Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive148

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Revert war over interwikilinks to the siberian-russian wiki

Recently a Siberian-russian wiki was started and there is currently a motion to get is closed down again [1].

Nevertheless it has some articles and bots are starting to add interwikilinks to articles here but they get reverted by the people, that want that wiki gone. I personally have no preference as to the existance of the wiki, but I think while it is alive it would be a violation of WP:POINT and a disription to enwiki to remove the interwikilinks. See Talk:Ingria#Ru-Sib for some of the arguments involved. The User I came accross on the Germany article[2] doing this is Mikkalai (talk · contribs) but apparently there are more. Agathoclea 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

iwiki link removal

Archived thread removed, see /IncidentArchive147#iwiki_link_removal. El_C 13:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue hasn't really been resolved either way. None of the above answers the question whever there is some policy that would allow the removal of interwiki links. The debate on meta seems very heated, and despite the fact that the "discussion" is of extremely low quality and heavily politicized there do seem to be some genuine problems with the Siberian Wikipedia (though the POV argument can be also be called of many others, and from what I could read of that page, there doesn't seem to be anything really terrible on sib like for example genocide denial). I think this might be a cultural issue, with our Russian partners not understanding that in European culture there is an assumption of innocence. Therefor it has to be first determined if the Siberian Wikipedia violates the rules of the Wikimedia Foundation and only then, if it does, should the iwiki links be removed. --84.16.230.249 12:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Fact Finder

Fact Finder (talk · contribs) is doing some weird things, like attempting to continue discussion on an archived page (Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2006 October 22) which isn't intended for use for ongoing discussion, and also is making what borders on personal attacks on me (accusing me falsely of deleting his comments and lying about being a member of Mensa). *Dan T.* 00:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is he still allowed to edit? I've not seen him do anything productive, he appears to be here purely to spam his company. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
He's continuing to add commentary to various archive pages, trying to get the last word in various long-dead discussions. His comments include accusations that Wikipedians are sending e-mail viruses to his company, among other things. *Dan T.* 14:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Quebec Vandal"

Ok, this is just getting to be enough here. The guy has used 51 sockpuppets now on a regular basis. Multiple checkusers have been done and the latest one has found that it's a dynamic IP. The latest vandal was User:134.173.56.219, which according to one of Essjay's tools belongs to Claremont Colleges in California. It follows the regular pattern displayed by these users. So, can I propose some kind of community ban of IP's or something? I know we're the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but this is just getting ridicules. It's not just this guy either. Quebec is regularly vandalized, some IP's showing up in the midwest, some on either coast. One was an open proxy (reported to WP:OP). Is there really anything that we can do here, short of protecting the article for all time? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

134.173.56.219 doesn't appear to have made any "unconstructive edits" to Quebec lately - his/her most recent edit to that article was to revert vandalism. BTW, 134.173.56.219 is not a dynamically assigned address; it's a statically assigned address in the 134.173.56.0/21 HMC student range. It's probably a student editing from their desktop computer; an open proxy is highly unlikely. - A Concerned Mudder
Concur with above, you're misreading that latest edit it's undoing the vandalism. I'd say at the moment this is a classic WP:RBI, don't feed the trolls etc. incident. The vandalism is obvious and reverted quickly, if someone is sad enough to want attention by damaging things don't reward them with what they want. By all means continue the checkusers but if our checkusers can't find a consistent enough pattern to do something more permenant no amount of talking about it here or in any other forum will make any difference, nor will it make the vandalism any more obvious than it already is. --pgk 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I just re-checked that. I must have been looking at the wrong edit or something. Nothing to be done I guess. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 16:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Striking other user votes in an AFD

Can we strike other user votes in an AFD when we are not even an admin and on the other side of dispute. If not then please warn the user because I reverted it back but he continues to do that again. And I do not know what I suppose to do now? --- ALM 12:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • In general nobody's comments should be struck out on an AFD because they are not really "votes", and anonymous users are welcome to contribute to the discussion. On the other hand, in this case the item struck out was a useless '''keep''' ~~~~, so I wouldn't make a big deal out of it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Useless delete? humm? Should I go ahead and strike this keep too. "Keep, --Shamir1 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)"? Being a fair person we all should be consistent in our opinion --- ALM 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a "'''delete''' ~~~~". Whether we like it or not, unreasoned "vote" type contributions on AFDs do count for something (how much is up to the closing admin) when they are made by well established contributors (I have even seen arbitrators make such posts). When an anonymous person makes such a contribution they usually don't count for squat. I would not recommend that you strike out anything, but if you will remove the the strikethrough and make a comment of the lines of "Please don't strike out anything unless it was made in bad faith" below it, then I don't think anyone will complain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I had done that already and was here for your help. Looks like Gwernol below will do that. Thank you. --- ALM 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The same with "DO NOT DELETE" Wiki is free hosting people, no-one cares if those aren't counted. Still, XfD is not a vote and some people think it is. Will (Tell me, is something eluding you, sunshine?) 12:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think that striking out anonymous votes are a good idea. However, as long as the editor striking out the vote makes it clear that he and not the original anonymous editor struck out the vote, and indicating the reason for striking out the vote, then I'm not going to get up in arms over it. —Psychonaut 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I love the idea of AFD is not a vote and hate when they do become votes. But that what not the action of closing admin sometimes reflect. Can someone ensure me please that this AFD will not be closed after reading both sides comment and will not be a simple counting? --- ALM 12:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

In general striking out the comments of any user in AfD is not permitted. Anon IP users are welcome to express their opinions in AfDs. I will remove the strike and ask the user who struck it not to do this again. We should allow the closing admin to exercise their good judgment in closing AfDs. In this case I doubt much weight will be given to the delete opinion expressed, but it is not okay to strike it out. Gwernol 13:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you :). Problem solved. --- ALM 13:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You don't have to strike out anything by others actually. Usually on close inspection the closing admin of any XfD can tell which to discard and which to consider. - Mailer Diablo 21:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 68.208.176.52

This IP vandalizes wikipedia since 19 January 2005. The user have been warned, but he keeps trolling. Examples:

Vigilantes

As of 2006, vigilante involvement in road rage highway battles has risen sharply.[citation needed] Vigilantes often when identifying a road battle involving rage will join in the chase in an attempt to disable the aggressor's vehicle. Vigilantes have been known to employ the use of spears, handfulls of rocks, and cinder blocks to aid in the disabling of an offending vehicle. They maintain that the easiest and safest way to stop a speeding vehicle is a direct hit with a cinder block or spear to the driver or radiator.[citation needed] In Maine in July, a vigilante confused another vigilante who was engaged with a raging driver. The original vigilante noted that the "other guy went racing past in front, slowed, and all of a sudden a spear came flying out the drivers side and hit me in the chest."[citation needed]

The agressive driver will continue to punish weaker, more ignorant drivers until he feels sufficient retribution has been had, or a lesson has been taught.

Waffles, indeed, are good.

The user's activity: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&target=68.208.176.52

Inconsistent editing here, probably a small school (or a family). yandman 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong speedy tagging by sockpuppets with strange usernames

I have noticed that a user tags many pages that are at WP:PNT wrongly with {{db-notenglish}}, and some of these are wrongly deleted. Please do not delete pages that are not in English unless they exist on other Wikimedia projects: they should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at WP:PNT.

