Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Shared Account[edit]

A groups of students is using a shared account to implement strategies developed off-wiki for intervening in a dispute about the New Way Forward article. [1]. Editors of several popular blogs are aware for the situation, and are watching to see if a new precedent is set. As of late 2005, shared accounts were considered harmful, and have until now have been routinely blocked. So far, no edits have come from the account, but their stated intent is explicit. Umpteenages 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm done as of this time. Newcomers are welcome, and we do not prohibit anonymous editting. Is there something specific you are requesting? Johntex\talk 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I left a note (hey, it's a wiki!) about shared accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I noticed they have posted the name of the account and the password, but I was not able to log into it. Perhaps they haven't finished the E-mail authorization. Should we block an account before it is created? I suggested that they redo the password as soon as they go into the account, and suggested abandoning it. -- Samuel Wantman
  • I have blocked this account, as role accounts are not permitted without Foundation approval. I disabled autoblocking, so the students should have no problem creating their own accounts if they so desire (I left a note on the account's Talk page to that effect). --Slowking Man 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Some new linkspam sites[edit]

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" http://www.gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. --John Nagle 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest a trip to m:Talk:Spam blacklist to request blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Trip successful. Please don't give direct links to spammer sites, because every page with them becomes uneditable after blacklisting. I had to unlink 'em in your post, John. MaxSem 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed all of the linkspam and banned the account responsible. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, it might be a better idea to have something added to Shadowbot's blacklist, rather than using the Meta blacklist. I'm not trying to spam my own bot, but I was under the impression that Meta is for more widespread, i.e cross-project, spam. Shadow1 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, one can <nowiki> the links. Geogre 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

VoABot II malfunctioning[edit]

VoABot II keeps reverting The Neptunes to a vandalized state.--Jonpro 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an isolated incident, as far as I can tell. I've reverted the page. Chick Bowen 00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
NO, there is a problem with this bot. I caught it today repeatedly reverting blankings on bios. The blankings were by the subject objecting to libels. (The anti-vandal bot was doing the same thing ont he same article). Can't we stop these bots reverting blankings on bios? --Docg 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Instead of bios specifically I'd prefer a whitelist of users to be implemented, which the bot would not revert whatsoever. That would still block out vandal blankings of properly-sourced information. – Chacor 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a whitelist is easier for AVB, as (I think) it has all admins automatically whitelisted. I think that VoABotII is a lot more lightweight than AVB, so won't have these lists, and they would perhaps be difficult to implement - and the subjects of libel are unlikely to be on such a whitelist. The simple way to solve this is for an admin to protect a page which needs blanking, blank it and then unprotect it - this should stop VoABotII reverting, without the need for quite bulky lists. Of course, the difficulty is getting an issue of libel to an admin's attention, but then again, most subjects of libel seem to know that they can easily email info-en for help. If there are lots of people who don't know this, then we do need a prominent notice somewhere informing users affected by libel to either contact us or leave a message here (which will probably get quicker attention) - something on the article talk page of all bios, maybe? Perhaps an idea would be to have an IRC bot which will relay large changes to biography articles to a dedicated channel (not vandalism-en-wp), where people can sit and check what's happening and revert the bot (or bring it to an admin's attention) if neccesary. Martinp23 12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) If such a bot is needed, I've got some code for a similar task which is easily adaptable

AfD on Michael Goff[edit]

The nominator has withdrawn his nomination of this article for deletion, but did so by blanking the page. Is it not better to have the discussion formally closed by an administrator? Sam Blacketer 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just closed it as withdrawn by nom. Syrthiss 13:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sam Blacketer 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

{{mathworld}}[edit]

I have tried and tried to ask Linas to stop changing the author citation to "first name last name" but he continues to do so. The format we use on Wikipedia for references are "last name, first name", as can be seen by any of our citation templates. He refuses to listen, and won't answer my questions to him directly. See User_talk:Linas#.7B.7Bmathworld.7D.7D for our most recent discussion, although we have discussed this before at places including Template talk:Cite web, where it was made clear that on Wikipedia we use "last name, first name" and he should not change it, but he refuses to acknowledge that. Outside opinions would be greatly appreciated. -Mets501 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on his talk page. -bbatsell ?? 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Great! Should I revert the template again or wait a bit longer? -Mets501 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Slightly conflicting opinion posted there. Sorry. As a general comment, 'it's in the WP:MOS this way' is weak; we can change the MOS. Opabinia regalis 07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there is no "format used on Wikipedia" for references. Certainly the relevant style guide, WP:CITE doesn't mention anything of the sort. Any coherent and standard format within the given discipline is acceptable. And certainly some major style guides, e.g. Chicago, use "first last" as the format for inline citations, which is a common use of the citation templates. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This shouldn't be here. It's a simple content dispute and doesn't require any administrator tools. I suggest you discuss it on WT:CITE, or file an RfC. --Tango 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

TSLcrazier[edit]

User:TSLcrazier continuously adds pictures to the site which do not include copyright status. Numerous users have tried to contact him to ask him to add copyright status to his image but ignores all the message on his talk page. While looking through his contributions i have noticed he has removed warnings on images asking for copyright information, without providing the information (ex: [2] [3] [4].) I have also found a few things where he has removed deleted parts of articles with no reason why. (ex. [5] [6] [7]) It would be nice if an admin would step in and handle this problem. --Malevious Userpage o Talk Page o Contributions 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have given the user a final warning / talk about the importance of the fair use policy, as well as rolling back all his image page blankings. If he persists, please drop me a line on my talk page so I can handle this. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

False solicitation notices[edit]

Someone posted solicitation notices on a page.[8] I removed them and asked them not to do it.[9] However, they apparently were not the poster in question, who is now claiming he did not post them.[10] As this is one of a number of accounts accused of vote stacking sock puppetry[11], maybe someone is using his account to falsely post these notices. I have asked him to stop using his acount until this matter can be settled. It's a holiday for me, so I won't be dealing with it much more, but maybe some administrator with some free time can handle this. I did apologize to the user for falsely accusing him of using his own account.[12] KP Botany 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, false alert, apparently the user did not understand that "Tax-deductible contributions may be made ... by checks made payable to" and "Checks should be made payable to ... and sent to ..."[13] could possibly be construed by others as soliciting donations. Doing charitable solicitation for a living, I may have over-reacted to the use of professional catch-phrases for donations and misinterpreted them as seeking donations. My bad. [14] KP Botany 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. New user who doesn't understand the rules here. Be polite, thank him for fessing up, and encourage him to continue edits. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - jesup 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll be honest - this isn't just any new user; he's part of a group of editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a PR outlet for this opera company and two related parties. They've all been warned that it's not appropriate, but they just keep switching tactics. I've already filed a checkuser, and I'm monitoring all the relevant articles. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.93.88.235[edit]

Can somone please rollback all of this? [15] I was going to try with VandalProof, but I've just come back after a wikibreak, and it seems to not be working for me anymore. --After Midnight 0001 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, you are using VP 1.3, right? Prodego talk 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust site link[edit]

This may not require administrator attention but I think it requires a wiser person than I. I started reverting the edits of User:71.243.102.51, who has been adding entirely misplaced editorial comment on the lines of [16]. But the history of Operation Reinhard (one of the articles) does show a low key edit war between competing domains death-camps.org and deathcamps.org. The sites look very similar, but the editorial comment is making claims of fakery. I have no real idea how to investigate further, but it does seem an area where sensitive attention to external links is required. It may be that someone is using Wikipedia in a very inappropriate way. Over to you good people. Notinasnaid 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link and editorial remark. No one should add their own web sites as references. Ridiculous edit-war. MartinDK 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen Please read for the facts:


Please be advised that there are currently several counterfeit and completely bogus versions of the genuine Aktion Reinhard Camps website which can only be found here: deathcamps.org

These counterfeit websites are utilising various twists on the URL: deathcamps.org

In order to fool people they are hyphenating the url and or substituting letters and domain suffixes.

It appears that some of the counterfeit websites are linked to forums and websites sympathetic to Nazi and Supremacist groups.

If you read the following WHOIS listing at this link or from the text below you will note the original registration date of the genuine DeathCamps.org ARC website

WHOIS information for: deathcamps.org:[whois.publicinterestregistry.net] NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. Domain ID:D90771355-LROR Domain Name:DEATHCAMPS.ORG Created On:30-Sep-2002 19:44:33 UTC Last Updated On:05-Jan-2007 07:51:51 UTC Expiration Date:30-Sep-2007 19:44:33 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Schlund+Partner AG (R73-LROR) Status:OK Registrant ID:SPAG-31769436 Registrant Name:Chris Webb Registrant Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Cranleigh Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code:GU6 8BP Registrant Country:GB Registrant Phone:+44.1483272054 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:chrisrwebb1954@yahoo.co.uk Admin ID:SPAG-31769436 Admin Name:Chris Webb Admin Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Cranleigh Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code:GU6 8BP Admin Country:GB Admin Phone:+44.1483272054 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:chrisrwebb1954@yahoo.co.uk Tech ID:SPAG-35545918 Tech Name:Carmelo Lisciotto Tech Organization:Action Reinhard Camps Foundation International Tech Street1:N/A Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City:Boston Tech State/Province:MA Tech Postal Code:10012 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.1111111 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:info@deathcamps.org Name Server:NS19.1AND1.CO.UK Name Server:NS20.1AND1.CO.UK


We everyone to avoid counterfeit websites. Thank you ARC


The person above doesn't represent the ARC group, if only because the ARC group doesn't exist since Oct. 2006; the copyright claims are false. See my user page. --Sergey Romanov 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The copyright claim appears to be legitimate since the ISP shut down the hyphen vesion. Which must now be considered a discredited site. Crackius

The hyphen version is still online. Why does the "genuine ARC team" not try to accuse that "counterfeit website"? Because they then have to explain why their new website (H.E.A.R.T.) is mainly based on copied ARC texts and photos?

