Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Help appreciated with a new editor[edit]

User:Frjohnwhiteford, apparently the pastor at St. Jonah Orthodox Church, in Spring, Texas has got his shorts in a twist about Template:Dominionism, a perennial magnet for the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such. He's well past 3RR there and has been warned already.

The greater problem is he previously indicated a his wish to make a WP:POINT, and now has carried through with the threat: [1] This change is simple vandalism to make a WP:POINT, considering the People's Republic is avowedly atheist. Frjohnwhiteford has already been warned about violating WP:POINT [2]. Since I'm involved in the debate over content I cannot take administrative action like a firm warning, or even revert the vandalism to the template, but someone will need to. Will someone here help out please. FeloniousMonk 05:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I in no way wish to defend the activities of this editor, who clearly seems to have crossed the line into vandalism. However, I think there are serious BLP concerns with adding people's names to a "Dominionism" navigation box, template, or category if they do not self-identify as such. Some of the names are relatively uncontroversial — e.g. Rushdoony — but have Dobson et al. ever called themselves Dominionists? If not, the inclusion of Dobson and not of other prominent Religious Right figures (e.g. Robertson and Falwell seems arbitrary and problematic. *** Crotalus *** 06:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Feloniusmonk has not surprisingly misrepresented what occurred here. His own comments above provide evidence of his anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance: "the faithful who object to having those who advocate theocratic ideals being identified as such". Apparently all conservative Christians who do not favor abortion on demand, euthanasia, or any other item on the Liberal agenda are therefore advocates of "theocratic ideals."
This current flurry began for two reasons: 1). a Note which pointed out that the claims of Dobson being a "Dominionist" were those of a particular group of people, and not just a universally accepted claim was removed. 2) Dobson was added to the Dominionist Template, and that Template was added to the Dobson article.
I should add that Feloniousmonk also removed the POV tag on the Dobson article, despite the fact that the neutrality of that article clearly is in dispute, as anyone would have to conclude by reading the discussion page for that article. However, there is now a sufficient qualifier to the Dominionist section of the Dobson article that I personally can live with it. I knew that, given the nature of this Wiki, removing that section entirely because it lacks merit wasn't going to be accepted...though I don't think you will ever see such a section in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or any other scholarly encyclopedia. But fairness required that the claim not just be stated as fact.
The problem with the Template, as seems to be agreed to here by most Admins, is that it states as a fact that Dobson is an advocate, and Tom Monaghan is an financier, and there is simply no real basis for the claim, the template does not allow any qualifications to be made to the claim, and in the case of Tom Monaghan, there is not even a single source that states he has done anything other than give a lot of money to Focus on the Family and Pat Buchanan's presidential Campaign. When the attempt to remove Tom Monaghan was rebuffed, I was told that the article stating that he supported Focus on the Family was sufficent to prove he was a financier of Dominionism. I then pointed out that the Chinese Communist Party has placed Focus on the Family on all Chinese state owned Radio stations in China. This seemed sufficient proof, based on the logic of Feloniousmonk, to establish that the Chinese Communist Party was a Dominionist Organization. Feloniusmonk's only response was that since they were atheists they could not be Dominionists. But since Tom Monaghan is a Roman Catholic, he could not be a Dominionist either... but, according to Feloniousmonk, "Truth does not matter, only verifiability"... and since I had verified that the Chinese Communists support Focus on the Family, that verified it, regardless of the truth of the matter.
I would ask that some sanity be allowed to prevail here, and that either the Dominionist Template be deleted, or that it be limited to advocates of Christian Reconstructionism, who identify themselves as such. Also, I would ask that the "Generic Dominionism" section of the Dominionism article be deleted. The definition there is so sweeping that the Pope would have to be added to the Dominionism Template. In fact, many of the "Critics" of Dominionism listed on the Template would also have to be added as Advocates... such as Hal Lindsey. Frjohnwhiteford 10:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That template has serious NPOV and ownership issues; all I ask is that neutral parties read over the talk page and judge for themselves if all is as it should be. - Merzbow 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Having looked at the series box and its talk pages, it does indeed have serious NPOV, ownership and BLP issues. It's one thing to include someone's name in an article about Dominionism - because there's the space to offer a nuanced and NPOV view - it's quite another to include them in a category or (IMO, worse) a series box when they do not self-identify with the term. A category is a simple binary option; either someone is a member of the set, or they are not; and a series box implies something even stronger, that Wikipedia has attempted to create a whole project on Dominionism, and the articles listed in the series box are intended to be read as part of a series and are parts of a single work on Dominionism. It implies editorial judgment that the articles are closely tied together.
This isn't just my opinion on this series box, but on all of them, although the more subjective the category, the more problematic it is. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the concerns; templated boxes can 'sneak' people into categories that would be deleted from their article without proper sourcing, and it's not our place to label or identify, merely record what has already happened. The pastor's problematic edits are orthogonal to that concern. -- nae'blis 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox abuse?[edit]

I know a sandbox is for tests and all... but does this guy take it a bit too far. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 11:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes - offensive content can and should be removed from the sandbox but in fairness to that user they did remove it themselves. Will (aka Wimt) 11:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I have seen worse, and I rarely look at the sandbox. Just revert it, and politely request to keep the sandbox worksafe if possible if the user continues. Better in the sandbox than anywhere else, and, as Wimt says, they removed it themselves, so a warning at this stage is not needed. J Milburn 11:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
*2 edit conflicts* Should using the sandbox to bypass WP:SPAM be undone as well? Funpika 11:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The sandbox is the sandbox- do what you like. If you don't like it, revert it. Spam, personal attacks, whatever- remove them, but don't get worked up on warning the users. Perhaps place a message at the top when you edit it, saying something like 'No spam please!' J Milburn 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
That's silly, isn't it? Why put stuff like that in the sandbox. Surely that guy is trying to get aroudn the rules or something? Shadow master66 11:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What rules is he getting around? The spam will be removed every 12 hours by a bot. No follow tags apply so it doesn't increase hi page rank, therefore it's harmless. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is on the page he can get hits from people who follow the link from the sandbox. That is most likely his intention. Funpika 12:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Sandbot automatically reverts edits like that, in this case within 2 minutes of the original edit, it would be a wild fluke it google just happened to cache the sandbox during that 2 minute period. This is what google's current cache of the sandbox looks like--VectorPotentialTalk 14:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Question: Are sandbox edits kept in history as well? i.e. If there was a situation where personal information about a minor was given out on the sandbox, would it need to be oversighted, or is that part of the auto-clearing of the sandbox, that all edit histories are removed too? SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the sandbox has a permanent edit history. You need oversight as deleting the sandbox will lag the hell out of the servers due to the sheer amount of revisions. MER-C 09:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Image description pages[edit]

