Nightshade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – There is no need for administrator action, please discuss differences via the article talk page.Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deadly nightshade is under article probation under Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation

There was near unanimous agreement that the insertion of a {{content}} tag near the disputed content (either with its insertion or removal) was appropriate - see Talk:Deadly_nightshade#Stop_editwarring. User:TheDoctorIsIn removed the tag in this edit (in addition to reinserting the content). Additionally, he was directly incivil to ScienceApologist in this edit, for everyones information. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't know. Please check his talk page to see the discussion prior to the above comment. Anthon01 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He did not know about to probation, so he cannot be banned under it. He was aware that he needed to be civil and avoid edit warring, and that he should abide by talk page consensus (regarding the {{content}} tag. He can be subjected to editing restrictions, such as 1rr, or prohibited from removing dispute tags on articles. He can be blocked untill such time as he pledges to be civil. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding edit warring, he was not aware, and if anything, should be given a warning and no further restriction. Lets warn him and let him absorb what has happened yesterday and over the past week. He hasn't been around these pages in the past few days at least. Anthon01 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I did research and found that Scienceapologist reverted after the banner thing went up. . . why is Poupontoast coming down on me. . . a first time editor of this article. . . but giving Scienceapologist a free pass? Is not Scienceapologist subject to the same restrictions. . . even moreso because of his prior editwars on this article? It is unfair for Poupontoast to put me through the ringer and turn a blind eye to Scienceapologist.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SA did not remove the content tag or call you "stubborn." In the event he does so, I'll report him here as well. PouponOnToast (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

SA removed content in an editwar which is what this whole dispute is about.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you intend to reinsert the {{content}} tag or remove your personal attack calling SA "stubborn?" PouponOnToast (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to as Orangemarlin just reverted. . . I guess you will be warning him and posting a message here about his editwarring too. TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC) And like Scienceapologist, Orangemarlin has engaged in editwarring on this article recently. . . for me the one edit was my 1st edit ever on this article. . . It is unfair for you to come down on me while turning a deaf ear to those who are on your side of this debate.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope. He didn't remove the content tag or call anyone "stubborn." I could care less what the article looks like as long as individuals are directed at the talk page at the relevent point and people are civil to each other. Have you considered apologizing for "stubborn?" PouponOnToast (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have apologized already. . . I thought this whole thing was about editwarring. . . So I can revert their unjustified revert of my justified revert and it would be justified?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Others might take issue. I could care less as long as you retain the {{content}} tag. PouponOnToast (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bomb threat on HS page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Thanks everyone - Bearian (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this is most likely silly vandalism, but I figured this need to be brought to the admin's attention. Please see the link here [86] post by User:F33ZY on the Niagara Falls High School page. In a case like this, revert, block, ignore, or bring this up as a possible threat? I'd like to know for further reference if I come across something like this in the future. --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildthing61476 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess at revert immediately, definitely warn the user, and probably wise to bring it up here for good measure, though I've never seen a case exactly like this before. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh I swore I signed that page, sorry about that! Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an explicit threat of bodily harm. It MUST be reported to the school and local police immediately. Please take this EXTREME seriousness. Bstone (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry my sarcasm meter just broke on that one :) Figured I'd just play it safe, you know? Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Report it, to be sure. Best case is some idiot gets a visit from the police and never does it again - Alison ^❤ 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's almost certainly just kids being idiots, but if I were that school's principal, I'd still want to know about it. -- Vary | Talk 19:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you need it - their site seems down, but phone number and address are here. Maybe best if someone in the US does it rather than me... — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

← Calling now ... - Alison ^❤ 19:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see how they handle this one. Let us know. Rarelibra (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I spoke with the principal and am preparing an email here with the blurb. Needless to say, they're not impressed at all and are considering the matter with the appropriate gravity. Suggest we now close this issue as we're largely done here now - Alison ^❤ 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. I'd give you a barnstar if there was one for this situation. Bstone (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have released IP information to the school principal per privacy policy, having checked with WMF legal - Alison ^❤ 20:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Milena Roucka

Resolved

Would an administrator be willing to tell me why this article has been fully-protected? It's listed under depreciating titles, and told me to come here. Thanks! Icestorm815 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No idea if this person would now be considered notable, but the page(s) have been deleted 8 times. Deletion discussions are here and here. --Onorem♠Dil 20:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Morgan Wright

User:Morgan Wright has engaged in continued personal attacks despite warnings. Examples include calling another editor "a loathsome individual" and an "ass". But the latest offense severely crosses the line in which he tells a fellow editor to "take out a 45 magnum and drain your Circle of Willis". I think this latter attack is particularly egregious and warrants a permanent block. He has been blocked several times already in the past. --MPerel 01:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are serious civility issues here, including allegations of others being socks, insults, borderline vulgarity, not assuming good faith, etc. I think a cooling off period is in order. Bstone (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User:Morgan Wright for one week for the above talk comments. I did this prior to seeing this discussion. If anyone disagrees with my action or feels an indef is in order, I won't object. Vsmith (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I am not a neutral party in the matter, I think that essentially telling another user to go kill himself is hostile enough to merit an indefinite block. After all, that would be the case should he have made a direct threat.--Veritas (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a neutral party, and a read through of User:Morgan Wright's recent interactions leads me to support an indefblock as well. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Support a long-term block, will not oppose indef. Editor seems to completely disregard WP:CIVIL. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just blocked ip 70.18.13.53 as obvious sock, see User talk:70.18.13.53 - editor was continuing his accusations/harassment there. Vsmith (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just reblocked w/ indef per above comments and ip sock abuse. Vsmith (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Note he is editing again under the ip 67.189.204.157 (talk · contribs). --Veritas (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mole a-whacked by Black Kite. -- llywrch (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Johntex lying once again

A while ago, I made some edits that Johntex didn't like, and so instead of trying to resolve it on the article discussion page, he posted a wildly dishonest complaint in which he resorted to outright lying about me to get me blocked from editing the page for a month (his initial goal being to get me completely banned). I continued to be outraged at his behavior and the fact that he remains completely unpunished for his behavior, and posted complaints on his talk page. Once again, rather than trying to resolve it, he went here to lie about me in his continued belief that anyone who annoys him should be banned. And yet again, he posted numerous lies:

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. As explained above, the claim that there was no provocation whatsoever is an outright lie.

