Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive216

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) ArbCom Violation[edit]

Resolved

AdilBaguirov is in violation of his parole, he removed my quote previously with no mention in the talk page, the author of the quote is a regional expert and a third party there is no reason to remove it unless he wants to suppress info. Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. Violators may be blocked for up to 24 hours. My addition, [1] his removal, [2] Artaxiad 04:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Please provide a link to the relevant ArbCom case and the parole violation that you quote- that would help greatly in assisting you. Teke 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
This is the link, [3] Artaxiad 05:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. Please post your report of the violation to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Apologies for the run-around, but there are administrators there much more aquainted with these situations. Teke 05:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, I am going to issue a block based on the violation. But do take future complaints over to the arbcom noticeboard. Teke 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Artaxiad 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked AdilBaguirov (talk · contribs) for five days for the injunction violation and as an escalating pattern of behavior. This is the user's fifth block in four weeks, previous blocks were for 3RR violations and gaming the system. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming. Teke 05:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

List of ASALA attacks on Turkish diplomats AFD[edit]

In the light of the ongoing RfAr (linked above), I fear a case of vote stacking and other nonsense might happen on this AfD. I ask administrators to monitor this case for disruption of any kind. -- Cat chi? 05:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs as requested
5 out of 8 deletion/merge votes came from Armenian voters
In addition 4 of the 5 Armenian voters are an involved party in the arbitration case. The other one is a proposed involved party
-- Cat chi? 07:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a delete vote stacking building up. -- Cat chi? 13:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The reporting of incidents traditionally involves posting diffs here. A cursory check through the contributions of Augustgrahl (talk · contribs), Artaxiad (talk · contribs), and Aivazovsky (talk · contribs), didn't show any canvassing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
People can get others to vote for them without posting on their talk pages (not that I'm saying that's the case here). Yonatan talk 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Email may be a way to do this. I just am not completely convinced that all these Armenian (based on their talk page) editors popping out of nowhere on a newly created articles AfD is a mere coincidence. -- Cat chi? 07:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JJH1992[edit]

JJH1992 (talk · contribs)

This user is in an edit war with another editor. In particular, I'm interested in these edits:

While some of these changes within these diffs could be considered legit, it's an issue that needs to be looked at. --Sigma 7 19:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

One-day protection on the pages. Let's see if that's enough to sort out an incipient edit war. Looking, it appears Nobbiyo [4] is acting similarly, so best to treat this as an edit war, I think, for now. Vanished user talk 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Resolved: Quarl (talk) 2007-03-18 09:46Z

The user has repeatedly tried to insert an identical poorly-formatted and turgid unencyclopedic essay of questionable provenance into multiple articles, and has repeatedly created inappropriate articles. When ‘Scientific-Wisdom’ was prod'd, he created Scientifc wisdom and Scientific wisdom; today, he has responded to the AfD discussion of "Scientific Community of Practice" by creating Scientific communities of practice. (All of his edits, including reversions, have the "minor" box check-marked and are made without talk-page discussion. Multiple editors have tried to reason with him with no response. See generally User_talk:Stevenson-Perez#Your_contributions and see also the pending Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific). -- TedFrank 00:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is IMHO disruptive editing, I have left the user another (final) warning and would support a block if he continues to disrupt -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger)[edit]

BZ(Bruno Zollinger) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) seems to have been derailing Talk pages with lengthy personal opinions (which he describes as "commentaries"), and ignoring pointers to the talk page guidelines, since at least last November (judging by Talk:The Lathe of Heaven/archive1 and his own user talk page). And he's made not a single edit to an article. An administrator's attention to this user might be helpful. I myself feel, after looking through the account's edit history, that such consistently distracting, useless, and unproductive behavior ought to be ban-worthy, but I'm not sure whether policy supports this, since it all seems to be done in good faith (albeit misguided and policy-ignoring). -- Rbellin|Talk 03:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note that there is a previous RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger), and an apparently identical user has been banned from the German Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the German indef block rationale reads: "hat aus sperrverfahren von sommer 206 nichts gelernt; benutz WP weiterhin ausschließlich für diskussions". This translates to: "Hasn't learned anything from block in summer of 2006, continues to use Wikipedia for discussions exclusively."
I'll be bold now and block him for 48h for talk page disruption, with the understanding that the next block may be indefinite if he persists. Please review here. Sandstein 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
user:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) has been banned form the German Language Wikipedia because of his comments on the article Hermann Göring, among others. He has never done any edit in an article. He is seemingly less agressive in his tone in the English Language Wikipedia, but this is simply because he doesn't want to get kicked out of it as of the GLW, which would prevent him from chatting on his talk page. In the GLW, he tends to be provocative and sometimes offensive. When posting his messages on the talk page, he intents to provoke the author to answer him and then to increasingly criticize what had been said. Please don't allow him to display his behavior here any more. 67.172.157.35 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring / Saskatchewan articles[edit]

Continued edit warring on Saskatchewan political articles between 70.73.4.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 70.64.4.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) on Brad Wall [5] and Saskatchewan Liberal Party [6], despite repeated previous warnings and blocks. Tearlach 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Persian Gulf name in Arabic[edit]

Hi,

Please note that there is a big argument going in the page of Persian Gulf and Persian Gulf naming dispute on Wikipedia.

Some Iranian users are trying to eliminate any minor information indicating that it is translated to “the Arabian Gulf” in Arabic language, or even it could be also called the Arabian Gulf according to some medieval maps and documents. If this term is disputed then it is controversial issue and has not been solved. As many old references and maps saying it is “Persian Gulf”, also dozens of historical maps and documents saying it is the “Arabian Gulf”[7] [8] [9] [10] that is long time before 1960's as our colleagues indicate it is the time of using Arabian Gulf by Gamal Abde Nasser.

In its discussion page, long talk and hot debate has been running since long time. But the major point that users editing this page are writing its translated name in a way not used, or even found, in the Arab world which oscillates this geopolitical issue through Wikipedia pages.

Please note that الخليج الفارسي means Persian Gulf, while الخليج العربي mean Arabian Gulf (it could be not easy for you to distinguish anyway as letters looks similar, but actually different, could be like similarity between English and Spanish). However, Persian language is basically different from Arabic.

In 1977, the third UN Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) adopted resolution III/20 entitled "Names of Features beyond a Single Sovereignty". The resolution recommended:

"when countries sharing a given geographical feature do not agree on a common name, it should be a general rule of cartography that the name used by each of the countries concerned will be accepted. A policy of accepting only one or some of such names while excluding the rest would be inconsistent as well as inexpedient in practice."

It is so witty and meaningless if one Persian user in Wiki has basics in Arabic and change names as he like in a bigotry way!

It is not accepted, in any way, to translate/transcribe a name from one language to another according to unidirectional transcription system and giving it a translated name not –basically- used in that language for the sake of political domination.

No one will accept deleting all used names for the Danube River pages on Wikipedia in all other Central European languages and adopt what just the Germans or Czechs only used to call! and so on… These are different languages and cultures, and have their own nominations for interlaced territories/resources/rivers/water bodies... etc.

The major concept adopted here by Wikipedia will open the way for other users to entitle (or rename) new pages or modify information according to their own political background using their own language to change names in other language(s). Like a French Wiki user can speak English go and delete any word of the “English Channel” on English Wikipedia and replace it with “Sea of Manch” or a British Wiki user French basics do the same and replace all “La Manche” with “Canal Anglais”! or a Muslim user changes all pages entitled “God” in all languages to “Allah”!

I would appreciate if you talk seriously with the following users and check their “User Talk” pages before

….


