Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive211

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Chaaaz & Nomen Nescio[edit]

I suspect that User:Chaaaz is a sockpuppet of Nomen Nescio. He was created simply to put a comment on this very board in support of Nescio's suggestion to ban me. I think that both User:Chaaaz and Nomen Nescio should be banned.--Dr who1975 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Chaaaz is a sock of someone, don't care who. As for you and Nescio, I suggest you try dispute resolution, second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no need for dispute resolution. This user went on a massive editrun on several pages (see his contibution from 1.30-2.00h today), including moving them. Without sufficient discussion to undertake such behaviour I and another user, who also warned him to stop, merely reverted him. He is welcome to the relevant talk pages and propose his suggested moves. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and Personal Attacks by user 80.193.169.137[edit]

The above user has both vandalised articles and directed personal attacks at the user User:80.192.242.187 (Signs posts as 'JemmyH') consistently. I am posting on here on behalf of said 'JemmyH' due to his unregistered status. The user 80.193.169.137 has also, in the past, posted on User:Jhamez84 talk page where a further personal attack was aimed at User:Jhamez84 . The full catalogue of 80.193.169.137 contributions can be found here[[1]]. Examples of vandalism can be seen here [[2]], here[[3]] and here[[4]]. The personal attack on User:Jhamez84 can be found here[[5]]. Thank you.Man2 15:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Man2

PaxEquilibrium[edit]

This user is constatnly rude, abusive and now he accuses me of being a sockpuppet of someone else. Though there is no connection between me and this person he makes the offical accustion here [6] he posted my account and connects it with several anon's and one previously banned user to which I can not be connected in any way. This is nothing but fishing. I actually wouldn't complain since perhaps I would think he made a mistake, and so I would tolerate it, unless I was accused before that by another user Paulcicero here [7] which was supported by the same user PaxEquilibrium and another user (who is often revert-warring) Nikola Smolenski. This accusation was proven false. Then comes in PaxEquilibrium at User talk:Tariqabjotu and alleges I am some User:Afrika paprika person who was banned long before I even came and decided to register, alleging my edits are similar to his for which there is absolutly no proof and is definately not true. The funny thing is that he also points as his evidence how a certain member User:GreaterCroatia referred to me as this AfrikaPaprika person which is very strange moment for him to come in and call me that just as another person has made an accusation of me being this person?! This all started with the discussion on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich and since then all these people I mentioned have been following me around and making false allegations against me. I demand something to be done so that these people finally leave me alone. Tar-Elenion 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Essjay RFC[edit]

David Gerard, who obviously has strong concerns for Essjay's well being, deleted the RFC and it's talk page, on the grounds it wasn't "certified". Though I understand the motivation behind this, it strikes me as a very bad idea to appeal to "process" as a way to sweep such issues under the rug just as the New York Times [8] and others are discussing them. Dragons flight 16:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also see my request to David to undelete the page. —Doug Bell talk 16:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - this is a current event being discussed in both printed and electronic media. It should not have been deleted while people were still discussing the events of the past 36 hours. Munta 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion review is that way, but this is obviously a valid deletion as there wasn't a single certifier. Without the two-certifier requirement RFC would be a massive troll magnet, and it must be respected. Is there anything that hasn't been said or still needs to be done? Unlikely. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you really feel a deletion review would be helpful at this time, it would be to debating cencorship. Deleting this page so quickly is merely going to be kerosene on dying flames. Giano
At DRV. Dragons flight 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • God just look at the comments there already. Some people in authority on this encyclopedia need saving from themselves. If D Gerard was intending to help Essjay, then he has gone avery strange way about it. Giano 16:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten that it was put on RfC by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Essjay. I'd think the best action would have been to review that MfD close, not to overturn it by a speedy deletion. GRBerry 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Joques2theFuture[edit]

Seems inappropriate, since he states on it that he hates Edgar181. At a minimum, probably worth watching in case of future inappropriate action. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed for now. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Primetime sock?[edit]

I blocked The Kingdom of Hate (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for this, but is it sincere or a weird joke? Chick Bowen 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? --138.38.32.84 17:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably sincere. Primetime makes an occasional editorial remark. -Will Beback · · 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism from this IP[edit]

205.247.247.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This IP has never made a single constructive edit. It has been blocked in the past for vandalism and the talk page is a mess of warnings. More vandalism today at Chicago Theatre. Recent edits seem to indicate that the person is gaming the system by using this IP to vandalize once a month (probably using others as well). Maybe it's an open proxy? Anyway, I think this IP should be indef blocked as whoever is using it is obviously only out to make trouble. TheQuandry 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The appropriate place would be WP:AIV. Blocked again this time. However, we never block indef IP addresses. We just extend their blocks anytime they return vandalizing. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

DvDknight (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) vandalizing User:Chacor[edit]

This account probably needs indefinite blocking as a compromised account per the user's comments after vandalizing User:Chacor and User talk:Chacor. Please note that vandalism warnings have been removed from his talk page. (Netscott) 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked by Irishguy for 24h. Let's see what their attitude would be after coming back. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajsingam (talk · contribs) using profanity in my userpage[edit]

Resolved

This user has used the words Fuck you on my user page, this user has violated many other wikipedia policies in the past and this is not the first time he has been foul mouthed to fellow editors. complete list of violations of policies can be seen at User:Netmonger/RfC, this is a previous Request for comment which was failed because the certifying editors signed in the wrong place, after the deletion of the Rfc, the affected editors collectively decided not to pursue the case any further, assuming the user will not resort to such methods again. But this hasn't been the case. I hope the administrators will take prompt action in this regard. ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗTalk 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 18:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

82.153.51.122 / Peniel Pentacostal Church[edit]

Could admin attention be applied to 82.153.51.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? This user, whose IP traces to "Peniel Church", is making non-constructive edits to Peniel Pentecostal Church, despite multiple warnings and being in breach of WP:COI. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Peniel Pentecostal Church. Tearlach 18:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil[edit]

  • Moved to WP:CN for community input per the new policy. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Personal attacks on a user talk page[edit]

Please see my previous posts. All I'm asking is that the purposeful misspellings of the name be corrected, and the section heading be reverted to what it was originally. I think Curiouscdngeorge just needs to see that other people do not agree with his behavior. Thank you. Xiner (talk, email) 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Ragib for Systematically following me and Vandalizing the articles I worked on[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