I have never posted lies about him. Another lie.

I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations. He declined to do so. Another lie. I pointed out that I had provided him with the diffs over and OVER again, and each time he simply lied and said that they don't say what he said they clearly said.

Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack. Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page. I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it. I discussed the charge on my talk page. And Johntes's recounting is dishonest, as it implies that my reposting the attack happened after Wizardman's warning, when in fact it happened before.

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. Mischief? Insisting that liars be punished is "miscief"? What kind of world do we live in?

He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation. Yes, on the basis of the very lies that are the issue here.

I don't think I have any any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. Abandoned after several weeks went by without any mediator stepping forward (and after Johntex engaged in behavior in blatant violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF).

His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. After several years, with me not deleting anything, there are now several instances of people disagreeing with me. And...?

I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? I ask whether this is not a clear threat and an instance of Johntex's bullying.

To top it off, another admin came along and blocked me only a few hours after Johtex's request, meaning that I had no opportunity to address the charges.Heqwm (talk) 07:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The total lack of evidence (permanent links) in this heatedly-worded (to use an understatement) notice renders it rather unintelligible to me. El_C 08:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

After a cursory look at the situation, it seems to me that your behavior on his talk page was pretty clearly unacceptable, and that a lot of your editing could be classified as tendentious. My advice to you would be to stop using edit summaries like "dishonesty", "perjury", and "Please don't post lies in edit summaries.", to try to engage in discussion on articles' talk pages before making changes that could be seen as POV by outside observers, and to stop poking this particular anthill with Johntex. If you don't do these things, you could very easily wind up with that indef block you're apparently worried about. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Heqwm is coming off a two-day block for making personal attacks. Specifically, he was accusing me of lying. I find it incredible that he resorts to the same behavior. Here is the post I made to WP:ANI that led to Heqwm being blocked for 2 days:

I request Heqwm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be blocked indefinitely for repeated personal attacks and disruption.

5 days ago, with no provocation whatsoever, Heqwm made a personal attack against me on my talk page. He awarded me what he called an "anti-barnstar" and accused me of "maliciously writing outright lies about" him.[87] I have not had any interactions with Heqwm for many months, and I have never posted lies about him. I left him a message on his talk page asking him to provide diffs to back up his allegations.[88] He declined to do so.[89] Wizardman warned Heqwm that this was a personal attack.[90] Heqwm repeated his personal attack on his own talk page.[91] I removed the "anti-barnstar" and personal attack from my talk page, but Heqwm re-added it.[92]

Heqwm has been at this mischief for a long time. I warned him about personal attacks more than a year ago.[93] He has been warned by other users as well, and has been placed on a form of community probation.[94] I don't think I have had any interaction with him since then, so I can only assume he is still upset about being put on probation, or about the related mediation case which he filed and then abandoned. In my statement at the arbitration, I provide plenty more diffs to spell out Heqwm's disruption. I certainly have not had any interaction with him for several months.

I believe the above diffs show clearly that Heqwm has made repeated personal attacks without any sort of provocation. His talk page history is littered with controversy and conflict with many other editors on many topics. I ask whether Heqwm has exhausted the community's patience? ( 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC) )

I request that Heqwm again be blocked for posting unsubstantiated personal attacks where he accuses me of lying. Johntex\^talk 16:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sanity check on a related issue: Is this edit a violation of Gp75motorsports's topic ban (as detailed here)? Kind of seems that way to me... he's basically asking Heqwm to act as his proxy on ANI, which is one of the pages he's not allowed to edit. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, and I have reverted it, and gave an only warning to Gp75motorsports on the issue of proxying. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresenting references / original research, leading to revert war

I'm exasperated and angry, so perhaps an Admin could explain the BLP policy better than I can. Should be self explanatory - User_talk:Trident13#Vicki_Butler-Henderson. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your exasperation and frustration. However User:Trident13 hasn't edited since the samll hours of last night (WP time) and therefore will not have seen the reply you have posted to his talk page. This is not an unwillingness to do anything at present, but it seems better to follow the process of explaining WP:BLP and trusting that Trident13 will now follow it. It might be better to wait until he responds to your detailed analysis before any intervention is required. If it is, then your first stop might be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard before ANI. Pedro :  Chat  13:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note, but the previous analysis of the BLP concerns seems to be quite thorough. We need a source that actually says "engaged", and blogs are a no-go. Now, if they can find a source that works, they can absolutely re-add that material, and there is evidence (blogs) that suggest the fact itself may be accurate (in re: the engagement). Didn't catch the timestamps until you pointed them out, Pedro - but, if there's conflict between Trident and Daytona2, maybe an uninvolved opinion will calm things a bit, maybe? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It might do, but it might exasperateexacerbate it is my only concern. User:Daytona2 seems to be managing to stay clam in a situation he's clearly exasparated with, so hopefully Trident will read the note, see this thread, learn about WP:BLP and all will be good. I don't think Tridents actions have been bad faith, just against policy. (I'm chock full of WP:AGF today !!) Pedro :  Chat  13:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exacerbate it, you mean? :p Neıl ☎ 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Zigacally! :) Pedro :  Chat  13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help guys :-) -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 23:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ban of Profg

