Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive242

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

Noticeboard archives


Spammer on an IP[edit]

See User talk: I just reverted one addition, but I've seen a lot of links being added to this website over the past few months. A minor issue, of course, but it's come to my attention often enough that I wanted to inform those of you with block tools. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: {{Uw-biog1}} issued along with a request to follow Wikipedia's official WP:LIVING policy. Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone deal with the stalking of me by this editor please? I reverted vandalism to the Caitríona Ruane article, and he has re-inserted the vandalism. I don't feel edits that call the subject of an article a "snide, hypoctricial cow" should be re-inserted personally. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is, seems to have made a mistake. ViridaeTalk 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


I suppose I should be flattered, but I have a sockpuppet. Can somebody please take care of this for me? I don't know what, exactly, should be done except that they should be blocked. --David Shankbone 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

AGFing and blocking for having a username too similar to that of an established user. – Riana 03:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material/vandalism, 3rr/edit warring, ownership of articles and personal attack problems with Gon4z[edit]

As May 10th this issue is unresolved. This incident is in desperate need of comments. MrMacMan Talk 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

on my (noclador) talkpage:
  • "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)
  • "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
on user MrMacMan talkpage:
  • "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)
in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command
  • "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

  • Unsourced material
  • Vandalism
  • Three revert rule
  • Edit warring and
  • Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought this out of the archive because no one ever addressed the issue Noclador brought up for discussion. I would like to see someone else look over this users edits and tell us what action or their opinion is. MrMacMan Talk 19:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not excessively optimistic in that regard. I've previously reported Gun4z twice on this page for exactly the same reason and in both cases nothing happened. As I said back then, Gun4z's incivility doesn't seem to confined only to his dealings with Noclador, but also to other users. Valentinian T / C 22:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That's horrible. While is why I hope to get some response about this user here and so it doesn't get archived again. MrMacMan Talk 00:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
He was referring to when he posted this and no one made any comments about it -- it sits in the archive uncommented upon. MrMacMan Talk 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The first post got the same fate. Valentinian T / C 08:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh geez I didn't even think to search that far back for another incident. Wow. Can someone please notice this Incident report(s) now? MrMacMan Talk 09:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Breaking the Rules I'm going to completely abuse the system here and plead at the bottom of this page where apparently people are being much more helpful. I will now use a section break to separate my, Valentinian and noclador's messages from 3rd party editors who are not involved with this editor. MrMacMan Talk 21:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Gon4z has, in the past few hours, started to edit the articles listed above with similar outcomes. MrMacMan Talk 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at this. There are a number of simple problems here, like Noclador's preference for the Queen's english and spellings, and Gon4z' preference for American English, and the use of time-oriented words, like 'currently' and 'recently' and so on. There are also BIG issues. Noclador's writing tends towards the staid and encyclopedic, and Gon4z uses a lot of phrasing that leans in pro-Albanian ways. Despite his claims that all the others are 'Anti-Albanian', Most of the versions he opposes read in reasonably neutral ways, while some of his revisions seem to have a 'Albania will soon be a strong military power' anticipations.
I am addressing this because there does seem to be some talk page lack of interaction on the part of Gon4z, but would recommend that MrMacMan and NoClador try WP:3O or WP:RfC for this. ThuranX 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks you for commenting. MrMacMan Talk 21:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this how Wikipedia greets newcomers?[edit]

I am not a Wikipedia regular and make edits to Wikipedia where I feel they are necessary. Today, I was insulted and humiliated by User:Fowler&fowler just because I misspelled At least [1]. And goes on to call me illiterate [2]. The user fails to give logic reasons while reverting my edits (says rv undiscussed IP edits when I had already raised the issue on the talkpage). I had heard a lot of stuff regarding the credibility of Wikipedia. Now I understand why Wikipedia is not credible.. because the users who want to make corrections get humiliated and insulted by some of these nasty, disgusting people. --Sriram Deshpande 03:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about how he treated you, but you do have to realize that there is no way to force everyone to be nice. -Amarkov moo! 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm particularly disgusted by the 'hide behind an anonymous ip' remark. This sort of elitism has absolutely zero place on a collaborative encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It seems like some users get a few edits under their belt and assume that they're more valuable then a new user can ever be. It's pretty sickening. -Mask? 03:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I went and warned him. I'll keep an eye on that talk page as well.--Wizardman 03:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2)Yes, he was a bit uncivil, but maybe you shouldn't have baited him. "Guys.. keep this nationalistic crap out of Wikipedia please. And Fowler, yr userpage says u r a prof. Atleast you should be matured enough. Makes me feel it might be the same case as Essjay." And what about this? "I think you should stick to being a prof. Lol". You both could be a bit nicer to each other, and try not to make it personal. Sean William 03:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand. I am sorry about that remark. I got carried away after I read some of the previous remarks on the same issue. I'll be more careful from now on. But I must say, a lot of people at Wikipedia are not very good role-models either. --Sriram Deshpande 03:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have also warned the user with regards to his comments. Sean William is also correct with regards to your comments. Please read WP:CIVIL to see what kind of language is expected when conversing with other Wikipedians. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of the IP posting here when he was the one poking fun at Fowler in the first place; also the comments referencing Essjay indicate familiarity with Wikipedia, and not the first edits of a proclaimed "newcomer". My suggestion is that the IP/Sriram should apologize to Fowler -- Samir 04:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

there is no clause in WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA that states they are to be followed except if you weren't the first one to be uncivil in a conflict. That sort of thinking is incredibly shortsighted. -Mask? 04:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone insults someone else, then comes crying to ANI saying they insulted them back. Not shortsighted to realize this is a waste of time, buddy -- Samir 04:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Warnings have been issued, I think at this point the best course of action is for the editors originally involved to try to keep away from each other as much as possible for the time being. Review MeCASCADIAHowl/Trail 04:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with the Essjay controversy because I found it highly amusing. I used to use Wikipedia for my research work and after the controversy arose, I became a bit hesitant on using Wikipedia. When I was browsing through the concerned talkpage, I read some of the remarks left by Fowler and then I saw that his userpage said that he was a Prof. All I told him was that since he was Prof he should act in a matured manner and since he wasn't doing so, I felt that it might be the same case as Essjay's (as everybody knows.. he tried to gain credibility by telling everyone that he held numerous PhDs). The way he reacted to my comments has now made my belief that he is not a prof much more firm (I can't imagine my profs reacting in this manner). Anyways, I don't know why has this entire talk of me apologizing has come up? I don't think I did anything wrong. He blatantly reverted my edits without giving any reasons and that definitely aroused me. Nevermind.. good luck Wikipedia.. --Sriram Deshpande 04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, if I had worked long and hard for a PhD and somebody said that I might not actually be a prof lol, I might be upset about that. Veinor (talk to me) 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, fact remains that if I get a PhD, I won't publicly tell on Wikipedia that I have one because in that case, the main motive of me doing so is to gain respect and credibility. If Fowler demands respect and credibility by claiming that he is prof, then he should also behave as one. I mean look at the tone of some of his previous comments. Obviously, if write on my userpage that I am a Prof, others will look at my edits in a different manner. It makes me more credible in the eyes of others. I just felt he wasn't behaving like a prof but that definitely does not justify his reactions. --Sriram Deshpande 04:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it interesting that a brand new user knows about the Essjay Controversy, can wikilink to it, knows how to add project tags, and found this noticeboard immediately. Yes, this guy was stupid, but people rarely act out unless they've been baited indeed. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So, new users aren't allowed to post here? Maybe you should write that at the top of the page or put it in the welcome message given to new users. Welcome to Wikipedia and oh, by the way, if you seem to well-informed about how things work you may be called a sock. Using the duck test can be perfectly okay as a way to make sense of otherwise convincing evidence. If no such evidence is present I don't think it's very civil to do so. MartinDK 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

General comment - we've got 4 million registered users. Just from the sheer numbers, we pretty much have to have our saints and our villains. Be assured, the good, the bad, and the ugly are all adequately represented. Please don't judge the community as a whole by the behavior of any given few. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the history of this dispute lies in ... Where User:Fowler&fowler lawyered for a bunch of Pakistani users who edit warred over a wide range of articles including Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. All i'd say "project tags" arent meant to signify national ownership as the banned Pakistani triad seemed to think. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is a part of Pakistan project, based on mere technicality as he was born in what is now Pakistan! Amey Aryan DaBrood© 18:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't aware that this had made it to ANI. My apologies to user Siram Deshpande. I did indeed over-react. It is true that I was baited, but, regardless, I should have been more civil. As for the Pakistan tag, I have no attachment to it, I merely wanted it discussed on the talk page (by the people who put it there) before its deletion. The dispute (as I saw it) was not about the Pakistan tag, but about the words, "Lahore, British India (now Pakistan)" for Chandrasekhar's birthplace. User SD, apparently didn't like the words "(now Pakistan)", but, as I point out in a post at the end of the section here, that particular format is used in the tertiary sources (Britannica, Encarta) for the biographies of people who were born in regions of British India that are now in Pakistan. In fact both Britannica and Encarta use "now Pakistan" in their respective biographies of Chandrasekhar. As for my "lawyering" in the RfArb, I am afraid I never got around to doing it. Finally, my interest in the page has nothing to do with India or Pakistan, but springs from my interest in the man—having worked through his last-written book Newton's Principia for the Common Reader, having read a recent biography, Empire of the Stars: Obsession, Friendship, and Betrayal in the Quest for Black Holes, and having written the first two sections of his Wikipedia page. (I haven't gotten around to rewriting the last two sections, which are still not completely accurate.) Apologies again for my outburst. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd party admin intervention requested[edit]

Gene Poole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I have started working through Category:Micronations in an attempt to bring the articles there into line with our policies and guidelines. These efforts have included:

  • Starting a guidelines proposal at WP:MICRONAT
  • Seeking licencing clarification on several dubiously tagged images
  • Nominating articles for deletion in good faith and with clear reference to our policies and guidelines
  • Attempting to remove undue weight and opinion which isn't neutral in viewpoint or supported by the reliable sources (I haven't got far on this yet, but I would refer you to Lazarus Long (micronationalist) where I have meticulously trawled through the sources provided and rewritten the article to reflect what the sources actually say).