Retributive sockpuppet accusation[edit]

User:Marshal2.0, the new id of User:Marshalbannana (as per the user's page), has accused me of sockpuppetry as retribution for my reporting him in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd). He's now copying comments from the Jacknicholson case, changing the names, and inserting it as "evidence" against me. See his edit and following comments.

He also has tagged my user page to mark a sockpuppet accusation (blanking the content I had there before), but has not added it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, which means that no one will end up reviewing it, but I have to leave the accusation on my user page.

I'd really appreciate an admin looking into this. - jesup 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the Evidence section appears to be a cut and paste job I've requested diffs. I'd say if these are not provided very soon the sockpuppet case should just be closed and an WP:RFCU should be opened. That should settle this in short order. I don't know the background here, but it appears to stem from some sort of content or user dispute.--Isotope23 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This reeks of WP:POINT. There is not even a remote simularity in editing patterns. MartinDK 18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Pretty much it's just retribution for my (and others) calling him for repeatedly using anon-IP's and after semi-protect, sockpuppets, to force a youtube link into Katana. We eventually had to fully protect the page. The original account has been permanently banned; Marshalbannana and Marshal2.0 are the same user (self-described as so). jesup 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note An anon-IP user keeps deleting this section in favor of the following one (and occasionally messing up the formatting.) Unsubstantiated guess is that it's Marshal2.0, all his other comments recently are about the Marines in Iraq. - jesup 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This section has been removed by various anon-IPs (a few now blocked) around 15 times so far today. FYI. — jesup 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Year-long blatant vandalism never caught[edit]

I must say, I hope we can catch blatant vandalism faster than one year ago which no one found. Is there anyway to search for blatant vandalism other that by random chance of us finding it? semper fi68.211.96.214 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This came up before. It was a mistake, not vandalism, and the page was redirected anyway, so no one saw it; hence, not a big deal ;) -Patstuarttalk|edits 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If vandalism or unhelpful edits remain that long, it pretty much means no-one looked at the page for a year until you came along. Who visits talk page redirects regularly? Grandmasterka 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Vhowells[edit]

I came across this user while dealing with some images with invalid copyright tags. The user appears to be a child, and they have their name and full address on their user page. Should this information be removed? --- RockMFR 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I have taken a first step of dropping her a note and deleting the name and address from her talk page. But I think there is someway of doing this more permanently? --Slp1 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Isn't this what Oversight is for? MartinDK 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Short of totally deleting the whole page and asking the user to start again, not much can be done. The address is in from the start so every single revision would need to be removed. I'm going to do it now, if this user is a child then we should take steps to protect her from harm. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Valve audio amplifiers dispute[edit]

I am bringing her a situation that may or may not require administrator assistance, as I don't have either the subject-matter background or the time tonight to determine whether it's a user conduct issue or a pure content dispute. Could someone with a science/technology background please take a look at Valve audio amplifiers and the archived talkpage, as well as User talk:Tubenutdave, which describes ongoing disagreement as to the contents of that page between Tubenutdave and User:Light current. As I say, this may be nothing other than an aggravated edit war, but we have a user ready to leave the project over it and I don't have enough expertise in the subject-matter to know how best to proceed, except to have advised him that the request for arbitration he filed earlier today is not going to be accepted. If someone could take a look at this it would be helpful as the real world is calling me AFK for awhile. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome IP range[edit]

I've been dealing with IP addresses of the form 207.62.105.x for a while (based out of California State University). Basically this IP goes into articles and does one of three things:

  1. Inserts Portuguese POV and makes everything have a Portuguese perspective. For example, repeatedly making this type of edit to many articles or adding Portuguese-American, Portuguese-Canadian, etc into biographies, regardless of whether the claims are true or not.
  2. WP:POINT edits like this one when the edits keep getting reverted
  3. Eliminating references to Spanish

Every once in a while he just balatantly vandalizes and article. The IPs are socks of blocked user Uhy, and seem to strike Silva more than any other article. I've already warned several of the IPs, but it seems rather pointless seeing as any attempts to communicate have been completely ignored. The IP is dynamic, but it doesn't seem to change until several hours later usually. So far there haven't been any constructive edits from any of the IPs. --Wafulz 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Raphael1 (talk · contribs) has been warned against readding Category:Anti-Islam Sentiment to Ann Coulter. He's once again reverted the page against consensus. Could someone please BLP3 him? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you change WP:NOT? Is Wikipedia a democracy or do arguments count? There have been no arguments voiced other than it could be regarded as defamatory.Raphael1 16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you read WP:BLP, Raphael? – Chacor 16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I have and there are plenty of references, which confirm my addition. Raphael1 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You've been warned by a neutral party about this already Raphael. I could have placed this request yesterday, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you continue to try to weasel yourself an excuse for ignoring the BLP warning.... Kyaa the Catlord 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I certainly have not ignored the BLP warning. Instead I've provided Will with references two days ago[17] but haven't heard from him since then. Raphael1 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a noticeboard, not a boxing ring, we have noticed you. No need to argue here, keep it on the talk page. Someone will look into it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the article cites numerous references. There is a whole section on the subject at wikiquote:Ann_Coulter#Islam. The 'Council on American-Islamic Relations' calls her 'islamophobic' and 'bigoted'. If Coulter doesn't qualify for inclusion in an 'Anti <whatever> sentiment' category then nobody does. Either move to get them all deleted (good luck) or give up the ghost. --CBD 17:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The article cites numerous references, but wikipedia itself does not meet WP:RS nor does pinning this category on a living person meet BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
La la la. Patstuarttalk|edits 17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to go through Mediation to correct the mistakes that are so bloody blatantly obvious. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the citations from outside wikipedia? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the citations are from outside Wikipedia. The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Editor and Publisher, CAIR, her own columns, et cetera. They are shown in Wikipedia, but they don't originate here. --CBD 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Drawing a conclusion is OR. Labelling someone in a defamatory manner is against BLP. These are hard and fast rules, why the debate? Kyaa the Catlord 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
By that logic Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (and 'Anti-semitism', and all the others) simply should not exist. Yet they do... because such 'labels' ARE allowed when they are properly sourced. As in this case. --CBD 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have left a note on Raphael1's Talk. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
You certainly could put a sentence into the article which is sourced and says that she has been called anti-Islamic, but there's a difference between putting a sentence in an article and putting an article into a category. In an article, there's room for an opposing view from another source that thinks she isn't anti-Islamic. In a category, there isn't.
Moreover, since there's dispute about the matter, we can't say she *is* anti-Islamic. We can only say she's been *called* anti-Islamic. So your category would have to be something like "accusations of anti-Islam sentiment" to be accurate. Ken Arromdee 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notice — This isn't the first time Raphael1 has been disruptive. According to the decisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1, "Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility." and "Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time." I think he can easily be banned from these pages he's being disruptive over; if any three of you guys decide it warrants a block under the probation clause, that can happen too. --Cyde Weys 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Guy, you said on Raphael1's page that WP:BLP requires consensus to include any negative comment about a person. That isn't my reading of the policy at all. Indeed, the word 'consensus' does not even APPEAR in the text of the policy. Our 'living persons' policy requires that negative comments be properly sourced. We DO have general policies against edit warring without consensus, but they'd apply to both 'sides' here and have nothing to do with BLP. So far as I can see... addition of the category IS properly sourced here. --CBD 18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Per BLP, the subject of the article needs to pretty much state word for word that she is anti-islamic. She has not done so. So labelling her in this manner is subjective, POV and draws a conclusion based on her statements, which equals Original Research. BLP has a higher standard. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Further, everyone else in the talk page has pretty much stated "we'd rather that category deleted than have it applied to this article". How much consensus do you need? Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the same amount of concensus which would be needed for Category:Terrorists. -- Szvest - Wiki me up (R) 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Consensus does not include trolls and POV pushers. Disputed content should be reviewed by other editors and consensus reached. Cited content of unambiguous significance stated in neutral terms is unlikely to fail to gain consensus, I'd have thought. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Things being accepted just because they are cited, significant, and neutrally worded... you funny man. :] [18] --CBD 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Including a statement by the biased offshoot of a terrorist group. Very neutral. Kyaa the Catlord 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a description for an organization primarily funded by the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (our allies BTW) proves the problem all by itself. --CBD 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert vandal back[edit]

Admin SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · logs) removed protection on Universal Image Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) two days ago and apparently Uifan (talk · contribs · logs) has just noticed with his various IP edits. Admin FayssalF (talk · contribs · logs) has been involved in the past also and agreed that this was obnoxious vandalism. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 23:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

huh? ViridaeTalk 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
What are you asking to be done? -Patstuarttalk|edits 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems as though there is both an edit warr-er and a linkspammer on that articel, and it was unprotected. 68.39.174.238 00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Underage images posted to Erection[edit]