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

Goo2you (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Checkuser Raul654 blocked Goo2you with the note that Goo2you is a sock of Profg. As Goo2you has edited in ways to violate the terms of Profg's probation and, for that matter, Goo2you has edited while Profg has been blocked, I have reversed my own action of giving Profg a second chance and reimposed an indefinite block. As in all cases, if no admin is willing to overturn that block, it is a community ban. --B (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• How unfortunate. I agree with your actions. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. I had much higher hopes for profg. Darn :( --Filll (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I and B have known since early December that Profg has alternative accounts. Unfortunately, I don't know what the alternative accounts are. I don't really see a viable alternative at this time, nor any way to identify the other accounts. GRBerry 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

His claim (obviously false) was that he was abiding by the terms of his probation and only using his alternate account(s) for unrelated issues. Our overly protective checkuser policy being what it is, simply knowing he was using alternate account(s) was not sufficient cause for a checkuser to run a check. Presumably, if there are other alternate accounts, Raul would have found them? One of the things that really irks me about our checkuser process is that you have to ask exactly the right question or you don't get an answer. I ask if U₀ and U₁ are socks and the answer is no, but the checkuser doesn't feel it worth mentioning that U₀ is really a sockpuppet of banned user U₂. Even now, we obviously have cause to believe there is another sock out there, but if we ask for a checkuser, we'll get the cute little fishing icon. (Rant off.) --B (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Might be Fairchoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who I just blocked for tendentious editing and failing to take note of numerous attempts to steer him away form being a disruptive influence. Or it might not. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, Fairchoice has been unblocked unilaterally by Archtransit. There's a shocker. — Satori Son 21:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If he wants to take on the task of watching the editor's future behaviour then fine. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not - or at least not all. "known since early December", and probably accounts contributing well before then. GRBerry 21:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Please send this to Request for checkuser if there is evidence that they may be the same. Goo2you has edited recently, and Profg was editing within the last month. I do not know why Archtransit did that unblock. Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg. --B (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • FYI, Fairchoice came back  Unlikely to be Profg. --B (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Facts are friends. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not sure what you mean ... I'm just posting the results of the checkuser. I'm assuming (though obviously don't know) that they got "unlikely" as opposed to "unrelated" because they are from the same geographic region but different ISPs. That definitely doesn't disprove him being a sock, but considering that his registration was right after Profg's call for meatpuppets, it's just as likely that he's a meat puppet, not a sockpuppet. There's no way to completely disprove it - anonymous closed proxies are easy to come by if someone were so inclined. --B (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
          • The facts: Profg and Fairchoice don't use the same IP address; Fairchoice was already indeffed once, and still would be but for out-of-process unblocking; if Fairchoice returns to old editing pattern, they will be blocked again, and if they behave better they continue editing; Profg remains banned. It seems like no further action is possible here at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Martin Heiss spam

I deleted a lot of inappropriate spamming about Martin Heiss and tried to mark the article itself for speedy deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person with questionable claims. Does anyone know anything about Martin Heiss? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have a blog at http://redredstate.blogspot.com/2008/01/reading-lenin.html, but any other Google hits seem to be in German. Corvus cornix_talk 20:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Ottava Rima

An editor I reported here for 3RR violation is evading his block (scheduled to expire at 02:55) under one of the IPs he used to violate the 3RR yesterday, 136.242.32.174 (talk · contribs). The other, which he had been using at the time of the violation, was blocked for 24 hours along with the main account. He hasn't returned to the page he was blocked over yet (that was semi-protected) but has picked up a dispute on another article. Could an uninvolved admin take a look? -- Vary | Talk 21:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Large numbers of complex IP sock vandalism associated with the Elspeth Monro, Homer Slips., and Rastishka accounts

I don't really know how to present this, because it's pretty weird. But someone keeps vandalizing user pages and user talk pages under a series of IPs. Have a look through these links. This persons modus operandi is to add "suspected sockpuppet" tags to various user pages, or things like "The Proof!" (with links), and then include their signature as well.

[95] [96] [97] [98]

I would say, based on editing patterns alone, the following people are all the same person: The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs) Granola_lips (talk · contribs) 86.25.52.177 (talk · contribs) 86.29.240.170 (talk · contribs) (a huge number of other IPs in the same general range of 86.2x.xxx.xxx) Yardskins (talk · contribs)

The list goes on and on and on as you dig deeper and deeper. Hopefully someone has the time and patience to sort this all out. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On first inspection this was all from mid-December. Why is this a current problem? Those accounts on first glance are harmless... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand how obvious unblocked puppets and longterm IP sock abuse is harmless. I've only just started to notice this stuff. Why must a blatant vandal sock be reported instantly after the vandalism? It often takes a long period of time to notice the extent to which someone has vandalized. What's more, the The Lemmick unit in the sin (talk · contribs) account edited just a few days ago. However, if everyone would just like to let this person keep gaming the system and making a mess of talk pages, go ahead. I think I'm done trying to help this project by reporting socks. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They did a bunch of bizarre stuff there, yes. But all the edits by the lemmick account since Jan 1 are good edits (a lot got cleaned up or redirected later, but appear to be good faith and good content efforts). The evidence you've presented so far is one incident of multi-user, multi-IP sillyness (perhaps low grade vandalism, but nothing obvious that I spotted) - preceded and followed by good edits, as far as I can tell.

