Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive263

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Greenharpoon[edit]

Please check out User:Greenharpoon whose first activity after creating an account was to submit an RFA that was clearly a joke. If this was truly a new user, how in the world did they know how to find WP:RFA immediately? If not really a new user, then WTF? Looks to me like this account should just get blocked indefinitely. If you disagree, perhaps you could leave him/her a warning.

--Richard 21:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the RFA and am watching to see what he does. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

toupee[edit]

I am reporting User:Mattewdkaufman and IP user 199.68.81.105 for multiple reversions to a "list of known toupee wearers" that clearly violated WP:BLP as well as removing legitimate trivia warning tags and a general edit warring. I also reverted many times, but the more than 3 reverts were only to remove potentially libelous material that clearly violated BLP's "do no harm" admonishment. The list is now not in violation of BLP as they removed all the living people. Now it's just WP:TRIVIA. VanTucky 22:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Matters regarding BLP should be filed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, which indeed you have done. Matters not regarding BLP are a content dispute, and you should pursue the matter using the WP:DR procedure. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
and three-revert rule violations at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on NOR, Shaheenjim[edit]

WP:NOR prevents original research. This seems to be what Shaheenjim (talk · contribs) is doing in edits like this one. Certainly, the only person pushing for this information to be added is this user, everyone else is against including this, most pointing out that it is a violation of WP:NOR. Clearly edits made against consensus are inappropriate but could I get some other eyes on this edit specifically to see if it violates WP:NOR? --Yamla 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like he's trying to draw a conclusion that favours his viewpoint, so yes looks like OR to me.--Crossmr 23:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Bogus image upload rationale[edit]

Hi - User:Jeandre noticed on IRC that User:TopGUN71691 has been uploading images, claiming to be the author. We're both convinced that this is totally bogus - you can see his logs here Special:Contributions/TopGUN71691. For example:

  • this image was uploaded despite the fact a copyright is clearly visible.

Many other images are highly suspect, like:

Both appear to be observatory photos, and are unlikely to be his work. Also, these historical images, which he claims to be the author of:

Are all clearly found from other, copyrighted, sources via a Google Image search for the subjects name. There are more, but I just thought this should be brought to someone's attention. --Haemo 02:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

These are blatant copyright violations, thanks for catching it. All of this user's uploads are suspect based on these dishonestly-tagged images, so I'll be deleting them all to be on the safe side. Picaroon (Talk) 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
See also Image:Crossfield scott 3.jpg. TopGUN71691 initially uploaded it to en.wikipedia with no copyright info, and then it was moved to Commons by another User. The image is probably public domain, but it needs to be proven. And note that the Commons page claims that the en page gives copyright info, but there is no copyright info on the en page. Corvus cornix 03:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech[edit]

Please take a look at this comment, titled "Editors a Cock-Swallowing Sinners". 03:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just normal vandalism. WP:RBI. —Kurykh 04:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Nonsense trolling—not worthy of notice. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that's why I didn't say anything to them. Thank you for your input. Joie de Vivre T 04:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User OttomanReference[edit]

User OttomanReference adds made up and misinterpreted quotes, and adds original research on articles.[1]. He has also engaged in edit warring and continues to remove tags without reaching consensus. [2]. Please block user or protect page, as he does not seem to understand English very well and continues to vandalize pages.

Seems he is intent on only referting me. Just look at grammar of this article [3] and he still removes copyedit and all other tags. Hetoum I 04:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for continued edit warring. You might want to look in to dispute resolution. Shell babelfish 05:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

He is blocked?Hetoum I 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Witch5000[edit]

Witch5000 (talk · contribs) has multiple warnings about copyright violations of image uploads on his/her Talk page, has yet to reply to a single warning. Is repeatedly adding album covers to the article Reveille (band), even though I have repeatedly explained to them how this is not a good thing, but they won't respond and won't stop. At one point, started using 75.153.165.138 (talk · contribs) to do the same thing, but still wouldn't respond to warnings. Corvus cornix 06:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - I blocked both earlier on AIV - Alison 06:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

V Tech shooter vandal[edit]