As with the last time I attempted to decruft the micronations articles, User:Gene Poole has popped up and:

  • Accused me of vandalism and bad faith
  • Canvassed the small number of regulars who support his viewpoint to !vote on AFDs
  • Breached WP:OWN
  • Rolled back some of my changes with rationales no greater than "this is how the article was before", without any rationale as to why the old version complied with policy and my version didn't.

If I were not involved in the dispute, I would block or warn him for the vandalism accusations and ownership issues at the very least. I can't, as I am involved.

I am therefore requesting a 3rd party admin to:

  • review my contributions (if I am overstepping the mark, please say so!)
  • review Gene Poole's contribs and roll back any unwarranted vandalism accusations and any changes which haven't improve the articles
  • if unacceptable behaviour is found, warn or block him.

While I'm here I may as well also ask for interested admins to contribute to WP:MICRONAT, which is currently under construction.

Thank you. --kingboyk 11:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him. See [3] and [4]. – Steel 12:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (edconf, and I endorse the above) Gene Poole should be more civil and should refrain from canvassing. I don't see anything particularly wrong with Kingboy's edits. Note that Gene has a long history of non-constructive actions with repect to micronations, as well as of incivility and of persistent vote stacking through canvassing and sockpuppetry (for more information see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gene_Poole). I remain of the opinion that people who canvass for a particular debate should be blocked for the duration of said debate. >Radiant< 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • His reaction was, shall we say, predictable: [5]. >Radiant< 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • [ec] Obviously you have failed to realise that any attempt to delete a micronation is necessarily an act of bad faith, an evil act of censorship and is motivated solely by your slavish devotion to state corporatism. Or at least that's how they see it. In my view a goodly number of these articles are blatant vanispamcruftisement, so you are doing the right thing reviewing them, it's not a surprise that the reaction is extreme and aggressive, because it always is. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I wasn't expecting such quick reaction. Please, if I do overstep the mark on this, let me know, and also, please, if anybody wants to join me in rewriting these articles in a neutral way or discussing a guideline (and whether or not we need one) come on over to the new page. Finally, could somebody have a look at my user talk and remove any nasty messages, if there are any? (I haven't read it this morning but I've seen plenty of "vandalism" notices in his edit summaries). --kingboyk 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note also that he removed {{PUIdisputed}} from various images I had listed for licence clarification (not deletion) at Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images#May_8. That's despite the notice saying "Please see that page for discussion. If you don't want the file deleted, please provide explanatory information about the copyright status of this image. Please do not remove this notice while the question is being considered." (rolls eyes) --kingboyk 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That block has been most effective, thanks guys. We now have some sensible dialogue going (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lazarus Long (micronationalist)) on both sides. I hope it can continue when Gene Poole's block expires, but if not expect to see me back here asking for an extension. --kingboyk 15:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat infuriating. Again and again we see established users calling other established users vandals, and then we have templating the regulars, by regulars, which I think he did as well. I wish they wouldn't. It's very disruptive and very annoying. Regardless, calling editors vandals when they patently aren't is just a nasty form of personal attack, and should be treated as such. Peace and Love, eh? Good block. Moreschi Talk 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now, this all isn't fair. Gene's abrasive, but a block w/o warning for a single borderline comment on my talk page?
Kingboyk, this is really insensitive. Trying to make a real policy out of Gene's informal micronation notability guidelines was a great idea. AFDing a couple of related articles in the middle of that smacks of POINT, and coming here like this smacks of blocking for advantage in a content dispute by proxy. Your AFD nominations seem to be in conflict with the notability guideline you're seeking to establish, which is intensely frustrating and inconsistent.
There tends to be a lot of hot air in micronation debates on WP. What is overlooked a lot of the time is that Gene set up the first policy proposal for reasonable notability guidelines, and has deleted over time far more of the random micronation related cruft than the rest of the WP editor pool combined. He tends to be demonized in discussions, because he's not very PC and is abrasive, but in point of fact he's spent considerable effort in doing the right thing.
Kingboyk, you do not need a block to protect you from big bad Gene Poole. Gene doesn't need a block to keep him from grossly abusing anyone; this is clearly punitive not preventive. Georgewilliamherbert 21:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It was his policy, and I used that to start up the page. He then said he didn't want a policy. Sigh. My current wave of nominations is based on existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be great if you would !vote to delete one or two of the worst ones, I'm sure you dislike cruft as much as I do. --kingboyk 23:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, please stop accusing him of canvassing. There's nothing wrong with giving people involved in a project or article a heads up when admin stuff happens related to it. The small list of people Gene notified are all longtime regulars working on Micronation articles. It's rather annoying (bordering on grossly offensive) when someone claims I was canvassed into participating on something on my watchlist. We have a SPAM policy - if he violates that then I'll block him myself, but him notifying me and others wasn't such a violation.
Gene being blocked when uncivil acusations like this are flying in both directions is not cool. Georgewilliamherbert 21:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Gene doesn't need a block to keep him from grossly abusing anyone So what do you suggest? Nothing else seems to stop him. Certainly enabling such behavior doesn't discourage him. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
GWH, you appear to be misstating the situation. Gene has done quite a lot more than making "a single borderline comment". For instance, as demonstrated on his RFA, he has quite the history of canvassing,a nd not just to "longtime regulars" either. >Radiant< 08:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that with the exception of Gene Poole, people on both sides of the debate seem to be deal with the issues as adults. I've had useful dialogue with George W.H. and others over the last day and a half.

Gene Poole on the other hand is back, and following me around:

  • Agree, Gene Poole is a problem here. He exhibits signs of WP:OWNing these articles, and also he seems to be trying to inflate the significance of every minor tax protest (which is what a lot of these short-lived supposed micronations amount to). A town briefly declaring itself independent does not merit a separate article, and I struggle to see why we should include one nutter's protest at all in the article on Hay-on-Wye. Guy (Help!) 07:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I think I need to comment on this after stumbling onto it while reviewing Gene Poole's unblock request. From what I can see, this is a content dispute that got out of hand. Gene Poole, without a doubt, got very uncivil and could stand to cool down for a bit. However, on the content dispute itself he has a point -- albeit an, at times, poorly made one. Even though these "micronations", "scams", what-have-you are not "real", they can still be notable in their not-real-ness. Last summer there was a great piece on the BBC titled places that don't exist (can't remember). I hope we can bring Gene back into the discussion constructively when the block expires. I think it is very important to draw the bright line between blocking for incivility during a content dispute and blocking for the content dispute. We need to be careful not (in reality or appearance) to use admin status to influence these disagreements. --Selket Talk 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. on further reflection, Places that don't exist was two summers ago and about unrecognized nations, not micronations. They had something on micronations last summer, but I can't remember what it was called. --Selket Talk 07:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Troll constantly been reverting my edits[edit]

It's been happening for the last month and admin request to User:DaGizza proved fruitless so I will report it here. IP User and (who are clearly same if you look at their edits) have been repeatedly reverting my good faith edits on Khatri, Malhotra and Luthra. He also accuses me of vandalism.

I will let you judge the two versions yourself. Our diff on Khatri, Our diff on Malhotra, Our diff on Luthra. He also does not explain to me where the peacock claims on Luthra are, instead changing the category from a sourced one to an unsourced one. I think his motivation there is simply because I rvert him on Malhotra. He believes my surname is Luthra without any basis at all. Hopefully admins can judge the two versions. dishant 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to above claim[edit]

On the contrary dishant has been Petty stalking my edits and vandalising my and other users entries after his peacock claims about the Luthra family were reverted.

This claim to you appears in retaliation for my being one of four users having supported a Delete case for removal of an entry for an Ankur Luthra [8] which was deleted by an administrator the same day as he filed this report.