While the incident of sillyness / low grade vandalism is sort of a red flag, it's a small one. Yeah, it's a good idea to keep an eye on them. But with a history of good edits, we don't go stomping on people for a little sillyness here and there.

If there's more evidence somewhere in the edit histories, feel free to let us know. It's appropriate to look at all that and say "huh?" about it. But it's not the sort of stuff we typically act on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

personal attack by anon

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&diff=prev&oldid=188077260 <-- Read the edit summary Quack Guru 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's nothing really requiring admin attention just yet, I've warned the IP for making personal attacks. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This does appear to be a static IP and a repeat offender - it looks like I blocked it a while back for "outing" an editor on chiropractic articles - so I think if the Ryan's warning doesn't get the message across we should do something. MastCell ^Talk 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR report ignored and violator rewarded

I want to protest against the action of some adminstrators: I filed a 3RR-report against an editor who had clearly violated the rule by reverting six times (and behaved like the article's OWNer to two other editors, me included).

What do adminstrators do? First an admin protects the page, safeguarding the violator's version against any further changes. The same admin then recuses himself. Then, after seventeen hour of inactivity, another admin declares that no further action would be taken as "the edit war has been stopped". Sure it has been stopped since the violator's version is endorsed via protection and discussion is getting nowhere anyway because of the violator's OWN attitude, now interspersed with personal attacks.

This is a either travesty of justice or a sick joke. Revert warriors and violators of rules get rewarded, their POV pushing gets supported in the process. I know I am supposed to AGF but I can't help myself of detecting favoritism in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content of your complaint, but I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: Phillipe stated "...I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue", however, he did not state that he was recusing himself from discussing the case or protecting the article. nat.utoronto 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it means endorsing the version when the page is protected (which nobody asked for) while ignoring the actual complaint. The perpetrator of the violation must feel that his actions are approved of as he has his way.

I can think of no justification for recusing as it was as a clear violation if there ever was one. I also can think of no justification for this taking 17 hours. Also, I don't know how someone can recuse himself from the requested (and required) action while meddling in favour of the culprit. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your humble opinion is in direct opposition to wikipedia policy, and obviously is based on you being upset the edit war has degenerated to the point where an admin has to lock down the page. I'd suggest you read m:The Wrong Version. As for this taking 17 hours to fix, perhaps if the admins didn't have to put up with a constant barrage of pointless whining and groundless accusations of bias, they could actually get to sorting through the article. Relax, this'll be settled eventually. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, Snowfire, the last thing I need is to be told about "The wrong version" for the umpteenth time. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you still haven't read it and understood it. When you edit war to the point of getting an admin to shut things down, there's roughly a 50% chance it'll be on m:The Wrong Version, as far as you're concerned. Those are the breaks. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As Aecis already stated "I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version." nat.utoronto 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. The problem is the combination of this with the unwillingness to even acknowledge the wrongdoing on Benji's part, either by himself or - more importantly - by the admins. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would have been nice if someone had notified me of this thread. As Nat pointed out, I recused from blocks because I had previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party. I wanted to avoid a charge of impropriety. I also thought it critical to stabilize a high-traffic article, so I protected the page on the version that was there when I got there, in keeping with policy. Str's complaint - which I've now heard over and over - seems to be that I protected the wrong version (which he's been told about several times) or that I should have acted and blocked the other user. I felt that inappropriate. I stand by all my actions. While I appreciated that Str came to my talk page to ask about it, I am disheartened that he came here - without notifying me - when he didn't like the response that I gave to him and another person (presumably arguing on his behest).

To summarize, I stand by all my actions, and invite review. By the way - this is now the second time that I've been accused of either favoritism or advancing my own agenda on that page, which I find puzzling because - to the best of my recollection - I've never edited that page. I think by "favoritism", Str means "not deciding in my favor". - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not informing you but things were pretty heated down here. And originally I came here to protest the whole situation.

Again, let me state that the other editor approached you without my doing, I only heard about this now. But of course, since he was concerned about the same issue it is natural that he or she would ask as well.

The problem is that you did not stay away from the case entirely if you thought yourself unfit to take care of it. The problem is not the "wrong version" (indeed I have been told that cliche way too often) but you protected it and went away and another admin, after 17 hours, thought: "well, this looks sorted out so no more is needed" - well nothing was sorted out.

By "favouritism" I meant that the reason that kept you from seeing this 3RR report through, your "previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party", could be the reason why you protected the page. This was merely a gut feeling expressed and I AGF enough not to make any further claims about this as it would be speculation. You would have avoided it by either remaining aloof completely or seeing the case through. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe I've explained my actions sufficiently, and I'm going to walk away at this point, unless anyone has any new issues to raise. As before, I welcome review of my actions from uninvolved administrators. - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please address this comment. I'm tired of being publicly accused of lying, slandering, called a "violator" (from above), "perpetrator", a "culprit", a "mudslinger" and numerous claims of personal attacking editors and attacking their religion. I feel any NPA and civility warnings I give will have very little effect but the comments do need responding to. Thank you. Benjiboi 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The insults are tedious, tiresome, and frankly, ridiculous. I slogged through a ton of the diffs and edits, and Benjiboi keeps preserving actual quotes from Rosie O'Donell, subject of the article in question, while Str1977 objects to Rosie's characterization of some Catholic priests as 'pedophiles', preferring, apparently, to use 'ephebophile', a far more obscure term which offers all sorts of opportunity to make it seem not so bad. Instead of arguing this material on the scandal's article (he may be, I didn't check), instead, Str1977 has chosen to push his POV whitewashing onto the O'Donell article by redacting and/or removing her actual spoken quotes to forms more in line with his view of the situation. This, of course, is not in keeping with any number of our policies. I also find it interesting that when STR is in dagner of hitting 3RR, Mamajulo shows up to carry on the fight. Clearly this was coordinated. Further, I note that as STR and Mamajulo kept hammering at this, they began to revert out other edits Benjiboi had made to the page, no doubt intentionally escalating the situation by attacking all of Benjiboi's efforts to improve the page. I note that benjiboi did in fact invite talk page discussion, which str1977 did not initiate till much later.