Please turn their attention to follow rules of Wikipedia editing and not to keep reverting additions by others without any discussion or voting. You may notice in pages history how many times they undo edits of the pages without describing minimum reasonable reason. Some of them has been warned of offensive use and vandalizing pages. You may also remind them that such violation of national geopolitical name could lead to a serious international juridical issue against Wikipedia’s users and management. Adopting fake and non-approved names in official language(s) of some countries could lead to significant political conflict lead by Arabic-speaking countries, mainly Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Iraq as they are sharing this water body with Iran as it is an oriented propaganda shouldn’t be lead by you, Wikipedia. Violating terms in other languages to achieve political aims is irresponsible behavior. Faking territorial names for political purposes could fall under threatening national security, illegal translation and offensive use of internet, that can cause international conflict if not indicating real term used in mentioned language. Wikipedia will be mainly responsible for the behavior and actions of its registered members.

On the other side, no one will blame Wikipedia, only in its Persian version, for adopting names used in Persian language.

Please direct them not to play geopolitical-linguistic games in Wikipedia and to stop undoing other people's edits repeatedly without voting or discussing the page. This is really not accepted and not convenient for Wikipedia’s atmosphere. Ralhazzaa talk 17:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I once tried to make the dispute(the supposedly dispute article) show both sides, but I was swiped..and I gave up on it..may be I'm biased because I'm from Egypt..may be..--Alnokta 00:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um...The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf article was on the 13th of January, and that was to take the article back to the version that was agreed upon on the talk page by the vast majority. The last edit I made to the Persian Gulf naming dispute was on the 17th of January, which again had to do with the talk that was going on in the Persian Gulf. I dont know who drew my name out of the pot...Are you sure you have the right Azerbaijani? I mean, the way you have worded your comments here, it seems like you are talking about something recent.Azerbaijani 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh! sorry dear Azerbaijani.. you really looks away from this mess :P .. I was just tracing back and writing the user names who used to make reverts w/o discussions or just to fix their own ideology here. sorry again and I hope you assist in enriching the talk and give us a hand to solve this dispute. Ralhazzaa 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Azerbaijani violating the ArbCom injunction of having to comment on Talk pages for edits[edit]

User Azerbaijani has violated the ArbCom notice [11] on page Ganja khanate mandating to discuss every edit/change [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganja_khanate&diff=115928170&oldid=115724564 ] in the Talk page of that article [12]. Despite his edit being at 22:23, March 17, 2007, as of right now, more than one hour later, he has still not made any comments for his removal of one word. Meanwhile, I have shown his edit being absolutely incorrect on that talk page. --AdilBaguirov 03:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom enforcement is here. Naconkantari 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, more false accusations (you can try hard Adil, but it wont work). The Arbcom injuction is for REVERTS, not edits (you know this very well, as you ahve the injunction on your very own talk page and have read it yourself). Here is where you can read the Arbcom injunction:[13] It clearly states: Until the conclusion of this case, all parties are restricted to one content revert per article per day, and each content revert must be accompanied by a justification on the relevant talk page. I did not revert your edits (reverting your edits means that I must have deleting the entire quote that you added!), I simply removed something which you had typed int he quote which was not in the original quote. I reverted none of your edit. Here is the diff of the version before your edits and my edit: [14] If I had made a content revert, which I did not, my version would look exactly the same as Aivazovsky version! Does that look like a revert to you Adil, because it certainly doesnt fit into the definition of what a revert is. I'm really getting sick and tired of your personal attacks, your stalking, and your campaign of trying to demonize me on Wikipedia using false information.Azerbaijani 04:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Your wikilawyering is not constructive, Azerbaijani. A revert is any action which undoes the work of another editor, and removing content added by another editor - even if you just remove one word of it - is a revert. You certainly don't have to undo every change made in a given edit, or restore a particular old revision, to have made a revert.
You are both treading a fine line. Any more reverts contrary to the injunction will result in blocks. --bainer (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Settle down both of you and stop accusing each other of crap. Neither one of you is acting like a saint and you're definitely not acting civil. SWATJester On Belay! 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement, next door to your left. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Vegetto's Redirection[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute, does not belong here.

Hello there fellow wikipedians (yes, that includes you Administrators). I have a complaint (duh!)

For the past day now (yeah 24 straight hours, can you believe it?), i have been trying to figure out why a Dragon Ball Z character by the name of Vegetto does not have his own article. My first step was to take the initative and create the article. My first attempt was disrupted by a user by the name of Nemu. Nemu immediately redirected the article which i was willingly working on, and told me on the Vegetto Talk Page that, "because nobody disputed it being an article, the unanimous decision was that it would never becoming an article EVER!" So hence, the redirection.

So what's my case? I would like to write the Vegetto article. However, i have been consistently stopped. Users on the Dragon Ball Project have all told me that "you will never be able to create the Vegetto article, because they all said so". Even though i have tried to discuss the situation (peacefully at first) many of them, especially Nemu, have insulted and ridiculed me. Now i'm not sure as to why they do this, maybe because their numbers far exceed my own (and i mean it literally, i am by myself) or that i'm just a "new guy" so why should they give a damn?

I would like to report this incidednt, because i feel voilated the priviledge of being given the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject. I should not be judged and be mis-understood because of the failures of past users. I kindly ask for the dedicated time of an Administrator, to check this situation out.

For further investigation, Visit Here, Here and Here.

I thank you for your help, and understanding! Muchas Gracias! Gooden 07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is a content issue, not an administrative problem. This does not belong here.
On the merits, I think you are mistaken about how Wikipedia works. A user has pointed you to an extended discussion, the consensus result of which was to merge this character description into another article. This is also what our guideline WP:FICT says: 'Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters.'" On Wikipedia, you must work within consensus; you do not have "the freedom to express my knowledge on a certain subject". If you want to do that, please do it on your own blog or website. In this case, you must first engage your fellow editors in discussion, persuading them to change consensus, and only then may you create this article. Sandstein 07:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But does that also mean that i have to work with the them all. Are you saying the presence of an article is impossible? You say that i have to discusss the matter with my fellow contributors. How can i do anything when they will refuse to listen? Also, it seems that everyone around here has come to some sort of agreement that this character is a "minor" case, i do not understand why? I mean, talk to me here! I still need some kind of recommendation for the entire situation. Gooden 14:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

My sincere recommendation is: accept that you are alone with your view - that's quite clear from the long discussion here -, forget about it and find something else to edit. That is enough now for this noticeboard. Do not edit this thread further. Sandstein 17:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Parker007, again[edit]

Parker007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), feel free to review. I've blocked him for a week because the previous, shorter blocks had no effect. He resumed running the same bot after each block. He also blanked his talk page a couple times while I was trying to leave him a note to this effect. Perhaps he has exhausted the community's patience. —freak(talk) 09:27, Mar. 18, 2007 (UTC)

Yes - 17 edit per minute is far too high, with a bot flag or not. Martinp23 09:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Having interacted with him several times, he has exhausted my patience, at least. – Steel 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Endorse block. I have told him many times on wiki and on IRC that he may continue editing in this fashion if he obtains a bot account. He has not done so and should stay blocked until he obtains a bot or decides to stop. Naconkantari 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A message[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian#Final decision I would like my main account to be unblocked. I will just stop the edit-warring, personal attacks and whatnot, it ain't good for anything. --¤~Gibraltarian (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Should we take this to WP:CN? I have no fundamental objection to giving Gibraltarian another chance, but I was not really involved in the massive cleanup of his problem behaviour last time. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The Arb decision came in January 2006, but the user was reported at the bottom of that page to be continuing his attacks in February 2007. Xiner (talk, email) 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Stevenson-Perez[edit]

Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been rather enthusiastic in posting a distinctly idiosyncratic view of a particular concept, Scientific Communities of Practice. Everywhere. I have blocked the account, for reasons stated on the user talk page, anyone is free to unblock if they feel there is no further likelihood of disruption. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you find these people? – Steel 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Note AN/I case about a dozen sections up (where the userlinks template does not make a redlink to his talk page, very odd that it does here). Pete.Hurd 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I've fixed that. – Steel 15:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits on Ohmefentanyl by User:Nuklear[edit]

This doesn't appear to be vandalism, so I'm posting it here rather than on a vandalism-specific board. User:Nuklear has made several hundred edits to Ohmefentanyl over the last few days. These edits mostly seem innocuous, but some seem to be problematic, inserting text like "The author has personally bioassayed (±)-OMF2 but is disappointed that not more physical data was made available" and "The founder of Hochemicals© is the overall master of the totalitarian dictatorship regime. This important & extremely fundamental principle will become deeply embedded in the readers mind, his thoughts, his ideas & his daily philosophy. —Immediate & generous capital payments must be donated to his lordship, on the double, without any precondition whatsoever. Failure to comply will most definitely lead to draconian measures being taken, likely resulting in death (though not to oneself), without any remorse, or reconnaissance of any description."