The sockpuppets I am talking about are many new users with random usernames like Miui-kaoa (talk · contribs) and Iwtb (talk · contribs). These users also update cleanup tags, just like the the user Ppgj-nzng (talk · contribs) who recently made the same wrong redirect as Qhkj-mdhm (talk · contribs). Has anybody else seen this kind of behavior and does anybody have an idea why this guy makes lots of new accounts like these and with edits like these? Kusma (討論) 19:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous requests for deletion of George W. Bush

The editors OrbitalWise (talk · contribs) and LoxingFerrer (talk · contribs) have made repeated requests for aforementioned article to be deleted, on WP:DRV and WP:RFPP. LoxingFerrer, at least, is violating WP:POINT, as shown by this. Can something be done? -Amarkov blahedits 20:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also note this personal attack made on me by OrbitalWise. -Amarkov blahedits 20:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked both indefinitely as obvious sockpuppets with the sole purpose of disruption. Cowman109Talk 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Who are they sockpuppets of? Ashibaka tock 20:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
They are clearly sockpuppets of eachother, but if it goes further than that, only checkuser could determine. Cowman109Talk 20:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
OrbitalWise said that he was supported by User-multi error: "Homey" is not a valid project or language code (help). (Odd, could have sworn I've seen him, but no contribs) and SPUI (talk · contribs). There might be something there. -Amarkov blahedits 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Found the diff, he also mentioned Essexmutant (talk · contribs). -Amarkov blahedits 20:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Those are just other unrelated users, that much I'm sure of. There doesn't seem to be much more to do other than block any others who show up with the same frivolous deletion request, and if they persist, a checkuser request to block whatever range they're using could be in order. Cowman109Talk 20:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it sounds too random for my liking to tie any of them up to this one. - Mailer Diablo 21:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just bringing it up, not necessarily saying there's anything to it. -Amarkov blahedits 20:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Also see User:Whitdick - who thought this was a good idea. 213.107.21.212 22:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This troll has other accounts which have been indef blocked for the same thing. Seems like a good case for quiet blocking when necessary per WP:DENY. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:Zora

Please revert a vandalous page move at User talk:Zora. Thanks. --BostonMA talk 23:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Martinp23 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've also given the vandal a one week block. Martinp23 23:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Peterwats

Peterwats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been repeatedly violating several Wikipedia policies (personal attacks, civility, improper use of speedy deletion, and vandalism; there's also some rather obvious sockpuppet voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Communism which I suspect he's behind). His user talk page is full of warning templates (many of them "this is your last warning" templates). IMHO it's about time he's blocked. —Psychonaut 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say indef-block. Anyone else agree? —Mets501 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. He has apparently abused sock puppets in AfDs about articles he created, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Communism and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Workers Party. He's been all over amking personal attacks and demanding that other users be banned (or more precisely, "band". His spelling is terrible.) Even Stormfront (website) has banned him as a troll. -Will Beback · · 00:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone please hurry up and take action against this user. Since my notice was posted, he has created yet another article about himself (Peter Watson (political activist)), inserted information on his own non-notable publications to Warwick, Queensland, and made personal attacks by calling editors neo-Nazis [3][4]. His user page is overflowing with warnings about such behaviour (and not just from me). —Psychonaut 10:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've indefinately blocked him. Martinp23 10:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry by 64.107.3.104

64.107.3.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This one is kind of complicated. This user has a static IP address and is blocked under this IP but is editing under 66.99.3.172, 64.107.2.2, 66.99.1.109, 66.99.0.8, and 64.107.1.221. I don't really know how you handle this. But he's engaging in edit wars on the Yasser Arafat article and the Katyn massacre article. He seems to be the only one using these IP's. He's vandalized my user page several times. The IP's are clearly the same person when you look at the edits they've made to the Arafat article attempting to insert the same information over and over when he's been told that the source isn't reputable. --Strothra 22:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am reposting this report, which was removed from WP:AIV, because it appears to indicate that 64.107.3.104 is using sockpuppets to evade his block. John254 22:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of our better-known troublemakers from about a year ago: the "George Reeves" vandal, aka "Squidward", who I don't think been around for a while. Those are his IP ranges, and the edits all show his characteristic interests, editing style, comma splices, and "I'm right, I'll revert until I get my way" manner. Here's an example from earlier this year [5]. ; here's an even better contribs list [6]. Not sure if there's a long term abuse page on him or not, or if we killed it under WP:DENY. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Here you go: Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/George_Reeves_Person. Jimbo deleted the LTA page himself as part of a negotiation with this person: the deal, if I recall correctly, was that he would leave us alone. Looks like he's back. Look at the page carefully in undelete preview; it's clearly the same person. Antandrus (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone may want to bring this up with Jimbo and ask he if minds if we undelete the page. JoshuaZ 06:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please check

User:216.164.200.39 . I think its a sock trolling on RD!--Light current 00:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Potential racism - input required

I was asked [7] by User:RoboRanks to intervene on Somali people, where I found a clear 3RR vio [8], so I've blocked both him and User_talk:68.40.41.202 for 24 hours. I'm looking for input into the other allegations waged against the IP on the talk page of the article - ie, what action to take. Thanks -- Martinp23 02:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

I've never had to report sockpuppets before and don't know if this is the right venue or format, but here goes. Five accounts were created within the past 24 hours which all appear to be SPA accounts, all have made near-identical edits to a group of closely related Somalia articles, blanked sections and images for POV reasons, and supported each other in revert wars on the articles and in the talkpages. The contrib histories are relatively short, and almost any diff in their histories supports my assertions. I'm not involved in the article itself, I became aware of this through RC Patrol and followed up. The page has been protected, but the dispute revolved around the assertions of these suspect editors:

If I haven't come to the right place, please re-direct me. Otherwise, please investigate: it looks like some blocks are in order. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as obvious socks, if they are not really obvious, WP:RFCU might be in order to checkuser em -- Tawker 04:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy response and good advice. I thought they were obvious, but have limited experience with socks. I (and others) really appreciate your help :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 04:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible vote stacking and sockpuppetry at a TfD

Hi all. I'd like to bring everyone's attention to the recent TfD nomination of {{Turkish History Brief}}, which seems to have caused a lot of controversy. I had to warn Zaparojdik (talk · contribs) for the talk page spamming he did, in addition to another user. However, the strangest thing is that these users are voting were clearly notified either by email or somewhere else off-wiki. For example, before ErdemTuzun voted, he his last edit was in 2002, and many other of the users aren't that active either, such as Bugtrio. There might also be some sockpuppetry involved as well, I'm not sure. However, I could appreciate if some other admins could look into this. Thanks. Khoikhoi 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Would it have influenced the outcome? If so, RFCU will take you :) Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 06:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The main issue isn't sockpuppetry, but the massive vote stacking that occured due to talk page spamming, and possibly something outside wiki. Khoikhoi 06:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Japanese nationalists at Korea articles

There's been a series of Japanese vandalism on many Korea articles that have led to page protection. This has happened to Korea, Kofun period, Joseon Dynasty have been protected recently, and similar thing has happened to Korea under Japanese rule, Battle of Myeongnyang, and I'm sure others.

It looks like we have the same combination of original research, Japanese nationalism, anonymous IP's, mangled English, and revert battling, now shaping up at Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe protecting this page too is the only answer. Thanks. Room218 06:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Room218 is right in his claim (I haven't checked it out), you'll notice 211.131.246.10 (talk · contribs), who is in the same ISP range as these changes, tried to blank this section on the ANI. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 08:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
211.131.246.10 (talk · contribs) has directly edited Korean-Japanese disputes, and also vandalized Room218's talk page. Although it's hard to be sure, it seems likely that there's one person who has been using frequently changing IP addresses to make controversial and repeated changes to Korea-related articles, specifically where Japan-Korea relations are involved. The use of language and the specific edits are usually very consistent across changing IP addresses. --Reuben 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IPs on Ollanta Humala article

There is an IP in the Ollanta Humala article who keeps adding false information that Humala's father is named "Alonso Vargas". As the de facto head of the Wikiproject Peru I can tell you that Ollanta Humala's father is Isaac Humala (whom himself is very well known in Peru). The IP seems persistant and it doesn't seem like he will stop. I am not sure if the IP is driven by malice, in order to vandalize the article, or if he simply doesn't understand that the information he is adding is false. Either way, I do not want to have to be watching this article and getting into a revert war over this and thus I ask for some administrator intervention.