TO sum it up: I think Str1977 and Mamajulo coordinated an escalating set of reverts designed to piss off Benjiboi, make him less rational about the issue, and guarantee he'd revert over the 3 limit. Their intent was to remove him from the page long enough to establish their version on the page; a version which redacted actual verbatim statements by RO'D to fit their POV, which is highly PRO-Catholicism, and anyone who speaks agaisnt the catholic church is a troublemaker. Their behavior is reprehensible, and for such a level of baiting, any blocks given to Benjiboi should be equally handed out to the other two. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't see this as a coordinated effort as Mamalujo regularly removes material seen as anti-Catholic and regularly adds equally slanted material against those they see as anti-Catholic on many articles. I also don't think we can infer intent except that it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section, I still disagree as O'Donnell is quite outspoken about this issue and the material is well sourced. I've even found more while responding to Str1977 circular arguments on the talk page of the article. Also it was Mamalujo only ,as far as I could see, who was citing 'ephebophile'. Regardless I would like someone else to address this comment as it is yet another in a string of civility violations and I doubt anything I write would be taken to heart by Str1977. Benjiboi 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The comment is just the latest and most-public one not the worst. Benjiboi 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(in edit conflict:)

And I am quite sick and tired of all the bad faith assumed towards me while Benjiboi - who has violated the 3RR after all, even if he denies it and admins are doing nothing to stop him - can post all the insulting nonsense (* see the asterisk below) he wants.

I have no contact whatsoever with the other editor. I didn't even know he existed before he showed up on Rosie O'Donnel. I guess this bad faith accusation is a way out for those who wish to hide the fact that Benjiboi reverted six times or who want to somehow justified that no action has been taken.

The accusation is even more laughable given the fact that Benji in one of his earlier reverts in effect deleted a section-tag I placed. I informed him of that, that it was against the rules and that I assumed good faith that it was an accident (as he reverted the other editor who removed the tag along with the reason for - Benji reverted to the disputed version but without the tag). My good faith was confirmed at least in this case as he has never touched this tag again. The point is: if I wanted to set up Benji why would I assume good faith.

As for the "quotes": I never said that Benjiboi's version was not something one could legitimately advocate. In other words: one may well quote the actual word Rosie used (and about whether to include the 2nd quote there is actually no dispute, only about the introduction.) HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal"). And it is not illegitimate to inform the reader that Rosie's take that Ratzinger was in charge in 80s is inaccurate - without laying the blame on either Rosie or the filmmakers or anyone else.

NOW, we have to legitimate versions and three editors disagreeing about that. And yes, this led to an editwar. Happens thousands of times each day on WP. However, why does one editor get a pass for violating the 3RR big time?

As for inviting discussion. Benji did nothing of the sort. All he did was blanket revert with edit summaries along the line of "Don't change quotes". First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no). Second of all, it was I, already bothered by his repeated lack of discussion, that first initiated the discussion on the talk page. Finally, Benji seems to be of the impression that he has to approve of changes and those that fail in this must make their case on talk. That's only half-true: he has to make his case on talk just as well. We are all just editors. And we must all stick to the rules. Benji violated them and gets away with it, even gets rewarded by the page protection.

Benji complained about being called a "slanderer" and "liar" - actually I didn't call him that (only a violator - of the 3RR). I said he propagates slander by endorsing Rosie's comments. I said he issues false statements (not necessarily lies, I cannot know whether he actually knows about the falsehood) about my "changing of quotes" when I did nothing of the sort.

And around the time I reported him he started making an issue of mine and the other editor's religion (*), which is is no way to behave. I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either. And he makes questionable sugestions like "I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests.", as if anyone denied that some priests were involved in pedophilia (though it would be more accurate to call it ephebophilia) and if such a countering source would be needed to write the article in balanced, NPOV fashion. Less nonsensical but still not acceptable is his call for a source that Ratzinger was not in charge (thus validating the caveat on Rosie's comment) - as if there weren't already a source included that references along with Rosie's comments exactly this.

Finally, I do apologizes for filling up all this space here. The content dispute should be at the article's talk page and not here. However, since Benji now wants to turn me into the culprit I was forced to tell the whole story. As everyone can see, there is a legitimate dispute between him and me. I don't see how he is allowed to break the rules for that.

What I criticized here is not so much Benji's behaviour (nothing unusual on WP, expect maybe for his resilience in POV pushing and OWNership) but the behaviour of the admins that either did nothing or even rewarded the violation of the rules.

Thanks for your patience, Str1977 ^(talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, in fact, everything wrong about altering a quotation to fit your POV. You admit to doing it, you continue to feel that changing history to suit you is acceptable, and it simply is NOT acceptable. You cannot change Rosie's spoken words to fit your POV.