<extensive copy of content from reporting user's talk page deleted, Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)>

Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a continuation of the harrassment by this user. Already reported above at WP:ANB/I#Atulsnischal_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_reported_by_Ragib. --Ragib 21:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Atulsnischal, this isn't the Wikipedia department of complaints. If you have an issue with Ragib that you feel needs to be resolved, seek dispute resolution. No violations of policy have been committed such that administrator intervention would be required. You need to discuss this. Leebo86 21:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Quite. And no need to disrupt this forum by copying lengthy sections of your talk page here, either. If you have problems with one another, please see WP:DR. Sandstein 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

B2bomber81 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Could you provide some diffs please?--Crossmr 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your message at User talk:B2bomber81 and User talk:Tuxide, please be reminded that only administrators can impose cooling off periods. AecisBrievenbus 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Memejojo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is just a strange user in general—I don't mean to personally attack him, but he is new (assuming he's not a sockpuppet) and I don't understand his actions. He undoes WP:MOSHEAD edits on Best Buy claiming it's vandalism [9], edits others comments on his own talk page claiming that they slow down the server [10], and then decides to impose a 24 hour cooling off period on me and User:B2bomber81 [11] [12]. His account isn't even 24 hours old, and he can't even spell harassment correctly. Any advice on how B2bomber81 and I should deal with him would be appreciated. I was going to bring this up on WP:WQA but now that he's gone here I'll let it resolve on this board. Regards, Tuxide 00:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I see on his user talk page that he's being suspected of being a Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) sock. AecisBrievenbus 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memejojo for convenience; although it looks like it has already been denied because it is that obvious. Tuxide 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All the evidence for harrassment is there for the public to see. The cooling off period is requested in order to allow the new user to participate in peace with the Wikipedia community. The above user Tuxide seeks to make inflammatory statements however there is no evidence that the user is "strange." That would be personal opinion however it is not personal opinion that harrassment and vandalism of a user's, that is fact. This is the forum to resolve this not on content pages and we are all grateful that the users in question can be civil about this. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make the suggestion that Tuxide refrain from editing posts from other user by adding the small font mini signature that targets specific users. This is clearly intimidation and harrassment and it is surprising to some degree that it continues here on the administrators page. Besides the user in dispute is B2bomber81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) but I respect and encourage any users making productive comments regarding this issue. --Memejojo 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of the {{spa}} template is common procedure in cases like this, and like Tuxide I feel that it is appropriate here. AecisBrievenbus 00:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

To state that new users have contributed to 1 article. Well isn't that something to be expected. How can one write more if they are dealing with harassment? Let's have some guidance about that from more admins. It is a healthy conversation to have and I am willing to spend as many months as it takes to resolve these issues as long as all involved also communicate in this forum in good faith. Thanks and good luck. --Memejojo 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I referred to Memejojo as a new user based on his creation log, not based on his count log. However, I don't believe that this user is new to wikipedia. I do suspect that he is a sockpuppet of blocked users Momoj and Jomomm (verified sockpuppets). My basis for this suspicion? Firstly, their names are quite similar. Secondly, Memejojo being a "new member" immediately started flaming other editors for editing his contribution to the Best Buy page. He repeated infers ownership of the article by "daring" anyone to make changes to his contributions without permission, or simply reverts the edits. I have already submitted a checkuser request for this user to determine if it is indeed a sockpuppet or not.

His last contribution included a biased comment that I requested be left out. He refused, and so I removed his contribution, asking that he refrain from reintroducing to the article until there was a consensus on the content of his contribution. I suggested he could either agree to leave his opinions out of the article or find a reliable source for his claims. I will note that Tuxide also recommended that an alternate source be used. Memejojo responded with another revert and said there is no lack of consensus.

Lastly, as Tuxide eluded to, this user is just plain strange. He refers to himself in a third person almost as if he is actually representing several people, as well as falsely representing himself as an administrator. At one point he tried to verbally impose a 24-hour cool off period on me until Tuxide reminded him that he was not an admin. He has also taken it upon himself to edit other users talk pages to remove threads that he feels aren't appropriate in his opinion. I appreciate the admins taking the time to look into this matter. B2bomber81 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In an effort to correct the course this is going and to clarify what this post is about. It is about the harrassment of a new user. It is not about what certain users wish were true but it is about what is actually true. I do not believe the admins who view this forum are swayed by false accusations. If there is concrete evidence for flamming, daring/taunting, sockpuppetry etc. let them present the evidence here and in the open. You'd think I was the devil or something. There is simply no evidence of this. One thing is for sure since opening this request for mediation B2bomber81 has ceased harrassment. I admit Tuxide used very colorful and passionate language but this forum should be reserved for facts and not rhetoric. --Memejojo 17:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So you add a new section to Best Buy, only to come to this board when someone else wants your own edits to comply to WP:MOSHEAD, and labeling him as a vandal. Your posts make absolutely no sense to me; it may as well be disputed whether WP:POINT applies here because I have no idea what the heck you're trying to prove. Tuxide 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I added more information under an already existing category which is of course fully compliant with all wikipedia standards. I am a new member and will continue to make contributions. I have found many editors inviting. Tuxide seems to be the only one confused by wikipedia standards but as a community we will help him/her become a more productive member. This forum is a good place to air out differences and I am very very pleased with the results which is a stop to the harrassment. I now feel like this community is worth my time and effort. I hope this shows that through civil discourse people online can come together to form a great product which is Wikipedia. --Memejojo 23:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil, and please do not belittle an established editor like Tuxide by calling him/her "confused by wikipedia standards" and by saying the he/she needs help to "become a more productive member." AecisBrievenbus 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've applied the duck test and blocked Memejojo for being a sockpuppet of Momoj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (as referenced on his talk page) as well as continuing the same tedentious editting practices that also led to an indefinte block on the original account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Beat me to it. —bbatsell ¿? 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice job guys, thank you for your assistance! B2bomber81 00:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Simmintelkeree[edit]

Resolved

I just found this RfA and it's full of forged signatures supporting Simmintelkeree (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I was going to request speedy deletion, but I didn't know if this warranted another block. John Reaves (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef and RfA deleted. Thanks. —bbatsell ¿? 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So many support votes forged, and he didn't include me... What have I done wrong? :'( AecisBrievenbus 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Hi, I have reported this user, 65.189.189.23, for repeated disruption of Wikipedia because of personal attacks on other users about their inappropriate signature. Could you please block this user? --68.111.92.229 00:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those edits looks like a personal attack, to me. Corvus cornix 00:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

self-identifying sockpuppets, block requested[edit]

170.215.40.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) signs as the indef blocked VacuousPoet (talk · contribs · block log) here: [13]. 170.215.40.207 then edits the userpage of StudyAndBeWise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), identifying him as a sock of VacuousPoet: [14].

