Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive197

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

Noticeboard archives


Re: Jat Page[edit]

Hi, I have left tags on this page to discuss Neutrality of the material and also other things more than 3 times now, and someone keeps removing the tags without discussion. Is this Vandalism, or against wiki policy? --Sikh-history 14:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Tom Butler violating WP:COI[edit]

User:Tom Butler has been making POV edits at Electronic voice phenomenon even though he is the head of an organization discussed in the article and is mentioned himself by name in the article. I have asked him not to, but he has continued editing, specifically making POV changes. --Milo H Minderbinder 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I will say again, there is no way that I will ignore the kind of nonsense that has been written about EVP in Wikipedia to stand. As soon as you get the facts right I will stop editing the entry. Tom Butler 00:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Butler's idea of getting the facts straight includes announcing that other people are not qualified to edit the article, and insisting that completely unscientific "experiments" proving that voices of the dead communicate via magnetic tape be given equal weight with science.-MsHyde 03:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeat WP:BLP offender[edit]

SneakySoyMeat (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SneakySoyMeat) have been pushing defamatory material into Francis Pym and Christopher Soames, Baron Soames. His edits appear to come both from a cable IP in Oregon and a Xerox Corporation web proxy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), another Xerox proxy, recently re-inserted the material into the article on Lord Soames, which I have reverted. Perhaps someone should contact Xerox, as the user has been quite persistent in attacking these articles. Choess 04:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Last report of this incident:[1] It's getting pretty tiresome now. Note that Xerox doesn't appear to use this IP for anything except vandalism and COI. — coelacan talk — 05:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack by Mr Phil[edit]

User:Mr Phil has engaged in a blatant and obvious personal attack:

"You know Mr. Racist, go f*ck yourself.[2]"

Furthermore, he and another user User:Computer1200 has continously used the Talk page linked above as their own personal soapbox. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Issued warning. -Changlc 05:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:BMT Giving unwarranted vandalism notices for me trying to maintain NPOV[edit]

If there any administrators reading this, can you please do something about user BMT. I have not been vandalising the Ben Thompson page. I added a section called Legend and it is cited from reliable sources and it is relevant. But for some peculiar reason he not only removes it but gives me vandalism warnings. I am only trying to maintain a NPOV.

Well, BMT told you on that article's talk page that he couldn't find your source, and you told him to look at Lexis-Nexis. I have access to L-N through my university, so if you give me a moment I'll see if I can't find an article to verify your claim. If I can find a citation, expect your edit to be changed; it's not very encyclopedic in tone. A Train take the 16:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why this is at the top instead of bottom of the page, but anyway ... I just received a talk message asking me to help out on this because I had "been editing the article". I've never edited the article; I added the fac tag to the talk page per the WP:FAC nomination. I don't know how to help here, but it looks like both parties are deleting things from each other's talk pages, so it's hard to follow. Can someone help? Editor20 says BMT's real name is Ben Thompson, FWIW. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved entry to bottom of page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The Santa Fe New Mexican, the newspaper cited in User:TheEditor20's source, is not one of the newspapers indexed by Lexis-Nexis. A Train take the 16:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is! I am using the executive version. When I get home tonight I will even provide a screenshot. also, i have uploaded the article and provided a link to it on the talk page. What can I do to prove this?! I have added a screenshot (look on the talk page of the Ben Thompson article. My source is accurate, and I think anyone who fails to believe it now is deliberately trying to cause trouble. If anyone who has access to LexisNexis Executive searches for "ben thompson" and "1884" for in major stories then they will find the article. LexisNexis professional may not bring up the result. I have even provided a link to an RTF file with the information. Because you require access to look at LexisNexis material, it is not possible for me to provide for you a direct HTTP link to the source. --TheEditor20 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look through MrEditor20's history he is a prolific vandal see Talk:Bethany School and perhaps talk to Raker or Chris Lester. Not to mention the attacks carried out as User:Edgovan20. yes my name is Ben Thompson, different one, of course. --BMT 16:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please use Lexis Nexix Executive and verfify the article I have provided from the Santa Fe New Mexican. Either than or someone find the edition of the new mexican. How can someone say my source is incorrect without even getting a copy of the Santa Fe New Mexixan July 04 1997 and finding out? This is upsurd, we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia and yet you cant even confirm a simple source --TheEditor20 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism, need assistance or block[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making subtle changes to the population count in various city pages. See the edit history. Edits are unsourced[4] or in some cases contradict existing citations.[5] Other edits are even messing up existing reference names thinking the name of the reference is a date.[6] I have left two warnings on the IPs talk page. I'm not sure how to proceed. --Mperry 06:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There's templates for that: {{uw-unsourced1}}, {{uw-unsourced2}}, {{uw-unsourced3}}, and {{uw-vandalism4}}. After the fourth, a simple vandal report is in order. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

GrahameKing, again (previous incidents attended by Proto)[edit]


GrahameKing deleted blocks of text from the talk page [7] [8].

The larger block of text was reintroduced by Proto [9] after an older previous mass-deletion by GrahameKing [10].

GrahameKing suggested to leave the deleted paragraphs out of the talk page during the RfC about this issue, due to his concern about such "defamatoy" (his opinion, not mine) stuff listed at Google.

  • I am wondering if that´s (GrahameKing´s "truce") the correct thing to do (if no Wikipolicies barring this option), just to avoid a nasty escalation of deletions and reversals. If my source is pronounced as valid, the paragraph then will be in the main article. If it is not, the text will be deleted and that´s it. I have no hurry.
  • I think that GrahameKing is a good user, but, -just my opinion- maybe a bit too emotional and too devoted to PrimalTherapy. Not offence intended.


OTOH, GrahameKing presented no alegations for the RfC, and I asked him thrice to do so [11][12] [13]. I am wondering if I am in front of a stonewaller. I must confess that my reserves of good faith about this issue are running low.


GrahameKing also deleted [14] another section of sourced content (introduced by me in...October [15]) from the article , never touched before by GrahameKing´s multiple deletions. This time I reverted the deletion [16], because the deleted stuff is totally noncontroversial.

I think that this deletion of a section after four months it´s just a diversionary tactic. As I said, my good faith about this issue is running low.


Incorrect tagging at my User:Page [17]

This is a complex issue. Proto attended the issue previously, but any input is welcome Randroide 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want to happen here, Randroide. Has Graham done anything since I warned him not to? Proto:: 14:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
All this four points are a posteriori since your warning. Randroide 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

E. Brown and fair use images on user page[edit]

E. Brown (talk · contribs) seems to be having problems with Wikipedia not being a soapbox in terms of fair use images. He has several self-created userboxes (these userboxes are not templates or transcluded on user pages) that contain fair use images. Chacor removed them as a violation of WP:FUC #9 and left a warning, and E. Brown promptly reverted them. This happened once more, with Chacor and I leaving warnings. He responded with a short tirade on Chacor's user talk page, asserting that he "isn't breaking the law" and stating that he can't stand fair use (which is what a short blurb at the bottom of his column of userboxes states). I responded by protecting the user's user page for one week. Is there anything else that should be done for now? --Coredesat 06:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just went off on my user page. --Coredesat 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, his userpage is protected, so I cant remove it, but the one tree hill userbox has a fairuse pic in it as well. -Mask Flag of Alaska.svg 09:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Must've missed that one when taking them out. Can an admin please do so? Side note, Guy has told E. Brown flatly why he's violating FU, so let's hope it works. – Chacor 09:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed. Daniel.Bryant 09:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Admin leaving Wikipedia[edit]

Is it a practice to de-sysop admin that state intentions to no longer take part in the project? User:Alkivar, after being asked about his reasons for blocking me ([18], [19] and [20]), listed himself in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians [21] and left a goodbye message on his talk page explaining his frustrations with the project and his intentions to leave. He also thanked those who helped him and asked all the others to f*ck themselves (this is not the first time Alkivar used this expression to address fellow wikipedians [22]).

Also, some days ago, when Jimbo Wales joined other editors in criticizing Alkivar for a "very bad block"[23], he removed this (and many other) critics from his talk page calling them " worthless crap"[24].

Is there a process for admin-status evaluation (or something like that)? Or is it just better just to wait for Alkivar to calm down (and hope the account's admins powers won't be misused in the future)?