I just stumbled across this, and thought it worth bringing to admin attentions. Clearly, this IP is shared, so a block on it isn't worthwhile, but the vandal is, and the image should probably be watched/deleted. The vandal is adding pictures of the Virginia tech shooter wielding a hammer to multiple articles. I've got little doubt the vandal will return, so we should probably be aware. ThuranX 20:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked 1 week. See if they come back. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
IP resolves to a company in Calgary, AB... You'd think someone working for a chemical company would have better things to do with their time, eh? Point being though that I don't think IP blocks would be as problematic as if this were from an ISP pool so dealing with this by blocking should still be on the table (obviously not for the previous stuff, but going forward).--Isotope23 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I figured a block would be pointless, but maybe someone will notice it. Too bad we can't contact them and be like 'hey, WTFBBQ?' ThuranX 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We should contact that Calgary chemical company just saying what happened and giving the evidence, then the people who run the company can do our work for us (and better) in finding the vandal and repremanding him. PS we contact schools why not buisnesses. Hypnosadist 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's not a chemical company: it's an oil exploration corporation, and a positively huge one. --70.73.252.78 04:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
ARGH that was me. Anyway, the company has about 3,200 employees. --Charlene 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes and one of those 3200 people is not doing the job they are paid for (the company's problem) and is vandalising wikipedia (our problem). Lets potentially solve two problems with one email and just email the IT and PR depts at this company and let them sort it out. Maybe they choose to do nothing, maybe they check their logs and find out who did this and repremand them, either way its no skin off our nose to send an email. Hypnosadist 09:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
So any admins sending that email? Hypnosadist 12:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Most likely not, because it won't achieve anything and it's horrible public relations. --MichaelLinnear 22:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
"because it won't achieve anything" Now you don't know if you don't try, do you. "horrible public relations" No its protecting our investment and work like a proper company should do. There is no reason we should take this crap from vandals and the company is not paying them to do it so everyone except the vandal wins. Hypnosadist 23:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Why rock the boat? If Wikipedia can't rid itself of the people who pushed H out, why would they worry about outside wiki? ThuranX 22:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked through them and thought they were funny. Apparently it was just somebody being funny and nothing too big. SakotGrimshine 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"Low lives"...[edit]

[4] What is the policy for off-wiki collaboration and insults? I was one of the proud creators of the featured Macedonia (terminology) that thankfully solved the long standing edit wars over Macedonia-related articles. Hell, I am Greek, and I do have my views; but I don't consider myself a partisan. Now I am accused of being a "low life" for reverting an addition to Macedonians (ethnic group) that is based on a proven falsified pseudo-scientific study: The Arnaiz-Villena controversy, which was persistently inserted as "The Ultimate TruthTM" in the said article (among others)! The worst part is that many editors attacked sourced edits in various related articles the last few days in apparent collaboration (which is evident from their chat on the link above -do read it please):

The articles concerned were:

The last thing I ever wished is to start all over again bitching about who's grandpa relates to king Philip of Macedon (like it's supposed to make any difference in your IQ)... Please examine. NikoSilver 00:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Update: The discussion there continues unobstructed [5], now even with:

  • posting lists of the said articles for organized reverts
  • calling more names such as "plague or virus , infecting the place", that me and other users are paid agents of the Greek and Bulgarian governments (!)
  • discussing promoting "Macedonian academics" to "moderator status" currently occupied by the Greeks (I really know of only one Greek admin -User:Yannismarou)
  • creating WP:POVFORKs such as "Macedonians (point of view from modern Macedonians)"
  • Legal threats: "a class-action lawsuit (perhaps a Cease and Desist to start with) against the Racism and Bias contained in WikiPedia might get some attention"

...and many more. Please give a look, the issue is very serious. NikoSilver 12:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ugly. Nationalist web forums as a place for coordinating POV-pushing campaigns. We've seen it before. Nothing good can ever be expected from editors who come to Wikipedia from such sites. Of course, it's probably happening all the time anyway, be it on open or private forums. Such activities should be nipped in the bud, where possible. Would support good long blocks on the ringleaders at least. -- Can anyone translate those nice plans they were making? "Ajde da napravime tekst koj sto ke si go cuvame lokalno na nasite PC-a i celo vreme za INAT na grckite i blgarskite nazi kopilinja ke im go prepravame .... copy / paste ? Hmm ?? Ili mislite deka ne vredi ?" Fut.Perf. 16:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Translated: "Let us make a local copy of some text on our PCs and just out of SPITE to the Greek and Bulgarian bastards modify the articles - copy /paste? Hmm? Or you think it is not useful?" Mr. Neutron 22:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I just indefinitely blocked User:Balkan balkan as a sockpuppet of User:Alexander the great1, since both accounts had been involved in edit warring. The edit warring seems to have died down on the articles NikoSilver listed, but if it starts again I'd be inclined to treat newly arrived edit warriors as meatpuppets. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Alexander the great1 is now threatening with personal attacks and continued edit warring:

I know wiki is just a joke , but i am also willing to give hell and nightmare to those that steal and corrupt what is ours ! Break their hands !. I think he should get blocked for that. Mr. Neutron 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks & Incivility[edit]

User:ThuranX started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me.
The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in the Catwoman, wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidenced here and here (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming:
In the Catwoman article:

In another editor's talk page:

  • 4 (including my response to the initial attack, which I self-reverted, wanting the attacks to simply stop)
  • 5

His own talk page had more personal attacks.