VacuousPoet has already been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Kdbuffalo (talk · contribs · block log). Could someone block the new socks as appropriate? (For more details, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet (2nd) and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/VacuousPoet.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a spam ruling from an admin[edit]

Could someone make the call where links to Tiny Mix Tapes are spam? User:Mangle is adding this link to a large number of pages, but argues it's a legitimate review site. The site does contain a lot of advertising. RJASE1 Talk 18:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Has no obvious authority, so why would anyone link it anyway? Guy (Help!) 18:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure why being an admin asserts any more authority over the subject at hand than a regular editor, but I would say it's spam. It doesn't have any authority; it's just like Purevolume links: they're there to be there. Shadow1 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You may find the relevant guideline useful. --Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The site does not contain a lot of advertising. It now has three banners, but, before that, the site operated for several years with absolutely no ads whatsoever. And, it should be noted, the ads in question are music related (it's a music journalism website). It should also be noted that Popmatters and Pitchfork contain far more ads than three. I only added links to tinymixtapes in the "professional reviews" catagory for albums, as the reviews on TMT are the hallmark of professional. I never just spam linked the basic site link. I only provided relevant content to specific albums. I deeply object to the association of Tiny Mix Tapes as spam. It is a professional music journalism website and should be allowed to be mentioned along side other professional reviews.--Mangle 20:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The above editor has admitted to a conflict of interest but fails to see how that should matter. He seems to think that since he linked to individual pages all over as opposed to the main page of the website, that somehow makes it not spam. I happen to disagree. IrishGuy talk 20:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an editor for tinymixtapes, or any publication for that matter. And I fail to see how adding professional reviews under the professional reviews catagory is spamming. IF you don't want people to post professional reviews, don't have a professional reviews catagory in albums.--Mangle 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mangle, the problem I have with linking to Tiny Mix Tapes is that you haven't shown it to be a notable web site, in accordance with our policies. I looked into it a bit, and couldn't find anything to change my mind. You can read our web site notability guidelines here. While that is specifically for articles about websites, in my mind it would also apply to external links of this type. If someone wrote a review of an album on a blogspot blog and linked to it in an album's infobox here, I think we'd all agree that most editors would object to including it. In the absence of evidence that Tiny Mix Tapes is a notable or respected website providing reviews, it should be treated the same way, I'm afraid. —bbatsell ¿? 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, he got blocked for spamming. I ended up pulling out about 120 links by Mangle dating back to December. Pretty much all his edits here have been to insert those links into articles. As far as I am concerned, that is the definition of spam even if the site had some notability to it. IrishGuy talk 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • TMT reviews are syndicated through Metacritic, which meets WP:WEB criterion 3. Tiny Mix Tapes, especially its playlist generator, have been featured in reliable media as well. [15] and discussed in a scholarly journal[16]. For further reference, Definitive Jux (home to Aesop Rock, RJD2), Young God (Devandra Banhart, Angels Of Light), Type Records (Midaircondo, Xela), Saddle Creek (Bright Eyes), Benbecula (Christ., Frog Pocket), and Madlib's Stones Throw, all very prominent independant labels, as well as Kill Rock Stars band Deerhoof (as seen here)all reprint tinymixtapes reviews the same as Pitchfork, among many others. The reason none of this was spam is because I only added those link to the sections entitled "professional reviews." I strongly believe Tiny Mix Tapes to be a professional review source, and placing those reviews along side allmusic and pitchfork in the proper catagory on album pages is the very definition of what wikipedia is supposed to be about... good, comprehensive content.--Mangle 03:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that isn't a reason it wasn't spam. It was spam. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:COI again as you don't seem to understand the policies. You are associated with the site. You made widescale edits to various articles where your only addition was a link to the site you are affiliated with. That is spam. IrishGuy talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You mean, I created album pages that otherwise would not exist, complete with tracklisting, then added a link to a tinymixtapes review under the prefabricated "professional reviews" heading. That's called content, not spam. Good call. By the way, I wouldn't call adding one link a "widescale edit." You are exaggerating.--Mangle 16:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
As near as I can tell, you created exactly two articles...and, of course, made sure that tinymixtapes.com was the only review linked. Other than that, you placed links to tinymixtapes.com in at least 120 other articles. Yes, that is widescale spamming. IrishGuy talk 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
In 120 other articles under the "professional reviews" catagory, linking to professional articles relevant to the artist = content. And I didn't "make sure" TMT was the only review linked. I just didn't put any others down. The other million Wiki editors are free to add Pitchfork or whatever they want to the pages I created. Quite frankly, I don't know how to "make sure" TMT is the only review linked.--Mangle 16:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I have explained WP:COI and WP:SPAM to you countless times. You cannot link to a site you are associated with and claim it isn't spamming. It is. It isn't adding content, it is advertising reviews you wrote. IrishGuy talk 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
So then what is the professional reviews catagory for? For not having content?--Mangle 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me exactly what parts of WP:COI and WP:SPAM you are having trouble understanding. IrishGuy talk 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding what the professional reviews catagory in album articles is for.--Mangle 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
So once again, you attempt to deflect the fact that you have willfully violated WP:COI and WP:SPAM by adding 120+ links to a website that you are affiliated with. IrishGuy talk 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince Godfather (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log): Falsifying copyright info, OTRS info[edit]

Resolved

In this section, I am not using the term, "fraudulent", in any legal sense. I believe it is the best description of the actions described. Prince Godfather (talk · contribs), after being blocked several times before for copyright violations, was caught placing false OTRS permission information on the following images:

Given this user's history and given that there are numerous other images with either dubious or obviously deliberately fraudulent information (for example, Image:Shriyanew.JPG has a fraudulent email exchange copy-and-pasted and slightly edited from Image:Asinthottumkal.JPG), I have blocked this user indefinitely and plan on deleting all image uploads from this user. Given that we know we cannot trust the information this user provides, I believe it is safest for Wikipedia simply to ditch all the images.