First two edits from IP

Third edit from a different IP location:

Angry user from Bahrain

We have one user from Bahrain who seems to be a Shi'a Muslim and an opponent of the current Bahraini regime. He edits from various anonIPs. After he reverted the Rafida article five times in two hours, I asked to have that article semi-protected -- which was done. This seems to have enraged him. As User:89.148.41.41 he left an epithet on my user page and a nasty comment on my talk page accusing me of being anti-Shi'a. Now he's using User:89.148.40.178 to follow me around WP, reverting anything I edit. Could someone please roll back the 178 edits and block that IP, or range of IPs? Zora 06:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked both IPs and reverted him/her. Please let me know if this person returns. Khoikhoi 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks muchly! That was FAST. Zora 06:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and he's come back from different IPs just as quickly. He keeps reverting, various admins keep rolling back and blocking, he gets another IP. This is one determined dude. Fascinating, in a serial-killer-movie kind of way. Zora 09:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JFD

JFD has been removing any Indian influence on Chinese culture incessently. He has removed sourced text from Shaolin temple [9] and posted unsourced POV statements on Zen and Chan. [10] Kindly see that this incessent violation of mentioning unsourced text and removing sourced text does not continue.

Freedom skies Send a message to Freedom skies 07:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Can an admin head over here, there appears to be a semi-large backlog. semper fiMoe 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:LAUGH90

I have permanently blocked the account LAUGH90 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) because of this edit. He seems to be the devoted vandal with a habit of vandalizing pages and helpfully adding an editing summary of "Replacing page with '[text]'" (or "Blanking page").

Spanish Gibraltarians

I feel that this article has been deleted wrongfully.

  • No vote was made on its content or name at the time of its deletion. The vote having been made on Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar which was completely different to Spanish Gibraltarians both in name and in content.
  • The article is NPOV, well sourced, provides only information which is absent on all other Gibraltar related articles and simply refers to a community of people (Gibraltarian Spaniards) explaining who they are and a bit of their history. No POV related to the Anglo-Spanish dispute on Gibraltar is even touched and thus is non-controversial. The article was deleted in with a very small number of votes and in a very short time (5 days?).
  • A copy of the article is on my talk page.--Burgas00 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I know that this issue got be posted at WP:DR WP:DRV. But, Burgas and I thought it would be a good idea to inform admins that Burgas is planning to recreate the article under a diff title and NPOV. What didn't look fine at the AfD process is the duration of the discussion. It was closed after 5 votes and after only 5 days!
Anyway, i believe that after the article is freed from POV (in case there are), it can be recreated under the new title. Apart from the duration of the vote, the nature of the votes are also unfounded (most voters talked about POV -which not a valid reason to delete an article), the nomination was based on that "there exists articles on Gibraltar and Demographics of Gibraltar" is also questioble and not convincing at all as there exist people caled SPANISH GIBRALTARIANS. Any comments or feedbacks? -- SzvestWiki Me Up ® 17:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean WP:DRV? - Francis Tyers · 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, correct Francis. Thanks for the note. -- SzvestWiki Me Up ® 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask user Gibnews to stop deleting or requesting speedy deletion of the copy of the article on my talk page. He already got it deleted from the talk page of Spanish Gibraltarians and has now requested speedy deletion from my talk page (??) This seems like an attempt to disrupt the current process of undeletion. Thanks. --Burgas00 15:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This article was deleted through the AFD. The original title was Originary inhabitants of Gibraltar, which was moved to Spanish Gibraltarians. Please use WP:DRV if you found the AFD process to be incorrect. Naconkantari 19:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

TheBigDirtyBastard

I saw a piece of vandalism[11] from TheBigDirtyBastard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and rolled it back. I then checked his contribs to see if it was a vandalism-only account, which I would have blocked indefinitely. It doesn't seem to be, but it is a fairly new account. In that case, I'd just give him a warning. However, I'm wondering should he be blocked for his username. My feeling is yes, definitely, but I think I would tend to be less tolerant of such names than other people might, and I'm not actually experienced in username blocks. I may have done one or two, but if so, they were really offensive names. As it is, I haven't even warned this user for his vandalism, because it seems a bit silly to warn someone for vandalism if I'm going to block him two minutes later regardless of any possible change in behaviour. Can someone please advise? Thanks. AnnH 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The name doesn't offend me, but I do suggest he should be pointed to Wikipedia:Changing username; He seems to have made good contribs so there's always room for change rather then a block. MatthewFenton (talk  contribs  count  email) 19:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as an opinion, there have been a lot of requests for uName blocks recently for names which are really fairly inoffensive, and it seems to me a trend is starting which may be ill-advised. We're not Disney, after all. This one could offend some; however it is not "profane" - bastard being a legal term, and dirty having several meanings - and may be a semi-witticism on the part of the editor. I applaud Ann's reluctance to block precipitously for uName. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps he is a fat guy who works on a farm and gets dirty, and was born out of wedlock. This may be really funny to him, and not profane at all. Or perhaps it has less meaning. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of good faith by user Shamir1

Palestinian Exodus is the scene of a long-running content dispute (but that's not what this complaint is about). Admin User:Steel359 protected the article on Nov 12 for this reason. However, User:Shamir1, one of the main warring parties, was unhappy about which version was protected so on Nov 18 he claimed on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that the dispute was over.[12] Since the argument was continuing ferociously on the Talk page, with Shamir1 involved, this claim was a deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article. And in fact Steel359 unprotected the article in good faith, only to be forced to protect it again soon afterwards. I respectfully request action against Shamir1 for this dishonest behavior. --Zerotalk 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the history, User:Shamir1 has not edited the article since November 11. Do you have the wrong user there? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The article had been protected since Nov 12 except for the brief unprotection on Nov 18 that I mentioned, that's why he didn't edit it. Look on the talk page to see his continued involvement in the dispute (8 edits since Nov 12). --Zerotalk
I think what Zero is saying is that he had the intent of doing so, and ought to have action taken against him. An attempted crime is almost as bad as a crime itself. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"deliberate lie in order to trick someone into unprotecting the article" is a crime. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Note:User:Isarig did similar thing to Neo-Fascism. he requested unprotection, deleted the section in dispute, and then had his version protected. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 08:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

About Shamir1, if you look at his contribs he requested unprotection several times this week. He kept coming back each time after unprotection was declined [13], and yesterday (his third or fourth request) I decided to AGF and unprotect. It was promptly reprotected when the edit warring started again. I can't say I was surprised. -- Steel 12:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I say they should both at least get a severe tongue-lashing, and, if it checks out on Isarig, the version should be reverted. If it happens again, they should be temp-blocked for disruption. I would do so myself, but I'm not an admin. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anybody acted in bad faith it was User:Zero0000 himself. Note that this is not a content dispute per se - it's simply Zero0000 deleting mass sourced material. Amoruso 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We're not debating here the legitimacy of the changes, we're debating the fact that this user seems to have made a bad-faith request to get the page unprotected, so that he could get his own version back before it was reprotected. Regardless of the legitmacy of the claims, that's breaking faith if it was true. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 22:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Block enforcement requested

Indef-blocked Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) is back and edit-warring on Irish potato famine (legacy) as 216.194.0.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Can someone block please? Thanks! Demiurge 11:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • And also disrupting this noticeboard [14]. Demiurge 11:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I've put an autoblock on Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs) which should stop the IP - if not, then another block needs serving specifically for the IP. Martinp23 11:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean "put an autoblock" on, the original user was blocked quite a while ago before the option to disable autoblocks was available. Autoblocks themselves are not necessarily that simple, in this case it is unlikely the original user id has edited from that IP so an autoblock will not occur (indeed that user has come back under various usernames and IPs over time). I've blocked the IP. --pgk 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah OK - thanks. Martinp23 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

IP 213.216.199.6 requests unblock

I got a mail saying this( I have added the wikisyntax):

I have been autoblocked by you because I happen to be assigned some IP address that was used by a blocked user. I (A_Jalil (talk · contribs)) have nothing to do with the sockpuppet nor the edits that led to the block. Can you please unblock my username so I can do some edits. Thanks.

the block note is:

Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Fred Chess for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Featured article (talk · contribs)". The reason given for Featured article's block is: "Blocked user, sockpuppet".

Your IP address is 213.216.199.6.


