Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive195

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User Jat78 - Vandalising My Page[edit]

Hi can you help me with this fellow who is threatening to block me, merely because I pointed ourt to him that the Jat page was biased and not a neutral point of view. He also removed my disputed fact tags without a discussion. Please help. --Sikh-history 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Take the warning I gave and do not try to hide it by removing it from your talk page. You deleted a whole section out from the article without consultation or agreement. You cannot and people like have come wikipedia before who try to push their views you will be stopped - you WILL NOT be allowed to delete entire sections from articles without consultation agreement with the rest of us Wikipedians--Jat78 23:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You dileberately removed dispute tags from the Jat page. You are acting beyond your authority as vandal patrol. I will see to it you are reported and removed as you are pushing a biased point of view with non-verifiables sources. Your attempts to add Patiala, Nabha and Jind as Jat Kingdoms, rather than Sikh Kingdoms (as they are in reality will faiil). Also the sources used to back the article Dudhee etc are not scholarly works. Regards --Sikh-history 07:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You need to STOP making PERSONAL ATTACKS on other wikipedian before you make the situation even worse for yourself your're building a very bad reputation for yourself by pushing your POV and deleting sections from articles. You cannot decide whats OK and whats not we wikipedian will decide.-- Jat78 09:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Please can someone neutral have a look at this.Jat78 is clearly biased, and has added a warning to block me for no good reason. He did not even discuss my edits and why I moved the Patiala, Nabha and Jind article. I need mediation on this. The Jat article in itself is a POV, but I am not concerened with that. I am only concerened with Patiala, Nabha and Jind being included as "Jat Kingdoms", when they clearly are Sikh Kingdoms. I have provided verifiable sources to back this up. Thanks --Sikh-history 13:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Can I help? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes you can please. I contend that the Patiala, Nabha and Jind articles, should not be listed under Jat. I can provide verifiable sources. These Kingdoms should be posted under the Sikh stub. Also, the warning added by Jat78 to my page is unfair. He deliberately removed my dispute tags from the Jat page, and when I removed Patiala, Nabha and Jind to the Sikh page he added a warning to my page. Unfair and underhand. We need constructive discussion and not autocratic acts. Ironically I am a Jat too, but I am also Sikh. I therefore tend to have an insight into both worlds.--Sikh-history 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User Sikh-history still pov pushing and vandalising with anon ip[edit]

User Sikh-history uses this IP regularly User:62.25.106.209 he has been targeting the same pages on wikipedia--Sikh 1 10:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is really not the place for this. I note that Sikh-history (talk · contribs) is trying to file a WP:MEDCOM request here, perhaps you could help him with that and join the formal mediation. --Ideogram 10:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The above fellow has deleted verifiable sources 3 times now. Surely that is against wiki rules.--Sikh-history 10:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I suggest you discuss these matters on your MedCom case, not here. Also I note you mention WP:RFC in your request, but I cannot find the relevant case. --Ideogram 10:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, this appears to be it. I think you will find that many Wikipedia editors will see this and help the two of you agree on the relevant policies. --Ideogram 10:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Sikh 1 for campaigning and incivility. Comments like [1] this one are disturbing and unacceptable, and this is the 3rd WP:ANI thread Sikh 1 has started, despite getting clear feedback the first time. Mangojuicetalk 10:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that was necessary. --Ideogram 10:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Mango, please considering undoing your block. Proto:: 11:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Note also that 2 minutes after the comment Mango references and just 5 minutes prior to Mango's block, I left a strongly worded warning on Sikh 1's talk page about the harassment on Sikh-history's talk page. No edits by Sikh 1 occurred between my warning and Mango's block. I would have preferred to wait and see if the warning would suffice. —Doug Bell talk 12:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked. Let's see if Doug's warning will stand. Proto:: 12:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately right after you unblocked spamming started on the article. See the discussion over the Prohibitions in Sikhism article. I think Sikh1 is pushing a POV without verifiable facts.--Sikh-history 09:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
That spamming probably was not done by Sikh 1. Please forget about it. Also content discussions don't belong here, only incidents which require admin attention. --Ideogram 09:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ideogram I've used IPWhois and traced all the IP's. They seems to be all from btopenworld, and seem to be dynamic IP's from the same source. I have taken steps to report those IP's to the relevant wiki section. Lets see what happens. Again, thanks for all your help. --Sikh-history 13:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Kolmscott (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

FYI, I have indefblocked this user. He claims to be a sock of a banned user, Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) and all of his contributions are trolling, including an attack page that I have deleted. To any admin, please feel free to alter this action as you deem appropriate. Thank you. --BigDT 13:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No constructive edits (bar one to AFD Shanel Kalicharan) and many disruptive ones. Agree. Thanks/wangi 13:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed that the creator of that article has been blocked as well ... I didn't recognize the name. Heck, the two users were probably thy same person. By listing the article on AFD, their handiwork gets attention. --BigDT
Yeah, blocked them after reading this. They would have been WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletes even if they weren't hoaxes in the first place!
There's no problem with indef blocking an account which has only been used for vandalism or edits such as the one above. Of course care needs to be taken with anon IP users. Ta/wangi 14:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive talkpage ranting[edit]

I know censuring talk page contributions is not normally done, but can somebody please have a look at the performance of IP 217.24.24x.xx, aka "Dodona", on Talk:Arvanites? He insists on posting long-winded nationalist rants in barely intelligible English, which are off-topic, have no relation to any proposed improvements to the article, often cross the line into personal attacks ("you are racist and fully ignorant") and only foster a degeneration of the whole talkpage discussion into a mere exchange of accusations and unniceties from several sides ([2], [3]). All that on an ideologically sensitive article which has been the object of an insane amount of edit-warring in the past but has been relatively stable for the last half year or so. I can no longer think of good ways of dealing with him, short of blocking, but I consider myself involved. Fut.Perf. 11:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would be sure the appropriate warnings are in place, and if a valid disruption is taking place, consider block. However, if it is a dispute resolution issue, consider dispute resolution. Watch for edit wars, and in the event, consider protection until disputes are resolved. Regards, Navou banter / review me 14:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but... there isn't really a dispute, as currently neither he nor his opponents are actually trying to change the article or bringing forward any tangible thesis or proposal. It all doesn't rise above a constant bickering and nagging about being unhappy at not seeing the terms "Albanian" and "Greek" less often or more often in the text, and accusing everbody else of being prejudiced, nationalists, bigots, etc. But it makes the talkpage an absolute mess for later reference, and it carries a constant risk of having the whole situation explode into a big editwarring shoot-out. Fut.Perf. 15:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks can be brought to the attention of admins here in the future. Barring any admin action per this incident, I would suggest politely removing any off topic conversation directly to the archives. Has the user been talked to about this type of editing before? Navou banter / review me 16:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I ceased being gentle on similar behavior and employed the "archiving by deletion" method. Call it common sense or WP:IAR as you prefer, but if we can delete nonsensical and attack articles, I don't see why should we make an exception (modulo far bigger leeway) for the talk pages. Duja 16:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur with your assessment and action; I would call it in line with the guideline at WP:TALK rather than WP:IAR, either way, I think you are on the money. Navou banter / review me 16:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah, I've never read WP:TALK thoroughly enough:
    Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
    Now that you pointed my attention to it, I feel better :-) Duja 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Trying to sell cannabis seeds via wikipedia[edit]

User:JPatrickBedell has uploaded a picture onto his user page showing cannabis seeds and his personal info with text alluding to being willing to exchange it for money. I may be wrong but this probably doesn't belong--Looper5920 12:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Where does he assert that he intends to sell the seeds? The image might have copyright problems, though. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Finally, spam I could support! El_C 13:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Although, now that I actually look at the thingy, I find it an extremely and unecessarily (and totally bizzare) violent presentation. Which once again goes to prove that cannabis isn't a gateway drug — crack is a gateway drug to pot! I should know. (Know what? Exactly) El_C 13:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If you see his link to [4] it looks like he's trying to draw attention to felony charges brought against him. I don't think Wikipedia should be his platform though. I'm considering putting this up for deletion. Nardman1 13:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd support that. Also, have a look at User:JPatrickBedell/JDSabow evidence 2007 (which I just moved out of mainspace) - looks like some conspiracy-theory stuff that probably violates WP:BLP in its accusations of a coverup of this Sabow fellow's death. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As well as James E. Sabow which is the eventual target for much of this. I closed an earlier AfD speedy because it didn't actually ask for deletion. I think this is a good time for one that does.--Isotope23 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey, chill. Mmmm, are those brownies? Man I'm hungry... Guy (Help!) 15:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL! My stoner friends never have trouble finding seeds. They just ask another stoner who usually has a who bag full of them that they don't know what to do with. Now, were they subversive like we were back in the bad old 70s, they would just sew them everywhere; Ditches, planters (extra credit for the planters in front of the police station), forest preserves, golf course rough, etc. Those were the days. My asthma prevents me from indulging any more and has for 25 years now... --BenBurch 15:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Geez, you don't see me advertising what I sell here, some potheads give the others a bad name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha ha... your name says it all BC...--Isotope23 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Manchester United FC page[edit]

