Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

A touch of canvassing[edit]

Perhaps someone might be kind enough to have a tactful word with user:Allstarecho about canvassing, and also point out that yes we do delete biographies where the subject expresses a clear preference for not having an article, if the subject is of marginal notability (e.g. a not terribly significant musician with a part in one indie film). Guy (Help!) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean edits such as this? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, that and a bundle of others; they all came along to !vote Keep. Which is fine as it goes, but as I say, canvassing is not really encouraged. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the word has been had, check his talkpage (also, I think the note was posted before this thread). Avruchtalk 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me state, for the 3rd time (2 in other places) that I was not canvassing. I was notifying people who have particpated on the articles talk page in the past. What should be reported here is that you removed content while the article is under protection and then nommed the article for deletion. And thanks for letting me know I was being discussed here. - ALLSTAR echo 22:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets not attack the user unless need be. The edits were perfectly proper under WP:CANVAS. Lambton T/C 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no canvassing, only canvassing paranoia. I'd also like to add that there's never been consensus regarding bio subjects requesting deletion, and how much that should effect a deletion decision. It barely clings to WP:BLP because some people believe they are more qualified than others in judging issues of morals. -- Ned Scott 09:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I also see no canvassing. I came and voted keep, but nobody left a notice for me. The fact that the AfD is heading for an overwhelming keep is not due to canvassing. DGG (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Errors requiring correction on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR[edit]

There remain some errors on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. The following decision was altered, reversing the original reporter (me) and the reportee (G2Bambino):

[1]

Could someone please reverse the reporter and reportee back to the original. It now appears as:

[2]

I'm not going to get into altering this myself for obvious reasons. It came about because of a good-faith typo editing error by G2bambino.

G2bambino's original posting against me was deleted by me (unintentionally) and no administrator ever saw it. I submitted my complaint minutes after his, and thought it was a duplicate post of mine. So I guess it's only fair to restore this one and have an administrator rule on it.

[3]

I know this is a mess that neeeds to be verified and no one wants to deal with it, but the record should be corrected. Is there some uninvolved party that can handle this maybe?

--soulscanner (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not against the restoration of this report, but I wonder about the worth; the report is actually against User:Quizimodo; every edit linked ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) is his, not mine. I've only made two edits to Dominion in the past two months.--G2bambino (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The warning was against you and User:Quizimodo for removing neutrality tags I'd placed on the Dominion page; your warning is listed as being against me; for obvious reasons, that's unfair. You (mistakenly and in good faith as I explained) switched our names on the decision. Doing this got you blocked, until we figured out that you thought you were correcting what was a typo. I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged this and at least switch this back. In return, I offer to restore your original complaint against me for restoring these neutrality tags, a report I had accidentally deleted (also in good faith) as a double posting of my own complaint. I think that's fair. --soulscanner (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New user User:Lostanos tagging other users as confirmed socks[edit]

(reports combined - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Lostanos (talk · contribs) has tagged at least a dozen user pages as confirmed socks of Hkelkar (talk · contribs). Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Lostanos (talk · contribs)'s entire edit history is sticking Helkar sockpuppet tags on Users' User pages. Corvus cornixtalk 04:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please block this guy ASAP and delete all of his nonsense edits. Corvus cornixtalk 04:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely - might be an innocent explanation, but there's something certainly not right about those edits. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we go about cleaning up his mess now? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I just spot-checked about a dozen of the accounts Lostanos tagged, and all of them were indefinitely blocked as socks of Hkelkar. But they were all blocked on October 26, 2007, so I agree there isn't much value to posting a bunch of sock tags tonight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
They just asked for an unblock claiming that all the tags were on blocked but untagged hkelkar accounts... which appears to be correct, on spot check of 20 of them.
It's obviously not a real new user, and it's really darn suspicious to me... but I'd like second opinions on whether to leave blocked or not. One thing that occurs to me is that it might be Hkelkar doing a PR stunt run.
In the meantime, I think maybe just leave the tags as is, as they appear to be right. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My immediate thought was an Hkelkar sock. Corvus cornixtalk 04:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I would say there's enough here for a checkuser, to see if it is a hkelkar sock... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I was way ahead of you on that one. Filed and listed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, this isn't Hkelkar. It's more likely to be User:Kuntan than not. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 09:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Entirely possible, but the question remains: how in heaven's name was this disruptive? Relata refero (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Moreschi and Relata, Not me. I didn't go anywhere near there. It could very well be a PR stunt by the dirty guru, as GWH suggested.59.91.253.184 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott's mass-undos on Navigational templates.[edit]

I'll repeat what I told another admin just earlier to keep it simple:

"I'm not sure why you told me to go to ANI, the first thing I saw was a notice board telling me to report vandalism at the page that I reported it on. I'll explain the issue to you, perhaps you can help.

Ned Scott is taking ownership of templates that he created on the grounds that he has every right to make each template a unique color and size. Personally, when viewed on the pages these templates are featured on it detracts from the article, and in some cases is a technical issue of being difficult to read due to poor color choice and cause the template to look bad on lower screen resolutions. This is not the reason I posted his username on Admin intervention, the reason is how uncivil he has been towards me and how poorly he has been going about "fixing" the problems that he sees.

He has been using the undo function on about 30 separate templates reverting back to, in many cases, his last personal edit of that template. The problem with this is that in addition to removing the unsightly styling he also removed code tidying that I performed and worse other user edits that include things like adding and updating links, so on and so forth. I have brought this to his attention I believe three times now, but he continue to, by the definition of the word, knowingly vandalize these pages destroying positive and useful edits made by multiple users.

I invited him to discuss the styling issue he had with other members of video game project and me and kick started the discussion. Responses have mostly been that other felt the same way as me about personal styling on what's suppose to be a standardized way of navigating between pages of a related article. In that same discussion another admin warned Ned about using undo, and Ned's response was that he'd stop. He has not stopped. The most recent act of vandalism marks the fourth time he's done blind mass-undos and despite being told in plain english, continuing to ignore changes made by other users. In a few cases other users were turning his edits around in protest, and he goes and revert their changes as well.

Ned has been wholly uncooperative with me about this, I have attempted to communicate and failed, I have brought him into discussion and failed, I have given his very merciful warnings and failed. Unless someone intervenes and puts a stop to it he will continue to disregard his infractions and fellow Wikipedians. He even pulled his own warning off the intervention page, tell me yes or no if that was acceptable behavior.

It is far beyond a simple disagreement and I regret not putting it on the dispute page earlier, but this immaturity is destructive to this project and needs to stop."