For several months now, Timeshifter has been creating image description pages for Commons media not on Wikipedia, it seems for the express purpose of categorising layers of categories that he has created here. The motives are of secondary concern, since the action seemed to reverse the intent and effect of transwikiing media. I pursued clarification and received agreeable responses in multiple venues (User_talk:Tewfik#CSD, User_talk:Tewfik#Categories, Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion#Commons_media_categorisation). I still wanted to be very sure, and so I tried to clarify the specific CSD that seemed to already say the same thing, but in an indirect manner. My recommendation for emendation was discussed and accepted. I waited more than nine days after rephrasing the criteria before taking any action, which saw no change in the consensus. Unfortunately, Timeshifter chose to respond by attacking me for what he perceives my nationality to be, as well as declaring that there was no discussion and that I "unilaterally" rephrased the criteria, which is demonstrably false, as the discussion is present on that very page. He then went ahead to revert the CSD criteria without any consensus, and systematically removed the speedy tags from the image description pages. I have no idea as to how to proceed at this point, and would appreciate input. TewfikTalk 15:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is he an administrator? (I can't tell from his user page). If not, he shouldn't be reverting CSD tags unless they're blatantly and obviously incorrect (for instance, a CSDA7 on Microsoft Windows XP) or changing it to an AFD nomination for further discussion. That's just my viewpoint though, I don't believe it is reflected in policy, but I can't see a great reason, other than the aforementioned, that a non-admin would have need to remove a CSD template, since they don't have deletion ability anyway ( except as mentioned above on AFD). SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can insert or remove templates as appropriate. Only admins can do actual deletions. Whether these particular removals are appropriate is a separate issue. 75.62.7.22 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone also can blank an article, or leave pornography on someone's talk page. Doesn't mean that it is at all acceptable behavior. SWATJester Denny Crane. 16:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik changed policy on Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without getting a single reply on the talk page there first. That is against the rules there. I was the first person to reply, and I opposed his policy change. See: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation. His policy change was for the purpose of seeking speedy deletion of map categories and map image description pages that he did not like. He was trying to depopulate map categories with the names (among others) "Palestinian territories" and "Golan Heights" in them. He has tried to depopulate those categories in several ways since March 7, 2007. See his user contributions in the image namespace. The only legitimate way to delete those map categories is if they are empty. Thus, he has been trying to depopulate them of maps. They also have to be depopulated of subcategories, too. So he has more work to do. I noted all this in detail on some of the map category pages. See: Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. The speedy-delete template said it could be removed if the reason listed on it did not apply. It did not, so I deleted it. Tewfik needs to get consensus for his proposed speedy-delete policy change before trying to use it. He is currently reinserting his policy change even after I reverted it and pointed him to the talk page. He is approaching a 3RR violation. --Timeshifter 17:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is totally false. I linked to the discussion about the emendation/rephrase above. TewfikTalk 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I was correct about the talk section I was referring to. I see now though that there is another related talk section farther down that CSD talk page. You seemed to ignore what User:Grm_wnr wrote about image description pages (IDPs). Here are some excerpts (emphasis added):

"As the one who originally wrote section I8 back in the day, ...

  • IDPs are considered to be basically inseperable from the image.
  • No information must be lost in a speedy move to Commons.
  • However, there is information on IDPs that may be redundant or, even worse, contradictory to the kind of information Commons needs. Mostly Featured status, and I can't think of any others right now, but there may be more.
  • Commons IDPs are subject to the editorial rules of Commons, which may differ from the en ones, which may theoretically be a problem.
  • If there is a local IDP, both are displayed, so it's no basic problem in having a local one, apart from the fact that it's another page to take care of.
  • So, it's a good idea to keep a local IDP if there is a good reason for it, but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier."

The reasons for local IDPs are for the English wikipedia categorization reasons I explained much more thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Commons media categorisation and Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories. This is a longstanding tradition. --Timeshifter 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't selectively quote, especially when accusing me of doing it. Here is his conclusion which accepts my version, and whose only objection is that it should be obvious (I also added to the bolding of the statements above). TewfikTalk 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
People should read all of both talk sections. Otherwise it is easy to get confused. Here is the link to the second talk section in question:
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Clarification of I8
You did not include his suggested changes in your version of the policy rewrite. In the above excerpt from User:Grm_wnr you bolded "but if there is none, it should be deleted to make handling easier." The whole point of all the discussions was to point out that one should not delete local English wikipedia image description pages if they had information on them that could not be transferred to the commons image description pages. One can not visit wikipedia image categorization pages from the commons image description pages. So local English wikipedia image description pages with category links can not be deleted. --Timeshifter 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The previous wording is incomprehensible, and the motivation for all these categorizations seems clearly to be to do an end-run around trans-wikied media. Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The motivation is to keep the category links on English wikipedia image description pages. The trans-wiki process occurs in all cases, and the commons image remains stored on commons servers in all cases. --Timeshifter 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The actions above are being used to justify the creation of IDPs for Commons media and their categorisation on WP, seemingly ad infinitum, which is disruptive to the project and decreases the utility of categorisation as well as transwikiing, as well as being implicitly disallowed under the current CSD. The most recent examples (of dozens [3][4][5]). TewfikTalk 16:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Local English IDPs (image description pages) for images stored on the commons are created whenever the images used in wikipedia articles are clicked. This is done through the trans-wiki process. When categories are added to those local English IDPs, that info is saved at wikipedia. The trans-wiki process combines the commons info with the wikipedia info to create the local English IDPs. It is all completely normal or the programmers would not have set it up that way. Each different-language wikipedia has the same setup. That way each wikipedia in each language can categorize and easily find the images labeled in its language. That is how it works. --Timeshifter 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits abusing vandal technology[edit]

