Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive255

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

A block for a MascotGuy sock[edit]

Resolved

Bigfoot's Curse of the Wild (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) editing style fits the editing style mentioned at WP:LTA/MG. The username is also difficult to comprehend and the account edited the userpages of other MascotGuy sockpuppets. Pants(T) 21:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to edit blocked/banned user's userpages, and, actually, I did get accused of sockpuppetry a few times, but just because I edited the blocked/banned user's page (looked like the user you are accusing was correcting templates, like I used to do) doesn't necessarily mean I am a sockpuppet of the blocked/banned user. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... Well, after taking a closer look, the editing style does kind of fit the style provided on WP:LTA. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
User is blocked. Naconkantari 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Witton Albion F.C.[edit]

The Witton Albion F.C. article is under attack from IP accounts and sockpuppets. They seem to want to alter the seating capacity in the infobox and are removing a sourced number with one they put in completely unsourced. The sockpuppets Eir Witt, Noon went, and Then real have all been blocked. The latter two are sleeper accounts created in April. I have no personal opinion about the article but was alerted to it by this AIV report a few days ago. I have it on my watchlist but some more eyes would be nice. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw about this on RFPP about a week ago, and hoped adding a hopefully correct sourced figure would help, but clearly not. One Night In Hackney303 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It hasn't got enough edits for protection, but I've watchlisted it - I've seen them play a couple of time, not sure why anyone thinks they're worth vandalising..... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I threw on basic protection for new users and IPs...and that is when the sleeper accounts began arriving. IrishGuy talk 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so you did, well lets hope no more come out of the bag. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Ip User:70.55.88.157[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for spamming.

User behind ip address User:70.55.88.157 ignore warnings and talks [1] and simple continue with his own way of editing and spamming. He has been already warned 3 times in total from 3 editors [2]? Thanks --Graciella 01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This user has not received a final warning yet. So, it is not worthy of WP:AIV yet. If the user(s) behind that IP does it again, then report that IP to WP:AIV. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for spam. There is no reason to waste time on counting warning templates before blocking in this case. Naconkantari 03:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Herostratus Deleting comments on talk pages[edit]

Resolved: Seemed like it might be trolling to me. In any case, this is clearly unfit for this noticeboard. Grandmasterka 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Like such - !Malomeat 01:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • "This user is a Wikipedian and checks his opinions and ideologies at the door. He trusts that you do, too." hahahaha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.45.54 (talkcontribs)
  • It's a very common and accepted practice to remove comments from talk pages that can be clearly seen as trolling. You may disagree with whether or not that was trolling (and so do I; I would not have removed it myself), but it would be better etiquette to take that directly to the user you disagree with. Certainly before posting a new thread at ANI, which is for issues that actually require admin intervention. --Masamage 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

that was clearly NOT trolling, but a message of image support, and I agree with his comment. THis is Herostratus' on a personal campaign. He needs to stop, let this resolve here before continuing his repetitive edits, especially in light if his comments to never stop, no matter what. ThuranX 02:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Seems like have a go at Herostratus night, SqueakBox 02:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
This has the feel of retailiation and harrassment. He is entitled to edit his talk page and him comments as he sees fit. This "incident" should be closed now...This is just plain silly, a waste of time, and plain bad form!!! DPetersontalk 02:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
this incident was lableled resolved by the editor backing up Hero in the OTHER thread here, above. Come on. When did this become 'Save my buddy-Pedia'? Let's keep the Admins uninvolved, eh? and once again, we're seeing that the issues at hand are being ignored.ThuranX 02:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means! Keep the admins entirely uninvolved in the "Administrators' noticeboard"! Bladestorm 02:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Pretty sure that's not what he meant. X) --Masamage 02:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You'd be right. Krimpet got on me in the previous thread for bringing up a point made by an anon, and instead of discussing it, invoked POINT. Then he came here and closed this thread. Let's let an uninvolved admin address it. ThuranX 02:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of other's user page after owner blanked it while IFD ongoing.[edit]

Resolved: protected. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Oh_yEs_itS_caRly said she was leaving wikipedia and blanked her page in response to about 15 images of herself being speedy templated then listed at IFD. User:N keeps restoring a previous version before the page was blanked by its owner.

I do have a dog in this fight. I support deletion of the images in question and I have also made my feelings known in this comment. I think everyone involved could have been more civil. I had a talk with N on my talk page but he just called me daft. I will not edit the page in question anymoer as I have said my peace. Thanks -- Diletante 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a comment. I do not want this discussion to evolve into conflict regarding my legit edits. I ask that any admin involved in the dispute please recuse yourself from passing any final judgment. The argument is not about your actions, but those of N (talk · contribs) in this case. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
N (talk · contribs), your attitude could be a lot better [3]. The three admins did not condemn my legit IFDs, just that it may have been construed as too harsh. At any rate, the user has left Wikipedia; the images were IFDed for UE, and now they are orphaned. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected. If she wants to blank her userpage, let her. Don't edit war in her own user space over her removal of her page. You've already driven her away. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

cite reason in afd result[edit]

Notice to admins: Even if full consensus is reached in afd, dont forget to mention reason for the result, be the result be either keep or delete. It will avoid confusion and saves time.

Kindly mention criteria with link in case of delete. also in case of keep mention what were the criteria under contention.

recently in many afd's they have written "result was keep" or "result was delete" in short(i dont wish to cite those here). Please avoid this. thanks Racky pt 04:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to user page "It is suspected that this user is a sock puppet of Vinay412.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vinay412 for evidence." As for what this is about, you got me. But it doesn't belong here. Someone can just archive template this section please. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why? I mean, if it's obvious, and the consensus is overwhelmingly clear, and the commenters are, for the most part, following policy, then I don't see a reason to write more than the one word result. I'm probably the wordiest admin when it comes to closing these, though I haven't done it for a while (see this for my finest example of wordiness) but I think there's nothing wrong with one-word results in most cases. Grandmasterka 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
@ User:Swatjester I dont wish to mess up my own thing here.
My point is when someone reviews a closed archived afd, if he gets summary in first line it will save time. And another point is for someone not familiar with afds it is difficult for him to know what exactly were the criteria under contention. Link like deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 will help a lot. Or like result was keep, criteria under contention were wp:notability and wp:verifiable. Comments maynot cite the exact policy no. anywhere.
and mentioning criteria wont be of much trouble for you people i think. Racky pt 05:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, a speedy deletion will have a tag, and will be cited. Secondly, the elements under consideration should be clear from the nomination. --Haemo 06:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jugglemuggler[edit]