If this is the best place to seek help regarding the issue then that's fine, but Ned should know better than to do a blind undo when he's been told repeatedly they are destroying valid changes. He's behaving childish towards me, calling me a liar, etc., and will not attempt to create middle ground. I don't have the patience for blunt-faced attitudes like this so I need help. Thank you. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a few things wrong in this post. For one, never have I claimed that I created these templates.. I'm not sure why Aeron thinks so. Second, only originally did I completely undo his edits, since I saw his other modifications as minor technical changes. Since then I've made sure that those edits were saved, and made independent edits to add back in custom options that the templates originally had. He's completely wrong about me restoring to a completely older version, even though I've specifically pointed this out to him more than once.
WT:VG#Navbox custom styling, does it improve or reduce the quality of an article? is the discussion he is talking about. You can see that User:David Fuchs's comments, and my response to them, is very different than what Aeron describes. Two editors responded in the discussion that they felt general template standardization was desired, but that's about it.
You can see my original comments to him regarding this issue: [9], [10], [11]. If anyone could please talk some sense into Aeron I would be greatly indebted to you. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Might as well get in on this while I can. I first encountered a conflict with Aeron here and again here. Notice that I didn't revert the template code back from when it looked like this because I generally agreed with the navbox look; the only issue was the width which I thought didn't look so great when the entire right side of the template is empty when at full width (on my screen). I was going to revert him again on the issue, but then User:Servant Saber got involved, only to revert himself which I found odd, so I checked his talk page and came to this discussion (I'm the 'other guy' he refers to btw) where Aeron talked about how the template at 50% the screen width would look very different then at my full width. Realizing this, I did a test by shortening my browser window and realized what he was getting at, so I went along with his edits. Then Ned got involved and (since I've had a good amount of experience with Ned in the past) I knew things were going to heat up since in my experience Ned can be very steadfast in his points and likes to do things quickly without much hesitation, or so I've come to realize through working with him for close to two years now on various issues. I knew that if Ned started reverting things, Aeron probably would too, and if he did that, Ned would just revert him again, and I see this is what happened, which of course leads us here.
My opinion on this issue falls on three template which I created: {{Key}}, {{Strawberry Panic!}}, and {{Higurashi no Naku Koro ni}}, so naturally I have them on my watchlist, so I was able to notice when the code was being edited. After either Aeron or Ned would edit, I'd come in and create a middle ground so the template still looked nice rather than disjointed, but I didn't revert either of their edits, mainly because I didn't want to get in the middle of it. In the end, the discussion about template widths made me agree that perhaps putting the template on full-width is better, but that's pretty much the only thing I agree with Aeron on regarding these templates. I do not see a problem with the colors, even though I've never used them myself, but that's because I'm too lazy. Also, I saw at {{Navbox}} that there are two bullets you can use in the template, {{·}}, and {{}}, and seeing as I had a choice between the two, I chose the former since it was less obtrusive and looked better, though Aeron later reverted me on {{Key}} with this edit, saying that the much bolder separators are easier to see on higher resolution screens, and since I didn't feel like edit waring over such a tiny issue, I didn't really care, even if I do prefer the less bolder bullets. This comes back to Aeron's template standardization efforts, and the fact that he is not leaving any room for any deviation from a single standard, but I say what's the point in even having two different bullets to separate links in a template if we are only ever going to use one because it's "easier to see on higher resolutions". Same thing goes for template colors and width choices, since they are still a part of the navbox template code, and they were put there so people wouldn't have to only make a single choice when making a template and could somewhat color outside the lines a bit if they felt like it.
In short, there's no real policy or guideline preventing users from being a bit creative or having the choice what bullet type to use for a given template, and I do not think Aeron really has any real backing in order to systematically alter all the templates used on Wikipedia under a single standard due to there being no consensus as to use a single standardized template or not. I'd recommend Aeron start a discussion at WP:MOS or someplace similar which could get a community-wide discussion going as to whether templates should all look exactly the same or not, rather than just a tiny discussion at WikiProject Video Games.-- 08:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a classic case of WP:BRD with Ned conducing the reverting part. There is no guideline or manual of style recommending the use of {{Navbox}}, so it is left up to the individual template editors and the related WikiProjects on whether to use it and how. --Farix (Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

My monitor is 1680x1050 and only 15.4", and I can see the small bullets just fine. I agree the width probably should be full, since many navboxes need it, and having a standard is usually a good idea; and, horizontal nav bars in web pages general are full-width. It also makes sense since nothing else can/would ever go on the left/right of the box anyway, so I don't see the need to limit the width. Full width means they can be as wide or narrow as people need them to be, as opposed to specifying a set width, which limits everyone needlessly. Equazcion /C 14:08, 10 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's posts in RfC[edit]

I've written the following in response to Arcayne's latest lengthy response to two editors on Talk:Harold_Washington#RfC:_How_much_importance_should_be_placed_on_Mirth_.26_Girth_in_Harold_Washington.3F.

"wikipedia's policy's on civility including alluding to other editor's being less informed, intelligent or otherwise seemingly inferior to you are simply not acceptable. Not if you're in a bad mood, not if you feel you've explained everything already or for any other reason. In your latest (and, to me, excessive) reply to me you've insinuated that I'm "huffy or stupid", have "nothing but a bag of personal feelings", called me "parochial", non-objective; you've insinuated that I want to use anything but reliable sources which is simply false. I think you've again crossed the line but I'll invite you to ANI to see if I'm off-base on this."

As I'm one of the involved parties I didn't think I should post a civility warning on their talk page. I also didn't comment on their response, in the same edit, to another user that also seems to be full of borderline statements. This RfC has been a series of editors who state their concerns and this user verbosely counters apparently swaying no one. Personally I would have walked away, however, I feel their aim to install an image that the majority of those editors on the RfC have deemed unneeded is persistent and needs to be addressed. Benjiboi 10:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Previous request for advice. Benjiboi 11:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that Arcayne gets away with a lot of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, largely since his comments are just so lengthy. El_C 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good summary. He's gotten better since joining, but he can backslide. ThuranX (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I admit that I can get pretty hot under the collar - as those who have posted in response here have, as well. I will also admit that my growing frustration with what I feel as a small group of three people determined to ignore/misinterpret wiki policy, guidelines and instead display rather OWNish behavior in the article has allowed me to forget to be more patient and polite. I will certainly work on that, and I had in fact apologized for my slip. Feeling a bit like Sysiphus made me lose my temper a bit.
While we are on the topic, it would be splendid to have some admin eyes on the article. Two editors - of which Benjoboi is one - have ignored my suggestions that they consult with an admin on the policy on point, or seek MedCab. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you need an admin? El_C 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Because I think it might be helpful if it weren't just myself pointing out policy and guidelines. I certainly feel that way, esp. when the sole reasoning for keeping the image out is the 'i don't like it' corker. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I've commented there, but just as a uninvolved user. DGG (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of Neutralhomer[edit]