Best regards, --Abu badali (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wait and see. Maybe after a break he'll be fine. Maybe he'll stay away. Maybe he'll resign the sysop bit. Right now there is no problem to solve, though, that I can see. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Zamaq is very interesting. Daniel.Bryant 20:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling that is an alternate account of someone more established...--Isotope23 20:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well its certainly not me.  ALKIVAR 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't implying it was anyone in particular... and particularly I wasn't implying that it was you. I don't really know you, but you don't strike me as the sort who would sockpuppet to call himself a dick.--Isotope23 20:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Abu badali, your desire to protect the Wiki is admirable. I'm certain you would have done the same for any admin, even those held your favor, and that the fact you happen to have announced the wikibreak of an admin who sanctioned you is a complete coincidence. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions on the project, and again, thank you for the heads up. - CHAIRBOY () 21:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There's no coincidence, actually. It's no secret that I don't feel comfortable at all with users with Alkivar's temper are in the wild with Admin powers. --Abu badali (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


I don't know what to make of the contributions of GopherQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). In some edits this user comes across as well meaning, in others as a confused newbie, and in some edits as someone with a strange sense of humour bored senseless. A few examples:

This might make the user's edits seem as trolling or minor vandalism. But the user has also reverted pov edits and vandalism. The user talk page suggests some editing issues, in particular the {{blatantvandal}} warning left by User:Ohnoitsjamie on September 23. AecisBrievenbus 12:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I've checked every edit by this user. Yes, a couple of helpful ones, but also one piece of egregious vandalism and a lot of mildly humorous trollery. We really need to be tougher on this one - the talk page shows us still handling him with kid gloves. Metamagician3000 12:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern[edit]

I've just protected Dannielynn Hope Marshall Stern as a redirect to her parent Anna Nicole Smith since if all that's noteworthy about her is that her dad's identity is in some sort of dispute then there's really not much to write about her specifically, and nothing that couldn't be mentioned in her mum's article.

However, I reverted the page to a redirect twice [29] [30] and so I might not be a neutral party to have protected the redirect. Anyone else is free to unprotect if they feel this is unjustified. 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't want to get stuck inside the secure.wikipeda the links are here and here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Killed in action[edit]

John Wallace Rich (talk · contribs) is disrupting the page Killed in action as evident by the history, who seems to think he owns the article and is reverting all attempts by other editors to improve it by making it in line with the WP:MOS. So far he has used two meatpuppets/sockpuppets (one was admitted on the talk page, I believe, where he said he would ask a friend to help him out), KSCHO (talk · contribs) and Andrewrhchen (talk · contribs). I don't feel the user should be blocked indefinitely or anything like that as he seems to be acting in good faith, but he doesn't seem to be listening to reason. I'm therefore bringing this issue here. Cowman109Talk 22:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

And it appears he has just broken WP:3rr by reverting multiple users once more. Could someone please look into this situation? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point I really don't think he's operating for the good of Wikipedia. He has his preferred version and he's going to do everything he can to keep reverting to it. --Cyde Weys 03:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think he's acting in good faith, but it's just that it's a disruptive good faith that he does not understand. I believe the user also has a conflict of interest as he mentioned somewhere that he is either a member or a founder of one of the foundations for the relatives for those killed in action, so this is a sensitive issue. Cowman109Talk 03:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done what I can. He's past the 3rr and will not respond to the talk page. Material he keeps adding is irrelevent to the topic of the page. Mystar 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This guy is taking up a huge amount of attention and resources. I do believe he is acting in good faith, but I believe he has personal issues and at some point we have to cut our losses. --Ideogram 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please look into this? The user has taken to editing with an IP now and calls other edits vandalism that reverts his (and has called another sysop a 'vandal' in the past to put things into perspective). He is unwilling to listen to reason and believes that he owns the article. Thanks. Cowman109Talk 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It appears this user has already been blocked for 24 hours, and then extended to 1 week for evading that block[31]. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
A meatpuppet of John's, KSCHO (talk · contribs) had taken to reverting the article for him. The user is a friend or colleague of John's, I believe it was confirmed, and as is clear by his contributions, his only edits are to that article as a single purpose account. Cowman109Talk 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Blocked. Confirmed meatpuppet with admitted intent to carry on edit war. pschemp | talk 05:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

User making personal attacks on his talk page. Block extended. pschemp | talk 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, this user is now name dropping Brad's name apparently in an attempt to get unblocked or make a veiled threat and talking vaguely about "we" (his foundation?) and how wikipedia is responsible for libel. none of this bodes well for his editing future. pschemp | talk 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

He just doesn't get it. He and Wikipedia will part ways, it's only a matter of time. --Ideogram 21:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone point me to the diffs showing uncivil activity after his one week block? He's contacted me by E-mail, asking for help in getting unblocked. (As I don't think I've interacted with him before, he may have contacted a number of other Admins.) I see a probable violation of WP:LEGAL, (as noted by pschemp above), but nothing I can be sure of as being uncivil.Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
He said he didn't contact any other administrators at this time, but that he also sent a fax to the Foundation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I read the history, and I see the violations on his talk page. If his E-mail is to be considered an unblock request, I'd deny it. His best bet is to cool off for the block time, not incite friends to edit on his behalf, and remember to speak civilly, especially to those he considers "the enemy". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community noticeboard[edit]

This thing got started really quickly so I'll post here for the record: there's a new noticeboard for decisions that welcome the entire community's input, such as community bans. Nonsysops often avoid this board and WP:AN because of the boards' titles. So if an action is a community discussion, rather than mop-specific, let's relieve the load over here by posting it there. DurovaCharge! 00:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see giving it a go for awhile but it seems redundant to this page. Nice idea but I'm not sure it'll be used. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a great idea to get those 6 page community ban discussion off this page, and into the public arena. This page is always too long, and discussions that are not just admin issues are the main reason. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I would like to report some personal attakcs which have been taking place on the British National Party talk page introduction section. Claims such as these i view as personal attacks by One Night In Hackney

  • "the vast amount of 100% false comments you have posted"
  • "to further your agenda"
  • "Do you actually know what stubborn means?"
  • "lies lies and propaganda"

Could someone please do something about these attacks. There are more but these are the most recent.--Lucy-marie 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These claims come from a tendentious editor was has made a string of false statements on that talk page in bad faith, and has also had two recent warnings for personal attacks directed at me. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And this justifies reciprocal negative behaviour on your part, how? - WeniWidiWiki 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if you looked at the context in which those comments were made, rather than the biased presenting of them. One Night In Hackney 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Politeness is expected even with those users who you think are being impolite to you. Wikipedia behavioral policy does not authorize you to treat another person rudely in whatever context.
Now if you think the other person has been rude to you, you must report the incident on this page, that's what you're expected to do. --Abenyosef 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide evidence for your claims of bad faith edits and personal attacks.--Lucy-marie 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Booze broads and bullets persistent copyright offender[edit]

I would just like to bring to attnetion User:Booze broads and bullets. The user has been uploading copyrighted images (and in some cases, text) since July 2006, has been repeatedly warned on his talk page User_talk:Booze_broads_and_bullets but has been unresponsive. Just recently again (February 10), he has uploaded a new slew of copyrighted images, using the magazine cover fair use tag which does not apply to the images as they are web sourced from the parent website. He has been warned before and seems unresponsive and doesn't seem like he's changing his ways anytime soon. I'll just leave the resolution to you guys. Thanks. Shrumster 11:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this user and left a message here saying that they can be unblocked after their discussion about the image uploading problem. This is not supposed to be a permenant block but an attention getter. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
As it is not just text (and not simply naive, as he has been told to stop), I think we have an instance of an increasingly common problem: Copyright-infringing users who create numerous articles. We cannot verify all of them as copyright infringements, and it is a tremendous waste of time for someone to go through verifying them anyway, yet most of them are and if any copyright holder were to find one of the copied articles it would be an odd and unaccepted response that we knew about the user's copyright infringement but did not remove his additions to Wikipedia. —Centrxtalk • 15:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. He just blanked his talk page. I fear he'll come back with a different user name and just proceed with what he used to do. I'll stay vigilant on this. Shrumster 17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This user will not be hard to recognize if he/she comes back with a new name. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Persianate society[edit]

Could other admins advise me? I've been doing some tidying at Persianate society, including copy-editing, wikifying, bringing it into line withj the MoS, etc. the whole article is in pretty bad shape. One editor – Surena (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) – persisted in reverting my edits wholesale. He or she has stopped, but suddenly people hitherto uninvolved have popped up to do the same (see this diff for the latest). I've tried explaining at the articles's Talk page what the issues are (they have nothing to do with citations, except for one which, when followed up, proved to support nothing in the article, so I removed it), but these people are clearly reverting without looking, as they've been asked to by a friend.