Contrary to his claims this has been going on for just a month, Dishant55555 vandalism goes back to March after my Correcting his Vanity claims about Luthra. You can see on this link he has made unsourced vanity claims including -

  • "Many Luthra's are extremely successful in terms of business."
  • "The Gupta Dynasty assumed control of Northern India in 400 CE, and the Luthras joined forces with the Guptas to maintain law and order in what became India's Golden Age."
  • Luthras held prominent positions as rulers and warriors.

and adding alleged prominent people with the surname Luthra who do not meet wikipedia guidelines for prominence

He has since been stalking and vandalising Khatri, Malhotra, Kapoor etc pages by users who have changed his edits to NPOV ones. See his vandalism of the Malhotra page for example where he has removed dozens of lines of entries with authoritative sources such as links to Indian government websites.

Could dishant please be blocked from doing so. He has already received warnings to stop.

On the contrary. Ankur Luthra was deleted after I made this report. The IP User above has been picking off one-off ignorant reverts, please see above for the two versions we have been edit warring about at make your decisions. And please act, because this has been going back to March without solution. dishant 07:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

==2nd Response - The [9] page clearly shows that I supported an administrator Xoloz's Delete, of the not noteworthy Luthra article on 4 May. Dishant made the above request on 10 May I believe in retaliation fully aware of this - proved by the fact that he commented on my Delete comment it on the 5 May.

dishant reverts are not in good faith but I believe to be malicious as he is now indulging in sneaky vandalism since I have reverted his POV claims about Luthra , he has simply undone my sourced contributions by stalking. He keeps writing on the Luthra page "where are the peacock claims? ...when the comments on the Luthra page clearly shows what they are.

Deletion of contributions[edit]

I wish to complain about the actions of an editor who calls herself TheRingess. This editor has a long track record of deleting the contributions of other editors, usually for trivial reasons or no particular reason at all. Often it is done purely on a matter of taste, when discussion would be indicated.

She has been doing this for as long as I have been contributing, sometimes to my contributions as well as those of others. She does not discuss things. I have tried to talk to her about this matter but she takes no notice. It has got to the point where she is deterring others from contributing. It is a waste of time when there is a 50/50 chance that she will delete the contribution.

Some relevant articles are:

Siddha Yoga


Bhagawan Nityananda

It is at the point where official intervention is the only thing that might help.

Thank you,

Sardaka 12:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • From what I can tell, this appears to be a content dispute or series thereof, rather than an issue that requires administrative action. TheRingess has been active on the talk pages of all three of the articles you cite, in several cases replying directly to you to address your concerns (as here, for example). If you would like to pursue a solution on a dispute within a particular article, you might want to try an article RFC and if that is unsuccessful, a RFM. If your dispute is more with the editing style of TheRingess herself, you might want to try discussing your objections with her on her talk page, since it does not appear that you have raised the topic with her in the past[10]. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree with Sardaka. Ringess goes into topics and removes all but one external link with no justification other than maybe that she likes to feel powerful and destroy all the gathering work others have done to find and include relevant links. Sometimes she apologizes and admits to being wrong, but then she goes into another topic and deletes more. She seems to think she is the queen of Wikipedia. And she likes to fight with other editors and complain when she gets them so exasperated that they confront her about her behavior. Just look through her contribution history and you'll see all these things. I'm sure there are many other editors who just give up and stop contributing to Wikipedia due to Ringess. I created a new user name to share this information because there have been reports of Ringess putting people she doesn't like on her watch list and deleting their contributions. Then she archives discussions where she is confronted for her actions so they are hidden from other unsuspecting editors. Just look through her contributions and you'll find these things. Anniebelles 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC) Anniebelles (talkcontribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.

School block[edit]

User: has a history of obvious vandalism, and no good edits except for soem self-reverts. i have just blocekd it indefinately. Accordign to a WHOIS search, it is part of - which is assigned to "Ross School". Should other IPs in this range be checked? Is an indefiante block proper, and should the school authorities be contacted in any way? Note that i have no indication of where the school ios located geographically, althouygh i haven't really tried to find out, yet. Is there any other, or any different, action that i should take? DES (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

IPs should never be blocked indefinitely, especially school IPs. For blatant repeated school vandalism IPs a block of a month or two (with account creation enabled? I forget) is usually accepted. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the IP should not be blocked forever. Escalate block up to a couple months if need be, disable account create but leave it anon only. That handle schools much better. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Block shortened. {{schoolblock}} used on talk page. DES (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, a shorter block works just fine; school is going to be letting out soon anyway. A month would have been plenty sufficient. EVula // talk // // 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

User deleting warning templates[edit]

User:Nikkul has been deleting all warning templates issued to him by various other editors. He was blocked for sockpuppetry approximately 2 months back which can be seen in his talk page. After that he has been warned several times regarding his edits on different pages by different editors. But the user has blanked the page several times using revert tools without explaining anything here, here and here. He was reverted twice but again blanked his talk page. What can we do regarding this? Gnanapiti 17:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Users can blank their warnings, even though we don't like it. It is interpreted as them having received them. This is why it is important to look at the history of a user's talk page before warning. 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that Nikkul has also deleted messages pointing out his copyright violations form article talk pages [11]. Currently there are two suspected but unconfirmed sockpuppets of Nikkul: Johnsmithcba (talk · contribs) and Universe=atom (talk · contribs), the latter of whom has similarly deleted warning messages from his talk page [12] and prematurely archived the Talk:India page soon after the sock suspicion was voiced there. [13] Abecedare 17:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a stupid, stupid, rule. Surely, people probably warn each other with bad intent or incorrectly, but talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, in not letting obviously correct warnings stand. The Evil Spartan 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, though, it appears warnings are not the issue. Perhaps an administrator should just block the accounts. The Evil Spartan 17:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The point of a warning is to, you know, warn the user, not to serve as a permanent record. >Radiant< 10:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Blanking your own user talk is rude but permissible. Blanking other people's messages on article talk pages, on the other hand, is a problem. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


This just seems odd User_talk:JOKPL. Is it ok to ask the user to remove the images & link? Not a dog 19:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove the link yeah, but the image? It's a free-use image. Wikipedia isn't censored, so I don't have a problem with it. EVula // talk // // 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to jive with the purpose of a user talk page, though. Not a dog 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's their talk page. Ideally, it'd be on their userpage instead, but that's their prerogative. I've seen plenty of talk pages that are decorated with more than just the necessities (hell, my own has plenty of extra stuff on it). None of it involves topless young women, but that's just my choice. Though now that I think about it... EVula // talk // // 22:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree, it's their prerogative to put stuff on their talk page. Check mine out. (: ~Crazytales [talk] 01:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought a user talk page was meant to facilitate communication in order to help build the encyclopedia.... Not a dog 04:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:USER. Really, as long as they aren't spending all their time messing with their userspace (it kinda looks like they are, but the majority of those edits also seem to suggest they're using it as a sandbox, which is acceptable), no harm is being done to the project.
That said, after checking out the user's other contributions, I can't say as I have much faith in his ability to contribute constructively to the project. EVula // talk // // 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

DeletedIgnored and archived personal attack complaint[edit]

Why was my complaint deleted without reason. [14] Is it now beyond the scope of administrators that editors calls other editors "idiot" and "asshole"? For your benefit, I will repost it here:

Dear Admins, User:Lars T. poses a problem on Hans Filbinger and Talk:Hans Filbinger. He has a very strong POV in the matter but does not make any valid contributions. His edits to the article itself consist of repeated unexplained tagging [15][16]with no answer to requests for his reasoning, posting hidden comments [17], frivolously tagging "autobiography" when the man is in fact dead [18], strange edit summaries [19] [20].

On the talk page he ignored my pleas to explain his tags [21] or replied with snipping, incorrect remarks [22]. - In contrast to another recently arrived editor that tagged the article and eventually heeded my request. Lars, instead of clearly making his point he resorted to a cat-and-mouse game [23][24][25] and recently resorted to personal attacks [26]. I reverted these [27] and posted a warning on his talk page to please desist from such behaviour [28], to which he reacted by this and this. Let me note that I did not actually call him a troll but described his behaviour (as shown above) as "trollish" and used the verb "to troll". How far these can be termed personal attacks has been debate before - I directed them not at his person but his behaviour. In any case, his attacks were much stronger and any wrongdoing on my part would certainly not entitle him to this.)