Per pretty clear evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Neutralhomer, I have indefinitely blocked Flatsky (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) used only when evading blocks. Flatsky's edits all took place during periods when the other account was under a block (within an hour of his Sept. 3 block and two days after his Jan. 10 block). Because of this, I have also reset that Jan. 10 block. Just posting this here for other eyes on it. Metros (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's getting to the time when we'll need to kick Neutralhomer out for good. He's causing more problems here than he's solving. The next block should really be indefinite. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have done it this time. He's had plenty of chances. RlevseTalk 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I did have that thought, but decided to just reset it. If anyone wants to open discussion on an indefinite block or just put one in place, they'd have my full support. Metros (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see the results of the UserCompare tool. βcommand 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 Confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Neutralhomer - Alison 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutralhomer clearly desires to help edit Wikipedia, but his interactions with Calton and JPG-GR tend to be disruptive. Could we try to think of some creative solutions, as opposed to extending the block on the main account? Here are my thoughts.
  • One thing that seems to get him into trouble is his use of automated reverts, like TWINKLE & popups. Why not remove all popup-enabled tools from his monobook and then protect it? If he wants to add a script, he could ask a sysop. (I recall that he and Riana are on friendly terms.)
  • Also, does he edit in the same areas as Calton? If not, I say we limit both of their interactions with each other. (I say "each other" because interactions, initiated by whomever, between Neutralhomer and Calton, tend to result in Neutralhomer getting blocked.)
  • I'm not certain how we can manage his relationship with JPG-GR ... as I recall, they frequently edit in the same areas of the encyclopedia. Perhaps we could do some type of probation or mentorship with an admin?
What do others think? --Iamunknown 21:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The blanking and protection of his monobook was done on one occasion - I think TW is a problem for him but his incivility is far worse. I've often interacted with him *during* his disputes and he's been perfectly friendly to me, and turns around to be as rude as possible to his 'opponent'. JGP-GR has been civil in his interactions with NH, despite his attitude, so I wouldn't object to a mentoring relationship there - I think it would be best to have an admin experienced in that area. Calton goes out of his way to belittle Homer, but if the latter is banned from interacting with him (I'd say they should both be, but Calton doesn't go looking for NH, it's the other way around), I'd be satisfied. ~ Riana 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Reality check: when Neutralhomer stalks my edits by blindly reverting and then proceeds to leave a series of actively insulting messages on that my talk page ("Ma'am"?), then that is NOT "go[ing] out of his way to belittle" him, at least not on this planet. I had not the slightest awareness of his newest incarnation before he inserted HIMSELF into my awareness by the aforementioned behavior. That's a problem with his impulse control and nothing to do with me. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

An update: I am in contact with Neutralhomer, who states that he currently retired and that he does not plan to contest the current block on his account. If he were to want to come back (I hope he does), I hope that we would try more creative solutions than, as mentioned above, a swift "kick" and an indefinite block. --Iamunknown 00:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't gonna comment here at all, as I frankly want nothing to do with User:Neutralhomer, but how is his statement of being "currently retired" any different from the large box saying the same thing that he posted on his user and talk pages... before he started editing under a separate account to avoid a block? I have complete faith in the fact that he will be back -- whether he comes back in a month as User:Neutralhomer or turns up under another name remains to be seen. JPG-GR (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf[edit]

Resolved

I draw your attention to User:Sdfsdfsdfsdfdsdfsdf. I'm 99% sure that someone with that user name isn't here to do much good --Capitana (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of WP:U (lengthy and random username). For future reference, there is a dedicated board for reporting inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA. Sandstein (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that we don't block lengthy and random usernames anymore. That clause was removed from the policy after a discussion at WT:U where nobody could come up with a good reason why they should be blocked. While it is true that many users with random-looking usernames are vandals, we are already quite good at blocking vandals for vandalism, and this habit of blocking people for "looking like they were about to vandalize" simply created far too many incorrect blocks. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Jazzing up text with html[edit]

Resolved: Article speedy deleted

A new user has been jazzing up an article (apparently about himself) with html. I reverted it as I presumed it's a violation of WP:STYLE to do this, but I can't actually find anything at the style page that forbids this. Are you allowed to do this or not? Gatoclass (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd classify that as disruptive. You should politely inform the user on how we format articles, and report him to WP:AIV if he continues to apply idiosyncratic HTML formatting. Sandstein (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
It was originally listed for deletion, but I tagged it to be speedied, which was rejected, so the deletion discussion has been resumed. The article creator tried to remove the speedy-deletion tags, which I warned them for. I'm still surprised this article was rejected for a speedy deletion- it has five cleanup tags on it, and appears to be an advertisement and non-notable... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a blantant copyvio and should be speedy deleted. LaraLove 19:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(after EC)It looks like the jazzed up version was copied/pasted from here. The jazzed up version was then toned down to wikipedia standards but the information remained intact. AngelOfSadness talk 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone object, then, if I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Article has already been deleted. Momusufan (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know who rejected that speedy, but I just deleted it. It's not only blatant advertising, it was also a copyright violation in its entirety. A copy/paste including HTML tags of their own website. Unsourceable and placed here only to promote themselves. LaraLove 20:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Question - if its his own website, written by himself, why is it a copyright violation? Isn't he simply releasing his work under GNU Free? Avruchtalk 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is the bottom of it says: "Created by MK BLITZ Agency. ©2008 Natalia Kruchkevych & Mykhailo Sydorenko. All rights reserved." That's a licence which is incompatible with GFDL/CC. Orderinchaos 08:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

But getting back to the basic principle - where does it actually say you can't use HTML extensively in creating an article? I've always assumed you can't, but I haven't come across anything in the policy pages that says as much. Shouldn't there at least be a line or two in the style guide about this? Gatoclass (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ang Lee & Lust, Caution (film) TW vs CN disputes[edit]

There seems to be a bit of a cold war going on at Ang Lee, Lust, Caution (film) and probably other, related places. In particular, User:TheAsianGURU has made multiple edits to Lust, Caution (film) to remove or dilute references to Taiwan, such as here. I got involved when I noticed that they had removed a sourced fact and used a misleading edit summary. Can someone step in before this gets out of hand? Thanks. David Lodge (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean this edit. The one you point to is an innocuous edit by an anon IP. Wikidemo (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I meant this one, which I have corrected above. Your diff is the edit that got me involved in this. Thanks. I see you got bit by this already [12]. David Lodge (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


Sockpuppet[edit]

This guy is someone's sockpuppet. I can't remember who's, though maybe one of you can. The history is the guy only edits his own page and always has all caps username. Please block, and if you know who it is, please tag him. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions I don't see any disruptions, vote-stacking etc. If you have reason to believe that this is a sock of a banned user, then I guess we should block him/her. I suggest we wait and see how this user edits the mainspace.Bless sins (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
By all means. In fact, this user has created several sockpuppets, and as said, has been blocked in the past for constantly creating WP:MYSPACE violation accounts, of which this is clearly just another. Therefore, let me make clear, that even if the user wasn't officially banned, he was blocked for precisely this type of action. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a valid request. I do remember the case from AN/I last month or maybe the previous, I've also unfortunately forgotten the identifying details. Orderinchaos 10:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Threats and unacceptable behaviour[edit]

The user Wilhelmina Will delighted us with outburst such as this [13] already yesterday and was warned that such behaviour is unacceptable [14]. Today, the user is back threatening me with a hospital visit [15]. JdeJ (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Gave him a level 4 warning about civility. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No final warning needed after that ("you will have more money than you could ever dream of spending, but you'll never have enough to pay your medical bills") threat, or "curse." Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 10:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrator removing NPOV tag on Hilary Clinton BLP after 13 minutes[edit]

NPOV tag says "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." User:Stephan Schulz removed taghere. Tvoz did the same 2 weeks ago. There have been 8 different editors expressing 8 different specific npov concerns, yet article managers/watchers will not allow NPOV tag to stay on the article long enough for the broader community to reach a consensus.