Last night I reverted changes in the pictures at Erection [[19]] and explained why to the user who has made the changes (User:Djy9302). The user has since indicated on my TalkPage that they were photos of himself. I realise now that this may be a slightly more serious problem than the usual vanity postings in this sort of articles as the user identifies himself as being 16 years old on his UserPage. The photos thus constitute child pornograhpy in many jurisdictions. They were originally uploaded to Commons not here however, can an admin with sysop access on Commons delete them to prevent them reappearing in future? The images in question are: Image:100_0441.jpg Image:100_0442.jpg WJBscribe (WJB talk) 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just comeing here to post that, myself. Even if the user is actually above 18, the caption of the photos states that the subject of the photo is a teenager. While the AOC in Europe is 16, in the USA, where Wikipedia is hosted, it is 18. Best to delete the images, in my mind. Jeffpw 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Oversight should be consulted for such images. This is just the kind of issue for which oversight was created. Cheers, * Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how oversight is especially important here. A Commons administrator should simple speedily delete the images. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I've zapped the images on Commons. Oversight is not needed here; there is no personal information in the deleted edits (which is what oversight is about).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Age of consent is immaterial to the law in the UK where it is unlawful to posess a naked and sexually explicit picture of a person under 18 years of age unless one is formally partnered with them. This included images downloaded from the internet. This is paraphrasing UK law. The images would be very much better deleted quickly even if they appear to be 18+ precisely because of the caption associated with them. One can argue that these pictures are not erotic wth some justification, but safety dictates that they should go. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In fact the images are illegal in the UK if they even appear to be of someone under 18. This also includes pseudo-photographs and cartoons. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I possess an ad brochure for a kind of diapers, and it contains photos of babies' inflamed genitals from using bad diapers. Is this ad brochure considered illicit child pornography in the UK? --tyomitch 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Completely. In Canada there is the Protection of Minors Act, in other countries, including USA, UK, and much if not all of the EU, there are similar protections. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stick to the subject here. You can use each other's user talk pages to discuss photos in diapers brochures and the like. This thread, however, is about another picture. Aecis No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of Consent is 16 in most places in the U.S., but AOC is not the issue here. Explicit images of teenagers under the age of 18 are considered child pornpgraphy in the U.K and in the U.S. No special oversight is required, the usual process of speedy delete is sufficient. Atom 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there still images in need of deletion on Commons? Which ones? Or uploaded by which Commons user? (Please give a link to the commons user by prefixing if you can). As a Commons admin I would be happy to work to do the right thing once it is clear what that is (seems pretty clear to me already.) However I note that Nilfanion has already perhaps taken care of this? ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Lar I had sorted all that needed doing on Commons. As the user (same username as on en) seems to have been warned and still contributing on en, I did not block on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Range block of 68.215.0.0/16[edit]

Had to block the range to prevent vandalism here. 24 hour block, anon only, account creation disabled. Hopefully this won't affect too many people. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Now had to block 68.219.0.0/16 too. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
As long as you don't provide any evidence here, I can't imagine what anyone would object to. Why not just block 0.0.0.0/0 --206.165.70.2 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All Roads Lead to Jacob Peters (talk · contribs)[edit]

I have blocked Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This user has been given several warnings and blocks, but he persists to believe he thinks he can game the system. A fifth request for checkuser was made regarding this user last week, but it appears the people with checkuser have not been as active. So, after I was informed of some editing oddities at Vladimir Lenin, I decided to some sleuthing of my own...

So, in conclusion, pending the conclusion of the WP:RCU hiatus, I have...

  • Blocked Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) indefinitely, for extensive sockpuppety.
  • Blocked FBabeuf (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters.
  • Blocked 69.105.31.69 (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours, as a sockpuppet, with account creation blocked (avoiding some collateral damage).
  • Unblocked then re-blocked 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours, as a sockpuppet, with account creation blocked (avoiding some collateral damage).
  • Semi-protected User:69.105.31.69, to help prevent removal of the sockpuppet notice.
  • Semi-protected User:207.151.38.178, to help prevent removal of the sockpuppet notice.

Any comments? -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The new socks look like a slam-dunk, especially FBabeuf. Good work. - Merzbow 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, I agree - "enough is enough". Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Many Personal attacks from User:Szhaider[edit]

He has been disruptive in his edits. Edit-warring with multiple users across multiple articles. There is a post involving him on this board [20]. He has engaged in personal attack in his edit summary against User:Fowler&fowler (whose revert preceded his)[21] and I warned him [22]. He then made attack on me in my talk page [23].Rumpelstiltskin223 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this report - Szhaider has posted a comment on his userpage, which carries an offensive insinuation towards a religion and community - [24]. This is in addition to revert-warring on Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and previously on Abrar ul Haq. Compound into this his avowal of "Pakistani nationalism" and strong religious and political POVs, I see a big-time POV pusher. I am involved in handling a dispute with this fellow, so I will not take any action. However, I recommend that this editor be blocked for at least 1 week, as he has had many prior requests and warnings for resolving these issues. Rama's arrow 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
As the named complaints were recently aggravated, I have blocked Szhaider for a duration of 1 week for revert-warring, WP:3RR violation on Iqbal, disruption and personal attacks. If I jumped the gun, I can accept that criticism but I do feel there is sufficient cause. Rama's arrow 00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:68.211.221.222 could probably use a short-term block[edit]

As all they've done is remove a thread from AN/I...--Isotope23 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fwdixon(2nd), which is the thread this anon keeps moving could probably be speedy closed as a bad faith, WP:POINT sock report (and the tag taken off the puported sockpuppet's page). The editor reporting it basically did a cut and paste job of the "evidence" from a sock report against him/her. They've provided no diffs when requested to do so. It sure looks like a retalitory report. I'd just go ahead and boldly close it but I'm not sure what the closure protocol is.--Isotope23 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and tag-team edit-warring[edit]

User:Siddiqui has persistently gone against consensus in several articles relating to Pakistan, most notably Pakistani nationalism and History of Pakistan, where he has been repeatedly adding unreliable sources (random unverifiable geocities links) and steering the tone in favor of fringe sectarian views. His edit-warring, as evidenced here [25][26] and [27][28][29], [30], do not involve discussions or debates but simply persistent reverts over long periods of time. This user has expressed such disruptive behaviour before, advancing narrow, nationalistic and politically inflammatory minority views (see this). Then, when it was clear that reasonable people fixed his edits, he decided to recruit tag-team meatpuppets. He started to post to a certain group of ideologically biased users, such as User:Nadirali, User:szhaider (who considers India a threat to world peace - look at his userpage) and User:Unre4L(who is on a mission to "reclaim Pakistan's stolen heritage")[31][32][33][34] [35]to try to revert-war there, which they did[36][37][38]. In addition, he solicited a meatpuppet from off wiki, a user named User:AliHussain. This is evident from the fact that this user, a new user, immediately posted to Siddiqui's page upon logging in for the first time [39] about "seeing what he can do" and proceeded to revert-war again [40][41]. The users Nadirali and Unre4L were involved in some ridiculous debate over the nonexistent concept of "Ancient Pakistan" (based not on scholarly sources but Pakistani historical revisionism) in Talk:History of India Talk:History of Pakistan and Talk:Panini.They have been resoundedly refuted by several knowledgeable users like User:Dbachmann, User:DaGizza, User:Deeptrivia and User:Fowler&fowler but they continue to prowl the pages. There have been RfC posts by other users concerning their narrow fringe views[42]. in turn they tried to create a bogus article about an underground Islamic Fundamentalist/Pakistani nationalist website started by this group of singleminded editors that which got speedily deleted [43]. This problem is becoming increasingly difficult to contain and these users are rapidly getting disruptive.Bakaman 01:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