I'm concerned that, among other things, the article is being turned surreptitiously into a manual for drug manufacturers to produce this substance with the intent to use it as a narcotic. Content that suggests this to me includes:

  • "It will become apparent to the reader in later sections that there are important and complex distinctions that can be drawn between the subsequent isomers through studying their pharmacology."
  • "HC1abcd is the Hochemicals© code for the four most active isomers of 23HOMeF." (see information on Hochemicals here and here; it seems to me to be a somewhat dubious organization)
  • "HC-1a is already 13K x stronger than morphine. If a p-fluoro atom is then incorporated into the phenethanol tail, the resultant compound has recently been reported to have a potency of 18K x morphine! ;-)"
  • "Professor Q speculates that "there is a good chance that this compound could be made more powerful still, [...] Even if ED50 doesn't go any lower, one would expect duration of action to increase by a factor of three or so...""
  • "Those skilled in the art will also acknowledge that these formulations are representative of so-called prodrugs"
  • "However in a real-world environment, the dosage [of carfentanil] is so vanishingly small that it is difficult not to overdose even if one is careful; Although it must be conceeded that opiate naïve individuals are at magnified risk, in the event of exposure, relative to hardened addicts who may already have significant tolerance."
  • "Introduction of an α-Me into this molecule would probably compliment it nicely. It will also be apparent to the veteran narcologist, that organometallic addition of XMEt to the direct product of the Strecker synthesis gives a pharmacophore common, to both methadone and ketobemidone. Such SAR overlap is thus likely and might be expected to have a favorable outcome with regards to creating unexplored agents with a longer duration."

I really have no idea how to procede with this article, its subject being something I'm not familiar with at all, but it looks to me as though the editing User:Nuklear is undertaking is not appropriate and should be stopped. JulesH 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nuklear has now requested, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohmefentanyl, that this article (which they have written) be deleted - and I have obliged them. That's it for now, I guess, but I am as puzzled as anyone else about what the hell this is all about. Sandstein 17:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I have blocked User:Nuklear for 48 hours for his disruption on the AfD and more generally through his confused contributions. Sandstein 17:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Copied user page[edit]

In light of the Essjay scandal what may once have been seen as just laziness on the part of one user, should probably be looked into. It appears that User:Sue Rangell's user page is largely lifted from User:Nesbit's user page. User:Sue Rangell also claims she is on the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University (sic), although User:Nesbit does not. I asked both if Sue was Nesbit's sockpuppet, Sue said no[15], but then deleted the question and her response a few minutes later.[16] User:Nesbit was, not surprisingly, surprised at being asked if Sue was his sockpuppet and apparently more surprised to find he had so much in common with her.[17]

I looked at User:Sue Rangell originally because she is pushing very hard for a stunningly crappy article Sonoma County, California to be made a FA after being here, on Wikipedia, only about a week.[18] (Her first edit was creating her user page.[19]

I really don't know what is going on here, but her aggressive pushing of her "FA" without it having met any FA criteria is simply strange, as is her user page being a copy of another user's. KP Botany 18:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a pure copy, she's added quite a bit of stuff. I know I copied my userbox setup from another user's page when I first started, and this user isn't doing anything particularly nasty, so it appears to be fine. Logical2uReview me! 18:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
ARe you serious? Oh, maybe you are looking at her just freshly edited version. This was copied:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

From user Nesbit:

Why I do Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an excellent example of how knowledge can be socially constructed. The editing and discussion tools constitute a collaborative knowledge building environment that stands as an alternative model to threaded asynchronous conferences, collaborative annotation systems, blogs, and software development systems.

And here is Sue's lists of interests:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

Among my recreational interests are:

Here are Nesbit's:

My professional interests on Wikipedia include:

Among my recreational interests are:

And she edited her programming languages boxes.
Something funky is going on. Sure, I copied my user boxes, but I didn't say I shared all the same interests as another user, and I didn't claim I was on the faculty of a university that doesn't exist or one whose name I can't spell. KP Botany 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is already being discussed at WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Answer I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you have been shooting a lot of venom around lately. The Cut/Pasted info from Nesbit's page has been RESOLVED. There is no sock puppetry, and there is no identity theft, and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with the FAC. You have gone through great lengths to derail the whole FA process, and I'm not sure why. You have made personal attacks against me and I don't know why you have done that either. If I had known that nominating a page for FA would have invited the attention of a stalker-type, I would never have done it. This entire experience has taken all of the fun out of Wiki for me, and I'll certainly never nominate another page again. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 19:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry and Attacks[edit]

Right. I'm afraid this one's a little complicated.

I was going through the Homeopathy-related articles after seeing everyone talking about POV forks but doing nothing about it. By talking with the people on Talk:Homeopathy I tried to make sure I had a brake, and didn't do anything too foolish. A few got deleted, several others were improved to the point that they didn't have to be.

Now, a couple things need mentioned here: Homeopathy-related articles pretty clearly have gone through a certain amount of POV-forking and advertising. For an easy example, take Robin Murphy, ND where, when told he needed to assert notability or have it deleted, he seems to have lied outright about his qualifications. I trimmed the worst bits - which had been marked with fact tags for ages, but he had made claims like "Most well known teacher of homeopathy" when '"Robin Murphy" Homeopathy' plugged into google gets 873 hits. Um, should probably be mentioned that that's a PROD, so it'll probably be gone sometime tomorrow, unless someone deletes the prod tag, in which case I'll put it up for AfD.

There were other problems elsewhere, but many of them were fixable - List of important homeopaths got a title change, a trim of a long list of homeopaths without either articles, cites, or assertations of notability (It was in two categories: "Generally considered influential" and "Other known homeopaths" - you can see the problem of the last bit. Robin Murphy, ND, by the way, had been added to influential.

Now, this leads us to the problem. George Vithoulkas was a terrible article, with long list. I'll quote a bit of the old article in a footnote.[1] It was a long list of searches, all of which are not for his full name, but just for his surname, with no qualifier. I found this highly suspicious - he's surely not the only Vithoulkas - and suspected the results were being gamed. It also made some quite extrordinary claims about governments showering him with awards, more of which anon. It wasn't very well cited, which something with that many extraordinary claims needed, so I nominated it for deletion.

However, huge numbers of new editors invaded the AFD and its talk page. If you'll scroll forward an edit from there, you'll see my possibly misguided attempt to end the attacks on me there, followed by Guettarda simply archiving the whole. Skinwalker pointed out to me that there had been canvassing on homeopathic forums - Here and here - possibly elsewhere, but not until after I had put up a request for checkuser to try and figure out what was going on (which I should probably close now, as it's probable they aren't all the same person).