[16][17] Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 13:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at the article talkpage. It seems pretty active, with participants including you and Tvoz. Therefore whatever POV concerns there are seem to be debated. NPOV tags are fine where an article is inactive, or there is only one POV that is being given, but where there is active debate it may itself be POV to place such a tag on the article; as it is a bit like waving a flag saying "Beware - this article may not be 100% accurate/unbiased" which could be considered sensitive under the current circumstances. I shouldn't worry too much about the process, just as long as your concerns regarding the content are being addressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For the record, I just removed M.ge's POV-tag that he readded. This article (as well as Barack Obama's) has a long history of people using the POV-tag (and other tags as well) as weapons to try to force the content they want into the article. Bellwether BC 14:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This "Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." is what I am relying upon.
It's ridiculous that the NPOV tool (tag) is being seen (not only in this article) as as a "weapon" or red flag. Where is that paranoia and assumption of bad faith coming from? It's not to be found in policy. Maybe "POV-check" is seen as less of a weapon; I'll put that on as a last effort. Or maybe the NPOV tag should be dispensed with if it has taken on various negative assumptions as to its intent; but it's patent nonsense to have a NPOV policy endorsing the use of the tag which article watchers/managers quickly remove. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Last sentence of the second paragraph at WP:NPOVD says that "tags should be added as a last resort". I maintain that since the talkpage is very active then the likelihood is that any one area of disputed POV is being discussed, and if an area of dispute isn't being discussed it is because the previous one hasn't been agreed on yet. As for your own example, I note that tags may be removed if there is consensus; and since different editors have seen fit to remove the tag then there is likely consensus to do so. As for accusations of bad faith, I would comment that there seems to be an assumption on your part that removal of the tag by "article watchers/managers" is itself a biased action, even though it appears that you are active on the talkpage. Finally, NPOV/D does not endorse use of the tag - it allows/permits its use, per my first point. I doubt if you are going to get a sysop to intervene in this matter, and can only suggest that you raise this point with whatever other concerns you have with the article at that talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Siddharth.igcse[edit]

I have issued him/her a level 3 vandalism warning. --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I indefblocked. Clearly nothing but vandalism was ever going to come from that account. Enough already. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

factual error on the main page[edit]

Resolved

Factual errors on the main page makes all of us look bad, but only admins can fix such problems. Can someone with sysop powers attend to the error reports at WP:ERRORS, pls? Thanks. --74.13.129.197 (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the two reports for DYK. Nakon 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. --74.13.129.197 (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User canvassing for RFC certification[edit]

[23] [24]. Enough already. Can we get action on this user? This is just out of hand. Background: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BQZip01/Comments . Lawrence § t/e 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure asking two people is really in the realms of disruptive canvessing, and given that people certifying are "Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute", if they haven't they can't certify. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Read the MFD and comments from the parties involved in the canvassing for the full context. This whole thing has basically turned into an effort to do a retaliatory smear against User:Cumulus Clouds. Lawrence § t/e 18:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree strongly with the above editor. I do not think notifying two people about an RfCU which they could potentially certify qualifies as canvassing. The editor is simply pointing out to two editors whom he believes could certify that the RfCU has met the two person threshold has been met that they could indicate as much. It is a bit of a request, but it basically as neutrally-worded, and certainly about as short, as such a request could be. I don't see any reason to believe that the behavior guideline has been violated in any meaningful way. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well your message is rather opaque, perhaps if there is stronger background to believe something disruptive is occuring you should post more complete information and not assume everyone reading here will have an indepth knowledge of the background. I haven't gone off and looked but stand by my original comment. The only people eligible to certify the RFC is a pretty limited audience, if those two aren't in the correct position to certify, then they'll be ignored and the RFC closed anyway. If there was a broader audience who could certify that the message should have gone to, I'm not sure it makes much difference, they've restricted the possibility the RFC will be certify by not giving a broader coverage. Remember everyone can participate in the RFC if it is certified and all parties to the dispute are going to be the subject of the comments, including the originator. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to have others certify and sign that they have attempted to dissipate the problem. How else am I supposed to let them know? Are they just supposed to watch the entire page 24/7 and see if a dispute they were interested in pops up? You will note I did not ask them to support me in any way, only to certify that there is a basis for the dispute. If you will also note, they have not endorsed my opinion either. Perhaps this could be clarified in the directions. — BQZip01 — talk 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not had a dispute with any of those editors outside of a pre-existing conflict with you. None of them have previously attempted to resolve any dispute with me, but all of them have voted in your favor or argued in your defense on the MfDs, in the original ANI request and at your RfA. Your request for their assistant was performed in bad faith. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • That they had an opinion regarding the subject is irrelevant. It is simply certification that they have tried (and talk pages qualify too). It doesn't mean that anyone should/shouldn't support/oppose based on that input, but that something has been tried and didn't work. No malice should be assumed in certification (it is merely acknowledging that a conflict exists - I think we can both agree on that - and that this is the appropriate forum - which it is). — BQZip01 — talk 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • He may correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not in conflict with Johntex (or BillCJ) about anything outside of your dispute with me. Neither of these users have ever engaged me in a discussion about any of my edits independent of the MFD, ANI or RFA. I don't see how either one of them could certify this issue. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Considering that part of the problem was your edits on the RfA, ANI, and MfD, his input certainly is valid. You don't have to have a conflict with him personally for him to certify he tried to resolve the dispute and failed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This was not user canvassing with respect to the message on my page at all. I had already declared my intention to certify the RFC. BQ was just letting me know it was ready. Johntex\talk 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The same here. People should read WP:CANVAS. This is not a violation, regardless of who is being asked. A few more recruits, and it would be good of someone to investigate any possible partisanship, though. Lambton T/C 23:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
During the recent ArbCom election, I asked the candidates for their views on the fairness of RFC's on user conduct. One of the most mentioned problems was insufficient input. Posting messages to talk pages is one of the few methods available and known to an average editor. To say that the people involved in an RFC (on either side) can't use this method would be ridiculous. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Mondrago socks an IP's[edit]

On 2 February User:Nakon added asiafanclub.com to the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist in response to this thread [25] at WP:ANI. This link has since been removed from the blacklist by CIreland as stated in this comment.