I quote you from above: "HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal")" and then you say "First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no)". There's a massive contradiction within your own statements. Finally, the diffs at the 3rr clearly show that you WERE changing her words. Here's just one diff where you changed her directly quoted words. a 'no-no' by your own words. As for the level of coordination, it's true I cant' prove that there was active collusion, but the timing is certainly suspect. It is possible that Mamajulo just decided it would be a good idea to continue Str1977's efforts, but even so, that's a bad faith act, not thoroughly dissimilar to meatpuppetry. ThuranX (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A final note: "I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either" except when you do. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, stop levelling unwarranted accusations against me:

1) I did not alter a quotation - in the first I did change the text from a one word quote to more indirect rendering, in the second I changed an introduction. I did in no way change a quote. It has nothing to do with POV. The diffs cannot show what I have not done so drop this issue. Everyone can see that I did not lay words into ROD's mouth.

2) "The timing is suspect." Stop the bad faith. I have nothing to do with the other editor.

3) I did not make Benji's homosexuality an issue and I will not make it an issue. It is telling that here you cannot even provide a diff where I supposedly made it an issue. In any case, he has certainly no business in making my religion an isuse.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But you DID change her words. In the diff I referenced above, and repost here, you did change her statement: "O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" into "she falsely stated "that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" (relevant emphasis added). That's the problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benji but you are still on the same bad faith road as Thuran above (though I do appreciate it that you don't go as far as him with the accusations). I obviously can't say anything in regard to other editor. As for my intentions: "it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section" - this is ridiculous. Pedophilia is a sexual act or desire oriented at prepubertal boys or girls. Ephebophilia is the same oriented as those in puberty. In everyday's language, the terms are usually blurred, with pedophilia being used (and that's why I do not blame Rosie for using the term - the issue is: do we need to copy her exact word.) Child abuse is the sexual abuse of children given into someone's care. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. The obvious problem is that priests unfortunately abused children, no matter what the underlying psychological condition may be. I cannot see how replacing "pedophilia" with "child abuse" can be interpreted as wanting to obscure pedophilia. I will address the comment Benji criticized in a minute. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, since Benji brought this up:

I made the comment in the heat of the debate when he brought up what I believe are irrational demands.

The dispute comment by ROD is the claim that Ratzinger was in charge throughout the 80s and 90s. Fact is, he was put in charge as the whole abuse scandal errupted, in 2002. He was put in charge exactly because of the failure of the bishops. These are undisputable facts. Benji however - against his protestations that he doesn't want to endorse ROD's view - keeps on posting things intented to prove her right. (And note: the point was never that ROD herself produced the false information - she may have done that or she may just have parroted the film.) Also a factor in my comment were Benji's repeated, IMHO nonsensical demand that I prove that there's no pedophilia among priests, something I never claimed or would claim.

That's my explanation for why I wrote that and I uphold these reasons. However, I know that these comments - made in the heat of the discussion and my frustration with the admin's failure to act - were unhelpful to the discussion. For which I am sorry. I hope that Benji may also acknowledge his errors and assume a more cooperative approach. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR report ignored and violator rewarded

I want to protest against the action of some adminstrators: I filed a 3RR-report against an editor who had clearly violated the rule by reverting six times (and behaved like the article's OWNer to two other editors, me included).

What do adminstrators do? First an admin protects the page, safeguarding the violator's version against any further changes. The same admin then recuses himself. Then, after seventeen hour of inactivity, another admin declares that no further action would be taken as "the edit war has been stopped". Sure it has been stopped since the violator's version is endorsed via protection and discussion is getting nowhere anyway because of the violator's OWN attitude, now interspersed with personal attacks.

This is a either travesty of justice or a sick joke. Revert warriors and violators of rules get rewarded, their POV pushing gets supported in the process. I know I am supposed to AGF but I can't help myself of detecting favoritism in there. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content of your complaint, but I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version. Aecis^Brievenbus 11:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify something: Phillipe stated "...I am recusing myself from blocks on this issue", however, he did not state that he was recusing himself from discussing the case or protecting the article. nat.utoronto 11:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it means endorsing the version when the page is protected (which nobody asked for) while ignoring the actual complaint. The perpetrator of the violation must feel that his actions are approved of as he has his way.

I can think of no justification for recusing as it was as a clear violation if there ever was one. I also can think of no justification for this taking 17 hours. Also, I don't know how someone can recuse himself from the requested (and required) action while meddling in favour of the culprit. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your humble opinion is in direct opposition to wikipedia policy, and obviously is based on you being upset the edit war has degenerated to the point where an admin has to lock down the page. I'd suggest you read m:The Wrong Version. As for this taking 17 hours to fix, perhaps if the admins didn't have to put up with a constant barrage of pointless whining and groundless accusations of bias, they could actually get to sorting through the article. Relax, this'll be settled eventually. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey look, Snowfire, the last thing I need is to be told about "The wrong version" for the umpteenth time. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you still haven't read it and understood it. When you edit war to the point of getting an admin to shut things down, there's roughly a 50% chance it'll be on m:The Wrong Version, as far as you're concerned. Those are the breaks. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As Aecis already stated "I would like to emphasize that protection of an article does not mean endorsement of the version the article happens to be on when the admin protects the article. Articles will always be protected on The Wrong Version." nat.utoronto 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that. The problem is the combination of this with the unwillingness to even acknowledge the wrongdoing on Benji's part, either by himself or - more importantly - by the admins. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee, it would have been nice if someone had notified me of this thread. As Nat pointed out, I recused from blocks because I had previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party. I wanted to avoid a charge of impropriety. I also thought it critical to stabilize a high-traffic article, so I protected the page on the version that was there when I got there, in keeping with policy. Str's complaint - which I've now heard over and over - seems to be that I protected the wrong version (which he's been told about several times) or that I should have acted and blocked the other user. I felt that inappropriate. I stand by all my actions. While I appreciated that Str came to my talk page to ask about it, I am disheartened that he came here - without notifying me - when he didn't like the response that I gave to him and another person (presumably arguing on his behest).