More instances of such behaviour:[44][45][46]Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What an accusation ! The Indian contributors have been tag-teaminig on these Pakistani articles for many months before I got 3RR and the History of Pakistan was "protected" for more than three months. Now that I have some Pakistani contributors involved to represent the Pakistani perspective they have started this accusation. One can simply look at the history of these articles to see tag-teaming by Indian contributors before Pakistani contributors. I have invited many of my friends to wikipedia that does not mean that this "puppetry". One can accuse the Indians of the same regarding these Pakistan related articles.
Siddiqui 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Especially when I live thousands of miles from every other Indian user.Bakaman 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Bakasuprman is a Hindu nationalist who is constantly adding Devangari texts to Pakistan related articles and tagging their talk pages with Indian banners claiming them for India. He was quick to welcome[47] a user who abused me on my user page[48]. And look at his choice of words. Welcoming my abuser is a clear indication of his own behavior. I personally do not (->)accept any consensus which is developed by a bunch of like-minded Hindu-biased users (->)who are always aggressively scaring away whoever tries to interfere their propaganda (->)based intentions. Most of their citations are from those websites which promote (->)Hindutwa. They never accept any input from any user who does not agree with them. They insist on adding Indian script to Pakistan and Islam related articles and have been indianizing all such articles with twisted words and dubious citations. They force other users into accepting their citations no matter how questionable they are. Just look at their talk pages and you'll clearly see their unity in promoting Hinduism in Pakistan and Islam related articles, and Indianizing all such articles. They have literally occupied Pakistan related articles and won't let anybody other than members of their lobby make any major changes. If someone resists their propaganda agendas they persecute that user with full force and unity. Szhaider 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Several pages got protected due to the edits of this group (History of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism to name 2). In retaliation, Siddiqui has been editing tendentiously, using inflammatory section titles and other acts of disruption across wikipedia articles, such as [49] & [50]. User User:HamzaOmar most definitely the same user as Siddiqui is helping him revert-warRumpelstiltskin223 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider and Siddiqui are absolutely right.Bakman and other Indian users play edit wars by editing in groups,therefor being careful not to break the 3RR.Nothing but a clear form of meatpuppetry.Bakaman and his fellow imperialists have made racist remarks towards Pakistani users as seen on the history of Pakistan talk page. If Bakaman and his fellow indian imperialists can't get have their own way around,they then go running to Indian administrators to assist them in their crusade against Pakistani wikipedians. Right now Bakaman and fellow imperialist user:deeptrivia plan on writing an article on "Pakistani textbooks"(to be specific textbooks used by a small group of religious fanatics in Pakistan) to stereotype us and brand us as extremists.This can be seen [here].They had done this before when they created an unsourced article on Christians in Pakistan which had been deleted yesterday upon my request. Unfortunately they clearly outnumber Pakistani wikipedians and are able to edit war in groups to keep all Pakistani items categorized as "Indian" despite my efforts to make it "SOuth Asian" to keep it neutral. I tried to revert the article on [Panani],but they keep changing it to "Indian" and keeping all refferences to Pakistan out including consistantly vandalizing the Pakistani tag I place on the talkpage. And due to the lack of diversity among administrators,they have a clear advantage over us. The alligations Bakaman states are false.Bakaman is racist towards Pakistanis(particularly Muslim). His fellow imperialists(and possibly him)are part of a racist site called [hindu unity].They make disruptive edits to Pakistani articles such as Pakistani nationalism by sticking their POV into them.They consistantly edit war on Pakistani history articles and try to keep out all refferences to Pakistan,again in large numbers to keep from violating the 3RR.And for your information,Pakhub is not Islamaist.This is another part of Bakaman's propaganda.Any attempts to revive Pakistani history is automatically claimed as "Islamist" by Bakaman and his fellow imperialists.Please read the articles on Pakhub to decide for yourself. They have also unleashed nationalistic bots and tagged Pakistani and Iranian related articles to Indian categories.Their consistant efforts to keep all consensus out(with the assistance of biased admnistrators) is a clear violation of wikipedia's neutral and no propaganda policies.Nadirali 05:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Your paranoia amazes me... hope you understand accusing admins is not the best way to present your case here. They were made admins precisely becasue they HAVE made productive contributions to the project unlike you who seems to be interested in removing project tags from talk pages. As for Panini call him a Pakistani before any non-Indian historian and see how they'll laugh at you. ************ *************** DaBrood© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This after Siddiqui spammed talk pages [51][52][53][54], [55][56][57] [58]proving Bakaman's point totally. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join wikipedia and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join wikipedia and contributue to the articles that interests them.
Siddiqui 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a battle ground. You by your own admitance are guilty of meatuppetry. ************ *************** DaBrood© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, where you can put down any information, and because you have a few admins on your side, nobody can question your actions. The Pak tag belongs anywhere, where there are Pakistani ancestors involved. The fact is, Panini had nothing to do with modern Indians. If it hadnt been for some users here, the article would still have a ROI flag. (check history). So maybe you guys should pull yourselves together and stop defending biased information, backed up my some Indian written sources. If you dont want to call people of Pakistan, Pakistanis, what else do you want to call them? Indians. I see...makes no sense, but since you have admins on your side, who are we to question? Unre4L 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s I provided 5 .edu sources of Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Even then you question this. This obviously shows you have no regard for correct information being put on Wikipedia, but only information where you can cram the word "India" in as many places as you can. Unre4L 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the fact tha google uses Ancient India 880 times to one compared to the fictitious "ancient Pakistan" seems to be lost on you, as well as nadirali's hallucinations of me being female, when I am obviously male. You're right WP isnt a blog where one can discuss fairy-tales like the "ancient history of Pakistan".Bakaman 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First I thought Google was the only argument you could come up with. Now I know it. Ok...let me make it very simple. Why do you think we are arguing about this? Because people are misinformed, and since they are misinformed, they use it more often. If Ancient Pakistan came up with as many Google results, then this argument wouldnt be taking place, now would it? And your Google argument is not going to cancel out any official educational sources. Unre4L 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually here is one for you.
Islam gives 94 million google results.
Hinduism gives 8.7 million results.
Wait a minute. That must mean...
Unre4L 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. christian gives 318 million, muslim gets 58 million. Official educational sources? Pul-leez. I have 800 "official educational sources" to each geocities site and university of oregon blog you have.While were at it, do look at misinformed.Bakaman 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
May be google is not the right place. We need papers :)
[59]
[60]
Now make an informed decision.--aen-vthaeussP:-t/--c- 13:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Or [61] and [62].Bakaman 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yep, thats better. Still, the results are far too aligned for Ancient India (or "Ancient India") than s/India/Pakistan/g--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
This is also a candidate: [63] and so on... Truly speaking, I don't see a point of all this discussion... so much talk to stop the trolls... Democracy sucks.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Might have something to do with, Christian being a name, and the search for Christian and Christianity is integrated. But you failed to see my point. Google cannot be used to prove anything. I provided .edu sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid, unless you can provide .edu sources quoting Ancient Pakistan is Not valid, till then, please dont mention google again. Unre4LITY 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam is a name as well. see Islam Karimov.Bakaman 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Of interest to this discussion would be the edits[64] at Partition of India by a "group" (for reasons unknown) where a third individual "AMbroodEY" has surfaced on third consecutive day, after "Rumpelstiltskin223" (on 4 Jan) and "Dangerous-Boy" (on 5 Jan), continuing the edit war, reverting exactly the same cit. (i.e. Time Magazine!) and adding completely irrelevant and extremely POV links, while disregarding mediation attempts[65]. --IsleScapeTalk 15:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal! Partition of India has been in my watchlist for over two years. I didnt revert your stuff, i was building upon D-Boy's version. Whats more dont game ANI, this is not the forum really to discuss this... ************ *************** DaBrood© 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. Look at your reverts plus challenge [66] to my edits. Three people (all appearing above) reverting the same reference in three days is no conincidence, but perfect example of tag-team if not meatpuppetry.--IsleScapeTalk 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Its called reverting vandalism.Bakaman 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the fourth editor[67]--IsleScapeTalk 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh no a troll thinks there is a cabal.Bakaman 21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction, four trolls in three days!--IsleScapeTalk 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I edited the page much before three days ago, and added quite a bit in the way of references. Calling me a troll lol. Looks like noone but banned users, "restrorers of Pakistan's ancient heritage" and their SIMI friends agree with that.Bakaman 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This is certanly a case of (anti)Pakistani and/or (anti)Islamic phobia and memory loss for which I don't no cure but to hope for improvement.--IsleScapeTalk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did so many articles all of the sudden get protected by the same admin?--D-Boy 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Mhm Islescape, POV links. Do tell us about unicorns and East Dakota while you're at it. Zora is no mediator, she's the one calling for the article to become "Pakistani POV" and whining about "Indian Imperialist bots" and "Hindutva kooks".Bakaman 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of Admins I have to put up with, who are on a clear mission to ruin just about everything I post.
User:DaGizza This is what he posted at first (about my PakHub article):
"Has 36 Google hits! AFD or Prod it and it will be deleted very soon. Might even get away if you put a speedy notice"
"Regarding Pakhub, I don't understand your "evil glee" comment, but I can assure you if you place a speedy tag, someone will delete it without hesitation. And thanks for your christmas greeting. I wish you likewise and a happy new year."
"As you see, I've deleted it. If they complain, I may revive and send it to AfD. Then everyone (not just Indians) will vote speedy delete and they'll realise that it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Have a good day."

Even his buddy admitted this (Dboy) "why do i sense an small little evil glee from your words?"
And just to inform everyone. He deleted my article without telling me a word. The article was deleted twice, and I still had no idea who deleted it and why it was being deleted.

Unre4LITY 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You article was a freaking ad! It was nothing but shameless promotion.--D-Boy 14:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is Bakaman and his army of meatpuppets are loosing control of the articles due to Siddiqui's good efforts.As pointed out,they won't allow anyone but members of their (ultra-right wing) lobby to edit the articles. That seems to be changing and now Bakaman's freaked out.Nadirali 16:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, freaked out. I am quite used to dealing with national mystics and religious fundamentalists now. Do you fancy BhaiSaab (talk · contribs) ? I enjoy the "ultra-right wing" and "fascist" adjectives as well. Keep in mind there were more creative adjectives so I hope to see a better effort in that realm. Applying tags on my political views (which you have no idea of, I dont live in India) and groups I allegedly belong to ("ultra-light lobbby", "fascist" wtf?) are personal attacks. O and btw, Dboy is no meatpuppet, hes been on wiki for 2 years, ambroodey is no meatpupet either hes been on wiki for over 2 years, neither is rumpelstiltskin223. Unlike you I dont need to spam for/on meat forums to get my point across, I let the reliable sources do the speaking. Also unlike you, my time on wiki is not limited to "reclaiming the hijacked history" of my country.Bakaman 16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"personal attacks"....hmmm....let's see now..."you reffer to some (madrassa) textbooks for your sources" Yes! Now I remember thanks for reminding me Bakaman.Nadirali 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhm especially because i was commenting on the content. O and btw, no one is going to believe you unless you use diffs because you seem to be editing my text anyways, in a poor attempt to malign me.Bakaman 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Bakasuprmnan was instrumental in supporting HKelkar and succeeded in having two editors who brought into focus misuse of Wikipedia space by him by having them banned along with HKelkar even even though they were hardly uncivil
I received a checkuser request in private, as well as the evidence of sockpuppetry above, so I ran a check. Siddiqui (talk · contribs), ArsalanKhan (talk · contribs), and HamzaOmar (talk · contribs) are all on the same shared IP range in Canada, so sockpuppetry seems likely, though they are at least friends or sharing computers or something. AliHussain is in the same city, though on a different ISP, so the connection is less certain, but meatpuppetry is still possible. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Tro:del[edit]

This user and I got into a dispute over my nomination of Val42 to be an admin. This dispute was originally being discussed on Val42's user page, then Trodel decided to switch it to our personal user pages. I believed, today, that our dispute was finished, but then he left me a comment tonight that was a threat against both myself and Val42. Apparantly Trodel got so angry with me that he has threatened to block me for alleged trolling and he has threatened to oppose Val42's nomination for adminship simply because I was talking with him over this dispute. I do not believe my remarks were rude, but if they were I would apologize, but he would block me for trolling, which i quite simply am not doing. He has not actually done it yet, but This is the channel that the wp page about threats directed me to, so i am posting it here. If any other admin reads this, please help me out here, because I do not want to be blocked because of the power tripping of Trodel. Thank you.