The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feeling burnt out and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actually respected the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:[6]
You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey. ThuranX 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <ref/> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –Gunslinger47 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that wasn't the issue prompting the complaint. I was addressing the personal attacks and incivility that accompanied the edits, which another editor also addressed with him (to no avail). Maybe he was all upset about the User:H issue, and it spilled over, but I am not the only person he has blown up at or made personal attacks at. When a user acts in this way, they usually get blocke for a period of time, not as punishment, necessarily, but instead to both protect the project as well as giving the person being complained about some perspective. I am not sure I understand the delay in acting here. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Uhh, I'll warn him to keep his cool but I pretty much agree with him in that you're being completely zealous with the whole citation thing... that's about all I'm willing to do though. Lay off asking for citation for facts that probably wouldn't challenged per policy. Sasquatch t|c 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:TTN marking every single television episode for notability concerns[edit]

Resolved: Withdrawing complaint, I'm willing to see where this leads. -N 14:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is using some kind of automated tool to mark every single TV episode ever for notability concerns. For 00:22 I counted 13 edits in a single minute. I looked at his talk page and he has complaints for this and for unilaterally merging masses of episodes to their parents. He appears to be indirectly canvassing for his Wikiproject [7] [8]. I see this as an incredible violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:POINT. Can anybody else weigh in on this? I'm tempted to start an RfC on this. I was going to, but There's already an incomplete RfC page for him complaining about him unilaterally merging scores of articles. -N 00:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, I'm just using tabs to mark episodes for "review." I was doing it without discussion, but people didn't like that, so now I'm using tags and opening discussions that last a few weeks. People have time to get on it, so there should be no complaints. This is also in accordance with the updated WP:EPISODE and related projects/task forces. TTN 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Editing War of the Year: Last year state highways, this year television episodes, what's next? —Kurykh 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Does TV episodes trump images with claimed fair use? Corvus cornix 01:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how that's related to this discussion, but I believe fair use images must universally follow the rules. -N 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
TTN's talk page is riddled with complaints about his actions before a group of editors sat down to discuss the TV:EPISODE guideline, and before the template tag was created for the pages. That tag is used is an alert of the editors of that page, and a tool for other editors to find all the problem articles quickly. It isn't going to delete the article anymore than a {{plot}} tag will delete a plot section. It's just a more efficient tag for the articles, which helps direct people to the guidelines of what should be on that page, and comprise a list that can be easily accessed by others (as opposed to thumbing through thousands of articles from every single television show on Wikipedia...yes, thousands. When you count how many shows there are, and the average number of eps per series, it isn't that hard to imagine).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
And what does this have to do with the current situation? —Kurykh 03:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, people believe that TTN is violating CANVASS and POINT, which he isn't. First, CANVASS is about contacting lots of editors for their opinions. He hasn't done that. He's alerting the editors of pages of the clean-up duty that is necessary for the article. He hasn't requested anyone's opinion on anything. Every form of mass posting isn't CANVASS; if you are applying clean-up tags to articles that is completely different then going to people's talk page and requesting the come join some petition. As for POINT, I think everyone knows the majority of episode articles are in poor shape. The tag provides links to helpful guidelines that allow editors to learn how to improve their articles, and also provides a link in a category for others to review the progress of all the problem articles, without having to search through list after list of article for every episode name. So, POINT is subjective and I think TTN has had plenty of people actually praise his efforts as well as dismiss them as disruptive. I was simply explaining what the tag he was placing on pages was. It's equivalent to a clean-up tag, except that it has a date stamp that puts link to every article in a category so that they can be reviewed later. There is a severe problem with television episode articles, just like there was a severe problem with non-free image usage on Wikipedia. The tag is a more fair way of saying "please clean this up, it will be reviewed after so many days by a community of editors, who may decide on the best course of action for this page". His actions are based on the consensus reached by others.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. —Kurykh 04:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Corvus cornix, I was being sarcastic. —Kurykh 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC
I know, so was I. :) Corvus cornix 05:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that going off in tangents was a form of sarcasm. :)Kurykh 06:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see what the problem is. I didn't make it clear that I was saying that the "fair use" war was the war of the year, trumping your television episodes war. :) Corvus cornix 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok let me make my objection known more plainly since people seem to be missing it. We do not mindlessly add cleanup tags to articles without reviewing them. And we do not add cleanup tags for wikiprojects to the article itself. Those go on article talk pages. If it were anything but tv episodes and I were to mindlessly add cleanup tags to hundreds of articles in a short span of time I'd be blocked. -N 06:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Who says you'd be blocked? If an article needs clean up, it needs clean up. I highly doubt you would be blocked if you put "plot" tags on every film that had horribly long plots. You are looking at it from the "13 pages in a minute" perspective. You have to judge how many articles for televisions episodes there are (I'd be willing to bet they outnumber film articles). If 90% of the articles need tags, then they do. I can take a sample from one show and detemine what most of the articles are like, just be shear statistics. 97% of the Smallville episode articles are the definition of problem articles. It's actually higher than that, but I rounded the number of articles down to 40, and there is only a single article that actually meet the requirements for existence. There are plenty of good articles, don't get me wrong, hell I believe every episode article in Season 8 of The Simpsons is actually GA, but that's like the black sheep of articles, as it's the only season for the show to have accomplished such a feat.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 07:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You can acquit TTN of canvassing at the very least. The talk page diffs above are the direct result of using {{TVreview1}}, which I wrote. I added the link to the Wikiproject merely to be helpful...I thought it was a good place for editors to go if they had general questions about TV articles, or needed an experienced editor to help them. If that counts as canvassing, then simply remove the last sentence from the template. No need to beat TTN over the head with it. Gwinva 13:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
OK it's not canvassing. But you would agree it's disruptive to mark articles with cleanup tags en masse without even reading them? -N 13:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I take a quick look at them, and even if I put a tag on a good one, it can just be removed. The large amount of edits in a minute comes from using thirteen tabs, not rapid editing. You should be able to see the gap between each pass. TTN 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