I don't have the time to investigate this right now, but I think it is important not to block innocent people, if that's the case here. Could someone take a look and take appropriate actions?

Fred-Chess 12:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The IP in question (213.216.199.6 was blocked on 01:43, November 11, 2006 for a period of 1 week. This means that it should not be blocked by now!
Anyway, i received an email as well from user:A Jalil who has nopthing to do with the edits of the IP as Jalil maily edits Morocco related articles. I'll unblock the IP which i believe should have been technically ublocked by today! -- SzvestWiki Me Up ® 12:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

68.52.232.43's vendetta

68.52.232.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be waging a slow vendetta against wikipedia, threatening to buy it and turn it into a Chirstian website. Violations of WP:NPA are to be found everywhere, but the IP has made no edits since npa4 was posted. Could be someone we need to watch. Martinp23 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, 75.109.101.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was trolling The Haunted Angel's talk page previously, on the same topic. --Majorly (Talk) 16:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Not just me either, take a look at HJ's talk page. The Haunted Angel (The Forest Whispers My Name) 17:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

poss. block evasion

this anon: 70.114.236.109 (talk · contribs) might be RunedChozo (talk · contribs) evading a block. similarity of pages edited, preoccupations & accus. against admins seem enough to be worth look into   bsnowball  16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Backlog at CSD

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please feel free to pop over and delete a couple dozen. Or even a couple. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Zane burden

This is a {{db-bio}} candidate that should be expunged immediately due to the inclusion of personal identifying information about a suspected minor in multiple versions in edit history. --Kinu t/c 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Appears to have been taken care of as I was typing this. Thanks! --Kinu t/c 18:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

4.225.119.125

4.225.119.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - was blocked for 24 hours for vandlism, but after a death threat against User:SlimVirgin, I've lengthened the block to one week. Another one to look out for when the block expires (also, user talk page is sprotected). Martinp23 19:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Qbkd10

The user above creates new user-pages and adds spam-links (see User_talk:Buddy and User:Some). Greetings ~~ Phoe talk 21:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ~~

I reviewed User:Qbkd10's contrib history thinking I'd find blatant linkspamming (mmm, my favorite!). Instead, this seems to be a good-faith editor who has made a couple of questionable contributions, probably because they are unclear on some WP basics (like not creating extra userpages). I fixed a couple of article edits that were problematic, but haven't touched any of the userpages or contacted User:Qbkd10. Hopefully this quick little "background check" will help the responding admin :) Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Generic Character socks

I posted a report here a while about about a user, User:Generic Character, who had plagiarised various texts in various articles and in addition was trolling on various pages. User:David Gerard blocked him. here is the initial report.

Since then, we've noted at least three users engaged in this pattern of behaviour. Articles targetted include

The socks are User:Copiedimage, User:Tauex and User:Uhrwerkmaus. They've denied being socks even though this is quite blatantly obvious from the identical editing pattern. The vendetta has recently increased in scope, to attempt to remove all coat of arms from Wikipedia. I expect more socks to be created. This user has also vandalised my userpage (check contrib history of IP to match to other similar edits made). Please block on sight. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Generic Mouse, Uhrwerkmaus, Tauex, Rodentiaest, Copiedimage, all blocked indefinitely. Generic Character still indef blocked from last time. I've also blocked the IP (which has been used as yet another persona) for a month for the relentless sockpuppetry - David Gerard 23:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Kdbuffalo disruption and edit warring

Reverts that apparently skirt the three RR policy, but that are disruptive and indicative of edit warring, on Evidence of evolution [15].

Comments: This user has a long list of rule violations (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo). He habitually deletes any comments left on his talk page without replying to them, making it impossible to interact with him. NOTE: Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day. •Jim62sch• 21:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for block

Please consider blocking User:Lepetitvagabond for abusing the use of discussion page and making un-factual comments on other users,tagging advertisements on certain page such as Tourism in Kuala Lumpur which is not an advertisement.This particular user is criticizing other editor's language ability and predicts i'm the person who comment in the discussion page without signing which i did not comment anything. User keep putting in comments which is not even related to the article.Therefore,i hope the admins can consider blcoking this user.Marcusaffleck 05:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously, you have to make a stronger case for the block, after all, what I have mentioned in the discussion forums is nothing more than the truth, in view of the main article itself. Take a good look at your posts, the sock puppets you have created, the numerous pages you have started that has been since deleted... if anything goes, it is you who should be blocked and not me. -le petit vagabond 15:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider blocking SSS108 (talk · contribs) for repeated disruption related to Sathya Sai Baba. User began editwar by disputing references to Salon.Com in article, which led to a warning from user:Jossi (admin). User:SSS108 has continued to remove disputed references without gaining consensus among editors, leading to an RFA on the subject. Even after comment was obtained by ArbCom member (Fred Bauder), User:SSS108 refused to accept ArbCom decision on superficial grounds to the annoyance of several editors and admins involved in this dispute, for violating WP:POINT and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND.
User:SSS108 has been causing great disruption at Talk:Salon.Com by repeating invalid arguments and continually misrepresenting arguments of other editors, leading to great frustration and annoyance in a gross violation of WP:POINT. User has also been accused of partiality and bias in relation to Sathya Sai Baba, as article was subject of previous ArbCom dispute where User declared himself as an "advocate" of article's subject. User has also been observed to be involved in long and tedious disputes of Wikipedia policies in support of article's subject, removing controversial material on superficial grounds. User continues to repeat invalid arguments and disrupt. Request is made for 48-hour block or longer to allow for a cool-off period. -- Ekantik 05:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I came into the dispute only a few days ago as an uninvolved admin trying to sort things out. Since becoming involved my impression closely matches the above. This seems to meet the new guidelines on tendentious editing. A block might be in order. JoshuaZ 04:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
User is continuing to disrupt, violating WP:3RR and WP:DE thus forcing another editwar that has brought about a third warning from an administrator. User is a repeat offender and has been blocked previously for disruptive activity on the same article. User is a single-purpose account as User's userpage displays clear partisan bias, bringing a potential conflict of interest in editing said article. Perhaps temporary block to allow cool-off for user should be enforced now? - Ekantik 01:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Seeing as no one is going to see this section way up on the page, I would suggest reporting to WP:AIV, pointing to this section. I'm not sure if it's standard procedure, but if user needs to get blocked, it needs to be done. That not working, try WP:PAIN and WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
This is complicated by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba. I will have a look at it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, what we have here is a heated but legitimate difference of opinion between two editors in good standing. It's been to ArbCom but the disputed text is not really covered by that ruling (it's too content-specific). What it needs, more than anything else, is more eyes. I can't really pitch in because I have a pretty strong bias against the subject, plus I always tend to make things worse these days, so if any experienced pourers of oil on troubled waters want to take a look I think it will be appreciated by all concerned. It's certainly not straightforward. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two users to banned

I've checked at the history of edits of North Korea and spotted in October two inappropriate users called User:DEATH TO ALL DIRTY FUCKING GOOK SCUM!!!!! & User:I FUCKING HATE GOOKS - PLEASE KILL THEM ALL!!!!! which are possible suckpuppets of User:207.200.116.10 due to the same style of vandalism [20] they are not banned or notified for inappropriate usernames. Can we banned them? Thanks!--JForget 00:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Both blocked on October 11. [21] [22] -- SCZenz 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Evasion of bans: NLP

This is a complex issue because there have been a number of editors banned on this page, and this editor could just be taken a hard nose skeptic to the article. My suspicion, however, stems from this editors "blanket revert" then edit. Also, there has been a number of sesible edits mixed with the blind importing of edits written by banned users. This were both characteristics of the banned editors, and a behaviour that led to months of circular discussion, failed mediation, failed mentorship, and bans. The banned editor had create a complex network of sockpuppets that work together to evade arbcom rulings. This editor, AlanBarnet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) appears to be a carefully planned attempt. Either way, we'll need to continue to monitor this page and discussion. I will make edits that are entirely within policy to see if this user reverts blindly again. --Comaze 01:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence for evasion of ban/blocks (latest at top): I will then concentrate on blanket reverts as that was a tactic used by the banned editors