I am sorry to have to have taken these steps but in my opinion, the actions of this user have placed the Wikipedia in danger. I welcome any constructive comments about this situation. --Yamla 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. Jkelly 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, that's the second time I've seen this. Please block aggressively for this sort of activity; it's wilfully and deliberately malicious. Shimgray | talk | 21:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Total support. -- Nick t 22:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As a photographer myself I appreciate your aggressive pursuit of copyright issues. Just a comment here, when I give permission to use my artwork, I send one of half-a-dozen form responses, and I send them from various names/websites, depending upon where the request originated. However, it appears you have handled this correctly by contacting the sites, rather than making an assumption, and erring towards deletion (they can be uploaded again if necessary). In the end, though, it doesn't matter, the user had already been banned from editing Wikipedia under another name. Again, I do appreciate your working to honor others' copyright by deleting all of the images uploaded by this user. People think a camera makes everyone a photographer, so pictures on the Internet are up for grabs--neither assumption should be part of Wikipedia. KP Botany 22:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have protected Prince Godfather's talk page for abusing of the unblock template and also for making legal threats on his talk page while blocked. [17]. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


Huge number of redirects[edit]

Redirects are cheap but do we need so many of them as in : [22]? Alex Bakharev 11:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 12:05Z
Ha ha ha ha Merbabu 12:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Gwern (talk · contribs) seems to be running a bot (User:Gwern/Bot) that's creating redirects with all permutations of case variations with edit summaries saying articles are linking to them, but I don't see those articles. Also it seems to be buggy, creating loops or indirect redirects and creating redirects starting with "!" (was that supposed to be a blacklist thing?). Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 12:10Z

And many of the redirects are doubles and/or malformatted (so that they aren't detected as redirects). --ais523 12:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I rouged them up a little. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be happening again... --Delirium 04:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

One title has more than 500 different spellings. ww2censor 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
From February's dump, Wikipedia has as many articles as redirects. I always wondered how that was possible. Now I know :-) -- ReyBrujo 04:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism threat[edit]

At this AFD, User:512theking says if we delete his brother's page he'll go back to vandalizing just like I did in the good old days. Luigi30 (Taλk) 17:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was said months ago and was indef blocked. What's new about that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
This edit was made days ago...not months ago. --Onorem 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Onorem. I see. Well, i've just blocked the IP for a week as a sock of banned user 512theking. There's nothing more we can do at this stage i believe. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not again... These socks are a pain-in-the-rear because the user uploads copyrighted images from various accounts. I guess I'll make my rounds on numerous Pennsylvania-highway-related pages to check for copyvios soon.... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, if anyone finds suspicious images uploaded on any Pennsylvania (or New Jersey) routes that are from newer users, please let me know on my talk page. I can run these by several people (respective owners of the copyrights) who can determine if they are copyright vios or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Smeelgova archiving out recent material relevant to BabyDweezil case[edit]

Hi. Could someone please talk to Smee and ask him to stop archiving out two-day-old talk page material that may have some bearing on BabyDweezil's case for community ban. He is edit warring over it with me and I would imagine that, if nothing else, you would not archive out material that another editor wants to reamin. That seems like basic good manners irrespective of the BabyDweezil issue which makes the warring even odder appearing still. See [23]. Thanks --Justanother 20:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This particular user has a history of violating Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, and has been warned about it by myself and other third-party editors. As to archiving the talk page, it was an old thread, and there is now an archive for old material. If User:Justanother or any other user wishes to begin a new discussion, they can do so by starting a new subject heading on the talk page. Smee 20:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Smee, you are the only one posting phony PA warnings on my page and this is not about me, this is about archiving a talk page prematurely and against the wishes of another editor during discussion of sanctioning an 3rd editor for actions associated with that article. What is the world are you thinking? --Justanother 20:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Smeelgova is hardly the only one who's concerned about Justanother's personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and persistent disruption. On the contrary, he may be the only person left who thinks that asking you to follow the rules here has any chance of success. Are you trying to prove him wrong? --FOo 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Justanother has also been warned previously for disrupting the ANI process. Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive206#BabyDweezil_redux:_proposing_a_one-month_block. Smee 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

It's just common sense that editors are free to unarchive archived talkpage material if they have reasonable cause to want it kept on the live page. It's not an action to revert, let alone edit war over. Please don't revert JA's unarchiving, Smeelgova. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Sigh, alright. I will revert it. Smee 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Sigh, indeed! Thanks Bishonen. --Justanother 21:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

New edit war at Giulio Clovio[edit]

I'm edit warring at Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) and BarryMar (talk · contribs) are inserting unsourced (or very poorly sourced) claims & adding their personal comments to the body of the article.

The issue has been brought up here before (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive184#Slow-pace edit-war at Giulio Clovio).

I don't provide any diffs to the edits because it's basically a constant back-and-forth revert war: choose any recent revert example from the article's history :-)

In the article's talk page, either see Talk:Giulio Clovio#Latest changes (quite long, but pretty focused), or simply concentrate in its "On Clovio's origin" & "On GiorgioOrsini's sentence" sub-sections.

Any help (like fully protecting the article or at least making a few short comments) would be more than welcome :-)

Thanks already. Best regards, Ev 02:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Page protection requests should be made at WP:RFPP. ptkfgs 02:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
This goes beyong the scope of a mere page protection. GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) has been edit warring about this article for months in a row. I have suggested in the past for him to try dispute resolution to no avail. I would appreciate if another admin can take a look at this as I would rather not having to use the tools myself in this instance. --Asteriontalk 08:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Party to Free Republic RFAr recruiting accounts / meatpuppets on Free Republic[edit]