To summarize, I stand by all my actions, and invite review. By the way - this is now the second time that I've been accused of either favoritism or advancing my own agenda on that page, which I find puzzling because - to the best of my recollection - I've never edited that page. I think by "favoritism", Str means "not deciding in my favor". - Philippe | Talk 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not informing you but things were pretty heated down here. And originally I came here to protest the whole situation.

Again, let me state that the other editor approached you without my doing, I only heard about this now. But of course, since he was concerned about the same issue it is natural that he or she would ask as well.

The problem is that you did not stay away from the case entirely if you thought yourself unfit to take care of it. The problem is not the "wrong version" (indeed I have been told that cliche way too often) but you protected it and went away and another admin, after 17 hours, thought: "well, this looks sorted out so no more is needed" - well nothing was sorted out.

By "favouritism" I meant that the reason that kept you from seeing this 3RR report through, your "previous interactions (neither positive nor negative) with the other party", could be the reason why you protected the page. This was merely a gut feeling expressed and I AGF enough not to make any further claims about this as it would be speculation. You would have avoided it by either remaining aloof completely or seeing the case through. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe I've explained my actions sufficiently, and I'm going to walk away at this point, unless anyone has any new issues to raise. As before, I welcome review of my actions from uninvolved administrators. - Philippe | Talk 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Help please

Could someone please address this comment. I'm tired of being publicly accused of lying, slandering, called a "violator" (from above), "perpetrator", a "culprit", a "mudslinger" and numerous claims of personal attacking editors and attacking their religion. I feel any NPA and civility warnings I give will have very little effect but the comments do need responding to. Thank you. Benjiboi 14:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The insults are tedious, tiresome, and frankly, ridiculous. I slogged through a ton of the diffs and edits, and Benjiboi keeps preserving actual quotes from Rosie O'Donell, subject of the article in question, while Str1977 objects to Rosie's characterization of some Catholic priests as 'pedophiles', preferring, apparently, to use 'ephebophile', a far more obscure term which offers all sorts of opportunity to make it seem not so bad. Instead of arguing this material on the scandal's article (he may be, I didn't check), instead, Str1977 has chosen to push his POV whitewashing onto the O'Donell article by redacting and/or removing her actual spoken quotes to forms more in line with his view of the situation. This, of course, is not in keeping with any number of our policies. I also find it interesting that when STR is in dagner of hitting 3RR, Mamajulo shows up to carry on the fight. Clearly this was coordinated. Further, I note that as STR and Mamajulo kept hammering at this, they began to revert out other edits Benjiboi had made to the page, no doubt intentionally escalating the situation by attacking all of Benjiboi's efforts to improve the page. I note that benjiboi did in fact invite talk page discussion, which str1977 did not initiate till much later.

TO sum it up: I think Str1977 and Mamajulo coordinated an escalating set of reverts designed to piss off Benjiboi, make him less rational about the issue, and guarantee he'd revert over the 3 limit. Their intent was to remove him from the page long enough to establish their version on the page; a version which redacted actual verbatim statements by RO'D to fit their POV, which is highly PRO-Catholicism, and anyone who speaks agaisnt the catholic church is a troublemaker. Their behavior is reprehensible, and for such a level of baiting, any blocks given to Benjiboi should be equally handed out to the other two. ThuranX (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, I didn't see this as a coordinated effort as Mamalujo regularly removes material seen as anti-Catholic and regularly adds equally slanted material against those they see as anti-Catholic on many articles. I also don't think we can infer intent except that it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section, I still disagree as O'Donnell is quite outspoken about this issue and the material is well sourced. I've even found more while responding to Str1977 circular arguments on the talk page of the article. Also it was Mamalujo only ,as far as I could see, who was citing 'ephebophile'. Regardless I would like someone else to address this comment as it is yet another in a string of civility violations and I doubt anything I write would be taken to heart by Str1977. Benjiboi 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The comment is just the latest and most-public one not the worst. Benjiboi 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(in edit conflict:)

And I am quite sick and tired of all the bad faith assumed towards me while Benjiboi - who has violated the 3RR after all, even if he denies it and admins are doing nothing to stop him - can post all the insulting nonsense (* see the asterisk below) he wants.

I have no contact whatsoever with the other editor. I didn't even know he existed before he showed up on Rosie O'Donnel. I guess this bad faith accusation is a way out for those who wish to hide the fact that Benjiboi reverted six times or who want to somehow justified that no action has been taken.

The accusation is even more laughable given the fact that Benji in one of his earlier reverts in effect deleted a section-tag I placed. I informed him of that, that it was against the rules and that I assumed good faith that it was an accident (as he reverted the other editor who removed the tag along with the reason for - Benji reverted to the disputed version but without the tag). My good faith was confirmed at least in this case as he has never touched this tag again. The point is: if I wanted to set up Benji why would I assume good faith.

As for the "quotes": I never said that Benjiboi's version was not something one could legitimately advocate. In other words: one may well quote the actual word Rosie used (and about whether to include the 2nd quote there is actually no dispute, only about the introduction.) HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal"). And it is not illegitimate to inform the reader that Rosie's take that Ratzinger was in charge in 80s is inaccurate - without laying the blame on either Rosie or the filmmakers or anyone else.

NOW, we have to legitimate versions and three editors disagreeing about that. And yes, this led to an editwar. Happens thousands of times each day on WP. However, why does one editor get a pass for violating the 3RR big time?