Earlier discussions:

Accounts/IPsocks used by Mondrago

Since the de-listing, I've had to block Mondrago's main IP 70.188.184.84 for linkspam warring on Asia (band);

Asside from the obvious lack of consnsus for inclusion, the link invariably fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I would be interested in broader consensus on the issue. --Hu12 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree and have re-added it to the local blacklist for now. This is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, so I guess we probably don't need it here as well. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk: Wikidas and socketpuppets User talk: 79.97.0.103[edit]

  • User talk:Wikidas and User:79.97.0.103 are vandalizing articles suck as I-Foundation and just being a nusance. Thanks. Any help would be appreciated, I don't know where to go from here - but I don't wont this to become a pattern. Any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Update. After I gave warning Wikidas/79.97.0.103 is still attacking my talk page and I-Foundation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked user Paul Hartal seems to be back again[edit]

Recently the name of indefinitely blocked user User:Paul Hartal (subject of Paul Hartal) has appeared (or been signed) on talk page comments posted by IP users Special:Contributions/66.131.182.80 and Special:Contributions/70.80.42.122. --Orlady (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks by User:Urbanarcheology[edit]

For the past month or so there has been debate over photographs on the article Bethlehem Steel. Myself, User:NcSchu, and a few others have been involved, as well as the two users User:Urbanarcheology and User talk:Jbdesign2.

Urbanarcheology has repeatedly attacked myself and NcSchu[26] and attempted to show his superiority in regards to to how the article should be edited,[27] [28] including telling editors that they should stick to other articles.[29]

Urbanarcheology also claims that he has an assistant,[30] who does work for him, namely User talk:Jbdesign2. This user has been equally abusive,[31] [32] and even uploads pictures that claim to be by him, but Urbanarcheology claims that he is merely uploading pictures that are really by Urbanarcheology, so it is difficult to tell if this is really another person or just a sock account.

Things had mostly calmed down recently and some discussion was progressing, but today I found this on my talk page. This same random IP was earlier claimed to be Urbanarcheology himself.[33] and [34] leading to [35].

This user, and his assistant, both seem to believe that they can attack those who oppose their opinions in an attempt to get what they want, even if it ignores Wikipedia rules. The359 (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the ip for 31 hours, issued a level 2 npa warning to Jbdesign2 and left a message with Urbanarcheology which includes a civility warning. I hope that they get the message that respect for other editors comes before how good their contributions may be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Issue with Lianga13 (talk · contribs)[edit]

There appears to be an issue regarding the Miss Tourism Queen International articles and the behaviour and possible COI of Lianga13 (talk · contribs). Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) appears strongly convinced that that user account is one of many others used by the same person, which appear to be vandalising articles. Angelo De La Paz needs a bit of a nudge towards figuring out WP policies (see his message here and this message on my talk page from a couple of days ago for a couple of examples) so I thought I'd bring this here and see what you thought. Basically I'm a neutral observer on this one... just trying to bring this to the right channels. PageantUpdater talkcontribs 20:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Twicemost leaving threats on talk pages[edit]

User:Twicemost has been going through various anime articles removing information about the series being aired in other countries, then leaving messages on the talk page saying the removed it because "we only care about the english dub" and that including such information violates the MOS. (which is a false idea). The real problem is, though, is that he has including in his message statements like "don't dare to revert this or you'll pay it with your life" (see [36] and [37]) or that "you asked for it" [38]. From his note here, he seems to be deliberately being disruptive to make a WP:POINT. I finally settled for leaving a warning on content removal for his latest edit, but not sure what else should/can be done, but I do feel administrators need to be aware of this. Leaving death threats will certainly scare off some other editors. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Twicemost (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely by LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs). It's not entirely clear how seriously these threats were meant, but this is clearly a combative editor who was being disruptive. There do seem to be some earlier constructive edits, so I suppose it would be reasonable to consider shortening the block to a definite time frame if the threats are unreservedly retracted. MastCell Talk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a week-long block and an explanation from the user. the_undertow talk 22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have indef blocked Twicemost for the threat. This has no place on Wikipedia. If it is retracted and a promise to abide by npa/harass is made then a revision of the tariff may be appropriate. Without any such undertaking I would oppose allowing the editor to resume contributing.LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection[edit]

Question:

The Paris Hilton article is in semi-protection.

Yet it was edited earlier today by "Abdulmatics", whose first-ever WP edit was 10 hours earlier. It seems based on this that semi-protection might be better called "just a tiny protection".

Am I missing something about the actual protection?

Thanks Wanderer57 (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The account was created on February 1 ([39]). It is the time from account creation that is taken into account, unfortunately making it easy for editors to create many accounts to slip past semi-protection. Black Kite 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Beat me to it Black Kite. Semi-protection protects against IP accounts and any account less than 4 days old. In this case, the account was nine days old. Metros (talk) 22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)His account was created on 1 February, [40] and he began editing on 7 February. [41] However, it appears that his/her edits are disruptive, since they exclusively pertain to adding links to a pair of external websites about Paula Abdul. I will leave a linkspam warning. Horologium (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. My knowledge grows. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Borderline vandalism on Naveen Jain[edit]

Anonymous user 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs) has been continually reverting the article Naveen Jain into a piece of Naveen Jain glorifying fluffwork, which is essentially unverifiable, and in the process he is removing well referenced material [42]. Since he has been providing edit summaries, giving this the appearance of a content dispute, I wasn't sure this was trivial enough for AIV. And while the inclusion of the fluff-work I would certainly consider a content dispute, I still consider the removal of sourced information vandalism given his refusal to use the talk page (despite being reverted and messaged by three editors), and his use of essentially false edit summaries. It should also be noted, as can be seen on the talk page, that this article has had quite a history of being edited Naveen Jain and/or his employees, although the IP in question doesn't resolve to anything that would confirm such. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

See a history of beautification of this article at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Naveen Jain. Major newspapers including the Seattle Times and USA Today reported that Jain left the board of InfoSpace under a cloud in December, 2002, amid charges that investors were deceived about the health of the company. This is the information that 216.27.105.10 (talk · contribs) keeps trying to remove from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocks needed[edit]

Resolved

Per #Summary of account activity, the following users have been checked by checkuser:

  • Drstones (talk · contribs) should be unblocked as well, but hasn't requested it due to the bad impression this situation has left on him.