My question is this: these reverts seem to me to be disruptive at best (they're clearly organised by Surena by e-mail), but are they sufficiently vandalistic to mean that reverting them is 3RR-protected? If it isn't, and I have to leave it, I'm inclined to let the thing go altogether and let it stay in the hopeless mess that it is now. The only admin intervention was from (totally disinterested, of course, and unaffected by previous disagreements with me) User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, who wagged his finger at me for using rollback on one of these (at least near-) vandals. Something more constructive would be appreciated. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, perhaps I was wrong in part; the latest editor to revert me has now, after my explanation to him, reverted his revert. I'd still like comments on the principle, though. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's now even worse. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Second request for intervention regarding Tom Butler[edit]

This report was made above, but nothing was done: [32] Butler has just made four edits to the article.-MsHyde 19:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

And he is actively continuing to disrupt past those 4 edits. He has been repeatedly warned:[33] MsHyde 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
His only edits to Wikipedia are to this article:[34] MsHyde 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And there is a complaint at Conflicts of Interest noticeboard:[35]-MsHyde 20:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(NOt an Admin) Left him a note about it, doubt it'll help, but since I'm not involved in EVP, maybe it will. ThuranX 20:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
He's already had dozens of warnings, and has been doing this for months.-MsHyde 21:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

batik page[edit]

The page explaining batik fabric colorization has text innappropriate to the page under the second paragraph and in the "See Also" at the bottom. I tried to edit it, but the text doesn't show up there. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cynjaden (talk * contribs) 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

The text has gone now. Someone has reverted the vandalism. Please feel free to do the same! Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Motion to ban User:Sarvabhaum[edit]

I think the time is up to ban Sarvabhaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He has persistently edit-warred on Kannada-Marathi pages such as Belgaum, Seuna, Rashtrakuta, Chalukya, and has been blocked for 3RR many times. However, he has continually created sockpuppets whilst under block - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sarvabhaum - persistently, and continually uses his IP range 59.95.... to revert the same articles over and over again. His block has been renewed and lengthen many times, but it is simply obvious that he will keep on coming back. see Sarvabhaum back (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Vishu123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Itihaas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarvabhaum000000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
According to me, banning the user is not going to achieve anything. He is shameless enough to run the gauntlet and edit anonymously, create sock/meatpuppets and other ways of bypassing bans. He appears to be playing to a gallery, though I am not sure which one, since many Marathi people have rejected his/their fanaticism as well.
The Belgaum article (his/their favourite hunting grounds) is in a pretty stable/credible state right now (apart from our friend's edits), so I think just locking down the article for a few months would solve the problem much more effectively. This guy appears to be a college student, and in a few months is going to be facing exams and will have other things on his mind.
Some info: 59.95.x.x is the ADSL pool of BSNL, India's largest (and Government owned) ISP. Unless the ADSL modem is rebooted for some reason, the address tends to remain the same over long periods of time - but is still a dynamic one.
Achitnis 09:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
His edit-warring was not limited to just Belgaum article. It included Chalukya dynasty (an FA), Vijayanagara Empire (another FA), Rashtrakuta, Origin of Rashtrakutas, Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri, Belgaum border dispute, Kannada language, Marathi language, and probably many more. Locking down articles because of a single editor, defeats the fundamental purpose of WP, ie, any article can be edited by anyone, anytime. - KNM Talk 13:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean my comments to be a vote, which is why I didn't tag them as such. This was meant to merely be additional information related to the case. I am merely pointing out that given my experience with said individual, banning him (which I support, and will say so below) will achieve nothing. I am aware of the fundamental principles of WP, and am not saying that the article(s) shouldn't be updated, but isn't that what we have semi-protection for? Works fine in just about every case that it has been applied. Achitnis 11:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for Permanent Ban. The user has been advised not to create more sockpuppets to evade his block, but he is just ignoring that caution carelessly and creating a heap of sockpuppets. The category Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Sarvabhaum is growing almost everyday, without adding any value to the purpose of Wikipedia project.
When his block was extended for 6 months, he was even given warning that he would be blocked permanently if he creates more socks, but still he has continued evading his block by creating more socks. Also, if we see the edit history of that user, it is very clear that, right from the beginning all his edits were involving controversies or just plain reverts (was blocked for WP:3RR several times), and we hardly see any useful contributions. Considering these points, I don't see any valid reasons why he should not be banned. - KNM Talk 13:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - This user has been disrupting these articles for quite some time now. It is time the community bans him from wikipedia. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - This user had been reverting articles according to his whims and fancies. Support permaban. Gnanapiti 15:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Enough said. Sarvagnya 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The sole purpose of this account seems to be to indulge in disputes. He has been voilated 3RR multiple times, and created a whole bunch of socks to evade blocks. -- Naveen (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support to ban Sarvabhaum. People who dont respect the wiki system have no place on wikipedia. This should send a strong message to future vandals as well. I request wikipedia authorities to contact BSNL and see if his internet access can be banned in any way. He is still warring.Dineshkannambadi 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, and in addition recommend semi-protection of targeted articles for a while. Achitnis 11:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I used to be sympathetic to the Marathi users, but Dinesh's FA's have proven that his argument is well sourced and probably true while sarvabhaum is acting like BhaiSaab (talk · contribs).Bakaman 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

SI IEC Edit War[edit]

Is using WP:AES to aide in a prolific edit war over megabyte prefixes-- 22:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User has single handedly decided to change every single instance of MB and KB to MiB and KiB-- 22:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This is probably a bad faith report by someone who has likely been involved in a recent string of anonymous IP reversions of articles to non-IEC binary prefixes (usage of the IEC binary prefixes is currently blessed by a policy that has withstood many debates and challenges). The anonymous user is obviously aware of Wikipedia policies, has been informed of the current standing of WP:MOSNUM on this issue, and probably is already aware of the recent controversy over this. Sarenne has already been the subject of some near harassment at the hands of a few editors on a mission who labeled a content dispute as vandalism and warned him/her thusly. From the three discussions I linked, you can clearly see that it is the decision of a strong consensus to use IEC binary prefixes on Wikipedia, not the rogue actions of Sarenne. Please ignore this report. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T22:21Z
My mistake, I must have missread the section that says "Do not change all SI prefixes to IEC prefixes in computing contexts, only those that are actually being used in a binary sense"-- 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
My mistake as well. I confused you somewhat with another anonymous user, (talk · contribs), who is currently aggressively reverting several articles. -- mattb @ 2007-02-10T22:36Z
My only concern was that there were two parties aggressively edit warring, both with the help of WP:AES, which made it impossible to tell what was actually going on without quite a bit of research on my part since no one was using edit summaries-- 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It was not aggressive :) I used edit summaries when I made the first change so it is easy to see what is going on by looking at the history Sarenne 23:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio that's not a copyvio?[edit]

Hi - I originally tagged as it's a straight lift from the reference, however reading the disclaimer at the bottom, US Govt text is in the public domain? Does that mean that a straight lift is ok? The same editor has created multiple articles on that basis so I thought I should check. --Fredrick day 22:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Material created by an employee of the US government, including the US armed forces, in the course of his or her duties in the context of that employment, is in the public domain. Since the text is from the US Navy’s website and no notice of authorship is present that would suggest otherwise, we should assume it is not a copyright infringement. However, be sure to check for NPOV and verifiability, which may be not satisfied in a direct copy. See WP:MCQ for future questions about copyright. —xyzzyn 23:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Samuel Erau[edit]