N, you are seeing it as disruptive, I see it as a free peer review for thousands of articles. There will be ones that clearly have nothing on them and will be redirect/merged with a parent article, but any that have a lot of good information but just require clean are going to get reviewed. Chances are, the review is going to do nothing but help them, as editors will go "yeah, it can stay...but here is how you need to improve this article to be better".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Fine. I'm willing to see where this goes. I overreact sometimes. It's something I struggle with. -N 14:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • You're not an idiot. Seriously, check out the pages where we had the discussion, we're really only trying to do what's best for these articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :I would hate to think this review process might ever become an automatic tagging/redirect exercise, since it was established in order to prevent such a thing... ie. create due process, offer help, advice etc. That said, having tagged the articles of a few series myself I've realised just how quickly one can scan an article and get an idea of its notability. Remember, the tagging is merely the first step in a process: identifying articles that need further, (more considered) review. I don't know if TTN is tagging too fast/indiscriminately. That is for s/he to answer. As to the notability tag being for a wikiproject or guideline proposal... No. It relates to WP:EPISODE, a fully accepted guideline. It serves a similar purpose to other clean-up tags, but has the advantage of catergorising pages for review. The 'proposal' is at WP:TV-REVIEW, where are number of us are considering the best way to review articles thrown in the notability category. If you have constructive advice to offer about that process, then drop in there. We are trying to create a review and assessment process which is fair to everyone. The alternative to such a process is the standard 'be bold' approach, where any editor can merge/redirect/AfD at will. As Bignole says, this process offers peer review and support along with the opportunity to weed out the articles which Wikipedia doesn't want (under its own notability guidelines). As an aside, this is not the work of one wikiproject... notices here, at the village pump, other TV wikiprojects etc have drummed up support, advice and contributors. That includes me: I would never have affiliated myself with WikiProject TV until I was drawn into this by a debate on this page. Gwinva 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it seems I've come after the party..sorry should have read the above before posting. Still, the comments about coming and contributing still apply... we could use some critical assessment of where we've got so far. Gwinva 14:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this discussed earlier at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive255#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN --24.154.173.243 14:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet block for review[edit]

Resolved: Socks are checkuser-confirmed.

I've blocked Illegal editor (talk · contribs) as a suspected sockpuppet of the ArbCom-banned sockpuppeteer Billy Ego (talk · contribs) (see list of other confirmed and suspected socks). This editor initially raised my suspicion by immediately jumping into a discussion at Talk:Benjamin Tucker, which Billy's prior sock had been involved in just prior to being nabbed. The target articles and POV are an exact match, as is the tendentious and argumentative editing style.

I filed a checkuser request, which failed to detect an IP relationship. However, it should be noted that Billy uses a dynamic IP and open proxies, which is one reason he's been a persistent problem (see here for his own description of his methods of evading checkuser). I decided to watch this account. Since then, I've noticed several very distinctive habits (which I'd be happy to discuss via email) which, combined with the above evidence, have convinced me that this is a clear-cut Billy Ego sock.