Resolved: we can keep this up as long as he can

Jugglemuggler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is another probable sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel. The user recreated Theatre Trash, an article that was previously created by indefinitely blocked sockpuppet User:Sugarkisser. Also see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Ghost. Pants(T) 22:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Has a checkuser ever been run on these accounts? There may be an underlying IP to block. Natalie 06:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BetacommandBot broken?[edit]

Resolved: It's not a bug, it's a feature! No, seriously. EVula // talk // // 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:BetacommandBot has now taken to putting image warnings on talk pages (example: Talk:List_of_pigs_over_1000_pounds). Shouldn't this info be put onto user pages rather than talk pages of the article? Kinda a moot point if the uploader can't address the issue when the warning is in a place he or she might never venture into.--293.xx.xxx.xx 22:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

that is not a bug, its a feature request. It notifies both the article's talkpage and the uploading user. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 22:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nope, it's not broken, it's putting warnings on article talk pages that images are displayed on to let regular editors know that the image is going to be deleted. By the looks of things, it's leaving messages on the uploaders as well. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And I just want to say that I am very appreciative that Betacommand made this change. It allows not only the uploader, but anyone watching article to see that an image needs its source. This has been most useful in allowing me to track down and fix the source and FU criteria for several sports logos. Resolute 22:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I have Citizen Kane on my watchlist, and the message on the talk page alerted me that some images there needed help. With a little help from the crew on #wikipedia, I was able to get proper fair use rationales on the poster images. DarkAudit 23:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is a very useful feature. Though I still completely and utterly loathe the way the FU purge is being handled, this makes it much more fair for those who would like to keep the images. EVula // talk // // 23:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Double agreed. This approach was recommended as a means of enabling all of an article's editors the opportunity to address the issue of the impending loss of an image within the grace period – as opposed to only the uploading editor who might be on vacation, wikibreak, or long since gone. A definite step in the right direction, and I commend BetacommandBot for adopting it! Askari Mark (Talk) 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per EVula ;-) Very useful, even I have ventured into the image namespace to give a few fair use rationales now (and I normally stay very clear of it). Fram 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Possible misuse of userpage?[edit]

Resolved: Good faith inquiry, but general consensus is that it's not a problem. EVula // talk // // 04:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alkivar. Isn't that a violation of WP:UP#NOT? Too much personal information, as well as advertising for himself, what with that big picture and the styles of music he plays?--0rrAvenger 02:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

He could tone it down, but a rather smaller fraction would be fine. Try mentioning it to him personally on his talk page; he might not be aware. --Masamage 02:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks thoroughly appropriate to me, he even includes his biases, SqueakBox 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be advertising, and it's just a (relatively) brief biography of himself. I don't think this is inappropriate, based on my understanding. --Haemo 02:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input everyone. Also, I just noticed he has spoofed the page title to link to his commercial website. Is that allowed?--0rrAvenger 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The layout makes it look like there's a lot more text than there actually is, I think. As for the link, I don't see anything in WP:UP#NOT that disallows that. I didn't even notice it was a link until you mentioned anything. --Hemlock Martinis 02:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
It's permissible to have a link to your personal website. This guy is clearly a prolific contributor, so I don't think we need to worry about him being here just to advertise himself. --Masamage 02:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but I've checked a lot of userpages and I know a "MySpace page" when I see one. Given Alkivar's contribution history, and the relevance of much of the userpage content to Wikipedia, it's totally okay. Placeholder account 04:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He can give away as much personal information as he likes; he's over the age of 18. Neil  09:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Havesmite and User:Onlykeys - sockpuppetry?[edit]

Recently, Havesmite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting articles about fancruft related to Xenosaga, in defiance of a consensus made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms in Xenosaga (2nd nomination), claiming there was no discussion for the redirects. Yesterday, he was blocked for 31 hours for reverting the changes and attempting to recreate some of the pages, but almost immediately Onlykeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) signed up and began reverting the same articles Havesmite was trying to restore. Looks like an obvious block-evading sock to me, but I want to see what the folks with the tools think. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The place to report this is at WP:SSP. Od Mishehu 14:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) After EdwinCasadoBaez was blocked [4] He came back under another IP address 69.120.74.120 and 69.119.127.181 . Less than 2 hours later. [5] [6] . He has admitted to this and basically refuses to abide by the block. [7] YoSoyGuapo 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC) He was given a severe warning and told to observe his block. [8]

He is now back again with over 15 edits on a talk page being extremely disruptive. [9] as well as removed sockpuppet warnings [10] as well as other irrational arguments [11] YoSoyGuapo 06:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IP blocked, original block extended. Grandmasterka 15:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Trojani[edit]

Following a breach of 3RR at Illyrians that led to a block by Sam Blacketer, Trojani (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) tried to evade it on six different ocassions using IPs at that same article. After receiving separate warnings and resets of said block, and following his latest attempt to circumvent it that took place just minutes ago, I've proceeded to block him indefinitely. Further evidence of his behavior and the IPs he used to that effect can be found at his talk page. Please feel free to review. Regards, Phaedriel - 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lord Hume of Berwick[edit]

Please could an admin urgently look at the arguments going on with this page. One editor is clearly attempting to push an untested claim to this barony on behalf of a family which is clearly POV. Admin User:BrownHairedGirl has previously looked at it, but that is all and is now away. She suggests another admin (see too her Talk Page). David Lauder 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators are not magical content deciderers. You need Wikipedia:Request for comment. Neil  09:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew[edit]

Please don't come here just to argue. Try using your own talk pages, the WP:EPISODE talk page or an RFC. Thanks Nick 10:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