  • This revert was a blatant violation of wikipedia policy with misleading edit comment. The reasons given in following discussion was inadequate to justify the reversion. The changes removed by this revert were all properly discussed on the discussion page, entirely neutral, and based on paraphrases and summaries of peer reviewed psychological literature. Also removed pejorative words.
  • This revert adds bias back onto the page. Removes some style guidelines for headlines. Adds a spam link back onto the page.
  • Another blanket revert that removes NPOV-section tags, add some misleading statements, undoes update to cleanup tags, undoes cleanup of whitespace in headings as made by other wikipedian.
  • Revert my attempt to make sense and clean up the "ritual/techniques" section without discussion. This was followed by a series of edits that imported biased information written by banned editors which is what initial raised the flags that this user may be evading blocks. --Comaze 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence (POV edits)

  • This editor reverts then adds POV edits mixed with useful edits. The follow import POV text written by banned editors (HeadleyDown, etc.)[24][25]--Comaze 11:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by E104421

I ran a CheckUser on Karcha (talk · contribs) on request, since this ostensibly new user has gotten right in the middle of edit wars and existing conflicts from the beginning, and is obviously not new. It is very likely that Karcha, who has been used for reverting to E104421's revision frequently, is the same user as him based on both the IP evidence, and the editing pattern. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I reported the sock/main 3RR's to WP:AN3, and strongly urge the admins to block the sock indef - only intention was to avoid 3RR. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The sock has been blocked indef, and I've extended the block on the main (which was already blocked for a 3RR violation) to 6 days. Any admin is welcome to change that duration (longer or shorter) at their discretion. -- Steel 02:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted all of the sock's edits and crossed-out his votes at AfDs & TfDs as well. Khoikhoi 02:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've received an email from E104421 insisting that he's not a sockpuppeteer. He says he mainly edits from his office but sometimes from a guesthouse (which I assume is public). I'm not sure what people want to make of this. -- Steel 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

E104421 and Karcha both edit exclusively from the same university IP range. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Steel: Sure we haven't heard that one before... Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 06:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Gimme an hour or so to investigate their edits further. From what I saw during the last days, I had the impression the contents and profile of their edits was sufficiently dissimilar that I wouldn't have supposed sockpuppetry. In particular, Karcha had some particular issues that didn't seem to be shared by E. Fut.Perf. 08:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Having looked into their contributions a bit more, let me express some doubts:

  • IP addresses/checkuser: In his e-mail, E declares that his main IP is a stable non-shared address at his workplace, while others he's used are from a public pool. Dmcdevit, could you perhaps check if that stable IP has also been shared by Karcha? (I'll forward you the IP from E's e-mail).
  • Temporal patterns: E and K have sometimes been editing simultaneously, in ways that only a very skilled sockpuppeteer could fake. For instance, 17 Nov, 10:16-10:17: 3 edits by K ([26], [27], [28]), one simultaneous edit on an entirely unrelated topic by E ([29]), all of them substantial. 16 Nov, 21:34-21:42 two edits each by K ([30], [31]) and E ([32], [33]), alternating with only a minute in between.
  • Language: While both accounts are clearly not native speakers of English, K's English seems substantially poorer than E's.

What do you guys say? Fut.Perf. 09:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hate to butt in, but I just would like to point out that even new users have a right to jump into the middle of edit wars.. Hasn't the possibility that K is a friend of E, and E told K about Wiki and his contributions, and when K joined wiki, he automatically went to articles that his friend E told him about, but later found his own interests, crossed anyone's mind? I am not vouching for the guy by no means, but let's just not be so impulsive and not slap six-day bans on users before a detailed check had been done, as was the case for E104421. So let's not assume.. If u assume, u make.. :)) Baristarim 10:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is too suspicious - even ifthey aren't the same person, the nature of behaviour (3 reverts, then the other account/person kicks in) is at least meatpuppetry. And a "detailed check" has been done - the most detailed possible - Checkuser. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 10:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, tag-teaming revert wars are quite common on these articles, everybody seems to be doing it, and it's not really evidence of planned coordination. And about the reliability of the checkuser, I've only heard Dmcdevit saying they were using the same university's IP range. However, we are dealing with particular, stable workplace IPs, so I've asked Dmcdevit for clarification if he's also checked that. Fut.Perf. 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, what u say doesn't make sense: there are tag-team reverts happening by the masses by people who live in the farthest corners of this planet. I don't even know if E knows K, and the link that you gave doesn't mean anything, the fifth edit in question is 12 hours after the fourth one, how is that tag-team revert meatpuppetry?????? Such things happen in the space of tens of minutes. There is nothing wrong with a number of people who feel strongly about a subject to edit insistenly, without being part of a planned conspiracy. The six-day ban was given for sockpuppetry, and unless you have more evidence about meatpuppetry than a fourth and fifth edit spaced by a period of 12 hours, this ban should be annulled and these editors re-instated, and their revoked edits undone. The fact that their IPs are similar doesn't mean much, pls read my post below about that issue. Baristarim 10:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
People doing these edits believe in what they do, that's why they are doing those edits. We are not talking about vandalism here, the edits in question are legitimate edits. I also exchanged emails with E on this, he says that he goes to university in METU, a university in Ankara that has 50,000 students, and that teaches in English. So it is extremely probable that there are other wiki users in the same campus. And generally, big organizations like universities have computer centers that assure their Net liasion, and as such they dish out range of IPs. Your temporal check was particularly enlightening, nobody can simply switch back from a computer to another with 60 sec intervals. A six day ban is extremely unfair, since, even though not an administrator, I am not at all convinced by this evidence that they are the same person. I just think that it is not too fair to slap such a ban, without more concrete checks like the one you had done.. That's all.. Baristarim 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: In addition to what I pointed out above, I have forwarded some further evidence to Dmcdevit which, I believe, establishes with sufficient certainty that E104421 and Karcha are in fact two different individuals. They just happened to be both at the same university (which is one of Turkey's largest) and shared certain opinions (which are likely to be shared by 90% of all Turks). Contrary to all appearances (which, I admit, were strong), Karcha seems not to be a sockpuppet of E. E has plausibly explained to me that he doesn't even know K.