I've therefore blocked the account indefinitely; I'm submitting the block here for review and a sanity check. MastCell Talk 05:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell you what it looked like when Jpgordon looked at this earlier, but it is clear from the IP now that it is Billy Ego. I found some other socks: Free gifts (talk · contribs), VersaWorka (talk · contribs), Calvaire (talk · contribs), Bloodmania (talk · contribs), Mais o menos (talk · contribs), Planese (talk · contribs), Abolisher (talk · contribs), Dasadais (talk · contribs), Iceaholic (talk · contribs). Dmcdevit·t 06:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually kind of glad to hear that - I was worried I was losing my touch at spotting Billy Ego socks when that initial checkuser came back unrelated. MastCell Talk 16:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppet[edit]

Resolved

Tripartite keeps reverting the Ho Yeow Sun article. He sounds very similar to a banned account, look here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jing13 and look under Tripartite007. Also they both seem to edit the same pages. - 222.164.84.146 10:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Ho Yeow Sun article is getting a lot of vandalism. - 222.164.84.146 10:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious sock of User:Tripartite007, himself a blocked meat/sockpuppet of User:Jing13. I've also semi-protected the page given the amount of IP-related vandalism. MastCell Talk 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by Hubier[edit]

Resolved

I've lost sight of Hubier (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) after he was blocked for a week for continued image vandalism (replaced sourced images with unsourced, often fanmade ones). I only just noticed he's created a new account, Jb007ltkill (talk · contribs), to continue vandalising images (notice the exact same editing pattern), while he was blocked. Hubier's block has run out by now, but can someone still do something about this? He's clearly just here to play around.--Atlan (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Both accounts indef blocked.--Wafulz 15:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Abuse[edit]

I'm not sure where to report this but here goes. User:203.70.94.203 kept removing warnings and posting abuse on their talk page. I reverted twice, there were other reverts from other users also. [9] Next thing, User:59.105.17.165 chimes in with this.[10] Observing the intermittent use of the caps lock key and the general style I suspect that they may be the same. Whether this comes under sockpuppet, meatpuppet, abuse or just vanilla vandalism I don't know but I think someone should perhaps keep an eye on this lad. pablomismo|\talk 11:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

They may remove warnings if they wish, although it is frowned upon. ViridaeTalk 11:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

King levitation[edit]

There are multiple registered and unregistered people (it could be a single user with sock puppets) claiming that the name of the article King levitation goes against copyright/trademark laws, and they keep deleting the method because the method is for sale by a company and/or because of the claim that the title is copyrighted. I'm not sure if this is big enough to be reported but they do talk about copyright laws. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wizard Squad have been trying this one on for years. See Talk:Out of This World (card trick)#Request_for_comment and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King levitation. Their claims of copyright, patent, or trade-secret protection are nonsense, but they continue to agitate on their wizard websites with prestidigitatory posts encouraging vandalism of this and a swathe of related articles. They're vandals; treat them accordingly. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always suggested they contact the Wikimedia Office or OTRS, if they're serious, but for the most part they seem intent on vigilante enforcement. The claims of infringement have always seemed rather nebulous (and perhaps made up on the spot?), but giving them that information does allow them to escalate if it is appropriate. For the time being, I've semi-protected King levitation for 72 hours, it's been getting hit more than usual, recently. Please advise if there's anything else I should do when this crops up, beyond with Finlay McWalter said, as I've handled it a few times previously, too. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

redirect on "strategic investments"[edit]

the page "strategic investments" redirects to "MIT Blackjack Team". As this doesnt make sense, i deleted the redirect, which was immediately reverted by the bot. The same thing happened before when another user deleted the redirect. Please look this up, as i cant see any reason why this page should redirect to MIT... regards, matthias —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.235.2.156 (talkcontribs) 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Strategic Investments (note the capitalization) appears to be a reference to MIT Blackjack Team#Strategic Investments - 1992-1993. Unless you feel strongly that this redirect should be pointing somewhere else (keeping the principle of least astonishment in mind), I do not see any need to change it. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User:FatherTree Violating WP:Canvas policy[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This user was making false accusations of DPeterson being a sockpuppet [[11]], which I filed previously. An administrator seemed to support this filing,

":You're definitely correct. I'm not sure he's active enough for a block to have an effect, but a short-term block (24 hours) might send a message to FatherTree that we take WP:CIVIL seriously. YechielMan 03:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)"

I know that DPeterson filed a related claim above. Now he is now engaged in WP:CANVAS, which is not ok as I read the statement. See diff: [[12]] in response to an active mediation case at [[13]] This violates the policy because it is biased and partisan.