The page has been subject to some inappropriate editing, however, it appears there is no way to access the page to amend it217.204.68.210 15:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you create an account? The article is blocked to anonymous editors such as yourself. Nardman1 15:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, 217.204.68.210. Thanks for letting us know. The article is currently semi-protected due to excessive vandalism, but I will go and fix the problems now. There are very few articles protected at any one time, and only logged in editors are able to edit these. Most articles, however, are free for everyone to edit. Proto:: 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN3[edit]

There appears to be a dispute between an editor User:Wiki-newbie and an ip that reported this editor to WP:AN3 for violation of the WP:3RR. Wiki-newbie has been removing the report from the notive board. I tried to revert it but due to the massive size (421k) and the crappy computer i currently have no control over, i do not know if i did it or not. I try to stay away from that page because it causes my computer to lock up. Could another administrator look into this for me? Thanks. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I warned the user and it appears they have stopped. As far as I can assertain, the proper version of WP:AN3 is out there. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it had to be reverted twice though. Nardman1 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Help need. New user uploading images missing source, ignoring messages[edit]

The (new) user User:Gre_paty has been uploading images with no source of licensing info and adding them to articles. He seem to have not noticed the "You have new messages" box yet. --Abu badali (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He'd notice a temporary block message, most likely. ;-) EVula // talk // // 17:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I've placed a 15 minute block on the account along with another request to correspond. - CHAIRBOY () 17:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics[edit]

An AfD on Real Social Dynamics was recently held, the closing admin (Royalguard11 (talk · contribs)) closing it as delete. He then apparently received a message from someone offering a new citation, and he decided that this meant that he should change his decision, go back and edit the closed AfD, and undelete the article (presumably he thought that, if those participating in the AfD had seen the new evidence, they'd have changed their minds).

Sorry, but I believe your analyse to be wrong. What secondsight did was point out parts of the discussion that Royalguard11 had overlooked. So realising this he changed his mind. Nothing wrong there. And if you disagree the correct way to deal with it would be to bring up another AfD. Mathmo Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that that was not only out of process, but also not excusable on grounds of avoiding unnecessary bureacracy, etc. I therefore deleted the article (as illicitly recreated after an AfD), and prevailed upon Royalguard11 to go to WP:DRV. He did, but within twenty-four hours, and before there had been a chance for real discussion, Coredesat (talk · contribs) closed the discussion and undeleted the article again. No explanation was offered.

I've left a message at his Talk page asking what's going on, but what do other admins think? Is this acceptable, and if so, what's the justification for it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You have been a bad boy Mel. Edit-warring again. :(. Royalguard closed the discussion and upon other user providing reliable sources and evidence to establish the notability of the subject, he undid his prior closure and kept the article. If it should have been kept even on DRV, why did you bring it here? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
True. But every single article on the so-called "seduction community" is, without question, vanispamcruftisement :o) Guy (Help!) 13:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have taken some stabs at solving this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Then we should do what Newyorkbrad does. Take the article to AfD again, after a considerable time-period. :)Nearly Headless Nick 13:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington didn't understand my point or question, and slightly saddened that he thinks that one revert of an edit to a closed AfD makes an edit war. Still, perhaps someone else might read what I wrote, and help me on this? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just meant that you should wait for some more time and then try to go for an AfD again. Best, — Nearly Headless Nick 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly that I believe is your best move, drop this and give it few months rest before trying to delete again. Mathmo Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be great advice if I'd asked what I should do next — but I didn't. I asked whether it was acceptable for an admin to go against what he'd said was consensus at an AfD because he had personally changed his mind in the light of new evidence, and whether it was OK for another admin to close a DRV request early when this had happened. If the answers to these questions are yes, I'd like to know the reasoning (though whatever the reasoning, it seems to me to tarnish the process). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the admin was completely right to close the DRV early for reason they have already stated. Mathmo Talk 14:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
AFD is not a vote. As a general comment, circumstances sometimes change, and AfD consensus should never override common sense. In this specific case, the correct thing to have done in the would have been to reopen the AFD, which is what I will do now. (The current page looks like a delete to me. I've defluffed and despammed it and I still don't think it's a keep.) I'm not sure DRV is appropriate, given that we aren't trying to overturn an AFD, but to get it enforced. In either case, why isn't there a note on the RSD talk page mentioning the AFD and the DRV? Regards, Ben Aveling 00:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. The DRV page was an issue, because I'd redeleted the page (as recreated after AfD) and persuaded User:Royalguard11 to request undeletion. I don't know why he didn't explain at the Talk page what he'd done; I didn't notice that, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wish we could always back up and have another chance at things! Yet another reason that wikipedia is better than real life... Regards, Ben Aveling 00:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
If I make a mistake, I generally go back and fix it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New shenanigans[edit]

I've just discovered that Royalguard11 (talk · contribs) has cut the new part of the re-opened AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination). Fair enough, but that removed a number of contributors' comments, and he didn't bother to tell anyone he'd done it. Many editors involved were obviously watching the page, so went back to add themselves again, but two apart from me seem not to have seen what happened. I've now informed them, but this is becoming a farce. If I thought that Royalguard11 was actually trying to skew the result, I'd be furious, and taking this elsewhere — but so far as I can see, it's just carelessness and poor judgement (and discourtesy). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the cut-paster of the new stuff to the new AFD, not Royalguard, and if I missed any comments it was my fault. When I came across it, it was blank. I was notified by Royalguard. I agree that this excess procedural nonsense is baggage at this point. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have got the detail wrong — I checked the history, but must have misread it. My concern wasn't so much the cut and pasting, though, but the opening of a new AfD without notifying participants. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Royalguard11 did a good job of informing past voters, he didn't absolutely have to go around informing everybody but he did anyway. The fact he only missed out on a couple of people, by accident I'm sure, should not be misused as a reason for deletion. Mathmo Talk 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, opening a new AfD was unnecessary. Secondly, not telling at least three people who had contributed to the discussion (one of whom, me, was hardly low profile in the whole affair — and in fact I don't know that it was only three; I only know that three people hadn't noticed what was going on by the time I found out) was at best careless. Thirdly, he didn't change the notice at the article to point to the new AfD, and has never explained at the article's Talk page what's happened (either his original AfD close as delete, nor his unilateral change of mind in defiance of the consensus at AfD, nor his switching to a new AfD in the middle of the discussion. Someone else has done these things for him (in the case of the Talk page with the misleading claim that the original AfD closed as "keep", which I'll change). It's been a shambles, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Very strange behavior by Monkey C Monkey P (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of this person. He doesn't seem to be making any constructive edits... instead he goes along, reverting people's edits, and then immediately reverting his own edit. Virtually ALL of his contributions have been reverting of one kind or another [5]. Furthermore, I'm not sure what this is all about [6]. What is this and why is it protected?

I asked him about his strange double-revert edits to a page I watch and he responded by blanking his talk [7]. What is going on? TheQuandry 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the odd editing, I have blocked the user for Wikipedia:Username violation. Clever name, but not appropriate. Teke (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't find that offensive in the slightest, that should have been take to WP:RFC/U. Comments? ViridaeTalk 05:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Names that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body." -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 05:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Once again, RFCU - I personally think that blocking this one is OTT. ViridaeTalk 06:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
If I had run across this username in the creation log or any other editing, I would have blocked on sight for username violation, something we actively enforce every day (See User:I P Freely). I didn't give it much comment other than here because the account was, ironically, monkeying around. No over the top here, just tidying up. Teke (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I am quite aware of what we do an do not enforce, and in my honest opinion this is is taking the policy too far. If the username had been "Defecate on my face" (ie another excretory function but more explicit and incidentally a TISM song) I would have gladly supported a block, but taking issue with something so harmless as that is over the top. ViridaeTalk 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jim, that was exactly it. Sorry for not being more explicit. Teke (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
When we're talking about excretory functions, sometimes it's better not to be too explicit. :P -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Lou Sander[edit]

User:Lou Sander has consistently skirted WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by anonymously sniping at editors on Talk:Ann Coulter. I've been here for two years and never reported someone on AN/I, but my repeated attempts for Mr. Sander to curb his behavior are being ignored. Just because he's using "some editors here" and "some people" rather than calling out specific names doesn't mean he's exempting himself from WP:NPA. Examples below:

  • "The guy WAS wrong, though some people have trouble acknowledging it" [8]
  • After I proposed a passage, Mr. Sander characterized my attempt as a "malicious agenda"
  • "Your point of view is showing. Let's hope you keep it out of your edits. Many people do, many don't." [9]
  • "IMHO, you're not getting the big picture here. Sorry." [10]
  • "For whatever reason, editors of this article want to, or don't have the skills to, (or whatever else) to fairly and neutrally choose and summarize material about Ann Coulter" [11]
  • After a user says "Kizzle poses an interesting question" Lou replies: "Give us a break. This incident is non-notable, and is only mentioned by those who want to show that Coulter is "stupid," or "didn't know what she was talking about," etc... It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. It doesn't matter to malicious editors that Coulter attempted to clarify her remarks by asking "Indochina?" ... It doesn't matter to malicious editors that their work is misleading to readers. Nor does it matter to malicious editors that WP:BLP says "Wikipedia articles about living people can affect the subject's life. They must therefore be written with the greatest of care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly regarding any controversial material." Instead of trying to comply with that policy, they try to find ways around it. Some of them can be excused because they just aren't very bright ("Fools' names and fools' faces are often seen in public places") and have a hard time making cogent arguments. But their maliciousness cannot be tolerated." [12]
  • Lou is "amazed" that I can't "comprehend" something, then compares me to a "funny/pathetic/laughter-provoking shopkeeper in the Parrot Sketch" [13]
  • My personal favorite anonymous personal attack, in a "reply" to me: "Some people just don't get it. Or won't. Maybe they spend too much time with fantasy roleplaying games."[14]

I'm sick and tired of this anonymous sniping by Mr. Sander. --kizzle 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sniping <> personal attacks. He's obnoxious, at least based on the sample you provided us with, but I don't see anything that requires admin intervention. | Mr. Darcy talk 13:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You don't see a problem with replacing "[You] are a [personal attack]" with "[Some people] are a [personal attack]?" and getting away with not following WP:NPA? --kizzle 19:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's the kind of thing that makes editing difficult. I think a civility warning is in order.--MONGO 22:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tommypowell[edit]

User appears to be here only to insert poorly or unsourced irrelevent personal information about crime victims/perpitrators, and to engage in guilt-by-association smears on biographies of others. Examples: [15] [16] [17]. Unsure how to proceed forward, but in just glancing over his contributions, I kind of wish there was a "rollback every edit ever made" button... Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Block per continued violation of WP:BLP? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd wait and see what happens here. If he goes right back to it after being warned multiple times then yes. Right now he has stopped though, so a block would be more punative than preventative.--Isotope23 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
User has also lied about sources - I purchased his so-called source for the birtdate. No such information was in the source. I would A, like my $2.95 back and B, like this user dismissed. There is no reason to accept users who lie about sources to get around WP:BLP. None.Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Jkelly 20:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
So am I. You know, these bookstore salesmen will learn to recognize a Wikipedian on sight - anyone who walks into the shop, purchases a book, walks out for ten minutes, and then comes in again demanding a refund because "I was just Ving a statement with this RS". Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait... he has sourced these dates to sources that don't actually contain them? Diffs? IMO, that is much worse than what was originally reported here.--Isotope23 21:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The user also is editing on dangerously borderline ground of WP:BLP by insisting on the inclusion of birthdays for victims of rape whose notabilities are questioned, (and finds sources that do not meet WP:RS) and does not listen to reason that we should best tread carefully for these issues. This is certainly a complicated issue to look at. Cowman109Talk 21:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • All my sources have been accurate, in many cases multiple sources. No specifics to rebut! Tommypowell 21:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite[edit]

User has falsely accused me of posting inoperable links on Kara Borden article when in fact I posted 2 clickable links to information which has been on article since 2005. User merged Shasta Groene article after a vote to merge failed. User merged Dylan Groene article without discussion.Tommypowell 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his fake sources -> [18]. I purchased the article for $2.95 from the website. It does not contain any birthdate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please explain your merger of the Shasta Groene article after a merger was voted down and your Dylan Groene merger without any discussion. Any instructions on how I can reverse these steps would be welcome. Tommypowell 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It appears that the source may not be fake as much as misunderstood. See the Google cache. If you plug in the birthdate, it's listed in the comments. Thus, it's not reliable and shouldn't be sourced to that place, BUT very well could have been a good faith error. I looked at a couple of the other birthdate additions he did and they checked out, so I think this is a massive misunderstanding, IMO. More to the point, I'd hate to see us block a guy on a mistake any of us could realistically make. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd be inclined to agree with you, though I have told Tommypowell numerous times not to post the birthday everywhere, in edit summaries, user talk pages, and article talk pages, when that is what they are fighting about (violating the WP:BLP). He did this for Shawn Hornbeck, Ben Ownby, and now Kara Borden. Cbrown1023 talk 21:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • My question is, why is this person so interested in making sure that Wikipedia contains the exact birthdates of juvenile rape victims? What on Earth does it encyclopedically add? FCYTravis 21:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • This is off the wall. I'm tempted to almost ask for deletion of all difs that mention them if not outright oversigt. This is unacceptable. At this point we often make a point of not adding birthdates of people in general to prevent assistance with identity theft and/or harassement of the more borderline notable people. To do so with juvenile rape victims is disgusting. JoshuaZ 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • (editconflict - answer to above - nothing - ban user) So basically, what you're saying is that his sole goal appears to be inserting personally identifiable information about rape victims into their articles on Wikipedia, that he frequently uses poor sourcing and is intransient when confronted. This is a reason NOT to block him why, exactly? I consider his edits that reveal poorly sourced birthdates of rape victims a clear violation of WP:BLP, and intend to revert them on sight. Also, jeff - stop stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I would give the user a final warning- if he adds any more birthdays in he will be banned. JoshuaZ 21:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Oh, stop already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • He's got a point - why did you chip in to this particular debate? Looks like you didn't bring much to the party; Hipocrite at least went and got the source. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Because I saw it pop up on the watchlist, and noticed that the link that this guy gave pointed to a cache that had the birthdate listed in it. Given that we seemed ready to block an editor with a long history over what may have been a misunderstanding, why not? He accuses me of stalking any time I pipe up somewhere near him anyway, so I may as well just ignore it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Tommypowell blocked[edit]

I have blocked the user for violating the WP:BLP again after he was warned numerous times (and after a final warning). Not only did he edit war to include birthdays in more than one article, he also posted them on user talk pages, article talk pages, and edit summaries. Cbrown1023 talk 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Per FCYTravis, JoshuaZ, and Cbrown1023 there is no encyclopedic or other legitimate purpose to including the disputed information. Edit-warring to support its inclusion and including the birth dates in edit summaries to ensure that they are widely disseminated and more difficult to eradicate is totally unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 21:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree with the three of them, to keep doing it anyway is just stupid. I know I defended him before, but I can't argue the eventual result, and won't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, you shouldn't be able to see the summaries anymore because I have deleted the revisions. Cbrown1023 talk 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Content[edit]

I have twice undone entries by 70.19.112.252 today, and I don't want to get slammed for a 3-revert violation. However, the material is questionable, at best:

UPS Store locations are supplied with materials and goods at dimunitive prices. Thus the
expense is minimal and the potential for high retail markup is limitless. Studies show that 9
out of every 10 UPS Store owners belong to high profile Asian families. The ability of these
owners to generate a constant flow of revenue is due to the consistent supply of cheap
products and even cheaper labor. UPS Store employees are often High School Dropouts with
little or no social or cognitive ability. Management positions are occupied by younger
relatives, usually nephews of the owner, who perform minimally in their job requirements and
possess a less than adequate command of the english language. 