I'd like people to take a look at User talk:Samuel Erau, please. This user called me "trailer trash" and somehow insists it's not a personal attack. Frankly I was tempted to just block him but I didn't want to do that. What is everyone else's opinion? --Deskana (request backup) 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for a short period and left a note on their page. Thanks/wangi 22:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD sockpuppetry[edit]

CheckUser confirms that Ccfr88 (talk · contribs), Wizardbrad (talk · contribs), CSMASTER84 (talk · contribs), FGreen1989 (talk · contribs), and BlackMateria (talk · contribs) are all the same person. I've blocked the IP, but could an administrator take a look at the situation, and especially Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The noob (Second nomination)? Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

*shakes head in disgust*. Good luck with the SPAs ;). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wizardbrad for what I've done. If someone wants to go through and label the AfD !votes with a message pointing to that, feel free. Daniel.Bryant 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Capella University Vandalism[edit]

The Capella University article has been the subject of ongoing vandalism by anonymous users (Capella University employees) in the past with these users resorting to name-calling and other tactics. As a result, the Capella University article had been locked. No sooner had it been unlocked, when the vandalism began again - this time by another new anonymous user (the IP traces back to Minnesota, home of Capella University). It might be best to ask for either administrative support from Wikipedia, or arbitration in order to prevent another heated revert war. Shac1 02:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been reprotected by User:Arjun01. I only had a quick look, but this looks like a content dispute rather than vandalism. You say the IP is spamming/vandalising while the IP says that you are only citing negative material from an article which includes positive material and that they are trying to even up the negative/positive quotes. The IP and you, User:Shac1, need to take this to the talk page, or, as you've already been advised, try an RFC. Sarah 05:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your post; however, if you take a look at the edit history that I've just posted on the talk page, you'll see that the individual posting from also appears to be (who was recently blocked from Wikipedia), and Pizzaman6233 (who has also received many warnings). You will also note that the charge that only I am the one reversing the vandalism is completely unfounded (again, I've cited seven others (there may be more) who have also reversed the vandalism: all seven of these users may be found on the talk page, ). Of course, these matters don't include the unfounded and ongoing personal attacks being made against me - some of which were recently deleted by Wikipedia administrators. The charges that I'm removing positive posts/edits is also not true. For example, the anonymous user posted listed a series of scholarships provided by Capella University. I've also noted the phenomenal growth of the school. Finally, in regard to spamming, the anonymous user has previously posted a long list of twelve different "articles." As is noted on the talk page (under the RfC I've created), all twelve of these so-called "articles" are literally press releases by Capella University. This fact is easily verified by examining them. As the anonymous user (User:, User:, and User:Pizzaman6233 consistently demands it's either his way or no way, I believe it would be best for the article to remain locked. Shac1 03:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel[edit]

This user initiated an edit war on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, broke the 3RR rule, and has made personal insults towards other editors on the article discussion page. What is worse, he accuses others around him of breaking WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:3RR, and of making personal attacks - the first two are open to his question, but largely a matter of opinion, the final is definitively not true - and refuses to acknowledge his own clear violation of 3RR and Personal Attacks - consider [36]. I would like an admin to warn him. Michaelsanders 00:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not started an edit war on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Michaelsanders has started it by blindly reverting edits without justification, to the risk of committing a 3RR violation.
I have never made any personal insults towards other editors, Michaelsanders is actually making false claims and spreading lies about me. However, I was the one personally insulted by Michaelsanders.
That Michaelsanders has broken WP:RS and WP:OR is not a question of opinion, it has been thoroughly established and undisputably proven using quotes from the official rules of Wikipedia.
That Michaelsanders intended to break WP:3RR is obvious, as he was already reverting without any justification.
I have absolutely never attacked anyone personally, and I have no intention to acknowledge this just because Michaelsanders forces me to say so. I was the only one who was attacked personally, and Michaelsanders conviniently "forgets" to mention it.
Michaelsanders is actually harassing me, pursuing me and spreading lies about me in every page on which he has the occasion to do so.
This user has something personal against me, however he refuses to settle it through private channels and is beginning to harass me all over Wikipedia.
As I don't really care about him, as I'm not as vindictive as he is, I don't ask him to be warned, I only ask him to stop harassing me, and stop talking to me (since he's not able to talk to me without accusing me of being pure evil).
Michaelsanders has already been accused of harassment on another user, User:RosePlantagenet, and has already been warned "not to directly engage the other editor in combative fashion". Folken de Fanel 01:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • ADMINS: Please see here for the other half of this AN/I. MichaelSanders has been warned by myself and others before about combativeness on AN/I, and probably has met the requirements for a bad faith/incivility block. The other editors aren't saints.ThuranX 01:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The infobox...disrupter[edit]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but there is a persistant editor who has been making questionable edits to infoboxes under various IP addresses:

There might be more out there, but these are the one's I have encountered through Peter Jennings. It's definitely disruptive (although there are good contributions here and there), and the editor has certainly been warned before on his older IP addresses, but has shown no sign of heeding the advice of others. Is there anything that can be done about this? Gzkn 02:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


After an article about a UK wrestling promotion was involved in was deleted yesterday, he's now gone on a mass prodding spree of other wrestling promotions. There seems to be no reasoning behind his choices, some have been recently prodded (and one that just survived Afd and is referenced) so he's not checking page histories. It seems to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point to me. One Night In Hackney 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well to my defence i am infact following a suggestion made by One Night In Hackney on the said afd. I admit i did prod one article i shouldnt have, and after checking history of some of the articles i realised there where previous attempts.. but they are only prods and if they were saved before they will be saved again. No harm, no foul -- Paulley
In my defence I'd have hoped you'd have given each article a thorough inspection before decided to prod, but 33 articles prodded in 10 minutes tends to suggest otherwise. One Night In Hackney 14:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
32 in 13 minutes to be exac (PCW Uncut Championship was a category change not a prod)... and even you must admit so far you have found only around two which you believe should be contested meaning 30 of those prods you agree with ... Its not a point it's a nasty job someone has to be cold hearted enough to do -- Paulley
I agree that it was a mass prodding spree and questionable. While he tagged it instead of prodding, United Wrestling Association had survived AFD in Nov and has been reworked and improved. This is all dubious considering it looks retaliatory considering Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Varsity_Pro_Wrestling. STFmaryville 12:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes i saw that it had survived its afd (with a no consensus) and that's is why i didnt prod it. In my oppinion the article, though reworked, is still a large amount of listcruft. Independent promotions should not list rosters as they are independent workers and not strictly signed to that promotion. --- Paulley 13:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Then why aren't you deleting the listcruf instead of deleting the articles? TheNewMinistry 17:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I didnt propose that article for deletion, i added a cleanup tag noting the listcruft. For other articles i just removed the lstcruft, while others saw an afd impossed until a healthy amout of sources were added. -- Paulley
If only the companies with wrestlers signed exclusively are allowed roster lists, one company in the U.S. will be allowed a roster list. Regardless of that, and changing the subject back to you, the accusation that you went prodding & tagging wrestling articles with little or no consideration to make a point seems plausible. STFmaryville 06:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Also for future note, many of the articles a prodded, or put up for afd were removed from wikipedia or brought up to good standard... if may actions were not taken many of these under achieving articles would have remained on wikipedia with no change --- Paulley 14:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism, request for removal of tags[edit]

The editors of the main Interlingua have had to contend with sneaky vandalism for a very long time. Most often, this takes the form of plausible misinformation or deletions, but there is a lot of variation. One vandal even replaced an external link with one that read "demon" and apparently contained a virus. I had to replace my hard drive after I clicked on the link.

The last bout of sneaky vandalism has culminated in a spate of tags and signs left by someone who was frustrated that his misinformation had been reverted. Could I get someone to remove the tags and signs? I'm afraid that, if I do it, the result will be an edit war or retaliation. Since he's an administrator, I could also be blocked.

This person, User:Dissident, describes himself as a bureaucrat on the Interlingua Wikipedia. This claim has turned out to be true; there is evidence that he uses the status as a cover. Another person left a sign on top of the article to amplify the ones that were already there. He professes an interest in Interlingua, again, probably as a cover since his behavior suggests opposition.

At this point, most of the constructive editors have given up and stopped contributing. Only the vandals are left, and they are continuing to vandalize the article. I am very open to suggestions on how to respond to this sneaky vandalism, or help with reverting it when it occurs.