For the second time, Matthew has mass reverted episodes I have redirected (see #Mass deletion of television articles by TTN) per that a open consensus is required. He is extremely biased in his actions, yet he seems to believe that he is acting as some sort of mediator. He doesn't seem to care if there were open discussions or not either. Both Talk:List of Entourage episodes#Single episodes and Talk:List of Drake & Josh episodes#Single episodes were open for days with no response (the IP in the first one was just going from list to list with another generic message), but he still reverted them. This obviously doesn't fall under Matthew objecting to the redirects, but rather him objecting to WP:EPISODE. It would be nice if someone could ask him to back off from this, and instead pursue changing the guideline like he should be doing. TTN 10:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should cease disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, clearly you are also biased (so I'm not sure how that adds any weight to your argument). You've been told by many people to stop what you are doing, people not being aware of a section on a talk page isn't good enough reason to proceed when you've faced mass opposition. Remember (and this is the key word): guideline. That's all it is, even if it did support you. Matthew 10:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You're seriously saying that I should bring in outside people to get these redirected? That is the only possible way a "consensus" by your standards is going to happen. I also fail to see any sort of policy requiring a consensus. I get some people pushing for a discussion beforehand, but this is on the side of ridiculous. I am not making a point; I am trying follow the style that the guideline has given instead of blindly looking the other way. I would be pushing a point if this was all because someone redirected "my" episode articles. Methinks one stating that all articles should exist regardless of verifiability and notability is the one pushing the point here. TTN 10:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Boy, you should to buckle up your 'tude.
Wikipedia:Consensus, "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus", your actions have been vehemently opposed, "If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline", we have one see WP:EPISODE... if you wish to propose a change to make it more stringent to support you then do it. Please also have a look over Wikipedia:Consensus#Reasonable consensus-building. Matthew 10:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet, there are no disagreements; there's only you. You cannot decide that there is a disagreement over those single episodes; you need to let the single editors do that. Your disagreement is with WP:EPISODE, not with single series. Each one needs to be done on its own, yet you're lumping it up. And again, where is it saying that a discussed consensus is required? How are single messages not enough? TTN 10:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks on Talk:Hippie[edit]

Mombas (talk · contribs) keeps using Talk:Hippie to post personal attacks against me instead of discussing the article. His current attacks consist of repeatedly telling me that I am a "control freak" and advising me to "better serve your time by returning to your former role as a member of the cheer squad for the pro-Zionist hecklers", and is now using the talk page to wage a campaign of "either blocking or censoring User:Viriditas".[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] He has also made a large number of false accusations against me, inferring that I am engaging in "persistent vandalism; persistent gross incivility; persistent harassment; persistently posting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons; persistent spamming; edit warring or revert warring; and breaching the sock puppetry policy." In response to these persistent attacks, I have asked Mombas to stop twice [17][18]. In response, he has begun claiming that I am making personal attacks and has waged a harassment campaign on my talk page replete with a continued barrage of false personal attack warnings [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] which is quite bizarre. I am requesting administrative intervention by a neutral party. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 10:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed speedy template[edit]

User:Eurovision+rain=sad removed a Template:nonsense template that I placed on his article Simon Mistry [27], which I suspect was created in violation of WP:POINT after a I marked an article about his band as not notable. The Simon Mistry article is about one of the band members.

Paul Carpenter 10:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted, user warned for remvoing speedy tags - I'll keep an eye on him. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jamez21[edit]

James21 seems to be a 14 year old kid that wants to create a webpage about his pal. Unfortunately the kid is not notable. Joshua Denis and Joshua denis have been deleted repeatedly, but he keeps recreating the page which is essentially a copy of Origami. Valentinian T / C 11:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

this needs flushing as well. --Fredrick day 11:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD tag added to the latter, I don't have the technical ability to delete, so if an admin would... thanks in advance, Navou 12:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Juro reincarnation[edit]

Svetovid (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a very disruptive editor, revert warrer (always playing out the 3RR) [28] [29], has a strong anti-Hungarian sentiment [30], deletes every hungarian words/aliases, despite that those villages/towns have hungarian majority and they are officially bilingual places, very agressive, and constant POV pusher (kinda "slovakia über alles" style). User constantly moves english articles to it's slovak names [31], despite this is english and not slovak wikipedia, deletes every Hungarian stuff from them [32], calling them lies, whoever puts them back, are called ireedentist/nationalist/racist whatever, you know, guess what else. This behave perfectly fits to indefinite banned user, User:Juro, who's behave, style, POV pushing, and deleting of Hungarian names in Hungary-related articles (with the reason given also) are perfectly the same as Juro. Note also, that Juro is a notorious sock puppeter [33], and ban evader [34], [35], and edits from dinamic IPs and proxys, so he managed to use some of his sockpuppets almost half year! He also impersonated other users, user:VinceB [36]. I am absolutely sure, these two are the same, even if IP does not match, Svetovid acts like Juro, speaks like Juro, same POV edits he does, accuses the same with every hungarian users, also deletes hungarian names from bilingual towns and villages as Juro, and also moves articles from english to their Slovak names, as Juro. If these two aren't the same, than they are twins. --193.224.247.34 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block of user MGlosenger for vandalism[edit]

User MGlosenger has made it his personal mission to vandalise the Spectra-Morphic page by deleting all of the content and replacing it with information on Australian football coach William Lang. Everytime I restore the content, he replaces all of it minutes later. Spectra-Morphic was a legitimate sound technique used in the 1960s and 1970s, and I'm not sure why MGlosenger has taken it upon himself to call it a hoax and replace the content numerous times each day. Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soundgeek (talkcontribs).

Edits like these ([37], [38], [39], [40]) by MGlosenger (talk · contribs) do seem a little WP:POINTy. However, his point seems valid - without any evidence that "Spectra-Morphic" actually exists (in the form of reliable sources), the article should be speedily deleted as a hoax. I can't get any Google hits for it, but if you can find sources the article could be re-created. I'm going to recuse myself from taking any administrative action here, however, since User:MGlosenger recently managed to bait me into a discussion at Talk:Ephedra. MastCell Talk 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I warned the user, and told him to take it to AFD if he think it should be deleted. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Bjelleklang. First off, hoaxes are not speedy deletion candidates unless they can qualify as "pure vandalism". Second, lack of ghits is not that convincing to me: this is supposed to be a sound processing technique from the 1960s, I'm not surprised it's not easy to find on the internet. If MGlosenger wants the article deleted, he should go to AfD, not vandalize the article. Mangojuicetalk 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Please check the history of the article and count how many times Soundgeek has removed the tags asking for sources. It might be difficult for someone else to find sources proving that an obscure recording technique from the 1960s existed. When the person who created 100% of the text of the article can't provide a single source for it and destroys the evidence that he got asked for sources what is the most likely explanation ? 192.250.34.161 14:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
MGlosner (talk · contribs) dumping the William Lang text into the article is disruptive, so a warning is totally appropriate. That said, Spectra-Morphic is setting off my hoax detectors; there are a lot of red flags here. Mango may be correct that given the date on this it's probably not going to oozing ghits, but if it doesn't get sourcing sometime soon it will probably end up on AFD.--Isotope23 16:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectra-morphic&diff=136250633&oldid=136250125 ; why is Soundgeek himself redirecting Spectra-morphic to William Lang ? Could it be that Soundgeek and MGlosner are the same person and he just forgot which one he was logged as ? 192.250.34.161 14:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

User Sal Slytherin[edit]