While there is a substantial discussion between the other editors, who have contrary POVs on the matter, Lars is simply a disruptive force. Please do something. Str1977 (smile back) 00:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 (smile back) 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It wasnt deleted, it was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive240. All threads without a post in the last 24 hours are taken by bot to the current archive. No one deleted your complaint, but simply nodbody found anything in it to warrent a reply. -Mask? 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved to an archive nobody will ever take a look at. I am astounded that supposedly no admin found anything relevant in an editor calling others "asshole" and "idiot". Not I am in need of a reply (and I never asked for a reply) - the one issuing personal attacks needs a reply. Which one I leave to the digression of the admin that takes his office seriously. Str1977 (smile back) 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an extremly busy page. Assuming your post has grounds (I haven't looked) it may just have been overlooked. ViridaeTalk 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I know this is a busy page full of stuff. It might have been overlooked though that IMHO calls this whole archiving automatism into question. Such clear cases do not take much time to address. Str1977 (smile back) 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lars T.'s remarks were well over the top. I have left him a warning. Tom Harrison Talk 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 07:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of vandalism[edit]

AKMask (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making reverts in a content dispute and calling them "vandalism". [29] [30] These are clearly not vandalism (they are adding one image that a number of users feel is justified fair use), but good faith edits that are believed to be supported by policy. I know this isn't a huge deal, but I'd appreciate if someone could explain (I've tried) that these aren't vandalism and that it's not assuming good faith to throw around accusations of vandalism lightly. Or if these truly are vandalism, please let me know, that's not the intention. Thanks. --Minderbinder 23:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that calling you a "blatant vandal" is certainly incorrect as this isn't vandalism. However, I don't agree that the image is justified fair use. For starters, the resolution is way too large for a fair use image. Secondly, I don't believe that the image itself is being specifically described in the text (as opposed to the storyline surrounding it) which is required to justify using a copyrighted image. Will (aka Wimt) 23:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll certainly admit that the justification is arguable. But that disagreement should take the form of discussion, not clearly false accusations. --Minderbinder 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Good faith went out the window when you were removing images on other pages after several reversions during the recent episode list crackdown. You know they aren't allowed, and you're being all pointy at this point. Cease it already. -Mask? 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Disagreeing with you doesn't mean he has bad faith. Bad faith means he is purposefully intending to harm the encyclopedia.
Disagreeing with you is also not vandalism. Labeling his edits as vandalism is an example of bad faith in and of itself.
So while you may possibly be right on the acceptability of the end result, the way you are handling it is clearly not acceptable. Your response above in no way admits any error for your actions. Stop labeling good faith edits as vandalism and your arguments for your actions will become easier to accept. If you are in the right you don't need to be deceptive in edit comments. DreamGuy 00:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:VANDAL, which states that image vandalism is Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Copyvios seem pretty disruptive to me and many others. So mind reviewing what you claim is not vandalism in your above statement? -Mask? 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe Minderbinder was operating as a vandal, just perhaps he/she was not aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Removal of images from lists of episodes which made it so images on episode lists is now prohibited.-- 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
She/he was a participant in that discussion. Check their contribs, at least a dozen to that subpage. -Mask? 00:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are WP:Wikilawyering to try to justify your false accusations of vandalism. It'd be far better for you to just apologize and promise to not do it any more instead of rationalizing your bad behavior away. DreamGuy 07:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, I'm the biggest supporter of WP:IAR and WP:WIKILAWYER you'll ever see. I'm just giving the process wonks a reason why I reverted his edits when they demanded one. Read the exchange below if you wish to comment again. Minderbinder was a participant in the dialogue that banned these images, and then still added them back. We just had a user excused from 3RR for removing gratuitous fair use images. You may wish to modify your comments. -Mask? 09:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
IAR says to do it when doing so makes the encyclopedia better. I don't see how lying about "vandalism" does that when you can just make edit summaries that aren't misleading. --Minderbinder 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I had this page on my watchlist since I unprotected it a few days ago. I agree that the edits were not vandalism, but they do qualify as edit warring. Minderbinder ran up against his 3rr limit despite being advised by several people, including me, to discuss the issue instead of reverting. I protected the page again, for now, but that is not a long-term solution. CMummert · talk 00:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If Mindbinder was a participant, then why did he/she try to include the screenshots? That seems like a blatent use of WP:ILIKEIT and goes against the policy that was introduced, which is to remove the screenshots from the episode lists.-- 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"images on episode lists is now prohibited" Not according to the policy WP:NONFREE. According to that, as long as use is minimal and meets the criteria there (and in this particular case I argue one image on an article is minimal, and I argue that the use was for criticism and commentary and thus met the policy) nonfree images may be used. If the intention is that lists may not contain even a single nonfree image, I'd suggest making a proposal to add that to the policy. I'd really like to get a clarification on this so that this debate can be put to rest and we can go on editing articles - are lists allowed to have any nonfree images or not? --Minderbinder 12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The main debate was about having a "nonfree gallery of images" such as having a screenshot for every episode in an episode list. This was discussed in full in the link to the discussion I provided above, and the end result of it ended up causing the removal of all screenshots from episode lists on the entirely of the English Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that if you were to add one nonfree image, that would intice others to add more and eventually it would get out of hand, so it would be best not to include any.-- 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Anynobody fishing for my Real Life identity?[edit]

OK, I brought this on myself. But still. I e-mailed a government agency to settle a dispute and got a great response back. Please see Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#Straight from the source, the CRS weighs in. I first posted it with the gov't employee's contact information included but later removed it. User:Anynobody decided that I had not worded the question correctly and e-mails the employee a follow-up question. A follow-up to my RL-identity question. Please see Talk:List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#I emailed them too. Clearly he is referencing my e-mail. User:Lsi john raised the privacy concern which I had not thought of and I asked Anynobody nicely to take care of it. Please see User talk:Anynobody#My identity. He refused to simply comply with my reasonable request. He gives "reasons" but people make mistakes and all I ask is that Anynobody take a minute to do the right thing for another editor to protect my privacy. Please note that Anynobody has a bit of a fishing history, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and this diff from User:Jpgordon. Can we please show Anynobody that it would be a Good Thing if he did the Right Thing? --Justanother 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for his identity, and as I said to him on my talk page: Even if I was they couldn't tell me because Privacy Laws preclude her doing so without your authorization. Privacy policy of the us federal government Anynobody 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[31] [32] [33] Anynobody 01:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment on the diff you provided; that was a fairly complicated situation, and I think he was perfectly to suspect the user (which is why I said as much[34]). To point at that diff as damning evidence of bad faith is, in my opinion, unfair. EVula // talk // // 01:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
EVula, no disrespect, but ignore the diff. This is a very serious matter, regardless of his history. It has been very carefully explained and he is flat refusing to write a simple email to avoid an accidental disclosure. He is saying.. ok if she screws up JA can get her fired. That doesn't do much for his privacy though, does it?
He is not being asked to sacrifice his first born. He is being asked to correct an honest mistake. Lsi john 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"Just a comment". Nothing more. I didn't address the rest of the post because I didn't have time to properly look into it. Trust me, if I was bringing my personal opinion into the matter, I'd be responding in a totally different fashion. EVula // talk // // 02:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That a law exists does not mean that every person knows it or that it won't be broken accidentally. Phony Saint 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
We're talking about:

(name removed)

Coordinator of Communications Congressional Research Service (phone removed)

(e-mail removed)

The position seems to be one that would be aware of the law. Anynobody 01:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and now you have been made aware that a mistake could easily be made. You did not explain how you got that email. You did not explain who redacted the information. You are gambling that she wont assume you got it from him. However, by refusing to take appropriate action to ENSURE she won't make a mistake.. for me.. AGF is hard to assume here. You can correct this with a simple email. It costs you nothing. This isnt a matter of law, its a matter of making sure she doesn't make a mistake. The only two reasons I can see for refusing are a) pride and b) hoping to get his name. I am open to other reasons. I just don't see them right now. It's not too late, but it will be after she makes a mistake. Lsi john 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[diff] Lsi john 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In the remote, unlikely, and improbable chance she mentions your name I would never post it on here and would even be his witness in a lawsuit against the government if he wants. (I truly don't care who he is, I don't know how to express my complete and total lack of interest in knowing anything about him or spreading his personal information around.) Anynobody 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why not send a simple email, to make sure she doesn't? Why dig in? Why not take 30 seconds and do the right thing? Lsi john 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Because I have faith she knows her job and the law, as I've said. If you and Justanother are this concerned nothing is stopping you from copying the e-mail I posted and sending in a reminder not to divulge any names. Anynobody 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't as I don't have her email address. JA probably will, but he shouldn't have to. Your first email, was an honest mistake. Your refusal to correct it, is deliberate. Further discussion is irrelevant. Lsi john 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Here you go: (removed - justanother)... you and anyone else can access it through the history on the talk page. Anynobody 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Is one of you going to send the email? If not, I will, just to end this. If you don't mind my saying so, JA and LJ, you're the mother asking Solomon to judge. Anonobody's fine with cutting the baby in half, you're going to have to be the ones to give in in service of the more important goal. Or, you can keep running to AN/I expecting the admins to just hand the baby to you. I know I'm being rude and I'm sorry, but I really think this needs to be said. It's not an admin issue. It's not the admins' job to get Anonobody to do the right thing (putatively, anyway, I'm not making any judgements). The email needs to be sent, send it. And Anonobody, geez man, just send the friggin' email. So what if you don't need to? Do it to be a gracious human being who stoops to conquer. Do it because it's easy, it doesn't harm you in any way, and it helps a fellow being who is making a sincere request. Anchoress 02:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Endorse Anchoress, even though she's edit conflicting me. I believe you when you speak of your "complete and total lack of interest in knowing anything about him," Anynobody. I certainly don't think it's in order to fish for his identity that you're refusing to take a minute to do this. I think it's because of orneriness and personal dislike. More: I honestly don't believe Justanother needs to be worried about this government employee giving out his identity. It would be highly unprofessional. But for goodness' sake, Anynobody, you can tell JustA is worried, can't you? What's so dadblammed hard about being nice, even if it is Justanother, instead of spending all that time proving that you have a Right to be Not Nice? Bishonen | talk 02:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
Tee hee. Well I just squeaked in under the wire. Between my numerous edit conflicts trying to post and deciding not to post and editing out the swears, you really should have been first, Bish. You can have the baby. ;-) Anchoress 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to give the impression I'm being stubborn just to spite anyone, but I really honestly believe the employee knows her job. Phrasing a note that says in essence "Don't make a mistake and mention the person's name from the e-mail I cited" as a follow up to a good faith request about the function of the government seems inappropriate since we don't have any way of knowing if she will or won't make a very VERY improbable mistake. Anynobody 02:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that if I were to receive and spread his personal info it'd get me kicked off here and open me up to being sued. I'm not going to open myself up to those chances, which is why nobody should be worried about it. (Folks, I can't help but observe if there is this much concern about her knowledge of her job, why are we even taking her word for Justanpther's response. Presumably if she doesn't understand the basics of what she can and can't say I wouldn't count on her info about CRS being correct. I don't see any doubt about her in that regard from Justanother.) Anynobody 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Please note that Anynobody has a bit of a fishing history, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS and this diff".