I moved it to the Talk page, but I suspect this user is not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia to see the edit summary and know that. I've posted a comment on the user's Talk page, but see no response. Accordingly, I'm wondering if an Administrator could look at this and suggest a course of action. Please respond on my or the article's Talk page. If that's inappropriate, please notify me on my Talk page and I'll Watch this one. Thanks.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if this was intended as an attempt to improve the article, we really don't want it. I've semiprotected the page, which may prompt the anon contributor to enter into a discussion, but you shouldn't be shy about just removing unsourced rants about businesses from articles. Jkelly 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I believe Jimbo commented on the matter at some point - [19], [20]. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe I am being harassed[edit]

I have been threatened with a ban by User:Will Beback over these two edits: [21][22]. He said that these edits reflect "LaRouche-derived theories." After WB deleted my edit to Free Trade ([23],) it was restored the next day by User:Petri Krohn ([24].) I looked on Petri Krohn's talk page for a similar threat from WB, but found none. I don't know why WB is after me, but I am asking someone to step in and say something to him. I attempted to start mediation, but he refused. --HonourableSchoolboy 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And immediately deleted by someone else, so no point in leaving a message, is there? Is your complaint that Will Beback didn't have Free trade staked out 24/7, ready to pounce on every edit there? Because that's the only message I'm taking away from your complaint. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? My complaint is that these were perfectly good edits, and WB threatened to ban me. This is outrageous. --HonourableSchoolboy 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
HonourableSchoolboy, please learn to read what others are saying. Will Beback, did not threaten to ban you. He warned you that an edit war at Free Trade could lead to a banning. Which is true but it's not a threat. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
But there was no edit war. Why did he find it necessary to post this notice on my page? Also, and more to the point, why did he call my edit a "LaRouche-derived theory"? It is not so. --HonourableSchoolboy 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
these were perfectly good edits A paragraph sourced to a Tripod website is pretty much the furthest from being a "perfectly good edit" as you can get, especially on an academic subject. The word "outrageous" does come to mind, but not in the way that you seem to think. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to completely come to his aid, because I dont know the user and there could be some LaRouche history im unaware of, but opposition to free trade is a mainstream, although not majority, ideal. There was nothing in those 2 edits that appeared remotely linked to Larouche in paticular. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 06:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Free trade may be an issue that generates varied opinions, but LaRouche is just about the only person who traces his opposition to free trade to Carey, List, and the American System. As a test try Googling [Friedrich List Henry Carey "American System" -wikipedia] and see whose websites pop up most frequently. When I try at least half of them are LaRouche sites, or posting elsewhere by movment writes (for example, [25]). The 19th century American System is a major tenet of the LaRouche movement, rarely mentioned by anyone else. In our own experience on Wikipedia, LaRouche-related editors have sought to promote its importance, and the importance of specific people, in countless articles in ways which further their worldview. It's important to remember that we don't ban LaRouche concepts from Wikipedia outright, but they should stay in one of the numerous articles we have about him, his viewpoints, his associates, his political parties, etc. His views could easily fill a wiki of their own, but Wikipedia is not that wiki. -Will Beback · · 06:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Well now, I stand corrected. Should have read those arbcom decisions, methinks. Thanks Will. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 07:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I linked my edits to the Wikipedia articles on Henry Carey and Friedrich List, as well as George Schultz and Milton Friedman. Everything that I said in my edits (except for the quote from William McKinley) is in those articles. None of it was sourced to Lyndon LaRouche. Those individuals I cited held those views long before Lyndon LaRouche ever existed. It seems that you are being very selective here, because there are many other views held by LaRouche, such as the view that the Bush administration misrepresented or invented intelligence to get the US to go to war against Iraq. Does WB intend to go around threatening editors who make reference to this POV, accusing them of promoting "LaRouche-derived theories"? Ah, you might ask, but LaRouche is not the only one who has that POV. Well, surprise! That is also true of historical opposition to free trade in the U.S. If WB wants to be consistent, he should argue for the deletion of the articles Henry Carey and Friedrich List, instead of bullying me for trying to cite them. --HonourableSchoolboy 07:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate does not belong here. Try moving it to the article's talk page. --Ideogram 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. This is a harassment complaint. WB should not threaten to ban me, because I have violated no policy. --HonourableSchoolboy 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Other than an ArbCom ruling specifically and reliable sources requirements generally, no. Or that he that he didn't threaten to ban you. Other than that, spot on. --- Calton (talkcontribs) 00:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Your snide tone is not helpful. I've read the ArbCom ruling. It applies to OR from LaRouche. My edits had nothing to do with LaRouche. That's the whole point. And as far as the sourcing, the sourcing was primarily from other Wikipedia articles that were linked. Clearly, you don't like the quote from William McKinley, but there is only one on-line source. I have offered to get a different cite for it from a book, which I will do shortly. WB's bullying is uncalled for. --HonourableSchoolboy 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Salmonish[edit]

User has some recent apparently good-faith edits, but also blatant vandalism ([26] [27]). Recently moved his/her talk page, which included several warnings, to a nonsensical mainspace article (Krzyphone) after blanking the content. --Fru1tbat 19:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is "huh" -- perhaps the account's been compromised? If that's the case, I'm leaning towards blocking until we hear from the legitimate owner. Luna Santin 20:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for now. I must have taken a look at an odd slice of contribs -- the vandalism is spread out over time, so it may not be compromised at all. Either way, blocked pending further review. Luna Santin 20:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Talk page protected per nonsense unblock requests, I see. Not much hope in getting this account back; if it was compromised, commandeering an account is about as easy as slicing bread. Another reason why everyone should use strong passwords. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
My experience has been that this kind of situation is a browser with cookies enabled, and someone else getting on the computer. Password knowledge isn't needed. Teke (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Racist comments present in Barack Obama entry[edit]

see second heading; inappropriate, and should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.138.121 (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The comments in question have been removed. In the future, you can simply revert the changes. Sean 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity articles being repeatedly vandalised by Digital Spy forum members[edit]

I have been reading up on an thread on the Digital Spy forums (Wilkipedidia Zeleb death watch - thread now deleted) where a number of articles regarding British celebrities, notably at least one anomyonous editor, maybe more, have stated that the celebrities have wrongly died (diff) or have been vandalised in one or more ways (see post #36 of the above thread), with forum members supporting or even admitting they carried out the vandalism on Wikipedia, all explained in the thread, the address I have posted above. Incidents from the last 24 hours are covered from post #37 onwards.

Vandalism is occuring to the following articles:

The vandalism is carrying on even as I write this. If an administrator could semi-protect the above articles to prevent further mass vandalism and contact the Digital Spy administrators to alert them as to what is going on. Thanks. --tgheretford (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think several admins are on the job. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please block 71.207.221.175 for 24-72 hours[edit]

Repeated deliberate vandalism from that IP today. See User_talk:71.207.221.175 ManVhv 01:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If the vandalism continues, then take him to WP:AIV. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

IP editor got through page protection[edit]

The page Culture of Italy was protected by Bishonen after a little vandalism spree. So how did User:218.40.190.129 manage to do this (blanking the page)? -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He set it to expire the minute he protected it. -Amark moo! 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it was set to expire in 48 hours. The semi-protection template remained after the page got unprotected. Template removed now.--Húsönd 03:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Crispin Glover vandalism[edit]

Was he mentioned on Colbert Report? Some Colberterrorism is starting up there—if it continues someone may want to semiprotect it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP would be the more appropriate place to request this. However, two instances of vandalism to the page don't seem that excessive, so semi-protection is not needed. PeaceNT 05:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User following me around, reverting my legitimate edits[edit]

User:Heyhey Hey has been following me around for a couple days now, reverting my legitimate edits, showing bad faith, using original research to justify his actions and pushing his pov. A prime example would be on the Jermaine O'Neal page where he is using his own research (not allowed on wikipedia) to try to push his agenda. User also has several sock puppet accounts User:chicodemexico being the most notable. A quick look at both of their pages and edits will affirm that. User:Heyhey Hey seems to be a vandalism only account with MINIMAL legitimate edits. Mostly they are edits inserting non-notable information into the Carmel High School (Carmel, Indiana) page or blindly reverting legitimate edits of others whom he disagrees with. 74.132.172.179 04:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ali doostzadeh[edit]

Ali doostzadeh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has an obnoxious reverting behaviour, directed against any contextual information that contradicts his POV about Aryens: look especially at his persistent deletions at Scythians and Saka. There is no way to appeal to reason and usually he flouts arguments in the discussion page, or he singles out one detail as a pretext to revert a whole section. His attitude is utterly noncooperative.

BTW, I wonder if Marmoulak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is one of his sockpuppets since this user has an equally bad or worse reverting reputation on basically same subjects, discuss deletions even less and flouts arguments even more.