Accusing me of vandalsisng my own user page abnd insisting on readding personal attacks is not acceptable. Can an admin please ask vintagekitys to leave nme alone and stop his harrassment campaign. This editor is causing a lot of unpleasantness at the moment, see above complaints, SqueakBox 19:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense - this editor has accused me of being a racist and also "editing is based on hatred of British people or British culture" - I find this dusgusting and he refuses to either back his claim up with diss or writdraw it.--Vintagekits 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
See here for admins take on him calling me a racist. I will not stand for this. How would you react if another editor constantly accuses you of being racist and motivated by hate - you cant get away with this!--Vintagekits 19:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Vintagekits is looking more and more like a POV pusher. Every edit seems to further an anti-British agenda. This [6] looks very WP:POINTy, since the conflict is not;; commonly known as the Malvinas War as far as I can tell (and I worked hard to ensure that the extreme pro-brits did not remove the word Malvinas from the lead of Falkland Islands). I believe it may be time for an RfC. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll go one further. [7] is MORE pointed and edit than the previous, as, having lost the presence of the 'malvinas' in the lede, he goes and removes all other names.ThuranX 20:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • ThuranX, actually if you had checked properly you would have seen that that was my second edit in a row and I had added references to back up my claim but had dupilcate the section was refering to the other names in the lead - so I didnt remove it they were in there twice. Additionally I would like to turn your argument on its head and ask - WHY IS IT that these British edits ONLY remove the reference to Malvinas War 58,000 ghits but not South Atlantic War 600 hits or the Falklands Conflict 85,000 ghits or the Falklands Crisis 15,000 ghits. Now you tell me why is that?--Vintagekits 00:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, At a glance, that argument looks like the sort of content dispute conversation you should've started with, but this AN/I's about your edit warring and POV, not about the content dispute. Assuming I looked at no facts, and just my own biased opinion is also more than mildly insulting. Focus on the issues at hand in the future, thank you. ThuranX 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well you will have to forgive me but after reading your assessment of the situation it would have been easy to summise that you didnt look at the facts hard enough. I am not trying to replace the term Malvinas with the term Falklands - however Malvinas is a significant minority term for the islands and for the War and this should be reflected in the article. If you look at the Irish war of Independence article you will see that the main name for the war is listed as the title - Irish war of Independence and then the common Irish name (Tan War) is listed and also the British term for it (Anglo-Irish war) is listed.--Vintagekits 09:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Lede? Corvus cornix 21:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
NO, no... I meant the OTHER lede! (oops.) ThuranX 23:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I diagnose a case of Editor On A Mission. This is rarely much fun for any of those concerned. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Over 50,000 ghits say that British editors need to realise the world doesnt revolve around them. I am not anti-British but too many articles possibly wiki itself) are set up with an inherent British POV and any thought of introducing another perspective is obviously bang out of order!--Vintagekits 23:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
58,300, actually, you are being too generous in this. It presents a major problem to WP, this GB view of the world. I could name 12 articles, but would only distract from the substantive issue. 86.42.180.78 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
But most of the first page is Socialist websites, which all have inherent agendas and biases. That somewhat undermines your 'it's all Pro-british' assertions, as we can all say 'Using Malvinas is pushing a pro-socialism agenda'. ThuranX 02:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely nothing - both of you jumped in on a band wagon to put the boot into me without checking the facts. If you wish to ignore that the Malvinas is a commonly used terms 1. in non UK/British English language circles and 2. in British left wing circles (thats quite a lot of circles!) and choose to ignore that other British editors are trying to censor the term but the same editors do dont try and remove less significant alternate names then you go ahead if that suits you. But this is looking at lot more like others how have the agenda and I am the one trying to add a little balance into the article.--Vintagekits 08:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, we used to mock the Soviets for "airbrushing", or for even compiling pseudo-history. Let's call a spade a spade and get on with making an encyclopedia. Here's an other example of avoiding the facts, and fail to get to the main article page [8]. I have no "agenda" here, and I avoid argument on WP with an intensity, and that's why I use my IP here. -86.42.180.78 10:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Block review of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo[edit]

Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reported Onefortyone (talk · contribs) for probation violations at arbitration enforcement. I was curious about the number of single purpose accounts edit-warring with Onefortyone on multiple celebrity accounts, and asked Dmcdevit to look into it. He confirmed by checkuser a number of sockpuppets including the ones edit warring with Onefortyone. I blocked Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo for a week but would like feedback on an indefinite ban.

The sockpuppets of Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo show similarities in interest to Lochdale (talk · contribs), including Elvis, Nick Adams and James Dean. Lochdale was banned from editing Elvis Presely at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis, and hasn't edited since--too long for checkuser against him. Lochdale in turn shares similar interests to Ted Wilkes (talk · contribs) and Wyss (talk · contribs) who were placed on indefinite probation for making disruptive edits to celebrity articles (but who do not seem to be banned as far as I can tell). I'd like advice on whether a week is long enough for Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 00:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

From Ted Wilkes' block log, he was blocked for one year in March 2006 after multiple violations of his probation in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. The year expired in March 2007 and Fred Bauder unblocked then, but Wilkes has not resumed editing under that name. Meanwhile, Wyss has been indefblocked "at request of user." As for the issue of block length, are the edits from the SPA's useful additions to the encyclopedia, or the mine-run of unsourced nonsense? Newyorkbrad 02:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Mixed. Judge for yourself. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo. Thatcher131 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Administrator Jeffrey O. Gustafson[edit]

Could someone get this guy (correct link; userpage is red) off my back? He's sullying my talk page with things like "zomg lulz" and something about it being over my head. I wouldn't have reported something as trivial as this were it from some random IP user, but I've never seen this kind of behavior from an administrator before. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant to link to Jeffrey O. Gustafson. IrishGuy talk 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
ANI is not the Wikipedia Complaints Department. Take it up with Jeffrey if you were offended by his "personal attack". Sean William 01:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so he has friends. Could a neutral administrator address this? Simões (talk/contribs) 01:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Holy shit! I have friends!? This guy clearly has no clue who I am... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Is there something Simoes has done to deserve being mocked? ··coelacan 05:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was mocking me... don't know about anyone else. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It was the edit summary again, that made me ask this. As evidenced by the comment below, Simoes wants this to be over. I hope it is over. ··coelacan 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, nevermind. I don't think I'll be running into him again. Simões (talk/contribs) 01:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

QuackGuru, again[edit]

Talk:Wikipedia community#Trivia. Can someone please say something to him? See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru more background if you don't already know. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And by say something, I don't necessarily mean about the dispute on the talk page, but his behavior in the dispute (such as egging people on to add the trivia and ignore the discussion about it's dispute, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention.. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Wales&diff=126894978&oldid=126892247 -- Ned Scott 02:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it time we took him to ArbCom? MER-C 09:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Has mediation been tried? --Iamunknown 09:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Given Quackguru has paid no attention to anything anyone says to him on the talkpages, I doubt he will on a mediation page. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe community-enforceable mediation. QuackGuru would have to actually participate tho. --Iamunknown 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user with shifting IPs trolling AfDs[edit]

If s/he is voting keep on articles that Wikipedia guidelines say should be deleted in order to make a point, s/he's doing Wikipedia a service in taking the trouble to figure out the proper disposition of all those articles in order to vote the opposite way. The solution is simple: closing admins for the affected AfD's should simply count each of the person's "keep" votes as a "delete" vote when determining consensus ;-). Note, I left a reply a couple minutes ago at the earlier discussion (but now it looks unlikely to have an effect, sigh). Anyway, I'd say warn about WP:POINT then block if it continues. 75.62.7.22 06:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There may be more to it than first glance. The edits of the last IP I put suggest this person might be indef-blocked user ISOLA'd ELBA (talk · contribs). If so, it's cut and dry trolling. JuJube 06:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It's really no fun to see this disruption at AFD. Blocks are entirely warranted by now, for WP:IAR if for no other reason. YechielMan 07:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Burkem22[edit]

Resolved

A new account for the indefinitely blocked User:Burkem and posting further nonsense. - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. I don't think we need checkuser to confirm this one; the name and contributions history show a clear identity. Sam Blacketer 09:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Choess will revert the vandalism. - Kittybrewster (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Libricide[edit]

This article had plenty of credible sources and some of the delete comments seemed as if they had missed reading the article. For example, one writer (admin?)questioned if they accidentally burned a library would this be libricide? Hello...