"EVula, no disrespect, but ignore the diff."

Why the sudden 180 on this issue? Could it be to "prove" that "This is not about me®"? For that matter, why did you bring this incident to WP:AN/I at all, besides so that you could slap an accusation complete with the editor's name in the Table of Contents of the page? An easy solution, so easy that it's just not plausible you didn't think of it, was near at hand all the time, and yet you chose to go the inefficient (inefficient, that is, if protecting your privacy was your true goal) route of raising a very public stink about alleged misbehavior by Anynobody -- which turns out to be very much 'alleged theoretical misbehavior'. More than that, anyone who reads your lengthy confusing allegations all the way through will now know just as well as Anynobody does how they could "fish" for your RL name. Again, if your actual purpose was to protect your RL identity you really chose a curious way to go about it, by telling everyone who reads WP:ANI how they, too, could "fish" for it just as effectively.

I think that the situation is really quite plain. The "fishing" is not Anynobody "fishing" for your RL identity, it is you once again "fishing" for some pretext to smear the name of an editor whom you disagree with, accusing them of bad behavior. A quick look in the history of the Incidents noticeboard shows a recurring pattern of such efforts. This one is particularly shameless, given your recent (just about one week ago) oh-so-accidental dropping into the conversation of an editor's purported first name (for obvious reasons, I will not post the diff here, but I will provide it upon request to any admin who e-mails me requesting confirmation of it.)

As I said, if your real concern was protecting your own identity, the solution is so blatantly obvious that it is simply not credible that you didn't see it. The entire stink you're raising here boils down to "I used my real name when I e-mailed Person X who works for the government. I revealed who Person X was, when I relayed what Person X said to me. Now Anynobody has e-mailed Person X, referring to my e-mail. If Person X jumps to the conclusion that he and I already know each others' real names then she may use my real name in replying to him! Obviously, if Anynobody does not immediately send an e-mail to Person X warning her not to use my real name, then he is "fishing" for my real name and I am justified in making immediate accusations of him doing so on WP:AN/I!" Are you actually expecting us to believe that it never occurred to you that you could send a second e-mail to Person X, asking her to please not reveal your name to anyone else? Didn't that strike you as a far more effective means of getting the message to the person who actually needs to hear it?? Or was manufacturing an "Incident" over Anynobody's purported failure to provide appropriate cooperation such an attractive prospect, it completely kept you from examining any solution that did not require Anynobody's involvement? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Antaeus, you are doubly confused. 1) those two quotes in italics up there? Only one is mine - the other is from Lsi john about "ignore the diff". 2) Never ever dropped F451's name - that is a LIE (BIG LIE) on your part. --Justanother 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct on the first point -- I went back and checked and it was indeed Lsi john who said "ignore the diff". On the second point, it is neither a LIE nor a, quote, "BIG LIE" on your part, but the truth which I am quite ready to prove with a diff to any appropriate parties. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I BEG an admin to take Antaeus Feldspar up on his offer rather than let his crap accusation stand. Please. --Justanother 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, Justanother, it is verifiable fact, not a "crap accusation". If you want an example of a "crap accusation", why, then, let's look at this. Right away we see certain similarities, like the editor name slapped up in the section title so that even if the accusation is proved to be a blatant fabrication, the smear on that editor's reputation is archived for posterity. Another similarity is that the actions taken reflect a far greater emphasis on manufacturing an Incident than on actually resolving any wrongdoing -- if you actually had a legitimate report of 3RR violation to make (which you didn't) then why didn't you report it on the appropriate noticeboard? You certainly knew of the existence of that noticeboard, since you had reported an alleged violation just two weeks prior (I think it's quite revealing to note that in that instance, too, an admin called you on improper usage of the noticeboard: "What I really dislike is you, Tanaats and BabyDweezil continuing the edit war on this page, which is strictly not ok (just look at the very top of this page).") So you not only made a "crap accusation", to use your own pungent phrase, you apparently deliberately filed it in the wrong place. As I said, the "fishing" going on here seems to be you fishing for ways to manufacture grievances. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Au contraire, mon frère. You continue your wikidream. My AN/I on you was about a lot more than 3RR; I noticed that you only linked to the section break sub-title. The real issue was called "Attacks and disruption of noticeboards by User:Antaeus Feldspar". Which, golly gee, I see that you continue with your lie about my "name-dropping". Hopefully an admin will happen along soon and expose your lie. Until then . . . Carry On. You might as well because you sure won't stop on my account. --Justanother 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
When did anyone say that the Incident you manufactured at that time was solely about your phony allegation of a "5RR" violation? I said nothing of the kind, so I don't see why you're acting as if you somehow nullified the fact that you deliberately posted a false report of a "5RR" violation to the wrong noticeboard. I posted to the section break sub-title because of the two section headers you created for the same manufactured Incident, that was the one where you specifically highlighted your false allegation of "5RR" violation. Good Lord, I don't have enough time in the day to sit down and list out every "crap accusation" you make; I was just pointing to one of the ones that make it most obvious that your first priority in pointing out these alleged "problems" is not actually resolving the problems. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. You accuse me above of posting to the wrong noticeboard. I was showing that I did not because my complaint was about a lot more than 3RR. It was pretty much about what you are doing right here, right now; lying and misrepresenting on an admin noticeboard. --Justanother 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You know what, Antaeus. I am done here. And I apologize to all the readers here. This had nothing to do with you, Antaeus, and you show up with your usual crap and I rise to the bait. I am sorry and I am done here. You can have ALL the last words on this one. --Justanother 18:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you're done here. You already got what you were apparently really after, which is a chance to slander fellow editors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was away for a bit. I am going to send an e-mail to the employee asking that my name not be revealed. Thank you for your input. I thought it would be appropriate if Anynobody did so but I am certainly capable of doing so. --Justanother 03:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

He's right though, you have an unusual and counterproductive way of preserving your privacy, for example:

Here you go: (removed - justanother)... you and anyone else can access it through the history on the talk page. Anynobody 01:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you're worried about people getting at the e-mail address why remove the address but leave my instructions on how to access it? Anynobody 10:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You too are confused AN. I am not trying to protect the identity against the human editors viewing this board; I am trying to protect it against bots and web spiders so it is not harvested for spam or scraped for elsewhere. The best I can do is remove it. I have asked the employee if she would like me to have all references oversighted but, as she is a public servant, I doubt that she will care enough to. I do what I can, AN, and that is all I asked you to do, what you can. I was angry at the moment when I brought this here but upon reflection still think that it would have reflected better on the project if you had asked. That way we could at least pretend that we argue here in a mutually respectful manner. --Justanother 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's very thoughtful of you, I'm sure the employee'll appreciate your concern. I hadn't thought about that aspect, did you let the person know that their e-mail was posted briefly here in case the spammers already got it when you e-mailed to remind about your name not being released? It's too bad you didn't think of that possibility before posting it, I guess hindsight really is 20/20. Anynobody 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


I first stumbled upon this when I was trying to do research on the University of Texas, and was confused when wiki redirected me to one particular university instead of the general page the talks about them all. When I tried to correct the mistake, I noticed that the page was protected by Johntex, a wiki administrator and UT-Austin alumni that made major contributions to the University of Texas, Austin’s football team.

Despite the obvious bias, Johntex reverted an edit that made the page properly link to the University of Texas System instead of the University Of Texas, Austin, and then protected the page. He claimed that he reverted the change due to "current consensus;" however, it's clear by visiting the talk page[35] that various users insist that it should link to the System instead of Austin, with only Johntex contending the change under the false premise that the University of Texas colloquially refers to Austin. Other users have pointed out that, “University of California, University of North Carolina, University of Hawaii, and University of Illinois all redirect to the system.” It is inconsistent to treat the University of Texas system any differently, especially when one considers the amount and the size of all the individual universities that encompass the term.

