Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive150

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

Noticeboard archives


Help wanted[edit]

Some time back I wandered into what is obviously a bitter external dispute between proponents of personal rapid transit (PRT) including User:Fresheneesz, User:Skybum and User:ATren; and a cartoonist and environmentalist, User:Avidor, engaged in a campaign against PRT, which was apparently being used as a stalking horse against light rail in Minnesota. I made many changes to the article which were initially welcomed, but the PRT proponents decided they didn't like the fact that, overall, I insist on the article reflecting the fact that no such system currently exists anywhere in the world. User:Stephen B Streater did some sterling work too, and they had less of a problem with him.

ATren, formerly "A Transportation Enthusiast" has a blog,, which attacks Avidor and also makes very plain the fact that ATren is a strong proponent of PRT. Which is where it gets messy. ATren is currently loudly demanding on my Talk page that I denounce Avidor's bias. I have said that that I am opposed to all abuse of Wikipedia for political ends, but ATren will accept nothing less than singling out one side of this plainly bilateral dispute. ATren flatyly refuses to admit that he has any bias, paints his bias as neutral, and insists that anyone more sceptical than he is themselves biased. I don't see why I'm supposed to have a view on the subject beyond an engineer's usual curioisyty about some new subject, but there is no possible doubt that overall the article is about a system of widescale urban tranport, whereas in practice after forty-odd years of debate we have a couple of test tracks and (now) two orders to service car parks at Heathrow and Dubai.

We have found a good, neutral, impartial source which states that the literature of around 200 published papers is typically favourable and marked by a lack of self-criticism. It states that the concept faces "formidable" challenges in the shape of political opposition, indifference, unproven technologies and vested interests (which I reckon is spot on - remember, this is supposed to replace use of the private automobile in entire cities).

Note: this is false - no PRT proposal I've ever seen aims to replace the car. PRT is always proposed as a multi-modal solution with cars and possibly other forms of public transit. ATren 08:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a statement from the Minnesota Sierra Club, a group which might ordinarily be expected to support anything which would reduce private car use, which enumerates these challenges and therefore resolves to oppose the PRT proposal in Minnesota. Nope. Can't have that - it's "astroturfing". Silly of me even to think that the Sierra Club might be actual opposition rather than fake opposition. Meanwhile the literature is still verifiably dominated by a lack of self-criticism and the technology still faces verifiably formidable challenges...