I think I'm getting slightly ahead of myself. I discovered the George Vithoulkas page was a copyvio while trying to research claims made to me about him, and so deleted it. It wasn't extreme copy vio - no sentence stood unchanged, but there was a very telling sentence order, and pretty clear evidence that the opening of the sentence was simply tweaked a bit to make it a little different. The farther back in the history, the worse things got, back to an edit labelled "fix copyvio", before which it was straight copyvio. I did the only thing that seemed sensible: deleted the page, closed the AfD, asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page if it should be recreated.

User:LeeHunter at this point gave the third of three nasty messages to my talk page [20] accusing me of "abusing the process to delete the article". I, I hope politely, pointed out I had already asked on the Talk:Homeopathy page whether it should be recreated, and he made a short article on Vithoulkas.

At that point, the Talk:Homeopathy page promptly went to hell, becoming devoted entirely to bashing and abusing me. It's been archived, but is all available here.

User:Homeopathic, who is strongly related to George Vithoulkas, if Image:George_vithoulkas_smallpicture.jpg's copyright label is any guide, was the worst attacker. He also doesn't sign his posts, so I'm afraid some digging in the archive of Talk:Homeopathy is necessary to prove connection. Among his gripes with me is after one of the meatpuppets called the Speaker of the Swedish Parliament on a video of George Vithoulkas getting an award there "Ms. Rikstag" or something like that, I checked to find out her proper name. Unfortunately, the speaker at the time that the video being placed as evidence took place was a man, so it's pretty clear that the video either mislabelled the woman, or, if my rather poor ability to identify faces is correct, combined a video of the female speaker from several years earlier praising the award he got and saying the Swedish Parliament supported it with the video several years later, also in the Swedish Parliament building, of Vithoulkas getting the award. The faces seem to match.

This is an important claim, because without that speech, there's no strong swedish parliament connection outside of building, which was one of the things they were making huge numbers of personal attacks on me about.

I quote the last two posts before Guettardsa atchived it:

I want to suggest something. Vanished user must not be editor of wikipedia any more!!!!!He is prejudiced and wikipedia doesn't need people that forge the truth. So, please I call you to VOTE: Vanished user must not be editor of Wikipedia any more. Do you agree? YES or NO? Althea Khun

I do not believe that you cannot read, Vanished user. Please, read again carefully. I wrote about Pubmed, isinet.com, scirus.com, british library direct, science direct. I think thay you DO NOT WANT to read. Vanished user, you depreciate our common sense!!!!!!!!!! I VOTE YES!!!!!! Aristos Antoniadis

(The last in response to me pointing out the list from the old article (footnoted below) was pretty bad.)

...As you can imagine, this is extremely stressful. Please help. Vanished user talk 19:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^
    Prof. Vithoulkas and his work is mentioned:
    1. [www.isinet.com ISI-Thomson scientific] - 70 citations
    2. There are 12 articles of his articles listed on PubMed
    3. He is mentioned in 17 references at the National Library of Medicine Catalog
    4. He is mentioned in 553 references at SCIRUS
    5. He is mentioned in 13 references at the British Library Direct
    6. He is mentioned in 278 references in Google Scholar
    Etc. It actually gets to the point - It might have been deleted in later versions - that it was saying how many google hits for "Vithoulkas" there was.
I've put a uw-npa4im on the talk page of the IP address. I suspect the IP address may be a sock of another user that is on the talk page, and thus you may want to submit a checkuser request. --Sigma 7 20:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Ever willing to put my foot in it, I noticed that a critical review link added by User:LeeHunter wasn't mentioned in the article, so added a brief summary. User:Homeopathic has taken it up on my user talk page, asking me to "please do something about Vanished user, he is clearly biased, dismissing all information about Vithoulkas as POV", then later claiming to be an MD and a homeopath. Perhaps my suggestion that he read WP:IAC was too tactful. ... dave souza, talk 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, on Wikipedia one often edits alternative medicine articles at your own peril. Mention undue weight, and you're on the hitlist. MastCell Talk 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive, Disruptive, and Racist Attacts[edit]

embargo (talk · contribs), has continually leveled offensive and unambiguously racist remarks on talk pages, [21] and edit summaries, [22] [23] despite being asked to stop. [24] [25] --emerson7 | Talk 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly recommend immediate block. "Jewish garbage"? Zero tolerance. IronDuke 20:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support block too. A note to the filer: diffs are preferred to links to page histories. Beit Or 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've given him a two-week block, though that could increase if consensus to do so is met. Anyone want to weigh in on the length? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I like giving people second chances, where possible. If the user in question could make a sincere promise to cease the bigoted attacks, then two weeks is just about right. If he refuses, a longer block may be in order. IronDuke 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Two weeks is a good call. Block for six months if he persists after the block expires. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fair. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I would say that was an excellent block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, extremely lenient given outright racist crap like this and this. Our patience with such people is remarkable (and not conducive to encyclopedia-building, imo). If he does the same upon return an immediate block/ban is in order. Raymond Arritt 23:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How many editors of this nature have turned around and become well-behaved and productive contributors? If the answer is zero, then there is no reason that they shouldn't be indefinitely blocked on sight.Proabivouac 00:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Incredibly lenient block. The blocked user now claims he was "provoked" into being blocked. [26] I would reverse it myself and change it to an indefinite block but I don't want to start a wheel war. So if there is consensus here for such a move state your opinions below.--Jersey Devil 11:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong support for an indef ban. Kicking the ball down the road only negligently wastes everyone's time when it comes up again (and again, and again.)Proabivouac 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the community feeling about that userbox he has on his User page? Corvus cornix 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its a polemical statement, which is against WP:USER Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Embargo is now evading his block with an anon IP, see User:90.24.232.20, [27].Proabivouac 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, that isn't acceptable. There are multiple reasons why I didn't want to indef. block him immediately (past experience shows that indefinite blocks against persistent users don't help). He clearly isn't showing any desire to stop, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that it isn't acceptable, the user isn't evading the block in an attempt to try and disrupt the encyclopedia, he's doing it to try and appeal his block, it might be an idea to post something on the IP's talk page regarding this Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's disruptive to restore this inflammatory userbox, although admittedly he could have done that with his blocked account. His edits to User talk:Viridae have focused on keeping the userbox, not appealing his block. Do we really need this kind of imagery on userpages?Proabivouac 23:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah sorry about that, remember reading the contribs from the IP earlier and obviously got mixed up, what would everyone suggest doing? Reset the block, and leave a message to the IP talking about the consequences of continuous block evasion? Looking over Emabargo's contribs, his major concern lately have been about that userbox, and it does seam he wants to keep putting his point across Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, already done. I might have been a bit snippy with the comment, but considering the user's history... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

post of WP:AIV asking IP to be permablocked[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be, anyway? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This was just posted on AIV: 209.36.39.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) this is shared proxy server at Fork Union Military Academy where I am Director of Communications. Recommend this IP Address be blocked from anonymous editing as there have been many, many instances of anonymous users abusing the editing rights. CaptDan FUMA 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe it's a illegitimate request, but it seemed like a bad idea to give an IP an extended block because some guy showed up and asked nicely. Not sure what to do. Natalie 22:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, someone blocked them for 3 months Natalie 22:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that we shouldn't do that sort of thing blindly -- at least make sure the person's story checks out, WHOIS the IP and such. In this case, it looks like the IP was shared and the story at least makes sense. I see it's been given month-long blocks, previously and not too long ago. We should be wary of these requests, though, I'd hate to see some random person wander in, tag some random dynamic home ISP's IP as shared, and get it blocked for six months because "the school admins asked." :x – Luna Santin (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If you were going to do a permaprotect, only do so if the request comes by e-mail (an obviously real one). Cbrown1023 talk 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to know my instinct was in the right area, even if it turned out to be a moot point. Natalie 02:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Indef block review for Dr. Steller[edit]

I've blocked Dr. Steller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for legal threats in the form of this edit; see their user talk page for a translation. This block is open to review here. Sandstein 10:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much a standard legal threat case with a German language twist. Good indefinite block.--Jersey Devil 11:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That was the best thing to do.-- Carabinieri 11:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Legal and personal threat. Basically to the point where nothing can be done. Good block. Yanksox 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ed g2s disruptive edits and deletions[edit]

Well, there are many problems. First, the user ed g2s has been deleting images from the Evanescence articles, because according to him the use of album cover images violates thes Fair use criteria. This is totally fake, and it can be proved. Nirvana (band) and Nightwish have images of album covers, and these articles are Featured articles. If the use use of album cover images is forbidden, then these articles would never have passed the FA. Now, he is also contradicting himself, because he has also deleted an logo ([[:Image:Evanescence early.png, an earlier logo of the band). Logo are not album covers, so...? He has deleted it with no reasons. The only thing he said was that the use of the images hasn't been discussed. What's that??