Thanks very much for your help! Cal 01:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Talk:Interlingua#Rant_about_POV, it doesn't look like anyone is disagreeing. In fact, there's some agreement. Have you tried discussing this, or otherwise following WP:DR? And, you had to... replace... your hard drive? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm also not sure that it's appropriate for you to be throwing accusations of vandalism around like this (WP:AGF). Dissident's edits don't appear to be vandalism. Calling this a vandalism revert probably isn't right either; it looks like the edit may have just been a good-faith WP:NPOV edit. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
My sense that it is sneaky vandalism is based on this page, which includes plausible misinformation as an example of this type of vandalism. Please note that I'm not insulting the person but calling the behavior sneaky vandalism. If I've misunderstood this term, please feel free to correct me, but it seems fairly straightforward. If you would like me to explain why the information is incorrect, I would be glad to do that. I wouldn't even have mentioned the person, but I felt some discussion of his status could be relevant.
Please consider that this is a complex situation in which it has been difficult to edit the article for a long time. There is a lot of interference and there was recently a concealed deletion of a link within the article. These also seem to be examples of sneaky vandalism according to the same page. I'm sorry if I used the wrong language, but I'm describing or trying to describe a real, long-term problem and genuinely seeking solutions.
The person who agrees supports a different auxiliary language, Ido, and authored the article on it, so it's understandable that he agrees. Unfortunately, there tends to be competition among the three most successful auxiliary languages, although this seems contrary to the goals of those languages. It is true that the third person, who agrees in part, is not associated with another language, but notice that he begins by agreeing and then refocuses the discussion on the criticisms section of the article.
On discussing the matter, it takes a special skill to reach agreement across auxiliary languages, and I'm not all that good at it. The talk page has been sort of off-limits except to supporters of other languages. Interlingua supporters have been commenting mostly in the edit summaries, if they haven't stopped editing entirely. I feel like stopping too, but if the article is left alone, it can degenerate pretty quickly.
I'm sorry if I've described the problem insensitively, but I'm very frustrated and at a loss for what to do. Cal 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism is tough, especially on a specialized topic. The challenge is to document it and cite it and explain it for the rest of us. See my investigation at User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Maybe that will set you on a path where you can spell this out for nonspecialists. The burden's on you to substantiate the accusation. DurovaCharge! 04:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear from someone who has experience with this issue. Sneaky vandalism is especially difficult for Interlingua because its underlying theory and development procedures are complex. I'll read and digest your investigation before going farther. Thanks very much! Cal 04:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Was I right in making this edit?[edit]

I think I was right to remove what appears to be trolling, but I decided I should ask here since it may explode into a larger conflagration: [37] --NE2 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because WP:AFD discussions are not to be edited after they are closed. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved it to the talk page to avoid problems. (But in reality, that talk page will fade into oblivion.) --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Your edit summary leaves something to be desired. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You did the right thing. Try to avoid such edit summaries, though. Calling someone's comment "useless" can often inflammate a situation. Just a friendly pointer, Yuser31415 04:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Able Archer 83[edit]

This page is currently under attack by a user operating from a large number of IPs. He/she is replacing the page with a "9/11 Conspiracy" message. Kesac 04:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User now attacking BitTorrent Kesac 04:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Listed the IPs on Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Suspected_open_proxies_to_be_checked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sprotected able archer for one hour. ViridaeTalk 04:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There were several other attacks. I've checked them with Special:Linksearch on —Ryūlóng () 04:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Peters again[edit] (talk · contribs) removed sourced material on Communist leaders while dismissing it as biased [38] and dismissed western sources as blatantly biased [39]. He generally shows support for a pro-communist POV while dismissing other views [40], [41]. IP appears to be similar to ones already blocked as JP socks (see those at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters). Heimstern Läufer 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Could someone take a look at User: He's doing quite a number on the Nashua, New Hampshire page. He's been reverted several times in some basic blatant vandalism. Philippe Beaudette 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nlu got him. :-) Philippe Beaudette 05:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Try WP:AIV next time. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will. Philippe Beaudette 05:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sock of some sort?[edit]

Wikipedier (talk · contribs) was talking to me about a minor issue when he said, out of nowhere, "I'm not here to cause harm to Wikipedia, like Brian G. Crawford, Amorrow, Cplot, or Daniel Brandt were, and I hope that I will not be compared to them". This just struck me as weird, since he was acting vaguely fishy and then he feels the need to point out he's not like those 4 people, who are all prolific sockpuppet types. I don't really know who this guy is beyond my one encounter with him, but I was thinking some people who are more familiar with the 4 people he named might want to look into this. --W.marsh 07:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism[edit]

While dealing with a concerted vandalism effort to a single article [42], my own user page was vandalised [43] by the user in question (Halokonan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)). Apart from reverting said action (now done), should I do anything further? Orderinchaos78 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

happens all the time. Don't worry about it for now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming) update. Incivility and continued suppression of information[edit]

Hello all. The recent ANI notices seem to be helping to maintain the basic science facts in the Neurolinguistic programming article. There still seems to be a strong and coordinated resistance to collaboration or presenting the main criticisms in a summarized form “in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[44].

Similar to IP user 58’s edits, [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Comaze (who seems to have a clear and definite COI) is continuing removing the main criticisms from the lead section [53].

They are still removing reliable published peer review sourced edits by persistently and often uncivilly calling me a sockpuppet and a troll. I've complied with the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppeting [54] and not taken this personally. I also believe my edit record is sound [55] and speaks for itself and shows that I am editing constructively long term on my own whilst appealing for civility and collaboration. This has already been discussed here with Guy giving his view [56] [57] and then Woohookitty (who has long experience of mentoring the article) giving encouragement to continue summarizing according to NPOV on my talkpage [58].

Meatpuppetry looks more probable within the pro NLP group. There are single or virtually single use accounts eg [59] [60] using similar arguments and language. They are definitely ignoring my voice and some have stated they deliberately intend to. I am also complying with the relevant sockpuppetry guidelines in this regard [61].

Regarding the constant allegations of sockpuppetry. I understand that neutral administrators can block sockpuppets at their own discretion [62]. If any neutral administrator considers me to be contravening sockpuppetry regulations then feel free to block me. Similarly if any neutral administrator considers me to be trolling please take the appropriate action or notify me here or on my talkpage. Also if any neutral editor feels that I am dong anything that is not constructive – again feel free to post here or on my talkpage.

Pro NLP editors seem to include views – yet present them in a selective and often non-sequitur order in order to negate criticism [63]. Thus they tend to edit defensively as has been identified in the Cleanuptaskforce assessment. The pro NLP arguments have been presented using OR and are certainly unencyclopedic. Critical views are being suppressed from the lead and the main body of the article. I have had a look at the other subsidiary NLP articles and they follow the same pattern. They also tend to spread critical comments around which makes the article look even more like an argument or debate and less encyclopedic. There seems to me to be a strong reluctance to make straight reports of NLP. They are still reluctant to remove debate or argumentative edits from the article [64]. As shown above they are also persistent in suppressing the critical science point of view [65][66]. There is a strong tendency for pro NLP editors to present research speculation as conclusion (selective editing) [67].