Administrative action is required and I don't see how mediation can proceed if fishing is allowed RalphLendertalk 16:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details and background of your interactions and experiences here but your comment, in both content and form, does bear a striking similarity to DPeterson's comments above. It could be mere coincidence and I'm not making any accusations or insinuating anything. --ElKevbo 16:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
That is because I copied a lot of it here. I filed this after I saw that the person who was polled is now a staunch advocate for the group that recruited him. Now I wonder, should I go ahead and try to Canvas for supporters (not really, just expressing my frustration with that group). RalphLendertalk 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually all he's really said so far is that AT is pseudoscience, and you agreed with him! Yechiel is not an admin by the way and said so on the ANI you copied.[14] Fainites 21:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does look like RalphLender copied most of my report regarding this dimension of it. However, my original filing is gone and this really needs to be addressed. If it considered ok, what FatherTree did, I'd like to know because then I will proceed as he did and search for editors who support my ideas just as he did. DPetersontalk 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
He wrote to one person. That doesn't really constitute canvassing. shotwell 23:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
By the policy on canvasing it does. DPetersontalk 01:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually you already did that DP. On the 13th May 07. See diffs provided below. Fainites 21:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Both RalphLender and DPeterson are involved in mediation with FatherTree and a group of other editors. There is suspicion of COI, socks and article ownership involved in this case, and this thread is one more case of the pot calling the kettle black in order to remove members of the opposition. I suspect that a detailed analysis of the edit histories of RalphLender and DPeterson would yield equal justification for blocks.FatherTree may or may not be guilty of WP:CANVAS, but this is a much bigger issue than that. Lsi john 01:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been ample exploration of the "sockpuppet" issue (see: [[15]] [[16]] )

and it had been unfounded on several occassions. yet this group continues to knowlingly make the same false accusation because they disagree with the veiws of several editors. If I may quote Adhoc:

:*"A POV pusher will always interpret any disagreement to constitute proof the editors in question are members of a cabal."-Addhoc

  • 'This fictitious cabal will obviously possess views directly opposed to the accusing editor, who will be remarkably willing to overlook contrary evidence."-Addhoc
  • 'In this manner nearly every good faith editor will be accused of being a member of entirely contradictory cabals."-Addhoc

This continued knowlingly making false accusations is one of their tactics and should stop. DPetersontalk 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation

Now here is an interesting response to my post here by DPeterson.

I have always been told that it is appropriate to notify all the parties involved, when you are reporting them to 3RR or AN/I.

  1. It seems that DPeterson considers it interference for someone to notify the involved parties that they are being discussed on AN/I.
  2. It also seems that DPeterson is trying to bring in extra help by contacting admins.

This is an example which illustrates the reason I posted here to begin with.

If DPeterson's case is as legitimate as he wants us to believe, he should not feel threatened by an outside party contributing to the discussion. Lsi john 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have complaind before about DPeterson et al's habit of not notifying people of ANI etc brought against them. Obviously to no effect. Fainites 08:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Fainites seems to be diverting from the real issue since he has no response to that point. DPetersontalk 11:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps if you told the people that you are filing against that you were filing against them you might get a more informed response. I don't see asking a suitably qualified editor who's not a wiki friend to help edit a page is 'canvassing'. I myself went to the psychology portal to find psychologists to see if any were interested in helping edit attachment pages. I thought that's what portals and things were for! There's no way of knowing who's side these people will be on. They may be ardent attachment therapists for all I know. Besides, DPeterson asked all his fellow editors to from the paedophile pages to help him out on the attachment page. Fainites 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the primary issue is that FatherTree violated wikipedia Canvas policy because it is a biased and partisan call. I suggest that Fainities read the policy before commenting. This is the issue in this AN/I...all other smoke put out by others is merely a diversion from this primary point that an administrator needs to evaluate. RalphLendertalk 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As I read the WP:CANVAS solicting is not ok in that this was biased and partisan. I think YechielMan suggestion that FatherTree be sanctioned by a block is appropriate. The Canvasing and other wikipedia policy violations are disruptive. MarkWood 19:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comment. JohnsonRon 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I have read the policy and I do not believe asking one editor if they want to help edit on a topic is canvassing. Now this is canvassing. [17], [18], [19][20] [21]Fainites 20:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The suggestions to keep this focused on the primary issues and not be diverted by red herrings as Fainites seems to be doing is a good one. As previously stated, the primary issue is FatherTree's canvasing and FatherTrees making false accusations, which he knows are false, of sockpuppetry. DPetersontalk 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself here, since it seems these charges were made in several places (which in and of itself could be construed as inappropriate). About canvassing, an arbitrator said: Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine. Aggressive propaganda campaigns are not. How can calling on one other editor to give his opinion be considered "aggressive propaganda"? It seems crystal clear to me that this falls into the "reasonable amount of communication about issues" category. Also, the purported sockpuppetry accusation was made in reply to a very similar accusation "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now.", and the "accusation" is more to me like a musing: "How does anyone know that you are not Becker?" Nobody accused anybody of anything directly. These are flimsy, I would dare say inappropriate grounds for any block whatsoever. And, specifically to User:DPeterson: I believe Fainites already showed ample proof that yourself were definitely canvassing. This is starting to look more and more to me like someone is forum shopping in order to get some reprimand dished out on Father Tree.--Ramdrake 22:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot to mention it. There's a third ANI here - very similar. [22] Fainites 22:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I filed one ANI. It appeared to be deleted, so I refiled it. another editor filed the third one. I suggest we focus on the primary issue of FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating WP:CANVAS. If an administrator reviews these issues and finds fault and sanctions are put in place or it the administrator finds no basis, so be it. DPetersontalk 23:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I stress that the entire interaction, including priors on either side, should be the appropriate primary focus. That means your insinuations of "gang" action and your previous history of canvassing should also enter the equation, lest we get an incomplete picture of the situation.--Ramdrake 23:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The focus should be on the ANI issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and violating wiki WP:CANVAS. If an admin finds this baseless, so be it. If other want to raise other issues, they should do so in a separte filing. DPetersontalk 23:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I submit that keeping THREE (virtually identical) threads open, rather than asking for two of them to be closed, as duplicates, and updating them all at once with similar posts: here, here and here It sure looks like DPeterson is using these boards, repeatedly, in order to get the system to remove editors with which he is currently engaged in mediation and against editors who opened an RfC on him. Wait, wouldn't keeping multiple threads open across multiple boards be .. sort of like CANVASING? How about if an admin closes at least two of these, thanks! Lsi john 23:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I respond to other editors...I'll leave it to an administrator to decide how to handle the two I filed and the one another editor filed, focusing on the two issues: FatherTree's knowingly making false accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvasing issue. DPetersontalk 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