As predicted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Æthelbert of Kent and User:Hel Hufflepuff, User:Sal Slytherin has appeared and is making vandalistic edits like his two Hogwarts-named associates or sockpuppets. Anthony Appleyard 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they are trying to open the chamber on Wikipedia. NK has blocked him. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RUReady2Testify (talk · contribs · logs)[edit]

New editor from Estonia seeks expert help and guidance, particularly interested in learning more about WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. User:DLX and myself have interacted extensively with him, but he now feels he is being bullied. I left a message for an uninvolved admin to review the situation, but it seems he is off-line. Any help and/or guidance gratefully accepted. --John 17:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Impostor[edit]

This user is using my name and posing as me, spamming/vandalizing articles that I post at in an effort to blame me. I suspect he's the same vandal that has been dealt with by me at Wookieepedia. I would appreciate it if he could be blocked. Kuralyov 18:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User is gone. Naconkantari 18:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Threat[edit]

Resolved: Pretty serious, it would seem. :) EVula // talk // // 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how serious this threat is, but I thought I would bring it to everyone's attention. IrishGuy talk 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was indef blocked by Yamamoto. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Indef block doesn't notify the school. ThuranX 02:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've sent a short email with a link to the diff to the email address on the school website. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 02:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I sent this one to CheckUser. It could possibly be that someone is trying to ruin someone else's name, because the threat included someone's name in it. Once the cops get the IP address used, the cops can use this as evidence to send the death threat maker to the detention home and clear up a possible case of identity theft, because the death threat issuer stated either his name or the name of a person he or she wanted ruined. Jesse Viviano 23:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a thorough job, thanks to Zman and Jesse Viviano for their follow up! ThuranX 23:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I just got a reply from school officials saying thanks, no details. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dailykos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

I added this to UAA, but it's been sitting for a while and nobody seems to know exactly how to handle it, so I figured that maybe I should leave a report here to open up some discussion. This user, who registered in November of '05 and has edited occasionally since then, has a username that is substantially identical to that of Daily Kos, a well-known political website. In an edit made earlier today, the account claimed to be Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, the founder of the Daily Kos site. It seems to me that we should attempt to verify his identity, to eliminate the possibility of an impostor (and make open any COI issues, since the account has edited both Daily Kos and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga). Does anyone know the right way to ask for verification, and is that the right course to pursue here? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Block and get them to post on their site stating that the WP user is the same person is the usual procedure. --GDonato (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't have The Tools, so if he should be blocked, someone else needs to do it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's now moot, since he's just confirmed to me, via e-mail, that he is in fact who he says he is. Should I file this anywhere (send a copy to the foundation, maybe)? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Forward it to OTRS. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How do I do that? Sorry, I find the OTRS page kind of unclear. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute--Jersey Devil 20:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Much too often user:Dbachmann thinks himself qualified to insert his point of view, pretending some kind of undisputed truth or "generally accepted" wisdom without bothering to source. He keeps vandalizing my edits on Nordwestblock on the pretext that he wants to keep Wikipedia "clean from fantastic speculation", even though he comes up with fantastic speculations of himself. Indeed, he deleted a {{Fact}} tag and inserted his OR instead: [41]. I already addressed his inclination to come up with statement of his own, even to contradict scholars inserting unsourced personal views and comments as if he was qualified to do so on equal terms. To get an impression I refer to my extensive admonitions at Talk of the Runic alphabet: [42]. He does not seem to like that I mention scholars that cast doubt on what he likes to prevail as the one and only truth (like the validity of the Kurgan hypothesis or assumed early Germanic invasions originating from Scandinavia) and just keep on contradicting sourced information, and now he violates WP:AGF by reverting edits on the pretext of my alleged "agenda" - thus showing a mere personal grudge against my contributions. The only agenda I have is to contradict unsourced statements taken for granted - such as many of the statements DBachmann is used to impose on Wikipedia. Insisting on obsolete views without bothering to source is WP:OR. Worse, to delete any suggestion of contradictory information is a serious violation of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. The extreme effort DBachmann invests in Wikipedia are no justification for "not giving a hoot" about the efforts of others to supply valuable information. Please read this argument of DBachmann for reverting my edit, where he admits not to give a hoot and still insists his ideas (of Chatti and Cherusci not being Germanic and instead dominated by a Germanic superstratum) to be "undisputed": utterly untrue, since such ideas are disputed, and his "rectification" is without any sourcing: [43]. His other reverts of this article are disruptive in the sense they intend to destroy perfectly valid contextual information, like here: [44]. I think this kind of behaviour deserves to be addressed. Rokus01 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why does this require administrator attention? Content disputes are best addressed through dispute resolution. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't consider this a simple content dispute. Dbachmann takes the habit of abusing the Wikipedia policies I mentioned on a personal basis and on a large scale. Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a dispute on content. We don't settle content disputes on AN/I, you might want to check out WP:Resolving disputes to see how to deal with this issue.--Jersey Devil 20:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I must say in Dbachmann's defense that he is doing some great work fighting to keep local patriotic OR out of the Nordwestblock article. Rokus01 is writing about the pre-historic Nordwestblock by referring to a late Dutch mythology and the genetics of modern Dutchmen.--Berig 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This are the words of a Scandinavian patriot, waging edit wars on obsolete "out of Scandinavia" information concerning the Germanic origin. This is also one of the NPOV views Dbachmann adheres to. Both administrators have an habit in deleting information that would be in aparent contradiction to those views. Also, previously Dbachmann did not show any scruples in defending the nationalists of "Greater Iran".Rokus01 21:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Please don't use this page to pursue your content dispute, go through dispute resolution instead. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could you please specify why you think this is a content dispute? This suggests you assume the dispute on content is more important to me than my denunciation of the violation of Wikipedia policies mentioned above. I don't ask different views on content to be addressed, but the way how simple rules are are disobeyed. According to what I know violation of WP rules is an incident. Rokus01 22:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To ignore an incident (or rather, a pattern of incidents) and dismiss violations of WP policy like this, on this very place, would be an incident by itself. I insist administrators here to specify their reasons for ignoring WP guidelines and call such infractions something else, and subsequently check this subject as resolved. Addressing WP:AGF, WP:OR and a list of other things reflecting NPOV edits and edit warring deals with an incident, not content. Rokus01 05:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of arbcom cases relating to Dbachmann at the moment if you have anything to say. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