One day the Heathrow system will open and we will have a solid basis for an article. Until then we have a fanwank which desperately needs to be brought down to earth. But I find Avidor's Roadkill Bill cartoon (agit-prop for integrated urban planning) funny so obviously I am quite incapable of forming a balanced judgement on the issue. Or something. I don't want to lose my temper with this argumentative pair so I've come here to vent my spleen a bit and see if anyone else feels like chucking a bucket of cold water over them for me.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Who knows? Thanks for your time, anyway. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Several points in response, since JzG is misrepresenting this dispute:
  • The "stalking horse" theory that JzG mentions is unverifiable fluff that has no basis in reality. Avidor has been on an anti-PRT political crusade ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7], etc)for over 3 years, spreading disinformation like the "stalking horse" theory all over the Internet. He's also admitted to using sock puppet identities to spread his message. There is no basis to any of his conspiracy theories.
  • I came upon Avidor when he tried to push his completely unverifiable POV here on Wikipedia, in order to sway local political elections in Minnesota. He spent several months gaming the NPOV tag on the PRT page, and using the "disputed POV" tag as evidence that the Wikipedia article was being infiltrated by "pro-PRT cultists", in his political blogs and forums. This seemed to be a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a platform for political propaganda.
  • JzG came along in the dispute and immediately expressed admiration for Avidor and his cartoon - in fact, he created the Wikipedia article on Avidor's cartoon and later defended it from deletion. Despite his admitted affection for Avidor, he proceeded with the mediation. Personally, I was concerned that he was such a fan of Avidor, but I trusted that he would recuse himself if he couldn't be neutral.
  • Over the next several months, JzG was positively hostile to the three editors on the other side of the dispute. Even though we all agreed on perhaps 90% of his edits without argument, he repeatedly accused us of POV pushing for any change we made, reverting of all our edits on sight and threatening (twice!) to lock down the article. The threats to lock the article were particularly egregious because (a) they were done at the behest of Avidor (Avidor posted this 30 minutes before JzG's initial threat), and (b) they were based on his own misreading of a single word in one of Skybum's edits. Even after Skybum (who, unlike Avidor, has always been a good faith editor) politely told JzG he misread the word, JzG continued to insist he read it right and threatened Skybum again, insisting he had read it correctly, even though the history showed he clearly didn't! It was clear that JzG was not only willing to do Avidor's bidding, but was unwilling to consider any argument from the reasonable editors on the other side (none of whom had a political agenda, as Avidor did). In the months after that, JzG continued to revert almost every change we made, no matter how small, and in many cases insinuating that we were POV pushing. The absoluteness of his reverts made it clear that he owned the article - and after his threats to lock it, we really had no way to fight it.
  • The Minneapolis Sierra Club supports Minneapolis light rail, which competes against PRT for funding, and therefore they opposed PRT. They are a local chapter of an environmental group. Against this, the European Union has endorsed PRT in cities - they did a 3 year study of PRT and endorsed it unequivocally. The study was rigorous, involving 16 partners in academia, transit consulting, and city planning, and focused on 4 different PRT schemes in 5 cities. This augments 40 years of peer reviewed research, several textbooks devoted to PRT design, and fully-functioning prototypes that have carried passengers. Despite all this, JzG continues to call it "pseudo-science" - despite the existence of fully-functioning prototypes. He's also called it a "quixotic dream". To me, it's clear he is sympathetic to the unsupportable POV of Avidor, that PRT is a fraud and a hoax.
  • I have absolutely no political agenda. I stumbled upon PRT a year ago, and I was shocked at the amount of blatant disinformation being spread by a single individual. I therefore decided, in the interest of truth, to set the record straight. Hence, my blog, which is apolitical. I only use it to answer the disinformation that Avidor spreads, and to call out the people who implicitly support him by quoting his propaganda. However, I challenge anyone to scour my blog and find any statement of political support. Even when I reference politicians, it's purely in the context of their statements on PRT. Despite this, JzG has begun to accuse me of having a political motive - apparently someone just fighting for truth can't be believed. In any event, I would be willing to reveal myself to a neutral third party to confirm everything I've said.
  • I have nothing to do with PRT, PRT companies, or PRT advocacy. I have absolutely no financial interest in PRT companies. I've never even met a PRT "proponent".
The fact is this: when someone we admire is involved in a dispute, try as we might, it is very difficult to remain neutral. JzG has a clear affection for Avidor, and therefore has taken much of Avidor's views at face value, including the undue level of skepticism for a technology that has a large amount of verifiable support. JzG should have recused himself from this mediation from the beginning, because his affection for Avidor affects his neutrality. ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
ATren 01:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
ATren/A.T.E. has been ranting about me all over the internet for a year or so... He got banned from the Seattle Post Intelligencer forum for ranting: [8] Here's ATren's trying to intimidate another Wikipedia administrator : "So now you're bowing out, eh? You went in and empowered that fucking idiot and now you're dropping it on the floor. You are as much a moron as he is.".... as for the claim that I am the only skeptic of PRT, read this: "Like gold standard crazies, intelligent design ideologues and cold-fusion enthusiasts, Personal Rapid Transit nuts see something the rest of the world doesn't see and think they are visionaries as a result. Since there is no "true" PRT system anywhere in the world for these people to spend all day riding around in, they spend their time comment-spamming blogs like ours. A similar blog,, had enough of it and decided to fact-check the PRT claims. They found claims of systems that don't exist and studies that were never conducted. I think that pretty much ends the discussion."[9]...I wish somebody at Wikipedia would do something to stop these personal attacks by this anonymous "editor"...Avidor 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I did write that comment, but it was my first month on Wikipedia, and I didn't understand the way things worked then. Also, that comment was after several weeks of Avidor edit warring the NPOV tag (for the express purpose of advancing his political campaign), as well as incessant linkspam and personal attacks on the talk page (repeatedly calling editors of the PRT article "cultists"), and I simply lost my temper. Some examples of Avidor's comments on that talk page: "If I fixed that, the PRT cultists would change it back...", "No links to anything real... just true believers in a lost cause following crackpot 'visionaries'...", "Yep, the PRT cult is in firm control of this Wikipedia page..." ATren 03:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, ATren, for giving everyone a perfect example of the problem: you portray your bias as neutrality, and anyone who disagrees with you as biased. Note that Avidor (unlike ATren) has not edited that page for over six months. This is not about your off-wiki fight, it's about a Wikipedia article (do not bring your battles to Wikipedia). Stalking horse is unverifiable fluff? Not according to the Sierra Club it's not - but of course they are biased, it's only you who is neutral, right? As Cotterell says, the literature is predominantly supportive and marked by a lack of self-criticism. Citing that literature as evidence of a lack of criticism is not terribly helpful and fails to explain the observed fact that after over forty years of discussion not one real-world system currently exists. The article is about a wide-scale urban transit system, but the only projects looking likely to be completed in the near future are in car parks, nothing like we describe in the article. You may think it's perfectly fine to document the PRT proponents' dreams and ignore the realities, I happen to disagree, based on my well-documented bias against using Wikipedia to promote new, great things which might one day change the world. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Locate me one single reliable source on the stalking horse global conspiracy theory. Go ahead. Find me one. For the uninitiated, the stalking horse theory is Avidor's pet conspiracy which claims that hundreds of researchers on 3 continents have spent the last 40 years perpetrating a hoax - all for the purpose of blocking a Minneapolis light rail line! This is the ridiculous conspiracy theory that I've fought nearly a year to keep out of the PRT article, as Guy has done everything he can to get Avidor's completely unverifiable POV into the article. He started out trying to get Avidor's tasteless anti-PRT propaganda cartoon in. Nobody supported that, so he tried pushing content from the Light Rail Now astroturfing group - a group that contains unverifiable anti-PRT content written by Avidor! When that was rejected, he found a single paper that kinda-sorta is critical of PRT literature - not PRT itself, mind you - and had used that one conference paper to invalidate 40 years of research. Now, Guy is pushing a resolution by the Minneapolis Sierra Club (which, for all we know, has Avidor as a member!) into the top of the article, while he suppresses content from peer-reviewed journals and engineering conferences as biased. Can anyone, even a well-respected admin like Guy, justify such a position? I am at wits end here - this has been a nearly year long dispute, and I'm still arguing that peer reviewed journals are a more reliable source than a local chapter of an environmental group! And yet Guy continues to say I'm the one letting my biases affect my judgement.
BTW, just a point of clarification: Avidor stopped editing the article because he no longer had to - Guy took up his fight. Whenever he wants something done, he just asks Guy to do it and the war starts up again. ATren 14:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hate to repeat it, but content resolution is not the role of admins (you know that, Guy). If it can't be resolved on the article's talk page, take it to RFC or ask for mediation. Proto::type 12:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not an administrative action, never was. I went to the article as an editor. My problem is with ATren's months-long campaign of argumentation based on his obdurate refusal to admit to his own personal bias (and I really don't think it's a coincidence that every time I even allude to the dispute in any discussion he pops up and starts all over again). I think I'll just nuke the thread from my Talk page and leave it at that - nothing in the world will ever satisfy ATren other than getting his own way, in this case a unilateral condemnation of the massively less active side of a bipartisan dispute. Guy (Help!) 17:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Guy came to the article as a mediator, not just an editor. He then proceeded to threaten to use admin powers to prevent any change to what he wrote (in response to Skybum's good faith edits - see links above). So which is it? Was Guy an editor, mediator, or admin, or all three? This all came up again because he wrote comments in an arb com case implying Fresheneesz was just bitter because his article was deleted, when the dispute went much deeper than that. In fact, Fresheneesz, Skybum, and I had repeatedly expressed exasperation at JzG's ownership of the article and rejection of any changes to his version of the article. I am frankly sick of being painted as a POV pusher in this dispute, when in fact there were three other editors who supported me, and all three had the same level of frustration with JzG's actions. ATren 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
No I didn't. I have never been a member of the mediation cabal or mediation committee. I saw a notice of an edit war and thought the subject looked interesting (still do), so I came along to see what I could do. And you seemed not to have a problem with it until I said that I like Roadkill Bill. Given that Avidor has not edited that article since April, I hardly think his (openly admitted) bias is a pressing problem, and your insistence on continuing to fight a battle that was over, in Wikipedia terms anyway, months ago, does you no credit. Neither does your continued campaign of vituperation off Wiki - nobody likes a sore loser. But hey, frustration is a good word - exactly the word I'd use to describe someone who is still coming back with "and another thing!..." half a year after the discussion ended. Why not click Random Article and find something to improve? It's what I sometimes do when I get wound up. It was advice I picked up here, I think. Very sound. Guy (Help!) 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a mediation? See [10]: "During a mediation process..." followed soon after with the threat to lock the article. It's clear you considered yourself a mediator, and we treated you as one.
Avidor has not edited the article - but why? Could it be because you are representing his POV - he just lets you know what he wants and you do it? It started with the threat to block the article (which he had requested just 30 minutes earlier -see links above) and has continued even until today:
  • Avidor recently mentioned that the link to his personal page was removed, and you immediately restored it, calling his personal anti-PRT propaganda page "notable skepticism".
  • Then Avidor gave you a link to a resolution by his local Sierra Club, and despite the questionable reliability of quoting such a group, you immediately added the link the article in the intro! Just to put this into perspective, you have removed journal-sourced content from us, but when Avidor sends you a link to a one-page resolution from a local chapter of an environmental group, you put it in the intro!
I can cite many other examples of you doing what Avidor asked, including the Unimodal page, which you submitted for deletion soon after Avidor started complaining to you about it. Why would Avidor edit the article when he can just ask you to do it for him?
I'd also like to point out that, in addition to Avidor's documented abuses, he has lashed out against Wikipedia (see the cartoon on his user page), has quit the project and returned at least twice, and is an active member of Wikipedia Review. ATren 19:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This is at the core a content dispute... you should file a Request for Comment or a formal Request for Mediation (as was suggested above by an admin).--Isotope23 20:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I did not bring this up here - Guy did. I'm just here to defend myself. I won't file an RfC because, in my experience, casual editors like myself do not do well in mediation against respected admins - even when they have a case. ATren 20:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but my point is that you are all beating a dead horse here as an admin already stated above that this is a content dispute and should go through an RfC or RfM...--Isotope23 21:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. ATren has threatened ArbCom, but dcided not to because of "the cabal". Of the three of us - ATren, Avidor and me - ATren is the onyl one still actively editing that article, the only one pursuing the long-dead dispute, the only one to refuse to acknowledge any personal bias whatsoever. He says I reintroduced a link but forgets to mention that it was he who removed it, despite an ongoing off-wiki dispute with the owner of the site linked. Deleting it? Fine and dandy. Re-introducing it? Bias. Sierra Club article opposed to PRT? Astroturfing. PRT proponent's homepage? Authoritative source. Look at all the terrible things these sceptics - no - pseudoskeptics have done to ruin an article on a technology which will surely exist Real Soon Now! It's a silly spat about really very minor detail of the article, the amount of disruption caused is out of all proportion. He;s also still knocking on about Skytran, a project with no prototype, no backers, no known realistic prospect of existence, which I still don't think deserves an article, but I have left it alone in its much less advertorial form. Left it alone. For months. The guy is obsessed, as his blog clearly shows. And above all, Minnesota, the closest they've yet come to an implementation, was defeated due in no small part to the completely untried nature of the technology. The whole argument is a teapot tempest. Bollocks to it. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
We've been asked twice to take this elsewhere - so I will not respond other than to say that most of what JzG says above are outright lies. JzG - take it to RfC or ArbCom if you want - I have absolutely nothing to hide. This is the last comment I will make here. ATren 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Let us be thankful for small mercies. I seem to recall that you were the one threatening me with ArbCom, were it not for the fact that it is in the grip of a cabal who would not back you against me. At least your assumption of bad faith is applied consistently to all, which is something I suppose. Guy (Help!) 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Heh... Very few people here in Minnesota give PRT much credence, from what I've heard. Other than this lady. Grandmasterka 11:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Just a heads up really - the page that had been in Raul's user space had recently been upgraded to policy. There are still a few discussions at Wikipedia talk:Don't protect Main Page featured articles as to how to codify it.