-- Ned Scott 03:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done all - can you post the relevant apologies/unblock notices, I need to get back to work. ViridaeTalk 03:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall do that. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Academic2007 (talk · contribs) was listed as "likely". The other account has been unblocked, so it would make sense that this one would be unblocked as well. -- Ned Scott 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked editor Paul Hartal evading block[edit]

Paul Hartal was blocked quite a while ago for making legal threats and other disruptions. Apparently he is back as an anonymous IP editor (currently 66.131.182.80. Please reblock. Thanks! --74.128.171.150 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Raja[edit]

Well, in short what I am going to write here will look like one of the sections above 3RR violator continuing after block. But it is much more than that. Wiki Raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 2 weeks for 3RR violation on Talk:Bharatanatyam; disruptive edit warring over project templates again. This block was imposed on him, after a previous block on 72 hours for disruptive edit warring. After this block, the user was clearly advised by the block admin like this:

This advise apparently did not have any effect on the user, and hence again, the user's repeated revert wars, without discussions or without gaining consensus, led to him to the above mentioned 2 weeks block. The block is now expired, and the user immediately started posting the disputed template literally hundreds of article talk page (Eg: [43], [44], [45]). At the least, after multiple blocks related to that template, the user was expected to start a discussion with wider audience, and should have arrived at a consensus before using those templates. But unfortunately, that has not happened.

Even he doesn't even hesitate to involve in revert wars, after being blocked multiple times for revert warring; some of the latest revert wars being: [46], [47], [48].

The main concerns here are: Lack of willingness to discuss; revert-warring; repeated offense even after a clear and strong advise from an Admin, and yet after multiple blocks;

Well,now, thats the "3RR violator continuing after block" part of the story, and next comes more. Severe personal attack on me, calling me racist. Please look into the section: Talk:Veerappan#Removing_WikiProject_templates and that gives complete picture instead of me writing about it. And now, you admins decide if there is any racist attitude displayed from me. On the other hand, you decide how the discussion is totally dragged out of context when I asked the question how the person (of that article) is related to the so-called civilization. I am strongly offended with this personal attack.

Next: I am totally confused and wondered, with what this user's intent on Wikipedia are. Please see this edit which is made after his latest block expiry. He has gone ahead and termed Cinema of Karnataka as Cooliewood. I have never heard that term before, and I am a member of Karnataka wikiproject and a contributor to Cinema of Karnataka. This is most concerning issue because, one of the meanings of Coolie is A contemporary racial slur for people of Asian descent, including people from India, Central Asia, etc. Whats more, even Google search couldn't determine what this user is saying. For starters, Karnataka is an Indian state, and apparently this is a severe insult on Wikipedians from that state, and ofcourse on the state's film industry. This kind of gross incivility is highly unacceptable in a community project such as building an encyclopedia.

I have reported all these to an involved Admin User:Nishkid64 and he suggested I start an ANI discussion on this, and here it goes. Thank you, - KNM Talk 17:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things:
  • The "Cooliewood" diff is absolutely unacceptable. The Tamil film industry is sometimes called Kollywood, but I cannot believe that this was a genuine mistake.
  • Templating talkpages is always problematic. I remember the to-do about India-Pakistan templates on Indus Valley Civilisation sites some years ago. That being said, there is nothing per se wrong with templating [[Talk:Veerappan] with a Tamil or Dravidian wikiproject template. The exchange that KNM posts reflects badly on both users.
  • He's been blocked for edit-warring for two weeks. I suggest that he be given a little while longer for the "Cooliewood" diff unless he posts a good explanation for it.
  • I don't see any reason for an indef. Relata refero (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, that template has been the centre of much controversy in the first place. The Cooliewood slur has a lot to do with Wikiraj's failed attempts in the past to sell the whole of South India and everything existing in South India as Dravidian (music, literature, architecture, people, cuisine, clothing, etc etc) as "Dravidian civilization". A page he had creeated to that effect was removed because there was no concensus that such a civilization existed or exists. Unles the heart of the issue is resolved, this problem will continue. The racial slur is only a small issue in the big problem of "race". Extending his block will not help. And may I ask, what does a dravidian template have to do with a person?.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Relata refero: In the original post, I have not written about why there is a dispute over these templating, because it is plain content dispute, and WP:ANI is not meant for that. That is why, I was just writing only user related items. But if the discussion on template dispute is required, well and good. The simplest summary is, Wiki Raja is posting {{WPTAMCIV}} template on hundreds of talk pages, while there is no such thing called Tamil Civilization! The current link of Tamil civilization just redirects to Dravidian civilization, while Tamil Civilization is a red link as of now. And the user was (and has continued now also) posting {{WPDRAVCIV}} template too referring to an earlier version of Dravidian civilization article which is now deleted.
Please note: The current article was created by an admin (User:Utcursch) after the earlier version was deleted per an AFD discussion, because there was no such particular civilization "Dravidian civilization" existed. The validity of these templates apart, the user was asked and advised (as shown above) for initiating discussion and gain consensus before simply adding the templates. I believe, now its a good time to sort out both these issues, one is content dispute on those templates, and the user misconduct and incivility. Thank you - KNM Talk 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I quite understand that the template issue is beyond this board. The template, however, is linked not to any article but to a wikiproject; if you feel that is problematic, I suggest taking it to WP:Miscellany for Deletion. Relata refero (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Relata, I'm sorry but I didn't quite understand what you are referring to as "unacceptable" in Cooliewood diff, whether it's providing the diff itself or Wikiraja's edits. There is no doubt that Wikiraja made that edit meant as an insult to Kannada film industry due to his long lasting disputes with members of WP:KARNATAKA. It sure is an racial insult term and it hurts to see someone using the term so freely in an encyclopedia. I'm sure he used the term deliberately because there is not even one instance so far that the Kannada cinema industry is referred to as Cooliewood. He has clearly shown his intentions of editing Wikipedia after being given so many chances. No discussions, no consensus, severe personal attacks including accusations of racism on KNM, gross incivility, repeated violations of 3RR and frequent revert wars. Let us also not forget, the account User:Wiki Raja is a sockpuppet account of User:Indrancroos. User:Wiki Raja account was indef blocked because of sockpuppetry, but the user requested admin Aksi_great that, he intends to continue with Wiki Raja account instead of Indrancroos account. Blocklog here. Gnanapiti (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that using the term was unacceptable, which is why I suggested extending his block. Relata refero (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* How many more violations from wikiraja do we have to endure before he is packed off for good? I've been on wp for around two years now and I've not seen anything quite like this. Here's a guy who's been blocked multiple times already for repeat offences which cover the entire gamut between simple edit warring to sockpuppetry to uploading obscenity and yet his victims have to continue to grin and bear it. I'd really like to know why?

Personally, I am usually against permabanning editors for anything.. but there has to be something that can redeem an editor -- some useful contributions, some evidence of being a collaborative editor.. something... anything! In wikiraja's case, I see nothing - absolutely no contributions worth mentioning or to even use as a fig leaf for his indiscretions.