Unless there's some strong objections here, and pending ultimate confirmation from further checkuser details, I'd propose lifting the indef block on Karcha and reduce both blocks to something appropriate to "normal" 3RR offenses. Fut.Perf. 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose lifting the indef block on Karcha. In his short time here, he has been nothing but disruptive, with 90% of his edits being reverts, and the rest being personal attacks like "Kill Persianism". I don't see what good to the project we'd be doing if we unblocked him. He is essentially just another version of -Inanna-. I have no problem with lifting the block on E104421, however. Khoikhoi 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken - in fact, I have no doubt Karcha is pretty disruptive (just like many of the people he keeps warring against). Just a question of whether he's disruptive enough for an indef; I haven't watched him closely enough for that. But I'd like to cut back E's block to normal. Fut.Perf. 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I echo Khoikhoi. If you're confident they're different users then I have no problem with lifting the block on E<numbers>. Karcha has been edit warring quite a bit but I'm also unsure whether s/he's done enough for an indef. -- Steel 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Watch what you say about "other people" Lukas. Keep it cool. Indirect remarks like that by a new admin is terrible behavior and can be seen as personal attack. See WP:CIVIL. Khorshid 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Strong oppose to lifting both blocks. Karcha has made personal attacks against me and Iranian editors and has called me "Khorshit". No way thats just wrong Khorshid 18:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Even this other guy E112312 whatever his name is, look at his edit summaries. You trying to tell me that This is a productive user????? Khorshid 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree with Khoikhoi; Karcha should remain blocked, as he is an extremely disruptive editor. As for E104421, while I can't help feeling something fishy in what seems his coodination with Karcha, I think we should always in doubtful cases assume good faith, so the unblocking is OK for me to.--Aldux 18:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit is the only admin here with the checkuser tool, his findings indicate that Karcha (talk · contribs) is indeed a sockpuppet of E104421 (talk · contribs). Since then, User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise has been campaigning/Wikilawyering for User:E104421, and now he's unilaterally overruled User:Dmcdevit's checkuser of User:E104421 by unblocking him, caiming that "sock-puppetry accusations have been disproven" when User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is a new admin who has no access to checkuser, and hence is in no position to "prove" or "disprove" anything beyond doubt, and User:Dmcdevit's position has not changed. I find this whole thing very disturbing, especially considering User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's history, under his previous username, and the fact that he unblocked Zaparojdik, a freind of E104421, and another problematic Turkish user only last week [47], or how he tried to justify Karcha addressing an Iranian user as "KhorSHIT". [48] There is a trend here, and it isn't good. --ManiF 23:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
"Problematic Turkish user".. Well great.. "Problematic user" would have sufficed since there are many "problematic" users of all nationalities. Please let's all take a chill pill.. Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is also this issue: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee#Comment_by_Fut.Perf.. Again for a new admin he is quick to criticise and single out others and speak on "admin authority". I can respect motivation but for a new admin he is too familiar with the "admin style" and technical parts and also as Mani says above its kind of weird for him to be so quick to step over Dmcdevits finding and make an unblock on a clearly troubling user. To me this all seems like playing games and WP should not be about playing games or backdoor politicalisms. Khorshid 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No backdoor what? Please stop attacking other admins because they don't agree with you. FPAS' check was thorough and in good faith. Please be more respectful. In any case, how is this any relevant? FPAS's comments in an RfC in a totally different issue has nothing to do with the case at hand. And I don't understand your beef with FPAS either, just because he made his own investigation, that doesn't justify such ad hominim attacks. Gees, what the hell is going on? Baristarim 03:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised, to say the least, to see that E104221 had already been unblocked. (Especially since we exchanged emails afterwards still discussing this without Future Perfect at Sunrise telling me he'd already unblocked.) The "further evidence" he sent me was not very strong, and he shouldn't have unblocked over it, without consensus. Keep in mind tha "CheckUSer is not a magic pixie dust" works both ways: seemingly vague CheckUser results are not proof that two users aren't the same person, especially when the behavior is proof in itself, and the CheckUSer only serves to confirm it. As I replied in email, Many of FPAS' objections seem oversimplification: remember that both were on many common shared IPs. The behavior is just too coincidental to be believable: hardly ever do two users on the same IP range, much less the same university, edit the same articles at the same time. But editing the same articles at the same time, both involved in the same dispute, reverting to each other, and doing it in such a way that each avoids 3RR by the other's reverts? I think we may be grasping at straws here trying to find a way to demonstrate their distinct, when the opposite is much more obvious. Please remove blocks without consensus in the future. I've reblocked E104221 since the sockpuppetry was in no way "disproven". Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, they can be two friends in the same university. Did that cross your mind DMC? And how do you know how this university dishes out its IP addresses? avoiding 3RR blocks by tag-team reverting is done by people who lives tens of thousands of kilometres away, are we going to block all of them too? And besides there are many software tools and web-sites out there to escape such IP identification. This guy goes to Middle Eastern Technicla University in Ankara, the best technical university in Turkey, so I guess he would have been much smarter if he wanted to engage in sockpuppetry instead of just jumping into the computer next to him and typing away. There is no question of coincidence. So you are basically saying that I have no right to tell a friend at office or university "hey, why don't you check out wiki, these are some of the articles that i have been involved in"? I don't know that guy, and I don't know how anything happenned, but he told me that he doesn't even know Karcha. And escape 3RR in a period of 14 hours? You gotta be joking. In the case that got E suspended in the first place, there is a period of 14 hours between the fourth and fifth revert, how is that such a blatant case of tag-team reverting? Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Btw, I don't think that calling another user "Khorshit" are the grounds for an indef. Bans should increase with every other offence. First give him smaller bans, and see what he will make of it. Maybe he continued being "disruptive" since nobody warned him that he could get banned for doing so. And he continued since he never got banned. Baristarim 21:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Research Team

Normally I know what to do when a new user posts promotion across a number of articles and pages. But not this time. [49] is potentially a very sensitive cleanup, even though it doesn't need administrator privilege. And so I thought maybe I should bring it here. (Let me know if this was wrong). Notinasnaid 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted all of it and given a warning. Spam is spam. —Mets501 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
See also the contribs from 71.243.87.210. Like Notinasnaid, I'm hesitant to wade in here. FreplySpang 20:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, not so hesitant - I've warned and am reverting. Anyway, keep an eye out for more of this in Holocaust-related articles. FreplySpang 20:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

See this for what is claimed to be the interesting backstory to this one month old donations requesting one-man operated site. WAS 4.250 21:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

This continues, and [50] appears to be a confirmation (in case one were needed) that the website owner/operator is adding the links. Which is a simple and clear violation of WP:EL, perhaps? Notinasnaid 21:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Mhm. Thanks for the background info, WAS 4.250. It certainly explains why so many of the edits were replacing links to deathcamps.org. FreplySpang 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked them for 24 hours last night for these offences, and have tried to explain the problem in email, though I'm not certain if they'll change, as they seem to think they were correct (that's the impression I get). Martinp23 07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


How long to block?

I've just reverted user:206.207.42.115. Has a history of vandalism and warnings. If blocked, how long is appropriate period? RJFJR 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say at least 48 hours, as it's the second time he's been blocked this month for the same thing. However, Tawker already blocked him for 24 hours... Titoxd(?!?) 02:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Replacing page with: type vandalism - Just a question ?

I haven't found that type of vandalism in my first nine months since i've started to edit at Wikipedia. But over the past two days, i've been concern about a new trend of vandalism. There have been tons of IP's along with registered users doing vandalism by using the edit summary : Replacing page with XXXX (which is generally non sense). I've first spotted in the San Francisco, California article when it was a featured page. Then multiple pages such as Ségolène Royal, Colombia, Ottawa Senators and many many more were attacked by the same method. Even my own User Page got attacked today.

I'm wondering if those types of vandalism are coming the same group or a same user using multiple suckpuppets and IP's or it. Or it's just a new option I haven't notice? Thanks!--JForget 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a new feature of MediaWiki. If someone doesn't use an edit summary and they blank or almost blank a page, it's smart enough to put that as the summary. There is no massive attack of vandals. - CHAIRBOY () 03:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it’s an automatic edit summary. — Knowledge Seeker 03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks a lot for that! I was wondering about the suddent apparence of that especially when User:64.235.216.166 did that to my page. But it certainly make vandalism removal a bit easier for us. Thanks!--JForget 03:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian

I recently was checking new pages, and I then received a message from Crzrussian. It was all about not biting newbies, and I was trying to be nice while still doing the right thing. So I wrote him back and said talk about biting the newbies, as I haven't had alot of time here myself. Then I got a message from an anonymous user telling me that crz has been causing alot of problems and "throwing his weight around like he owns the place". I'm asking now, to review what Crzrussian has been doing and deal with him or look into the matter deeper as you feel necessary. Not taking any sides here, just making a suggestion. Please read the respective comments on my talk page, and thanks so much. Ard0 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the message you received [51], looks like CrzRussian's got a stalker. Probably the same banned user who complained about him here [52]. Looks to be from the same ISP. Fan-1967 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ardo, welcome to Wikipedia in case no one's said that before. I wouldn't worry too much about the last person who posted on your homepage. He seems to be involved in a dispute with Crzrussian that you don't have anything to do with. As for the note you got from Crzrussian, I think he is right that you are probably being a little bit too quick to put deletion tags on bios of potentially notable people. You might want to wait a couple of days after an article is created before tagging it, for example, in case the original author is planning on expanding it, and speedy tags should only be used on bios of people who are definitely not notable. I might not have said what Crzrussian said in exactly the same words he used, but he does have a point, and I'm sure you'll bear it in mind.
In hopping over to your userpage and talkpage as you requested, I noticed that you have a lot of information about your "real world" self on your userpage. There has been a lot of discussion about whether it's a good idea for younger editors to be revealing too much identifying information. Especially if you're going to be active in vandal-fighting and proposing articles for deletion, you might not want some jerk who gets annoyed with you to be able to see that information. I say that not because I want to breed paranoia here, but it's a concern that's been expressed from time to time and you might want to delete the information like your real name and school from the page. Newyorkbrad 04:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Angry Bahraini again