75.4.23.134 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

Less than a minute after I mentioned the name of User:Artaxiad on Talk:Armenia, Subartu And Sumer, a likely sock of this permabanned user started trolling and revert warring in the article with claims along the lines of "most" western sources now reveal Armenians have been in the Armenian Highland well over four thousand years", an assertion which has been instantly debunked on Talk:Armenia. Please investigate. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The editing pattern is the one of Artaxiad. The IP is listed in spam databases [45]. I have blocked the IP as an Artaxiad's sock but maybe the open proxy might serve better Alex Bakharev 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Seems pretty clear to me that these allegations are unfounded; in any case, WP:DR would be a better venue than WP:ANI -- Samir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka[edit]

User:Blnguyen and User:Sarvagnya have started their WP:POV motivated edits of the following

[46][47][48][49]

[50]

Please take immediate action. Still the consensus is not reached on WP:RS.Lustead 08:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Their action is fully appropriate. Your attempts at forum shopping are not. If you care to scroll up, you will see the page explicitly says that it is not part of our dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Lustead, you asked for "neutral editors" to comment. I presume you mean that excluded the Tamils and Sinhalese editors....Now with Ghirla here, and Gnanapiti objecting via his removal of these tripod sites, socialist lobby groups and these ethnic lobby groups, we have 8-1 saying that these sources are hopeless. When are you going to give up? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
And I note that both you and Lotlil registered within one hour of each other, and both seemed to work out how to use popups and ANI within your first ten edits. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[51],[52]

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me that these allegations are unfounded; if anything it's Lustead and company that are injecting POV pseudo-sources into these articles. -- Samir 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Auto-revert, User:80.34.17.209[edit]

Resolved: for now. Natalie 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the correct area but here goes:

Persistently inserting mention of Barry Ley (determined non notable as in the archives of deleted article Barry Ley) in Dalton, Richmondshire, North Yorkshire, including the freewebs site of Barry Ley

Malicious/spiteful and pointless reverts of user Nate1481: Special:Contributions/Auto-revert

appears to be same person as confirmed sockpuppeteer banned user DrParkes: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DrParkes who is almost certainly Barry Ley himself

Persistently reverting Brazilian Jiu-jitsu to the factually unsupported versions of banned user DrParkes

obvious sockpuppetry and malicious intent in general, including creation of obvious attempts at bot impersonation with User:Helpbot and User:Assist-bot (also check editing histories of those against those of IP listed, Auto-revert, and the banned sockpuppet accounts of DrParkes)

Intervention requested. FlowWTG 08:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Only just got on of would have brought this myself, a large proportion of the reverted edits are of me using AWB to change Martial Arts to Martial arts & other bits while working through. The added freewebs link shows Barry Ley as a blue belt in BJJ the second rank so inherently not notable without somthing more. There are also some comments on the Dalton talk page.--Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Also note User:88.17.108.158 following the same pattern. FlowWTG 08:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I have indefinitely blocked User:Auto-revert for being (or posing as) a bot created without express permission of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, causing deliberate disruption aimed to harrass selected users. I do not believe an account created solely to revert war is of any benefit to Wikipedia. Both IPs softblocked for a few months. Neil  09:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:PostrevertHas just done exactly the same, including the misleading summaries, on the Dalton page --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 11:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Postrevert indef blocked, userpages of all of the above deleted (WP:DENY) and some pages watchlisted. Sigh. Natalie 12:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Add User:Undo-edit to that list as well. Natalie 14:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:88.17.112.11 is also following the same pattern Kaly99 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hiddensonyvaio and User:JoeBender[edit]

Resolved: both editors now blocked - Alison 19:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of these users have been very busy vandals tonight. Sheep81 09:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Neil  09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sanitycheck (talk · contribs), Jerusalem[edit]

I'm apprehensive about blocking Sanitycheck (talk · contribs) as I'm sure someone's going to say "I'm involved" and that "this is a content dispute", but this user has been merely the latest in a string of editors whose primary agenda is eliminating the fact that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel without so much as leaving a word on the talk page. The semi-protection has been helpful, keeping the majority of these issues confined to the talk page, especially with a Muslim extremist site directing people to this article, but there are always a few that get through. There was a temporary reprieve from 3RR for editors reverting such edits while this article was today's featured article (May 23), but I'm not sure if that exemption still applies. Is it vandalism or a "content dispute" that falls under the guise of the three-revert rule? I'm weary about reverting again... -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I blocked the guy for 24 hours for clear 3RR violation yesterday & Yamla just declined the unblock. It's clear that he's here just for pushing his own agenda. If he persists, well, he'll just get blocked for a longer period - Alison 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

129.133.124.xxx, second request for admin review[edit]

Can an admin please review the edits of 129.133.124.195 (talk · contribs)? Along with this look at 129.133.124.194 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.199 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.203 (talk · contribs), 129.133.124.204 (talk · contribs), and 129.133.124.217 (talk · contribs) -- edit patterns show this almost certainly to be one editor. In my opinion, there's a block-worthy history of trolling and incivility there. Posted previously here but no admin has responded and there continue to be more unproductive edits and (what looks to me like) trolling from these IPs. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with these edits. Could you provide diffs for any comments or additions you found objectionable? TimVickers 21:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you look at the diffs in the previous ANI post I linked? Also, there's this, for incivility; this and this for personal attacks ("I think you're a clown"); this and numerous other similar remarks refusing to provide sources on topics the user edit-wars over. Or just look at the entire Copyvio section of Talk:Kappa Alpha Society for a completely derailed discussion in which the user assumes bad faith of every other editor and ignores even the most basic pointers to Wikipedia copyright policy. And see the bottom of Talk:Wesleyan University for other users' concerns with this IP, and the second round (first is here) of strange imitative non-replies to my concerns about this IP's editing behavior. I really feel this is worth an admin's scrutiny and a possible block for trolling, since the editor several times disclaims any interest in improving Wikipedia articles, but seems interested only in revert-warring or using Talk pages to score points. Please take a look at the diffs here and in the archived post and take the time to read the two Talk pages linked here and see if you agree. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Eksdee1[edit]

Deleted content from Lito y Polaco and replaced it with gibberish. After warning him on his talk page he removed the warning in order to hide any evidence of vandalism. --Pasajero 18:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove messages from their talk page after reading them. Unless they are committing further vandalism, there is no need for further warnings. Any previous warnings are still preserved in the page history. Vassyana 19:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley[edit]

Could i request someone to look at the page? --Kim D. Petersen 18:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Page semi-protected and IP warned. -- Avi 19:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Raising this article at WP:BLP/N as well. Vassyana 19:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

69.119.7.8[edit]

Resolved: WP:ANI isn't WP:AIV. EVula // talk // // 00:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Added nonsense to Lito y Polaco. --Pasajero 18:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The user's last edit was 3 minutes before the first warning. Funpika 19:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder's back again[edit]

Prepare for another attack by SummerThunder (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)--I just caught a very likely sock of his, 0CD dick (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Since his socks usually come in waves, admins need to get ready to play whack-a-mole.Blueboy96 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks to other editors[edit]

User:Naus has made a rude comment towards other editors.[53] He has a generally negative attitude as well. [54].