The main change, and reason I've bought this up here, is that the policy now requires admins who protect or semi-protect the Main Page featured article to drop a note here explaining why and how long they think protection should last for. Its hoped that this will stop (Semi)-protection lasting any longer than it needs to. --Robdurbar 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure this must have been suggested before, but would there be any objection to having the featured article of the day move protected while it's on the main page? There's really no valid basis on which a user would move that day's FA (or probably any FA) to another article name, so any such moves are highly likely to be vandalism, and inability to move the page doesn't interfere with ability to edit which is the rationale for rarely protecting that day's FA. Newyorkbrad 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me.—WAvegetarian(talk) 02:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I believe this is standard operating procedure already. Actually, I was surprised to find that today's article hadn't been move-protected yet. Did whoever usually does that forget? Melchoir 03:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The policy does discuss it - move protection is fine though I'm not sure it should be used pre-emptively, only if move vandalism occurs. --Robdurbar 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What's the argument against using it preemptively. Are there any circumstances in which there could be a non-vandalistic move of that day's featured article? Or are there circumstances in which trying out the move-page feature would be a newbie's introduction to Wikipedia? If we agree the answers are "no" and "no" then I think suppressing the move tab on the day's FA should be routine practice, especially after this morning's experience. Newyorkbrad 00:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Especially given that newbies can't move pages. Ral315 (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

POV-pushing by User:MikeJason on Aaron Klein[edit]

At the suggestion of User:Robocracy the Aaron Klein page was semi-protected because of a series of POV-pushing anons. Now a logged-in editor, User:MikeJason has begun re-making some of the same changes. He also removed the {cleanup-rewrite} banner and the {sprotect} banner without discussion on the Talk page. I have consulted User:Athaenara and User:Tariqabjotu for their assistance. Their contributions are in the edit history. There was a pause, but after 17 days MikeJason is back doing his thing again. Since he is making changes against consensus after clear warnings, I'm asking for administrative help. EdJohnston 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This is just me, but perhaps a Check User request is in line, to back up a block. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
MikeJason has only edited this one page. Blocking him would not hurt the future improvement of Wikipedia. And the page remains under semi-protection. An alternative would be full protection for the page, but I don't know how reluctant people are to do that. EdJohnston 05:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right to vanish[edit]

I tried to enjoy my right to vanish, but sysop User:Mike Rosoft prevents me to do that. He enganged in edit warring[11] prior to any discussion with me. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser as well. -- Zacheus 23:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

He even deletes his own talk page where I informed him about the need being civil, to stop edit warring, and that I would ask another sysop to stop his actions. -- Zacheus 23:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replied on Mike's talk page. It seems that Zacheus has published personal details of other users on his blog. Hence, he has taken the right to vanish from fellow users but wants to take advantage of it for himself. As Mike has said, this does not make for a strong case. Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is untrue. Could you please provide any details? I would like to inform you that the right to vanish does not mean "right to vanish from fellow users", but rather from the Wikipedia.

"Zacheus has also filed a request to have another user's name changed." ??? -- Zacheus 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I haven't seen the actual evidence for what Samsara mentions, an editor who would post personal info about wikipedians on a blog should be "vanished" with a perma-block. That's just so uncool : ( Doc Tropics 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read all the dicussion about off-wiki disputes? -- Zacheus 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The checkuser case issue is dealt with. I say let the guy change his name if he wants to. Just because he was a jerk on cs: (according to their arbcom) doesn't mean we should be jerks on en. Besides, its a very limited form of Right to Vanish; it keeps his name off of google but a look in the page history will recover the info should it ever become important. Thatcher131 04:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Czech ArbCom I would like to add that I was banned for one year after one-year long successful work as a bureaucrat of cs: by two my enemies only: cs:User:Beren (better known under his sockpuppet User:RuM) who expressly stated in one case: "Unfortunately, V. Z. is right" and User:Wikimol who led abortive mediation with me and this failure made him one of my leading enemies. I am convinced that such a kangaroo court should lose its licence to ban people. For further information, read m:Meta:Babel/Archives/2006/01. -- Zacheus 09:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Legal threat at Christine Maggiore[edit]

The page Christine Maggiore was blanked by User:DavidRCrowe (who is connected to the subject of the page), replaced with a legal threat ("potentially libelous"). The prior version was heavily sourced, and he did not specify what parts he felt were libelous. I would just revert it, but with the threat of libel etc. wanted some outside review/help with how to proceed. Thanks. MastCell 23:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The page he blanked looked well sourced to me. Shouldn't it just be put back up per WP:LEGAL? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It looks like it has been. I have put a request on the user's talk page asking them to substantiate their claim. The article is sourced well so I cannot see what the problem might be.-Localzuk(talk) 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I restored it. The question now is whether this act of vandalism and violation of WP:LEGAL warrants a block. I'm willing to overlook this once to avoid a WP:BITE, but it's a close call, and I can understand if people have different opinions.--Stephan Schulz 00:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see if he's going to learn from this or if he's going to respond with a reblank. If he reblanks I'd suggest a short block. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just stating that the page is potentially libelous is not really a legal threat. However, the rest of the text the user replaced the page with is sufficient grounds to be interpreted as a legal threat. --Yamla 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, the claim "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter" does not appear to be backed up by the source cited for it (the LA Times story), as the guy says on the talk page. I.e. the article doesn't actually say that if she'd taken medication, it would have prevented transmission of HIV. --W.marsh 00:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is how it works: the LA article says she wasn't taking medication, and the technical paper cited probably says that not taking medication means putting your child at greater risk. I'll have to read the paper for that. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You should remove stuff like this on sight. I think I caught all mentions of it in the article. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From the "technical report": administration of zidovudine (ZDV) to the HIV-infected woman during pregnancy and labor and to the newborn was shown to decrease the risk of perinatal HIV transmission. I'll rephrase the article to make clear how the referencing works. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The second sentence of the L.A Times article source reads, "The HIV-positive mother of two laid out matter-of-factly why, even while pregnant, she hadn't taken HIV medications, and why she had never tested her children for the virus." This was the source for the Wikipedia article's statement that "Maggiore had not taken medication to prevent transmission of HIV to her daughter." MastCell 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This should probably be continued at the talk page of the article as to not clutter WP:AN, which is more for matters requiring administrator attention (which this no longer appears to require). Cowman109Talk 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks everyone for your speedy responses. MastCell 00:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long page breakup committee[edit]

Hi, I know that there are about 1,000 administrators. I am interested in starting a small "long article" breakup committee so to provide assistance to those who need "super" long pages broken up. Many pages are fortified with seasoned editors who do not wish to see their beautiful articles broken up, and as such impose great resistance to even small changes. Especially with featured articles. Hence such a committee would need at least three administrators to control revert wars during the process of a page break up. Personally, I like to break up long science-related articles, so that new contributions can be made.