Um, the angry Bahraini has come back as User:89.148.41.227 and is reverting everything I edit. Please block THIS IP as well. Does this guy work at the ISP, so that he can evade blocks at will? Zora 04:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He's now using User:89.148.41.92 to revert all my edits. Please please roll back his edits and block THIS IP too. Zora 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not need to work on ISP. Usually many ISP have big pool of IP address (many class C or few Class B address). Hence each time when you reconnect to them you might end up having differnt IP address thanks to DHCP (espacially when using dialup connections). Furthermore, in places like Lahore, Pakistan you can buy a one Euro card of any ISP use it for few hours and next time can get different card of differnt ISP. Remember we had there dozens of ISPs. So changing IP address is very easy. Just for your information and also I have never done that myself :) (that guy is not from Pakistan too but it was an example country) .... --- ALM 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

problem at Abraham Lincoln

One editor named Stevewk has a problem with the major article on Abraham Lincoln. He says the article is too long and proposes to remove all the information on the American Civil War in order to shorten it. The other editors unanimously and strongly disagree with his insistence first that the information (over half the article) be blanked, and then that it be moved somewhere else. Warnings seem not to help, as he goes back again and again. Probably 3R is involved, and more serious anti-Wiki behavior as well. Rjensen 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Except for the 3RR violation (for which I have blocked Stevewk for 24 hours—five reverts in 10 hours is quite excessive), this is a problem for dispute resolution. Consider opening an RfC on the article or asking for mediation to smooth communication. Future 3RR problems should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. — Saxifrage 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have pointed the user at Wikipedia:Summary style, which discourages this kind of wholesale moving of content without leaving a summary in place. The cut-down version of the article was very non-optimal and didn't even mention the Emancipation Proclamation outside the lead : its excessive length is a minor fault compared to that. Morwen - Talk 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