Despite the currently dismissive and uncivil actions of the pro NLP group – I would not ban or block them or apply page protection. I would give them another opportunity to make some effort to get along without intervention from outside. I believe that its more constructive (actually necessary) to continue to apply scrutiny and to encourage editors to get along and edit in a more collaborative fashion long term. AlanBarnet 03:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • AlanBarnet is viewed by six independent regular editors [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] as a bannable sockpuppet of long-term abuser HeadleyDown. This is AlanBarnet's 7th effort gaming WP:AN/I [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79]. No-one has corroborated any of his highly creative stories -- ever. The current success of the NLP article is due exclusively to other editors indepedently conceding that the only way to deal with AlanBarnet is to ignore. AlanBarnet's talk page shows him exhausting all user patience one-by-one over the course of two months. It seems to be a game to AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown to play with people's sincerities. 08:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello user I'm glad you replied. I believe you havn't quite grasped the reality of the situation. Of the six editors you present above, one is just a single use IP user ( as is yourself (I'm assuming your present IP is also JBhood is not a regular editor at all and could well be a meatpuppet also. Fainites is a single use account and seems to me to be strongly averse to admin suggestions. Comaze and Doc pato seem to have obvious conflicts of interests. Your edits seem to be the most argumentative and OR in order to suppress criticism. Your edits seem to show that you are calling me a sockpuppet and a troll in order that the article is prevented from being presented "in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability.”[80].
Even though you seem to be persistently and quite incivilly suppressing information in order to promote NLP, I am doing my best to collaborate both here and on the NLP talkpage in the spirit of Wikipedia in order to get on with editors of various worldviews. I see no problem at all with pro NLP argument as long as it is sourced and "summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability" as per NPOV policies. You and other editors on the NLP article really do seem to have a problem with summarizing the critical science views towards NLP though. I encourage you to collaborate with myself and any other constructive editor in presenting the article according to NPOV policies. AlanBarnet 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not a meatpuppet. I came across the HeadleyDown issue through random surfing, and have followed the whole dismal saga on and off since then. AlanBarnet is HeadleyDown. That in itself would merit a block, although on the other hand the other editors' current "ignore and revert" approach might produce more desirable results in the long run. Not really for me to say, since I am not interested in editing the NLP article, but it would make sense to either block AlanBarnet or to ignore him on this noticeboard just as on the other pages. Jbhood 10:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jbhood. Ignoring AlanBarnet/HeadleyDown on the NLP page is working quite well. Fainites 15:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Could either of you sum this up in a sentence as to why this all any of this requires administrative attention? I have seen this, but I had no idea what was going on until "NLP" was written out in full.—Ryūlóng () 09:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ryulong. Thanks for the reply. The pro NLP group seem to be persistently suppressing critical science views on NLP, being uncivil, refusing mediation or arbitration, and displaying meatpuppetting/COI characteristics - and though presenting diffs here is preventing total OR - there still seems to be a pressing need for the pro NLP group to be somehow encouraged into civil acceptance of editors such as myself in order that the critical science views be presented properly without domination, WP:OWN, or suppression. AlanBarnet 10:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong, none of this requires administrative attention (save for a sockblock on AlanBarnet/ HeadleyDown), nor does it get any. See [81]Fainites 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked.—Ryūlóng () 07:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ryulong. He'll be back though.Fainites 13:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I do want to apologize if it seems like I "dropped the ball". Some of the NLP had brought this to my attention awhile back but I had SUCH a bad experience as a mentor that I just didn't want to get involved. And I know that the NLP editors understand that as they haven't really been a bother at all. But still. I should've let another admin know sooner. So. I apologize if this lasted longer than it should have. And yes. He'll be back. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 18:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Woohoo. Actually the ignore and revert policy worked quite well but it was pretty tedious and distracting. Thanks for your help. Fainites 21:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You really need to learn about RBIRyūlóng () 06:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello all. Actually I never left (Wikipedia) and probably never will. As you can see from my contributions [82] my role (habit) is basically to cleanup/correct argumentative or unencyclopedic writing and help admin and other editors to notice and change information suppression on a wide variety of articles.
Its quite a relief you got round to blocking me from the NLP article. I thought you were slipping after I made myself so obvious both here and on the article. Rules are to be followed after all. Well, I understand the reluctance of some admin to block me was due to the hope for someone to civilly put long term COI information suppressors in their place. Not an easy task though. A single editor such as myself doesn't stand a chance against such a group. But long term notifications can be helpful [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88]. . I may post on the ANI again in future. If I appear on the NLP articles again I'll make myself just as obvious in discussion style and IP range. Right now it looks like far too much work for any NPOV oriented editor to manage though (my hat goes off to anyone who tries).
I may also appeal against my block but only if it helps make other admin usefully aware of the long term problem of critical information suppressors such as FT2 on Zoophilia and NLP (COI issues), Comaze (.com) and co on NLP related articles and so on. That [89] was a pretty snappy cover-up, FT2.
I've enjoyed applying NPOV guidelines (in various incarnations) on the huge and fascinating diversity of subjects that Wikipedia has to offer and I'll continue to help you out in that way wherever I can. Regards Headley (Weiqing) 06:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
PS. One of my incarnations has clocked up a lot of edits and been prompted towards admin status. I understand its not easy being an admin and I've learned a lot from the best and the worst already. With the appropriate checks and balances I'm sure we can keep the worst admins in check. Feel free to remove this message. Cheers 07:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The above would all be plausible, if it wasn't for the email that basically says with glee "I had loads of fun jerking everyones chains with sock-play" and "It was great fun to mislead people". I don't plan to argue the point and I don't plan to respond to them specially. The record speaks for itself. For those unfamiliar, this included - fabrication of invented cites, sock use, meatpuppet recruitment, personal attack, game playing ("NLP is pseudoscience" by one sock AND "NLP is really good" by another), misrepresentation, and several others that come under WP:DENY... One would think a person of intelligence and academic background would value information rather than play round with its abuse. Your use is outweighed by other factors.
It further seems that you have convinced most independent people of this - people who have read your rants, and attacks, and protestations, and are unconvinced... Woohookitty, Mackensen, Ryulong, David Gerard, and several sets of ArbCom members in multiple cases. Nonetheless the consensus of these many independent and uninvolved highly experienced editors (as well as several newcomers) was bluntly, that your smoke is just that - smoke. It covers willful abusive editing and personal malice, under a veneer claim of good faith. It significantly misrepresents others. And it's inappropriate. FT2 (Talk | email) 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello FT2. Its my job to point out your habit of information suppression and its your reaction to try to dismiss the point and to continue to suppress any information thats critical of your interests. Its as simple as that. I'm not looking for barnstars or brownie points and I am as surprised as anyone that someone should suggest I become an admin. Each relevant view on NLP may one day be presented and none at the expense of the other. I leave that up to others. I’ve plenty of other articles to improve.

I did find it highly amusing to use sockpuppets before last summer. And to tell you the truth I doubt if any editor - even an admin - would say no to watching NLPers try NLP powerpersuasion patterns out on sockpuppets. I’ve been using several accounts legitimately since then though (one account per area of expertise - mainly to reduce the incidence of harassment by the lunatic fringe on my talkpage). I actually had a hard time dissuading my old meats to join up. We wouldn’t have lasted long as a group.

Anyway I’m sure you’ll carry on with the whitewash. You'll not find me on the Zoophilia article again though. Your NAMBLA-esque arguments are quite nauseating. Here’s a pointer - if a 2 year old child starts humping your leg (and yes it can happen) - ethically speaking its very very far from ok to join in. The same is true with your pets. You've allowed us all to see the connection between NLP and Zoophilia; They both promote an attitude thats devoid of ethical concern! I suppose its ironical enough that and co have spent months to years of edits demonstrating to the world that NLP is a cult that uses its recruits to stifle criticism. Having a zoophilia promoter as their anonymous leader really is the cherry on the cake.

Theres a lot of admin and editors here who strongly dislike interested parties such as yourself suppressing critical information for the purpose of promotion. I'm happy to leave the NLP article in better form than it was in October though I'm sure you'll continue to whitewash the main criticisms just as you are now. I leave you and under far heavier scrutiny than when I joined. Now I've easier articles to edit. Bye! Headley 03:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Headley 09:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Afshar experiment and COI[edit]

We are attempting a mediation here. I have requested that one of the participants not edit the article due to an apparent COI here. He has ignored my request (see article history). At this point I think protection of the article is in order.