Can someone guide me to administrators who would be interested in this. Over the last month, I have been proposing an outline on the Wikipedia talk:Article size page. Long article issue problems are presently a major weakness in Wikipedia. We are almost into the top 10 most visited websites, according to Top 500 websites - Alexa. If we are to remain a major website we need to address this issue. Please leave comment. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, in theory. But I don't really like the fact that you seem to think that instead of establishing a consensus that a page should be broken up, it is better to recruit some admins to prevent people from reverting such a thing. If this idea is implemented well, there should be absolutely no need of admins. -Amarkov blahedits 00:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
No, my plan is that:
First, an editor tries to establish consensus: the issue is brought up on the talk page, and it is suggested that the regulars break up the article into subtopics, with short summary paragraphs (w/ main article attachments), see thermodynamics as an example, so that the main page gets below a certain limit.
Second, if plan #1 stifles out in argument and indecision to act, for a number of consecutive weeks, than an breakup arbitration committee notice is placed on the talk page, putting an ultimatum deadline, such that either the regulars break up the page to below a certain limit by that date or an external breakup committee, enforced by a team of administrators, will do so.
Without a group project such as this, then Wikipedia talkpages and articles will become like Congress: lots of arguing but little action. This will need to be a team action if it is to be successful. Here is a recent example in which I placed a "long article" tag on a page but it was quickly reverted; for this situation I would have needed administrative assistance. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Modular Articles here. I've been meaning to do this for weeks. Will you help? Many thanks. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we seem to be on the same page; I would be glad to help with this, especially with the science-related articles, time permitting. We just need a bigger team. If we can get at least three core administrators, to help with the potential revert wars erupting between seasoned page editors connected to those pages, then I can scavenger up more regular editors to join the team who also like to see smaller articles. For now, I added your name here. I'll wait till the group gets up to about 10 people. --Sadi Carnot 01:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd hope we wouldn't need to push decisions down anyone's throat, and that administrators will support what is reasonable without being associated with the project. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be a worst case scenario. Ideally, if an article “breakup team” existed, then the mere placement of a "talk page notice" would be enough to compel the regulars to break up the page on their own. When one works on a page for more than a month, then article beer goggles tend to develop, wherein the page seems perfectly fine no matter how long it gets. Presently, the “32 kb warning” tag that pops up on long pages is completely useless, because editors will unconsciously justify their “unique” long pages for so and so reason, and argumentitively attack anyone who questions them about page length. ---Sadi Carnot 02:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
My problem still exists. A breakup committee should not have the power to decree that a page will be broken up by the involved editors, or someone else will come and do it for them, with admins preventing any reversion of changes. With the exception of the fact that they are openly acknowledging that they have that power, that is called a cabal, and it is bad. -Amarkov blahedits 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well what alternatives do you recommend? Should we let bloated 100 kb page articles linger around for months or years on end because of a few hard-minded editors; while, in the mean time, hundreds of thousands of readers get turned off and give up reading or better yet can’t load the page in the first place because they have dialup or are using a Blackberry, etc.? I don’t see what harm can come from this. We open up some new pages, cut and paste, everyone does some cleanup work, and than instead of having one 100 kb page, we now have, for example, three 33 kb pages. The process takes a day or two. It’s not that complicated. But a project team is needed for a “pressure-effect” and administrators may be needed to give user warnings to seasoned editors. In the end, everyone is happy. I am certainly open for other ideas? --Sadi Carnot 03:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Um... The current method of establishing consensus before changing anything seems to work just fine. Obviously, the "few die-hard editors" think there is a good reason why their page should be 100 kb long. Why is this committee assumed to know better than the editors who have actually worked on the article? -Amarkov blahedits 04:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
On another note, this discussion should be somewhere else, but I don't know where would make sense. -Amarkov blahedits 04:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Copied to Wikipedia talk:Article size. Let's not clog up ANI.-Amarkov blahedits 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One should take care how a page is broken up. I've seen material nominated for deletion when material on its own wasn't considered suitable for its own article or even worse, a POV fork when it wasn't. - 08:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is April 1st, right? Giano 08:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    I suggest to ignore this thread, like everyone else does. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nintendude evading indef block[edit]

It appears Nintendude is evading his indef block with User:Livonia Mall and User:Clarenceville Trojan. He created a bunch of spurious categories and other typical Nintendude edits with these users over the past day [12] & [13]. Evidence this is actually Nintendude is here.--Isotope23 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If not Nintendude then some other unwelcome idiot. Blocked these two. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Attempted account access[edit]

I just received an email from Wikipedia, saying requested a password change. Are you able to see if this user/IP has had a username in the past? I guess it's someone I've pissed off before, persistant vandal/spammer maybe? Also, there's no way anyone can access my account without either guessing the password or using the temp password from the email, is there? Thanks —B33R Talk Contribs 03:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

{Insert standard message-2} Ignore it. You've got the gist of it. If you ignore the message your password will stay the same, and only you are receiving the message. It doesn't help anyone hack into your account, just a minor form of nuisance harassment. Thatcher131 04:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mena, Arkansas[edit]

Some edit-warring is taking place on Mena, Arkansas, regarding the attempts by some local person(s) to add massive quantities of material, with repetitive external links, regarding a local Yu-Gi-Oh! tournament. Some involved users (perhaps sock/meatpuppets of one another) are aiming personal attacks at those who revert their changes, calling them "gay" or "retards". *Dan T.* 03:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Due to massive sockpuppetry and rude comments by sockpuppets, I wouldn't be against semi-protection (I'm not sure if it follows guidelines). Try, maybe, WP:RPP. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in that little fracas since yesterday. Some small part of the editor's contribution can actually be included, and most of us have tried to save that bit when we revert, but his Edit Summaries have ranged from mildly amusing to moderately offensive. I've been reluctant to engage on his talkpage; it would probably be counter-productive unless he's handled with "kid gloves" (mine are at the dry cleaners today). Now that it's been brought up here, I can take it off my watchlist : ) Doc Tropics 04:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JoshuaZ for the Sprotect, that should help. Doc Tropics 05:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio issues, Nareklm and HayasaArmen[edit]

Nareklm (talk · contribs) and HayasaArmen (talk · contribs) have posted multiple articles and images that are copyright violations. Hopefully I've spotted most of HayasaArmen's copyvios since the account has only been active since yesterday (see their talk page). But Nareklm has quite a few articles and images that need to be looked through. (many of them contain watermarks, making it clear they're copyvios). --Interiot 06:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


As his name indicates, User:PalestineRemembered has joined Wikipedia for the purpose of advocating for a specific political position. This often becomes problematic in terms of the undue weight provisions of WP:NPOV, and in particular because of the WP:BLP, as he often writes about Israeli leaders (e.g. Benjamin Netanyahu) or those he views as Zionists (e.g. Alan Dershowitz) solely for the purpose of vilifying them. While this would be problematic enough, he seems completely unable to understand the concept of original research, no matter how many times the concept is explained; some examples include [14], [15], and [16] He seems to have no compunction about replacing cited information from reliable sources with his own speculation and arguments, using dubious sources at best. In addition, his Talk: page comments are intemperate at best, and often highly uncivil; see, for example, [17], or the entire Talk:Flag of Israel page starting at Talk:Flag_of_Israel#Separation_of_Church_and_State. I am currently unaware of a single edit of his that has actually managed to stick in an article, though one or two might have slipped through, and most of his Talk: page comments consist of political rants. At this point I'm thinking a significant block of some sort would be in order, if only to give him time to read and understand WP:NOR and WP:BLP, though I despair that it will help. Any other suggestions? Jayjg (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking over his contributions, I'm hard pressed to find more than a couple that aren't dubious. He does appear to impervious to reason and policy, so an attention-getting block seems justified to me. FeloniousMonk 23:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This seems pretty justifiable to me. Hopefully now PR can understand how Wikipedia policy works, and he/she will be able to follow them. Khoikhoi 23:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I gave him a one month time out. I was leaning toward 2-3 weeks, but the WP:CIVIL violations pushed him over the top. FeloniousMonk 23:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I support the block. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I also support this. I've seen some bizarre edits that are pure OR, yet he doesn't seem to get it no matter how often it's explained. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's weird: I've seen some completely POV and OR comments from PR, but then I've seen some that are ridiculously the opposite and pro israel. I do agree, however, with Felonious Monk and SV that the majority of the edits are bizarre. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 16:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familliar with PR, but on a related note, am considering changing my username to Israel intro chnages remembered, alebit briefly. El_C 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a few more problematic editors haunting Middle-East-related pages at the moment, such as User:Amoruso and User:Shamir1. PalestineRemembered has some good contributions, unlike them, so I would suggest dealing with the irremediable first and then coming back to the cases of doubt. Though I should add that most of my experience of them have been in the opposite situation to that cited here, i.e. Amoruso et al making ludicrously POV changes and PR disputing them. Palmiro | Talk 01:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you offer examples of PR's good contributions? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
When a quick action was taken against PalestineRemembered, the slowness of action against Amoruso and Shamir who have same (or worse) behaviour is highly questionable. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This section is about PalestineRemembered, not about other editors with whom you have content disagreements. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Too harsh a punishment[edit]

Because I have previously edited this page (as has Pschemp) I ask that the following blocks be reviewed:

  • 22:38, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism) [18]

This comes a full 7 hours after the last edit. After the anonymous user received a warning on their talk page, they have not continued the disruptive behavior. So what purpose does the block serve other than to be punitive, as the editor has brought there actions inline with our traditions.