TheGreenFaerae 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that he removed an addition to an article that was disputed and resolved some time ago. I believe this is a covert personal attack, as it was his first edit after threatening me, and he had no previous history on the page. the page in question is Chloe Sullivan. TheGreenFaerae 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Having read the arguments, I don't think you were trolling. However I do believe you turned friendly advice into a percieved personal attack and then beccame quite beligerant about it. It would do you both good to calm down. Incidentally, what Trodel was saying about the nominator needing to be of good standing IS a common requirement for people !voting on RfAs. That is not a reflwection on you, but on your experience of wikipedia and therefore how well you can judge a candidate. (havent looked at the second issue yet) ViridaeTalk 09:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that, and I did concede that point. I suppose it appeared as if I took it personal, although that was not the case, but that is not what this issue is about. He is threatening em at this point, after I conceded the dispute. After I said that he was right, he then threatened both myself and him. I'm worried that he is going to block me for something I did not do. I woudl even apologize for this misunderstanding but he would block me if I did. TheGreenFaerae 09:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I am going to contact Trodel and ask for his take on the situation. ViridaeTalk 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have reviewed the article. The section that was removed was unsourced, speculation and smelled like original Research. If it makes you feel any better I have removed it. Spartaz 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC), In fact I appear to have lost the edit conflict but the result is the same. --Spartaz 09:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

My take on that (which I hope will be confirmed by Trodel) was that either, it was unrelated to the dispute or that he came across the article in your contributions (it is fairly common to look at someones contributions to see what you are dealing with) and decided that that section was as stated by Spartaz and removed it. ViridaeTalk 09:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well i still disagree with that, but as part of my resolution regarding it, I will not say anything about it. However, as it was buried far back in my contributions, I do not see how he just came upon it, particualrly as it was the only such edit.TheGreenFaerae 09:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
There is multiple incidences of editing the actual article and even more of editing the talk page. And all your contributions can be brought onto one page (show 500) making it easy to scan and have a quick look at the articles. ViridaeTalk 09:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You have less than 100 mainspace edits - which is only two pages of the usual (50) view. Hardly buried. I wouldn't feel so sensitive about it - we all get reverted all the time. Its a wiki after all. --Spartaz 09:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, my default on Special:Preferences (Recent changes) is 250 - so all his edits come up on one page. --Trödel 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This user insulted me for responding to a request for my opinion and my observations - insisting that I prove it. Then when I wasted time finding references for my observation (how ridiculous is that), he still blamed me. I therefore began reviewing his edits, I deleted this text since it was, in my view, clearly unsourced fancruft. Then he couches his "report" on my alleged misbehaviour as "I would apologize but I can't." However,instead of finding a way to apologize (he could apologize on his own talk page, he could apologize by emailing me directly, he could even have apologized above (note that he did not - he only claimed he would). His actions show that he is more interested in wasting other peoples time than spending any of his own time. He wasted your time responding to his frivilous complaint, wasted your time looking through contribution screens (since he could not be bothered to include a link), wasted my time having to come here since one of the editors above asked me for comment. And, I suspect, he will respond to my comment by finding a way to waste other people's time instead of taking some of his own time to read through complaints on this page to get a feel for what is or is not a valid complaint. Finally, he characterizes me as "power tripping" which I view as a borderline personal attack.

In my view trolling is any person who "thrive[s] on getting good people to [waste time] fight[ing]..."[68]. In his last post on my talk page, he did not apologize, but continued to blame me for his own failure to listen to good advice, and in fact restated his personal attack in Nixon fashion[69]. Therefore, I may continue to review his edits for unsourced claims and if he objects he can do so on the article's talk page; however, I will view further comments concerning this policy discussion on my talk page as trolling and will block accordingly. --Trödel 22:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I take this as he is personally going against me. He said, himself that he is going through my edits, so how am I to take it as anything but a personal attack? I did not mean to insult him. But why should someone be insulted by sourcing thier statements? As you see on the Chloe Sullivan page, I have been in disputes about sourcing additions before, so I know what the policy is regarding citing one's sources. It is my view that he took this request way too personally, and I'm sorry that it insulted him, but I just wanted to know where he was coming from in his statement. And he said not to contact him again. So why would I have emailed him? That would have been contacting him, and apparantly trolling. i was never trying to start a fight. I simply wanted to see evidence for his opinion, as it was not official policy, which I read several times. I object to the charge that I was wasting time by asking for WP:CITE. I feel he is trying to bully me out of Wikipedia, and I really need protection.TheGreenFaerae 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for proving that my evaluation of your intent is accurate. --Trödel 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is that supposed to mean?TheGreenFaerae 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I need help right now. He is undoing any sort of work I do, editing in pure bad faith, ignoring my rrequests to stop. This needs to stop. I am more than willing to leave him alone, but he i8s working to force me out. I'm nto even sure this will go through as he will likely block me. If there is a troll, it is not me. It is him. Many of the edits he is undoing have been accepted by the community as a whole for weeks. He is otu of line and this is an attack, not borderline, full out attack. If there is any administrator that can stop this bully, you need to now!TheGreenFaerae 05:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
He needs to be blocked now. I have apologized, and I have asked him repeatedly to stop his vendetta against me, but he will not. He is wasting my time because I have to patrol my edits to stop his attacks, and whe I aksked him to stop, he accused me of rpetending to be a victim, and threatened again to block me for trolling. I am trying to walk away from this, but he will not let me. Please help now.TheGreenFaerae 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please provide examples, as the only edits I have made that are on pages you also have edited are: to remove unsourced negative information about a living person, properly tag an orphaned image as orphaned, to fix the wikilink that you added incorrectly from Planet X (novel) to Planet X (Star Trek) - your I'm a victim, protect me from the mean admin is not going to play. If any admin feels my edits are improper please let me know --Trödel 05:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You said yourself that you are going through my edits. As a whole, you are choosing to go after my entire hsitory on Wikipedia, and you are doing out of malice. I apologized and I apologize again for offending you, for wasting your time, for any offence I may have levied against you. I asked you top stop it. This is nothing less than a vendetta. By going after every edit I've ever put on Wikipedia, you are wasting ym time trying to protect worthwile edits, and you refuse to try to even communicate with me. Your use of edits asnd threats of blocking are aht I am saying I have a problem with. stop attacking ym edits, and walk away. I will walk away too. If there are problems with ym edits, let someone else deal with them. Stop your vendetta, please. You ahve crossed the line, and you are doing nothing less than bullying. Adn that, my friend, will not fly.TheGreenFaerae 05:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you truly wanted to walk away, you just would, you've shown you're not afraid to post on my talk page, but you continue to play, "I'm a victim protect me." And request that I be blocked for valid edits. Personally, I don't find reviewing edits to be a waste of time - but a valuable contribution to the encyclopedia - that is pretty much all we do here. Edit and review edits --Trödel 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
If you agree to stop going after ym edit history, I will stop asking for protection. I cannot walk away, as the monet I log out and try to something else, you jump on my edit history and begin your subversive attack.edits made otu of malice are not valid. And I am not going to waste space on evry page I edit to explain that you are carrying out a vendetta against me. Leave me and ym history alone, that's all i want. I do nto want to see you blocked if you are willing to stop your war against me. TheGreenFaerae 05:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
All my edits are valid - again provide an example for your accusations - continuing to accuse me of wrongdoing says much more than an empty apology. --Trödel 05:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I alreayd said that it was your mtoive that was the problem. aside from the meadow mountain page, very one of your edits after I posted this has been out of my edit history. It does nto matter if the edit by itself was valid, if your mtoive was out of spite. Please stop using me edit history as your personal watchlist. If you won't do this, youa re blocking me by proxy, by making it impossible for me to edit something, knowing you'll just wipe it out when I leave. This is a direct personal attack. My apology was not empty. You simpyl refuse to accept any apology. You apaprantly want to see me gone, and it seems you will not stop until you achieve this. All I'm asking you to do is leave me alone. Why can't you do that? Just elave me alone, just return to focusing on the project as a whole instead of using your time to destroy my edit history. TheGreenFaerae 05:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Saint Mary's Catholic School redirecting post AFD[edit]

I am not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. Saint Mary's Catholic School just survived an AFD vote here. I did not participate in the vote in anyway; I just found the article afterwards while looking over recently closed AFDs. When I went to the article after the AFD I found that someone had made it a redirect, with the comment "Merge/redirect -- lack of independent sources, lack of info." This is after an admin had closed the AFD wih a keep. As far as I know, the article has not undergone a DRV. So it seems like Shimeru did not like the admin's decision when the AFD was closed and took matters into his own hands. I reverted and left a note that the article just survived the AFD, so in my opinion, it should not be blanked by redirecting. I rewrote some of the article, and left it at that intending to continue later. I come back today and find that it is once again a redirect with the comments by Shimeru of "redirect -- still no secondary sources, and manifestly no consensus to keep. Needs sources before it can stand alone as an article." I subsequently reverted again with a comment asking him to not redirect a page that just survived an AFD. As far as I know Shimeru is not an admin and this page survived the AFD. This is not the first time I have run into him following the redirecting of a page without consensus. See Desert_Ridge_Junior_High_School's edit history. I would appreciate it if someone would talk to him about this. KnightLago 18:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Left him a note on his talk page. Let us know if he continues to do do a de facto delete of the article. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Wait, there's nothing wrong with what this person did. Just because the SCHOOLs fanatics get a false consensus keep doesn't mean that a lack of sources has to be accepted as status quo. This is a perfectly legitimate edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It would have been polite to let me know about this posting. For the sake of clarity, the admin closed it as a keep via no consensus -- he confirms this on his talk page. He has also stated on DRV (in regards to an earlier AfD he closed in the same manner) that he does not consider such closes to prevent a merge/redirect. I was simply enacting a merge/redirect rather than taking a second article to DRV -- it seemed simpler. Since it has twice been declined, I have no intention of continuing to attempt to do so; I will wait for a few days to see whether secondary sources are added, and then decide whether to DRV it or not. Shimeru 06:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin abuse[edit]

I have a user who has been blocking users indefinitely for minor offenses without warning. The user is user:ohnoitsjamie He refuses to admit he did anything wrong at all. This has become completely out of hand. I am requesting this be investigated. You may contact me for more details. Thank You.