As for his templates and taking it to MfD, well.. we've been down that torturous path before. No sooner does a template or article get deleted (or rewritten from scratch) than he comes up with a mutant strain of the same thing! It was 'Dravidian civilisations' yesterday and 'Tamil civilisations' today. Wonder what it will be tommorrow. Expecting other editors to keep hauling him and his templates to TfDs and MfDs and AfDs each time is insensitive and an insult to those editors who have better things to do on wikipedia. And the cooliewood thing ... *sigh* how much more juvenile can it get!

In short, this editor has not a semblance of constructive edits to boast of and has done disproportionately more harm to the community and the project than good and the community is better off without him. He's been banned for 3 month stretches at least once before (perhaps twice) and if for some esoteric bureaucratic reason we cant permaban him, I recommend that he be locked away for atleast 6 months or a year this time. Sarvagnya 22:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: As per Relata refero's suggestion for me to explain, I shall. Since the beginning of WikiProject Dravidian civilizations we have tried to present a diverse array of Dravidian cultures such as the Tamils, Malayalees, Telugus, Kannadigas, Brahuis and so forth. Even before the formation of this WikiProject I have noticed on the Classical dance of India page that classical dances from three Dravidian states were presented accept for Karnataka. Finding this rather odd, I have went out of my way to create a page for Yakshagana which was praised by Gnanapiti here and here just to find out that there already existed such a page. As a matter of fact I have tried my best to promote all Dravidian groups here on Wikipedia by even creating special user templates such as these, and include the different Dravidian scripts on the WikiProject page here (ie. Kannada, Malayalam, Telugu, Tamil). Why on earth would anyone think that I have something against Kannadigas? For everyone's information, I have been able to find Mollywood for Malayalee films, Tollywood for Telugu films, and Kollywood for Tamil films. However, with the same situation as with the Classical dance, I was unable to find a similar name for Kannada films. So, the name Cooliewood was found from this web site and thus, I have used that term to categorize Kannada film along with the other "Dravidian woods" for film. If I have offended anyone on this matter, I humbly apologize for the misinterpretation and misunderstaning this may have caused for some folks. As a habit I like things in order and complete and thus felt that Kannadiga topics such as film and dance should not be left out of Indian, Dravidian, or whatever topic. As a token of sincerity from my part I will remove the link from that page and will rename it to Kannada film. If anyone still has a grudge against me, then that is on you. I've already said my piece. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Sarvagnya here. When Wiki Raja states that he has been promoting "Dravidian culture" that is the onus of the problem. What is "Dravidian" and "Indo-Aryan" is obviously disputed. Dravidianism is generally a racist philosophy, terming North Indians and Brahmins as "invaders" and "Dravidians" as "victims of light skinned oppression" (in quotes for educational value). A very important string of edits got Wiki Raja's sockpuppet Indrancroos (talk · contribs) blocked a while ago [49]. This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page) of Wiki Raja's attitude towards the pages he edits.Bakaman 20:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI: I was new to Wikipedia almost 2 years ago. However, after being blocked I created a new name to start new on a clean slate to edit and created legitimate articles as a contribution to Wikipedia. Proof can be seen in two WikiProjects, several articles, and expansions of numerous articles. Our project focuses on promoting articles comprised of all Dravidians (Tamils, Malayalees, Kannadigas, Telugus and other groups not properly represented). Other groups include but are not limited to Tuluvas, and Brahuis, for example. As a matter of fact, I have also voted to keep the article on Brahmin Tamils here since Brahmins are a part of the Tamil civilization, while Tamil civilization is part of the greater Dravidian civilzations. If you disagree with some of the articles, you are clearly entitled to your opinions. Also, it is not nice to compare fat people with feces. What do you have against fat people? Wiki Raja (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
No one compared fat people with feces. Bakasupraman just commented that you added picture of feces and fat people on an article about Indian martial arts. Don't try to provoke people by making unfounded statements. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not trying to provoke people. It clearly shows that Bakaman stated "This edit is indicative (Images of Feces, Fat people, and God knows what else being plastered on a martial arts page)". It's posted right in this section. Wiki Raja (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Attempting to stir up others with this post was completely uncool. I have reverted it.--Versageek 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was uncool to compare fat people with feces. That's why I posted it. If you took it wrongly, I apologize. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Although such a comparison was NOT made, for argument's sake, if it was, what you wrote on the talk page of that article had a clear aim of trying to instigate something very unnecessary. As you've been a member of Wikipedia for the past 2 years, you should have known that this is not the way you should have gone about dealing with it.