Also this block fails to assume good faith:

  • 22:37, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (vandalism) [19]

The editor has two edits:

  • 22:31, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment - deleted offensive picture) [20]
  • 05:17, 6 September 2006 (hist) (diff) The Greatest American Hero

The only justification for such a long block after 1 edit is if that IP is a sockpuppet of an existing user. But we have no proof of that and as I tried to explain on the Pschemp's talk page, this kind of vandalism is not unexpected given that the picture is very disrespectful to many people's belief systems. What we need to do is educate and welcome - not smack them for trying to make a contribution they feel is their duty. The first user shows, once educated, these users will stop being disruptive. --Trödel 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • 23:14, 27 November 2006 Pschemp (Talk | contribs | block) blocked " (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (vandalism)
Again two edits only:
  • 22:55, 27 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Temple garment (→Construction and symbolism of the garment)
  • 04:33, 26 November 2006 (hist) (diff) Parasympathetic nervous system (→Relationship to sympathetic nervous system)
Again overly harsh and failure to assume good faith. --Trödel 23:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
My experiance with this adminstrator is limited to receiving a week long block for "trolling" after my uncontroversial participation in discussion on this page. The gory details are here. - 00:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I will admit that this seems to be wrong. A user should not be blocked quite so immediately, and blocking someone for mentioning this problem is wholly and completely out of line. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you discuss this with the blocking admin before bringing this here? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes here --Trödel 03:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Did any of you notice that I changed the block to 48 hours? Obviously not. Get your facts straight before you complain. Additionally, the edit pattern shows this is a user who is hopping from IP to IP and making the same edit repeatedly in a short amount of time. It isn't a new innocent IP every time, its the same guy who was already reverted 3 times. The only way to deal with people using proxies is to block immediately. However, the entire issue has been resolved since the page is now semi-protected so the IP vandals can talk about their feelings on the talk page first. (which Trodel agreed was a good solution) We had a discussion and came to conclusions. Trodel's posting here is superfluous. pschemp | talk 17:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is superfllous then there was no reason to keep the block in place, yet you did. --Trödel 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Trodel, the posting here was superfluous because we were happily discussing it on my talk page. That's what I was referring to. The block was not. pschemp | talk 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy if pschemp could acknowledge that there might be any problem with her blocking strategy. Looking back over the last month or so, the vast majority of her blocks are no-nonsense username and vandalism-only accounts. However her use of "trolling" as a block reason appears somewhat hit-or-miss. Leaving aside her blocking me, a quick glance back shows
  • 04:34, 25 November 2006 Pschemp blocked "NYScholar (talk contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (trolling and disruption on user talk pages.) [21]
where a serious contributor was blocked for a straightforward (if strident) dialog on a user talk page. Again, without warning or clear justification. The weakness of the {{unblock}} procedure is also made clear by this exchange, by the way. If these more controversial blocks could be brought here for review and Pschemp was a bit more open to dialog regarding the blocks, there would be no problem here. Incivility in the manner of "Get your facts straight" does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in. 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's your issue. I think if you remember correctly another administrator reviewed that block and found it appropriate. As did the person whose page you were disrupting. If you'd like to complain about that block, go start another section. Continuing to whine here about an action already deemed appropriate by four admins is childish. (and "does nothing to further the collegial environment we would all like to edit in.") pschemp | talk 19:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Notice I said start a "new" section on your personal issue, not "move this section down". pschemp | talk 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The (first) response is not only rude in "continuing to whine" but doesn't *ahem* get it's facts straight. (It conflates several different incidents.) Blocks, like all applications of adminstrator privledge (and in fact all Wikipedia edits) are subject to review and discussion. The ability to take part in discussions about one's actions in a civil and rational manner is in fact a pre-requisite to participation here. I'd ask if the level of venom could be turned down just a tad. I'm also asking (as Trödel is) for some adminstrator input into pschemp's blocking, so a "another section" is not called for. - 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not move this section out of time order again. pschemp | talk 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This diff says all I have to say. Another uninvolved admin felt the block was justified. The person's whose page it was on did not disagree either. If you want to complain, you'd better complain about all three of us. And yes, you are whining. And no its not uncivil to point out what you are doing. pschemp | talk 23:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall desist from pointing out your incivility, and instead leave it to other reasonable people to determine it. With regards to your block of NYScholar (talk contribs), here is the edit that you blocked him without warning for, and that the reviewing admin called "flaming." There is not a rude word in it. I might also add that the "few hours to calm down" comments are due to what, the words "REQUEST FOR UNBLOCK" in capital letters? This block was out of line, the review was half-arsed, and your hostility is deeply unbecoming. If you are unable to handle civil, reasonable requests for examination of your blocks, don't make them. When we're finished with talking about your NYScholar "trolling" block we can look at your one-week block of this IP. - 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Do not reformat my comments. Also, the week blocked was immediately reduced to 48 hours after a discussion with Trodel. I'm sorry you don't like the action with NYScholar but 4 admins agreed with it. I have nothing more to say to you. pschemp | talk 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation and abuse question on 6.5 Grendel[edit]

Ok, first the background. In the past week there have been dozens of edits to Assault rifle by anon IPs making unreferenced claims that say the 6.5 Grendel cartridge is the best thing since sliced bread, etc. It was definitely not NPOV, had no sources etc. It was almost to the point of being an advertisement saying "Alexander Arms bullets are better than any other bullet out there". Anyway, I noticed a similar IP had posted on the 6.5 Grendel page. Some of the text there looked fishy, so I did a brief Google search and found the ballistics testing paragraphs were ripped straight off another page. It's possible the entire page is a rip as well, but only slightly paraphrased. A lot of it looks similar.

Anyway, I removed, tagged copyvio, posted on the copyright violations page etc. Great, grand. The talk page has suddenly exploded in its absence with anons and new contributers suddenly claiming I work for Remington (I don't, I'm a student), that I have a history of malicious edits (I've never received a warning), etc. Also no less than 4 people and probably more now have now claimed to be the copyright owner and release their work: but some of them are releasing it into public domain (which I don't think is GFDL compatible) and some only to specific users.


*"The malicious charge that SwatJester has made that images and comments regarding terminal ballistics gel testing cross-posted at TheHighRoad by John Hanka, aka Grendelizer at, are the property of that site when John is not only the moderator on the site, but is in fact paying for its existence, are absurd. " (note: this refers to my tagging as copyvio.)

  • "Beyond this, SwatJester has a history of destroying the work of well-intentioned contributors on many sites by constantly reverting them to versions he finds more palatable. Such behavior, if allowed to continue by the Wiki staff, will destroy the desire and ability of knowledgeable and well-intentioned individuals to contribute to the Wiki effort."
  • "Is it possible that someone here at Wikipedia is on the payroll or has vested stock interest in Remington?" (not so subtly hinting at me).

The talk page had not received any notice in almost 30 days. Suddenly all these posts, with competing and overlapping incompatible copyright releases, most from anon IPs and none of which can be confirmed yet....and then this abuse spewed at me: sounds like someone is organizing off-wiki to orchestrate something on wiki.

And to be honest: I'm F*ing sick of it. I like to think I do a good job on wikipedia. I've been editing here almost a year, something around 8000 good edits on over 4000 pages. It's one thing for a random IP to flame me, or vandalize my user page, that's happened before and it's entertaining. But this is ridiculous.

Will another couple of eyes take a look at this and maybe hearing from an admin that I was justified in removing the copyrighted material will get it through their thick skulls? SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I should mention one of those editors, User:Solidpoint who was responsible for some of those claims including an edit summary accusing me of vandalism for removing the copyrighted material had this to say on a similar article: emphasis my own.

*"Thinly veiled listing of Pinnacle's bitch list RE: DOD testing

This Wiki page is a disgrace. There is nothing objective or unbiased about anything written here and I say this as a huge DragonSkin fan. If Wiki cannot police itself better than this it is not a credible source of information about anything. This page is not about DragonSkin at all. It is about the unfair way Pinnacle Armor's product was tested and the author is just grinding an axe. It is pathetic beyond description to find this sort of thing in what purports to be an Encyclopedia. I think if Pinnacle were aware of this page THEY would ask for its destruction. No good can come from airing a list of bitches from one side only. This page has zero credibility and will likely injure Pinnacle.