Some edits he made (deleting images):

Another problem is that he has nominated an free-use image created by me, Image:EV-In.svg, with a very vague reason. He says this is a derivated work of the Evanescence logo. It would be a derivated logo if I would have copied the Evanescence logo and added something like some lines or whatever. Here's the discussion, but it's going nowhere.

And the last thing, he has tagged the Image:Evlithium1.jpg for deletion. This is a fair-use image, but many of the contributors in the Evanescence articles including me, reached a consensus. (this.

Also the fair use rationable stated the reasons why we are using a fair-use image by now.

No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. While Evanescence is a very popular band and would probably be easier to get user-created pictures of than most, the fact remains that in general it's incredibly difficult to get good free use images of bands. The reasons are two-fold: the majority of user-contributed images are going to be from 1) dark concerts with bad lighting, where the band is spread across the stage and difficult to see, or 2) individual members posing with a fan. Highly unlikely that a decent picture of just the band outside of a concert setting could be found. (Check the fair use rationable for more reasons).

You should also check this discussion.

I really don't understand his reasons. I can even compare the fair use rationable of the main image of Nirvana (FA) with the rationable of the Evanescence (GA) rationable. The Evanescence images is very very very detailed.

Well, I hope these problems end and we can continue our Wikipedian lives normally... Armando.OtalkEv 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed could have handled this better, but I don't think any of his actions violate policy. The fair use rationale is weak. If there are copyvios on the Nirvana page they should be removed, not used for justification for other copyrighted content. Since Carnildo stopped spending time on WP:FAC, these things have not been checked as thoroughly as they should. Borisblue 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
As for the logo currently on the page, I believe that there is enough grounds for it to be used, but you should remove the CC- tag and add a fair use rationale. Even though you made the image yourself, it's a copy of the copyrighted logo so you can't release it under creative commons. Borisblue 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrogant and abusive editor[edit]

An arrogant and abusive editor has recently started editing anonymously from the IP addresses [69.9.30.236] and [69.9.29.176]. This anonymous editor is persistently acting rudely towards everyone he interacts with. He is continuously attempting to insert obvious fallacies in to articles based on a very superficial and amateurish knowledge of the subject despite everyone disagreeing with him. He is completely counterproductive to Wikipedia. His ISP is Dakota Communications in Tucson, Arizona. They operate IPs in the 69.9.0.0 - 69.9.31.255 range. Abuse can be reported to them by e-mailing Admin@DakotaCom.NET Please take action concerning this problem. --Dr Lisboa 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this might be more proper for the request for investigation. Yanksox 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Another Administrator has just given him a final warning. Please indicate where I pursue a "request for investigation" if it is needed. --Dr Lisboa 22:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more socks for review[edit]

  • Brigader General (talk · contribs): Joined 20:14, March 15th. Uploads many images and articles with the same labels and invalid public domain tags. Most of his edits are inserting these images, most of which will have to be speedy deleted.
  • Lt. Col. Cole (talk · contribs): Blocked 18.43, March 14th, for 1 day and 5 hours. Uploads many images and articles with the same labels and invalid public domain tags. Most of his edits are inserting these images, most of which are speedily deleted. Was blocked for image uploading


Both of these editors appear to chronic image problem creators. Both have similar topics of interest: The military, guns, Neighborhood Sniper, and Gangmembers. Both use exactly the same format for uploading pictures.

Per these discoveries, I propose that General is a sockpuppet of Cole, who has not learned from his block for inappropriate image uploads. Logical2uReview me! 19:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Indef blocking General, extending the block of Cole to a week. Sandstein 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC) -- That is, issuing a new one-week block. Sandstein 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Netspine - admin impersonation?[edit]

Resolved: Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled by this chap. His user page seems to indicate he's an admin, yet his edits are practically zero and those he's done are sometimes un-admin-ish to coin a phrase. Is it a troll impersonating Netsnipe? Or am I way off? If so, apologies for being jumpy. --Dweller 19:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

He copied/pasted User:Netsnipe page, apparently. Indef blocked due impersonation of another administrator. -- ReyBrujo 19:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, no doubts from this, where he's going back to old messages and changing User:Netsnipe to User:Netspine. Shenme 19:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for speedy attention. --Dweller 19:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request has been declined; due to subsequent trolling, and the obvious abusive nature of the account, I've protected their talk page. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kansai-ben[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some assistance here. There's a user named Mackan (talk · contribs) who has some valid points in regards to expertise, but also is showing some WP:OWN and WP:CIVIL violations IMO. Just Heditor review 20:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This debate has been going on for what, 30 minutes and Just H already listed it? This request does definately not belong here. Just H is overreacting because I referred to some poorly sourced stuff he inserted into the article as "bullshit". While I realise that was not the most civil thing to do, WP:A spade is a... Of course, that's not an excuse, I should have been more careful. Then again, his edits are honestly not helpful to the article and he hasn't provided anything resembling a reliable source. Mackan 20:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a much of an issue here regarding incivility. Mackan does, however, seem to be right in saying that the disputed content fails WP:ATT. Forums, blogs and wikis are not sources. – Steel 20:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Steel, is there a way we can convince Mackan to use his expertise to assist in developing that aspect of the article? I do not have his expertise, but I am curious about the sub-subject at hand. Also, if Wikipedia does not consider Wikipedia a notable source, what does that tell you? Just Heditor review 20:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I doubt Mackan would have any problems with someone adding in information about how Kansai-ben relates to other dialects if we had reliable sources for them. As for Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia a source... I would hope not. – Steel 20:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
If Mackan could just add better versions of what I added, i'd be happy. And wow, Wikipedia must think that Wikipedia really sucks then, eh? :-) Just Heditor review 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. If you could just read WP:ATT I'd be happy. – Steel 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

UFO[edit]

  • User User:Djma12 just went in and removed a lot of working links, stating that they were dead and I had to go back and put them back in. I thought it would be best to bring this to y'alls attention (:O) -Nima Baghaei (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

user:CanadianCaesar premature closed debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black people[edit]

After 4½ hours admin CanadianCaeser prematurely closed debate on the above-mentioned article. I prepared comments for his talk page [28] detailing why Wikipedia:Speedy keep was inappropriate, and how Wikipedia:SNOW was not a policy and in any event should not apply here. I asked him to reopen debate. He declined [29]. I would like another administrator to review this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jd2718 (talkcontribs) 01:07, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review, second door on your left. —bbatsell ¿? 01:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Just in case avoiding a pointless DRV is possible, I agree with CC's close. Mangojuicetalk 01:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't meet any condition for Speedy Keep, but he's cited speedy keep. He's also cited SNOW (not a policy), but it plainly fails the test for SNOW. It is not an admin's job to substitute his/her judgement for the community's. Jd2718 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Two people engaging in tangential commenting of others' keep votes is not "community judgment." And the admin's judgment can actually supercede the community if policy is violated, but that is irrelevant. —210physicq (c) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the debate here. Only two delete votes, and one from a POV pusher who engages in edit wars over whether gorillas are monkeys. JuJube 01:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is on DRV now, suggest further comments go there.--Docg 01:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

O'Donoghue[edit]

O'Donoghue has made a large number of edits on Ireland related articles over the last couple of weeks, using both his account and a number of IPs. I believe there is strong evidence this editor is actually El chulito, as he has also harassed Vintagekits in a similar manner to El chulito. There's a checkuser also involving several other accounts that has yet to be filed that I was thinking of adding to, but I can't really class it as A or C so I'm reluctant to add the information to that and request the checkuser, so I'm listing it here as recommended.