Rokus01 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this could serve as background information about this reverting incidents: a group of Iranian-nationalist users help each other and give each other advises about how to work together in deleting information that would be against their political goals. Read this welcome-message on the Talk page of Pejman47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log):

"Heja has a long history of de-Persianizing WP. Dont be surprised. When you have clear reputable sources that dont mention any controversy, dont hesitate to engage in reverting these editors. Just be careful of the 3R rule, and keep your cool, and end your talk edits with a cheers:) just like they do. Good luck".--Zereshk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Now this Pejman47 engaged as well in reverting the Scythians-article, appearing out of the blue and again without giving any reverting reasons. I think this behaviour will compromise the quality of Wikipedia seriously. To me this is a kind of large-scale sockpuppetry. Rokus01 17:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from making baseless accusations and personal attacks. You have a bad history of throwing around personal attacks and accusations([28][29][30]) you should try having civil discussions with other editors instead to avoid edit wars - Marmoulak 23:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The above is baseless accusation. The author of the above was asked to quote Mallory on Scythians and he did not. He glossed over the important parts of Mallory about Scythians and he did not know I had the book in my personal library. Instead he is extrapolating some ideas which are not related to Scythians from pages not relavent to Scythians. The discussion is perfectly scientific and there is no personal attack. I am just quoting many sources including Britannica 2007 and Encarta and etc. The above author does not like the sources, so he deletes them, or weakens them and brings his own theories (some from 1911 whereas if I am correct, it is year 2007 now). The above user even thought that Hermatta madeup the term Khotanese Saka..The above user is not a scholar of Scythians and yet he insits on pushing his viewpoints from extrapolating materials from authors who have not claimed what he is claiming. --alidoostzadeh 00:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Above I supplied userlinks to facilitate independent investigation. The disruptive reverts are systematic and organized over a long period of time and directed against the contributions of many people. Conflicts are staged and arguments, whenever used, cliché (f.i. "removal of sourced information"). Truth is presented by begging the question, without the required reference to current discussion or supplying required information. Hypercritical disposal of arguments is mounting to an inacceptable degree of non-scientific negationism, as can be demonstrated by the above accusation where A.D. calls my extensive supply of quotes and contextual information (Talk:Scythians#Origins (Third party review)) "glossing", or by insinuations on details not even mine (like the above reference to Harmatta). All of this compromise the veracity of Wikipedia articles. Rokus01 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia is not a place for independent investigation. It quotes scholarly sources. The source you quoted also says Scythians were clearly Indo-Iranian speaking and it is under that section. That is why on purpose you did not quote the relavent section. That is considered hiding information. --alidoostzadeh 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote independent investigation refers to your reverting behaviour and warmongering and not about why you can't agree with WP:OR definitions concerning relevant sources. Rokus01 07:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Fensteren[edit]

Chris Griswold unblocked Fensteren (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I am not happy about that. Fensteren arrived, made a couple of token edits to get article creation enabled, then set about pursuing User:BryanFromPalatine's vendetta against BenBurch and FAAFA, ably assistaed by Bryan's "brother", User:DeanHinnen. Since Bryan is a known sockpuppeteer and this is absolutely classic sockpuppet behaviour I really do not think we should be unblocking this account. Nothing against Chris, but he seems to be the only one looking to unblock what looks to several others to be a classic sockpuppet. I have reblocked pending further discussion. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No doubt...sixth edit here is simply the kind one would expect from only an experienced editor. Mysterious out of the blue appearance on a sockpuppet investigation is not indicative of a newbie. Meaty account at the very least.--MONGO 08:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, Any editor or admin who genuinely believes that the following post (the user's sixth post) is from anyone other than a sock or meatpuppet should strongly consider voluntarily relinquishing their editing privileges for the good of Wikipedia and all mankind. (joke) ;-)

"See how BenBurch responds to claims that he has threatened someone. He responds with more bullying. Since joining Wikipedia I've tried to learn how the website works: the interpersonal dynamics and hierarchies. I haven't done much editing, just reading and learning about the sociology of the site. I looked at the Protest Warrior, Free Republic, and Democratic Underground articles since I suspected that they would be flashpoints for conflict and this was immediately confirmed. I quickly learned about diffs, talk pages, archives and about contribution histories. What they're doing is not right. I looked at the Free Republic talk page and the Democratic Underground talk page, and archives of both. They are like dogfights. But every fight has a history. I looked for the cause of this fight in the archives of the fighters. I found this edit war (9-10 January) and this edit war (31 December - 1 January) (both on BryanFromPalatine's talk page while he was blocked) and this foul remark (5 December). I've learned that a user has the unlimited right to edit his own Talk page. Any edit war there is the fault of the visitor. Many, many other edit wars and foul remarks in the archives. They're still harassing Bryan here and here and here. There's also this, where BenBurch is using IP address 69.81.140.136 as a sock puppet. The presence of such people is the reason why I have not continued to participate on Wikipedia to a greater degree. Careful review of the diffs and contrib histories confirms that BenBurch and FAAFA have formed a street gang. Whenever one of them gets into a disagreement, the other one shows up, probably in response to a phone call or e-mail. BenBurch and FAAFA always baited BryanFromPalatine. Administrators blamed the victim, because he always took the bait and reacted in the wrong way. BenBurch and FAAFA should share his fate. Fensteren 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)"

- Fairness & Accuracy For All (except for meat & sockpuppets & trolls) 08:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about whether Chris Griswold has done anything wrong...he just has assumed good faith...his unblocking may not be something a few of us agree with, but that doesn't mean that he should be "voluntarily relinquishing their (his) editing privileges for the good of Wikipedia and all mankind", or anything like that.--MONGO 08:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Good God no, Chris' only error is to unblock withotu waiting for feedback, and that's hardly a big deal since no damage was done. Sorry if I implied anything else. No, this thread is a block review. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I know - I was just being a smart-ass cause I can't help it - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Note : This post from Dino, (the brother of checkuser-confirmed multiple puppeteer BryanFromPalatine) to Fensteren:
Fensteren, please help us out - "You sound like a very level-headed voice with regard to BenBurch and FAAFA on the Free Republic article. As you can see, they make "sockpuppet" accusations against anyone who disagrees with them. Please participate to a greater extent. The people who "own" the article now are putting Wikipedia at serious risk of a libel lawsuit from Jim Robinson, who has already been proven to enjoy suing people and organizations that say bad things about Free Republic. Dino 15:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)" Troubling. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 10:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Reblock, methinks. This editor has done very little here bar disrupt and the edit pattern shows that it is blatantly apparent that we've seen this editor before in a previous life. Obvious sock/meatpuppet. I mean, even Jacob Peters isn't that obvious. Moreschi Deletion! 09:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • sigh - This never ends, does it? I'm *still* convinced that DeanHinnen and BryanFromPalatine are the same disruptive person. He keeps "representing" Bryan here on Wikipedia - at least twice that I know of he has posted the permablocked Bryan's words as a proxy. And even if he weren't, he should be blocked for being so disruptive and baiting everybody he encounters. But even if we do that I think we will have socks of his here for ever. --BenBurch 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ben and FAAFA, with respect, butt out. We know the history, please leave it to us to sort this out. Guy (Help!) 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Okey-Dokey! - Fairness & Accuracy For All
Sorry. I am too tangled because I am certain that I see what's going down here. I'll leave it to you. --BenBurch 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Seconded. Ben and FAAFA, while I have no objection to your other activities, the two of you are way too tangled up in this to have any sort of an unbiased opinion.
Regarding the specifics, as I said in email, I would neither be suprised if it turned out that this was a sock, nor if it turned out that an uninvolved person had reacted that badly on initially seeing the earlier Free Republic fracas. The edits are suspiciously mature for such a new, uninvolved user - I remain very suspicious - but I would personally be willing to assume good faith and watch them. If they voluntarily agreed not to edit the Free Republic article directly, working through the talk page as Dean is, and to avoid engaging FAAFA and Ben, it might work out ok. That said, I wouldn't unilaterally unblock on good faith myself if I could (and I can't, not being an admin yadda yadda). Consensus sought... Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Me, I am an evil suspicious bastard. A couple of token edits, then posting to an RfC using a term which only this account and Hinnen have ever used ("street gang", rather than the more WP-usual "cabal"), registering a "meatpuppet" RFCU with the 8th edit at BenBurch, displaying knowledge of policy and claiming this is because he's learned about diffs, histories, talk pages and archives before pitching in? How many new users manage to learnt eh Byzantine complexities of Wikipolitics before hitting a dozen edits? Just how likely is that? Plus, the tone looks far too much like DeanHinnen. Clinching factor: do we need yet another partisan combatant bringing the Free Republic battle to Wikipedia, even in the unlikely event that this was not yet another sock of a known sockpuppeteer? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive edits and minor but constant mischief edits[edit]

I have noticed a similarity in style between the edits of User:Wbrz and numerous anons in the editing of Claudette Colbert (now semi-protected) and Talk:Claudette Colbert (unfortunately not semi-protected). All are pushing a very similar POV, and they all use a similar indiosyncratic grammar (English seems not to be the first language of either the registered user or of the anons). Some vandalism has been appearing from the same various anons on my talk page (now semi-protected), and since semi-protection, on my user page. All harmless but annoying. My name is also appearing in senseless comments being left on the talk pages of other editors. For example, another editor has left 3 vandalism warnings at User talk:218.217.208.119. One of them is for an edit to my user page, but the other edits are both directed at me. It's so stupid, the edits basically say "User Rossrs, an admirer of Vivien Leigh" which makes no sense whatsoever, and is harmless but I'm getting tired of seeing my name in these bizarre edits. Similarly, a string of reversions to Claudette Colbert on Feb 3 are directed at me personally, with my user name in each edit summary. (although the summaries make no sense at all). Actually this started about a week ago when I reverted some edits by User:Wbrz on the Vivien Leigh article - I left a message at User talk:Wbrz which received no acknowledgement, however the anons have had quite a lot to say about me ever since.