Albott 20:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Ohnoitsjamie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is simply blocking sockpuppets of previously banned users who had much more major offenses. Yuser31415 21:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
This edit might seem to support that. Fan-1967 22:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't provided any specifics (see note on my talk page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Provide specific accounts and their edits, that will help the admins to look into the matter. Otherwise, they can't help you as there is no evidence to investigate. --Farix (Talk) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked though Ohnoitsjamie's block log, which is available to registered user (not sure about anons) and I don't see anything that wasn't legitimate. All of the name blocks where vandals, clear sockpuppets, and one link spammer who was violating WP:EL and was pretty belligerent about it when s/he was blocked. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The complainer admits to being a sock of blocked users ([70]) , and has not responded to any queries for specifics, so I'd write this off as trolling. Fan-1967 03:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on editor disagreement about article discussion page content[edit]

I wasn't sure if I should ask this at RfC or here, but after reading what RfC is for, it appears that this forum is the more appropriate place to bring this issue. It doesn't necessarily require administrator intervention, but could use input from those who enforce policy which especially includes adminiatrators as well as the entire community. The issue is this...an editor complained about another editor's conduct on the discussion page for the the Michael Crichton article: [71]. After some discussion (including input from me), a couple of other editors have deleted the discussion, with one calling it a personal attack. I restored it once, and the originator of the discussion has restored it once: [72]. I truly don't know if the discussion should be left or was rightfully deleted and am respectfully asking for some input. Thanks in advance. Cla68 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The guilty editor was me. I viewed the header ==William M. Connolley seems to stalk this and related articles== and associated anon comments as off-topic and a distinct personal attack. User:Cla68 seemed to disagree and restored the section. I see no evidence that it has been removed a second time and I left it alone rather than edit war. The discussion continues to grow there and is rather irrelevant to the content of the page - the discussion should be on the article rather than some perceived conspiracy and attacks on editors. Vsmith 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the discussion in question has now migrated into a debate about whether it's appropriate or not to add criticisms of Crichton's scientific views to the article. Thus, the discussion is now about the article also, not just one editor's contributions to it. Please excuse me for wasting space on this noticeboard with an issue that doesn't require an administrator's intervention. Cla68 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Previously deleted Les Balsiger article reincarnated as a defamatory attack article -- on the wrong target?[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Balsiger. The original article was about an administrator at Eastern Oergon University and apparently submitted in violation of WP:COI. This article was deleted.

The same editor, Lesb246 (talk contribs page moves  block user block log) also engaged in problematic linking behavior as a glance at his talk page and block log will reveal.

Now we have a new version of the article about a Les Balsiger in Troy, Montana who ran controversial anti-Catholicism ad campaigns in western Oregon (Portland) during a papal visit. This Balsiger apparently was associated with an offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

However I see no proof that the anti-Catholic Les Balsiger who was recently living in Troy, MT is also the college administrator now living in La Grange, Oregon. Yet the article identifies the administrator as the same person.

According to Google, La Grange, OR is 396 by car from Troy, MT and 259 miles from Portland, OR.

The submitter of the new article, Oregonians (talk contribs), a brand-new editor, also mentions Balsiger in an edit[73] to the Anti-Catholicism article.

While the La Grande Balsiger has edited Adventist-related topics,[74][75][76][77] that does not make him the same person. It's entirely possible to have two very different individuals named "Les Baliger" from the same family of Seventh-day Adventist church members yet be very different people.

Whatever the controversial aspects of either Les Balsiger, they deserve not to be confused with each other. --A. B. (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional comments:
--A. B. (talk) 04:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CrnaGora blocked[edit]

I blocked experienced user CrnaGora (talk · contribs) after he was reported on WP:AIV[80]. Apparently he had an anger outburst and started a series of mad edits to deliberately get indef blocked (as expressed in the edit summary of this edit). This other edit makes things even worse. I blocked him for 24 hours only, due to the fact that he once were an extremely valued contributor. Should the block be made an indef anyway? --Húsönd 02:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Very sad situation; I can't tell what turned this editor so suddenly off from Wikipedia, but I hope someone has at least tried to find out. Regarding the block length, I see the argument for a short block, but I also wouldn't want the user posting more ethnic hatred 25 hours from now. Perhaps a longer-term or indefinite block, with the talk page unprotected, and a note from the blocking admin that the user is welcome to come back and resume editing anytime he promises to be a contributor again. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what exactly happened, but he requested an editor review that was completely ignored for almost a month. During that time he removed the message on his talk page stating that he was leaving Wikipedia. Maybe he was considering coming back if he felt that he was needed here, which I doubt he felt. Very sad indeed.--Húsönd 02:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Leave it at a 24h block, and if he vandalises after 24h, block indef. Perhaps a little counseling could be done here. Yuser31415 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I wish. But his edits to his talk page [81] make the indef block sound like the only alternative we have really.--Húsönd 03:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame... I had a very positive impression of him. He supported my RfA, way back in the day. Grandmasterka 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive[edit]

Anyone else think this page should be archived? It's even larger than the last archived version. - TkTech 05:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Inactive threads are archived every day automatically. Grandmasterka 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but I doubt this page counts under "inactive" - TkTech 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No no no, the sections within it (EG, this one, the one above this, etc) are checked and if the latest signaturestamp is older then one day, it gets moved into an archive. 68.39.174.238 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah alright, that makaes much more sense. - TkTech 05:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Speak of the devil, bot just went by. - TkTech 06:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User requesting edit review[edit]

Would someone review my reversion of this edit to ensure that I didn't screw up the template? Also, is it required that the parameter require "url=" ? 68.39.174.238 05:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion looks fine. url= is not required when using the template (that's why the 1 is there). You can use either of the following forms: {{db-copyvio|http://www.example.com}} {{db-copyvio|url=http://www.example.com}} --- RockMFR 07:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

user:CyberAnth at AfD[edit]

Probably nothing, but it's worth keeping an eye on... user:CyberAnth has, over the last day or so, been afdingg quite a large number of articles on sexual terminology, irrespective of whether they have sizable, well-written articles. In each case, the argument is WP:WINAD, which would bee all very well if his targets were more general or if the articles in question were all simply dictdefs - but neither is true. Quite a few of the votes have basically snowballed to keep, simply because the articles are clearly not what is being claimed. As I said, it's probably nothing, but - as I said in one of my afd comments - after the first dozen or so it becomes increasinggly difficult to assume good faith. Grutness...wha? 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Despite the use of apparently legitimate Wikipedia policies as reasons for deletion, information removal, etc the user clearly has an agenda related to deleting or sanitising Wikipedia articles related to sexual innuendo or terminology as can be seen here. This user's choice of going against the grain of opinion can probably be most clearly seen on the deletion nomination page for Wanker at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination) Jooler 11:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think it is serious - please see one section below. Johntex\talk 11:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Hm. I've also noticed a section three or four further up... Grutness...wha? 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • User:CyberAnth has been addressing these "well-written" articles on verifiability grounds, and as such xe has a point. However well written content is, if it is not verifiable it must go. It's a shame that so many other contributors have not made any effort to rebut the verifiability concerns with good sources, but have instead decided to turn the AFD discussions into discussions of the nominator, or have simply cut and pasted rationales with no attempt to address the article and the sources at hand whatsoever. That does not help AFD in the slightest (and I predict, given how often this pattern has occurred in the past, that those editors' failure to address verifiability concerns will result in the articles coming back to AFD again, weeks or months from now). If an editor raises a concern that an article, or even a succession of articles, is unverifiable from reliable sources, and goes to the effort of addressing each of the cited sources explaining individually why they are unreliable (as User:CyberAnth has done at length in several of the AFD discussions — example, example) it is those other editors making subsequent "speedy keep" cries whose behaviour should be censured.

    I also note that there are a lot of editors on this noticeboard that are not following our Wikipedia:Assume good faith directive. That one editor has nominated a set of articles, all with related topics, for deletion with a single rationale, is hardly unusual at AFD. This regularly happens when an editor discovers an article that xe thinks should be deleted and proceeds to discover other related articles. None of the editors complaining about User:CyberAnth's nomination of several related articles have assumed similar bad faith on the part of the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-Star Near Misses, for example, even though that is, similarly, a nomination with a single rationale of a group of articles from a single category. And this bad faith is being assumed on their part. Nowhere in this set of AFD discussions has User:CyberAnth given an actual bad faith rationale, such as a tit-for-tat rationale. Whether right or wrong, the rationales given are evidently good faith ones, attempting to hold Wikipedia to our policies.