I am currently in an RFAr on Free Republic, as is user DeanHinnen. Several people have documented and concluded that user DeanHinnen and his banned sockpuppet 'brother' BryanFromPalatine are one in the same. This article where his puppetry and legal threats made headlines, Wikipedia Sockpuppet Theatre, for instance. Dean/Bryan posted on on Free Republic earlier today soliciting new accounts and puppets. - "Does anyone here need a better reason to open an account at Wikipedia?" I request protection for the article, and action on Hinnen's puppet solicitation. [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795382/posts Dean/Bryan's FR post] - FaAfA (yap) 02:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an Arbitration matter and should be deferred to injunctions as part of arbitration. Please ask for an injunction or a remedy on the Arbitration workshop page. --Tbeatty 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. An injunction is what is called for at this point. --BenBurch 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please note In that post, Dino reveals himself to be BRYAN, who is Indefblocked already. Apparently he's discarded the fiction the two are brothers. I will ask for an injunction and immediate enforcement of BryanFromPalantine's indefblock I misread his sentences, but please note, Bryan admits that DeanHinnen is acting as his proxy on this matter. SirFozzie 03:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Corrected statement, SirFozzie 03:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC))
Tbeatty is correct that a motion may be made or proposed findings suggested on the arbitration workshop page. SirFozzie, please be more specific about where in the article you believe there is an admission that Dean is Bryan. Newyorkbrad 03:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
See my corrected statement, Brad. I have struck through the statement, and apologize for the misstatement. I have posted a request for an injunction on the Arb Workshop page. SirFozzie 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
No surprise that Bryan wouold do this; he is already banned. The evidence that Dean=Bryan is on a web site we would not normally consider a reliable source for articles. I will try to make Fred aware of the situation as he is getting ready to write the proposed decision. Thatcher131 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally...the proposed decision. The evidence and workshop pages have become such a mess that it is an eyesore whenever I try to read it. --210physicq (c) 03:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Brad - I posted there earlier today about what I felt was another legal threat from Dean/Bryan and it didn't get a peep - so I thought it better to post this here. I reposted this to the RFAr workshop and evidence talk pages too. - FaAfA (yap) 03:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been warning all of the parties for weeks that the evidence and workshop pages would be rendered useless if everyone didn't control the quantity of verbiage. At this point, at Thatcher131 says, a proposed decision will soon appear and the case will be close to finishing up. Newyorkbrad 03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It would help if it was completely silent during the voting phase of the case. However, some may just cry "arbitrator abuse" or the like... --210physicq (c) 03:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
UH-OH! Too late! I hope Fred has a good sense of humor! LOL! - FaAfA (yap) 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops. :) --210physicq (c) 04:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

75.24.220.143 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Thread retitled from "Vandalism".
Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.24.220.143 This guy is vandalizing pages. DanDixon 05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. You'll want to report them to WP:AIV after the appropriate warnings. -- Gogo Dodo 05:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this one's a little different[edit]

68.98.50.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to make useful edits but also pretty regular vandalism. That could be a sign of different users at the IP, but I don't think so. The vandalism isn't at the "poop" and "penis" level, it's actually a tiny bit clever; and twice when I've called him on it he's responded on my talk page in a light-hearted manner, essentially saying that his vandalism should be accepted because it's funny. In a way, this makes him a more dangerous vandal than the poop/penis crowd, or the X-is-hooooot crowd, whose vandalisms can easily be spotted. But he doesn't do it often enough to justify a report on AIV. So what should I do about it? Zsero 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs, it seems like an Irish-American knowing Russian well and Japanese lightly, with a fascination for guns and fire, racist, with a weird sense of humor, from Arizona. You realize I'm not gonna sleep at all well tonight?
Seriously, gotta be more than a couple people, at least one of which knows Russian and is helpful. Prove me wrong, however, and I won't sleep well at night. :) Shenme 08:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sanity check requested[edit]

Resolved

Howdy folks, I'm participating in a DRV and would like a quick sanity check on something. An article I speedy deleted on Jan 19 has been brought up for deletion review, and that's fine. We can't get 'em all right, and if it was an error, best it be resolved. But I'm perceiving an odd belligerence from another admin in the discussion, and I'd like to know if it's my imagination or not. The specific discussion is at this deletion review, and the admin in question is Night Gyr (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). If I need a knock on the head, well, that's good feedback too I suppose. Best regards, CHAIRBOY () 07:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite as hostile as someone else who was similarly unhappy with a deletion of mine, but yeah, a little unnecessarily belligerent. So what? Grandmasterka 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're being overly sensitive. Perhaps you were a little overzealous with this speedy delete, perhaps not. In borderline cases it is a good idea to ask for a second opinion, one way of doing this is to tag the article and let some other administrator delete it. But I don't think you did anything that was clearly out of line - provided this is not something that happens to you on a pretty regular basis, in which case, I would invest some self-reflection, just to make sure you're not growing a bit "trigger happy" with speedy deletes. I also think that by insisting on justifying your actions to the other admin, you were acting defensive and not letting the matter rest, which contributed to the other admin putting his/her guard up. This is really quite a small matter, no harm done on either side, you should probably just let it be. --woggly 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but for the record, I didn't post anything until the admin in question said "Overturn, invalid speedy. The article needed sources, but nothing was atrocious and it wasn't even tagged. Unnecessary unilateral action. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:46,", so he established his tone before I made a peep, but I appreciate the feedback. - CHAIRBOY () 07:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[Thread refactored][edit]

The topic and header of this request has been refactored and removed per this Arbitration ruling/request. The content of this thread has been forwarded to the Arbitration Committee per their explicit request in the aforementioned. I respectfully ask that no user continues this discussion here or elsewhere.

The user that was blocked has been unblocked by Zscout370, presumably pending pending a ruling by the Arbitration Committee on the status of their editing abilities. Note that this is neither an endorsement nor a disapproval on my part towards the block or the unblock, but merely procedural per the Arbitration Committee's expressed wishes.