I have a bad feeling about this user and I do not think he will cooperate with the mediation. Suggestions welcome. --Ideogram 08:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note left on WP:COI/N. --Ideogram 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I would like to report some personal attakcs which have been taking place on the British National Party talk page ontroduction section. Claims such as these i view as personal attacks by One Night In Hackney

  • "the vast amount of 100% false comments you have posted"
  • "to further your agenda"
  • "Do you actually know what stubborn means?"
  • "lies lies and propaganda"

Could someone please do something about these attacks. There are more but these are the most recent.--Lucy-marie 02:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

These claims come from a tendentious editor was has made a string of false statements on that talk page in bad faith, and has also had two recent warnings for personal attacks directed at me. One Night In Hackney 02:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
And this justifies reciprocal negative behaviour on your part, how? - WeniWidiWiki 02:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if you looked at the context in which those comments were made, rather than the biased presenting of them. One Night In Hackney 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that's not the case. Politeness is expected even with those users who you think are being impolite to you. Wikipedia behavioral policy does not authorize you to treat another person rudely in whatever context.
Now if you think the other person has been rude to you, you must report the incident on this page, that's what you're expected to do. --Abenyosef 17:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide evidence for your claims of bad faith edits and personal attacks.--Lucy-marie 13:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed community ban[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting incident of Wikistalking above, I move a community ban on BenBurch, FAAFA, DeanHinnen or any account credibly identified as a puppet of any of them by any independent editor or admin, from creating any process intended to harrass any of the other parties, reporting supposed "violations" under the WP:KETTLE clause, creating sockpuppet investigation or checkuser requests or any other form of vexatious process with the sole exception of credible and good faith participation in dispute resolution. I further move that this be escalated to ArbCom without delay if any of the parties engages in argufying. Because, in the end, I think we have all had enough of the various parties bringing their off-Wikipedia fight here and trying to recruit allies to their cause. Guy (Help!) 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do all of the above voluntarily. --BenBurch 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[Personal attack and threat removed] -

I have removed the comment above left by --Onorem 20:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support however, if any of them pledge 1rr, I retract my support. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I do so pledge --BenBurch 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
from creating any process intended to harrass any of the other parties
How do you plan to divine "intent"? Dino 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Liberally. To be safe... don't talk to 'em at all. Failing that, try being nice and working collaboratively... but in no case accuse them of doing anything improper, unkind, or with less than your total support. --CBD 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Note also per JzG above that lawyer-like arguing is not going to help you here, Dino, so it's best to not try opening that door. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't. I asked a simple and very reasonable question which CBD has been kind enough to answer, if he may speak for JzG. And if I may be allowed to respond, these two have already been instructed by this very same administrator to leave me alone for two weeks. That was February 3. This is February 9. See how well it will work? Dino 15:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh huh. Right. --Calton | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
God yes. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - Enough is more than enough already. --CBD 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. Ral315 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support - I think we've all had enough. This persistent warring is wasting a lot of time and space. Moreschi Request a recording?
Support - though the statement currently reads as "ban them from carrying out any harrassment except dispute resolution", which made me giggle, but I know what Guy meant. Proto:: 15:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
As an alternate proposal, since the various editors involved aren't completely worthless, perhaps a community ban from the article in question may be a better alternative before just banishing them altogether? FAAFA approached me to help out with things, and I wisely didn't get in the middle of it, but it wasn't due to not trying. I dunno, I don't know if we necessarily lose anything with this proposal, but we stand to gain more by allowing them to be productive in other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misread the proposal. From what I can understand, the proposal isn't to banish them, but to ban them from "creating any participation in dispute resolution" - Aksi_great (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I see. I got hung up on community ban. You can just ignore me now... --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, Jeff, thanks for the laugh. Actually, some of us might support a fully-fledged community ban...but that isn't what we're talking about. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, it seems to be more along the lines of an intervention, rather than any actual sanction, to let the parties know the community thinks they are being disruptive and acting like dicks. Thus, I fully support this "ban." JChap2007 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support, I'm very tired of the endless back-and-forth bickering here between those users. Fram 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support saying we wont tolerate any more end runs around dispute resolution. There is more than one article involved. I suspect this mess is headed ArbComms way, and other involved editors should probably think about facilitating progress through the dispute resolution process. My goodness, why don't we have a user conduct RFC yet? After trying an intermediate step or two, a pointer here may be a piece of evidence that other methods have failed. GRBerry 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support current wording. The project must move forward. Directing to Dispute resolution. Navou banter / review me 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Non-admin Support to save all the poor electrons being flung into the ether from this endless squabbling. This is basically a longer version of the simple and effective rule of "leave each other alone, for pity's sake!" (Chances of it working? Who knows. If it doesn't, the ArbCom case is going to be a three-ring circus...) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Support KillerChihuahua?!? 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on the many, many previous incidents that resulted in singularly useless warnings and 24-hour blocks that were waited out, I am concerned that any action of the nature contemplated will only be ignored once again. I will be engaged in a perfectly civil discussion with some other editor, such as Calton on the Peter Roskam Talk page. BB and/or FAAFA will intervene, challenge every keystroke I make, and claim that it's all for the good of Wikipedia and that I'm being naughty, as is occurring right now. I will complain here and all three of us will be banned, even though I have done absolutely nothing wrong. What assurance do I have that this will not happen? Dino 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dino, could you advise how you think this could be resolved? If blocks and warnings don't get anywhere, and you doubt this proposal is going to solve the problem, should the next stage be ArbCom? For what's it worth, my own view is this is possibly worth a try, however I suspect the case will go to ArbCom eventually. Addhoc 16:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom has crystal clear precedents on WP:STALK. I do not believe I should be forced to convince ArbCom to enforce ArbCom's precedents on WP:STALK. Arguing over content with moments of incivility is one thing and it merits warnings and 24-hour blocks. But stalking is a completely different thing and ArbCom has ruled that it merits one-year blocks and permanent bans. It is like the difference between a traffic ticket and a felony. You are not taking the difference seriously. Dino 16:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem: Dino, you need to read the above. This comment is precisely the kind of thing we do not want and are not prepared to put up with any more. The problem is bilateral. Wikilawyering and a tone of fake reasonableness do not conceal the fact that you have brought your battle to Wikipedia. I am just about prepared to believe that you and Bryan are separate, but your agenda is identical and your tendency to portray your own bias as neutrality is unquestionably shared with Bryan. Start proper attempts at reaching an accommodation or leave. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh god. I don't think this proposal is going to work. --Ideogram 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

*That is totally false - Sorry to be uncivil and all but you just accused me of a felony. Produce the police reports or retract. NONE of what you assert happened. --BenBurch 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Guys, what part of shut up and leave each other alone are you having trouble understanding? Guy (Help!) 17:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I meant to until he posted that. I'll strike it out. --BenBurch 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember my first hour here. It was an interesting experience. The moment one administrator got the (later proven false) idea in his head that I was a sockpuppet, I was permanently blocked. The moment the same administrator got the (later proven false) idea in his head that Carolyn Doran, the Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, was impersonating a WMF employee she was permanently blocked.


No discussion. No questions asked. Absolutely zero hesitation. It was as though the two of us had decided to take a little stroll on the beach in Normandy on June 6, 1944.

Here I have posted bulletproof evidence of WP:STALK after tall stacks of warnings were ignored and 24-hour blocks were waited out.

And you do nothing but claim that "the problem is bilateral." Dino 17:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