El chulito - Example of link formatting - [30]

O'Donoghue - No edits between 16 August 2006 and 1 March 2007, then makes this edit on 10 March with an edit summary of violation of mediation agreement on use of "Volunteer" with reference to this mediation which finished in February which El chulito was involved in. Examples of link formatting - [31][32][33][34][35]

216.194.0.99 Edits Vintagekits' talk page, then edits as El chulito to add his signature.

216.194.3.132 - Example of link formatting - [36]

216.194.0.248 - O'Donoghue edits Vintagekits talk page, then 3 minutes later the IP corrects the previous edit. Adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article, which is a category O'Donoghue created.

216.194.1.39 - Similarly, adds the Former Sinn Féin politicians category to an article. Example of link formatting - [37]

216.194.3.140 - Example of link formatting - [38][39][40][41]

216.194.3.125 - Edits Daniel McCann and Eddie Copeland, which he's also edited using two of the IPs listed above - 216.194.3.140, 216.194.0.248 216.194.3.140.

Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 08:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


All those IPs come from the same company MetTel, Inc. Due to that fact, there appears to be come puppetry involved, although whether it is sock or meat I wouldn't know. IrishGuy talk 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It definitely seems to fall under the avoiding scrutiny from other editors part of WP:SOCK I think. He's using multiple IPs and occasionally swapping accounts. One Night In Hackney303 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Masterofsuspense[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This indef blocked user appears to have many sockpuppets being created one after the other(4 blocked so far). GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please list. — ERcheck (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
OK. Users: User:Fridaynightjam User:Perryperryperryperry User:Perryperry User:Xalexjx all have made similar contributions and have congratulated eachother on their vandalism. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Seems to have stopped now. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

TallulahBelle in the article Historiography is reverting legitimate good faith edits marking them as "vandalism" and stated the following on Talk:Historiography:

  • "Cutting well thought-out material while simultaneously putting in nonsensical, obnoxious blather is vandalism. Hence I am reverting vandalism."
  • "The historiography article has a veneer of gobbledy-gook that I hope to remove, so long as people hoping to maintain that gobbledy-gook get out of my way."

In fact the edits I made to the article are far from vandalism (seen here), they include a {{fact}} tag for TallulahBelle's recent addition (apparently TallulahBelle doesn't like fact tags on his material) and the creation of a Lead Section per the WP:LEAD guidelines. Attempts at discussion on the talk page have resulted in the above personal-attack comments that I can't really respond too without escalating bad relations. Any help dealing with this would be appreciated. -- Stbalbach 22:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Left a message asking the user not to refer to good-faith edits as vandalism. For what it's worth, it looks like you're both skirting WP:3RR (User:TallulahBelle may already have gone to 4RR); probably best to pursue dispute resolution rather than edit-warring further. MastCell Talk 23:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd think Stbalbach's reinstatement of the good faith edits deleted (which itself could be considered vandalism) qualifies as exempt from the 3RR. SWATJester On Belay! 03:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd think User:TallulahBelle's edits fall under What vandalism is not, under "Stubborness". Unless you think TallulahBelle was engaged in a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, rather than a garden-variety content dispute which he/she handled badly? MastCell Talk 04:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
... and would appear that User:TallulahBelle has been blocked for 12 hours for 3RR violation. MastCell Talk 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing at Talk:Rule of Rose[edit]

I've been embroiled in a (less than worthwhile) dispute about a series of external links added by 67.163.193.239 (talk · contribs) to some video game articles; the links appear to be her website about the games (low content, portal to a forum, etc etc). Discussion at my talk page, and then at Talk:Rule of Rose. Long story short, I suspected off-wiki canvassing, and then confirmed it screenshot (post now deleted from forum). Is this, of itself, worthy of further admin action? I'm too involved, so I'll defer to others. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reported both IPs for apparent 3rr violations here. - Denny 02:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've scrubbed my talk page and I'm going to step away for a bit, but I'd just like to note that I've been accused by these IPs of forging the screenshot above, singling them out for harassment, etc etc. If anyone is in doubt, I swear on my wikibible as an admin that the screenshot is genuine. Cheers. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page FA template vandalism[edit]

A rather disgusting scatalogical image has bene introduced onto the main page FA (Uranium) via a template. The article seems to include many templates. Help is requested locating the one that has been vandalised... WjBscribe 02:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone delete: Image:DNAanima.jpg as a matter of urgency. WjBscribe 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Image has been deleted. However Uranium appear to contain over 40 templates. It is very vulnerable to this sort of vandalism. WjBscribe 02:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You know... I thought those template vandals got tired of doing what they do; I was hoping enough time had passed whereby I didn't need to keep protecting those templates. Oh well; I guess not. The templates are now protected through User:Tariqabjotu/TOFA templates A, and I (or someone else) will continue protecting them indefinitely. -- tariqabjotu 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I would prefer moving them to Wikipedia:Protected titles, a new page if necessary. It appears that every admin has a set of pages or templates protected via cascading, which is basically awful. -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is time to apply cascading protection, as it now exists for the mainpage itself, to the day's featured article page. I don't know exactly how exactly this would be done since the FA itself isn't usually protected, but we need to find a way. Newyorkbrad 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how the software handles that. See Bug 8796. There was some back and forth in SVN related to that bug. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Or cascade move protect Uranium, which should still work (the fix isn't live yet). Prodego talk 02:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, still works. Nice bug. Prodego talk 02:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But then anyone can just put anything on Today's Featured Article to get it protected. I'm not sure that would be a bad thing though, since the page is watched so much that anything that should not be on there will get reverted. However, the cascading template method has been working for months (except for today); the method does not actually take very long. -- tariqabjotu 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict with tariqabjotu] Perhaps we should suggest that this 'bug' isn't 'fixed'. While cascading semi and move protection allows non-admins to fully protect pages by transcluding them, on high profile pages like the day's FA this is going to be noticed and reverted pretty swiftly. – Steel 02:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be fixed; there hasn't been a scap recently (there is a change in the schema pending, which requires database servers to be switched around; it is a complex task, and until it is done, all the changes to MediaWiki after revision 20145 won't be applied to the live MediaWiki used on Wikipedia and the rest of the Wikimedia wiki farm. I say "may" because I'm not sure how it was fixed... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Um, what's that for us who aren't up to date on mediawiki/developer/technical jargon? – Steel 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It means that we are running old, but "safe" code. It also means that until Brion or Tim changes the English Wikipedia database server to something else, changes some database tables in the original server around, and then moves the database back to the original server, all the bugs in MediaWiki are fixed, but only in the Subversion repository. The English Wikipedia won't see the fixes until we run the newest code again. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
There may be already, but how about: there is basically an exact copy of Uranium, as say Wikipedia:Mainpage article/Date, and then a cascade protected Wikipedia:Mainpage article, which transcludes the current day's subpage. Prodego talk 02:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea; never thought of that. -- tariqabjotu 02:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, if there are any new transcludes added the page would have to be updated manually, but it is as easy as {{subst::Uranium}}. A bot could keep watch perhaps, and add the next day to a queue. Prodego talk 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm hesitant about any new system that requires routine manual updating. Wasn't the original problem with main page penises that things weren't being updated (protections, in this case)? – Steel 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How often are new templates added to the main page FA anyway? It would be a pretty exceptional occurance. WjBscribe 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
But that would erase all the good edits made to the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
How? The main article wouldn't be touched. Here is a working example, minus the daily update procedure. Prodego talk 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I mean while the article is on TFA. Uranium would (or at the least, should) still stay open for editing, and if I understand this correctly, you would be substing the subpage onto Uranium if it gets vandalized. Or am I not reading this correctly? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
As I understand it, the idea is to have a copy of the article somewhere else to cascade protect. So the main article can still be edited but its templates will all be protected because a copy of it (containing all the same templates) has been cascade protected. WjBscribe 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, I can't get a word in here (the edit conflict bug needs to be fixed). Anyway, Prodego means that if a new template is added to Uranium, the secondary page could have the updated page substed onto it. I think cascading protection is better, though as it's automatic. -- tariqabjotu 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That requires developer intervention though. Plus the security bug. Prodego talk 03:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
To whom are you replying? -- tariqabjotu 03:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You. I mean that any way to protect transcludes, and not the article needs to be coded, and allows anyone to protect a page by transcluding it. Not a problem on the FA, but on other pages... Prodego talk 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Section break[edit]