If you wish to contest my actions in this case, again, can it please not be done here, but rather on my talk page. I also respectfully request that, if an oversight/arbitrator deems it necessary, that the revisions prior to my edit that had the information in this thread be removed from the history. I hope I have everyone's understanding in this case. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Symbol note.png Note: I have withdrawn the respectful request regarding oversight. As a PS, I have sent an email to ArbCom's mailing list with links to appropriate discussions/information, as well as a copy of the discussion prior to my refactoring. I thank everyone for their understanding whilst the Arbitration Committee deals with this, per their expressed request. As I noted in my email, "[t]he refactoring was done on the basis of the comment by Fred [linked] above, presumably with the idea that [the details] remains private whilst [the Arbitration Committee] decide to do with it. If such an action by me was inappropriate, please forgive me, as I was acting in good faith". The Arbitration Committe has also been directed to the deleted userpage, which - in my opinion - should probably remain deleted pending the AC's input. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Calton's childish behavior[edit]

Calton (talk · contribs) is behaving in a manner that makes User:EssJay look good by comparison. Every time I make an edit to the Net Neutrality article, Calton reverts it for no good reason. Generally he uses a pop-up revert, and at other times he does it manually with a misleading comment as to what he did. See any of his edits to this page over the lat two months and you will see one and only one pattern: he reverts all my edits. This person should be banned from Wikipedia. RichardBennett (talkcontribs)

Content dispute - User_talk:RichardBennett#Network_neutrality. Corvus cornix 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Slightly more than a content dispute, actually. Bad behavior is evident -- but not in the way RichardBennett claims. Here's RichardBennett's entire article edit history for March. Note the single subject and note especially the language in the edit summaries:

  • 21:20, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Definitions of Network Neutrality - Restore Bob Kahn definition removed by Google's minion. restore date order)
  • 21:17, March 5, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Sir Tim Berners-Lee - correct deceptive reference to only one side of Berners-Lee's testimony)
  • 11:16, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (revert first sentence)
  • 11:13, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Don't delete Kahn again. The Internet is not a network and that's what Kahn said.)
  • 11:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (resolve edit confict)
  • 11:04, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Removed scurrilous fact that as a citation was already provided.)
  • 10:52, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Some vandal tried to make the third paragraph misleading and incoherent.)
  • 10:46, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of service versus Network Neutrality - clean up the language and purge some of the blatant falsehoods)
  • 10:42, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - Try to make sense out of this turgid spin. There is no "public Internet", there are only transport contracts between networks. The publc Internet was shut down in 1991.)
  • 10:31, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - re-word phony subjunctive constructions, remove Google-spin)
  • 10:27, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - Remove optional double-talk and tell the truth)
  • 10:25, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Quality of Service and Internet Protocols - explain distinction between public and private networks, and re-write deceptive statements on IP precedence)
  • 10:06, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Benefits of non-neutral networks - rv deceptive edit)
  • 10:05, March 4, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (Clarify deceptive and misleading statement of Kahn's views on fragmentation.)
  • 03:00, March 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) Network neutrality (→Over-provisioning - add citation for obvious fact that the Internet is an internet)

The contribution history is full of language like "flagrant lie", "Meatpuppet Calton is doing mischief again", and "Correct some of the gross errors if syntax, fact, and articulation. Not that I expect this formulation to last, as it's much too clear and honest for Wikipedia, but the revert will give me some ammo". --Calton | Talk 00:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the reverts of Calton's edits are honest in nature and mild in tone compared to his: "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt"; "What's this weird obsession with Google?" "Too bad, so sad". I have made substantial contributions to this article, and Calton has done nothing except revert my edits. That's not a content dispute, it's harassment.RichardBennett 01:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the article to include a direct quote of what Kahn actually said in the cited source, if anybody still cares at this point. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 01:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've replaced your quote with a fuller quote with more context and clarity. But this is not a content dispute, it's a dispute over one editor who does nothing but revert another editor's contributions, ad hominem. Calton is another EssJay, doing his best to bring Wikipedia into disrepute.RichardBennett 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
ad hominem WP:KETTLE? ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 01:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Calton started the abusive language, not me. Find a single instance in which he/she contributed to the aricle except to revert me. And your recent contributions have assigned the wrong references to quoted material. Please try to be more careful, as you've done it twice how and it's getting tedious to correct your errors.RichardBennett 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to be civil during conversations here on AN/I. another editor is trying to help, and your reply is that it's 'tedious to correct [his] errors' is if not outright hostile, dismissive of his efforts. If being helped is tiresome, maybe you should sit back and let others sort this out. ThuranX 02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
My concept of "being helped" doesn't include people mixing up the citations on two different quotes, repeatedly. Block Calton from Net Neutrality and we're done. RichardBennett 02:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, you probably mean "ban", rather than "block". -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
You're mistaken about the citations, but this belongs on the relevant talk page. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Chuck0[edit]

Resolved

This user has been warned before for making personal attacks: [24] His latest attack is particularly vicious. He just said this to another user: "Why are you such a fucking retard?" [25] Please do something about this disruptive and abusive individual. Rapartee 07:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the personal attacks by replacing them with {{rpa}}, and I've warned the user. Wodup 08:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't actually like being a full time nag, but RPA is more controversial than NPA. You don't indicate which of the places you removed attacks. If it's the article talk page, then at least archive the "personal attacks" to the user page. The user's talk page is probably not the best place for any RPA's. Geogre 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lopez Sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved

Another sockpuppet from multiply indefinite banned troll [User:Ray Lopez]: [User:Curve_Makes_Newberry]

Continuing his campaign of defamation: [26]

Stirling Newberry 08:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

'scone. REDVEЯS 09:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney's signature[edit]

One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) has today started to sign his name with IRA at the end (linked to his talk page)- see [27] for example. I asked him why he was doing this- but haven't managed to get a direct response yet. I don't think it is appropiate to have the name of a terrorist organisation in an editor's signature. WP:SIG states that a signature must conform to the username policy. It clearly states that Usernames that promote or refer to violent real-world actions (e.g terrorism, organized crime) are not allowed. Astrotrain 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a terrorist organisation. Thanks. One Night In HackneyIRA 21:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oy. This is just what we need. One Night In Hackney, is it possible that you could be urged to voluntarily desist from this practice rather than bring about controversy and divisiveness regarding it? Newyorkbrad 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
He was asked about it on his talk page. He did not respond positivly. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I engaged in polite discussion with someone who has spent days trolling several pages I am involved in, then he continued it past the point of relevant discussion. For example see the discussion on the Ivor Bell talk page and the related discussion here. Please can someone actually clarify that if the author, title and ISBN number of a book have been provided that is everything that is required for an editor to verify a reference, there is no requirement that the source is available online. Are books not reliable sources any more? One Night In HackneyIRA 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This has to do with your WP:SIG how?--Isotope23 21:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you maybe give a response as to why you are using IRA in your signature? You must know that people will associate that acronym with a terrorist organisation that is outlawed in the United Kingdom? Astrotrain 21:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
He should keep it, why should he change it because Astrotrain doesnt like it, the Irish Republican Army is not a terrorist organisation.--Vintagekits 21:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps he could add a date, to make it clear which IRA he's talking about? Many people will think he means a modern paramilitary organisation. There are better ways to educate people about the history of the IRA.DanBeale 12:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In reply to Isotope23, I feel it is important to put this situation into perspective. The editor in question has done nothing but troll me for several days, this is nothing but more of the same in my opinion. In reply to Astrotrain, the Irish Republican Army are not a terrorist organisation. One Night In HackneyIRA 21:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
See Harrods#History. ObiterDicta ( pleadingserrataappeals ) 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It's just needlessly divisive. Regarding the contentions of trolling etc, this should be resulting in a user RFC or an AN/I report to deal with it.--Isotope23 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he's a fan of IRAs. --Mperry 20:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about whether the IRA is a terrorist group or not. This is about the arguments about the nature of the IRA that having this in a sig will inevitably cause.