"I'm still no clearer. So if I accidentally start a fire in a library and it burns down I'm guilty of libricide? Because that was one of the most frequent causes of unique books being lost forever in the era of candlelight. And police informers burning evidence of their past activities in Iraq is not "cultural genocide", it's self-preservation. "Cultural genocide" is an immensely loaded term anyway and I'm really not sure this article has addressed the POV issues or distinguished itself fully from book burning. --Folantin 14:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


The comment itself seems heavily loaded in POV. I wanted to make the point that a legitimate international organization, Human Rights Watch as well as members of the press could see the damage that destroying records and national artifacts might create and has created, in the chaos and symbolism of cultural attacks. Total War is with us, it is not just the bomb. It has its subtleties and it requires a knowledge of history to properly contextualize. The resignation of Martin E. Sullivan, then the Chairman of the President's Advisory on Cultural Property who quit in disgust over the libricides of the Iraq invasion may not be regarded by wikipedia yet, but he will be. There will be hell to pay for what my fellow countrymen have done to iraqui culture. Perhaps wikipedia only wants to win its popularity contests vetted by its near-sighted opportunistic admins.

It is a great irony for me that Wikipedia burned this article and keeps other articles that popular opinion alone seem to justify. It's no laughing matter but it is somewhat amusing to think that if wikipedia was around when the term genocide was coined, it would probably find: "No evidence the term genocide is widely used." Trash Libricide, hide it from view, and keep the Homer Simpson piece for example. No one can argue that Homer is a notable person and will be forever. Perhaps I'm mixing my metaphors. I am guilty of POV. Guilty, guilty, guilty.

Kafakaesque would more aptly describe the deletion process in regard to Libricide as I have observed it. The process was even more of a disorganized mess than my article and is one more reason your repuation as serious scholarship still has far to go.


Still, i wish you folks the best of luck and i want to thank those who participated in this discussion and saw a salvageable piece. I think you need to spend more time reading books.


Is this mutatis-mutandis ?

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/madrid1933-english.htm

Neil zusman 11:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libricide. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Neil, you want WP:DRV for that, but please familiarise yourself with core Wikipedia policies first, notably WP:AGF, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV (especially WP:SOAPBOX). Thanks. --Folantin 11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212[edit]

The user that created Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212 previously created a page, telling me that their teacher told them to make a page on Wikipedia as an assignment. As such, I am dubious as to the notability of this new page. What do other people think? --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears to be real. Google does turn up a few hits. (Which I didn't check individually, though.) But it's very bad practice to write an article about a court case based on nothing but the court documents. I'm missing secondary sources. As it is, it's an OR summary culled together from a primary source. Lupo 15:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Masinagudi[edit]

I have just tagged this article for speedy deletion as it seems the article is nothing more than a brochure for a resort (db-spam). This was tagged before with db-spam, however, 122.164.33.90 removed the tag, claiming that the web links to the portal were removed. They then proceeded to place a weblink "For more information about the resort" into the article. Could we speedy delete this? Addendum: Xompanthy has just tagged the article for blatant advertising. --Ispy1981 15:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange and curious block[edit]

Apologies if Cyde gas already listed this here but I don't see it. This seems a very odd situation [9] If coming and going is a blockable crime there would be few of us left. I wonder what Cyde's motives are Giano 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you talk with Cyde first? I'm sure he would be open to suggestions. --Iamunknown 17:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked. Cyde's description of why he blocked is not a reason given by our blocking policy, and Cyde himself does not appear to be impartial. The actual reason appears to be these deletions of comments, including Cyde's, which means he's involved in the situation and should not have performed the block. R. D. H.'s minor disruption does not warrant an indefinite block. -- nae'blis 17:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Add in all of the disruption and personal attacks from the IP address identified below; now do you think it warrants an indefinite block? --Cyde Weys 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Repeatedly returning in order to disrupt is indeed within the scope of WP:BP, we definitely do block for repeated disruption. Giano was somewhat selective in his quotation of the block reason, I think. Guy (Help!) 17:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No Giano was not. I listed the reasons given by the blocking editor "account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (User repeatedly claims he has left Wikipedia but keeps returning to create further disruptive. This will help him.) " on the block log. Please check your facts. Giano 17:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
JzG's point reflects the need to discuss such things with the blocking admin if feasible before undoing a block. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought of removing this thread and then asking Giano at his talk page to talk with Cyde first. Maybe I shall do that next time. --Iamunknown 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No this is the place to discuss strange blocks. I was right first time. Giano 17:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Not without talking to the administrator first. --Iamunknown 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Cyde appears a bit to close to this and really shouldn't be doing the blocks, but given the fact that RDH appears to be here just to disrupt at this point I don't think an indef is out of the question. Given the recent edits from what would appear to be his IP, 70.171.22.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I don't think he's particularly interested in adding anything of value here at this point.--Isotope23 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This user has long gone without doing anything productive on the project and his stated intentions have been to return to cause trouble, which he has been doing. This is a textbook case for an indefinite block. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Then come here and get support for such a block. Your blocking reason was unclear, your personal involvement was ill-advised, and while I may support such a block now based on your aditional information, all actions should be transparent and clear from the get-go. This is a textbook case of failed communication. -- nae'blis 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah well, it's no biggie, this will all be resolved very shortly now that the information is out there. I don't particularly mind if he remains unblocked for a brief period while all of our individual knowledge is shared. --Cyde Weys 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Cyde, I am confused - why are you saying he was serving a 48 hour block, I'm sure he was not. Giano 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah I see OK [10] Interesting sequence of events this. I wonder why you botched your reasoning on the block og. Giano 18:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

My complain of nonsense on my page[edit]