Ok, trying to gather everyone's thoughts together after all the edit conflicts.

  • Cascade protect the FA.
    Pros: Quick and easy, simply enable cascading when the page is move protected.
    Cons: People could remove templates from the page and vandalise them. The template removal to the FA will get reverted, with a fully protected vandalised template in place. Hilarity ensues.
  • Prodego's duplicate FA page.
    Pros: Doesn't allow non-admins to play about on cascade protected pages, etc.
    Cons: Requires manual updating every day. In the past, when people have failed to do this, main page pensises resulted.

Steel 03:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The bug allowing the first option is already fixed, just not live yet. Prodego talk 03:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Reality check: it's very rare (i.e. it has never occurred) that a new, appropriate template has been added to TFA and then vandalized. Subst:ing an article takes no time whatsoever, compared to my current method, which takes some (but still not a lot) of time. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It will add to categories though. Prodego talk 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Mutilated penises and oozing feces or accidental categories. That's a toughie. Or, then again, there is the current method. -- tariqabjotu 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we combine both options? Have the cascade protection enabled as the default option. Then, once an admin creates the duplicate page, they remove the cascade protection from the FA? Then its not as big a deal if everyone forgets to create the duplicate page. WjBscribe 03:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra work though. – Steel 03:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
(Yet another edit conflict) Testing at Hurricane Nora (1997), I saw that if cascading protection works, under the following conditions:
  • Move-protect only
  • Cascade-protect off
  • Edit-protect off
I tested it with a two-hour expiry as well, so I guess that we can just cascade-protect the TFA daily. Yes, there's the privilege bug, but we can deal with that when the need arises. But that still doesn't do anything about Steel's scenario. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean "Cascade-protect on". However: That is already fixed. It will not continue working after Mediawiki is upgraded, which it is regularly. Prodego talk 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If we decided that the first option is best, surely we could just get the devs to unfix the bug? – Steel 03:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's on. However, again, I'm not sure how it was fixed; there was talk of disallowing semi-protection in cascade-protected articles; there was talk about just requiring those adding a new transclusion to have protect privileges in cascade-protected pages. There were some fixes, some "unfixes", then some more fixes. I don't know how it actually was fixed at the end. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Both settings must be set to the type of user that can protect(sysop) for cascade protection to work. Prodego talk 03:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Better Idea[edit]

How about this.

  • Get a bot to put all the transcludes on a page 2 minutes before the page becomes an FA. Then have a page that transcludes that page when the date changes.
    Pros: No work, no downtime on the FA.
    Cons: (None)

Prodego talk 03:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. It'd probably be best that the pages be .js or .css files in the bot's userspace to prevent abuse. – Steel 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

aseeel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)[edit]

Resolved

This user has been repeatedly warned and subsequently blocked for adding spam and prosylitizing links to Islam and Sunni Islam. A more serious preventative measure needs to occur given his continued behavior in this regard despite having been blocked for this once already. (Netscott) 04:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

From this account's list of contributions we can see that this account is not being used for encyclopedic purposes (all edits have been for spamming) and it in fact may be a bot... an indef. block is probably the sensible thing to do at this point. (Netscott) 04:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Aseeel may as well as be a bot for all we know.[42] Warned again and again, and now fresh of his block, he's not bothered to respond, but just picks up and resumes as if nothing had happened. An indefinite block is in order, to be lifted only if and when he finds it worth his time to acknowledge the community.Proabivouac 04:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indef as spam only. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Admin assist, please[edit]

Request a (highly principled, impartial) admin to assist with article Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. My own contributions per box instructions are in vain. User Antaeus Feldspar appears to have a negative history with the article, COI, and seems to be acting out of some sort of anomosity towards the subject, and any/all of its contributors and/or editors, WP:POINT, WP:CREEP, WP:BITE (see edit notes and talk page) violating WP:AGF, WP:FAITH, WP:DR bordering on WP:CIV, WP:EQ. Thanks for your assistance. Telogen 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? AF has not edited the article once, and only started editing the talk page to respond to your sockpuppet account, and all he has done there is to explain Wikipedia's attribution policy to you. I couldn't find a single comment or edit summary that expressed any sort of emotion toward the article's subject, and no violations of any of the policies you mentioned. Are you just trolling? —bbatsell ¿? 05:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redaction question/review[edit]

Background: See Talk:Black people. The article is a POV/edit war magnet, and has all the requisite "keep a cool head" boilerplates on the talk page. The article was just speedily kept in an AFD, and that is under review at DRV.

Also note, that I'm not involved in any way with the content of the article. I stumbled across the talk page while investigating

The comment in question is left by an IP who wrote: "Where is your comment regarding the existence of the "White People" article? I don't see your comments in that article's discussion page. Where is the request to delete the "White (People)" article in any event? --208.254.174.148"

I see that comment as particularly incivil against another editor who asked an innocuous question regarding why the page exists. I redacted the comment per WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments

It's basically reverse racism. Why bite someone for questioning the existence of a Black people article with "Why you got a problem with black people huh? Why don't you have anything against White people."?

According to WP:CIVIL, "Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, "

As well, for removing incivil comments, "Remove offensive comments on talk pages (since they remain in the page history, anyone can find them again or refer to them later on)"

thus, I feel in the right having redacted the comment. However, User:JD2718 does not seem to agree, and is reinstating the redacted content, basically forcing the incivil comment to stay in. I've reverted him once and he's reverted back (the present version).


I'd like a review as to whether I'm in the right in removing this comment, or if JD2718 is correct and the comment should remain. SWATJester On Belay! 05:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, removing someone's commrnts should only be done rarely and with consesnus. Obviously if someone reverts you, then you don't have consensus. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I disagree with your statement that a reversion = lack of consensus. If that was true, any one person could disrupt consensus on any other thing, and there would never be any progress made on wikipedia. SWATJester On Belay! 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Smee[edit]

I know that WP:DR is that-a-way but I think this is moving over to WP:DE. Quick details:

  • I asked User:Bishonen to help address Smee's WP:DE and detailed the then latest episode of Smee's WP:DE here. She politely declined and suggested asking User:Jossi.
  • User:BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor had just returned so I asked him to mediate. He offered and experienced, in his words, "abrupt rebuff of my attempt to address the problem". I asked Smee nicely to reconsider BT's offer but he did not respond.
  • Smee then continued his WP:DE at David Gaiman, edit warring with me over a simple {{notability}} tag for an WP:BLP that clearly, IMO, has notability issues.
  • Smee then continued his WP:DE at The Bridge (film) with two rude reverts (likely his 5th or 6th reverts there in 24 hrs) to BTfromLA, a respected neutral editor; behavior that prompted BTfromLA to agree "I certainly see the problem." Smee also likely violated 3RR on that article but the WP:DE is more obvious and is blatant.

