Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Personal abuse[edit]

Yesterday and today I have been subjected to personal abuse in connection with the article Pottery. It does not seem to be random vandalism. The users have been anonymous, but their ip addresses are 200.26.145.155 and 66.59.107.230. This identifies them as being in Fort Lauderdale and Pennsylvania. I would like advice on:

  • If this is normal on Wikipedia
  • If this is accepted by Wikipedia
  • Is this can be stopped

Thanx194.126.226.253 16:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Article semi-protected for now. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And I dropped the two anons NPA warnings. --Guinnog 17:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes it's fairly common, no it's not accepted and we have policies against it and yes, it can be stopped. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:70.167.108.150[edit]

Could someone please block User:70.167.108.150 who has just vandalized Treaty of Versailles for the seventh time today, and received three warnings already (including one "last warning"). --- Hillel 21:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Mistersupes and his sockpuppet[edit]

User:Mistersupes131 is a sockpuppet of User:Mistersupes and they both have vandalised the Superman page blanking it and adding Mr Supes, just letting you know --Dark Dragon Flame 22:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He also erased the page with his IP adress 66.141.136.15 --Dark Dragon Flame 23:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's see (same edits)...
And similar pattern...
  • Yodas minime131 -- Robin (comics)
  • Russellholcombe131 -- Robin (comics)
  • Mrsupes Ressurected131 -- Robin (comics)
  • Hangoverboy867 -- Interstate 10
  • Yodaime131 -- Interstate 10
And so on... ughJ Greb 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Nickcasey10[edit]

Nickcasey10 has been replacing entire articles with abstract and unrelated sentences, such as "hi from Nickcasey10". She also created the ABC123 page (for the Michael Jackson song), yet it only featured his/her opinion on Jackson's song.

See these edits:

Note: Nickcasey10 also created some articles about things already on Wikipedia, such as the ABC123 page I mentioned above, and one about how the Moses article was improperly spelled.JuWiki (Talk <> Recources) 23:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'Mr Supes'[edit]

We've been getting about five or six (so far) accounts that blank random articles and replace them with 'Mr Supes'. The IPs are completely different. HalfShadow 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Could you list the accounts, please? A whois could also be helpful in tracking them. Yuser31415 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And I think there were one or two more, but that's all I could find. HalfShadow 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I listed 3 in this page in the 'Mistersupes and his sockpuppet' report see above they are different than those already given --Dark Dragon Flame 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I started noting all of his accounts here a few days ago: WP:RFCU#Mrsupes Vandals. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll check if the ones I wrote are there --Dark Dragon Flame 00:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(3 edit conflicts) To me, it appears to be Mrsupes (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) using rotating IPs to avoid [auto]blocks. There doesn't appear much we can do about him, apart from filing an abuse report with the appropriate ISP and continuing to revert relevant vandalism. Yuser31415 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Add 71.154.241.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), I blocked him for a week. -- ReyBrujo 00:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to reduce the block, although a report and a WP:ABUSE investigation are in order. -- ReyBrujo 00:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
66.141.136.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) as well --BigDT 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Severe off-wiki personal attack by User:Nmaster64[edit]

He has called me "Hitler" "below mental retardation" here in responce to my comments on AfD. At the discussion, he labels my comments as bullshit and told me to stop stop being a wiki elethist. It's kind of getting out of hand, so I need assistance. Thanks. -- Selmo (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The rules of wikipedia apply only to wikipedia as long it dosn't cross over into wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify, check out the relevant section of WP:NPA. —bbatsell ¿? 04:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Erm, if I remember correctly, Everyking was desysopped for an off-wiki incident, so rules don't only apply to Wikipedia. JorcogaYell! 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly different situation, and that "emergency" desysop was pretty controversial. You can see the official policy for this particular situation at the link I provided above. Thanks, —bbatsell ¿? 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It was a completely different situation, if I may say so. -- ReyBrujo 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed: Everyking isn't a precedent for this. DurovaCharge! 06:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Wait a second, two of the three linked comments were on-wiki. [4] [5], and off-wiki canvassing is by nature designed to have on-wiki effects. --tjstrf talk 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
An off wiki personal attack is not a blockable violation in itself, but it can be used to demonstrate bad faith, which I believe it has. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I linked it here. -- Selmo (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

In one notorious case, ArbCom indefinitely banned a user based primarily on his creation of a series of articles containing personal attacks on Wikipedia administrators and editors, including solicitation and disclosure of personal information. Thus, it's not 100% accurate to say that off-wiki conduct can never result in on-Wiki sanctions, although that would certainly be reserved for extreme circumstances. Newyorkbrad 19:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's mostly limited to cases where the off-wiki activity ends up disrupting on-wiki activity. *shurg* anyway, some person whining about getting blocked to his buddies on a forum dosn't realy mean much. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This user's edits are getting progressivly more reasonable, if still high-drama. I've placed a conciliatory note on their talk page, so I'd suggest that we wait-and-seeTM on this. It's hard yakka when your first exposure to the "real" wikipedia is via a deletion discussion. - brenneman 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

He won't stop [6]. -- Selmo (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention he's now apparently encouraging WP:POINT-style disruption. [7]. --InShaneee 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Erronous checkuser outcome against Olivierd / Benio76 / Zelig33[edit]

Today (09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)), following a checkuser complaint by ST47, mediator in the ongoing foie gras controversy, administrator Essjay has declared that I (Olivierd) am the same person as Benio76, and probably the same as Zelig33.

I happen to be neither Zelig33 nor Benio76, and I also know for a fact that they too are two different real-life people. We are three different and independent contributors, and I have neither dictated to them their contributions nor have they dictated mine.

If Essjay had chosen to do his work correctly, it would have been easy for him to determine those facts up to a high degree of certainty. He could have done it even without contacting any of the parties; and even more clearly by contacting them, which he has not done.

I am writing to Essjay to give him the relevant facts. I am expecting a reversal of his decision and an apology.

David Olivier 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The three of you all use the same internet connection, right? And have the same opinion on Foie Gras? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hipocrite, you do not have checkuser status, and whatever you may say about that is anyone's guess. What you do have is access to our contributions, and that should be enough to demonstrate what I have said. David Olivier 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What Hipocrite meant was that if you all use the same connection, and edit the same articles, the checkuser will turn up true. Try to stay civil, please. yandman 14:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I have remained civil; perhaps you could also comment on the lack of civility and respect for ourselves and for the integrity of Wikipedia on the part of an administrator who declares true what he could have ascertained to be false had he simply bothered to contact the parties. David Olivier 18:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[8]. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to hear this explanation as well, because I've run my own check the results seem pretty darn conclusive. Regards, Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to report that the user above (Olivierd) is now issuing what seems to be direct threats of continual disruption of an article and its mediation page as per this diff. [9]. Not sure what this should be classified under, but I figured it was worth reporting.--Ramdrake 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets seems to think that it's irrelevant if you three are actually the same person or not: "Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual." —Trevyn 23:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we just trust the checkusers on this one. When they say it's conclusive, then its conclusive. When they say they're the same person, then they're the same person. Checkusers don't fool around with results. They don't say something unless they're sure. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If there was any doubt whatsoever (as there was with Zelig33 in this very request, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Olivierd, possibly because of a shared IP - I don't exactly know), Essjay would not have {{confirmed}} it, but rather used the spectrum of {{likely}}, {{possible}}, {{unlikely}}, {{inconclusive}} etc. Daniel.Bryant 00:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information?[edit]

71.247.255.190 has added some unsourced but possibly-true material ([10] - note here that he reverted to before I tidied up the article a bit) and some material that appears to be pure speculation ([11]). This isn't vandalism, so I can't report it on administrator intervention against vandalism. It's also been done in the past by presumably the same person on different IPs. I've warned him that if he continues he may be blocked. What's the next step? Thank you. --NE2 23:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You can use the messages shown at WP:TUSER under Introducing material without proper citations Once you reach the last one, give him a last warning, and then report him. -- ReyBrujo 01:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Should I report him here or at AIV? Or does it not matter? Also, what happens if he only does a few per IP - can I "pick up where I left off" on the new IP? --NE2 02:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Henry Ford semi-protection requested.[edit]