DRV on Cleveland Steamer

Cleveland Steamer recently went through it's 6th AfD (here) instigated only two weeks after the last one. The response was 'keep', and in all previous AfDs it has either been Keep or No Consensus. It was brought to Deletion Review here (where the nominator essentially tried another AfD, pretty much in the wrong place) and consensus was building to endorse closure when User:Improv deleted it out-of-hand. He's entitled to his opinion on the matter, but he can't ignore process (which involved support from other admins to keep) and delete it like that. I would welcome opinions on the conduct of the decision (not so much on the content of the page). Trebor 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the most current DRV was initiated by the sockpuppet of User:Brian G. Crawford to boot, and that Improv is the same admin who found it prudent to delete articles such as Teddy Grahams and Famous Amos as spam. I have a feeling, but no evidence, that User:Guglielmo Clintone, the 6th AfD'er may be a sock of Crawford too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't let process get in the way of improving the encyclopedia. I hope nobody restores this. Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Too late. WarpstarRider 22:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't process meant to help improve the encyclopaedia? I've got nothing against debate on the merits of the page, just against admins making decisions unilaterally. The article has been restored (the talk page hasn't) now. Trebor 22:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Process (i.e. the rule of law) is the only thing that keeps wikipedia from descending into a Hobbesian state of eternal wheel warring. An admin that shits all over process - whatever the Cleveland Steamer of the moment - thereby demonstrating pure disdain for fellow users who are participating in good faith in the process, should not be an administrator. An administrator who becomes convinced that his judgement is more worthy than the collective contribution and thinking of hundreds of other users no longer has the self control to act as an administrator. This event was a good example of why all admins should be open to recall. --JJay 23:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Now now, I don't think we should be recalling Improv because of this. He's a good admin and deserves to keep those responsibilities. Does he make bad decisions now and then? Sure, but so does everyone. A bad decision once-in-a-while doesn't mean we should take away a person's admin duties. Here, just like with the cookie fiasco, I believe he was acting in good faith. He might have made bad decisions, but he was certainly editing in good faith. - Lex 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, in the real world you don't get too many shots at fiascos before you are ousted. Just ask Patricia Dunn, Mark Foley or Nick Leeson. In the real world, the issue is competence, good judgement and the impact of decisions, not good or bad faith. This is not this administrator's first fiasco. Since in his remarks below, he indicates strong opinions on who should and should not be an administrator, let him show good faith by adding his name to Category:Administrators open to recall --JJay 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, I'd prefer that we not use Category:Administrators open to recall as a bludgeon. Improv is welcome to be in, or not in, as he chooses, that's the point of it being a voluntary category. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You might note that a website encyclopedia is quite far from the state of nature, and that Hobbes was a bit mad. —Centrxtalk • 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the philosopher or the stuffed tiger? The Wikipedia article lacks any details about Thomas Hobbes' mental health. --- llywrch 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus can't override foundation issues. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. This should have been left deleted. Friday (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
And we've been through all those issues ad nauseum, and they have not gained a lick of traction. At best, they don't violate any "foundation issues," at worst it's a judgement call - which is why consensus should rule the day. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
You cannot assert that it overrides foundation issues, it is not clear-cut. If it was, there would not have been nearly so much debate. It was an issue with experienced editors arguing coherently for both sides, and in these cases consensus is the only way you should decide it. It is not up to the discretion of a single admin. Trebor 23:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I must say, though Improv might have broken process, that seeing it go would have been very good riddance. To give my nasty opinion, it's a shame that humanity would even think of such an awful deed, let alone practice it and glorify it with an article. One thing Wikipedia does not need for publicity is Jon Stewart standing on comedy central and quoting directly from this article. Granted, I can't support this with rule (hence the reason I didn't vote in the last afd), but wow, this is pretty low. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It isn't at all clear to me that this should have been deleted. The matter is sourced at this point and I see no obvious foundation issue. As for Jon Stewart, I think Wikipedia can survive ribbing from Comedians. I could very well see someone see this as a reason to get rid of BDSM or some other sexual article that offends people's sensibility. Personally, I find this topic disgusting and revolting to the point where I almost have to work to suppress my gag reflex. However, none of that is a reason for deletion and is certainly not a reason for an out of process deletion.JoshuaZ 03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree completely with JoshuaZ and JJay above. I don't see "Does Jon Stewart find this article amusing? (YES/NO)" on our list of inclusion criteria. A) I don't understand why this is a Foundation issue; B) It is inherently outrageous and anti-wiki for an admin to blatantly overide consensus; C) It is deeply offensive (far more offensive than the article itself) that anyone should seek to censor the encyclopaedia because they don't like the information it contains- see e.g. this, and many similar, for some examples of how and why this is done. 6 AfDs is enough. Badgerpatrol 04:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is not that people don't like it, but that the article consists of a dictionary definition, some original research, and "pop culture references" (aka cruft). There is nothing encyclopaedic about this article. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say to censor it, I said it would be good riddance if someone did. But, in any case, my personal opinion (not Wikipedia policy, so I can't ask for it to be enforced), is that sometimes we take free speech, which is supposed to be a means, and make it into an end. Free speech is supposed to help people become more informed for a useful purpose (a means), help improve something (a means), etc.; becoming offended at the lack of free speech (an end) does not fit into this category. It's proper to become offended at the lack of free speech where it's used repressively, or in order to hurt content. Do you see my point about free speech being a means, not an end (I'm not sure if I'm communicating it well). Even Wikipedia says Wikipedia is NOT anarchy, meant to test the limits of free speech. Again, I don't think it's policy, so I have no right to enforce it or call for its enforcement; just my opinion, as we all have opinions. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The "useful purpose" is knowledge. Full stop. Badgerpatrol 04:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it, too bad. Don't read it. We are not the morality police. RFerreira 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  • For reference, my deletion had nothing to do with finding the subject disgusting or anything of that sort. I am libertine when it comes to such things. I deleted it solely because it was very clearly a dictionary definition. Consensus is not about voting, it's about discussion, and good arguments. This is an exceptionally clear case of when loud users who don't understand our project goals lead a bunch of fans away from them, ignoring everything our project is about and confusing consensus with democracy. I don't intend to redo my deletion (although I would encourage other admins to do so) because I don't wheel war, but I stand by it entirely. Wiktionary and Wikipedia are not the same project, and process is not sacred. People who would never go against a "vote", no matter how ill-informed and ill-conducted, even when it stands in the way of project goals, are people who should probably never be either closing discussions, nor should they be administrators. --Improv 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • So although you have no intention of engaging in a wheel war personally, you encourage other admins to do so? Take a bow my friend. RFerreira 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I encourage other admins to delete it, not to wheel war. This is how we reconcile project goals, IAR, and a desire not to wheel. As you say, I shall take a bow. *bow* :) --Improv 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But the way you deleted it implied it was something you would have happily deleted on sight, seeing as you deleted it in the midst of a DRV (which is about process, not content), which was endorsing the previous decision anyway. If it is so "exceptionally clear", how come admins support both sides? Should the admins who closed the 6 AfDs on the article all step down? I would say that people who will happily delete something, out-of-process, against consensus from experienced editors and admins, because of their personal opinion of the arguments shouldn't be an admin either. Trebor 07:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Look at the AfD. Half of them don't even address the article, merely saying "abuse of AfD" or something, and are invalid on their face because they ignore the question of if the article should be deleted. None of the other arguments adequately deal with the fact that a definition and a few references that the term is indeed used does not make it anything more than a dictionary definition. Neither consensus nor AfD consist of taking votes. I am not proposing that anyone step down, merely that people had mistaken ideas about what AfD is about. We all make mistakes, and we all come to understand the project and its goals better as time goes on - demanding "justice" for an inadequately thought-out position would be a bad idea. I should note that what actually happens always comes down to judgement, whether from one person or from some combination of people - there is no shame in "personal opinion/judgement". --Improv 07:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The reason they don't address the article is because there were five previous AfDs. The issue had been discussed at length and every time no consensus formed to delete. And no, you didn't ask anyone to step down, but you did say they shouldn't be administrators (and the only way for that to happen is via voluntary desysopping or arbitration). Of course the issue comes down to judgement, but when many users have the same opinion on something it is called consensus. Your opinion is not worth more than anyone else's, and where there's disagreement you shouldn't take action on it alone. Trebor 16:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Or, alternatively, they could come to understand what's needed to keep the project working. I'm not a big fan of removing admin bits from people - if it becomes too common, then the project will fall to rabid populism and we'll see even more use of the resources of the project by people doing unrelated things. I'm not saying I don't believe in consensus, but I have a very different understanding/definition of it than yours, and to whatever extent yours means "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", I think that's a recipe for killing Wikipedia. Long-term users should be educating less long-term users, and having discussions on where the project is going and how to interpret/apply policy. This is very different than voting, and it's what's needed to keep the project healthy. Previous AfDs don't give one a blank checque to not contribute to the current one. AfD is about judgement, not voting, and people pretending that they're voting while not contributing to the discussion should be ignored. The case is clear, most of the people aiming to keep are people who have never shown a significant understanding of policy (newbies), and previous people who closed the AfDs were not doing their job (as is anyone who goes by numbers rather than argument). --Improv 19:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • My opinion isn't so much "let people vote and give them whatever they vote on", but I don't think that this applies in this case. You say previous AfD closers weren't doing their job because they went by numbers, not arguments, but in this case I don't believe that applies. Do you honestly think that the decision on this debate was clear-cut, that it should be deleted beyond a doubt? Because that means there are a lot of experienced editors and administrators who are seriously misunderstanding policy, which is not encouraging for the project as a whole. I think this is a judgement call. Trebor 21:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • You have it exactly. I believe that the decision was clear-cut, and that the project as a whole is not in a good state. What we need, I think, is a very hard push against voting and towards discussion with a strong reliance on project goals. As a thought experiment -- what would need to change about the article to make it a dictionary definition? --Improv 21:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I needed to find out what the term "Cleveland Steamer" meant. I looked at WP first. Now I know.... Knowledge isn't always pretty. Hamster Sandwich 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Not a great deal, I admit, but I think it has the potential for expansion beyond that (plus I generally think it is a useful article on a topic which won't be covered in a dictionary). Can I ask you what you think of Dirty Sanchez, Teabagging and Donkey punch? Do you think they should be deleted? And if so, should you/would you delete them on sight as in Cleveland Steamer? To be honest, my concern is not so much about the merits of this specific article but the deleting of it in such an out-of-process way. You essentially speedily deleted it based on a dicdef argument, which is specifically listed as a non-criteria on WP:CSD. Under what grounds did you think that was justified? Trebor 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
            • I haven't looked at them, but if they're nothing more than a dicdef, then I'd delete them on sight if it became clear that Wiktionary did not want them. Very few "processes" on Wikipedia are hard rules - they're guidelines that, as per WP:IAR, are ignored when they lead to problem results. That naturally causes trouble/conflict when people notice (and in situations like this, people are bound to), but when people arn't so caught up in rules that they lose sight of the project, sometimes the right thing happens despite the rules and the people who are sticklers for them. Process is not sacred here, and out-of-process is not always a mark of something bad happening. I felt it was justified based on the content, the fact that we have a project specifically for that stuff, and that having talked with some representative folk for that project, they don't want it there either. Wikipedia is not a "rule of law" type community. It's a bit more cowboy, and involves judgement, give and take, a certain amount of oligarchy, and a lot of messiness. People who attempt to simplify it *into* rule of law generally find their stay here disappointing. --Improv 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
            • At this point, those first two articles are even more dicdef-y than this one. WarpstarRider 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I agree very much with your last 2 sentences, and I think I now understand your reasoning behind your action. The problem with WP:IAR, however, is that it can be invoked in either direction (and if I recall correctly, someone used it as an argument in one of the AfDs). You could say delete it on sight per IAR, because it violates policy. I could say keep per IAR (because it's useful and not actually gonna be found in a dictionary), and don't delete on sight because that violates policy. The result? A mess. I don't think you're going to change your mind and say it's useful and should be kept anymore than I'm going to say it should be deleted - we both have our views. I would merely ask you take more care over using IAR on an obviously contentious issue (and, I suppose, state explicitly that you're using it). Trebor 01:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. The big problem with IAR is that it might encourage people to ignore all rules! The end result? Either a) complete chaos (likely) or b) domination of the project by an elite "superclass" of users (i.e. admins) who, despite making up, what- 0.01% - or less- of the project, can take action in spite of clear consensus. Depressingly, I often see comments by certain admins that come very close to actively agitating for the latter scenario. This article has been nominated for deletion 6 times, survived every time, and yet I do not hear trumpets sounding or the walls of Wiki-Jericho crumbling. Is there any scenario that would justify ignoring consensus in such a blatant fashion. By the same token, I'm not necessarily arguing that the admin concerned was acting in bad faith- but it was, IMHO, a bad, bad call. Badgerpatrol 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ignore all rules does not mean ignore all people. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it means don't follow a rule that will result in the wrong outcome. Ignoring people who want the wrong outcome may be a side effect. In fact, that's a desired side effect. — Saxifrage 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
        • But then you have to decide which is the "wrong" outcome. Which in a contentious issue is not agreed on. So how do you decide which is wrong? By looking at the arguments made by the people. Which you can then choose to ignore...it's a circular argument. Trebor 21:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

Can someone scrub the page history for User:Evan Finney, please? He identifies himself as an 11-year-old child, and he's posted a signficant amount of personal information on his user page. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it, in accordance with the WP:CHILD policy, as being too much potentially identifying information. (Antandrus (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I also speedy-deleted an article the kid created with basically the same information, and told him on his talk page to refrain from posting personal information about himself. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, of course, that there isn't a "