User:JakeLM's negative comments is even more harsh by labeling the talk page of Goguryeo as a "giant circlejerk for Korean ethnocentrists". [55]

I believe that action be taken against these editors. thank you. Good friend100 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The former has a warning template posted by you - that is the correct action. The latter's section seems to be gone from the talk page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with editor[edit]

Counter-revolutionary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) insists on restoring a personal attack made by a troll on an article talk page. He has twice restored it claiming it was a good faith edit. General Peabody (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was a clear troll and not acting in good faith, and the editor in question is merely restoring the comment to be disruptive. Administrative intervention requested, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have found this myself and have not been told by the complainant. I made it clear I was acting in good faith and my soloution was to strke through the text, which I don't see anything wrong with - considering I did not insert it! --Counter-revolutionary 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You restored a personal attack on two editors you have previously been involved in a dispute with. One Night In Hackney303 19:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Technically there is no consensus for removing PAs in general. I think it may have been a better idea to goto his talk page rather than going straight to ANI. However we should probably wait for what an administrator says. Funpika 19:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no consensus on removing them, but reinserting them - in full knowledge of what they say and even if you didn't originally type it and even if you strike it through - isn't really on. I will re-remove the attack; please don't reinsert it. Neil  20:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Douglaswood (talk · contribs)[edit]

The above user, apparently an entertainment executive, is attempting to hijack the Douglas Wood article (which is about a former hostage) to write about himself. Reverted and warned once, but went back and re-inserted the autobiographical material. RJASE1 Talk 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Added a sterner warning; if he continues, he'll be blocked. MastCell Talk 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
He's doing it again, please block. RJASE1 Talk 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If that doesn't get the point across, the next block should be indefinite. MastCell Talk 20:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Irvine Laidlaw, Baron Laidlaw[edit]

Long-term, serious vandalism on this page by persistent vandal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irvine_Laidlaw%2C_Baron_Laidlaw&diff=prev&oldid=136440313). Consider page protection. Batonrouger 20:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP does requests quicker. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - main vandal now on 6-month schoolblock - Alison 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

M.deSousa using Wikipedia to push off-WP agenda[edit]

Hello;

M.deSousa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has long been using Wikipedia to push the claims of a fringe imposter pretender by the name of Rosario Poidimani (who claims to be "His Royal Highness Rosario Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Braganza, Duke of Braganza". Obviously, these are fanaticisms with no basis in fact. Manuel De Sousa, however, frequently reverts articles to POV forms which he has edited, even using changing NPOV in a weasel-ish manner in an attempt to foster legitimacy for this self-styled Duke which he has been connected to (Manuel De Sousa used to post on alt.talk.royalty from the email address grandoffice@royalhouseofportugal.org (the sham website purporting to give the truth of the "true" queen of Portugal) click "view profile" near the top of that post). Manuel De Sousa also labels some edits contrary to his as libel. Those might constitute veiled legal threats if you ask me.

I don't know why this man was unblocked in the first place. He had a number of sockpuppets while banned and still has a number of suspected sockpuppets. Going to his contributions page and clicking the differences for just about any of his edits illustrates everything I have said. He tries to "convince" people of the "duke's" claim to the throne of Portugal (Rosario was actually arrested recently for fraud, forging documents, extortion, and criminal association) and Manuel De Sousa is an associate of his making edits for Rosario's vanity and to push his false claims. I feel that he ought to be permanently banned. Dealing with his vandalism is tiresome. Charles 20:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A Wikipedian, Choess, also notes Manuel De Sousa's edits and links to one of his off-site posts. Charles 20:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this guy was banned long ago. At any rate, I've blocked him indefinitely. – Steel 21:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I really feel it was what needed to be done. Charles 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet concern[edit]

Resolved: socks of banned User:Molag Bal interfering in an RfA, now blocked. Note: they were not related to the RfA candidate. Moving on in the interests of fairness to the candidate - Alison 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am concerned that Malbour enziz, Noble of pemberton, Crowdman 4000, and Pax vulcurcross may be operated by a user listed at RfA, User:Pax:Vobiscum. All of the users listed may be a part of a voting fraud at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pax:Vobiscum. The first four users listed above have voiced their support for User:Pax:Vobiscum within minutes of eachother. The fourth user listed, Pax vulcurcross has a similar name to the RfA candidate. The first four users' only or almost only contributions are to the RfA. The first four users give vague reasons without even appearing to know anything about the candidate at hand. They also give vague reasons without any real reasons. Most newbies wouldn't know anything about RfA, either. The first four are obviously sockpuppets of eachother, but I just wanted to confirm that the RfA candidate at hand was not operating sockpuppets. I trust Pax:Vobiscum, but most users also trusted Robdurbar, too, so I just wanted to make sure. I was going to list at WP:CHECK, but it said to try other means first, and for a situation in which involved voting fraud that does not effect the outcome, to list here. Thanks. Cool Bluetalk to me 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Something's definitely not right about that. Only contribs on all four are RfA votes???? I don't think so ... - Alison 00:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • What do you mean "I don't think so..."? Cool Bluetalk to me 00:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I mean, I suspect sockery here. On who's behalf, I do not know, and for that reason I strongly recommend this go to WP:RFCU - Alison 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Inconveniently an RFCU request probably would not be answered until after the RFA closes, and would most likely be denied if the suspected socks did not affect the RFA's outcome. Funpika 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Could we notify the people who close RFA's of this, and suspend the decision until a RFCU can take place. BH (Talk) 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
            • The discussion needs to be closed I believe. Decision made, meaning either Pax is a sysop or not. Though I could be wrong and a suspended decision would be good enough for the Checkusers. A WP:BN notice seems appropriate. Perhaps we should also contact a Checkuser about this. Funpika 01:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I should preface this comment by saying I'm not an admin. However closing the RfA now would be a bad idea, because if sockpuppets were used, there is no way he should be sysopped. I also just notified the user of this thread. BH (Talk) 01:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
                • I have posted a message on WP:BN. Also, I noticed that the SPA comments were already discounted and will in no way effect the discussion, I highly doubt that a Checkuser will see if there was sockpuppetry however because of the lack of effect on vote outcome. Funpika 01:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've checked these out with CheckUser. All four of these users are sockpuppets of the vandal Molag Bal (talk · contribs). The admin candidate in question is unrelated to them. Dmcdevit·t 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Good. Let's block them and move on, in the interests of the RfA candidate. I'll mark this as closed now - Alison 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the others are dubious too. Pipermantolisopa (talk · contribs) has been around only since May 15. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'crats will doubtlessly take all this into account when the RfA closes - Alison 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Why hasn't this guy been tagged yet?[edit]

After seeing this via a current DYK article up front, I noticed that both of User:Ultrabeater's Talkpage and contributions look extremely funny. He has been tagged numerous times for uploading copyrighted images and work, and it looks like he hasn't heard of 3RR due to his edits. Does he need a friendly nudge into the right direction or is it suspicious activity??--293.xx.xxx.xx 00:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Block (and now page protection) review[edit]

I indefinitely blocked Vranak (talk · contribs) today following what I considered to be general incivility and (what I considered to be) a personal attack. This user has a talk page history of other editors complaining about similar general behavior, particularly disruption at the reference desks.