Someone posted nonsense on my page that I am banned. The name was Hipocrite but he was retired so it must be another. It said I am Rootlogy. This is not for real. I am no one but me and babalooobabalooo, for I forgot my Babalooo password for one day. I thank you to take away the Babalooobabalooo name. This is the many times I have to removed nonsense at me. I am sorry that I do not write the pefect English but this is not a reason to torture me. How do I get a mentor advocate? I thank you to ask others to not torture me. Babalooo 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said you were banned. From the looks of it, there is a suspicion that you are a sockpuppet of Rootology (talk · contribs). The fact that you've edited here means you are not banned or blocked though.--Isotope23 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to prove that you are not a sockpuppet, you could leave a message for WP:AMA. YechielMan 17:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I will post in this forum tonight. Babalooo 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Those are my room-mates words. My first words were on 06:51, 26 April 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (→Where?) He says I should make my own name account and not use his. I will do so tonight and you may transfer my posts to my new name. I want to have a high post count with these posts under Babalooo and Babalooobabalooo on my new name account. Babalooo 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is a rather over-used excuse. --Iamunknown 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet enforcement requested on Barbara Schwarz's latest[edit]

Puppet User:MountainClimber of Barbara Schwarz, diff Anynobody 22:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I see this was resolved: block log. This can be archived to thin the noticeboard down a bit. Anynobody 03:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User Roobit[edit]

Resolved ResolvedNothing happened. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

User is promoting hatred and violence (see here, moved later to his user talk by Petri Krohn). User Roobit has a history of improper edits and personal attacks, as can be seen from messages on his talk page. DLX 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I don't see anyone promoting hatred or violence. Maybe you can quote something specific for us? I'm not going to dig through that whole essay to see where the problems you perceive are. This is the user's only edit here in quite a while; hardly an ongoing problem. Why didn't you contact the user instead of taking this complaint directly to ANI? ··coelacan 05:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Um... calling Estonians Nazis/Ethnonazis, pushing political/hatred agenda ("Don’t buy anything in Estonia. Don't do any kind of business with Estonian companies and organizations. Don't invest in Estonian stocks. Don't travel to Estonia as a tourist. If you are American, write to your representative in the House of Representatives and ask why is the government wasting your tax dollars on support of Estonian Nazis? Demand that Estonia is kicked out of NATO before it becomes a liability to America and the rest of the world."), promoting lies (pretty much everything he says about Bronze Soldier is a lie), posting inappropriate material to Wikipedia talk pages.
Why didn't I contact him? Because last time I did that (outside Wikipedia, though), I got called names and threatened with violence ("We'll kill you and your family, you Nazi pig"). So I've stopped trying to talk with them and instead will try to notify people who are responsible for enforcing Wikipedia rules. DLX 06:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The content has been moved off the article talk page. I'll leave a note not to put it back there. It's off-topic. But seriously, it doesn't read quite like you're making it out to read. The user is saying that there are Nazis in Estonia, not that all Estonians are Nazis. I for one am not going to block anybody over one single off-topic post that doesn't exactly make the sweeping generalizations you're suggesting it does. ··coelacan 06:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And I'll note that now that you're asked for quotes, you show nothing that "promotes violence". Honestly, this was already handled when Petri Krohn moved it off the article talk page. This is not the complaints department. Please make an effort to resolve these very minor issues with other editors before bringing them to ANI. ··coelacan 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Just strictly as a comment - try substituting "Estonians" with "Jews", "Estonia" with "Israel" etc. Would you still agree afterwards, that the message is peaceful and harmless? All nations and nationalities should be treated equally. DLX 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am partly to blame, for posting the translation of the declaration of the Army of Russian Resistance. That declaration however had a good reason for being on the page, as we were discussing the sources and reliabiliy of the Kavkaz Center article and the authenticity of the message. The authentiticity issue is again important in deciding whether to mention it on the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn article. -- Petri Krohn 20:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kurt Nimmo, Ward Churchill, Alan Cabal[edit]

Jayjg has blocked these three articles based on biased reasoning. He claims that he is only blocking these articles to prevent edit waring, but he all but admited on my talk page that he specifically disagreed with my edits. He's pretending to be neutral so that he can block the articles after my edits have been reverted by some other user. This to me is wikistalking.
Case in point the Alan Cabal article. I have been involved with that article for less than a day and have only reverted another users edits one time and after that he blocked and claimed it was because of edit waring. It is my belief that he is going to any article I contribute too an then blocking it after my edits get reverted in order t prevent me from editing the article.
In regards to the Kurt Nimmo article he refuses to lift the ban even though the issue origianlly under contention has been resolved. He won't unblock it because he doesn't want me to edit other parts of the article, which I thought I had the right to do.
I am asking the Wikipedia Admin. to undo Jayjgs blocks on these articles. annoynmous 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


He refuses to unblock the Kurt Nimmo article even though the original issue under contention has been settled.
He blocked the Alan Cabal article even though I had only reverted another users edit once. How is that edit waring.
He blocked the Ward Churchill article even though there were other editors who agreed with my position.
On my talk page he admited he blocked the articles because he disagreed with me, not because of edit waring. Shouldn't there be some punishement for giving a false reason for blocking an article.
He convientely blocks the articles just after my version of the article has been reverted. He never perserves my version. If this truly was about edit waring don't you think he'd perserve my version once in a while. This feels like a covert way of preventing me from contribting. annoynmous 06:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is just a note to whoever looks at this, but "he" is referring to Jayjg ^demon[omg plz] 06:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Again: What do these articles have in common? Have you tried a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP? Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? ··coelacan 06:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
What they have in common is that Annonymous was edit-warring on them. You guessed, didn't you? Guy (Help!) 06:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, okay, but I was trying to squeeze something a little more substantial out of annoynmous. ··coelacan 07:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What they have in common is that Jayjg was using the false pretense of edit warring when he was really blocking them because of a bias he had against me. Under these circunstances I think the articles should be unblocked.annoynmous 07:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does the Alan Cabal article count as edit warring when I only reverted one edit. Doesn't that need to go along for a little longer before it's called edit warring. annoynmous 07:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Listen, we don't usually do unblocking here. There's a place for it. WP:RFPP has a section about unblocking. Why don't you go there and try to make a neutrally-worded request that doesn't involve a complaint about Jayjg, and you might get what you want. BUT! As I asked before: Has there been substantial discussion on the talk pages of these articles? Are the other editors there making progress toward consensus or at least detente? If there aren't substantive answers to these questions, the articles won't be unblocked. ··coelacan 07:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your questions, it has already been rejected at WP:RFPP, there is no discussion on the Talk: pages, and there does not appear to be any sort of consensus that I can ascertain. Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

USERS GNEVIN AND PADRAIC3UK VANDALISM[edit]