If it all possible, can another administrator fix the protected page and leave the editing to those without bias? --Dimachaerii 04:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Says the user with all of 3 edits. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) That's a common problem/practice when it comes to university systems. The redirect often goes to the flagship campus, rather than the article on the system, and there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming level of agreement on whether that's a good thing or not. For example, I believe University of Wisconsin still redirects to the Madison campus, while University of California does go to the article on the system, rather than to the Berkeley campus. You may want to bring this up on the UT Austin page and the other pages involving campuses in the UT system. There may have been a consensus at one point that that was the way it was going to be done, or maybe whoever set it up did so by him- or herself, and it's just been left alone till now. Another good place (a better place, in fact) to ask this question would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. --Dynaflow babble 04:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that User:Dimachaerii has already raised this issue on the talk pages, under the name of User:Unsuspected. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Could be, but I don't think it was appropriate for Johntex to revert the change and then immediately protect it. Frise 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Probably so, but that stopped an edit war and maybe saved Unsuspected from a 3RR violation. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow, life is interesting. I was confused was Akhilleus comment regarded the amount of edits I made instead of the topic at hand; it felt as if Arkhilleus had a personal agenda against me and used a personal attack instead of answering my issue.
I really valued Dynaflow’s comment, as it poised a very good question, so I did a research on the University of Wisconsin to find out why it differs from the other university systems and if it has anything in common with the University of Texas system. My finding were very interesting; it seems as if what the two systems have in common is that both are defended by a bias admin, in the case of Texas, it’s by Johntex, but in the case of Wisconsin, it’s by Akhilleus! The University of Wisconsin page is also plagued by controversy for the inconsistent redirect, so I can only conclude that the reason it was not changed yet is for the same reason the University of Texas redirect was not changed.
I strongly believe that the reason these redirect are in place is simply because of bias, although I’m not sure if a user like me can really amend this inconsistency.--Dimachaerii 04:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, I am not Dimachaerii, but I do know him in RL and have discussed the matter w/ him (although I think that’s irrelevant anyway).
I find it interesting that the only 2 university that link to the flagship university as oppose to the system are the ones with admin backing…
University of California, University of Hawaii, University of North Carolina, and University of Illinois all properly redirect to the university system as oppose to the flagship university. And, on top of that, most of them tend to be fair by listing the universities in alphabetical order and such, instead of treating one university as special.
I think it is pretty clear to unbiased users what is the right and fair thing to do.
P.S. I know the 3RR rule. Johntex, having done the first and second revert, would have violated it before me (I only reverted once). Unsuspected 04:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You have not adequately researched the issue and your findings are invalid. See University of Michigan, Texas A&M University, University of Missouri, University of Wisconsin, or Purdue University for example. You gave four examples of your desired method, but there are at least six counterexamples. - ChrisKennedy(talk) 07:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Add University of Oklahoma, University of Washington, University of Tennessee, University of Arkansas, University of Florida, University of Georgia and University of Arizona to that list of counterexamples. Phaedriel - 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Phaedriel, almost all of your examples are actually not university systems, but just universities themselves. And most of the university systems are so small that the other campuses barely have a page.
BTW, the way I picked those universities was by looking at a university ranking chart. It is interesting to note that the better the flagship University, the more likely it is that it will not try to steal the spotlight.
Also, guys, let's remember what is relevant to this discussion is the debate on what is the right and ethical thing to do. Listing examples is not the best form of argument. Unsuspected 15:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It is humerous that you don't like examples when they go against you, yet you started your argument here by citing examples. Does that mean your post is "not the best form of argument"? Johntex\talk 16:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to discuss the matter further on a different page, but please note that most of the Universities you guys listed don't have a system page, and some don't even have a system. "University of Florida system," for example, does not exist, and the only University of Michigan is Ann Arbor. I'd be happy to debate each one of the Universities with you, but almost all of those you listed are actually fine the way they are. --Dimachaerii 19:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
"the only University of Michigan is Ann Arbor" -> Wrong yet again, see University of Michigan-Dearborn and University of Michigan-Flint. ChrisKennedy(talk) 19:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
My first point still applies; there is no University of Michigan System page.--Dimachaerii 00:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll give full support to Dimachaerii. It is very obvious that University of Texas is the system. The same thing is true for University of Wisconsin. Some administrators and editors are gaming the system for academic boosterism and promoting their POV. Miaers 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, Miaers. It is really not that compliated of an issue, I think. Unsuspected 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Please note that Miaers, previously uninvolved in the matter, was notified of this discussion by Dimacheaeri.[36] Johntex\talk 15:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Dimachaerii/Unsuspected are probably the same person and even if they aren't then User:Dimacheaeri could be considered a single issue meatpuppet. Regardless, he/she/they, have not done their homework. This issue was discussed at Talk:University_of_Texas_at_Austin/Old_4 and the consensus was that most people are looking for the University of Texas at Austin if they go looking simply for University of Texas. User:Unsuspected is welcome to work on changing the consensus if he/she does so in a civil manner. However, the user's very first post on this topic was combative and insulting. A portion of which reads:

I find it appalling that UT-Austin students keep redirecting UT to UT-Austin. UT needs to redirect to the UT system, just as how University of California, University of North Carolina, and University of Illinois all redirect to the system and not to the premier university in the system. UT students of other campuses really need to combat this more instead of having UT-Austin steamroll them. UT-Austin is inferior in relations to the premier universities of the systems mentioned above, so maybe that’s why you guys have such an urge to stomp on anybody who is smaller. (emphasis added)[37]

Judging from other edits this new user has made, it looks like they read a US News and World Report college ranking story and now want all Wikipedia articles to conform to that one source.
Unsuspected is wrong on the facts, and wrong on the methodology they are trying to employ to change the redirect. He/she needs to be steered toward civil discussion and away from bombastic rhetoric and revert warring. Johntex\talk 15:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Johntex, you are hardly being civil. My facts are far from wrong, and in fact, you have yet to counter any of my points. Is it really that big of a blow to your ego to have UT redirect to the system as oppose to Austin? It's not like Austin is not part of UT, and I won't mind if you put a tag at top similar to Univ of Hawaii. You only keep repeating that there was a consensus reached, which is clearly not true. Attacking me for "not doing my homework" is very uncivil, considering that I replied to you on this matter. While you're citing me, why not cite some of my main points?
  • Why is University of Texas different from every other University systems (University of California, University of Illinois, etc)?
  • Since UT-Austin is an entity of University of Texas, why shouldn’t University of Texas redirect to the main entity (the system).
  • Since UT-Austin is part of UT, there are clear links in the UT page for the Austin campus; I don’t see any problem with people following those links in case they were looking for Austin.
  • While people in Texas, and particularly in Austin, might refer to UT-Austin as simply UT, that is just not the case for people outside of Texas.
  • And furthermore, while I do not mind you taking part in the debate, it is obviously unethical for you to use your mod privileges for this article. It is like being the defendant and the judge at the same time. I’m surprised Wikipedia does not have a policy against that.
Unsuspected 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I personally do not like US News and World Report ranking, and I have *never* made a change that supported it. I don't know why you claimed otherwise. Unsuspected 18:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the question of whether Johntex should have protected the article, this discussion belongs at Talk:University of Texas. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar to Akhilleus, you've strayed away from the issue, Johntex. You reverted a change and then blocked the page, which was a clear abuse of your administrative privileges. You keep claiming that the consensus is in your favor, but the talk page[38] that you blocked has only you defending the "consensus" against multiple users for half a year, now. Also, the vast majority of university systems link to the system page and no the flagship university; once again, a consensus is clear in this manner.
Yes I did notify Miaers of this issue after reading the talk page on the University of Wisconsin redirect. He's been trying to get that page fixed for a year now, but unable to due to administrators. He was even interested in going through the mediation process, but of course no one agreed. This is my mind makes him anything but "previously uninvolved in the matter." While I believe a consensus already exists, perhaps we should take the next step and go to mediation if this issue cannot be resolved.--Dimachaerii 18:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

but you are agree you are an involved party and that in the future - protection and the like should be done by uninvolved admin for the purposes of transparency? --Fredrick day 18:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, Fredrick. Switching the redirect to support his campus and then locking it is completely wrong. Unsuspected 18:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Those complaining about the page protection should see The Wrong Version at Meta before making any further complaints about the administrative action.

In all seriousness, this conversation should get off ANI and move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities after it's determined whether or not admin tools were abused (it doesn't seem, judging from the conversation so far, that they were). There's a big temptation to get uncivil when talking about one's alma mater, but that tendency should be suppressed as much as humanly possible on Wikipedia.

For the University of California system, it was apparently found most graceful to use the system's article instead of a disambiguation page under the "main name." The same solution was used for State University of New York. Both systems contain too many "heavyweights" for any one of them to "win" the main name link. However, as has been shown, other solutions have been used, and those may or may not be fair to other articles which share the name. I would suggest, based on my experience with the university articles I've worked on, creating disambiguation pages or linking to the system's article -- mainly because, once a university spawns more than one campus but decides to remain one university, the name belongs to the system itself. That, at least, is my opinion, and there are a lot of others with opinions on this too.