I think it's likely User:Wbrz and the anons are the same person, and I've noticed a couple of edits that duplicate language used elsewhere. this edit to User talk:Rossrs is identical to edits made here, and both were made by User:218.217.208.119. The same idiosyncratic phrase "delusion maniac" is also used in this edit by User:Wbrz.

User:Plek reverted some vandalism by one of the anons from my user page in this edit, and used the edit summary "rv daily nonsense". The same edit summary appears in this edit by User:Wbrz. The same edit summary was also used by User:218.217.207.123 here.

I was considering reporting this as sock puppetry, but wasn't really sure what to do. I've never seen this kind of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I would really just like it to stop. I'd appreciate it if someone could look this over. thanks Rossrs 14:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what Wikipedia policies this violates, and how admins should respond to it. --Ideogram 22:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's really weird behaviour and hard to summarise, but if a registered user made all of the combined edits, it would be considered vandalism and harrassment. It's ok. Another user addressed the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents #Claudette Colbert and User:Wbrz. Rossrs 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalking by a group of editors[edit]

A group of editors has been indiscriminately vandalising my edits.The group comprises of User:Dangerous-Boy,User:Nobleeagle,User:Bakasuprman,User:AMbroodEY and an unknown IP from 128.83.131.122 - If you see the edit history of the unknown [Texas Univ IP], it has solely vandalised all my articles.Their points are removing in the article Babri Mosque[Images of Muslims reading in the now destroyed by a Hindu Mob - Babri Mosque], [vandalising Hindu Fundamentalism to redirect to Religious Fundamentalism rather than Hindutva to which it was redirecting to]and [Removing "mythological" reference] to one of the Hindu Gods Lord Rama ]] saying in the edit histories that - "mythological??? that's really rich, just go and insult another person's religion" when no insult is implied.No standard world history books mention of Lord Rama to be King Emperor as stated in the article [See the timeline] niether do they mention of Lord Rama's close friend Hanuman who was a demi-monkey to be rulers of any region.Neither does the last article mention the birth dates and ruling preiod of ruler as such.No offences meant but some of the ideas being propogated by this group of editors is of spiritual and religious nature whose approach is unsuitable for all of us as encyclopedia Neptunion 22:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The editors in question returned to a more NPOV, and better, state of each page. To declare Hinduism a 'mythological' set of ideologies would be as insulting as to call all of YOUR beliefs 'mythological' and be similarly dismissive. It's a religion, and thus a set of beliefs. 'Mythological' often implies that they are 'false' or 'dead' ideas, which Wikipedia can't decide upon. Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha might be 'mythical' too, in the eyes of some, but we can't make that judgement. ThuranX 22:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with ThuranX's take on this, and at any rate, it seems to be a content dispute rather than an administrative matter. The first step in any dispute of this nature should be a discussion of the disputed passage on the article's talk page. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

::Well in that case:

  • 1. The one who redirected the Hindu Fundamentalism to Religious Fundamentalism - Did s/he discuss the change.
  • 2. I only added an image to the Babri Masjid page that may be key to understanding that that place served as a historcally On what grounds is its removal necessary.Did anyone give any indication.You will find numerous instances where this group of editors frustrates other members from contributing by simply reverting the pages without assigning reason.
  • 3. Written history testifies both of your examples of Jesus and Muhammaed but does not call them "King emperors" who at least have records in history

Please see the histories of many India related pages where this group of editors has frustrated others attempts to contribute similarly Neptunion 23:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Churan - your saying that the article "returned to a better state" might be democratically correct - you are adding a voice but it has no substance Neptunion 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Might you consider (just consider, mind you) for a minute that these other editors (whom you call a group) are right and that you in fact are the one who is wrong? It's just a possibility. I'm not saying one way or another, mind.... JChap2007 23:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see the page histories first and the line of their editing ..Just mind for a moment that they indeed are editing in a subversive way.Neptunion 23:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I would note that the photo other editors keep removing seems to do nothing to illustrate the mosque, but is of three worshippers who used to worship there before it was "destroyed by a Hindu mob." Instead, it seems more like it's waving the bloody shirt than actually explaining the subject of the article. Religious fundamentalism has a specific meaning, as described in the article, in addition to its use as a term of derision. Hindutva is a poor match with Hindu fundamentalism, so the redirect you want does not make much sense. Finally, I agree with ThuranX and HBWS about the use of "myth." JChap2007 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You are too eager to assign motives to me and challenge my good faith..OK, Go on build the trashopedia.Neptunion
Its your world mate..Enjoy Neptunion 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
After reverting one of this editor's edits because I could see the value of thie redirect as edited by others, he decided either I'm clueless, or I'm a part of the 'cabal'. Further, stating that my voice has no substance, and the subsequent calls of 'subversive', and 'trashopedia'... I'm suggesting this user take a cool-off period, before his incivility earns him a brief block. ThuranX 03:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Resetting the indents(The following was first posted on Neptunion's UserTalk page)::::I think you're still unclear as to the differences between good faith edits and vandalism. For one, good faith edits are those which can be rationally explained by the editor making the change; his reasons may be falsely held beliefs, or even patently demonstrable as outright falsehoods, but teh edit was made in the spirit of improving Wikipedia. A vandalous edit would be soemthing in which vulgarity is added, information is randomly removed (this is often referred to as 'blanking', when applied to a large quantity of text), or in which malicious changes are made. Seen in this light, redirecting Hindu fundamentalism to the larger article on Religious Fundamentalism, instead of one of the Right-Wing groups in India would be a Good Faith edit, especially since directly tying only ONE group in India to Hindu Fundamentalism makes numerous fallacious constructs, including:

  • Ignoring any and all other right-wing indian groups IN India
  • Ignoring any and all other Hindu Fundamentalist groups outside India
  • Suggesting that the agenda of the group it linked to was ONLY Hinduism in it's reactionary ways, and not nationalistic or possessed of any other agendas.
As such, the edit in question is CLEARLY a Good Faith edit. ThuranX 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Neptunion is the banned user TerryJ-Ho - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MinaretDk.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert and User:Wbrz[edit]

I made a minor edit to the Claudette Colbert page, removing "Mrs. Pressman" from the first sentence of the article. User:Wbrz readded the information and called my edit vandalism. I asked them on their Talk page to please not call my good faith edit vandalism, and opened a discussion on the article's Talk page, then re-removed "Mrs. Pressman". Wbrz has added a threatening vandalism template to my Talk page, which I consider a personal attack and inappropriate. I have no interest in getting into an edit war, and have asked Wbrz to please discuss it on the Talk page, what more can I do? Corvus cornix 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind adding diffs of removals and reverts regarding to the discussion? Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This was my initial edit. This was Wbrz's claim that my edit was vandalism. I at that point went to his Talk page and asked him not to call my good-faith edit vandalism, and then I returned and re-removed the "Mrs. Pressman" here. At that point, Wbrz wrote on my Talk Page: [31]. When I told him again that my edit was not vandalism and was not to a User page, and that I had opened a discussion on the article's Talk page, he replied with: [32]. He has still not edited the Talk page to address my question as to why it should be there, nor has he addressed any of my other questions on his Talk page: [33]. Corvus cornix 23:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the warning on your talk page and am looking into this matter further. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
He/she continues to revert with the summary of "username an admirer of Vivien Leigh → Get out here!)". I'm not familiar enough with the subject to understand the reference, but it's just weird. Some more insight would be helpful. John Reaves (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please se Talk:Vivien Leigh. I have provided diffs on that page where Wbrz added an edit to the Vivien Leigh page, then went to the Talk page, and forged the signature of an anon, asking why the edit was added. Odd behavior. Corvus cornix 02:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[34] looks like a removal of that name, not an addition of it. That's not to say that plenty of the other things he's doing aren't odd. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll really appreciate this sweet diff ;). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
User blocked for edit warring etc - 03:28, 8 February 2007 Kafziel (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wbrz (contribs)" () with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, edit warring, vandalism). He's out of our hair for the time being.Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the first post on the user's talk page was a comment about some strange and unsourced statements he had added to the article about Vivien Leigh, a comment which he removed from the page. Perhaps he thinks you are all trying to exact some kind of vengeance.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well that was my comment on his talk page that seems to have started all of this. He made some edits to Vivien Leigh about a week ago. I reverted them. I then started reverting some edits on the Claudette Colbert article, and he started putting "Rossrs, an admirer of Vivien Leigh" in edit summaries, on talk pages, on my user page, my talk page and the talk pages of other users. In the last day or so he's been directing the same comment at other users. I don't quite get the connection, but perhaps anyone who makes an edit to Claudette Colbert that he disagrees with, is motivated by the fact that they are a fan of Vivien Leigh. Not that it makes sense, but I can't see anything else. Who knows what he thinks. Just look at the edit summaries in the Claudette Colbert and Talk:Claudette Colbert. Rossrs 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:HyperSonicBoom[edit]

Okay, this guy probably deserves an indef block, I'm just not doing it due to conflict of interest.