I don't consider an indef block to be out of line for this, however, as this account is indisputably a sock puppet of indef blocked Cjwright79 (talk · contribs). Cjwright79 was blocked late last year for the same type of incivility and disruption, plus plenty of vandalism and sock puppets (see User talk:Cjwright79 for a good run-down, including previous ANI threads). I, and Consumed Crustacean (talk · contribs), knew in December that this account was the same editor, but kept a lid on it as it was generally not abusive and had pledged to leave his disruption days behind.

I've blocked this account because it appears to have generally exhausted the patience of much of the community by acting in generally the same manner as its predecessors, the personal attack (and subsequent snide responses to several editors expressing that such statements were out-of-line) was the proverbial straw. I felt it was no longer necessary to let a previously indef-blocked user be disruptive.

There has since been a denied unblock request and several other comments at User talk:Vranak. I felt that Vranak's most recent edits to the page amounted to trolling and protected the page.

I welcome anyone & everyone's input here: did I overstep my bounds? is the block justified? was the talk page protection justified? If any other admin wishes to undo any of my actions, I will willingly step aside. Thanks, — Scientizzle 01:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved so I won't attempt to review, but I blocked another sockpuppet of the same guy today, see User talk:Mathiemood. He seems like a garden variety kook/troll to me, but any review or other input is welcome. I don't care one way or another on talk page protection- let him insult whoever he wants, it only makes him look like more of a kook. Friday (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of RS sources[edit]

After I have a complaint about removal of RS sources from Wikipedia article to an admin (see here) including my intention to use wiki process to resolve the conflict he then began a process of removing sources from articles that I have created (see here), (see here), (see here), (See here), (see here)

There are genuinely differences of opinion about this source in Wikipedia. For example uninviolved neutral user was quoted when confronted with the RS sources of Tamilnet.

[56]

Then on Sri Lankan reconciliation project the following compromise was reached about the source see here

When such diverse opinion is out there about this source for admin to refuse to follow wiki process that has been suggested is uncalled for and will only lead to edit wars as I am sure more people will revert his edits. Some other uninvolved admin needs to get involved to resolve this issue. Thanks Taprobanus 13:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, RGTraynor also suggested that perhaps Sinhalese and Tamil people recuse themselves. Are you going to do so? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to say that includes you because although you claim what ever you are to be, your edits parralel edit with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that one does not have to be an Indian or Sri Lankan to be part of a partisan camp. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. So you tell us Taprobanus that there was a consensus reached here at the WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. Well, has Blnguyen been invited to participate? Has he done it in case he was invited? If you say that you have reached a consensus about TamilNet being a qualified source (QS) than why aren't you using an explicit attribution (TamilNet reports that...)? Maybe Blnguyen was reverting on the grounds that it was used as a reliable source (RS)? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
He was not part of the decision, but not every wikipedian can be part of such decisions any way. As the reconciliation decision is not a formal wikipedia decision such as a result of mediation or arbitration. It is as binding as suggestion:)
Now if he agrees with the suggestion, (now that he knows about) he can edit using it. But If I am not mistaken he did remove Tamilnet from a statement which explicitly stated as pro-rebel (see here). That means he is not all amenable to any use of Tamilnet in Wikipedia. His point of view is just one point of view.See here for history of involvement in Sri Lanka related articles in the past.
User:RGTraynor another experienced non involved third party (that is not a Sri Lankan or Indian who has an axe to grind in this conflict including me and Blnguyen)said very clearly that he will accept Tamilnet as a RS source.[57] So we have diverse opinion here about this source.
Already Blnguyen edit patterns which went after many articles that I created has resulted in an edit war where there was non for a long time. These were stable articles including an AFD that went through with minimal content deletion including sources. That is a lot of neutral non involved third party editors looked at them and decided that they were written from a neutral point of view with reputable sources. So how do we solve this problem? when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds who say have such opposite views about this source and yet others who are non involved say it is a RS source. (I will post here other explicit statements supporting this point from number of non involved third paties here) What is the next step ? Mediation and what is the final step ? Arbitration ? I am sick and tired of wikipedians indulging in vicious edit wars based on one source. If we decide it is not RS, then it is not RS. If we decide that it is RS then it canbe used. If we decide is QS then it QS. What ever it is I want more than a mere suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not Indian, I am of Vietnamese ethnicity, and RGTraynor did not declare Tamilnet to be an RS. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
We can claim to be what ever we are in the internet. I suppose the French colonials were very fond of the game of Cricket in Vietnam:)) Seriously just like I am a Canadian, similarly you are Vietnamese but your edit patterns in parallel with other very specific minded Indian editors shows that you have very strong conflict of interest in Dravidian and Tamil related subject matters as was noted during many entanglements with now banned User:WikiRaja. So lets us not go there about ethnicities here and lets us stick to the discussion about Tamilnet. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiRaja was a two-bit troll, intent on promoting clouded ethocentric agenda, and racist myths. WikiRaja was an anti-Brahmin also intent in working to denigrate the contributions of Iyers to Tamil culture. Might I remind you that Sarathambal would not be off limits to his ire?Bakaman 03:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because you've used Tamilnet and other such patently partisan and non-RS on scores of articles doesnt mean they become reliable sources. These sites are avowed sympathisers of the militant outfits and in some cases just the 'media arm' of the militant outfits. They dont stand a remote chance of making it past WP:RS. Any dispassionate editor, editing in good faith wouldnt use these sources, especially since there is no dearth of bonafide reliable sources like BBC or the mainstream Indian media(print and internet) etc.,. This is not some conflict raging in some 'unexplored, unknown to the modern world' corner of the globe. It is happening in SriLanka, a member nation of the UN and the entire world is watching. So, there is absolutely no dearth of reliable sources(and non-partisan ones at that). Of course, if you adhered strictly to WP:RS, you may not be able to keep a score of every gunshot and every loss of limb as you're doing now, but it will leave wikipedia in better encyclopedic shape.