Since each one gets a variety of comments from a variety of editors it may make sense to keep all open.-DPeterson (below) AKA CANVASSING

That pretty much confirms what I said about this issue. Thank you. Lsi john 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the other is closed, we can focus on the issue of knowingly making false accusations.

*All other discussions aside, to address the actual topic, did User:FatherTree offer up anything more than that one comment? I believe the traditional idea behind the canvassing policy was to discourage people from spamming multiple areas and/or talk pages because it was a disruption. Asking one editor's opinion, even in a biased manner, wouldn't appear to qualify. If he continues the sockpuppet accusations I would make sure to remind him about the personal attacks policy; feel free to hit up my talk page if he doesn't stop the attacks. Shell babelfish 01:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

DPetersontalk 01:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the diff link you provided at the start of this report, User:FatherTree never really accused you of being a sockpuppet; rather, he asked for some sign that you were different people indeed (" How does anyone know that you are not Becker?"") . That's totally different. Besides, your previous retort was: "It looks like the gang...er your group, sorry, is all coming out here now." which is basically an accusation of meatpuppeteering (which is the same as sockpuppeteering for WP's purposes). So, I would respectfully suggest you reconsider your complaint, or an admin may indeed deem that your offenses are more serious than FatherTree's. I know that's certainly what it looks like from here.--Ramdrake 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Might I also point out that neither DPeterson nor RalphLender notified Father Tree of any of these ANI's. He has done this before and I have complained to him about it before. One of the editors he canvassed in his support told me I had to watch the contribs! It is only because LsiJohn happened to notice it that anyone found out and I was able to post the links for FatherTree and other involved editors attention. I note that at the top of this page it says "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting". Is this therefore a breach of WP:CIVIL or perhaps some other policy? Fainites 20:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Fainites, don't stoop to his game. He has shown himself for what he is here, by opening three separate reports, by not informing the user he was reporting, by refusing to close two of them when asked, by ignoring an offer from an admin to help, by updating all three of the reports with similar information. The admins are not stupid, they will remember him next time. Let it go. Lsi john 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