I've asked for an apology on his talk page. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I did... it's absolutely sickening. If they don't get real permissions, this article should be deleted, ASAP. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 17:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in any way defending either what other editors may have said to Swatjester, or any copyright violations, but there are a number of external links in the article to sources that very clearly meet WP:RS. I have edited the external links section to (hopefully) make this clearly. I also believe the article's subject meets wikipedia's requirements for notability, for what that's worth. John Broughton | Talk 20:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I popped across to the forum they are all linking to - I take it SOLIDPOINT is the same Solidpoint, who makes the disgusting comment of

I will say this. When that asshole SwatJester crawls out of his mom's basement he better not cross my path or he'll be posting from the ER ward for awhile. That graphic represents more than 100 hours of work just on my end and a lot more from Stan and Mike and others. For destroying that kind of effort I'm perfectly happy to rearrange his dental work and significant parts of his skeleton. --Charlesknight 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cute. Indef block Solidpoint (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for threat of bodily harm to an editor in an external forum, anyone? Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, User:Solidpoint going offwiki to make personal attacks should be treated harshly.--Isotope23 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a provisional 48 hour block on User:Solidpoint. I have asked him to make a full and meaningful retraction of his threat and an unconditional apology to User:Swatjester. If these are not forthcoming during the duration of the block I will extend it to indef. Threats of violence in real life will absolutely not be tolerated. Gwernol 21:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I support Gwernol's position. Threats of violence made on or off-wiki are completely unacceptable. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this block. We cannot regulate what fellow editors do on other websites, but in keeping with the findings of several sections of my own arbitration case (namely, principles 1, 2 and 4), Wikipedia does not tolerate harassment, works to effectively eliminate harassment be it through appropriate administrator actions as necessary, and we unite together in our efforts to defeat harassment making sure no one need be isolated by such incidents (in a nutshell). If no evidence of sincere apology is forthcoming...extend block to indef.--MONGO 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Fourthed. - Samsara (talk  contribs) 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I find it a bit hypocritical that people are unwilling to say that a user with the same apparent screen name is the same person when it comes to a copyright release, but are quite content to make that leap when blocking someone for purposeful attacks. Certainly, Solidpoint has been incivil, and should probably apologize to keep things functioning smoothly. But I have found, through my own experience, that sometimes forcing an apology does more harm than good. My impression is that Solidpoint isn't very familiar with the way we do things here, and rather than focusing on retribution, we should try and turn someone who clearly has knowledge and interest in a particular field into a valuable Wikipedian. Permanent banning isn't going to do that. Especially when there's such a clear insider/outsider dynamic as there is here, such measures are just more likely to cause anger. --Eyrian 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Solidpoint has given an apology here. My inclination is to unblock and keep an eye on the situation. Gwernol 22:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is whether it has been established that these identitys are the same. Has the user admitted they were? has some independent verification been carried out? Are there consanguinuities in the manner of speaking or references to information that at least give some indication of sameness? If that's the case I am tripping over myself to endorse. If not, some qualms remain. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that after the apology was posted, the original comment was removed from the above mentioned forum? --Charlesknight 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given an apology, an unblock and monitor may be appropriate. Stipulating that identity has now been established? ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The apology itself and the removal of the forum post demonstrate that the Wikipedia user and the forum poster are the same person, at least to my satisfaction. I think there is reason to assume good faith, just, here and remove the block. Any further repetition of these threats or similar behavior should be ttreated swiftly, IMHO. Gwernol 00:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow I mised all of this? Yeesh. I think this very much exemplifies the dangers inherent in offwiki groups banding together to push a POV onto their specific articles. I briefly looked through their claims on their forum about me and found so many things, for instance that I had made a diff that I didn't make, that I have never created an article of my own (RSTA (U.S. Army), Commander Mine Squadron SEVEN that I recreated from the face of CSD death,) etc. This is a case of the things that can happen when people who do not know how wikipedia works attempt to band together and push something through through the strength of their numbers. Unfortunately, I don't have any good ideas on how to fix that. I will say that while I appreciate the apology, "Perhaps now he will find the references he so craves" makes it ring rather hollow. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to say that I found that passage of concern. Samsara (talk  contribs) 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears the copyright situation has finally worked itself out, however, I'd appreciate it if a few eyes were kept on the situation regarding the personal attacks. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 19:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Re reinstating edits made by banned users[edit]

If a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user makes an edit I consider valid, am I or am I not permitted to reinstate it after it has been reverted under the unproven pretext that it is a banned user editing? User:Khoikhoi threatened to block me for doing so despite the fact that the blocking policy does not provide for that...--Euthymios 16:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no idea if User:Khoikhoi is on solid ground with regards to blocking you (I'm not an admin), but it appears the version you are reverting to does not have broad consensus per the compromise agreement in Archive 8 Section 2 of the Talk:Transnistria page. There is a lengthy discussion there where a consensus was reached so you probably should not be reverting this anyway, regardless of where the original edit came from.--Isotope23 17:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The following is MY OPINION. You are permitted to reintroduce edits from a confirmed sockpuppet of a banned user. However, you should not do so using 'revert', you should introduce it as new text. Note that you will be taking full responsibility for the content, so any NPOV or uncited claims, for example, will be your responsibility to fix prior to inserting. The content will be considered to be contributed by you and you may be warned or blocked if it is inappropriate or if it is introduced in opposition to established consensus. It is important to note that you may not reinstate text that a banned user contributed if the banned user has asked you to do so. This would be a violation of WP:SOCK. For the record, any time I revert a banned user's contributions, I welcome someone else to reinstate the changes provided they accept full responsibility for them. Note that nothing I've said here is meant to replace WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, this is just my reading of the policy and my opinion on how things should work. --Yamla 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with your opinion. It is permissible if someone else puts the information in and is credited with it. But just reverting is not. pschemp | talk 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yamla's opinion has some good precedents. David Gerard once explained on WikiEN-L that he had done the exact same thing, & the general response there was one of approval. I don't know if Yamla is aware of this prior case, but if he isn't then that would only confirm that it is a reasonable solution. -- llywrch 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
That's essentially what Euthymios did - he reverted to Bonaparte's version. Khoikhoi 17:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hm, this leaves me puzzled. What is the difference between "putting information back in" and "reverting"? How do you tell the one from the other? Fut.Perf. 17:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference is who is credited in the edit history. pschemp | talk 17:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There's no real difference, of course. But a reversion using the admin roll-back tool is pushing for a wheel war. Reintroducing the change and using an edit summary like "rvv" or the like would similarly be what I mean by a revert. The trick is that an editor must treat it as original content that they are introducing and the edit summary would reflect that. For example, when reintroducing a spelling change, the edit summary should probably read along the lines of "(m) spelling - 'happyness' to 'happiness'". The key point is that the change is treated as new rather than as a roll back to a version introduced by the banned user. --Yamla 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The other key point is that from a GFDL standpoint, it does matter who made it. pschemp | talk 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yamla's advice is ood sense. I'd also make a comment on Talk to confirm that this is what has been done. As long as the edit is good (which seems not to be in dispute) there should be no problem, and if there is I'm sure it can be fixed by rational discussion well before the publication deadline. There being none. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That edit was 1) not vandalism, 2) accurate and NPOV, and 3) there is no proof that it was made by Bonaparte or any banned user. If a banned user corrects a typo and he is reverted in mass rollback, am I not allowed to revert back? Frankly, I see no difference. I would agree if it were a talkpage post or vandalism, however we're talking about an article edit which would be totally legitimate had it been made by a regular user (which there is no proof that that anon was not). Finally, is this blockable and if so how? Don't just say "disruption" - explain how it is "disruption". Many admins block by citing "disruption" but forget that the blocking policy specifies that such blocks are nearly always controversial.--Euthymios 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • This isn't reverting a typo though, this is reverting to a version of the articlecreated by an Anon (with a suspiciously good understanding of Wikipedia policy) that is against the Wikipedia:Consensus on the talk page. I would say this would not be a legitimate edit no matter who made it.--Isotope23 17:34, 28 November 2006 (
  • In general, when re-adding content of a banned user care must be taken to follow copyright law. FloNight 20:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Why the emphasis on copyright law in this context? Surely, edits by even a banned user are GFDL licensed? After all, we may not catch them all. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