[35] is the violations after my block. Anyway, Mecu originally reverted his userbox due to a fair use image being used (which is not allowed). After he violated the 3RR on two userboxes, I blocked him. He has since been attacking me (and deleting all warnings and his other attacks if you check his history). If someone can take care of this user it would be great.--Wizardman 03:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Here are the userboxes he's angry about: User:HyperSonicBoom/Userboxes/Shop/WinVistaWant and User:HyperSonicBoom/Userboxes/Shop/FSX.--Wizardman 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I warned him. I'm personally not certain that an indefinite block is necessary, but I'll hand him a somewhat extended one if he continues following the current block. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Looking through the contribs at random, I do see what appears to be some contributions to the project. I would say, let him be for the duration of this 72 hour block, and if he comes back with disruption or incivility, explore DR or in the case of policy violations after he understand the policy, a longer block. A protection of the talk page may be warranted if the user is attacking via talk, or introducing vandalism into the talk page. Regards, Navou banter / review me 03:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Silly dispute. The user needs to simply accept the things that he can't change, which would include copyright law. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeated creation of nonsense pages[edit]

Is this the right place to report a user who keeps creating nonsense pages and deleting db-nonsense tags? It doesn't sound like "vandalism" so AIV seems to be the wrong place. Tanaats 04:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism. Take to AIV if you deem it necessary. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
User blocked 48h. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
He has been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account.--Jersey Devil 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 06:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism - extensive harmful edits[edit]

I hope someone can help with this difficult problem. I would describe this as sneaky vandalism, which includes "adding plausible misinformation" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." This behavior has persisted off and on for many months or possibly years.

I and some other editors have been working to improve the Interlingua article, and maybe get it to Good Article or Featured Article status. A few supporters of other auxiliary languages keep introducing and re-introducing incorrect information, jargon, personal observations, links to competing languages, and sometimes just bad writing. They say they are improving the article or removing subjectivity, but they are deleting sound, mostly sourced information and replacing it with unencyclopedic material. One of these people has somehow become an administrator of the Interlingua Wikipedia.

They tend to dominate the discussion page, so the good faith editors mainly comment in the edit summaries. And the whole situation has had a chilling effect, so that many of the good faith folks have stopped editing.

Now, someone (Dissident) has put up a series of tags reading "dubious," "neutrality disputed," and the like. The article is littered with tags and signs. Most of the challenged information is either sourced or is just basic grammatical material. In one case it's a quote from a book. The poster has demanded in the talk section, "Don't remove [the signs] without discussing it here…." But the talk section is kind of off-limits.

With all the interference, I don't see how we can ever get to Featured Article or Good Article status.

I would greatly appreciate any help!! Cal Evans 05:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I would start by removing any claims that it is easy to learn, easily understood if you don't know it, and makes learning other languages easier. Or give them hard factual citations, backed up by scientific study. And then give references for every fact in the vocab and grammar section, which at present have not a single reference. That seems to be the major contention in the talk page. Just reference everything, preferably across multiple sources. --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Steve, thanks for your helpful suggestions. I will reference the Interlingua article more thoroughly. Scientific studies of auxiliary languages are unfortunately rare, but there are some that haven't been cited in the article yet.
In the meantime, can something be done about the tags and interference? It's difficult to edit with people stopping by and suddenly deleting parts of the article, making little plugs for a competing language, and the like. One editor even replaced a good URL with one that read "demon" and apparently carried a virus. You have to keep a close watch over the article or its quality can deteriorate in a surprisingly short time. Cal 04:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Need admin with rollback button[edit]

Could an admin please rollback all edits by Praveen100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? He's spamming Bollywood-related pages with links to a commercial site. Zora 05:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits are the most recent for their articles, which means they are probably already gone. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 05:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Quick action on some admin's part :) Thanks for checking. Zora 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be User:Blnguyen. Grandmasterka 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
With an indefinite block by Ryulong for good measure. --Steve (Slf67) talk 08:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Glen_S[edit]

The first act of an admin in an edit disagreement is a reminder that he is an admin and that similar edits get people indef blocked [36]. He says nothing should be read into the blocking remark [37]. Just smalltalk I suppose?

Discussing it is, according to the admin, childish sheesh trolling. According to him, "your conclusions are childish" is perfectly acceptable because it discusses the conclusions, not the editor.

Is this a model of how an admin is supposed to behave? I am worried because User:Glen_S appears to be left with the impression that his behaviour is perfectly fine. Weregerbil 09:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Glen and I are cool about this. Just a bad day, not indicative of a systematic problem. Weregerbil 11:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Light current - again evading block[edit]

User:Light current has again evaded his 1 month block, this time with a sockpuppet called User:Wii-Marrs.

He created Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pschemp, but it's been deleted. He admitted in his edit summaries he was a sockpuppet. --Taljan 13:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the account. See also WP:AN/I#Any_remaining_objections_to_a_community_ban_for_Light_current? above. -- SCZenz 13:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla[edit]

Sparkzilla (talk · contribs) is engaged in personal attacks here and here. He has been involved in medcab requests here and here. Please keep an eye on him. --Ideogram 14:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User Dmz5[edit]

Dmz5 is engaging in personal attacks by calling fellow editors trolls. Please have this unproductive behaivor stopped.

Post made by Dmz5... "Please stop feeding the trolls. It is increasingly obvious that Ballog is uninterested in consensus and is trying to get a rise out of the "wikigeeks" through his disruptive edits and intentionally vague and misleading comments. Let's please stop giving credence to his arguments and trying to "reason" with him, which will only get more and more frustrating"- Dmz5* -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballog (talkcontribs) 14:07, February 7, 2007

  • Calling someone a "troll" isn't really a WP:NPA anymore than referring to other editors as "Wikigeeks" is, though both are rather uncivil. That said I really don't see anything requiring action at this time; other than maybe everyone taking some time to read WP:SPADE...--Isotope23 18:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the situation, I thought this might simply be a lack of reading policy, and decided to give Ballog some useful advice and links here. He decided all my points were trolling or incorrect, told me basically that everything was my mistake because I obviously didn't understand what I was doing, that I was trying to start a flame war, and that if I did not stop I wopuld be blocked. He then commented on my talk page here which is pretty much where I'm going to leave it, because there's no point in continuing the discussion. Thought it might be useful for behavior patterns, though. MSJapan 16:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive sockpuppet behavior[edit]

A user editing Mega Man Battle Network-related pages as well as voice actor pages for the series' anime continuously and deliberately mispells the Japanese name of the series (mispelling "Rockman" as "RockMan" despite having been directed to sources in the past proving the proper spelling, even though it should seem unnecessary), among other disruptive behaviors (vandalizing rōmaji to fit his/her edits for example).

As the actions of this user do not technically constitute obvious vandalism, he/she has evaded blocks, but also continues to cause problems and evade blocks with several sockpuppets. Below is the most recent account, as well as three others that were salvaged from page histories. --Benten 02:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you list the articles in question and perhaps a couple of diffs? Navou banter / review me 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some examples of the diffs:

[[38]] (MegaMan NT Warrior) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," vandalism of rōmaji, addition of superfluous/redundant bracketed "Japan only" text which was removed previously on account of such things already being mentioned under the Anime section of the article. (User's edits on the left, Urutapu's revert on the right)

[[39]] (Bass.EXE) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," See Also section full of random nonsense, creating redirects where there were none previously ("Computer and video games" to "video games"), changing the "fictional character" link to "video game character" despite the character in question appearing in fictional works beyond the video game, deliberately mispelling the word "villain" as "villian" in categories. (User's edits on the left, my revert at the time on the right).

[[40]] (Susumu Chiba) - Said mispelling of "Rockman," mispelling of the Japanese character names "Airman" and "Metalman" as the English version's "AirMan.EXE" and "MetalMan.EXE," despite Chiba acting in the original version of the series and not the English language adaptation.