    I am the only editor to have added any citations at all to Fingering (sexual act). I find it most disappointing that other editors address verifiability and source reliability concerns not by citing and evaluating sources but with edits such as this, this, and this. Praise where praise is due: There have been some editors, such as Fram (talk · contribs) who have attempted to address the actual issues of verifiability and reliability. But their positive and useful contributions to AFD have been almost drowned out by those whose quite useless contributions have been not to actually discuss the article or the sources at all. Uncle G 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I've observed this as well. In the past he has attempted to remove article such as Wanker and Vanilla sex, and yesterday he created AfD's for a large number of additional items. While I think he did identify a couple of cases of poorly written, truly neologistic articles, he tends to cut-and-paste the same nomination statement across a large number of different AfDs. The user has already been told that WP is not censored, and has now been warned regarding WP:POINT. In the majority of cases, they are well-written and sourced articles for subjects that have almost obvious notability. This user should be counseled to invest more research in his nominations, and perhaps "practice" with the AfD's that are strongest before mass-nominating many items irregardless of their articles' current quality. Tarinth 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sounds like good advice. Tom Harrison Talk 16:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Your comment is a prime example of the assumption of bad faith that I just pointed out. You state "The user has already been told that WP is not censored.". But nowhere in any of these discussions has User:CyberAnth actually said that it should be censored. Xyr nominations have been based upon verifiability from reliable sources, elimination of original research, the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the avoidance of neologisms. The assumption that this is an attempt to censor Wikipedia is an assumption of bad faith on your part. Please stop it. Uncle G 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not assuming bad faith, but the fact that he has focused on articles that fit into only one category is patent; considering that all of them are sexual slang, a concerted effort to remove them meets the dictionary definition of censorship. He has also blanked large sections of certain articles without prior discussion. There's no evidence to suggest that he's interested in improving WP in general. I am willing to agree that the user is in fact acting in good faith, and that their intent is to improve WP: but that nevertheless does not contradict that their actions have the effect of being censorial and potentially disruptive. Tarinth 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Tarinth, it is good editing to remove material from Wikipedia that cannot be supported by reliable sources (and some random webpage that mentions a slang term does not constitute a reliable source for an encyclopedia article). I suggest you focus your complaints on specific individual edits and discuss each one on its own merits. --JWSchmidt 16:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Many if not most Wikipedia articles lack references other than Wikilinked terms. Do people look at random articles? I just looked at 10 random articles and found the following with no references: La gazzetta, Baltimore County Executive, Otilio Ulate Blanco, AGM-28 Hound Dog. Should I follow CyberAnth's lead, that others have endorsed, and blank the content, or just AfD them and 500,000 similarly unreferenced articles? Editors should not be allowed to selectively apply a policy of Afd or blanking unreferenced content of articles whose subject matter they find distasteful. That would be like a traffic cop selectively giving speeding tickets to only those cars displaying bumper stickers they disagree with and letting the others pass. Selective enforcement of Wikipedia policy to only articles in one category is disruptive and harms the project. Edison 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Once again, editors are assuming that CyberAnth is finding this material distasteful and that is why he is nominating them for deletion--when he has stated nothing to that effect and instead have given solid policy reasons for his actions. Instead of countering his nominations and his application of those policies, we are seeing a continued strawman fallacy being proprogated and blatant assumption of bad faith. This is incredible. Agne 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Arent courts allowed to convict without a confession? Why are we held to a higher standard? A person doesn't have to confess to vandalism on their user page to be accused of vandalism. If a person is AFDind a dozen sexual topics, why is it bad faith to accuse them of attempting to Bowdlerize Wikipedia? Wouldn't make the same assumption if someone was AFDing articles on a particular religion or race? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
              • No assumptions made, no bad faith. He's stated it explicitly himself. — coelacan talk — 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
              • We are not required to check our brains and power of observation at the door. When a clear pattern is obvious, we are not compelled to ignore it. Edison 19:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                • No, obvious is when a user states that they find such material distasteful or think that Wikipedia should be censor or something to that effect--nothing of which CyberAnth has proclaimed. OR synthesis, conjuncture, speculation and assumption is when you assume that motivation in the absence of the obvious. That is complete opposite of both the spirit and the letter of WP:AGF. The only "obvious" is CyberAnth's hardline stance on WP:V and citing sources. I respect Johntex's approach engage CyberAnth on those grounds and the differing views of those policies. I am appalled when bad faith assumptions are putting words and motivations into an editor's mouth. Agne 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Some editors get very agitated while trying to defend short Wikipedia articles about non-notable topics.....articles for which editors struggle to find verifiable and reliable sources. Let's keep our eyes on the ball. Either improve these short articles, merge what little useful content there is into meaningful larger articles, or expect that there will be honest attempts to delete them.--JWSchmidt 20:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • One point to mention is that it seems there's a mass, indiscriminate nomination of articles, almost as if just hoping that some will stick. The nominations are word-for-word the same, regardless of whether they're appropriate to the specific article. An extreme example is the citation of WP:NEO in the AFD nomination for quim. The article specifically cites The Canterbury Tales. Would a thoughtful, discriminate nomination label a 14th-century term as a neologism? Fan-1967 20:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • Please cite source to support the idea that it is a 14th-century term. --JWSchmidt 21:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found the term in three translations. And it is not used in the Old English version at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 08:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block requested[edit]

CyberAnth (talk · contribs) seems to be on a crusade to eliminate every-single uncited sentence from Wikipedia, along with every singe article (apparently including stubs and disambigution pages). I have no doubt that this began as a well-meaning effort. Who among us would not like to see Wikipeida improved through better sourcing?

However, we have to be reasonable. All stubs are not sourced. Even featured articles contain unsourced statements.

Rrequests for CyberAnth to slow down a bit have been made in the above thread heare at WP:ANI and on the user's talk page have yeilded no result. The user is continuing to propose articles for deletion that have little hope of succeeding. This is just clogging up AfD and wasting the time of good editors, CyberAnth included.

Furthermore, CyberAnth is becoming increasingly belligerent and is making wild accusations. As someone who has been involved in the debte, I am posting here with a request that an uninvolved admin issue a short block to encourage this user to slow down. CyberAnth needs to change this pattern of behavior rather than steaming ahead on a well-meaning yet ultimately harmful mission. Johntex\talk 11:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but he's posting the AfDs in alphabetical order. He's clearly using a list on WIkipedia of some kind. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With some reluctance, because I'm always reticent to support this sort of thing when I think the editor may be well-intentioned but misguided, I'm going to have to second this request. In the time since the efforts at communication listed above by Johntex occured, CyberAnth's contribution history is filled with things like this. This helps no one. Shortly before this block request hit AN/I, I'd posted my own summary of his other recent efforts above. Had I done so moments later, it would have been here instead. Serpent's Choice 11:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The user appears to have stopped. Given this, any block would be punitive, not preventative, and this is not "allowed" per WP:BLOCK. On a side-note, and this is pure speculation, I presume this is a little WP:POINT-driven (although I'm sure CyberAnth was trying to improve the encyclopaedia by nominating them, however misguided or otherwise the nominations prove to be per the concensus), and I suspect further that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanker (2nd nomination), User:CyberAnth/AfD/Original Research of Wanker and non Verfiability of claims, and the failure thereof, may have something to do with this little period of AfD-nominating. Daniel.Bryant T . C ] 12:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
(lowered the indent jump a bit to make responding more legible) Based on the edit summary for this edit, it seems likely the editor called it a night. I suppose we'll learn tomorrow if the trend continues. Serpent's Choice 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I note that since this was posted, the editor has put forward Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juicy girl, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rice queen, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bean_queen. Clearly the behavior has not stopped. Atom 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I support a continual effort at adding refences and sources to articles, I find this effort to be disruptive, rather than collaborative or consensus driven. See related (lengthy) discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_articles_blanked.2C_or_large_portion_of_article_content_removed. I think the editor, previously a fine contributor to Wikipedia, has gone overboard on a crusade to remove a set of terms that s/he finds unsavory or objectionable, largely sexuality related articles. If an effort, on an article by article basis had been made on many to gain consensus with the editors focusing on those articles to improve their quality, add better references and gain gain consensus with article contributors that would have been better. A wholesale listing of 40 or 50 articles for deletion, or removal of large chunks of an article without prior discussion, all within a few hours period is intended as an attack to make a point. There is a lengthy discussion by this editor at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Erotic_spanking (see referencing padding) that suggests one of the editors motivations. The editor is self-described as "a devoted Christian", a "bibliophile", and as such may view that sexual content of the type recommended by these many AfD's and article blanking would be a positive thing, and that others may feel similarly, not realizing that that view would not be a majority view by most editors. I believe that the editor is well intended, but there is a line between bold and aggressive editing, and intentional disruptive behavior to make a point. Despite the editors previous fine work, that line was clearly crossed here. Atom 12:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose any block of CyberAnth at this time. I wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attmept to improve Wikipedia becomes grounds for blocking. Unsourced information is being added to Wikipedia faster that it can be tagged with {{unsourced}} or {{fact}}, let alone sourced or removed. As Jimbo said, we need to be more agressive about either sourcing or removing unsourced information. The burden of sourcing information still lies with anyone who wants to keep the information in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 12:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

      • Under the Jimbo policy can I write a bot to remove all sentences, or perhaps all paragraphs in Wikipedia that don't have a reference tag after them? It sound like thats what the sentence everyone keeps quoting is calling for. It could easily be done and remove about 75% of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talkcontribs) 08:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I agree with Donald. This is a good-faith attempt to improve the encyclopaedia, any problems can be solved by rational discourse. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • This is not a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia, it is an ideologically-driven bowdlerizing purge, as CyberAnth has indicated himself. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not the application of policy that is the issue. The attempt to disrupt articles without prior attempts with editors in those articles is the problem. Correct application of policy, as a tool to make a point and disrupt others is the issue. No one objects to a policeman doing their job. Many people object to policemen using excessive force. This wasn't bold action, it was excessively forceful action. Asked to stop, and participating in numerous exchanges here, and on the editors talk page don't appear to have been effective at communicating that lots of peoples toes are being stepped on. (so far discourse has not solved the problem.) Atom 13:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is an attempt to disrupt, and I am not convinced that it is disruptive. People may reasonably disagree about what CyberAnth wants to do, but I think it's clear that he is working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. If there is no consensus to delete, the pages will be kept. If other editors think the content is notable and the sourcing is adequete, it will be restored. Either way, this is an editorial dispute. Blocking would not be appropriate. Tom Harrison Talk 15:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It most certainly is disruptive. This kind of edit by CyberAnth without any prior discusion look like disruption bordering on vandalism to me indeed this edit was automatically reverted by the anti-Vandal bot. Thse are just two of dozens of other similar edits. Jooler 15:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

    • No JzG, I'm sorry but it is you who has forgotten something here. Assume good faith has limits, and it does not mean we should "have blind faith". We began with a good faith assumption and attempted dialog. That has not worked. The editor is unrepentent. Even the blocking request here takes pain to point out that the editor is probably well-intentioned, but they have lost their way. A block is needed to point out to them that this type of extremeist behavior, in violation of WP:POINT, will not be tolerated. Johntex\talk 17:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive deletion is disruptive and hurtful to Wikipedia. This is extremeism. Too much of almost anything is a bad thing. CyberAnth needs to source more and delete less. Sourcing takes time. We build the encyclopedia by volunteers adding what they can when they can as best they can and no one elected CyberAnth to establish deadlines for when things are to be sourced or deleted. CyberAnth should be required to add as much material as he deletes. Balance is good. Extremeism is bad. WAS 4.250 15:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If he is edit warring, we have a mechanism to deal with that. The pages he has proposed for deletion will be discussed, and kept unless there is a consensus to delete. Tom Harrison Talk 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Cyberanth has also removed at least one person's opinion from one of the AfD's, apparently on the grounds that Cyberanth misformed the AfD in his/her haste to put so many of them up at once. Inexcusable. Johntex\talk 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Where will the line be drawn? Removing unsourced information is not a difficult task. One user could easily clear out 500 articles per day. Is the line drawn at 1000 "blanked" articles? 10000? Can we let a small group of users take the problem of WP:V into their own hands? Systematic removal of content is not a good idea. The lack of communication between CyberAnth and the editors of the articles he has been blanking is strong evidence that good faith cannot be assumed. --- RockMFR 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Who is exhibiting bad faith here, Johntex?[edit]

Or at least incompetence or - lets provide a gracious option - making big mistakes? You appear to be merely retaliating, and are twisting the facts - because you do not like that I am actually attempting to follow policies.