Will some admin please help me? This has been going on for a while but this recent is just over-the-top. Thanks. --Justanother 05:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Abusive/disruptive pattern of "Justanother"
Since the "accused" in these situations usually says the same thing and is hardly ever believed, it seems worth mentioning that more than one editor feels that Justanother is a disruptive editor himself. I have only encountered him directly on the Barbara Schwarz article, but in doing so found myself with serious WP:COI concerns about him which he has gone to great lengths to avoid discussion of. He also appears to bait his opponents at any opportunity, an example can be seen on my talk page: User_talk:Anynobody. There are at least a few others who would agree, however it is not my place to speak for them. (However it would not surprise me if others posted similar feelings.) Anynobody 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur with both Anynobody and Smee, and will keep my comments here brief. I note Smee quotes TedFrank's comment in the AfD, and I must confess I have bitten the bait laid out for me too often, as indicated by Ted's response. However there are numerous instances where User:Justanother has indulged in WP:DE himself. Orsini 11:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I also concur with the observations in re user Justanother's persistent disruption, which has repeatedly bloated procedural discussions with taunts and irrelevant tangents. — Athænara 03:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Question, User:Athaenara. How would you characterize this and this (References to Munchausen, etc.)? Because it looks to me that you are engaging in a bit of "bloated procedural discussions with taunts and irrelevant tangents" yourself there. --Justanother 04:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Third party observations
  • Justanother accurately portrays my comments and experiences above, but I have since had a bit of interaction with Smee that was much less contentious than indicated there, and that leaves me much more hopeful that a truce, at least, can be reached when dealing with articles of mutual interest to these editors. My surprise at the "abrupt rebuff" turns out to have been partly due to a misunderstanding--I had thought Smee's edit summary saying something to the effect of "don't post on my talk page" was aimed at me, but I now see that he(?) was responding to Justanother--in other words, his response to my offer to help with the problem was fairly non-responsive, but not hostile, as I had originally thought. I later reiterated my offer, which Smee politely declined. I did indeed experience the frustration Justanother talks about when editing The Bridge (film) and experiencing Smee's instantaneous reverts of my good faith edit. However, Smee eventually did read my rationale on the talk page, considered the edit, and agreed that not only was it worth allowing to stand for comment, but that it actually did represent a small improvement in the article. So, happy ending. He followed it with some friendly words about my manner as an editor. My sense is that this conflict can be resolved with a mutual agreement to assume good faith and to limit disputes to substantive article changes, allowing others to deal with the small stuff. Both editors are capable of working civily. Justanother clearly wants some sort of mutually acceptible understanding to be brokered; if Smee agrees to some sort of arbitration, formal or otherwise, I think it can. BTfromLA 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
As a pretty much disinterested observer that doesn't have much stake in the issues concerned, I have been shocked at some of the language used by User:Justanother, including the f.word etc, and the way he interacts with other editors who happen not to share his opinion on scientology topics.Merkinsmum 13:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Justanother sometimes not politically correct with edit-warring propagandists and bigots (and yes, I have diffs) that, in addition to relentless disruptive edit-warring with me, engage in further disruptive activity such as that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD. So, yes, I am sometimes short with them or sarcastic and on one noted and isolated occasion almost two weeks ago, I lost my temper and used the s-word (and the mf-word) to refer to myself on my own talk page. Sorry if that offends. PS, I have plenty more examples of Smee's WP:DE pattern if any admin wants to see. I was hoping to handle it with WP:DR but he rejected a good-faith attempt to do so and only increased his WP:DE, hoping, as always, to hide it beneath a mountain of misdirection and "who, me?" This will form the extent of my remarks to misdirection such as that already offered by four editors (Smee, Anynobody, Orsini, and now Merkinsmum) above. Thank you and please let me know if you need more diffs, including any to support my charges of propagandizing (Smee being the main propagandist) and bigotry (not Smee particularly), charges not being brought here except as background, because I have plenty of diffs. --Justanother 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh please Justanother, you know the perception "....that prompted one editor to remark "Calling for an editor to be blocked for a supportable opinion is odious", an opinion expressed by others in that AfD" is based upon a false premise used to manufacture a COI issue for User:Tilman, also based on faulty premises, and someone fell for that premise. The reality is somewhat different; Tilman suggested you were blocked based upon your WP:DE behavior and your support of another’s behavior on Talk:Barbara Schwarz, which was also aggressively disruptive. I was tempted to respond to the edit you cite, but recalling Ted's observation, figured doing so there would only add to the noise. Orsini 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Shame on you, Orsini. Why not assume good faith and intelligence on the part of User:Shenme that he could correctly evaluate what Tilman was talking about. Let's make it crystal clear what Tilman was talking about by linking to the diffs of Tilman's actual postings instead of to one of you muddying the waters (as you and others continue to attempt here). Here he calls for my block after I began asking seriously about starting an AfD for Schwarz. Here is Tilman making essentially the same call for my block for bringing the AfD (actually he thinks he has a double-whammy reason for blocking me there). You know, Orsini, that your misrepresentation is disrespectful of the board if not downright trolling. --Justanother 19:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Justanother, please stop your personal attacks. You were warned on your Talk page, and I note you have removed the warning with a clearly uncivil edit summary. I have certainly AGF on the part of User:Shenme, and I don't believe it is me who is doing the misrepresentation. Omission of pertinent details will lead to faulty conclusions. This diff, including the preceding comments I made which appear at the top, is a brief summary of that which anyone examining Archive 10 of Talk:Barbara Schwarz can clearly see for themselves as to why User:Tilman called for you to be blocked, if they care to examine it. Hint: it was not because you were calling for an AfD; try looking at your previous edit here for the basis of his reasoning, and mine, for that suggestion. Orsini 00:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Accusations of "propagandizing" and "bigotry" are not within WP:CIVIL discourse. Criticize edits, not editors. -- TedFrank 13:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree, Ted. Discussion of propagandizing is comment on edits and is entirely appropriate and I accuse Smee of propagandizing but I am not making that accusation formally here; it is more appropriate for WP:DR progressive handling, IMO. Please see Wp:not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox which prohibits "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind." As far as bigotry, I am specifically not accusing Smee of expressing bigotry but that is something that I deal with from a few other editors and I can back that up with diffs. I only mention it in the context of my replies to such, which can be a bit acerbic. Thanks. --Justanother 15:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:VANDAL prohibits vandalism of any kind, but that doesn't mean indiscriminately calling editors vandals is within WP:CIVIL. From what I've seen there's a content dispute, often over trivial matters, with both sides resorting to trying to get their way through attrition and every so often making a tactical yield to seem reasonable and stay within 3RR. If there's a propagandizing problem, it's resolved with POV tags and RFCs, not edit wars and repetitious AfDs and back-and-forth tattling about which neutral editor W said X about Y. That goes for both of you: whichever one of you is in the right is playing into the hands of the other by burying the issue in back-and-forth so that no one neutral wants to get involved. Perhaps Smee is POV-pushing, but you've made it near-impossible to tell by your conduct. It's much easier to conclude that everyone is in the wrong. -- TedFrank 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
While following a few other outlinks, I fell into the tit-for-tat between both of these editors at the The Bridge (film) article. I find that each editor spends probably 45% of their time undoing the work of the other, another 45% looking for ways to "improve" the article in a way that the other won't like, and the final 10% doing good and useful work. Maybe that's exaggeration, but it is my perception because I have become so exhausted watching the ping-pong and sniping that I have essentially given up on that article, leaving it to them to argue over, and decided to move on to things less stressful. Neither editor is wholly without blame and while Smee's words may be less caustic, his actions are nonetheless just as tiring. My biggest co