The above-referenced users (User:Gnevin and User:Padraic3uk) have deleted my valid edits and markers indicating POV and unsubstantiated/unreferenced text from Thomas Begley, GAA and Brendan Hughes pages without providing any explanation or justification. 216.194.3.116 11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

When outright lies are added to a page i consider that edit to be vandlism . IP user adding "although there is no record of any non-Catholic playing for the GAA [11] which is a lie many have played and one it most important cups is name after a non-Catholic see Sam Maguire and Sam Maguire Cup (Gnevin 11:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC))
(after edit conflict) Looks like a content dispute to me. See WP:DR. Also, please don't post in ALL CAPS, be certain something is vandalism before you call it that - to accuse other editors of vandalism can be a failure to assume good faith - remember we are all here to write an encyclopedia, and try to work with other editors to find the best solution for any content disputes. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Adding POV tags without giving any justification either in the edit summary or in the talk pages of either article for doing so is meaningless to other editors, as we are not mind readers and are unable to determine wether you object to the whole article or one word or sentance as POV.--padraig3uk 11:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are my posts invisible here? This is a content dispute. Dispute resolution is ---> thataway. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please not that I believe that that IP address is a blocked editor see here.--Vintagekits 12:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am now 100% sure - please add this IP to the blocked list!--Vintagekits 12:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Nothing to see here, except a clear sockpuppet of banned editor Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), please block. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 13:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It's RMS up to his usual tricks again. Blocked 1 week - Alison 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

warning level?[edit]

user:Moironen moved Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? to DOMINATION BLACK. I moved it back. What level warning should be used for this? RJFJR 14:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{subst:mp2}} seems about right. --ais523 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Thanks for the fast reply. RJFJR 14:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Uh... personally, I think that {{Vandalblock}} is entirely appropriate... pretty obvious to me. EVula // talk // // 14:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Heh, some other admin has come along and killed the account. Good times. EVula // talk // // 22:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rugrat Characters Vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Page protected, vandalism reverted Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The Rugrats Characters section has been vandalized several times recently, probably by members of the Barney Bunch.--Hailey 17:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I assume you refer to List of Rugrats characters. I will request semi-protection. YechielMan 20:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume it is the Barney Bunch, because most of it wa targeted at Drew, plus there were a lot of racist comments about Susie and her family and Didi's parents.--Hailey 20:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Barney Bunch? Targets? Rascism? Do we have children's cartoons-affiliated gangs on the 'pedia? -Mask? 21:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, regardless of the choice of words, the vandalism was rather bad: check out [12]. As the page is now, however, semi-protected, I shall tag this section with {{resolved}}. --Iamunknown 21:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request by ShandraShazam[edit]

ShandraShazam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) currently has the {{unblock-auto}} template on her talk page. Since this appears to be a generally productive contributer who was trying to edit from a school IP, I was prepared to reset to a soft block. But when I looked at the block log for the IP listed in the unblock request, I see anon-only is already set. Could someone shed some light on this situation? —dgiestc 20:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Admitted meatpuppetry by User:Kd lvr and User:Kdkatpir2[edit]

As most of you guys know, I filed a community ban request for Kdkatpir2 (talk · contribs) on the grounds of gross incivility, massive copyvios, and what appeared to be blatant sockpuppetry by way of Kd lvr (talk · contribs). I apologize for being a bit overzealous and bypassing normal process, but a sanity check of the affair after User:Orangemonster2k1 and User:TREYWiki saw them working in tandem on several editing disputes and AfD discussions revealed what appeared to be pretty blatant sock activity:

The last one what clinched it for me ... it seemed EXTREMELY unlikely that two users could post within a minute of each other if they were two different people. Based on my previous experience as a moderator on political sims, I thought this was a case at first where process could be bypassed--and again, I apologize for being a bit overzealous. I'm hoping to be an admin someday myself, and one of my priorities if I become one will be zero tolerance for sockfarming.

Well, today, after a checkuser turned up negative, I mentioned to TREYWiki that they were clearly meatpuppets, based on this post by Kd lvr. Kd lvr responds later, "Congrats on finally figuring that out!"

To my mind, this is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:MEAT. Kd lvr created his account only a few hours after Kdkatpir2 created his, and both have worked on the same articles. From my sanity check of this, I can't see how this is appropriate, and would ask one of you guys to give these two a warning. Also, could someone close the community ban request? Thanks ... Blueboy96 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Kkrouni (talk · contribs · block log)-2 things that can be done.[edit]

Resolved

I have been keeping an eye on User talk:Kkrouni and looking at some of the discussion on that page and I think there are only 2 things that can be done about this user.

  1. Unblock- Frankly the best evidence I have seen to prove Kkrouni is a sock of Cowboy Rocco is a Checkuser. I would like to know if there is any evidence that I missed if there is any however. I don't think the possibility of a shared IP (Cowboy Rocco and Kkrouni being different people but using the same IP) was considered. This makes me think that there is a possibility of Kkrouni not being one of Cowboy Rocco's sockpuppets (I won't deny Cowboy Rocco is a Sock Puppeteer).
  1. Fully protect User talk:Kkrouni- Technically Kkrouni has abused Template:Unblock 2 times by requesting an unblock again even though the decline template says not to do so. If Kkrouni is without a doubt a sockpuppet then I fell that his user talk page should be fully protected. Funpika 21:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Khrouni and Cowboy Rocco edit from the same IP and use the same signature (as do many, many other sock accounts I caught). I do not see any reasonable way to explain this other than them being sockpuppets or real life associates. Raul654 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw plenty of similarities in their contribs but won't list them here so as to not give suggestions for hiding in the future. I would have protected the talk page but it seemed like kind of a dick move for me to do it after declining an unblock. —dgiestc 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
*edit conflict* In this diff he claims he does know Cowboy Rocco. Does that mean "real life associate"? Funpika 22:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Kkrouni wants to discuss this on this user talk page. He has made comments there. Funpika 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting copyvio of a print source[edit]

Resolved

Is there a template used to report direct copying of Wikipedia articles from print sources? {{copyvio}} seems to assume a Web source. The article on Daniel Dancer is taken directly from p. 216 of Facts & Fallacies (1988), a Reader's Digest compilation. It should be deleted since there is no version in the history to revert to. *** Crotalus *** 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is such a template. My recommendation is to list the article at WP:AFD. YechielMan 22:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
AfD is to slow - copyvios should be deleted immediately. Perhaps one could use the blank db template. Natalie 22:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Incivility[edit]

User:89.100.195.42 already warned, and blocked three days ago [16], has added another abusive rant ("You are all a shower of murdering, denigrating bastards who make it all so much worse by denying it to educated "Paddies" like this writer in 2007. Go fuck yourself") [17] not once, but twice [18]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Blocked by User:Nick. WODUP 00:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently shared account[edit]

Someone want to look into this. I am at work. ViridaeTalk 01:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Indef blocked. See block log DES (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, 6 minutes after I posted - quick work. 131.172.4.45 01:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Xodexx[edit]

Would somebody please delete and salt Xodexx? Lots of anons making personal attacks on the page. Corvus cornix 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Now salinated. Geogre 02:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protected titles, plz? --Iamunknown 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleven accounts created 15 months ago[edit]

Resolved
Background

On January 19, 2006, 11 new user accounts were created in relative quick succession. They are listed below, preceded by the time of the accounts' creation.