Again, please take this necessarily tedious argument to the appropriate place, not only so it doesn't clutter up ANI, but so that others who work on university projects can participate. Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 00:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Iman Ali[edit]

This edit by me where I removed a lot of unsourced and some material copied from here has upset User:Faniman. They re-added the material and eventually I blocked them for violating copyright, after they had been warned. There is little point in providing differences but take a look at User talk:Faniman and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Why Changing page and on to the bottom. I looks as if I'm going to be featured on CNN, BBC, Newsweek, Economist, Google, etc. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Administrators, Faniman's response to Mr/Ms. Cambridge!

This is absolutely difficult to know who is making changes and why. Simply saying that something is unsourced and being removed (and do that with immediate effect) is absoluetly unacceptable. If Mr. Cambridge or whatever his/her name is wanted to edit s/he must have discussed with me and find a solution and then block me or whatever. After this incident, I am not a great fan of wikipedia. I am sure the way your admistrator has behaved is a true case of 'administrated vandalism'. You should try to develop some professional norms. Faniman.

I see nothing wrong with what CambridgeBayWeather did. Our policy WP:BLP mandates the speedy removal of contested unsourced material about living persons from Wikipedia. Faniman, you should calm down and read up and our policies and guidelines. Sandstein 05:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I too suggest you read our policies provided by Sandstein above. The administrator correctly removed the material added to that article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This is getting to be a bit annoying and I'm done for the night. Could someone tell him to stop with the requests for information as I'm not giving him more than what is on my user page and if I tell him again I'm likely to violate Wikipedia:Civility. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Warned, and told to contact the press room. However I see you already did that. ViridaeTalk 06:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything wrong with CambridgeBay's handling of the situation. The material did appear to be a copyvio from a website based on matching the first paragraph. Although closer inspection does seem to back up Faniman's claim that the material was copied from Wikipedia to the website, not the other way around (copied, I think, from this version, which appears to have been contributed piecemeal to Wikipedia so is unlikely to be a copyvio). That said, I think CBW's block was valid on WP:3RR grounds and as a good reminder of ownership of articles. My view is, from here, we should focus on improving the article on the talk page. It needs cleanup, sources, and a careful reading for NPOV. --TeaDrinker 05:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

From Faniam: I am not sure how to write/respond on this page so I just edit it. Please, educate me how should I respond as you guys do. I am 100% that the website cited as official website of Ms. Iman Ali is wrong and the website has actually copied materal from wikipedia. As a suggestion, endorsing the one by TeaDrinker that WE should try to improve the content of the website and bring in as per policy of the wikipedia. Just throwing some content away is initself is a very very disgusting act. I am sure wikipedia and CBW will take note of this. Ultimately, what do we want to achieve? We want to put some good quality information content on the website which does not violate the policies of wikipedia and other conventions.

In doing so, I am ready to re-write the content as it can be suitable for wikipedia administrators. This conversation should be taken as an oportunity to improve our way of working and not throwing people away and blocking them from using wikipedia. Blocking and deleting the content is very contemptuous as well as unprofessional approach. I am sorry to be a bit agressive towards CBW but s/he made me react that way and I hope s/he also realizes that we should be encouraging people rather than just showing naked power to whatever one deems it fit to do. ends]

Multiple User Accounts, possibly for vandalism?[edit]

I've come across this account User:Mdshtl, along with User:MELDX1 and the several other accounts listed on the MELDX1 userpage. The accounts have primarily been used for vandalism, and the content on the userpages makes it seem as if its some group that plays pranks? It would be great if an admin could look into it. Thanks. Recurring dreams 04:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look here, you can see that this is definitely a group of some kind and I highly doubt they are here to be constructive. John Reaves (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. I'm afraid I can't see what you've linked (not an admin). Recurring dreams 05:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on the talk of MEDX5 a few week back, and they have paid little, if any attention towards it. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 05:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I blocked them all as either vandalism only accounts or because they are obviously not here to contribute. John Reaves (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The full list of the MELDX is here.... --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 05:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Good block... I almost blocked them all last week when I deleted the User: Melbourne DX userpage, but I decided to wait and see what they did. Looks like I should have went with my gut instinct...--Isotope23 13:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Subtle long-term trolling?[edit]

Could someone give me a reaction check about FrozenPurpleCube (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He set off my troll radar at Talk:Sicilian Defence and Talk:Aldol condensation which I found through his activity at WP:WQA and talk pages linked from there. I exchanged a few messages with him (from an earlier IP address) and then forgot about it (WP:DENY). But earlier today I wanted to leave the respected admin User:Sjakkalle a message about an unrelated incident, only to find from Sjakkalle's talk page that Sjakkalle has gone on wikibreak after getting hassled excessively by FrozenPurpleCube. I have to see chasing a good admin off of the encyclopedia as evidence of disruption (intentional or otherwise) so I decided to say something here. There is no serious incivility from FrozenPurpleCube, just oily politeness combined with obstinacy, and repeated requests to "stick to the content instead of commenting on the contributor" (paraphrase). Of course there is a dedicated venue for commenting on contributors but I have the feeling that FrozenPurpleCube wants to be taken there, since it's a feeding ground for energy vampires. Advice is requested. 07:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd call it trolling. I've encountered FrozenPurpleCube (talk · contribs) in the past at AFD (usually professing the opposite opinion from the one I'm rendering) and he appears to be editing in earnest. Of course the irony of the conversation at User talk:Sjakkalle in light of his calls to "comment on the edits, not the editor" is not lost on me, but we all break WP:KETTLE at some point or another. That said I don't see any evidence that Manticore is intentionally trying to disrupt or troll; he just has a set of opinions and he rather aggressively argues those opinions.--Isotope23 14:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he's a troll... he's just a tireless rebutter and I've never seen him change a stance, even after he was wrong from square one. I can see how that comes off as annoying, but he's disagreed with me in one debate and agreed with me in the next... he's never made it a personal thing at all, or used argumentative debating techniques... he just replies a lot. I see no reason to think he doesn't mean well. --W.marsh 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up request - incident archive 237[edit]

Can I please request that the partial restoration proposed at [39] be carried out when time permits. Thanks leaky_caldron 11:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Editor using edit summaries to canvass[edit]

Sumburgh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) No warning given or action taken due to personal involvement. --kingboyk 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll investigate. By the way, personal involvement isn't a reason not to tackle the editor about this issue, although it would preclude taking administrator action on your own. It's good to warn other editors with whom you're in close contact if they're doing something potentially damaging--they may not realise it until you point it out. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice Tony. I kinda know that, but I'm getting a bit sick of warning people etc etc. Maybe I shall go and pick some flowers or something :) --kingboyk 13:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha Banshee 350[edit]

Alton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has retracted the AfD and it has been closed. He requested it be closed and admitted the nomination was reckless and hasty. However the AfD template remains on about 55 articles. I've requested the editor remove the templates from the articles and clean up the mess he created, but I wonder if rollback might be a quicker solution. M (talk contribs) 15:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the AfD template from all the remaining articles.--thunderboltz(TALK) 15:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talkpage - please edit[edit]

Resolved: No immediate admin action seems to be needed.

The user [User:Showninner|Showninner] repeatedly vandalised the Nicolas Sarkozy page, [40], [41], [42], [43]. When I reverted his vandalism and gave him a warning [44], he responded by blanking his talk page [45] and copy the warning to my talk page [46]. As I have never vandalised any page, I would appreciate having his nonsense removed. Dusis 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You can remove warnings without admin help according to WP:USER#Removal of warnings. I removed the message from your talk page. Phony Saint 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to remove it. Spurious warnings are one reason why removing warnings from your talk page is not forbidden by policy. CMummert · talk 16:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I looked at a couple of showinner's recent contribs and the editor seems to have added a source for a claim in the Sarkozy article and seems to be aware of WP:V. It doesn't look like a vandalism only account. CMummert · talk 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr oompapa[edit]

The Mr oompapa vandal (WP:OOMPAPA) is back and continuing to violate privacy. I have placed a 4 day block on in the hopes of dealing with the issue. I'm not quite sure why BT is the source of so much vandalism. --Yamla 16:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamla, someones created a page on you and someone needs to put it as speedy delete. Neldav 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He uses a rolling IP so I'm not sure it will help, is BT dynamic? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I think this edit should be removed or even oversighted, because it was made by an abusive user, and because the user attempted to reveal presonal info about another user. Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 17:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Too many revisions. I've requested oversight. Michaelas10 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Stoic atarian and lack of Wikipedia:Civility[edit]