We have persistent and juvenile vandalism happening. I think it happens every time a school paper on Henry Ford gets assigned... Can we please have semi-protaction for a few days? Thanks! --BenBurch 01:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to WP:RFPP :) Daniel.Bryant 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ooops! I forgot that was the right place for it. Thanks! --BenBurch 01:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No problems. Semi-protected now. Daniel.Bryant 02:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Could someone please delete this edit from the page history at User:TeckWiz. I want that edit summary out of the user's page history quickly given that the user is 12 years old. Thanks. Newyorkbrad 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to have been done, --BenBurch 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

California State University, Los Angeles[edit]

It has been vandalised about 7 times in the past hour.--CWY2190 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the submission. For future reference, please report to WP:AIV. Patstuarttalk|edits 03:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Physical appearance of Michael Jackson[edit]

There is a picture on the article Physical appearance of Michael Jackson detailing what Michael Jackson would look like if he had never had plastic surgery. I created this image myself using age progression software. The image is repeatedly moved by crazed Michael Jackson fans, and no explanation is given. I have warned these users on the history page several times, but it continues to be removed. I added the image back, but something needs to be done about this. That picture is extremely useful for that article, because it truly details the severity of his physical appearance. Rhythmnation2004 00:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your image is that it is original research, which is against policy. If a reliable source had assessed Michael Jackson and come up with an image like that, it could be included, but this isn't. The users who removed it are acting well within policy. Trebor 01:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that this is original research. Had he drawn his own conception of what MJ would look like today, you would be right. But, if he is using a commercial product, then his contribution is limited to moving the output of the program into Wikipedia. This should be thought of as similar to using a computer to change the format of a picture; that's isn't "original research", either, just a type of processing applied to an existing photo. StuRat 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree; if you look here there is a section on original images. The sentence "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader" I think it analogous to this. The user is theorising what Michael Jackson would look like without plastic surgery and creating an image from it (the fact that it's a commercial product is immaterial, in my eyes). Particularly given Jackson's attribution of his change in appearance to a skin condition, any theories at what he might look like need to have been made by someone outside of Wikipedia. The image with the caption "What Michael Jackson would look like today without surgery" is far too assertive and must be removed, but I think including the image at all is a violation of WP:NOR. Trebor 01:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Trebor analysis. With WP:OR and the above explanations we can assume that a synthesis was made from the photo. A (original photo) + B (software enhancement or personal artist addition) = C (What Micheal would look like today). --CyclePat 03:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur, clear case of OR by synthesis. Pete.Hurd 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a more pressing concern. What licence does the original image fall under (the image used as the starting point - the basis for the aged photo), if we're calling it a derivative work, the original needs to have a free licence, if it's not derivative, it constitutes original research, and is unsuitable. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 02:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you read WP:NOR carefully, you'll notice the area where it states that images are largely exempted from NOR so long as they are backed up with verifiable information and don't propose new theories. (Otherwise, you would never be able to use diagrams, etc). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
And back on to licensing...what was the original photo licensed under? If it's not GFDL/PD/CC, this new image is a copyright violation. If it is one of those three, someone who knows derivatives better than I do will need to work out a licensing. Daniel.Bryant T · C ] 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm it could be fair-use perhapse? Its realy hard to know untill we find out more about the origional. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that's what I'm asking clarification about: the original. Daniel.Bryant 07:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(response to J. smith) I would say this does propose a new theory: that if Jackson had not had surgery he would end up looking like he did in that photo. Has anyone outside of Wikipedia hypothesised what he might look like? Trebor 08:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Unless anyone has violated WP:3RR then there is no need for administrative action. Discussion over whether the image is OR or not should take place on the talk page of the article it's being added to. --Sam Blanning(talk) 10:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I created this image myself, using age progression software that I came across. This is not my personal rendering, this is a computer-generated image with no influence from myself at all. I think this image is important and should be included in the article. If there is a problem with the licensing, please feel free to change it to reflect the fact that I created it using age-progression software. Rhythmnation2004 05:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, you didn't do any OR. If anyone did, it was the people who made the software. The copyright status is interesting, though, how much does a pic need to be changed to lose it's copyright status ? Is one common pixel enough to make it protected ? I would think this issue must have already been decided based on artists which manipulate photos of others, like the Andy Warhol pics of Marilyn Monroe. 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy template man[edit]

em.. I'm going to be vague, there was a guy yesterday? or maybe the day before, sticking up a template that said something like "please improve this page by wreaking it" - I think he's back. --Larry laptop 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Knowpedia just vandalised User:Jeffpw's userpage and when I reverted him tried to speedy my userpage. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Tried to speedy Coelacan's page, too. I think he is angry because Coelacan reported him for abusing the VandalProof tool to try and speedy delete Gay icon. The info can be found on Betacommand's talk page, also on Coelacan's. Jeffpw 23:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I never know what do with editors like this? Are they ... recoverable? If he does it again, I would suggest a 24h block. He appears to be doing nothing but damaging the encyclopedia. Yuser31415 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • He has also hidden his talkpages on a page with my name. I don't know how to revert this, and would appreciate it if an admin (or someone more technically competent than I am) would change it. I want to avoid any potential confusion, and it just plain irks me that my name is associated with his bullshit. Thanks, Jeffpw 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowpedia has messed around with Jeff's archives - check out his last three edits. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Jeff, we are long, sooo on the same wavelength... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely. I'll delete or move back the pages he's put in Jeffpw's user space. | Mr. Darcy talk 02:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much, MrDarcy Jeffpw 02:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Knowpedia had his VandalProof access removed after Beta and I, acting as VandalProof moderators, recieved a report about a user using VandalProof to disrupt wikipedia, improperly tagging articles. This was reviewed by a few third parties and consensus was reached that he had been disrupted, so Betacommand revoked his access. I fully endorse and stand behind Beta's decision in the matter. It appears this rash of disruption is "revenge" for us revoking his access, and I'm glad to know that they have been blocked for their disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 05:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

request at Waldorf Education[edit]

HI guys,

I have been helping out with mentoring and mediating over at Waldorf Education - which is on ArbCom probation. I need to go to bed (2.30am in UK) and I fear that the users there are about to go into a massive edit war. I have told them to discuss on talk page, and then we shall figure things out tomorrow, but I do not think it will work.

I would be very grateful if someone could pop by there in the next couple of hours just to check things do not get out of hand. I think that early intervention in this case may be required.

Many thanks. Cheers Lethaniol 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Haven't these guys ever heard of the preview button? :P. It's impossible to see the extent of their edit warring when there have been 87 revisions today, but almost all have been consecutive in a series by one user. Patstuarttalk|edits 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like you found a good candidate for a {{preview}} message. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to sound ignorant ... but how about just protecting the page? Would that not simplify matters? Yuser31415 05:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Really strange pattern[edit]

Long before I started up a WikiProject covering Japanese entertainment that employs special effects and their English adaptations, I have been dealing with 71.8.12.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and several other similar IP users who add mostly useless information to several of the near one hundred Power Rangers articles. And all attempts to discuss this with the user fall on deaf ears. There have been other IPs who do the exact same thing, and they completely ignore comments to the user talks despite being static IPs. This one has been blocked several times, and there was another one that was blocked for several months for repeating the same edits when he/she returned from the block. This has been going on too long, for the slowly dynamic changing IP.—Ryūlóng () 02:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Might be a single person editing from several hotspots or open proxies. Without knowing the other IPs, I could not say. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 08:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page image protection[edit]

Does the animated version of today's featured image need to be uploaded and protected? *stuffs beans up nose* --- RockMFR 06:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It was already uploaded; I protected it. Thanks. Chick Bowen 06:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please make it stop![edit]

You have new messages (last change).

This bot keeps sending me the same message OVER AND OVER. I already read the message and I dont want this alert to keep popping up!

Ummm just goto your talk page and it should clear up. There might actually be an important reason your getting message... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


I did and I read it. I screwed up and was just trying to add an image and i did it wrong. I'm new But now it keeps popping up with

You have new messages (last change).

in the orange box and it wont go away. ive already deleted my cookies and restarted my browser so its the bot, not me.

Er...it only sent you that message once. jgpTC 07:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the bot sent the message only once, but when you deleted your message and said you wanted the bot to stop [12] [13], User:Daniel5127 regarded it as vandalism, thus he reverted twice [14][15], which created the new messages that you believed were from the bot. PeaceNT (Talk | contribs) 08:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest simply leaving the messages Also, the guidelines on deleting warnings or another users comments are iffy at best. John Reaves (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List of publications in philosophy[edit]

There has been a concerted, long term campaign against Ayn Rand and Objectivism on many of the pages in the philosophy area. It is at the heart of a long-running edit war. It involves POV violations and deleting validly sourced material. Most recently User Simoes deleted every entry on the page and posted the article AfD. Then he withdrew his AfD nomination and resumed deleting entries. Recently anon IP users have begun swooping in and deleting entries. No source is ever deemed adequate and the policies of WP are not observed. I request that an admin take a look and place a block on anon IP edits till the article leaves AfD and until a concensus is reached. It is also important to stop all deletion of sourced entries. Thanks, Steve 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • A content dispute would best be dealt with by talking to the editor in question, or, if that fails, dispute resolution. IP edits are a dirty pool, but they should be warned before escalating to a block. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 09:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

War of the Bots[edit]

A new interwiki bot, A4bot (talk · contribs), operated by A4 (talk · contribs), has recently started adding interwiki links to the highly controversial "Siberian" Wikipedia (ru-sib.wiki), which is about to be closed down (see meta:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia). In most cases, these additions were reverted by users. In at least one case, the addition was even reverted as vandalism by VoABot II (talk · contribs) ([16]). In a second case, a link manually reverted by a user was a little later reinstated by yet another interwiki bot, DHN-bot (talk · contribs) ([17]).

Questions from an admin rather unfamiliar with the mechanisms of bot operation:

  • Where A4bot and DHN-bot approved for adding links to this controversial wiki?
  • Were the operators of these bots and those responsible for bot approval aware of its controversial status?
  • What is the criterion for VoABot to reject links to ru-sib?
  • Independent of bots, is there a policy on whether or not to wikilink to controversial projects like the "Siberian" one? Have we got a consensus to exlude links to ru-sib? (I'd recommend we should.)

Fut.Perf. 23:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I now notice that Alex Bakharev actually blocked A4bot on 13 January, but it was unblocked again as being authorized. Fut.Perf. 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The VOA bot revert was probably a misidentification, however, the bot could be set to revert these additions. Prodego talk 23:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see it now... Bot Fights! Hosted by Bill Ny the Science guy! Anyway... can we get A4 to just wait for the outcome of the meta-debate to finish? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


I am tired to explain that interwiki is a common thing for wikipedia projects. You could find a lot interwiki links in the page Ingria. And you could find a lot of interwiki links to siberian wikipedia in another english articles. Note that interwiki link is not the external link, but it is an internal links to approved wikipedia projects.

All discussion about interwiki to the article Ingria you could find here [[18]]. Also you could find that the dessision about ru-sib wiki was permitted quiet long ago, so ru-sib wiki is legitimate in Wikipedia projects. So there is no any reason for deleting the interwiki link. --A4 23:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A4bot was approved by me following the normal bot approvals procedure. I recommend that A4bot, as well as all interwiki bots, stop adding or removing links to the Siberian Wikipedia until the meta debate is completed. —Mets501 (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow - that "siberian" wikipedia deserves the serious attention of people - I strongly urge all wikipedians to check out the debate and make their voice heard. --Larry laptop 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

For a unknown reason my js extensions (based on VoA's tools) does not show A4bot's edits as bot's. According to the logs A4bot received its bot flag fair and square so this is just a software glitch on my side. I am apologizing to A4 for the block. On the other hand I am strongly support Mets in his urging for the A4 not to insert or delete ru-sib links by bot until the closing of the vote on Meta. Ru-sib links should be added only manually on case by case basis only if the have any encyclopedic value. Alex Bakharev 02:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy to delete interwikies to wikipedia which is on closure discussion, and never was. --62.68.146.96 03:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

...But this is a wiki, and even policy is made and changed at a regular rate. I would strongly recommend not placing ru-sib interwiki links until the discussion is over, and, after looking at it and voting on it, it looks like it's on its way to a hard death. Grandmasterka 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly second Grandmasterka, obviously. This "wikipedia" is nothing more than a hate site with a sole purpose of pushing a nationalist political agenda. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot was not specifically approved to add su-sub links just interwikilinks in general. I think the issue is a little out of hand though. The discussion at meta has been going on for several month now and when I first became aware of it I was told, it would be closed shortly. While I personally !voted to delete I feel that we should not preempt the outcome of the debate. OTOH both sides of the argument are causing disruption here and should be warned about it. Agathoclea 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Good! The article is protected now, and it doesn't include ru-sib interwiki! I hadn't some doubts. As I know there'are only admins who have a right to protect articles, and they ALWAYS discriminate working Siberian wikipedia. So I call a question objectivity of those admins, especially the last one, Mr. Future Perfect at Sunris who did it. You DON'T deserving of being admin--Ottorahn 17:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil post-block admin comment[edit]

Agnes Nitt (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked by User:Adam Bishop for disruption, imediately followed by this comment: [19] "Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she pisses me off." She seems to have been on rather a good rant at Talk:Crusades but received no warnings and as far as I can see with easy scans didn't attack anyone, just argue article content issues (though there's enough there that I may have missed something; I am going to keep reading the back and forth some more). Review attention requested... Georgewilliamherbert 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Whether or not the block was warranted, that uncivil comment wasn't the most diplomatic way of ending a conflict. I'll ask Adam Bishop to explain himself. Yuser31415 03:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That was a rather poorly-handled block. Agreed that the stuff seems to be pretty weak tea from the personal attacks standpoint. That said, I think the utility to Wikipedia of unblocking an energetic, screedy POV warrior is pretty close to epsilon. Choess 05:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Correction: I now see that her last comment compares Adam to a Holocaust denier. That takes things rather a bit further, I think. Choess 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think she was talking specifically to me, was she? Oh well. I assume someone will unblock her, but I got the impression she was just trolling us. Adam Bishop 08:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Errm ... it isn't going to look good when admins start blocking users because they get the impression the user is trolling them, is it? Yuser31415 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
She's certainly disruptive, but not a troll. She's putting in a lot of time and effort, though only some bits of some of her edits are actually good. Overall, she does not play well with others. I endorse blocking her, but I recommend a shorter block than indef. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know...now I suspect that The Bryce may be Agnes, trolling under a different name. Adam Bishop 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Brand new user, as is Agnes, verbose as anything. First edit is to continue an argument, seeming to disagree Agnes briefly, but then carrying an argument not very different to what Agnes has been saying. Second edit is apparently to cite a novel as a primary source? I'm begining to think I'm wrong. I'd support a checkuser request. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo H Minderbinder edit warring and disruption at Barrington Hall[edit]

Please see edit history and talkpage, and warning I have given Milo at his talkpage. He is repeatedly blanking a section after consensus among disputing parties to allow the section to remain with fact tags while a source was discussed. (One of the items in the section he keeps deleting is not even under dispute.) He has continued to blank the section without discussion now that there is consensus that the source is ok.-Cindery 21:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, see the history and talkpage. The claim "without discussion" is patently false, the talkpage is overflowing with discussion about this. The "consensus" Cindery refers to is one other editor who has insisted that WP:V doesn't apply to the article [20] and asserted ownership over the article. Earlier statements on this talk page: "Both Cindery and I are, by virture of our personal histories at Barrington Hall, "experts" on the topic." [21] The material I removed is info that has no reliable source, the only source provided is a blog of unconfirmed authorship which doesn't provide any real documentation of the material. Cindery has admitted to being in contact with the owner of said blog, and the only entry on this blog appeared shortly after a source was requested on this article - while I'd like to AGF, it seems questionable and possible that the blog was only posted at Cindery's request. And as for "One of the items in the section he keeps deleting is not even under dispute", I asked Cindery which item that was and she refused to answer me - if there is an item that isn't controversial, I have no objection to including it, but that's not really possible if she won't share that information. Side issues aside, Cindery simply doesn't have consensus to add her unsourced material and is revert warring over it. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: warning given to Milo regarding privacy, anonymity, and WP:BLP: [22] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talkcontribs) 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Cindery: do not keep removing Milo's response to your comment. Here are your own words on the relationship between yourself and the blog owners. There is no WP:BLP issue here; two other editors have already pointed this out. Removing others' comments may be acceptable on your user talk page, but is not here. MastCell 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That's not a quote Milo used; he may quote me, not speculate. In your case, since you are aware I left numerous articles to avoid you, and you have admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet which you used only to comment on the talkpage of Barrington Hall, I remind you again of WP:STALK.-Cindery 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I responded to you here. Please don't respond with groundless ad hominem attacks every time your behavior comes under scrutiny. MastCell 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You admitted on ANI to creating a sockpuppet which you used only to comment at Barrington Hall, and I have left numerous articles to avoid you, as you aware. The WP:STALK evidence is very clear in your case, and I think you have gambled that I would not report you because you know I don't want to have anything to do with you, not even an ANI case reporting you for wikistalking. But I would do it at this point, and ask any admins who are paying attention to bar Mastcell from stalking me. (Especially because he has done so twice now in order to escalate disputes at Barrington Hall/is having a dispruptive effect on the article.) This should be clearly marked as a separate issue from Milo if it continues, and moved to a WP:STALK complaint against Mastcell.-Cindery 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Cindery, the "sockpuppet" situation you're referring to was reported (by me) at AN/I and received admin attention here. As far as my "disruptive" effect on the article, I invite any and all to review my contributions at Talk:Barrington Hall (I've made no edits to the article itself), and everywhere on Wikipedia for that matter. Cindery, your claim to the moral high ground on matters of disruption and sockpuppetry is tenuous, at best, and since you've shown no lack of vindictiveness, I can only assume you haven't "reported" me because I have not, in fact, violated WP:STALK, WP:DE, or any other policy. MastCell 22:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I lurk here (AN/I is on my watchlist, usually just so I can watch and learn), but the cited edits show YOU claiming to converse directly with people. Although that may mean something to those particular people, they already knwo you're on Wikipedia. No one else could possibly draw any conclusions, and it's your own words. There's no vio of BLP if the information is volunteered. Perhaps under the 'right to disappear', but that's a far different situation than your own attempts at citation being brought up again. Further, are you alleging that MastCell is a sock of Milo? ThuranX 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, a number of edits/attempts back) I'm not sure what I'm being warned about. Cindery herself has made comments that she is personally in touch with the owner of the blog, for example: "They're all ok, and anyone who recalls other significant/particularly memorable graffiti can email it to me to pass on to Jane Dark, or email it to Jane Dark directly. It will be added to bonus sugar, if it was in fact a significant/particularly memorable graffito." [23]. Or the even more direct "Because I know Jane" [24]. If Cindery or the blog author have lost any privacy, she's the one that caused it - I'm just repeating her comments. Since we just happen to be at ANI, any admins want to take action to get Cindery to stop repeatedly removing my comments? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you should read the relevant discussions at ANI and RS--this is the problem. You edit without reading discussion, and refuse all requests to read discussion. You could say, "Cindery said she would pass on emails to Jane Dark," for example. But I reported you not to discuss the content dispute, but because you
  • 1. violated consensus to leave the section with fact tags while a source was being discussed
  • 2. violated consensus that the source is ok after a "link" was demonstrated

Whether you agree or disagree, you should be reading the discusssions and engaging in them--this is procedural; not about the content dispute.-Cindery 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on people. This is not part of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. I have protected the page. I suggest all involved editors start to discuss at once. --Asteriontalk 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not the place, but I do ave a problem with Cindery here. This is not the first time this editor has accused others of edit-warring in a case where actually the problem is repeated attempts by her to force something she knows to be disputed. Guy (Help!) 09:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User 213.165.173.118[edit]

The only contributions (four, thus far) from 213.165.173.118 have all been blatant vandalism. Please click on each diff link on the following page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/213.165.173.118

I've never reported vandalism before, so my apologies if I'm doing this wrong.

Itsfullofstars 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Should probably go on WP:AIV. John Reaves (talk) 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, seeing as this is the first edit since July, you should just warn with something like {{subst:bv}}. John Reaves (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Something going on[edit]

Capella University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be an edit war fueled by Pizzaman6233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (who has sunken into personal attacks and off color comments) and 68.117.38.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as well as Shac1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who has violated 3RR more than likely. Anyone want to have a look?—Ryūlóng () 04:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be noted that IP Address 68.117.38.94 may belong to Capella University - which has been previously warned for vandalism (User_talk:68.117.38.94). Furthermore, attempting to take the discussion to the talk page have been futile due to the ongoing personal attacks. Reviewers will note that previous matters, between other users, have been handled appropriately. Shac1 05:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • comment: I did a lot of early work on the Capella article (among many for-profit college articles which I've started) and I've noticed that they sometimes (on rare but noticeable occasions) get re-written by anons with IPs matching the school itself. Capella has had some incidents like this, previously, once every few months and by an anonymous IP that would track on a WHOIS to the Capella Education Corporation (owner company). Things have become far, far more active in the past few months since the for-profit university went public on the US stock market. Please keep these facts in mind. I have a suspicion that some of the new user accounts are Capella anon IPs that have registered, but that's purely speculation. --Bobak 15:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Bobak. Things have really gotten out of control since Capella University has gone public. It appears as if anon users from Capella University are using Wikipedia as a forum to obtain free advertising and to create link farms back to their own web sites. A prime example concerns edits to the Capella article that were made yesterday in which a Capella user posted numerous links back to a large number of "articles" that were, quite literally, nothing more than press releases created by Capella University.
An examination of the Capella article's history will also reveal the rampling personal attacks against those that Capella Univerity (and their alleged anon users) disagree with. Even now, Capella's talk page displays the overt hostility towards users that Capella dislikes. Shac1 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Had Shac1 taken the time to personally look at the links he woul dhave noticed that only 2 or 3 of the articles were pless releases. Some were newspaper articles and television reports concerning.

Why is Shac1 allowed to post opinion articles from investorideas.com and paint a distorted picture that has NO reference to back it up?

Why is Shac1 able to post the assumption that Capella voluntarily pulled their APA accreditation because of the age of their program but can not provide any documantation supporting his notion?Pizzaman6233 14:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

User:Mobile 01 just made statment:

====The Bridgestone company has been anonymously editing the Firestone page====

Carefull Travb, that statement could almost be libellous. [25]

Does this qualify as a legal threat, if so, where would I file this at? Travb (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. He's not threatening action or saying he'd act. You're really reaching if that's the worst you can find from him. And frankly, I think you should back off on the whole sockpuppet hunt. What good would it do you to show that a guy who says he works for bridgestone/firestone on his userpage has edited from an IP connected to bridgestone/firestone? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone else take a look at this? Travb left an NPA warning on mobile 01 (talk · contribs)'s talk page, with links to diffs that aren't attacks at all, and he seems set on proving that Mobile 01's really a sock puppet with some flimsy evidence. It seems like the wrong party is getting warned here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting a bit concerned about this - I think we got into WP:STALK territory a while back - isn't this the 3rd "outing" of Mobile 01 that Travb has performed in the last 3 or 4 days. If he's a sock or there is a COI that's one thing but the frankly obsessive manner in which he's been hounded by a single editor is not helpful. --Larry laptop 10:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Here is my concern, I apologize if you may have missed these edits:
  1. "removed biased rubbish"[26]
  2. "Both you and the other two admins are being hoodwinked by user Travb into thinking he is a good editor."[27]
  3. The page has once again been vandalised and user TravB has gotten his edits into place and then had you protect the page. Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism.[28]
  4. "Interesting to note that in the above section, you complained heavily about other people reverting your work. Hypocrisy does not reflect well on your bias."[29]
  5. You claim you will respect the wishes of the Wiki community but in fact you do not. " "Comprimises I can do, Respecting the global Wiki users POV I can do, Dictatorship; I have a problem with."[30]
  6. "Given the difference in our usual edit topics I think the general Wiki user can quickly draw conclusions as to who it is that is biased in there revisions." [31]
  7. "Please unprotect this page and if possible restrict user TravB from further vandalism."[32]
  8. "It seems this user has a passion for Conspiracy, Government Control, Corporate Abuse and Coverups which would explain his zeal in promoting his Anti Firestone Propoganda." [33]
Is there any concern from either of you that Bridgestone has been actively editing the both Firestone (which was bought by Bridgestone) and Bridgestone? Travb (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Most of those are focused on the edit rather than the person. The others accuse you of bias, vandalism, and edit warring, which aren't really personal attacks, they're comments on behavior. You may not like the accusations, but looking at the level of contentiousness between you two, it seems hardly worth taking action over.
As for editing by company employees, judge them on their work. Are the edits biased? The congressional edits were a problem because they were whitewashing records by removing well-sourced negative information; if he does that then we have an issue. If all you have is accusations of something he freely admits to (that he is connected to the company), then you have a potential WP:COI, but COI isn't an absolute ban on editing, and you shouldn't take it as such. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I am confused, calling another editors edits "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" is acceptable under WP:NPA? That under WP:NPA I can state other editors are being hoodwinked into thinking you are a good editor, and that you have no respect for wikipedia? This is exactly what has been said to myself by this user, in the edits above.
This user has created content forks to avoid a page protection, creating a revert war on several other pages. Four admins had to get involved and protect those pages.
I requested a WP:Third opinion and the editor who was assigned the case stated that LucaZ and Mobile 01 where maybe socks. She also felt that the user should be banned from editing.
Mobile 01 deleted all referenced criticism to Bridgestone, in similar edits as Bridgestone employees, she has refused to abide by the page protection, in her own words making it a "a redundant orphan now" [34] and launched into a huge character assualt on me with the admins who protected the pages. I am actively compiling the checkuser evidence, and thus far I have found a lot. Travb (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Given that you're trying to have him run out of town, I think he's maintained a reasonable level of civility. I get the impression you're just wikilawyering around for an excuse to have him blocked. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
What do you want out of this, a block, or a better article? If your goal is to stop the editing problems, accusations of NPA are not going to cool things down. You've given your evidence, and changes have been made. If there is a blockworthy problem, these comments aren't it. Don't keep pushing this case unless you have something much stronger, because it's just reflecting badly on you. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 11:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I think my edit history on the article, adding almost all of the 17 references (including the first one), and this users behavior speaks for itself.Travb (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As does your edit history on this board. Proto:: 12:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Proto, I don't think that is helpful unless you can expand on it - as someone who has not been monitoring travb's edits on this board won't really know how to take that.-Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, its over, I have more than enough evidence to already show that User:Mobile 01 has been using sockpuppets and has been lying about it. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01

I won't hold my breath for an apology. When wikiusers justify comments like "biased rubbish, hypocricy, vandalism, and dictatorship" as being acceptable under WP:NPA, I don't expect much. Travb (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I support you on the NPA claim - that statement is unacceptable but the vehemance with which you are going after this editor leaves something to be desired. One of the first stages of WP:DR is to take a step back and calm down. I'd suggest trying it. A clear head helps you focus and find what you are looking for easier.-Localzuk(talk) 16:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Localzuk, your 100% correct. I appreciate your comments. As my temperature has risen, I have been getting off of wikipedia for longer and longer. I stayed off for the entire day yesterday. I apologize for my vehemance, which I am painfully aware actually hurts, not helps my points. Thank you. Travb (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spambot?[edit]

Over the past few days, 71.248.42.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 69.137.60.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have been adding spam to Template talk:Inheritance/, ranging from coupons to fashion to virus warnings. The random text in the article makes it seem as though they are operating some kind of spambot or random text generator. An IP check, a reverse DNS and a proxy check didn't give further information as to who is behind the IPs. Is further action required? AecisBravado 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well 71.248 at least has been blocked 24 h by Xaosflux. CBL is down so I couldn't check the comprhensive block list, but SORBS says that it had a spam trojan back in mid november 2006...so I'd be willing to block for 6mo as a suspected open proxy. I won't override Xaosflux's block though. Syrthiss 14:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:FasterPussycatWooHoo again[edit]

A few days ago, a community ban was proposed for User:FasterPussycatWooHoo from Talk:Tokusatsu and all related articles and talk pages. There was unanimous consensus for the ban, though no one officially closed the discussion. Since then, User:FasterPussycatWooHoo has continued to disrupt Wikipedia, harrassing User:Floria L on her(?) talk page while falsely claiming that the discussion of his ban was done in secret [35], personally attacking and attempting to defame me [36], accusing User:Naconkantari of malice [37], and making a rather dubious edit to Tokusatsu [38] (I'm not sure what to make of it, but I think it's a bit WP:POINT-ish). Not only does this community ban need to be formally closed, but I'm starting to think his ban needs to be extended to the User talk: namespace as well. jgp TC 12:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's only so many namespaces, if you catch my drift. Although it may be extreme now, it's verging on the point that a full community ban may become needed. Generally, users need user talk pages to communicate effectively; I wouldn't object to a community-endorsed (concensus) setup where any user talk page this user disrupts he/she is banned from for two weeks, at a concensus of three administrators. A blanket-ban on a whole namepsace seems extreme, and a setup where this user is banned without much fuss (three admins) from the problem pages, in my opinion, would work better. Discuss :) Daniel.Bryant 13:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be terribly opposed to that. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but the incivility does not appear extreme. I'm not sure that an indefinite block is warranted at this stage. El_C 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
He's been a constant disrputive presence on Talk:Tokusatsu, has personally attacked multiple people many times, and impersonated the founder of a WikiProject. The thread in the archives shows a unanimous consensus that he's exhausted the community's patience. jgpTC 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see more efforts at dispute resolution on the user's talk page. I'll give it a try. El_C 13:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this user isn't blocked or banned at all. That AN/I discussion linked above appears to only include users involved in the content dispute on Tokusatsu (and its talk page), so I would say that it is completely invalid. However, I do find the user's behavior, including his continued claim that Nacontari's block was "malicious" (it was justified, and I only reverted under WP:AGF because the user hadn't been properly warned). If the disruption continues, the appropriate next step is a block. Save the talk of banning for much further down the road. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is emphatically not a content dispute. FP's edits consist solely of incivility, edit warring, bad-faith disruption, impersonation, personal attacks, and defamation. He is not here to improve the encyclopaedia. All he has accomplished is disruption. The number of outside users who supported the ban outnumbered the users who are involved. Elaragirl, bbatsell, Johntex, Cla68, and Rickyrab are all outside users. Interestingly enough, the one person who mentioned an indef block (as opposed to a topic ban) was an outside user. jgpTC 05:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, this is most definitely a content dispute at its heart. FPWH's behavior may be the issue requiring admin attention, but he's making a content-based argument (that appears to be incorrect, but that's another matter). He's been warned now about his actions. Jumping from a single block that was rescinded to a ban would be ridiculous, given how limited his actions have been. And while we're on the topic, removing his content as you did on the Wikiproject page by calling him a "banned user" was completely improper, as he is most definitely not banned at this time. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
And this removal of FPWH's comments is also unacceptable. He's not banned or blocked. We get it - you don't like his actions. That doesn't allow you to run around removing his comments while claiming he's banned. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Attack page needs speedy delete[edit]

[Stirling Newberry] Clear libel, attack page and multiple sock meat puppets. Stirling Newberry 23:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the libel is clear, how it is an attack page, or the multiple sock "meat" puppets you state. It does not seem to personally attack you, however, it provides your POV and your critics POV. Remember WP:AUTO. 63.20.137.49 23:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it either, even after reading the deleted pages. However, diffs are difficult to construct on deleted pages, so there may be some subtleties I'm missing. I've contacted the (first) deleting admin for details. If I don't hear anything, expect a request on WP:DRV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Arthur, there's already been a DRV. The upshot of it was: a troll got blocked. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 January 19. -- Steel 15:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and accusations of fraud[edit]

I came across this note on another's users page referring to me, which I find quite disturbing [39]. NazireneMystic refers to me here mockingly as Y-h, in what is clearly a religious context. Apparently, this user is saying that I put myself in the place of G-d. Invoking the name of the Deity in this flippant way is extremely offensive to Jews. This has happened several other times. I request that it be stopped. Ovadyah 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence of a mocking tone or any other sort of personal attack. It seems to me that the user in question is using "Yah" as an abbreviation of your username. Do you have any proof that he is using this nickname specifically to disparage your religion? Keep in mind also that using the name of the God "flippantly" is common practice in English. A majority of people aren't going to change their day-to-day language use for the benefit of a small number of highly religious people who consider it offensive. —Psychonaut 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is where all this Y-h business started [40]. Please don't tell me there is no evidence of a personal attack here. It is clear enough from the context that this is being done intentionally. Ovadyah 17:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I want to report an accusation of fraud by the same user, see edit summary and diff [41]. This personal attack against the RFC is ridiculous and discourages editors from participating in the RFC process. It also can be considered a legal threat. Please administer some kind of block proportional to the offenses. Ovadyah 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Fadix[edit]

I would like to draw admins attention to the personal conduct of Fadix. This person together with Eupator completely removed all of my edits from the article about Paytakaran [42] and kept it at their preferred version, despite all of my edits being supported by references to reliable sources, such as Strabo, Buzand, Hewsen, Iranica, etc. I tried to resolve the issue by discussion on the talk of the article, but lengthy discussions ended up with nothing. This person refused official mediation and I filed an AMA Requests for Assistance. However, this person resorted to insults and personal attacks on me during the discussion of the issue. He used the phrases like “Choose either play the innocent cynic or the dishonest manipulator, but don’t ever try mixing those with me”, which I don’t think is an acceptable way of discussing the issues here. I would appreciate any help in resolution of the issue and observation of civility during discussions. Regards, Grandmaster 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried a WP:3RR report or simply requesting blocking for the attacks? John Reaves (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
3RR rule was not violated, and I have not reported him for attacks anywhere else. Is there any place to report personal attacks?Grandmaster 08:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Right here, I would just be more specific about the personal attack, supply diff links. John Reaves (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure. PLease see here: [43] This person has repeatedly been blocked for similar offences. Grandmaster 09:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Every time this editor comes up, I keep thinking people are talking about me. *breaths sigh of relief* --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Grandmaster is using this Administrators' noticeboard as a device for his content dispute issues when it is strongly adviced to not do that as can be seen on his above introduction. I will not defend my incivility, the way he defend his edit warrings and 3RR blocks. But just to place things in context Grandmaster explaination of the situation in his introduction being an accusation, he keep claiming innacurate things on the reasons of my reverts, as if he knows better than I why I reverted, I considered his answers as manipulation for those reasons. I edited the article he was refering to only once. Since Grandmaster uses my prior blocks, I will stress out that Grandmaster has leveled similar charges against various editors during his edit warrings and multiple blocks for those edit warring, while I never was blocked for 3RR or things involved with article content. Fad (ix) 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

European country maps[edit]

There is an ongoing discussion on the introduction of an alternative style of country maps for European countries featuring the European Union as a whole. This has been opposed for various reasons. Nonetheless there seems to be a low level edit war going on, with some editors reporting each other for 3RR in order to stop "the other side"[44] and calls for tag-teaming[45]. The maps keep been reintroduced, sometimes with a complete disregard for comments in the article talk pages and previous edit summary comments. What appropriate measures should be taken to minimise disruption? I am also of the opinion that any systematic change would need to be consensuated in advance. regards, --Asteriontalk 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Superman.1984 not here to work on Wikipedia[edit]

User:Superman.1984 does not appear to be here to work on the encyclopedia. See the past versions of his user page before he blanked it. I request that his userpage be deleted, and all the images he uploaded be deleted as well. (Warning: Some adult content can be found on past versions on his pages and images). Is there a standard "warning" template for something like: "Hey, please don't use Wikipedia for anything other than working on Wikipedia? Thank you. --MECUtalk 16:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the guy. No single contribution except uploading images of his penis and displaying them in his userpage. If anyone want to review this, I am open to suggestions. --Asteriontalk 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The images should be deleted, and so should the history of the userpage. --Majorly (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the revisions of the page, apart from Asterion's edits. All the images uploaded by him are in process of deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --Asteriontalk 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Large amount of Vandalism from 68.163.27.43[edit]

Had a large amount of vandalism coming from IP 68.163.27.43 who is adding nonsense/violation tags to the radio and TV pages for Pennsylvania....I have correct this problem as quickly as possible but may need a little assistance if the vandalism continues. Am keeping an eye on recent changes pages. I did add a "Vandalism Warning" tag to the talk page as well.

Thanks....SVRTVDude 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please report this at WP:AIV, thanks. --Asteriontalk 16:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


71.234.9.178[edit]

IP editor was blocked for three months by Kchase02 on Jan 18 and has since been changing his/her talk page to change the signatures of users that warned him/her. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 17:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Blocking of User:William Mauco and User:MariusM by User:Robdurbar, explained on Talk:Transnistria#Marius/Mauco[edit]

It's the first time I see an admin blocking two users that were discussing on pretty much opposed positions, but in a civil way. Is this normal? Dpotop 17:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Rob's decision. Both users had apparently been breaking 3RR for the n-th time again (see mutual reports on WP:AN3), and I agree that sometimes it's better to block left and right so as to not punish uninvolved outside editors who might actually work constructively on an article. Reacting to all big revert-wars with protection is not always good because it gives the edit-warrers too much prominence. Incidentally, I made a similar decision on Afghanistan just today, blocking three instead of protecting. Fut.Perf. 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

66.174.93.101 repeated vandalism[edit]

User:66.174.93.101 has vandalized Ravenswood: The Steelworker's Victory and the Revival of American Labor. This user repeatedly vandalizes articles (see the user's talk page). - Tim1965 19:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That was almost three weeks ago. You've reverted the vandalism, but since no one at that IP address made a single edit from the 2nd till the 19th, I don't think any further action is required. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin:Friday's alleged conflict of interest[edit]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [46].
You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [47].

The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [48].

The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 23:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec. You invent an artificial division of editors (ref desk "deletionists" and "inclusionists"), assign Friday to one of them, and then declare some conflict of interest? Exactly what is the "interest" being conflicted? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Jpgordon has a very relevant point. Anyone categorizing users like that is a divisive and negative influence on Wikipedia, and should be cautioned or coached to avoid such things. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to MeNeutrality Project ) 03:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with the incident at hand, but I will point out that the usual grid of warnings encourages us to avoid mentioning blocks until about the third warning or so. Usually better to calm someone down, if at all possible, and yelling at them rarely accomplishes that. On the other hand, I remember the recall petition, so I'm sure a few users will have something more to say about this. Luna Santin 23:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Light has continually been extremely disruptive, and never seems to learn from previous blocks, and uses his page as a soapbox. Worse, I often get the impressions that he purposefully pushes the envelope in order to get blocked, so that he can play martyr - see WP:POINT, WP:DFTTish effect. Had multiple administrators not supported his previous block for the same offense, I could understand it. Please, stop this nonsense; we all want to see him be a good contributor, but this is not the way. Patstuarttalk|edits 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd actually shut down the misc reference (at the very least) - it's generally full of crap and is a honeypot for trolls. keep up the good work Admin Friday. (and I agree with the comments made by PS above in regards to Light) --Larry laptop 23:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Yuser31415 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
how was that a personal attack? A bit testy, but not a personal attack. I'm seriously thinking of writing an essay Wikipedia:Do not accuse of Personal Attacks every time you have a conflict, or something like that (or was it sarcastic?). Patstuarttalk|edits 00:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Personal attack? What are you talking about? Please don't strike other user's comments unless there is very good reason to (i.e., not here). —bbatsell ¿? 02:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Certainly seemed more like a criticism of a page than a personal attack to me, and to the best of my knowledge there isn't a rule against saying, "This page is Teh Suck!" -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
just to conclude this subtopic, Yuser31415 and I failed to kick off in a manner that required admin intervention or resulted in a feud that crossed multiple pages and ended with one of us swearing to raise a tribe of children who would hound the other forever. --Larry laptop 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll point the readers of this thread to the relevant one further up this same page, where this block is already being discussed. See #Civility block for review. I blocked Light current a couple of days ago for persistent incivility; he returned to the same behaviour immediately after that block expired, prompting Friday to block him again. Light current has been spinning his wheels on his talk page ever since (just shy of one hundred talk page edits since the block began), and I'm very concerned he's going to self-destruct completely if he doesn't calm down.
Note that several admins and respected editors have both reviewed the recent blocks and attempted to advise Light current where his behaviour has fallen short of accepted standards. His response to that advice has ranged from disingenuous to flatly rude.
As to StuRat's point that there are other editors related to Ref Desk discussions who have been grossly and determinedly incivil...well, I have to absolutely agree. I have personally issued repeated requests to StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to be civil in his discussions with other editors; I have not, however, threatened to block him for it because it might represent a conflict of interest. He is the subject of two recent user conduct RfCs (one, two) the second of which I started because of his ongoing insistence on namecalling. In addition:
  • I have also warned Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for repeated incivility. If another editor would like to have a word with him, that would be dandy.
  • THB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has recently taken to calling anyone who agrees with a Wikipedia administrator (and who disagrees with him) a 'sycophant', among other attacks. If an uninvolved third party would have a word with him about that, I think it would help to improve the tone of discussion.
  • Finally, the anonymous remarks that StuRat is complaining about were made nearly a month ago, and ceased after a short period of time. I agree that they were extremely rude and entirely deserving of a block. However, the editor in question was obviously on a non-static IP somewhere in 87.102.0.0/16, and I wasn't going to block sixty-five thousand addresses to whack one mole that made only a few comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Ten, you failed to mention that both of those RFCs filed against me had the majority supporting my position, not the positions of those who filed them. Thus, if you are using RFCs, filed by Ref Desk deletionists, as evidence that I am disruptive, they prove quite the opposite, that the Ref Desk deletionists are the ones being disruptive, by filing nuisance RFCs. StuRat 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact that you think the majority on those RfCs agree with you is evidence that you have a problem, in my view. There is some trenchant and strongly supported criticism of you in especially the second, including your use of labels to avoid engaging in reasoned debate. I encourage others to look at the header of User talk:StuRat/redundant. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Ten: incivility has made useful discussion about the ref desks more difficult. Friday (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here might be that there is a group of regular Ref Desk editors involved here. What you guys probably need is for one or two uninvolved admins or respected editors who have never been anywhere near the Ref Desks to come along and mediate. Let all the regulars go back to editing and answering questions, and when a dispute blows up, the uninvolved editors will step in and handle things objectively. Try this for a month or so, and then retreat and see if the Ref Desk disputes start up again (hopefully not). I'm not saying that things haven't been handled objectively so far, but at least having someone totally uninvolved handling things might make both sides realise how things look to an outsider, and then adjust their own behaviour accordingly. Carcharoth 01:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are two problems with this good idea: First is that several of the ref desk regulars (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) have expressed derision towards the contributions and attempts at intervention of those without a history on the desks (and use the 'intrusion' of such editors as evidence of cabalism and cronyism); and Second, it's been tried already, and several (maybe not 'several', but one or two at least) of the editors who are posting to this and the other thread about Light current were, at one time, uninvolved editors who'd had nothing to do with the ref desks. Anchoress 01:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Anchoress hit the nail on the head. Every time someone gets sucked into this debate (e.g., myself, who's never touched reference desk), it becomes obvious that incivility on the part of several pro-ref desk people is awful; thus we are labeled "involved" (keep in mind, I'm pro-RD, at least at the moment; I think it's a great idea). This has happened many times over, and we just get more and more admins sucked into the problem. To be blunt (I know this will get LC furious with me, but it must be said): this is not at all a reference desk issue. This is an issue of Light Current's (and sometimes StuRat)'s deep incivility issues. A perusal of the block log and the talk pages of LC (which I encourage any uninvolved admins to do) will show that this is extremely obvious. -Patstuarttalk|edits 01:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, because they edit heavily there, it becomes the Ref Desk's problem. I still think the best thing to do is to try one more time with another set of uninvolved editors, and see if that helps. Can anyone give precise details of how many times this has "happened many times over"? Carcharoth 01:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I agree with your suggestion that Ref Desk deletionists should recuse themselves from blocking Ref Desk inclusionists (and vice-versa, incidentally). New Admins are absolutely welcomed to come in and give their opinions on blocks, etc., so long as they don't pick sides and start promoting one side of the debate over the other, they need to remain neutral. When new Admins come in, decide they believe in the deletionist POV, then start blocking inclusionists, then absolutely they are no longer viewed as neutral outsiders, does this surprise anyone ? StuRat 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh that's right. If someone doesn't agree with your veiwpoint Stu, they are picking sides. Please. pschemp | talk 04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
If an Admin came in, joined the inclusionist side of the debate, then started blocking deletionists for the slightest offense, while ignoring all transgressions from the inclusionist side, don't you think that would be a problem ? On the other hand, maybe that's the only hope of getting any balance in actions from Admins (hoping we get an equal number which are highly biased towards each side), since it seems it may be impossible to get any truly unbiased Admins involved. StuRat 02:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's use an unrelated topic for clarity. Say one group of editors, including Admins, says that there were blue tribbles in Star Trek, and the other disagrees. They get into vicious battles over this issue. Then, the side that says there were blue tribbles starts blocking only those on the anti-blue-tribble side, completely ignoring the same, or much worse, behavior on their side of the battle. Would these be proper Admin actions, in your opinion ? StuRat 17:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the absolute crux of the issue. I am only a sometime RD contributor with no interest (or stated opinion) in the "deletionist/inclusionist" issue. Noting the disruptive tendency of labeling - against their stated will - other editors into arbitrary groups, I independently warned LC, StuRat and THB et al as an outside administrator. Over a week later I and I have been accused of being among a "lump of administrators" working against the "inclusionists", a "freshmen admin lacking judgment" and a "shrill deletionist". To paraphrase a great statesman, THB, StuRat and Light current appear to share the belief you are either with them or against them. Since I can imagine no administrator will endorse their recent rash of incivility, I don't see how any outside admin will remain neutral in the eyes of these editors for long. Nevertheless, I fully endorse this attempt by Durova and brenneman to step in. I guess it will either work, or the we should make more room for a few more admins pressganged onto the good ship deletionism. Rockpocket 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't focus this whole debate on Light current or StuRat. There is actually a triad of editors on ref desk that seem to be causing all the antagonism that includes THB (talk · contribs) (see User:StuRat RfC, StuRat talk 1 and StuRat talk 2 for examples). While there are other users sympathetic to their "deletionist" opinions (refers to those that disagree with them) the others do not disrupt discussions in the same manner. A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block. The response to this tendentious editing is then used as a foil for them to cry persecution. The real shame in this dispute is that all these editors make excellent contributions to the encyclopedia. However, there a problems on ref desk that include extensive debates, off topic chat, jokes bordering on offensive and responding to trolls. It is these latter things that they refuse to acknowlledge as a problem. David D. (Talk) 04:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me. I havent been replying to Qs on RD pages for about 2 weeks now. Neither have I been doing much on the RD talk pages. So why are you referrring to me in your post? Am i not allowed to comment on the RfCs now? You really must define how you are implicationg me in the 'trouble making'--Light current 04:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The vote on the RfC is relevent since above StuRat claims that most editors agree with his position. But only yourself and THB actually endorsed his opinion. While others on the RfC are sympathetic none endorsed the opinion that you three favor. i am not trying to imply there is a conspiracy, you are all quite open about your relationship. I did define how you are "trouble making" above. Are you saying you want difs? David D. (Talk) 04:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
While the majority did not support my statements directly, they did support statements sympathetic to my POV, in both RFCs. In the first RFC, my statement was added quite late in the process, so that would explain fewer votes there. Also note that very few people supported the actual complaints. StuRat 17:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I confirmed that some " did support statements sympathetic to [your] POV" above, but it was notable who endorsed your own opinion. So what is the tally you have for those supportive of StuRat vs not supportive? David D. (Talk) 08:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah give me some examples of :
A theme appears to be 1) a lot of editing to make a point, 2) a lot of incivility both of which are apparently to dare admins to block.
--Light current 05:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No one said that. What we are saying here is to try to reach an amicable compromise on both sides without throwing clichéd and condescending labels with wild abandon. --210physicq (c) 04:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
But you have been asking questions that appear to be testing the limits. I will add that Light current has been a valuable editor in trying to define a set of guidelines for the ref desk. David D. (Talk) 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Which Qs? On the RD talk pages? Pls illustrate.--Light current 04:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

THB[edit]

I've blocked THB for 72 hours. I tried coming in as "uninvolved" [49] but that went poorly, thus I had his name on my watchlist when he's calling Friday a "ball-buster" and an "asshole." (Noting that the second one was phrased as "If a guy acted like that he would be an asshole" which cuts no water with me.) The block is uncontroversial, and I tried again [50] to initiate dialog. As I did not personally issue any warnings, I'm happy if someone officious wants to lift the block without chatting to me. We all do things differently, etc.
brenneman 05:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems your second attempt went the way of the phonograph and the dodo. Either way, this thread is more than enough for me to endorse the block. Titoxd(?!?) 05:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a major regular at the Ref desks, but I toddle by now and then when I'm in the mood for Wikipedia Lite. What's happened to you guys? The place is supposed to be fun - a nice little grab bag of questions to answer. I haven't been in conflict with anybody there but I'm concerned about the foot-in-mouth disease. That makes it un-fun which is why I'm there less often - if I'm going to put myself through the mill I'd rather cry aha! and block a small launderette of sockpuppets at the end. You've got multiple RFCs, multiple threads at this board, repeated blocks...you're on the road to arbitration or community topic banning. Users with your kind of edit counts shouldn't need to be reminded where this leads. Disengage. DurovaCharge! 06:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday[edit]

the place was fun until Friday (who is on record as saying that he believes the RD should be deleted) came in and started issuing orders, unilaterally deleting answers, and making blocks. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware enough of the issues there to comment on it. It may very well be that Firday is harassing these users in a willful attempt to drive them from the encyclopedia, or that she desires for some reason to be the Lord and Master of the reference desk. But any chance to sort this out has to come after some cooling of the fires here. I love Friday like a brother from another mother, but I'll chase up any complaint on her with my usual terrier-like tenacity iff people can chill out.
    brenneman 23:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Im chilled ! %-)--Light current 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, Aaron, wouldn't "sister from another mother" be more apt? Picaroon 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Light Current[edit]

I've also issued a "warning" tantamount to a threat to Light Current. [51] I'm not at all used to playing the hard man, but I'm put in mind of Mistress SK. In the end even if she did not understand what the problem was, it makes no difference if it's "trolling" (a word I am on record objecting to) or "unable to adpet": it's a huge drain on time and energy and it must stop. - brenneman 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Adpet? Did you mean 'adapt'?--Light current 18:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Light current's (once in a wikilifetime) offer[edit]

Are we just talking about the RD pages themselves here or the RD talk as well. I have mainly recused myself( painful) of answering Q s on the RD owing to extremely negative reactions to my light hearted replies. I have also reduced my input on Talk:RD as well due to misinterpretation of my messages leading to blocks. I have mainly finished my work on the RD guidelines.

A ban for me from those pages would be hard to bear, but I do edit elsewhere when allowed.

Im not sure about Sturat and THB. Why not just ban me to start and see if things improve (or not).

As an act of self sacrifice and as atonement for my previous sins (call me a sacrificial lamb or scapegoat if you like), I offer myself up to be banned from editing RD pages (and RD talk if you really insist) for say 2 weeks, to see if the situation in your opinion improves. How about it?--Light current 00:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That would be brilliant beyond belief. Really really thank you. I say again: The optimal solution os one where everyone can go back to having a good time editing, be validated for their contributions, and serve the long-term goals of the project. *pfft* adpet *snort*
brenneman 01:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(edcon)

I really enjoyed contributing to the RDs and the talk pages over the last few months and thought I was contributing positvely to most things (OK maybe with a silly joke/pun or two). I thought I was helping in trying to lighten up peoples lives. I never tried to upset any one intentionally and Im sorry if I did. Obviously I was wrong in my judgement. 8-((.
I also felt I was doing something useful in helping create the RD guidelines so that people like me would know what was expected of their contributions.
However, with the repeated attacks on me from all quarters, I no longer feel welcome, safe or comfortable here anymore. Anyway... if most people would rather I wasnt here, I understand and I will go.
I shall be really sad to leave this place... it has been great fun for me. But all good things must come to an end, I suppose. And this is The end for me.--Light current 01:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I await the execution of my sentence. (BTW please tell me what you have decided to do to me) 8-(--Light current 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you need not wait for the people who visit this page to say yea or nay to your suggestion - just do it. Dewatch all the pages related, put this all behind you, and come write some articles. No formal ban needed, unless you consider your personal decision formal. After two weeks, people can reconvene to see what the changes (if any) have been. How does this sound? Picaroon 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. You are one of the few who did. I wanted to be blocked from those pages to remove any temptation but, using tremendous effort, I am going to attempt to leave alone the RD talk and the RD pages themselves until the end of this month (Jan 07).
I may still edit the RD guidelines though, as it is generally agreed that I have made positive contributions there.--Light current 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
We cannot block anyone from editing a particular page. It is simply not possible in the current implementation of the software. While the Page restrictions table has a field for future support for that, it is not coded yet (and may not be ever coded), so the restriction has to be voluntary. The other alternative is an ArbCom restriction on editing the RD pages, but I think that is unnecessary, as any violation would remove your editing privileges of the entire site for a short period of time. Titoxd(?!?) 21:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. Someone said it was actually possible. It maybe a good idea to implement that though! In that case I must use utmost willpower to stop editing those pages!--Light current 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

We could go to ArbCom, or we could go for a community ban for a specified (does not need to be long) period. If we were to ban the worst one or two offenders from the ref desk for, say, a fortnight, to cool off and regain perspective, while allowing (encouraging) them to keep editing elsewhere, would that help at all? I don't think we can let this ride. At present StuRat aggressively asserts that he will not even admit the possibility that those he disagrees with have a right to dispute his position. Shades of WP:OWN apart, this does not augur well for any kind of resolution of the issue. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my position. I absolutely accept consensus rule. If those who disagree with me are in the clear majority, then I would accept what they want. It's only when a minority asserts the right to perform deletions without consensus, change the rules, block users who disagree with them and ignore abusive users who agree with them, etc., that I disagree. StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a temporary ban will do anything but give the boards a temporary respite after which those users will return and continue to behave in the same fashion as before. I'm not being overly cynical here, because that's exactly what has happened with the blocks of LC and StuRat and THB. (Though to give LC credit, he has shown ability to reform when StuRat isn't around.) What is needed here is a long term solution to what has been a long term issue. So far the fact that every admin or other editor who has attempted to mediate with these three has ended up blocking them or being added to their enemy list doesn't bode well for solutions other than 1. An arbcom case or 2. A standard of behaviour written by the greater community. pschemp | talk 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Pschemp, please don't misrepresent my record. I have never been blocked because I've never done anything even remotely "blockable". StuRat 01:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I like #2 8-)--Light current 02:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither have I. Makes no diff 8-))--Light current 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


Disruptive, oft minority POV attemps to own Martin Luther article, usually without productive discussion at talk page[edit]

Please note the following edits by User:Justas Jonas:

  • Predominantly edits one article: [52]
  • Labels welcoming messages on their user-talk page as clutter, spam and unnecessary material: [53] & [54].
  • Makes unfounded personal attacks against another user [55] and criticizes other user's edits with an air of superiority. Please see various edit summaries at [56] and Talk:Martin Luther.
  • May post under an IP address to emphasize User:Justas Jonas' point: [57].
  • Resembles a previously banned user, per another editor of Talk:Martin Luther: [58].
  • One recent edit war is over the size of and content of the article's opening image infobox. Please see [59].
  • Claims that another user's edits cause formatting and/or layout problems, when no-one else experiences such problems. Please see [60] again.
  • Appears to ignore input and request for correspondence from much more senior editors. Please see [61] and [62].

I'm sincerely looking forward to hearing options on how this can be resolved. Most if not all other editors of the article are working together to gain FA status for this article. If I am indeed the only one in error here, or if you have some constructive feedback for me, please kindly advise. Keesiewonder 13:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Keesiewonder's analysis of the situation. This new user account is acting disruptively, and is obviously not a new user account. I agree with this new user that the article requires across-the-board condensation, and also that in the past things have gotten talked to death. However, simply coming in and slashing and burning is not the answer. --Mantanmoreland 15:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps another user to add to the set: [63].
So, one question I have is do the following four accounts all stem from one person:
I do not have any personal experience with the last; I do with the first three. Keesiewonder 17:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps a couple more: Special:Contributions/24.107.121.195 ; Special:Contributions/Bailan Keesiewonder 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
That's one of McCain's. He was also using AOL at one point. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser anybody?