Commonalities
  1. All 11 accounts were created within 17 minutes of each other between 09:53 and 10:09.
  2. All 11 accounts were listed as participants in WikiProject PKPhilosophy by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) at 10:40 (see diff).
  3. All 11 accounts were welcomed by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) within 6 minutes of each other between 10:44 and 10:49.
  4. 10 of the 11 accounts have 0 or 1 preserved edits, made on January 19, 2006. The only exception is Biggsy (talk · contribs · logs), who has 8 preserved edits, of which 7 were made on January 19 (to the userpage).
Comments

Now, the manner in which I have presented the information above should make it quite clear that I suspect the 11 accounts to have been created by Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs), especially in light of the fact presented in point 2. However, the creation of the accounts does not seem to fall under any of the "forbidden uses of sock puppets" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Judging from the preserved edit history only, the 11 accounts made no votes, were not used to "avoid scrutiny", did not create disruption, and were not used to circumvent policy. That said, the creation of the accounts also does not fall under any of the 5 "legitimate uses of multiple accounts" listed at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The only purpose for the accounts that I can see is to create the impression that Wikipedia:WikiProject PKPhilosophy is an active WikiProject; what end that serves, I'm not sure.

Note: I have tagged the various user pages for proposed deletion and have started a deletion discussion for the WikiProject (see here).

Since Davidkinnen (talk · contribs · logs) is mostly inactive since December 2006 (see here), I see no point in requesting a clarification on his talk page. So, in short, I bring this to the community's attention so that a proper course of action may be chosen. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You probably should post this on WP:RFCU, for confirmation. Anynobody 08:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Davidkinnen said he was a teacher, and the Wikiproject is connected to what he said was his school, this may well have been a case of a teacher inviting some of his students to sign up for some (not terribly well thought out) scheme of on-wiki classwork. The edits by the Biggsy accounts do look like that. Fut.Perf. 08:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That was my first thought as well. Looks like a school project of some sort. Frise 08:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh ... that makes sense. Given the harmless nature of the accounts, I don't think submitting a checkuser request is needed. I guess this turned out to be a non-issue after all. Thanks for your clarifications everyone. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The checkuser data for activity that old is long gone. 75.62.7.22 07:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot needs to be stopped[edit]

Don't know the right way to request this, but I believe that ToePeu.bot needs to be stopped. I have left a note, to no effect yet. It is adding interwiki links to Template pages, but not checking for a "noinclude", so the interwikis are being inherited by the pages where the templates are used (unless noinclude was in effect). Example: Template:Lowercase‎. Notinasnaid 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot so that things can be cleaned up. I'll try my best to mass revert, but I'll notify the bot's operator of the issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 14:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, check out the interwiki list at Wikipedia:Cleanup resources! The bot only seemed to be adding the Korean ones just now, did it add the Russian ones too, or is there another bot to stop? --ais523 14:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought Yurikbot was doing this stuff. Am I hopelessly behind the times? There shouldn't be two bots doing the same or closely related things. If Yurik got tired of running his bot maybe he could let someone else run it instead, since it seemed pretty well debugged. 75.62.7.22 07:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors blocked for warring on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4[edit]

I'm not entirely certain if this is a big deal, but...[edit]

I was reading on Digg.com a story about some HD-DVD protection key thing that got leaked, and surprise surprise, one of the comments revealed that the number is now a Wikipedia article, created earlier today. Not being well versed in the ways of the DMCA, i'm not really certain if this is legal or not to be on Wikipedia, (Might want to remove the number from my comment if it isn't legal) but it seems....questionable the way i'm reading this issue. Supposedly its a growing sort of leak now that's spreading around all over the place, so if this article does get deleted, I have a feeling it might get resubmitted in some other form as an article, and therefore, I thought it might be a good idea to notify people here in case something weird starts happening. Homestarmy 02:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The page was redirected, but the number's still there as a redirect.... Homestarmy 02:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, the redirect was deleted. Homestarmy 02:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It might or might not belong in an article about copy protection or HD-DVD. It certainly doesn't belong as an article, and its a ridiculous redirect (potential liability aside). Thatcher131 03:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware of the de-css case, the DMCA was interpreted to not only make hosting of infringing content illegal, but hyperlinks to it illegal as well. For that reason, it should not at all be on wikipedia, other than maybe a brief mention in the HD-DVD that it was cracked. SWATJester Denny Crane. 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats[edit]

Resolved

User:72.199.45.205 threatened to murder anyone who reverted his edits. Kat, Queen of Typos 04:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)!

Blocked. Only 2 edits were extremely gross vandalism, and the threat. SWATJester Denny Crane. 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Woodwinder (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Someone needs to help me with this guy before I lose my cool with him even more than I have already. He created the article Rex Li which was deleted as a db-bio, and then recreated it. I tagged it and it was erased, and since then, he has vandalized Rancho Verde High School (an article I created) and incessantly whined on my talk page about how I'm "indiscriminately deleting" his articles, even though I've told him repeatedly that I'm not an admin, have no power to delete, and I only tagged one of his articles that had already been deleeted. It's gotten to the point where I've told him "Since I cannot do anything to help you get what you want, I'm ignoring your messages". But he continues to repost his rants on my talk page. Can someone tell him what's what so he can leave me alone? JuJube 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Jujube initiated contact with me regarding my postings, and despite the fact that I repeatedly made it clear to him that I am a new contributer and so am not familiar with how the system works, his attitude was rude and intolerant. He did not tell me "repeatedly that [he is] not an admin, [has] no power to delete" (see what seems to be my talk page for verification). He stated, for example, that he hated "having to explain the same thing twice" despite mentioning finally and for the very first time several things that significantly clarified things for me. He mentioned my reposting the article after it had been erased. I had thought that I deleted it, which I intended to do once by clearing the article and rewriting it. I did not know whether or not this counted as deleting an article. I am willing to provide a transcript of all our communications. As I do not know of any other way of communicating with him, I posted my messages to him on his "talk" page. However, he has repeatedly deleted these postings as well (a copy of these are available as well). This dispute could have been averted if he has explained things clearly from the start, and in a much more pleasant tone, instead of assuming that I knew he was not admin and what privileges he does or does not have. I have to say his approach and attitude does not seem very conducive to the growth of the wikipedia community. Woodwinder
      • He did tell you that repeatedly, from the start, and in a very civil manner, right on your talk page. This doesn't make much sense. Grandmasterka 06:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Only partly true. The following information was only made clear in his final communication on my talk page: 1) he only marked the page and did not delete it (that is the marker is not the same person that deletes it) 2) he is not an admin 3) he is not able to delete the page 4) he did not delete my other posting