And what do you mean by - "...when we have editors such as myself and Blnguyen who potentially have conflict of interest because of our backrounds..."? Are you suggesting that you have a conflict of interest here? If that is the case, I'd request you to stop editing these articles. You really shouldnt be editing these articles in the best interests of the 'pedia. And as for insinuating that Blnguyen or 'Indian editors' have a COI going here, I'd suggest that you think twice before throwing around such accusations.

And please read WP:RS, WP:EL and related policies once before you infest the references and EL sections with links to google videos, random geocities, tripod sites, blogs, or a random site of some Tamil 'sangam' in some corner of the world etc.. apart from the staple tamilnet, tamilnation cruft. Thanks. Sarvagnya 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a simple question, will you stop editing Tamil related article because of your Bangalorean Tamil backround. Seriously, you have been noted by many editors many times in the ANI. So let us talk about Tamilnet then. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by notbakaman (talkcontribs).
Blnguyen is vietnamese. He is interested in India (india is one sixth of the worlds population, a lot of people are), and I fail to see a conflict of interest. As for tamilnet, it isnt neutral but not unreliable. The views on it are divided with some calling it LTTE and some calling it slightly biased. Tamilnet shouldn't be, however, the principal source for which notability is established. As for the fighting between editors, Taprobanus has been willing to discuss instead of reverting to trolling like 213.181.56.12 (talk · contribs) who we are led to believe is a Tamil in Iraq (via traceroute). As if the plight of Tamils is the most important worry in Iraq. Back to the subject, the analogy to FOX is interesting and demands some further discussion.Bakaman 22:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give my 2¢ here. Partisan websites of any nature or background cannot be automatically classified at not reliable. As per Bakaman, it isn't neutral but not unreliable. I also agree w/ Bakaman in that no article should rely on one disputed source. One thing that i noticed and may not have appeared to you is that after classifying it as a qualified source, it has been inserted as a reliable source. As i said above, if it has to be used, than obviously wording should be like TamilNet reports that.... -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am more than willing to follow Fayssal's suggestion. Thanks Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I get the feeling that Bakaman and Fayssal are confusing 'notability' and 'reliability'. 'Notability' is perhaps all that we can concede to Tamilnet and that is why we have a TamilNet on wikipedia. However, just being 'notable' doesnt make them 'RS'. That they have a rather lopsided militant view of the situation doesnt help either. Sarvagnya 01:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The analogy to FOX is ridiculous. FOX is a professionally run media house owned by News corp., which is listed on various exchanges and subject to routine and professional audits by the best in the business. I am sure it is affiliated to any/all "official" press regulatory bodies that count. It has an editor with rather impeccable professional credentials who has the moral courage to attach his name to a story. If anybody feels that FOX has a slant(to right or left or whatever), then it is their POV. Tamilnet otoh hand is, for all we know run by some journalistic quack who takes his blogging rather seriously. Sorry. The FOX analogy just wont cut it. Try something else. Sarvagnya 01:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion or do you have serious citation for what are you saying. I have listed reserach papers others your comments are just WP:SOAP. Thanks Taprobanus 14:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Can i ask a simple question Sarvagnya? What if TamilNet announces and acknowledges a terrorist attack via their website? Would we use it as a primary reference? Would it be considered as a reliable source as well? IMHO, if you have reached a consensus in which TamilNet would be considered as a qualified source (everything but a reliable source) than why not all parties try to use the appropriate wording when using TN as a QS?
Whatever is the case, i am still not convinced that you have to sort out this issue in this board. What about an RfC? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether TamilNet acknowledges something one way or the other is besides the point. Also, I was not part of any consensus where a patently non-RS source has been decorated with a "QS" tag. What is "QS" anyway? Are there similar precedents elsewhere on wikipedia? It is not upto any random Wikiproject to get together and hammer out a 'consensus' on matters like this. And I dont see where there has been any consensus regarding this and other similar sources. A quick look at some of the talk pages will tell you that editors have always been against these sources. I can only say that these sources have been used in bad faith. Sarvagnya 02:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe admins can do something. It is a dispute regarding the reliability of a website. You have some few days to discuss it again before the article is unprotected. If not than obviously a RfC is just next door. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not using FOX either if it was at all possible, or LankaWeb, or Tamilnation or Tamilcanadian. This conflict is very famous, and each time there is an air strike or a suicide bombing, it is covered on BBC, CNN, AP, etc etc, so we can use those if necessary. If it is only noticed by a few small ethnocentric sources, then I would be skeptical. FOX is a proper news source although it is very biased, but I have not seen people say that they present false data and such. It does contain strong editorial bias and such, but when you use a source you should not import the bias from the newspaper and just say "described by .... as "the best" ". But in any case, if BBC or CNN have the same data, it's better to just use them instead. There are many times where a proper newspaper like Sydney Morning Herald and the tabloid Adelaide Advertiser say the same facts, in which case, I would just source the SMH since it would look better. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the TamilNet refs be replaced by BBC/CNN ones? If yes than the problem is sorted out. I haven't checked if TamilNet references are unique (i.e. no one else covered it...) -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 04:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Not most of the time see my comments below specifically about Sarathambal case Taprobanus 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If no non-partisan media are willing to cover such details of a conflict which is on the news all around the world each time there is a skirmish, then I would doubt that they are at all neutral. In any case, see things like The mission statement of Tamilcanadian "Our humble attempt is to broadcast to the world our struggle to preserve and save our culture from the Sri Lankan government's campaign of genocide against the Tamil people." and Tamil Nation] to see what their agenda is. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a the WP:SLR community reached a vote to name many sources as "RS", "anti-rebel" , "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs". The problem is that most srilanka related articles do not follow thse branding of articles. If you take a good look at many other articles there are lots of "anti-rebel" sources being used as RS. So if the community is saying that we cannot use tamilnet then why is the same community keeping quite on the other side of the story-using anti rebel sources. Is there something thats missing ? Or has the community not seen these articles ? Anyway if we are going to allow the anti rebel sources then we MUST allow the pro rebel sources so that in the end we will have a neutral article. However, if one is taken out the other should also be taken out to again have a neutral article. Watchdogb 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also the same view after the WP:SLR community has reached a vote to name as "RS", "anti-rebel", "Pro-rebel" and "UnRs", st