You guys might want to take a look at this one. It's already up for deletion. Any advice? MetsFan76 05:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ANI's not the place for this but I must say that the above template is the most qualified speedy deletion candidate per T1 that I've ever seen. (Netscott) 05:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
What might need looking into is the spamming going on surrounding this template. (Netscott) 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah...I know exactly who you are talking about before I clicked on the link. MetsFan76 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
While I personally understand the sentiment behind it, and believe that user:Inigmatus may be skirting, or crossing, the bounds of WP:NPOV with his/her edits to the messianic sequence of articles, the template was not the proper way to approach the issue, and so I speedied it. -- Avi 06:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
ולמלשינים אל-תהי תקוה --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from provocations, in prayer form or otherwise. El_C 12:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Posting in non-English in the English Wikipedia's public forums is rude. If you want to do it on your or other Hebrew speakers' Talk pages, be my guest, but don't do it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
And it was recreated, by Daniel575 a few hours later - apparently, "The first admin who performs a speedy delete here, is going to get serious trouble. I am not going to rest before that admin loses his admin status. Dear admin, if you want to delete this template, follow proper procedure.". Proper procedure is the speedy deletion of polemic templates. Proto::type 10:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
User has recreated it, DBd it and warned user. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Speedied by myself. Duja 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User claims on his talk page to have left 13 November. Block to prevent further disruption imo. – Chacor 11:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user really needs to learn about NPOV - look at this for example. Morwen - Talk 12:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems I'm an "anti-semitic British non-Jew". Yay for me. Oh, template has been protected from recreation, and Daniel has been warned about civility. He is back, in his words, to turn his user page into a "virtual memorial of the personal attacks leveled against me". Proto::type 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I just read that on his page. He should be banned for the anti-semitic British non-Jew comment. MetsFan76 14:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs)/ (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week on Sunday (see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2#Blocked_for_a_week). Tonight the same editor was editing again from (talk · contribs). I have blocked him for the duration of the week block, but have not reset the week block on all accounts. I am not exactly uninvolved, but I believe that blocking for block evasion is uncontroversial enough. I welcome input (feel free to tell me if I am wrong). Guettarda 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as a very involved other use this seems to have exhausted community patience. Over 20 users endorsed the basic RfC complaint and his editing behavior changed not at all. Indeed, his main response on the RfC page was to make accusations at other editors and to assert that "JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me". At minimum the user should be put on community probation from editing all evolution related articles(as proposed by Pschemp in the RfC) and a general community ban may be more in order. JoshuaZ 06:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I reset the blocks for the original two, and extended the block to nine days. Feel free to alter that if that is insufficient. -- tariqabjotu 06:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully support the blocks issued to date, as well as gathering consenus for a community ban. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but my patience is certainly exhausted. After being engaged in discussion by (talk contribs page moves  block user block log) at talk:Dinosaur tonight, I checked his contrib history and found a near-identical series of disruptive edits to other science articles. Ken was blocked for disruption and trolling, and now evades the block in order to continue disruption and trolling. His history makes it clear that he has little interest in building an encyclopedia; POV attacks on articles that disturb his personal beliefs are his mainstay. Repeated discussions, warnings, and blocks have had no effect; stronger action appears to be necessary. Doc Tropics 06:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As his IP continually changes, I respectfully suggest all users involved to please keep an eye out for any similar IPs editing similar articles. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He was also editing from (talk · contribs) yesterday. He seems to have little respect for our rules and policies, and I am not optimistic that Tariq's block will do much to slow him down. I'd going to hope for the best, but if he continues to evade the block I would recommend a community block. Guettarda 13:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find most editors who have had the experience of dealing with Ken would support such action. *Spark* 14:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...the multiple sock puppets already is not a good sign for the future. Wait and see I guess. pschemp | talk 19:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I propose semi-protecting his habitual targets; this has been effective in the past. He isn't trying to vandalize all Wikipedia; he's just trying to evangelize certain articles. By semi-protecting you could halt the disruption without blocking his entire university from anon editing.
Unfortunately this would be a large swath of articles and most of his disruption has been on the talk pages. Semi-protecting talk pages is a no-no. JoshuaZ 20:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


User Demiurge has deleted all my edits and is claiming I am "banned" under a different username. Is this some kind of inter-Wikipedia squabbling or something?

I have no idea to what he or she is referring and as this is my first day on Wikipedia, I did not respond to his initial message to me saying I "might" be someone else. I just forgot about it.

Please help.

Andrew Mikijaniec.

Mikijaniec 17:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I did copy the userboxes b/c I don't know how to make them myself, I'm kind of a Luddite, but I only used those that apply to me. If that was wrong, I apologize and I am willing to apologize to the person whose boxes I copied if you direct me to do so.

As far as an interest in cancer, my family has suffered enormously from that disease, and breast and ovarian cancers interest me particularly, so what? I guess it's possible that with millions of users on this dictionary, a couple may actually share the same interests.

Thank you for your time and attention. Mikijaniec 17:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Canard": Talk:List_of_Catholic_American_Actors#Continuation_6
In other words, this user uses the same unusual words as previous Rms125a sockpuppets. Demiurge 18:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:AGF, but I find it a bit unusual that 2 different people would have a tendency to use such obscure words.--Isotope23 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be a clear open and shut case. Morwen - Talk 18:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Luddite" is hardly an obscure word... This user certainly seems suspicious, though. --Tango 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


To the next available administrator:

I would like to request a "checkuser" as per the advice of Isotope23 so that I can resume my editing and have my edits (which have been deleted by Demiurge) restored.

Demiurge believes I am someone else, but Isotope23 has indicated that good faith should be assumed but as he is not an administrator his words are not binding, and Demiurge refuses to respond to my inquiries on his talkpage.

I really can't believe that because I happen to have a good vocabulary and grammar and sometimes use words that others don't understand or that someone else may have used ages ago that I can be prohibited from using Wikipedia.

Please help!!

Thank you for your time and attention.

Mikijaniec 18:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser is over there→, but self-checks are almost never run, because it is possible for a knowledgeable person to game the system to make it look like two unrelated users. Checkuser is only a means of confirming by technical means what is already suspected; you need to work out the reasons for the suspicion in the first place with the editors or admins involved. Thatcher131 19:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination)[edit]

Mikkalai (talk · contribs) has re-opened this closed AfD even though there is an active and vigorous discussion going on at WP:DRV. I attempted to re-close the AfD, but Mikkali re-opened it and then protected it. I will not wheel war, but I believe that not only is it ridiculous to have two discussions ongoing, but Mikkalia's actions in protecting the page were completely inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse this in full. Clearly Mikkalai has not bothered to read the DRV or we would not be having this discussion in the first place. -- Tawker 20:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Whatever is going to happen, please let's not wheel war over deletion/undeletion of the article. It has too many edits in its history, you'll bring the servers to their knees. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He re-opened the discussion because he felt it shouldn't have finished, but protected the page making it impossible for anyone to discuss anything there? I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, so I'm saying nothing. --Tango 21:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Endorsed as well. Protection is a clear abuse of admin powers. SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 21:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone needs to look at the history for more than 3 seconds. He downgraded the page from full to semi-protection. Note: I agree with the closure and am not defending his actions, rather clarifying what's going on. -- Steel 21:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Actually, to clarify. Someone else, who endorsed the deletion, fully protected the page since there was no reason for anyone to edit the page, and it would have likely been a troll magnet. What Mikkalai did was change it from full protection to semi-protection so (most) people could continue to participate in the AfD. -- tariqabjotu 21:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Unprotecting and trying to re-open the discussion is inappropriate, but wheel warring to undelete the article is worse. —Centrxtalk • 22:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I protected it because it was being vandalized. It simply doesn't make sense to have both the AfD and the DRV open at the same time, so I endorse Zoe's and Tawker's actions and not Mikkalai's for process reasons, completely separate from my support for Tawker's original deletion. Chick Bowen 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If Mikkalai has a problem with the close (and it's pretty clear that he does), he's quite free to register his objection at Deletion Review...Mackensen (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring at Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident[edit]

This is becoming silly - the page has already been protected, blocks made on particularly aggressive users acting inappropriately. Now the edit war has returned over an undeleted image, partly due to the perceived lack of discussion over the original deletion and subsequent rapid DRV. Please could a neutral administrator take a look in and try and do something about this? QmunkE 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this needs to be re-protected. If the three-revert rule is violated but a couple of the editors, they ought to get the standard twenty-four-hour block. Only if this becomes a melee should this be re-protected, in my opinion. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request for Lăutari[edit]

User Greier was banned for violating WP:3RR, however, as soon as he disappeared, anonymous users came in and repeated his pattern of reverting the article, even going as far as to mock my wording of the revert, and spuriously requesting discussion(as he didn't even start a topic on the article's talk page). Please respond with all possible haste.--Vercalos 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This belongs at WP:RPP. Thanks. Chick Bowen 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

romaniroma (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is khoikhoi (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)-- 22:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that extremely hard to believe. Chick Bowen 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Afrika paprika anons[edit]

Apparently Afrika paprika, with whom I have never dealt before, is back vandalizing a variety of articles. See (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), for example. I have sprotected all of the pages in question, but now he's started vandalizing my Talk page, which I don't want to sprotect ... User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have had to sprotect my page because of this idiot's vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


This user continues to insert original research into Wikipedia despite many warnings and a block not too. His edits primarily inserting the text are into Grand Slam Champion and Triple Crown Champion. He first started this a week ago, and he was blocked for it. His first day back from a block and he again reinserts it and removes the sprotection tag (I had the articles semi-protected a while back for IP's adding the original research into Wikipedia, and have asked for sources before but nothing has been given to me as now). I ask for a longer block for Vlh if nessecary, but this slow-pace vandalism of sorts needs to stop. semper fiMoe 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jghfutikdpe3 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)[edit]