The only things that were repeated were: 1) his instructions for me not to repost deleted pages 2) wikipedia criteria for article deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwinder (talkcontribs)

This seems to be a good example of why we have policies and guidelines like WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I think it would do well for both of you to just forget about this situation and head your separate ways until you feel cool enough to open a civil dialogue. --Chris (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflicts) Reread your own talk page. That's far from the truth. Do we have a troll on our hands? Grandmasterka 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I must admit I don't see where JuJube said that he didn't delete the page himself, or where he said he's not an admin prior to the last remark. Can you paste the diff for when he did? --Chris (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, he did say "I only marked Rex Liu for deletion", but I can see where confusion might have arisen from that. Still, Woodwinder was harrassing JuJube even after he explained everything, and even after JuJube told him to stop. That's the greater concern. Grandmasterka 06:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I admit it wasn't clear before I said so. I should probably have a big stamp on my user page and user talk page saying "I'M NOT AN ADMIN", because people are quick to assume I am one for some reason. JuJube 06:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • While it's obvious I messed up at being civil, can it be clarified at what point I messed up policy-wise before I snapped at his hounding of my user talk page? I followed procedure up to the point where Rex Liu]] got deleted and Woodwinder started to vandalize Rancho Verde High School. JuJube 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • In response to your concern, Grandmasterka, I believe I reposted on my three replies on JuJube 's talk page once after they had all been removed. Seeing that they had been removed again, I reposted with the note that I was going to lodge a complaint. Since then I have made no additional posts on his page. As a new person, I naturally assumed that the person who marks a page for deletion is the same person who eventually deletes it. I can also see how a more experienced person might not realize this, knowing how things really work. I'm willing to move pass this as an unfortunate case of mutual misunderstanding. Woodwinder
      • Yeah, this was pretty dumb all around. Grandmasterka 06:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

His communications with me are not on my talk page anymore, but are easily available on my history page. I also haven't erased anything from Woodwinder's talk page. JuJube 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, read my talk page. Those details were only communicated to me in JuJube's final comment.-Woodwinder

I've read all of the dialogue here and the only thing that seems obvious to me is that you've both violated WP:CIVIL and neither of you are following WP:AGF. Again I advise both of you to go your separate ways and forget about this, or it could turn into a bigger deal than either of you want it to be. --Chris (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring observation[edit]

I have noticed that AnonMoos (talk · contribs) and Dreamz rosez (talk · contribs) are continually reverting Rafida, User talk:AnonMoos, User:Dreamz rosez, and User talk:Dreamz rosez. Each one claiming to be 3RR warning a vandal...while subsequently reverting their own 3RR warnings as harassment by a vandal...and all the while bouncing the article (even though it went to semi-protection). Someone may want to point out to both editors that they need to stay WP:COOL. 24.218.222.86 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dreamz rosez is the latest morph of the "Iraqi Dinar" vandal whose activities are documented in painstaking in detail on page Talk:Rafida -- he's the reason the article went to semi-protection in the first place (though I had to lobby multiple times for it). He's continuing his past harassment activities (which have included sockpuppetry, and stalking along behind me to revert my edits on unrelated articles). AnonMoos 10:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's as clear cut as that, then you should have no problem having their account blocked at WP:AIV. Edit warring with a vandal is not useful and destroys page histories. 24.218.222.86 10:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If his edits fell neatly under any one particular predefined category of disruptive behavior, then I would have reported him in the appropriate place, but they didn't seem to (since last night he was using a single account only). AnonMoos 17:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
You should also look into how to use the Template:Sockpuppet and stop using an article talk page (Talk:Rafida) as a documentation site for sockpuppets. 24.218.222.86 10:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hallenrm and Energy[edit]

Resolved: No immediate action needed, see below.

This message is to request a reversion of all the edits, splits, and moves made on the energy article by User:Hallenrm in the past 24 hours. User:Hallenrm appears to be a good faith editor who has become protective of the energy article to the point of disallowing other editors' modifications of his contributions, and who has become obsessive about making changes to the article. His recent changes were large, contentious, and performed without discussion. I am unable to move his Energy(Physics) back to the original Energy spot, which he has turned into a second disambigation page for the set of topics. It would be helpful if one or more administrators evaluated this problem. Thanks much, Robert K S 13:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

A side effect of this users poorly-implemented actions is that Energy (disambiguation) is no longer linked into these pages. I need some time to figure out everything that has been done. CMummert · talk 13:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is a summary of the situation. The Energy article was very long, so an editor unilaterally decided to split it into pieces. The split probably would have eventually happened anyway, but it was done with minimal discussion. I sprinkled some comments around to try to start discussion on the final disposition of the content. CMummert · talk 14:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent - a banned user on a crusade[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked

Could anyone block 195.56.51.196 (talk · contribs), an IP abused by a banned User:VinceB? He even admits who he is[19][20] and he is currently vandalizing articles[21] and attacking other users.[22] Tankred 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

14:43, 1 May 2007 Alphachimp (Talk | contribs) blocked "195.56.51.196 (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (block evasion) --OnoremDil 14:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Codeplowed evading block[edit]

TemplarMission (talk contribs) and WarAgainstTerror (talk contribs) (see contributions and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed). x42bn6 Talk 15:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is definitely quacking. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick one - request block of sockpuppets confirmed by Checkuser[edit]

Resolved: Sock drawer closed. EVula // talk // // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello - pursuant to this checkuser case, which turned up a number of sockpuppets of the ArbCom-banned user Billy Ego (talk · contribs), I was wondering if I could ask an admin to block the sockpuppet accounts. Thanks. MastCell Talk 15:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Good times. EVula // talk // // 15:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazem22: persistent vandalism, after warnings[edit]

Resolved: No immediate action needed

I was wondering whether someone could give User:Hazem22 a short block, or a harsher warning, as they have continued vandalising articles after warnings by two seperate users. Cheers, aLii 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to give a few more warnings first ({{uw-test3}} and {{uw-test4}}). And in the future, you can use WP:AIV. Cheers,