As for inviting discussion. Benji did nothing of the sort. All he did was blanket revert with edit summaries along the line of "Don't change quotes". First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no). Second of all, it was I, already bothered by his repeated lack of discussion, that first initiated the discussion on the talk page. Finally, Benji seems to be of the impression that he has to approve of changes and those that fail in this must make their case on talk. That's only half-true: he has to make his case on talk just as well. We are all just editors. And we must all stick to the rules. Benji violated them and gets away with it, even gets rewarded by the page protection.

Benji complained about being called a "slanderer" and "liar" - actually I didn't call him that (only a violator - of the 3RR). I said he propagates slander by endorsing Rosie's comments. I said he issues false statements (not necessarily lies, I cannot know whether he actually knows about the falsehood) about my "changing of quotes" when I did nothing of the sort.

And around the time I reported him he started making an issue of mine and the other editor's religion (*), which is is no way to behave. I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either. And he makes questionable sugestions like "I will again state that I fully support qualifying these statements with a WP:RS that asserts that there was no pedophilia involved by Catholic priests.", as if anyone denied that some priests were involved in pedophilia (though it would be more accurate to call it ephebophilia) and if such a countering source would be needed to write the article in balanced, NPOV fashion. Less nonsensical but still not acceptable is his call for a source that Ratzinger was not in charge (thus validating the caveat on Rosie's comment) - as if there weren't already a source included that references along with Rosie's comments exactly this.

Finally, I do apologizes for filling up all this space here. The content dispute should be at the article's talk page and not here. However, since Benji now wants to turn me into the culprit I was forced to tell the whole story. As everyone can see, there is a legitimate dispute between him and me. I don't see how he is allowed to break the rules for that.

What I criticized here is not so much Benji's behaviour (nothing unusual on WP, expect maybe for his resilience in POV pushing and OWNership) but the behaviour of the admins that either did nothing or even rewarded the violation of the rules.

Thanks for your patience, Str1977 ^(talk) 17:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is, in fact, everything wrong about altering a quotation to fit your POV. You admit to doing it, you continue to feel that changing history to suit you is acceptable, and it simply is NOT acceptable. You cannot change Rosie's spoken words to fit your POV.

I quote you from above: "HOWEVER, it is just as legitimate to not quote the actual word for reasons of accuracy (writing child abuse scandal instead of the quoted "pedophile scandal")" and then you say "First of all, no quotes were changed (that would indeed be a no-no)". There's a massive contradiction within your own statements. Finally, the diffs at the 3rr clearly show that you WERE changing her words. Here's just one diff where you changed her directly quoted words. a 'no-no' by your own words. As for the level of coordination, it's true I cant' prove that there was active collusion, but the timing is certainly suspect. It is possible that Mamajulo just decided it would be a good idea to continue Str1977's efforts, but even so, that's a bad faith act, not thoroughly dissimilar to meatpuppetry. ThuranX (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A final note: "I do not make Benji's homosexuality an issue either" except when you do. ThuranX (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, stop levelling unwarranted accusations against me:

1) I did not alter a quotation - in the first I did change the text from a one word quote to more indirect rendering, in the second I changed an introduction. I did in no way change a quote. It has nothing to do with POV. The diffs cannot show what I have not done so drop this issue. Everyone can see that I did not lay words into ROD's mouth.

2) "The timing is suspect." Stop the bad faith. I have nothing to do with the other editor.

3) I did not make Benji's homosexuality an issue and I will not make it an issue. It is telling that here you cannot even provide a diff where I supposedly made it an issue. In any case, he has certainly no business in making my religion an isuse.

Str1977 ^(talk) 23:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But you DID change her words. In the diff I referenced above, and repost here, you did change her statement: "O'Donnell said "the most interesting thing about Deliver Us from Evil (is) that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of pedophilia in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" into "she falsely stated "that the person who was in charge of investigating all the allegations of child sexual abuse in the Catholic church from the ‘80s until just recently was guess who? The current pope."" (relevant emphasis added). That's the problem here. ThuranX (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Benji but you are still on the same bad faith road as Thuran above (though I do appreciate it that you don't go as far as him with the accusations). I obviously can't say anything in regard to other editor. As for my intentions: "it was obviously to remove any association of pedophile from the Catholic Church section" - this is ridiculous. Pedophilia is a sexual act or desire oriented at prepubertal boys or girls. Ephebophilia is the same oriented as those in puberty. In everyday's language, the terms are usually blurred, with pedophilia being used (and that's why I do not blame Rosie for using the term - the issue is: do we need to copy her exact word.) Child abuse is the sexual abuse of children given into someone's care. It is a crime and should be prosecuted as such. The obvious problem is that priests unfortunately abused children, no matter what the underlying psychological condition may be. I cannot see how replacing "pedophilia" with "child abuse" can be interpreted as wanting to obscure pedophilia. I will address the comment Benji criticized in a minute. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, since Benji brought this up:

I made the comment in the heat of the debate when he brought up what I believe are irrational demands.

The dispute comment by ROD is the claim that Ratzinger was in charge throughout the 80s and 90s. Fact is, he was put in charge as the whole abuse scandal errupted, in 2002. He was put in charge exactly because of the failure of the bishops. These are undisputable facts. Benji however - against his protestations that he doesn't want to endorse ROD's view - keeps on posting things intented to prove her right. (And note: the point was never that ROD herself produced the false information - she may have done that or she may just have parroted the film.) Also a factor in my comment were Benji's repeated, IMHO nonsensical demand that I prove that there's no pedophilia among priests, something I never claimed or would claim.

That's my explanation for why I wrote that and I uphold these reasons. However, I know that these comments - made in the heat of the discussion and my frustration with the admin's failure to act - were unhelpful to the discussion. For which I am sorry. I hope that Benji may also acknowledge his errors and assume a more cooperative approach. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)