Does this disrupt Wikipedia? Yes. Is there any good reason to have this in a sig? I'm having trouble seeing any, and the implicit "it's my sig, I can do what I want" don't seem to outweigh "this project is here to build an encyclopedia, please limit your actions here to things that help that goal." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

this is laugable - whatever wikipedia says, the majority of people with the UK see the IRA as a terrorist organisation - it's presence in a signature will only cause unrest and problems - it should be removed ASAP. --Fredrick day 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What's truly laughable on Wikipedia are all the self-important editors running around talking about "disruption" and "problems" when there isn't any. Where are the British citizens wailing and moaning about this user's signature? They, uh, don't exist. Like in so many other "controversies," the actual DISRUPTION is caused by mealy-mouthed editors pulling their own chains and getting into tizzies over NOTHING. MoeLarryAndJesus 21:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this is helpful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You trying to draw attention to yourself there MoeLarryAndJesus? You are pretty close to a WP:USERNAME block as is.--Isotope23 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
"British Citizens" - well I perfer english gentleman myself... --Fredrick day 21:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever floats your boat Fredrick. My signature was temporarily removed (by me) at 21:42 anyway as a gesture of good faith while this is ongoing, and I have since replaced it with something else entirely so we can hopefully draw a line under this whole sorry saga. One Night In Hackney1916 22:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Both the original ("IRA") and revised ("1916") are fairly clear WP:POINT violations. Wikipedia is not a forum for one's political viewpoints. In good faith, per WP:SIG (surprised that isn't policy, btw) and given that the sig suffix is likely to cause disruption, ONIH might consider getting rid of it as an easy solution. Badgerpatrol 12:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

1916 isn't "likely to cause disruption", because people won't know what he means by it unless they have prior awareness of this discussion. Lots of things happened in 1916. --Random832 16:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
No, but it is crystal clear that the only reason he's doing it is to annoy Astrotrain, which is both childish and petulant. And the IRA in Wikipedia are not a terrorist origanisation, assomebody has a bee in their bonnet, but IRA should really be redirecting to the Provisional IRA article, which is what it is most commonly denotes. And the Provos were / are terrorists. Proto  18:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Have to agree with Badgerpatrol that this looks like a pretty clear WP:POINT violation. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. When one's actions are under scrutiny, it's not usually helpful to gratuitously antagonize one's colleagues. Raymond Arritt 06:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the links ONIH provided, regarding on-going content and citation disputes with AstroTrain. While I'm not thrilled with the IRA sig, I do think that this is not a fully 'good faith' submission of a problem, but rather a way for AT to distract ONIH from the disputes. I think that the 1916 is a perfect compromise, and the two should both be focusing on content. This is pretty much a showboating case of system gaming, not unlike Astrotrain's argument that since he can't see a copy of a book to verify it, it's not a clear reference, and shouldn't count. I support the 1916 signature compromise. ThuranX 07:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I also support the 1916 sig compromise. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna 02:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought IRA was an acronym of 'I Ran Away'.4kinnel 18:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring re Magic: The Gathering cards[edit]

Thread retitled from "Running combat".

Last one for the night (going to bed) - but take a look at contributions for these two editors:
Mjrmtg (talk · contribs)
A Man In Black (talk · contribs)
Some kind of war going on over gaming card articles. RJASE1 Talk 06:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that the (dozens of) articles for the various expansions of Magic: the Gathering have lists of "notable cards", linking heavily to the offsite database of cards, but lacking entirely in attribution. They're just someone's idea of which cards in a set are notable, with no real definition of "notable." This kind of thing tends to be a POV and OR magnet, so I went through and started cleaning them up.

Mjrmtg commented on my talk page, rather brusquely, and I explained what I was doing and why, as well as the fact that I wouldn't really mind seeing the lists replaced in part or in whole, if they could be attributed. (I'd really rather see them converted to prose, but sources would be a start in doing that.) Further discussion has seen him accuse me of removing referenced material, with no examples, while he reverts my edits wholesale. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll explain this one, in case anyone is curious. AMiB removed a whole bunch (read: 90% of the article) from the article of Tiberium. I asked him a bit about it, and it got heated. I explained my personal policy on how I edit articles. There was a fairly-large edit war on the article while he deleted and I restored and tried to add some ad-hoc sources before he'd delete it all again. Once I did that, AMiB checked my user history and removed or moved long-lasting articles I've had a part of. Check the histories on the following articles if you're curious. Ravnica, Concerned, All the articles in Magic: The Gathering sets, Cybran Nation, Aeon Illuminate... Bottom line: AMiB's edits aren't really about any violation. They are about removing almost everything I've done on Wikipedia, because I'm more concerned with good articles than making sure I follow WP:WAF. Scumbag 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Not following WP:WAF makes the articles worse. They aren't better if you add in-universe info that leaves casual readers scratching their heads on what they were reading. The only group that likes in-universe is the fans, those who have played the game, but teeters on making it inaccessible for everybody else. Hbdragon88 07:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. If you'll look at the history of Tiberium, the bulk of what I've been doing with it (before the edit war, of course), I was removing stuff to make it more understandable to the kind of person that'll view it. With C&C3 coming out soon, it needed to be culled a bit. Not as much as AMiB wanted to do, however. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both, FYI, have been reported to 3RR for numerous violations. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As lame as this sounds, I think I need to be reported as well, since I did an edit war on Ravnica and Tiberium. Tiberium seems to have stopped though. Scumbag 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic blocked Mjrmtg for 24h and A Man in Black seems to have blocked himself for 31 hrs (that's taking responsibility for your own actions!) Crisis appears averted. Georgewilliamherbert 07:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Sounds like time for an article RfC to gauge the best way forward. Everybody seems to be acting in good faith, but with widely differing views of what's needed. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Guy, but I should point out that it's actually a violation of one of those rules to block yourself. <shrug> It's not a big deal, but one is not supposed to block oneself. Geogre 12:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • To unblock yourself sure, but to block yourself? What's that violating? Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Minor question - would it be okay to revert the edits made by AMiB? He did a lot of damage to a lot of articles that didn't deserve it, and I think it's best if the articles he purged be restored to their original state. Scumbag 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't just blindly revert; it won't hurt to let it settle out, but if you want to start working on cleanup of deletions that worry you, go for it. Georgewilliamherbert 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
AMiB violated 3RR several other times during the past week, claiming that it's because of a guideline that I believed to have proven to not have consensus. And for those articles, on the one that caught my attention, was 8 against him, and he still kept reverting. I would like to see some sort of RfC on AMiB. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For those curious, I set up a thread over at the MTG wikiproject for discussing this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Magic: The Gathering#Notable cards.2C and set merges.. Seems a better spot than AMiB's talk page. I think that we can all agree that the ideal best outcome would be to have sourced versions of these lists, regardless of whether or not unsourced entries should be removed now or later. SnowFire 03:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