File:Beating 2Da 2Ddead 2Dhorse.gif
You were blocked because your editing pattern matched that of a disruptive banned user who has used many sockpuppets. CheckUser showed the same address. Not in any way controversial. You say you are Bryan's brother, well, maybe, but all you have done - and I mean all - is to pursue Bryan's grudges and sow yet more dissent. I think the community has, thus far, shown heroic patience with you. I don't see that lasting much longer. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
"Note also per JzG above that lawyer-like arguing is not going to help you here, Dino, so it's best to not try opening that door." Like I said. --Calton | Talk 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I support ~ Arjun 17:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I won't vote as I am just a kibbitzer here. But it looks to this observer like Dino is 80% of the problem, and the other two just lack the self-control to avoid responding to his provocations. I think Dino should be smacked hard, and the other two hit with a rolled up newspaper until they get some sense. -- 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No. Dino just hasn't disengaged or backed down yet like the 100 or so editors before him. These is deja vu all over again. Dino is just the latest. --Tbeatty 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Or been banned. Maybe most members of the Free Republic site are inherently unable to edit within Wikipedia policy; it would not be a big surprise given its basis. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no data on Free Republic members and WP. I do know that it appears these 3 editors are unable to edit within Wikipedia policy. Without commenting on their contributions, two other editors immediately come to mind though as disengaging - User:jinxmchue and User:Crockspot[90]. They have mostly disengaged from articles frequented by these editors as have I and some other editors. There are also editors User:lawyer2b that have disengaged as well. It's tiring. [91] --Tbeatty 00:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll support that - and furthermore - I support a 14, 21, or 30 day ban on all 3 of us from editing ANY political or religious article - encompassing ANY contentious article. Let's see if we're of value to the community outside of our own self-evident goals of trying to remove conservative or liberal bias and POV. (I'm hesitant to even refer to Mr. Hinnen, but must) Lets see if this concern concern is removed as an issue for Mr. Hinnen, how he, and all 3 of us react. - FAAFA 22:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (From Non-Admin), also, *Object to the cruelty to animals above, instead SUPPORT beating all three with the dead horse. No amount of intervention by admins, or by non-admins like myself, can do anything. I'm totally frustrated with this particular situation. Only a community ban against all three, totally prohibiting ANY political articles AT ALL, including historical topics as far back as HAMMURABI and as far forward as Asimov's Foundation and Empire series should be covered by the ban. They can edit the sciences, the arts, and popular culture. They may NOT touch the social sciences. ZERO. ThuranX 22:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, but support. I also think this might benefit from arbitration, it seems to have gone too far for RfC.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 00:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Seems to me there's a related issue the committee should address about the appropriate scope of WMF employee action. I've left a statement at RFAR endorsing the proposal there. DurovaCharge! 04:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (non-admin) Enough is enough. Kick it to ARBCOM and be done with it. - Crockspot 00:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support this resolution attempt and the remedies outlined. I'm sick of the whole thing. I'd rather see us solve it if we can, but if not, the ArbCom case is another chance to do so. ++Lar: t/c 14:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Metsbot has been migrating all Rugby union related useboxes without a valid explanation and I would like to know why because I dont think there was any problems with those boxes anyway. Check the Link and find out for yourself and Pliz explain to me why they were moved..thanx..--Cometstyles 13:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:GUS, but generally for such questions it is best to ask the user in question on their talk page. --pgk 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I already did..--Cometstyles 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 7. Garion96 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
How would seeing Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetsBot 7 help in the issue??--Cometstyles 13:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You already did which? Read WP:GUS and the basic principle of moving non-encyclopedic userboxes out of the main wikipedia space into userspace, or asked the user? I can see you posted to the user talk page about 5 minutes before posting here, but I sort of implicitly meant "and give them a reasonable amount of time to respond and discuss". --pgk 13:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Well the reason for moving the boxes is here but the question Iam asking is why didnt he solve the problem be4 migrating the userboxes and when I said that i had already written to him is that I was implying that I have already posted a messsage on the user in question and I thought there might be something else in regards of Botfailure which might have led to the problem of the unnecessary userbox migration is why I posted a comment here to see if there are any other wikiusers facing a similar bot malfunction problem..thanx--Cometstyles 13:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused then. Which problem are you talking about? Your question here is why were they moved? You don't seem to be suggesting the bot is not functioning as designed, more you don't like what it is doing. The question you asked seems to have been answered - there has been an ongoing task to move non-encyclopedic userboxes out of the main spaces into userspace, I'm not sure what deletion/merging of the categories has to do with this.
Looking closer the bot isn't updating userspace to reflect those moves, I've updated your page and I can see it did so for one it moved a few days ago. Since the bot isn't currently running there is nothing further to be done, we just need to wait and find out if it should be updating userspace and if it is, why it isn't. --pgk 13:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, the response here is that it is supposed to update the transclusions, but looks like it does it as a separate task. Wait a little longer and it should all come good. --pgk 14:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct. (for the record) It's a two step procedure, first it migrates a bunch of userboxes, then it updates the transclusions. This is to avoid having to make an edit on someone's userpage for each box migrated, instead of fixing many at once. —METS501 (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Ck12 uploading images[edit]

Ck12 (talk · contribs) recently uploaded 20 images recently that were all direct copy violations from the team's website (I was able to find the source for 19 of them). However, this user has received warnings in the past about his uploads: [92] (copyvio notice) [93] (no source x11, for which if he provided a source it would have likely been deleted as a copyvio but they were likely deleted as no source instead). He's blanked his talk page several times to remove the notices from before. I do not think this user understands the seriousness of the problem he is creating. I'm not sure if a block is appropriate, but a strong warning that uploading any other copyvio image again would result in a block. If it was possible, I'd be fine with just removing his upload permission, but I don't think that it is. --MECUtalk 14:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet placed on my user page by[edit]

I do not have a sockpuppet. The "log" does not explain why the template is there. {{sockpuppeteer}}

The last time I was harassed by someone putting such unwarranted templates on my page, an administrator propected my page so I could not remove it and threatened to ban me. What should I do? Am I evading it by posting here? Please help. Sincerely, Mattisse 15:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. Cbrown1023 talk 15:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so very much! Sincerely, Mattisse 15:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Indef-block of Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I had posted on ANI earlier about User:Rumpelstiltskin223 being none other than the banned User:Hkelkar. Since then Rumpel has been blocked 2 more times. Once for violation of 3RR on 2 pages, and the second time for evading the block. It was shown by checkuser that Rumpel had been using an open proxy. Also see Special:Contributions/, an IP from the university from which Hkelkar has been known to edit. The edits are also to the articles frequented by him. This shows that Hkelkar has not left wikipedia and is still evading his ban. Thus, I am sure of my conclusion that Rumpel is actually Hkelkar, evading his ban using open proxies and possibly different ISPs. Their edits are too similar, and Rumpel's block-count is building up. Hence I have indefinitely blocked Rumpelstiltskin enforcing this ruling made by ArbCom regarding Hkelkar. I am also resetting the ban on Hkelkar. In all Hkelkar and his socks Subhash bose and Rumpel have been blocked close to 25 times. Hence I propose a community ban on Hkelkar and his socks. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit early for an indef community ban of Hkelkar, since TerryJ-Ho and BhaiSaab were also both caught sockpuppeting this week. (More precisely, it may be too early to single out Hkelkar for an indef ban.) Certainly the sock should be indef banned and all three one-year blocks should be reset. But yes, things are certainly heading in that direction for all of them. Thatcher131 15:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I get your point, but would like to point out that the other two were not blocked 25+ times in all which was my reason for "singling out" Hkelkar. :) - Aksi_great (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just raising the issue. I see your point. Thatcher131 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I endorse this block. Despite some positive contributions, this user has overall become a disruptive influence on a wide array of article. If not outright sockpuppetry by Hkelkar, it is likely that Rumpel is a meatpuppet. The margin of error in the IP analysis does not worry me, as ultimately Rumpel's behavior was disruptive. Rama's arrow 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, I've suspected it was Hkelkar all along, just didn't have enough to act. Daniel.Bryant 20:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I too endorse, I'me at least as responsible as Daniel, cause I too was pretty sure he was Hkelkar, but was too lazy to take action.--Aldux 00:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Like others have said, I noticed this awhile ago as well, but it had (at that point) recently received an unlikely result in a checkuser request. Not sure how that happened... -- tariqabjotu 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - It obviously happened because they're two different people.Bakaman 04:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to detecting Hkelkar's sockpuppets Bakaman's skills are always dead-on wrong, as he has been before. If he says someone isn't Hkelkar's sockpuppet, you might as well ban that person for being a sockpuppet of Hkelkar without even looking at their contribs. 04:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry BhaiSaab, at least I'm not banned for being an anti-Semitic sockpuppeteer.Bakaman 16:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Rumpel is an excellent user. He has made postive contributions to the project and has access to a wide library of reference material straight from the source.--D-Boy 09:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That is enough. Hkelkar has gone too far, too often against Wikipedia and abusing the decision of ArbCom. I'm blocking him indefinitely. Rama's arrow 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

User Nareklm keeps removing sources info[edit]

User:Nareklm keeps removing referenced information on page Monte Melkonian -- diff [[94]]

That book is not reliable you need hard evidence if you're going to call someone a terrorist. Nareklm 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Harry Houdini[edit]

Could some one please take a look at the wiki entry for Harry Houdini. There is a whole chunk of bizarre text at the begining of entry. I hope I have posted this request in the correct place. If not, many apologies, I'm not very tech savvy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Don't ever be sorry for trying to help! Usually, problems with an article are brought up on that article's talk page (the "discussion" tab next to the "article" one, at the top of the page, the one for the Houdini article is