Quite simply put, he doesn't appear to have any. If anyone other than an admin posts on his talk page he calls it vandalism (even going as far as reporting them), he blanks his talk page constantly and he's almost totally uncommunicative. HalfShadow 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't he request it protected if he hates comments so bad? Funpika 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Talkpages are an important part of the wikipedia communication process - so it's a terrible idea for users to have pages protected because "they don't like comments" - wikipedia is a community project and if people don't like community interaction, I'd suggest they find another hobby! --Fredrick day 18:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user is a borderline-case. Immediately removing all comments, regardless of content, to the archive is not very different from blanking one's talk page. And to call valid comments vandalism and even report other users for vandalism when they make constructive comments doesn't give a favourable impression. Dusis 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my earlier statement, the user is well beyong the border as a check of his actions show. For a long time, the user had the habit of simply blanking his talk page, calling valid comments vandalism.[47], [48], [49], [50], [51] Only after an admin protected the talk page [52] did he invent the idea to move all comments to the archive right away. [53]. As pointed out by user HalfShadow, the user has a history of reporting people for vandalism just because of disagreeing with him. That this isn't in line with Wikipedia etiquette has been pointed out to the user [54], [55]. The user had a tag claiming that his talk page had been vandalised 13 time, browsing through the history of the talk page I could not find a single incident of vandalism apart from the frequent blankings by the user himself.Dusis 19:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And again:[56] Complete wiping of talk page and now his 'vandalism count' has gone from 13 to 16 [57]. HalfShadow 19:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He can blank his talk page all he wants, that's allowed under WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings and WP:VAND#Types of vandalism. However, calling any edits to his talk page vandalism and reporting them is a serious case of disruption and incivility. Phony Saint 20:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Referring to anyone who posts on his talk page as a vandal is effectively defamation. We're not postinfg 'Fuck' 100 times on his page, we're making valid entries. If he wants to blank his page, whatever. I don't appreciate being labeled a vandal. HalfShadow 20:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

sure he can remove comments from his page but an editor who refuses to communicate with fellow editors about any of his actions is disruptive in itself. --Fredrick day 20:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
My recent messages were removed and labeled Harassment. I'll leave it at that, an admin might want to pop across and wave the "get a clue" stick. --Fredrick day 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I posted a comment on his page. But still, maybe if it is possible we should go to WP:RFC/U depending on what he does. Funpika 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
An explanation for his actions can be found here. Funpika 20:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that's cute. HalfShadow 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Assuming good faith is an important principle, but the "explanation" given by User:Stoic atarian is simply not true. As User:Lexicon has pointed out on his talkpage, User:Stoic atarian had been acting in exactly the same way for months before this incident, removing valid comments, calling them vandalism and reported people for vandalism. I see no point in the message User:HalfShadow left on User:Stoic atarians talk page, but that message is not the cause of his behaviour.Dusis 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP belonging to Texas Legislative Council[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has repeatedly vandalized Barry Bonds today. The IP belongs to the Texas Legislative Council, which appears to be an official arm of the Texas Legislature. Uncertain of the proper action to take since it appears to be governmental, I blocked the IP for 15 minutes for the time being (even though I would have ordinarily blocked for 24 hours). Thoughts are requested. (Also reported to meta:Talk:Communications_committee.) --Nlu (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

At least for blatant, obvious vandalism like this I don't see any reason to tiptoe around this or any government IP or treat the IP any differently than we'd treat, say, a school. Any complaint someone might take to the media would serve only to make them, not us, look bad. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

South Asian Economic Union[edit]

Resolved: No immediate admin action seems to be needed.

This article was vandalized. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John.walshjp (talkcontribs) 14:28, 11 May 2007 UTC

Thanks for fixing it. -- MarcoTolo 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Urgent assistance required[edit]


Can I have help to undo these edits please, SqueakBox 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Now done spotted, SqueakBox 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

More to be done. Huge damage caused by page move vandal. GDonato (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huge damage? It's a talk page and some archives. Let's not go ballistic, here... -- nae'blis 21:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Damaging for the user, SqueakBox 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Needed attention- plus loads of redirects, several archives, multiple pages and a miserable time for all ;-) GDonato (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, everybody. I'll sort these out later tonight. -Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Should all be sorted --pgk 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The glorious Gutians[edit]

Whats up with this article? Smells WP:OR and tastes WP:WEASEL also feels Copyvio. Could people review this please? -- Cat chi? 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See [58]. I speedy deleted the article as a blatant copyvio. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Dariux has recreated the article. I'm deleting again, as this is very obvious plagiarism, but should I protect the deleted article, or take any further action? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Resolved: Blocked by Kafziel for one week.

Editor has been warned at least ten times not to revert against consensus, he just came off his third block this week and did it again. Here's the discussion where consensus was reached and as you can see on his RFC he was warned about it and editors and admins stated there and on his talk page that he has reverted against consensus and he did so immediately after returning off his third block this week. Tayquan hollaMy work 22:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Basically consensus was reached that this statistic is noteworthy, it's sourced to USA basketball which is a reliable source and he reverted it again. Tayquan hollaMy work 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He also just gave me a final warning for reverting a change to NBA records that was reverted by three editors in total, in other words he warned me for making a consensus revert. Tayquan hollaMy work 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam / Hurghada[edit]

Another user, previously from various IP:s, now registered as BigAndyW (talk · contribs), insists on adding external links to Hurghada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (please also see the talk page) and corresponding articles on other wikis. De and fr have semiprotected the pages, on sv some IP-adresses were blocked. /SvNH 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Removal of Speedy Deletion Tags[edit]

Resolved: Articles deleted. Picaroon (Talk) 01:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In the articles Mary Karen Krajnak and Jose Joaquin Rodriguez, speedy deletion tags have been removed numerous times by an anonymous user (presumably one of the originators.) Can someone please permanently delete both of these articles and prevent them from being recreated? I apologize if this is not the right place to request this action, but I couldn't find anywhere else that seemed appropriate. Thanks for your help. --Proofreader J-Man 01:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the tags, warned the IP that's removing them, and added the articles to my watchlist. -FisherQueen (Talk) 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your prompt action!--Proofreader J-Man 02:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Are You Allowed to blank your talkpage?[edit]

Resolved: No immediate admin action seems to be needed.

Hi, a few days ago, I went onto somebody's talkpage and there was a bit of content on it (a few people asked him questions). He's gone and removed virtually all of it. I've noticed him do it for a month or so (before I created a account on Wiki), and this is clearly seeable from the history of the talkpage. Are you allowed to do this? If you are not allowed to do this, can somebody warn him about it? Neldav 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • It's allowed under current policy/de facto policy. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#User_talk_pages. But just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's a good idea... it's generally seen as somewhat rude to just remove comments without archiving them. --W.marsh 16:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, there is this rule, though obviously that doesn't apply for any other sort of disruption. Moreschi Talk 16:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we tell the user to archive his talkpages instead? Neldav 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
You can tell him politely that it's a more above-board way of going about things, but it's by no means required. --W.marsh 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Theoretically, page history is an archive. .V. [Talk|Email] 19:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
But I don't wanna see the editing process that is the page history. 10:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


Can someone who's more familiar with the background of the block of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) please take a look at the contributions of NI4D (talk · contribs)? The user seems to have the same infinity with everything related to Mike Gravel like DavidYork71 seemed to have (as do the subsequent socks, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71). Thanks, Metros232 00:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • As an aside, the page User:NI4D has to subvert some policy/guideline (POV pushing, user page masqurading as a WP: page, etc.). --Kinu t/c 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
If User:NI4D is connected with the actual Ni4d crowd (, s/he's making them look pretty bad. I've thought of them as, um, a little bit quixotic but generally not given to such obnoxiousness as far as I know (I've met a few of them). Anyway, seems like an inappropriate username (promotional per WP:USERNAME). 08:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still wondering about the connection, but he is causing a nice bit of trouble for himself already. He was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations and now he's been blocked again for avoiding the block with (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). What a first day. Metros232 17:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkey and Ararat arev[edit]

For the past few, oh, I don't know,months, the Turkey article has been bombarded with Ararat arev-style sockpuppetry and vandalism, all detailing something about the Armenian Highlands. Looking at the history and protection log, I've decided to leave the article under full protection indefinitely. I would like some comments on this action, and whether any other viable alternatives are better than the current solution (or rather, plug in the leak). —210physicq (c) 05:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe going to RFCU about the socks is better? Turkey is a highly viewed article, and a full protection is a bit too much. Indef block the socks, and leave on semi protection will be better. --Kzrulzuall TalkContribs 05:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The article is intermittently fully protected, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by not full-protecting it. Check the protection log. —210physicq (c) 05:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
RFCU - bit late. I'll have to hunt for the link now, butHere's the link - a few of us compiled a list of socks (about 40 in all, all the ones we could find) and submitted them to RFCU. Dmcdevit has an eye on them. I'm not sure indefinite full protection is the way to go - it has to be edited, after all - but we do need a breather once in a while. – Riana 05:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Unprotect when you feel like it. It's indefinite, not permanent. I didn't want to give Ararat arev a timer to when he can start vandalizing the article again. —210physicq (c) 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that's the best way to do it for now. I'll keep an eye on it for editprotected requests, I already have it on watch. Dmcdevit has in the past been able to at least slow him down, but he always seems to pop back up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
It's mostly these ranges, which he uses to return whenever the blocks expires: [60], [61]. I've reblocked them for longer this time, and set the protection back to semi. Usually, when he comes back, an IP block will solve it, and a CheckUser will turn up any sleepers he's tried to store up, though I wasn't online as it was happening this time. Dmcdevit·t 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ararat arev sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: This sockpuppet was blocked.

As per [62] that account should be blocked indefinitely. -- Cat chi? 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned user removing a tag from his blocked sockpuppets[