Let's take a look at your vote at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Juicy_girl.

There, my nom was for "Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO."

Here is your "vote":

Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my reply to you, which you called "wild accusations":

Comment - I am amazed at how people vote "Keep" in such apparent blatant disregard or ignorance of WP policies. The above "Speedy keep" vote by Johntex is particularly troubling. His vote may be in bad faith and worthy of an incident report because it evidences such apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies. Admins should know much better and are held to a higher standard.

He says, "There are multiple links from the article to supporting information" and is apparently content to let it go at that. But let's look at the links one by one:


Carefully go over the links above. Carefully look at the policies.

Now let's look again at your vote:

Speedy keep - nomination is dreadfully in error. There are multiple links from the article to supporting information. Johntex\talk 08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So here we have you voting "Keep" for a page - in clear, blatant violation of one of Wikipedia's foundational values, WP:V. The nomination was in error because of the links, so keep? Who is dreadfully in error here?

I too wonder what we have come to when applying existing policy in an attempt to improve Wikipedia becomes grounds for blocking.

CyberAnth 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth, you are the one attempting to twist facts, or else you are as misguided about this as you are about your attempts to delete content from Wikipedia.
I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.
When I said you were "making making wild accusations", I was correct in so saying. You act as though I didn't explain what consitituted wild accusations. I provided a link. I hid nothing. You were making a wild accusation that my "edits may have been in bad faith...apparent disregard or ignorance of plain WP policies". Yes, those are wild accusations you made. Yes, you are being incivil.
Also, you are misrepresenting my comment by adding in your own formatting. If you are going to quote me, please either quote me with my emphasis or acknowledge that the empahsis is yours. You are violating WP:POINT by exhibiting such extreme behavior. I'm not the only one who has said so.
I stand behind my comment above that the article had multiple sources at the time you nominated it. That is a simple fact, which you do not dispute. If you don't dispute the fact, then don't complain about me stating it as fact on AfD. If you didn't like those sources, you should have worked on them or discussed them rather than nominating for deletion everything that doesn't fit your tastes.
Furthermore, you continue today to be unrepententant and argumentative with other editors. Edison asked you very reasonably to either not delete his AfD comment or to at least have the courtesy to notify him on his talk page.
You need to settle down and play more nicely with others. Your disruption of wikipedia in violation of WP:POINT and your repeated violations of WP:Civil are more than grounds for blocking. Johntex\talk 20:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Support blocking. CyberAnth hasn't apparently done any of the recommended prior tagging on any of these articles prior to AFDing them. As AFD's instructions rather clearly and forcefully recommend that you do so, this spree is in violation of AFD policy. Rampant deletionism in violation of AFD policy IS bad for the project. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the AfD instructions, the deletion policy likewise places verifiability issues in the category of problem articles where deletion may not be needed and prescribes steps to take before proposing deletion for articles that are truly unverifiable, not just unverified. Process is important to strike a balance between damaging the project by having unreferenced articles and damaging the project by mass-nominating such articles for deletion. --Ssbohio 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No need to assume good faith after this, in which CyberAnth lays out his ideological motivations. — coelacan talk — 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
When there are literally a dozen AfDs submitted in a row from a user, and all dealing with the same topic (sexuality), it raises eyebrows. See here. Combined with the above statement, and various uncivil comments in AfD - Erotic Spanking it seems clear that CyberAnth is not acting in good faith, but attempting to enforce an idealogical agenda through abuse of Wikipedia policy. -- Kesh 23:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can we refocus the converstation to talk about the line between when an article should be tagged as needing cites, and when it should be tagged for deletion. As practical consideration, it is much easier to tag something as needing citations. Consider all the effort by all the people arguing about deleting these articles, consider all the discussion here. If you simply tag something there is usually no argument, and hopefully it will lead to citations being added. So when should an article be tagged for deletion? When it seems blatantly obvious that there is no chance of a good article existing. Anything short of that and you are wasting everyone's time. -- Samuel Wantman 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the situation will not get any worse in the coming time, as CyberAnth has said to leave AfD for a while: [83]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we drop discussion, as the request has failed, de-facto, as no admin has issued a 24-hour block (or any other block), and although opinion weighs heavily towards a block, no consensus was reached. As indicated above, the editor is no longer pursuing massive AfD's and removal of non-cited material en-masse. Atom 00:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur with Atom. Let's let it rest for now and see what CyberAnth choses to do in the future. In the meantime, I call everyone's attention (for a second time) to a proposed wording change to WP:V that might help encourage people to improve first and delete as a secondary option. Looking forward to feedback, Johntex\talk 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I hope CyberAnth takes this to heart in the future, and I'm willing to AGF on his contributions in the future. -- Kesh

Another possibility[edit]

In situations like this, where it is not clear if there is any consensus developing here at WP:ANI, is there not an argument that a temporary injunction is needed? ie. Tell the editor in question to stop. If they do not stop, issue a block to prevent further disruption. Pass the case straight to ArbCom to seek a ruling on what sort of user conduct is acceptable in this case. The block would last as long as it takes to undo the disruption or for ArbCom to hand down a temporary injunction that would release the editor on 'bail' until the case was heard. An RfC would also seem to be in order, to get wider views on whether this sort of behaviour is acceptable. Carcharoth 07:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure what the admins are making of all this. But he's deleted another user's comments in AFD again (I say "again"; I'm almost certain someone earlier said he had done this), in this diff. It has to be a mistake, since their votes are in agreement, but it appears he's just not paying attention to where his keystrokes go. A word of caution would be nice if he would hear it. — coelacan talk — 08:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Careful. What I discovered was going on is that when I submit a post but get the error message "Edit Conflict", I cannot just hit the Reload button on my browser, paste back in my post, and hit submit. Doing that deletes the message that caused the edit conflict. I have to reload the page from the edit link. CyberAnth 10:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of Ass to mouth[edit]

It's too interesting to miss: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Ass_to_mouth CyberAnth 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnths latest AfD[edit]

Also of interest is that since CyberAnth said to give the AfDs a break for a while [84], the editor nominated at least one article for deletion, and retracted this nomination when sources where presented: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Goff. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently he's threatening Carvin A&I (see Talk:Carvin A&I) with deletion. Artw 07:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning or strongly prodding is the better term. And it is as it should be, since in this case I believe that actual notability and verifiability can truly be established. CyberAnth 10:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth Redux[edit]

While I am amongst those who felt that User:CyberAnth's selective mass-nominations of late were a bad idea (and possibly censorial, but let's not continue that here), I also find the recent focus on his articles by other editors to be a poor idea. I am sure that the editors involved only have the improvement of Wikipedia in mind, and therefore are acting in good faith; nevertheless these nominations may be perceived as a form of reprisal, and are likely to further polarize the issues. Tarinth 10:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Sam Blacketer 11:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. All that will do is escalate the dispute. If people want to make a note and come back to them in a month then that's fine, but I don't see how this is anything other than pointiness. This comment was added by JzG on 12:44, 7 January 2007 - Quack 688 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We have to be consistent - if "mass-nominating articles solely because they deal with topic X" is considered to be poor form, then "mass-nominating articles solely because they were edited by user X" is just as bad. It certainly won't do anything to help resolve the situation. Quack 688 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect I am the editor Tarinth is talking about. I did not check CyberAnth's contributions; I did not go looking for stuff to delete. I looked at his userpage, and he had linked to Prairie Muffins and Mary Pride, articles he was apparently proud of. The point of linking to such articles on one's userpage is to get others to click through, right? And I did. And what I found were horrible articles, unsourced, largely unverifiable, and probably unencyclopedic. Now, what was I supposed to do? I suppose could have put them on my watchlist and AfD'd them in a few weeks when tensions died down, but really, what's the point of that? Why wait? Or I could have back up and said to myself "well, if I nominate these for AfD it'll look tactless if not tasteless and rude, so I'll just pretend I never saw this article." That seems to me to be a poor choice if I care about the quality of this encyclopedia. I don't think that Wikipedia should function by wars of attrition, but what exactly should I have done instead? The articles can't be improved because they are non-notable to begin with. — coelacan talk — 01:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The retaliation is evident in the pattern:

  • On Jan 06, 2006, Coelacan visited Kahanism.[85] It contains a replacable fair use image of a recently deceased person where followers likely have images. Coelacan did not nominate it for deletion.
  • On Jan 06, 2006, Coelacan nominated for deletion Mary Pride,[87] author of 15 non-self published books, several discussed specifically in the article, and which contains multiple reliable third-party references. Coelacan also nominated for deletion three fair-use images in Mary Pride, one of the subject