As the main member of the WikiProject India Assessment Team, and as an editor/reviewer, I also request that Wiki Raja be blocked for an extended period of time of at least 6 - 12 months, if not greater. Editors who persistently make disruptive edits and comments in Wikipedia and in effect, disregard Wikipedia's policies and procedures, clearly should not be allowed to edit in Wikipedia. In this case, his limited constructive contributions (if any at all), combined with the extremely inappropriate way in which this editor has behaved (during this process in which an incident about him was being reported), has heightened the need for this extended/permanent block/ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Persistently making disruptive edits? Are you talking about our WikiProjects Dravidian civilizations and Tamil civilization? Show me where I have been persistently been making disruptive edits in the past month. What does WikiProject India Assessment Team have to do with this? The bottom line is that there are folks out there who are hell bent on bending historical truths in order to satisfy their revisionist lust. With that said, it is not surprising why we come under attack to the utmost for merely breathing on Wikipedia. Wiki Raja (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You may note that I was speaking generally regarding persistent disruptive edits. Precisely, who is 'we'? Many of your contributions appear to affect articles that fall under the WikiProject India banner, and of course, you are welcome to at least try to show me (and others) otherwise, that your constructive contributions outweigh the non-constructive (or perhaps disruptive) ones. In any case, I'm fascinated by your nonsensical reasons as to why users (such as myself) feel you should be blocked. You are not being reported here as an attack, but purely so you can take time out to re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and to hopefully learn to behave and deal with things more appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Whoa! this web site??? I wonder, does Wiki Raja ever seen WP:RS policy page and if yes, being an editor of Wikipedia for nearly 2 years, does he have any respect to it? Among billions of books, newspapers, journals, websites, this is the webpage he chooses to select the name of a state's film industry, the page which doesn't even appear in google search for "Cooliewood", and a page anyone, anytime can create without any credentials, any verification. Does he think WP:RS, WP:V policies are just for fun? Does he even know, that page could have got created after he gave the name "Cooliewood" to the Cinema of Karnataka? By apologizing here in ANI and reverting that particular edit, does he assume we can get away from it? One cannot expect other editors to watch each and every edit of his, and when a problem is found, "just revert it and apoligize" is NOT a solution. There are thousands of edits, and it is editor's responsibility to work/edit correctly and constructively all the time, and not just after the misconduct is made public in ANI. Provocation / Forum Shopping are not at all the good way to handle the disputes. He has done this time and again, and the latest provocation (mentioned above in this very thread) is just one more part of his disruptive contributions to the project. As Ncmvocalist as mentioned above, Wiki Raja's disregard to Wikipedia's policies and procedures are highly unacceptable, that too after repeated warnings and multiple blocks. As I mentioned above, for a user whose block is just expired, the least expected is to initiate a discussion instead of involving in the same offense of revert war that fetched him block. Repeated offenses of revert warring, disruptive editing, severe personal attacks including allegations on racism , totally unnecessary and harmful provocations and forum shopping...the list goes on and on. This has been happening since a long time now, and it has adverse effects on the Wikipedia and other editors' productivity and thus needs be addressed as early as possible. We just cannot let go forever. After a block, some maturity is expected from the editor's part. But even after multiple blocks, we are back to square. Time for indef block. - KNM Talk 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of racism. That's a good one KNM. Would anyone consider this racist:[50] Would anyone consider these attacks and threats against me by your group:[51]. Enough with this nonsensical piety. This is just a drop in the bucket with their numerous personal attacks against my ethnicity and self. Also to mention the number of blanking, and blind reverts on their part. However, I have made a mistake by responding to these types of editors which make matters worse. I will admit that and am very sorry for even giving them the time of day to hear a response from me. I appologize to anyone else if this matter has caused anyone an inconvenience. Responding to trolls, socks, and other trouble makers does not make things better. I have learned from that mistake and shall go about this in a more appropriate way. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not try to mislead people by providing giving an irrelevant diff for my complaint on your racism allegations. As indicated in my original post in this thread, I was referring to this personal attack] you have made on me. - KNM Talk 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I too propose an indef block of Wiki Raja. I feel this user has only one purpose on wikipedia, and that is to template every South Indian article with his "dravidian civilization" template. In addition, he has prepared other templates now such as the "Tamil civilization" etc, though I am not sure what actually is "Tamil civilization". Those who come to wikipedia with a "mind" will contribute constructively, those who come with a "mindset" will only be an obstruction to others. After one year of interaction with this user, I feel he is not interested in achieving concensus on any of his pet issues, all of which revolve around the "Dravidian race". The very fact he does not bother to get concensus is because he knows he will not get it. His current excuse of using a web page to justify using "cooliewood" is only an alibi. Here is why. Let us take the example of the Yakshagana art form, an ancient form of religious/folk theatre from the Kannada speaking regions. Initially he tried to establish that it was a dravidian art from. When he could not get concensus, he tried to demean it by adding a transgender template, because in this theatre, men can wear feminine costumes while performing theatre. Here are some links to this.[52] and [53]. Also read his justification on the discussion page of that very article under the heading "LGBT template & Homophobia on Yakshagana" where he finds a convinient alibi for his actions.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
So, now gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals, and transgenders are demeaning? This conversation is beginning to make me sick with all this intolerance of peoples race, ethnicity, faith, bodily structure, and now sexual orientation. Some people think that they own this site turning Wikipedia into an un-democratic dictatoral web page to nurture racists, bullies, and homophobes. I am through with this conversation and feeding trolls. Also, one more thing, due to folks who may not be aware of what discrimination is, please read this this. Thank you. Wiki Raja (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And yet again!! Whom are you calling trolls now?? I request all the admins to please look into this ongoing breaches of multiple of wiki-policies, this time it is WP:NPA. This editor's incivility is going beyond control. - KNM Talk 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WikiRaja, please dont misrepresent what I wrote earlier. Yakshagana is a performing art and topics such as this should have been treated with more deliberation and care. Thats all. Any irrelevant template would naturally misguide a reader and hence is be "demeaning". This is what I meant. If you really wanted to improve the quality of that article, you should have first involved yourself in a constructive discussion, before adding that template. You however added that template after your failed in your attempts in templating that art form as "dravidian".

And please dont try to digress from the topic at hand and divert attention from the main issues.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It is funny how this was started and now is going in a whole different direction. It is clear that wiki raja has apologized for his actions and is now engaged in discussion rather than just revert. There is no point in bringing up old matters specially after he has been blocked for his mistakes. Users are making small things into huge matter and are letting this situation out of hand. Clearly , everyone who is involved in this conflict (as described by Wikiraja as Tamil "discrimination" ) have made their shares of mistakes. That includes everyone ! This is something that needs to be solved through mediation and not sheer blocks. What makes anyone think that blocking wikiraja will end this problem ? There are other Tamil editors who feel that there is some sort of Tamil "discrimination" going on. If wikiraja is blocked, then things will go into the wrong direction. A block after an apology is against the norms of wikipedia's blocking policy which is supposed to be "Preventative and not punitative". Furthermore, some violations accused on wikiraja is not even violations of any wikipedia rules. He is currently discussing [here]. I am not even seeing a tangible evidence that justifies a block for adding wikiprojects on articles. Wikiprojects are there to make articles better and wast majority of readers do not even see what wikiproject each article begins. It is not the same thing as adding an article into a category. Bakasuperman violated the WP:3RR but was not blocked because he decided to contact an admin. This is a positive step by both Bakasuperman and the admin who is discussing the matter with Bakasuperman. This is a good idea. However, why does this scenario not apply to wikiraja ? Why is he not given the opportunity of contacting an admin and is being stoned on AN/I ? This is wikipedia and everyone is free to edit and are encouraged to do so. Last, those who are here accusing wikiraja of not discussing are themselves doing the exact same thing by asking other to block wikiraja and not taking matter with him. Enough said ! Watchdogb (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a clear difference, considering the extremely inappropriate way in which Wiki Raja responded/behaved as can be seen in this post just a day ago (despite being here at Wikipedia for the last 2 years). An apology does not defeat the need for a block. It would mean anyone could get away with anything, as long as they apologized prior to being considered for a block. The block would serve to give him time out to refamiliarise himself with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, and give him time to learn to deal and behave with such situations more appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Did I say I apologized for notifying editors of this comment about fat people? I only apologized if this may have caused misunderstandings. If someone or a group demeans a particular gender, race, sex, ethnicity, etc. for that matter, I will notify folks of similar interests on this issue. Wiki Raja (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
You've clearly demonstrated that you are in desparate need of the time out if this is the way you operate here at Wikipedia. Your behaviour is absolutely inappropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is that behavior inappropriate ? He notified concerned people of the comment that struck him as "discrimination". You are not making you case here Ncmvocalist. Just because you pull out words and say this is inappropriate it does not make it so. Where in wikipedia is it inappropriate to notify concerned people that they have been attacked ? If you were attacked in an article, then of course you would want to be accepted. Just as if someone is racist against a certain race someone would notify the leaders of that community of what has happened. Watchdogb (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Again just because you say something it does not make it true. I may feel that you are in desperate need for a time out. Does that suffice for a block on you ? You may feel I am in desperate need for block. Does that mean it's justified ?