He's back, and already reverting things I've fixed while he blocked himself. Cybran Nation was the first, but I have no doubt he's doing it again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scumbag (talkcontribs) 20:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


BLP violation in reference desk question[edit]

I have objected several times now to the characterizations made against Howard K. Stern in a Reference Desk question, and have now twice removed libellous attacks against him, but my removals are being reverted - [28]. Could someone please delete the question from the reference desk so that the libel does not continue? Thank you. Corvus cornix 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Looking at the contribs of Nocternal (talk · contribs) I cannot help thinking that this is one of our perennial troublemakers. Pitching right in with edits on a Matrixism discussion and other such trollery? Not what you'd expect from a genuinely new user. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Request to reopen Peronal attacks COI discussion,[edit]

Allegations of making incivility and personal attacks were made against me in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_claims_of_COI. I was not informed of this discussion till after the discussion was closed. I suggest we reopen the discussion to give me the opportunity to answer the allegations against me, expalain the nature of the WP:COI and to allow the community to voice its support or opposition to the educational block Jayjg says he will impose on me. I personally see the repeated threats to block me as a misuse of administrative tools to intimidate editors with an opposing POV. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 09:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No one has taken any action against you. What are you concerned about? -- Avi 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg stated "I'm going to nip this process in the bud by applying educational blocks to editors who falsely claim WP:COI in the future." I was specifically named in this context. Once the block is in place, I will have no means of raising my questions here. I would also like some clarification about whether an admin is allowed to block a user withwhome he is personally involved in a dispute, and what safeguards exist against admins using their tools to intimidate editors who do not share their point of view. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Once a user has been informed of their misconception/misunderstanding, I believe that improper warnings are considered vandalism, as is gaming the system. So while "educational" may be a poor choice of words, preventing disruptions in the forms of maliciously or conciously misapplying policy for the purposes of, for example, pushing a point of view, whitewashing a target, attacking an editor as opposed to content, would all be valid preventative blocks. Does anyone else disagree? -- Avi 13:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al

Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved

. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 13:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, as I described above, while the wording may have been somewhat terse, the concept appears valid - in that blocks to prevent editors' disruptions are allowed and in-process. I would appreciate if other admins chime in on this. -- Avi 15:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This has the appearance of forum shopping. Abu ali has petitioned me for an opinion repeatedly at my user talk page. Three days ago I asked him for substantiating evidence, User_talk:Durova#user_blocked_on_political_grounds. Instead of responding to that he opens a new thread here to renew basically the same claims. As I stated before, two of the grounds Jayjg expressed in the block warning were WP:POINT and WP:AGF. This ANI thread could be reasonably interpreted as violating both policies. While I remain ready to perform an impartial review on any specific evidence that might be forthcoming, I'll also note my empiricial observation that editors who forum shop instead of providing evidence very seldom have a legitimate case to present. I will not issue a block for this incident, but I would have no objection if someone else did. DurovaCharge! 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali has responded at my user page and allayed some of my concerns. I'm still willing to perform an investigation and waiting for evidence. DurovaCharge! 16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If Abu Ali doesn't want to be blocked for personal attacks and inappropriate accusations of COI, he could stop making them. It's a novel solution, granted, but it's worth a try! SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To be perfectly fair, I advised him to ask you (Slim) which particular posts you considered to be personal attacks and he tells me you haven't replied. I agree that COI allegations need to be substantiated with compelling evidence. Let's clear the air so everyone can get back to editing. DurovaCharge! 18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Headphonos[edit]

Resolved

This user appears to be ignoring by multiple conduct warnings (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I would issue a block myself, but he had a lready personally attacked me ( diff). I think the warning stage has been exhausted. Thanks. El_C 11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How about a short term ban, perhaps a week, with the explicit understanding that if these personal attacks don't stop, it'll be a month then an permanent ban for further incidents. I notice that such behaviour isn't exactly unusual for Headphonos. -- Nick t 11:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Shameful behavior, lots of warnings over an extended period of time. I've removed your 24-hour block and made it a week, Nick. I'd certainly support a month's ban if the user carries on in the same way when he returns. Bishonen | talk 12:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
I'd support a month. He's been a thorny nuisance when I've had to deal with him. He gives Wiki a bad name. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've no problems at all with a longer block, the guys contribs are shocking, [29] this being one diff that shows what exactly Headphonos is doing and there's a whole load of general troublemaking going on. -- Nick t 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
FYI -- the most recent ANI material I posted regarding this user. --Keesiewonder talk 13:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User blocked for 1 week by Bish. —bbatsell ¿? 18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

User:djf2014[edit]

Check the history. Metsbot replaces television on my user page with :Scepia/TV Djf2014 14:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a bug in MetsBot. You should notify Mets on his talk page. —bbatsell ¿? 19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Info999<