--Benten 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Unless I have misunderstood, and at first glance, additionally I am not a subject matter expert in this area; the edits appear legitimate attempts to edit the articles. Assuming good faith and lacking evidence of other "vandalism" (term used loosely) I would attempt to talk to the ip talk page and see if you can't get a response. If those corrections are reverted back to the disputed version (mispelled version) and the IP user is not going to the talk page, consider Semi-Protecting the article until disputes are worked out. Regards, Navou banter / review me 16:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin User:Matt_Crypto[edit]

I received a perminant ban (User_talk:MikeURL) from this Admin, without warning. The reason given was "trolling" and I can find no support for a permanent block on the grounds he gave. Further, we were involved in a civil discourse on the talk page and I think his block was intended, at least partially, to stifle civil debate (User_talk:Matt_Crypto#User:MikeURL). I have since been unbanned so I don't think a fomal complaint is needed but I did want to make note of this behavior.MikeURL 16:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nirelan aka 70.104.126.193 ongoing vandal of Dave Winer[edit]

Nirelan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) aka 70.104.126.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) got final warnings yesterday on both accounts.But today Nirelan is again busy vandalizing Dave Winer.

I reported this on the vandalism page, and they sent me here, saying they deal only with "simple vandalism."

Since first taking an interest in Dave Winer in late January, this user has blanked out the article, blanked entire paragraphs of the article, replaced the article with his own comments, etc. Now he has gotten more clever and is trying to diguise his POV attacks as a "content dispute."

There is consensus among all the other editors of this piece that Nirelan is working to remove information from the article that is accurate and verifiable, with good references from encyclopedia-quality sources, at the same time that he works to insert statements that have a much less firm foundation--for example, that Ramanatha V Guhan invented RSS (based on one interview with Guhan himself).

His heavily POV edit attempts are not improving the information content of Wikipedia. betsythedevine 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot[edit]

User:CopyToWiktionaryBot is a bot which keeps making the same edits after they get reverted (see [41] and, less severely, [42]). Unfortunately, its talk page is redirected to a page which is not checked regularly. I tried leaving a message for its owner following the suggested instructions (see discussion at Wiktionary:User_talk:Connel_MacKenzie, which suggests a greater pervasiveness to the problem). I'm hoping you'll block it until the issue is resolved. Matchups 17:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Jrapidfire[edit]

I have just reverted personal attacks and profane messages from this disruptive user [43]. I think it should be deeply considered that this user be blocked indefinitely because I see no useful contributions coming from him and he continues to edit war over the Broly article. Please decide this thouroughly, cheers! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. He's repeated the behaviour that got him blocked last time, and he hasn't improved his behaviour at all. I'm also going to lock his talk page for a couple of weeks, since he often carries on his behaviour on his talk page. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Twain, vandalism, and User:White mojo and User:Sandstorm79[edit]

This article has suffered numerous anopnymous IP vandalising attempts recently. I puit in a request for semi-protection. Whereupon, the two non-anon users suddenly appeared and have vandalised the article using similar themes for the vandalising attempts. Their only contribution (as of posting this message) has been to vandalise Mark Twain on one occasion each. Can I ask whether they should have their ids deleted and/or their originating IP addresses blocked (otherwise they may simply re-register and carry on)?  DDStretch  (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I was editing the above message, yet another registered user, User:Muffinman519 has vandalised Mark Twain, and so I wonder whether complete protection should be immediately done.  DDStretch  (talk)
I have blocked those three users, preventing account creation. That should put an end to it at least for a little while. Also, the IP address has already been blocked for a month by Alphachimp. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User: Light current evading block?[edit]

There are many similarities between the postings on the ref desks of 87.102.8.103 (talk · contribs · count) and Light current (talk · contribs · count) - the spelling, grammar and inflammatory, pointless comments are all Lc's style. He seems to have quit for this evening, but it may be worth keeping an eye on. Natgoo 23:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, block evasion would not be vandalism if I am reading WP:VANDAL correctly. An admin may need to review this to take action. Navou banter / review me 00:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to go to rfcu to confirm. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


In an interesting coincidence, an IP that appears to be registered to the same internet provider, 83.100.174.70 (talk · contribs · count), appeared and made an awful lot of edits on the Ref Desk during one of Light current's previous blocks. I ignored it at the time because a) I didn't think that it would be worth the trouble to deal with formally, and b) I wasn't as familiar with Light current's editing style as I am now. A CheckUser followed – if appropriate – by a firm but polite word with Light current seems in order. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A CheckUser request has been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Light current. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Edits from 88.109.41.162 (talk · contribs · count) seem mighly familiar as well. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those are pretty obvious. Of course, that leaves the question of what should be done about them. Is there anyone left around here to whom Light current would listen? He desperately needs to disengage from Wikipedia for a while, for our good and his. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser has come back with possible. Someone will need to look at the content of these. If they are obvious socks, they should be blocked. Ok, the word was inconclusive. Inconclusive = possible. pschemp | talk 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • A-hem. That's not what checkuser came back with. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Semantics. pschemp | talk 04:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
All 'inconclusive' means is it doesn't confirm it one way or the other. Given the content, and the fact that it is on the same ISP, and the editing pattern, it's Light current. Suggest extending his block by 2 weeks. Proto:: 14:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is transparently Light Current. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No its not me honest Lc oops 8-)
I dont think it was Light current, because LC is too clever to be caught so easily! If its transparent, I suggest you get new glases Hippo.
Hippo seems to be imaningig Lc all over the place simultaneously. I suggest his olefactory system is faulty. He couldnt smell a sock if you waved one under his (rather large) nose which he should keep out of things he doesnt understand.
Neither can he detect trolls as I have proved on many occaisions.
I even bet that Hippo suggests I am Lc next! Just to make it more confusing, Ill use one of Lcs favorite symbols 8-)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.96.31 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
  • The RfCU proved "inconclusive". As in, there was no conclusion. Inconclusive means nothing, there is not enough technical evidence to prove likely or unrelated. You may have to use other means to prove this, editing styles, patterns, etc. Navou banter / review me 17:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we not spar about the meaning of inconclusive? :) I agree that precision is required. But to me, the editing patterns are more important, if several experienced editors say "same pattern" CU results do not matter. CU is imperfect, it can be fooled, and sometimes it can be inconclusive. Patterns are much harder to mimick if the contribution history is large enough. So I support a block for block evading sockpuppetry based on editors saying they see the pattern. (anon only, still allow account creation...) ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Light current all but announced his intention to evade the block a few days ago with this edit right here. Combine this with his previous block evasions, and there should be no surprise here. I think the best thing all around would be for him to come back with an alternate account that is sufficiently polite and mature that nobody knows it's him. Friday (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this edit seems to announce Light current's intentions pretty clearly. It's an unfortunate turn of events, but I find myself needing to seriously consider that Light current may have decided that he can no longer contribute constructively and in good faith to the project anymore. Not a happy day. - CHAIRBOY () 15:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It's either going to have to be a community ban, or we need to find some way for LC to contribute constructively to the project again. From what I've seen, I don't think he can be trusted not to indulge in personal attacks and general disruption even if he was permitted a totally new account, which is really sad, given LC's excellent contributions. I'm gonna stick my neck out here and say, in light of the trolling above and general disruption caused already, I'd support a community ban. -- Heligoland 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes but if we have a community indef ban, whats to stop Lc appearing from random ISP addresses and wreaking havoc. I feel hes a pretty dtermined sort of person who will not take things like that lying down. Long term rehabilitation into the proper Wiki ways may be the only long term solution. he has to feel as thought hes won 9even though we know that we have by controlling him) if hes outside WP, who knows what damage he could do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.96.31 (talkcontribs) (Probably Light current sock)
Do youw want to contribute productively to Wikipedia, or do you want to act like a petulant child who is throwing all his toys out of the pram? Please stop wasting our time. If you want to play, go visit Encyclopedia Dramatica. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, could I suggest this isn't the most helpful response? Yes, I fully appreciate that I make plenty of mistakes. Yes, also having admin super powers and dealing with problem users probably isn't very easy. However, I personally think Friday and Ten should consider taking a break from this dispute. Only my suggestion. Addhoc 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be ignoring the fact that Light current has made vile personal attacks, disrupted, promised to continue disrupting, and has taunted the project with the sentiment that he cannot be stopped. ToaT was responding to a message where he was threatening to launch into even wider disruption going forward, it is my personal opinion that you may wish to reconsider who the target of your criticism is. - CHAIRBOY () 17:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Elsewhere on this page I've expressed support for the one month ban and that was before this apparent block evasion. Obviously, I'm not equating a somewhat stressed admin acting in good faith and someone who requires a 1month+ ban.