[23] [24] [25] User page vandalism and threats. Chondrite 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I indefblocked. Anyone want to pursue the threats issue? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This user is a sock for blocked user The hobgoblin (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log), compare their user page and their comments on Mulatto. looks like both should be permanently blocked, SqueakBox 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

And AmyCrescent (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) engaging in the same persoanl attack abuse [26], SqueakBox 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This guy's using Bell Canada, which is dynamic. We can't block the underlying IPs. --Rory096 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Vicious vandal User:Squek below, No77, same user, thanks for the info, SqueakBox 01:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Latest is User:Luda1, SqueakBox 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Requst for review of a block and semiprotection of Thomas Jefferson[edit]

Yesterday, new user Piratesofsml (talkcontribslogsblock userblock log) began replacing most instances of the word 'deist' in Thomas Jefferson with 'christian'. I indef blocked after a few warnings because the editor was using fraudulent edit summaries that suggested trolling to me, [27] [28] [29], but later reduced to 24 hours because comments on his talk page suggested a willingness to discuss and attempt to support his changes. The user, having bragged about about his leet IP changing skillz and asking why he would stop if he could evade his block, proceeded to continue to replace his preferred version using various IPs, as well as blanking and otherwise vandalizing the article, leading me to semiprotect and extend the main account's block to one week. Bringing here for review. -- Vary | Talk 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I endorse. -- tariqabjotu 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
More generally, I have all US Presidents on my watchlist and Jefferson is by far the most persistently vandalized. Newyorkbrad 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vicious vandal User:Squek[edit]

Can someone ban this user sharpish.--Zleitzen 01:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur, this is a vandal only account. Doc Tropics 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Has now been blocked indef. Newyorkbrad 01:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Done. See also the above section about this user. Two edit conflicts to post this.... --Rory096 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone put in for an IP check at RFCU? Newyorkbrad 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

See No 69 above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jghfutikdpe3 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • email), same user, SqueakBox 01:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin please review this MfD?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BricksFromEurope/Corny Medieval Costume. Probably an attack page against a teen identified by real name and photograph, though possibly just an in-joke among friends, but the page creator is blocked for vandalism so we can't ask him, nor would I trust his answer. Prod has been removed twice, but if this is what I fear it might be, it shouldn't stick around for 5 days. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

speedy speedy speedy -- I somehow didn't see this on my talk page when I agreed to userfy [30]. (image is gone, see image name) *sigh* Dina 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Lyfe Tyme[edit]

I don't have much time to look into this user right now, but could another admin take a look at Lyfe Tyme (talk · contribs)? The user's contributions seem to be a tangled web of self-promotional articles for rap labels and rap artists that don't appear to be notable. I would investigate this myself but I'm tied up with a few other things in real life tonight. Thanks, Metros 01:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Talk page![edit]

3RR on Talk page of Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi by Khoikhoi. --Striver 02:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Report to WP:AN/3RR. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyway only three reverts, not four Alex Bakharev 04:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet of User:Cute 1 4 u[edit]

I would like to get some feedback on the possibility of User:PumpkinPie being a sockpuppet of User:Cute 1 4 u. As you can see by PP's talk page, the user has been welcomed by the other sockpuppet User:Pumpkin Pie (note the space and lack of space in the two usernames)--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't think it matters, the editor only had one edit and that was during July. semper fiMoe 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
But it might be helpful if we block every opportunity for Cute 1 4 u to evade her block.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Albert Einstein[edit]

Perhaps one of you who thinks that Albert Einstein does not deserve permanent semi-protection would be so good as to repair this vandalism which has been there un-reverted for 3½ hours. Yes, I know I could revert it myself, and I used to—until I gave up on the futile effort of trying to guard this article without semi-protection. --teb728 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected this morning. In future, you can get a faster response posting at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cheers, Kla'quot 03:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I went to WP:RPP twice before and got protection for short periods, but that protection was quickly removed by admins who don't believe in protection. The last time it was unprotected, I came here to protest and was informed that Wikipedia relies on editors' reverting vandalism not on protection. Well, I figure that admins who won't protect articles should do the reverting. And as I pointed out in my original post, you can't always depend on editors to do the job when they are faced with the volume of vandalism this article sees without protection. --teb728 04:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I see your point now. BTW for everyone else reading this: I requested semi-protection yesterday morning before I saw TEB728's comment here on AN/I. Both of us had seen the same flare-up of vandalism on Albert Einstein. Admins, what does it take to get indefinite semi-protection on an article? Kla'quot 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal now has his version of article protected![edit]

This was moved from WP:AIV: Droliver has been vandalizing the breast implant article for months. He is a plastic surgeon who keeps adding links to promotional websites (that plastic surgeons pay to be listed on) -- thus turning this article into free ads for plastic surgeons (presumably including himself, but since I don't know his real name, I can't say for sure). What I can say with certainty is that there are numerous factual errors in his version of the article, in addition to bias. He removed research articles, FDA regulatory statements, and other information about the risks of silicone implants. The FDA now has a 40+ page "informed consent" document to warn patients about the risks, but you'd never know if from Droliver's version on Wikpedia. After reverting to his version of the article several times today, he persuaded Samir to block the article from any subsequent changes. This is all new to me, I am seeking help. Drzuckerman 06:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ViridaeTalk 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Just want to say that I took a quick look at the contributions of Droliver (talk · contribs) and there's a definite concern about POV pushing. Pascal.Tesson 07:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't think the edits to Breast implant qualify as vandalism by any stretch. I wasn't persuaded by anyone to protect Breast implant but did so because of the edit warring. The issues are being discussed at Talk:Breast implant -- Samir धर्म 07:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, it's always the wrong version. -- Samir धर्म 07:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Always! I LOL'd as soon as I noticed this section header on my watchlist. It's always the wrong version : )Doc Tropics 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is. The people in edit wars always think there's a game afoot. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that the version locked was not the most recent, nor the most accurate. Equally interesting how vehemently the one doing the blocking defends himself. I hope that he can be as diligent in helping resolve the issues and arriving at an article that is accurate - that states the recent approval of the breast implants, along with the conditions and why they were imposed. Ditto with the recommendations. Also reading the sources would be useful, in seeing how they have been shaded or actually misstated. Rather than defending himself so, perhaps Samir can put his energies to constructive use. I not that the comment by Pascal was simply ignored by Samir and his choir. WHen an objective third party sees a problem, it would behoove the admin to pay attention.Jance 07:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting rather fed up with your attacks -- Samir धर्म 07:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Haven't you heard? Us admins always protect The Wrong Version. Grandmasterka 07:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't think I was attacking anyone by moving this here - thust thought it was a bit more appropriate (and amusing) ViridaeTalk 07:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, definitely amusing. Seriously, someone want to do something about this? [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Personal attacks are getting out of hand and I'm involved. Previously User:Jgwlaw, you can see the block log. It's making it impossible to make any progress on fixing the Breast implant situation -- Samir धर्म 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

long-term spamming (at times through IPs) by User:DAde[edit]

i would like to report a case of constant and disruptive spamming by User:DAde and his IP's through which he is continually inserting inappropriate material on a few select articles (Islam-related articles particularly Islamic extremist terrorism, and mainly via IP on Islam, Qur'an, Criticism of Islam and Criticism of the Qur'an). there have been dozens of editors having to revert the spam he keeps inserting (it is present on User:DAde's user page showing that these IPs are connected to DAde, and they operate on exactly the same articles as User:DAde). sometimes the IP's have been used to evade blocks or are used so that he isn't perceived as excessively reverting/spamming with his usual account.

  • DAde (talk · contribs) (sample diffs of identical disruptive spamming: [44], [45], [46], there are perhaps literally over a 100 edits identical to these)

behaviour mirrored by various disruptive IPs (likely using dialup):

i would request administrator intervention here and believe that this editor is starting to test the community's patience, as he has been inserting exactly the same spam for quite a while now. ITAQALLAH 18:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And (talk · contribs). It looks like he has a list of Qur'an verses that he wants to publicize, and he repeatedly adds them to any page he thinks they'll go on, ignoring concensus. I support blocking. Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
most recently (literally 30 mins ago): (talk · contribs). ITAQALLAH 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Community patience" ban on User:DAde[edit]

This user always utilizing the same German dialup company has also been chronically vandalizing the former Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history The IPs are as follows:

And now that the Muslim Guild has been merged in the WP:ISLAM he's started this same pattern there: