Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive181

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:LetsgoPhillies[edit]

LetsgoPhillies (talk · contribs) This user admits to being a sock puppet for evading a ban here, and the user's talk page states it's a revenge account for the purpose of vandalizing. -- Kesh 16:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Guy (Help!) 16:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
He's been blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This is listed in "Highways problem". V60 VTalk - VDemolitions 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User 71.70.92.135 on Waccamaw Page[edit]

I'm a Waccamaw Indian tribal council member and viewed the current page on Waccamaw. There were three incidents of vandalism on November 15, 2006 for the page showing the same user at 71.70.92.135 IP address. I will try to undo edit to correct, but I'm not terribly familiar with Wikipedia editing. Also, is there anyway of finding out the source? If this is possible, please email to </email removed/>. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.139.40 (talkcontribs).

The IP you mentioned resolves to Road Runner Holdco LLC. Crimsone 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sasfatpogobsqalt[edit]

Sasfatpogobsqalt (talk · contribs) is constantly removing the speedy tag from the article he/she created, Edy Syquer. He/she has been warned to stop and refuses to. Heimstern Läufer 05:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This sound like a job for WP:AIV. To the Wikicave! JuJube 05:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No worries now, the article's been deleted. Heimstern Läufer 05:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

70.23.199.239 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Are comments on this IP's talkpage considered worrying to the community? Personally, I don't care about the farcical accusations that the IP is leveling at me, but I do wish an outside person to give some perspective on the matter, as I don't seem to have a clear head on the matter anymore. Constructive criticism welcome. --210physicq (c) 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The constant references to the "Dear Reader" of the talk page is very Victorian, and very trolling; it's a recognized invitation of the audience to draw conclusions prefaced by the author. I say leave it alone and walk away. Teke (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I say just semi the talk page and leave content on it; he can't complain he was "censored", but he can't keep trolling. Patstuarttalk|edits 07:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Kannambadi and his elitism[edit]

Mr.Kannambadi (with his loyal friends) is removing the cited info at chalukya and rashtrakuta with other articles. he wants to push the POV of historians of his region and deleting my Marathi language and even English language citations. He is framing his own rules and bullying me by inventing new rules that google books and regional language books cannot be used in wikipedia. he has two books which I have quoted yet he is removing the info from those books as well also from the reputed source of Britannica encyclopeduia. I have given details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting . He is harassing me by asking ID no. but the book which i have (and he had claimed he has located them) are of 1924 AD which obviously dont have Id noes. Please help.Sarvabhaum 06:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

thejps being abusive to me[edit]

Hi, i hope you can help me. Im having a big problem with an administratorcalled thejps. When i joined i didnt know what i was doing and broke a few rules. I wasnt abusive but went about changing articles the wrong way. I was banned for 2 weeks which i completely agreed tp. Since i have come back i have followed all the rules, discused everything, have not edited 1 article and been overly polite to everyone. Wherever i start adiscussion on the discussion page thejps keeps following me and telling everyone to ignore me,that my POV is wrong and calling me a trol! All i want to know is how do i report him and warn him off. I enjoy reading articles and have only started a few discussions, yet i feel i am being taunted to react so he can ban me again. He has really taken it peronnaly, how do i stop him? Iwould appreciate any advice, thanks a lot. My email is hidden cheers Daveegan06 10:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed your email, it can still be seen by bots. We can use the email this user link from your userpage if you have an email set for wikipedia. ViridaeTalk 11:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, when you want to indent like I have here, use a : at the start of the sentence, spaces just put the text into an endless box. The more of them you use, the more indented it is.
Like.
This. ViridaeTalk 11:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Onto the actual issue. I saw the talk page comments you made/The JPS made that tipped you to making this report, and have to agree that The JPS was being a little over the top in his critiscism, I believe you being perfectly civil and not trolling at all, I would like to hear from The JPS as to why he took it that way. ViridaeTalk 11:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The JPS has been notified about this thread on his talk page. ViridaeTalk 13:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for what could be interpreted as being over the top. I will continue to monitor the user in a less vocal way. My concerns about the editor are based on the fact that most of his edits are ideologically motivated. The JPStalk to me 12:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Spammer account - created on behalf of a website[edit]

Mad gamers (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has consistently added links to the MadGamers website in many computer/video game related articles. See Half-Life 2, CS: S, Half-Life, CS: S again, RTS, CVG. The same message, with links, posted to the articles. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more Primetime[edit]

Yes, it's tiresome. Looks like Primetime (talk · contribs) hasn't given up: his newest sockpuppet, Ad astra per aspera (talk · contribs), like a previous one, has once again nominated Panaca, Nevada (an actual town) for deletion. He also moved the previous nomination here, so someone will have to fix that by reverting the move, too.

(Officially, the previous Panaca troll was Justin322 (talk · contribs), whom I now assume was a Primetime sockpuppet, but even if he wasn't it's still abusive sockpuppetry, just by a different puppeteer.) --Calton | Talk 11:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and restored the last version of the original nomination by Calton and moved the new nom to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panaca, Nevada (2nd nomination). Obviously, should be dealt with as seen fit? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak - POV pushing, WP:POINT, and bad faith assumptions[edit]

An editor called my attention to an ongoing dispute at Srebrenica massacre. I've done some poking around, and I'm greatly troubled by what I see:

The user had two previous AN/I reports, one in November and again in December. He was blocked for one week after the November report (in which he disrupted AFD processes). He lodged this complaint on AN/I against the admins who rolled back his soapbox canvassing, and it was suggested that he be blocked for two weeks if he acted again in this manner. It is clear that this user has not learned our policies concerning WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:OWN. I confess that I do not have much knowledge of the tragedy at Srebrenica, but it is very clear that this user is interested in promoting a very particular POV to the exclusion of all others. Attempts to deal with this user are persistently met with accusations of vandalism, allegations of being a Serbian apologist, and threats to have users blocked or banned. I would like to ask for other administrators' input on how to handle this situation. -- Merope 21:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend pursuing dispute resolution, starting with a Request for comment. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That may actually work if the editor were to be interested on dispute resolution, but looking at his contribution history it is easy to realise he is "on a mission". As a matter of fact, there is an ArbCom decision on Kosovo (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo), which although not directly related was used in the past as rationale to block another user for disruption (Osli73). Regards, --Asteriontalk 22:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We can also add to the list of grievances that he's a serial and unrepentant copyright violator. He has a history of contributing text and images without permission of the copyright holder, and continues to do this despite conspicuous warnings on his user talk page. In fact, the most recent violation occurred just a few hours ago; see User talk:Bosniak#Congress of North American Bosniaks. For reporting such policy breaches I have been labelled a "Serb [who] defends Serb interest on Wikipedia", as have many other editors. —Psychonaut 06:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks like he may need another block, and quite possibly a community ban, given that he has not ceased soapboxing and violating copyrights. It's becoming clear that he is doing more harm than good to the encyclopedia and its community. I'm not sure if dispute resolution would work effectively in this case. --Coredesat 06:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As User:Bosniak has apparently decided there's no point in paying attention to my "Serb propaganda", I've asked one of his friends to have a chat with him. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My research[edit]

I, as a completely unconnected person conducted some research into the conduct of this user. I'm unable to make any judgements as to the quality or actuality of the edits since I am unfamiliar with the topic, but the pattern of behavior is clear.

Srebrenica massacre - edit warning
Soliciting help in edit war
Incivility and personal attacks

What I see here is the aggressive pattern of an activist... someone who is here to push a point of view. (every revert changes "criticism" to "revisionism", etc). I don't know if a short-term block will get the attention of this user or not, but it might be worth a try. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If a community ban is the only solution, then by all means. My problem is what would stop him/her of creating a sockpuppet. (Well, I guess these would be easy to spot anyway). --Asteriontalk 09:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I think he's worse than Gibraltarian and/or Beckjord (although I do NOT condone the behavior of these two people either), so I think that if he were to be permabanned, his user talk page should also be locked to prevent him from soapboxing on it. Scobell302 19:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough he does remind me of User:Gibraltarian. --Asteriontalk 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Any sockpuppets should be easy enough to spot, given this user's behavior pattern. --Coredesat 20:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Truth be told, I'm hesitant to call for a community ban because I feel it would result in martyrdom and a plethora of socks, but they would be easily spotted. The user, however, runs a blog on this subject and would likely recruit meatpuppets to his purpose, which would be more difficult to control. -- Merope 21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure whether meatpuppets would be a big problem - take Beckjord for instance: at one point he posted a notice on his website calling on his supporters to revert to his preferred version of Bigfoot, but with little success; the notice was eventually taken down. Scobell302 04:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Anything User:Bosniak does in retaliation for being banned couldn't be much worse than the situation we already have with pro-Bosniak POV warriors and policy violatiors. In the past month we've already had to deal with the likes of Bosniak (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Ancient Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Ancient Land of Bosoni (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Bosniakk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Bosna 101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and probably a couple more I'm forgetting. —Psychonaut 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Talking about mission? Cheap shots. All of you who came here are on a mission - on a mission to ban me so you would be able to vandalize Srebrenica Massacre article. Talking about 'bad faith' you are the ones who have bad faith towards me and objective people building Srebrenica Massacre article. I have no bad faith, see - I am not complaining. I am just responding to your disagrements. Jim Douglas, Psychonaut, etc who came here are obviously on a mission. They can't achieve their goals with Srebrenica Massacre article, so they come here and complain. They treat Wikipedia as their personal page, and when they disagree with people, they want those people banned. By the way, Bosniakophobia is not an 'invented' or 'false' word. In fact, it's as much invented and as much as false as Serpophobia, but that's another story. Jim Douglas, Hadzija, Psychonaut, etc, have repeatedly ignored Srebrenica Massacre discussion page, and completely refused to take into consideration other people's opinions. Anyways, it's sad to see some people constantly complaining like toddlers. I would rather see them more productive in making this wikipedia better place for everyone. Bosniak 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've made a point of staying out of this discussion, but I didn't want to leave Bosniak's comments above unanswered. No, I'm not "on a mission". I explained how I came to be involved in that article here, in response to a suggestion that I was acting on some hidden agenda. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 08:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

<reindent> I've blocked Bosniak for 31hr for violating 3RR: [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]. His comments above further cement my assertions that he fails to recognize WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Any editor interested in this discussion can see that the above-named editors have in fact participated on the talk page of Srebrenica Massacre, explaining the WP policies of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, but this user has failed to recognize their contributions. -- Merope 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that outburst removed any doubts I had about a long-term (not sure how long) or indefinite block. I would now support one since it's clear that he has no respect for policies or guidelines and is here to push a POV. --Coredesat 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Based on what I've seen happening on Srebrenica massacre, a page that I've followed for years and where I sometimes try to mediate, I've come to the conclusion that it's nigh impossible to conduct a discussion on Talk:Srebrenica massacre in User:Bosniak's presence and thus I fully support a long block. And I implore all people looking in the matter to watchlist Srebrenica massacre; my experience is that User:Bosniak's fear that Serb apologists will vandalize the page is unfortunately well founded. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Earlier today I did some minor reformatting of the Srebrenica massacre article, which consisted entirely of what I thought to be noncontroversial typographical changes: replacing hyphens with dashes, trimming whitespace, fixing indentation, etc. You can view the diff between my first and last edits today. User:Bosniak seems to have flown into a rage over this, accusing me of "deleting important paragraphs of the article", "total desecration of the facts", vandalism, and genocide denial. I asked him politely three times to identify the information he alleges I removed from the article, but he refuses to do so, instead responding with insults, further accusations, and personal attacks. See User talk:Bosniak#Srebrenica massacre 3 for details. —Psychonaut 11:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have increased the duration of the block to 1 week in the light of the evidence produced against this user; after seeking permission from the orginal blocking admin (Merope). (ref. WP:POINT, WP:3RR, WP:BLP) — Nearly Headless Nick 12:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Add WP:CIVIL to the list. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucy-marie consistently deleting warnings on own talk page and other problems[edit]

I recently left a warning on Lucy marie's talk page in about her recent conduct.

Her recent conduct including creating multiple disputes on one article, deadlocking the article and keeping it at a factually inaccurate version (incorrect quotes and references) for a month, a duplication article split, and carrying her dispute to other articles. [10][11]

She deleted my warning, and left me a rude note on my talk page, saying that she had deleted my warning because she had stopped editing the various person articles a week before.

I replied to her explaining why I felt the warning was important, but not to worrry about it, that it wasn't a big deal. I then restored the warning on her talk page and left her a slightly modified removewarnings template warning.

She took this as her cue to hide the warnings instead by taking them off of her short talk page, removing them from her short talk page and instead adding them to her 38 kb archive page.

I replied to another comment she left on my talk page explaining that the removewarning note on archiving did not mean that she could archive warnings she disagreed with or to hide them and referred her to the Help Desk.

When she didn't unarchive the warning, I did instead, and left a note about the archiving on her talk page. She responded to that by deleting the warnings yet again, and asked me what authority I had to leave a warning on her talk page (she seems to be under the impression that only administrators can warn users).

My warnings on Lucy-Marie's talk page

Lucy-Marie's comments on my talk page

I would appreciate assistance in handling this situation. I got in way over my head. I'd read a few of Lucy-Marie's comments when editing the various person's articles, so I knew that she had a habit of continually reverting people's work and was a POV pusher and it didn't really matter if she was presented with evidence that what she was saying was incorrect, but she'd never been particularly hostile (I thought) and was at least sorta attempting to discuss things with people, even if only to tell them that they were wrong. I thought a gentle warning from an outside party showing her that she'd gone so far in her edits as to tred on quotations and references might pull her back a little.

I didn't expect her to be rude and hostile from the get-go, to ignore all authority and show no respect for anything offical or the person she's currently disagreeing with. I kept trying to get her to take her problems with the warning to the helpdesk, but she seemed to think that it was easier to simply constantly revert warnings, and for the moment at least, it has been. She has no warnings on her talk page, and instead I have comments on mine with her complaining that I'm harrassing her. I haven't had any interaction with her before this, but I've read her comments on the person articles' talk pages and her talk page and I don't think any amount of "fact" I could point her to would help, because it would be coming from me. I've also now seen her get angry (vandalism), and I'd like to avoid escalation. She obviously does good work on Wikipedia when not getting into fights with people, so I'd really appreciate if someone could step in.

I think she needs to be warned--looking back at her edits she not only edited quotes and references (which she may not have noticed), but she changed the intro of the article (to avoid using the word personhood) which is having consequences now as the future role of the article is debated, and put in other POV pushing lines which couldn't be taken care of because of the deadlock. It took three separate people to revert her edits on non-person. She reverted back giving "no reason for revert" as her reason for reverting back, even though a reason was provided and there was an ongoing Rfc about whether persons was a word where even the dictionary definition she gave for people used the word persons 5 times to define people.

Which is why I warned her originally. And her subsequent behavoir, removing multiple warnings multiple times also I feel needs warning. This isn't a case of a newbie not knowing something (for example, if I'm screwing this up completely, or this is the wrong place, let me know), this is someone who's been warned multiple times but doesn't believe that they are valid or that other people are right. This is someone who has NPOV and a million other Wiki policies linked to her in talk pages reglarly and ignores them anyway. Thanks for any help you can provide.TStein 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If I were an admin, I'd probably have asked for a block based on her behavior related to this. JuJube 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
And you'd have been told that blocks aren't punative.--Docg 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is really best to avoid putting warning notices on the pages of users whom you are in dispute with. They seldom help, and mostly tend to inflame the situation. And the user is perfectly entitled to remove them. If civil discussion is failing, I suggest you try one of the approaches at dispute resolution e.g. mediation or an RfC. This is not really a matter for admins.--Docg 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't in a dispute with her at all. I had zero contact with her until I warned her--our only contact and dispute has been about the warnings and her violation of Wikipedia policy in removing them. I wouldn't have had a problem with her going to the help desk or somewhere else, I had a problem with her deleting them--making a uniform decision that she was right, and I was wrong and it didn't matter what wikipedia policy or convention was, she could do what she wanted. This was especially problematic as it was exactly the behavoir I was warning her about.
    • When I came to the persons article and saw the dispute, I originally never intended to warn her or anyone else about what I saw as a content dispute on the person article. I came to the article when it was deadlocked over the "persons" v "people" issue and over the "personhood" v. "being a person" issue--the article was deadlocked because everyone who had commented before was seen to have a bias. I had no prior edits on the article or any associated articles and unlike the Rfc debacle, I didn't know anyone on the article beforehand. I provided sources and fixed the problems. In the following days, I found that what was going on was much bigger than a content dispute, and I saw to what extent Lucy_Marie had knowingly violated Wiki policy to POV push. I looked carefully at edit histories and comments, and saw that there were points where she had blatantly lied to other editors, and when she was told that her edits had changed quotes she still deadlocked the article leaving quotes and references incorrect for a month to push her POV.
    • I saw what I felt was a fairly serious problem, and was probably the only person who saw the extent of it and couldn't be considered biased--I'd had no interaction with her or any of her articles. I left what I thought was a fairly mild warning, which spiralled quickly out of control.
    • There's nothing that we need additional comments for, so an Rfc is entirely inappropriate. I wasn't leaving a comment about a content dispute on her talk page, so we don't need dispute resolution or mediation. There was a dispute on the person article, between herself and everyone else, and she's apparantely no longer interested in editing the article and the dispute doesn't exist anymore. I wasn't involved in the article when the dispute did exist anyway, and the dispute was about the correct pluralization of the word "person" something that can and has been looked up several times. I really can't help someone if they can't understand or don't want to listen to every dictionary, including the one that they cited.
    • Also, if users can simply delete warnings if they don't like or disagree with them, why is there a template warning about removing warnings? Does that only apply to certain warnings? Can only certain users use this template? I'd appreciate some clarification, especially as I thought that user talk pages (and their archives) were supposed to be records. TStein 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. It is clear that users ARE entitled to remove warnings and are not obliged to archive.--Docg 14:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Chris Rix[edit]

There has been a tremendous amount of vandalism going on at the Chris Rix article with several IP's, and one account created under the name Creiree (merely to remove any negative comments about Rix [12]), continually vandalizing the article. Several editors have reverted the edits and left warnings on the user's talk pages to no avail. Attention and a checkuser of the new account name Creiree would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 02:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser should be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. —Mets501 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. The check user is minor though as the user has done 2 edits thus far, the constant vandalism is the issue. Quadzilla99 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The article has been fully protected. This was rather annoying though as he/she created an account to avoid 3RR. Oh well... the problem has been solved for now. MartinDK 13:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Daybreak Community[edit]

There are an IP only accoutn and 4 registered users are hammering in the smae links to Daybreak Community and connected entries (like Daybreak and Utah and property entries) - you can see the talk page for a list of them and the history for the back and forth revisions over the last month. As more accounts have signed up and got involved and this happens a number of times a day now I was wodnering if someone could look into this in more depth (check if they are all sock puppets that kind of thing and it maybe that the link they are trying to add should be blocked). There are a few of us working on reverting the vandalism but it is getting to be a pain. Warnings have been issued but they tend to spread across accounts so it takes longer for them to reach critical levels and the only banning so far has been temporary. (Emperor 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

Looks like a pile of socks to me. Since you appear to have an IP to work on, how about filing a WP:RFCU case "A"? In the meantime if the vandalism is getting too hard to deal with, you might wish to request semiprotection on the articles. Yuser31415 05:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over and the tip. I'll get on that now. (Emperor 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
Cool, I see you've filed a WP:RFCU. I added the code letter for you. Cheers! Yuser31415 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I added another one (Perpetualmachine) -- the one that deleted your comments above and also re-added the spam links. Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and spotting another account. They have also taken to blanking their user page too. (Emperor 05:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC))
I blocked them all except the anon, per the confirmation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser#151.118.128.232 (not that there was really any doubt: they don't get much more obvious than this). Have we blacklisted the spamlinks, or do you think we should? Antandrus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd recommend blacklisting the spamlinks, and at your discretion blocking account creation for the IP. This is the kind of thing we can do without. Yuser31415 07:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree - they are awfully persistent so I suspect a number of measures would be needed to stop them. Thanks again for the help - its the first time I've had to take things this far and your help made things go smoothly. (Emperor 14:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

User:TSLcrazier[edit]

User:TSLcrazier, has been causing a lot of trouble lately with Disney Channel articles. He constantly uploadeds images with no copyright info, or a source. He is also mass producing episode articles with little to no information, having only a sentance saying its an ep from what ever show, and an infobox, occasionally it contains the same summary SENTANCE that is on the list of episodes. He also has a habit of removing deletion tags from any article/image he creates. ([13] & [14] for example) His contributions have been causing a lot of editors much grief trying to fix all of his work. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(originally started as a seperate thread, this was merged when I noticed this thread)This user is being a bit of a problem editor. He's uploading lots and lots of photos without fair use rationales (though they can be used under fair use), and seems to ignore rules as he sees fit, such as removing AfD tags, which he's done before and been warned for, if I remember correctly, and has done it again today. He generally seems to have the attitude "Screw the rules, I'll do what the hell I want", which is a dangerous attitude for someone without knowledge of the rules to have. What can be done, here? I was tempted to block him but that seems way over the top. --Deskana (request backup) 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Nobody going to comment on this? We could use an outside opinion. --Deskana (request backup) 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's blocked now for a week, (thanks CambridgeBayWeather), and there's a couple of new warnings and explanations on his talk page. I really think this is the only thing we can do with a user as uncommunicative as this: he's made no contributions to the talk space, excepting a page move, and here is his solitary contribution to the user talk space [15]. Even if there is a plausible fair-use rationale for these images, he has to begin giving source information. Antandrus (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Move of Homophobia to Misohomo by User:Topses[edit]

I believe this action constitutes WP:POINT. I can't find "misohomo" in any dictionary, only 17 results return on Google. Would someone change it back? Joie de Vivre 17:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone already fixed it. Sorry for the interruption, and thank you! Joie de Vivre 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left a warning at his Talk page not to do that sort of thing. It looks as though Topses (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a bit of a problem editor in general, though, creating unsourced stubs on non-standard notions in linguistics, and on minor notions that are already part of longer articles. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Repeated old vandalism[edit]

I really do not know what to do. User:VinceB repeated his vandalism,[16] for which he was blocked in October.[17] He is persistently trying to Hungarize official geographic and personal names in other languages. Moreover, he moved an article about a region in Slovakia to its Humngarian name,[18], though this kind of moves contradicts WP:NCGN, has been reverted by admins in the past,[19] and was refused by a poll at Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. He also removed a category in a funny way (hiding it into a comment).[20] Can anyone deal with him please? All the previous warnings and blocks of that user can be found at User talk:VinceB/Blabla1. Tankred

In all truth, this looks far more like a content dispute than vandalism. In the block mentioned his "vandalism" was the removal of messages from his talk page, and even then the blocking admin said the block was primarily for edit warring. If you look at his block logs, they are all for edit warring and NPA violations. --Wildnox(talk) 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I am sorry, you are right, that old incident just triggered an edit war , which lead to VinceB's block. But what to do with that recent disruptive edit,[21] which is both against WP:NCGN and the consensus reached in a previous case Talk:Spiš#Requested_move? Why do we have any naming conventions, if they are not protected? Similarly, if you have an article called Petar Zrinski and you delete any mention of this official name from a link to that article, leaving only a Hungarian version of the name ("[[[Petar Zrinski|Péter Zrínyi]]", is it a content dispute or vandalism? Tankred 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If there was no consensus to move, it was a disruptive move, just move it back. As for the other thing, it is a content dispute, POV pushing most likely, but still a content dispute. --Wildnox(talk) 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed at Stephen Colbert[edit]

Stephen Colbert History A revert every three minutes (automated bot?) - Immediate attention needed... wasn't sure where to put it. /Blaxthos 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected. --210physicq (c) 21:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mastcell wikistalking[edit]

Closing pointless and fruitless finger-pointing discussion to save everyone's sanity. --210physicq (c) 22:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


Violation of recently closed ArbCom case[edit]

In the recent changes channel, I found that Evanreyes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was moving several episodes of the series My Name Is Earl to disambiguated titles, which recently is found to violate the arbitration committee ruling on naming conventions. I originally reported to AIV, but this is something that should be posted here.—Ryūlóng () 09:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and there is currently one page that I cannot move back due to the editor editting over the redirect, Stole Beer from a Golfer should be at Stole Beer From A Golfer (it seems that every episode uses capital letters in each title).—Ryūlóng () 09:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Were they a party to the arbitration? If not then there seems to be no reason to believe they would be aware of the situation and may indeed have been acting in good faith so diving in with a block would seem harsh. I've posted a warning to their talk page. I would guess the right place for these would actually be arbitration enforcement --pgk 09:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of the arbitration case when I made the moves, and apologize for what I now see is a blatant disregard for a standing policy. I've fixed all the disambiguation changes I've made. However, the capitalization changes I've made should stand. Regardless of how the producers wish to name the episodes, Wikipedia has a Manual of Style which overrides the show's conventions. Therefore, Stole Beer from a Golfer is correct, as well as all of the other naming changes I made. Evan Reyes 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason you should have been aware of the arbitration case; most editors have probably never been near an arbitration case. That's why the arbitrators cautioned admins not to enforce it in a "mechanical" fashion. Thatcher131 23:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Yarillastremenog[edit]

This user is using personal attacks and is engaged in revert war. I asked him politely several times to provide proof of the salacious pictures he is inserting in the text and as a responce I get insults like stupid and degenerate.[43] I also challenged the validity of the salacious picture he is inserting in multiple topics on Wikipedia and would like a fair use rationale on it reviewed again.[44][45] I would like to ask for administrators to intervene and protect the article until the decision on its deletion is confirmed. I would also ask that the aforementioned user be made aware of the inappropriatness of this behaviour and the language he is using. --Chuprynka 18:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Warned him about the personal attacks. I'll need someone else to look at the images - I can't do it now. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Chuprynka started the personal attacks [here] by claiming I was 'avid viewer of pornography' that is a totally unfounded allegation posted in response to the source of the documentary video which as these links show [[46]] and [[47]] is NOT a pornography movie. I ask you to warn the user to make make personal attacks in this manner. --Yarillastremenog 19:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Yarillastremenog made a legal threat on his talk page, and I have blocked him 24h and pointed him to WP:LEGAL. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think calling someone an "avid viewer of pornography" is a personal attack, even if it is a few points shy of civility, compared to saying someone is "obviously too stupid" to understand something, which is clearly one. JuJube 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would ask administrators again to protect the page I mentioned from edits until the decision on its future has been made. The revert war around it still rages on, it is very disruptive. I also hope that the questions about the picture I raised above will be adressed in due time. Thank you.--Chuprynka 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Improper article for deletion protocol used by [48]SuganthinifromJaffna[edit]

This user, as can be simply seen from his contributions [49] is tagging multiple pages for deletion, without putting a pointer into AfD, aseveral times even puttinjg in his "deletion" vote into an already closed but kept AfD. Maybe someone should talk to him and explain to him the correct process for AfD on an article?

A brand new user who's edits consist of AFDing articles? WP:AGF doesn't mean we stick our heads up our arses right? --Fredrick day 20:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I'M just totally unsure what kind of intervention is needed here. Help from an experienced admin would be appreciated.--Ramdrake 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like it must be some user who knows how articles are deleted, i.e a sock of some existent user. I would keep an eye out for any existing user who consistently votes in favor of his deletions and open a WP:SSP case on him then. Eli Falk 20:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the fact I see none of his Ad listed in WP:AfD. That's a major concern to me?--Ramdrake 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
All AFD's created by the user were deleted by me, Race and intelligence AFD was kept. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the R&I AfD was removed as well by User:Mytwocents--Ramdrake 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Race and intelligence (explanations) looks eminently AfD-worthy, in fact. Is it a PoV fork, or is there some other reason for such a peculiar article? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User: 70.134.225.98[edit]

he/she has vandelised the siamese cat page again after it was reverted last time, i though i should reported here.

You should probably post that on [50]. This is more for long-time troublemakers. HalfShadow 23:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked ip editing from other ips in same domain[edit]

An anonymous ip has been stalking my edits and warring across several articles. His vandalisms earned him a block. [51]. One issue also is that I have been attacked similarly before by another ip from what looks like the same domain system [52].

http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.34.17 http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=87.74.49.93

This attack is similar in tone and content to that old one [53] for which he is blocked. Now, another ip from the same domain is making attacks against me of the exact same nature, evading the block [54]Rumpelstiltskin223 00:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Racial percentages of Sean Paul[edit]

A line continues to be removed from a Sean Paul article relating to his racial percentages. The line in question is "Racially, this means that Sean Paul is 62.5% White, 25% Chinese and 12.5% Black". This is based on testimony which is already shown in the article. However, I calculated the percentages and posted them, because it is in general easier to understand. Since many users will be going to the Sean Paul article specifically to find out about his racial background, this information is important. The user Guettarda has removed it, stating that it is original research. However, in my opinion, this is not original research, but a simple math calculation that anyone could perform in their head. The only difference is, this makes it easier for readers who are less math-saavy than I am. I have once again replaced the line, but I informed Guettarda that I would report the issue to administration to find out what should really be done. Rhythmnation2004 14:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If it's not original research then you will be able to cite a reliable secondary source which says precisely this. Otherwise, it is original research. Quite why anyone would care about these percentages is an exercise left to the reader. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you tried WP:DR? What administrators abilities are you looking for? I find