OK Lsi. I wasn't actually filing an ANI you know! Spine still upright. Fainites 21:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Block the lot of you... for wasting a portion of my life reading this crap. Seriously... Take time out and give it a break. Thanks/wangi 21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There you all go again trying to divert the discussion from the primary issue: FatherTree knew that there had previosly been investigations into sockpuppetry that were unfounded and he continues to make those accusations despite knowing that these are false. This is clearly a personal attack and he should be sanctioned. I can see now that Fainities and others are trying to divert from the salient issue here and that they are continuing to add material in the hopes of provoking just the sort of frustration expressed by User Wangi. RalphLendertalk 21:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. This started as both an accusation of WP:CANVAS and WP:NPA violations. Now that the accusation of WP:CANVAS has been proven patently false, you're hanging on to WP:NPA. Let's say you're right and he did violate WP:NPA. That warrants a warning, at most if it were true (which I personnally doubt); however, the exchange provided shows that there was provocation at the very least, so there are at least mitigating circumstances. That qualifies even less for even a simple warning. And nevertheless, there you go, demanding sanctions. I would respectfully suggest the lot of you demanding sanctions just drop the matter before you lose whatever little credibility you might have left still.--Ramdrake 22:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think now that at least one (or two?) administrators have weight in and feel that there is not enought here now to pursue or to institute sanctions, that this AN/I be closed. I would suggest that the original filer of this, RalphLender agree to drop or cancel this...whatever the correct action is. DPetersontalk 01:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

69.201.146.55 deleting material (redux).[edit]

No edits since last final warning. This is a dynamic ip, so action will only be taken if account is active/vandalising. LessHeard vanU 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I've seen the same pattern of edits from this IP, so I think a block would only affect that one Wikipedian. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputes with User:TREYWiki[edit]

Resolved: Miranda 20:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am having a dispute with User:TREYWiki. This user has made personal attacks against me here, here, and this. I am really getting tired of this. Miranda 04:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please also see this and

this. Miranda 04:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall, second door on the left. —Kurykh 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't agree with Miranda's actions on that RfA, but Trey is taking his disapproval too far, methinks. How about you both go to your respective favourite articles and do some work on them, just try and keep out of each other's hair? And agreed with Kurykh... administrators aren't magical problem solvers... try dispute resolution, although I think if you guys just avoid each other for a little while, you should be right... Riana (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Miranda is calling everyone she sees a troll. I tried to mediate on IRC with User:Sean_William, Miranda, refused. And Riana, I am working very hard on Erie, PA my favorite article, but I am being constantly distracted by Miranda. She seems to be taking this too far after. IRC has nothing to do with wikipedia, where this started.--trey 05:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, see the refactoring of RfA comments, [24] wikipedia is not censored last time I checked. Calling gracenotes a troll is worse than what I "did" saying I feel sorry for a user to have to endure Miranda's attacks on his RfA.--trey 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, one of the "personal attacks" [25] was actually apologetic, nothing to do with a personal attack. Someone likes to hold grudges...--trey 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Other user in question seems to have "Retired"--trey 05:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
First, I have not retired. Second, I would appreciate you not making personal attacks on my userpage, as well as on the RFA. Third, what happens on IRC does not effect the encyclopedia. What you are currently doing is disrupting the encyclopedia. I would appreciate you not saying my name in any bad context, because that is called libel. I would also appreciate if you not leave blatant and uncalled for warnings on my page. I would also appreciate if you would kindly leave me alone, as well as cease doing this to me. End of conversation. Miranda 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty broad interpretation of libel, Miranda! I think everyone just needs to switch off their computers for a while... Riana (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
While I am glad to see that Miranda has changed her mind [26] on retiring, I fail to see how this qualifies as a personal attack via the current WP:NPA criteria. Trey's comment may be questionable civility, but does not appear to meet the ArbCom "interpreted strictly" citation at WP:NPA#Removal of text. Much like Riana above, I feel both parties would benefit from just letting the issue drop and stop harassing each other. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to weigh in on this (gotta recuse myself), but I will say that I've gotten slapped with a troll comment over this as well (and one of the diffs provided as evidence of that was my apology). That said, Riana's comment about staying away from each other is literally overflowing with wisdom. EVula // talk // // 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

User Ilya1166 refuses to cooperate[edit]

Resolved ResolvedDispute resolution is appropriate, no admin action needed

Some russian editors are trying to put category "Russian speaking countries and territories" on baltic states: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The master category "Countries by language", clearly states: "To categorize countries per official language. When a country does not have an official language (e.g. the United States), a de facto categorization is used." Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have official language which are respectively Estonian_language, Latvian_language and Lithuanian_language. Although other editors have calmed down, User:Ilja1166 refuses to cooperate and claims that because there is large amount of russians living in Baltic States the de facto official language is still Russian (which is factually incorrect aswell, cause statistically de jure languages are spoken much more). He also claims that other editors motives are extreme nationality. That is false. Baltic states do not have Russian as official language. Latvia and Estonia have large russian minority, who sometimes talk Russian. Lithuania has smaller russian minority. Although some people DO talk russian here, these countries are not russian speaking.

I am asking administrative advice on that user. He was blocked before for editwarring but obviously this didn't help. Suva 10:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please use WP:DR to resolve content disputes such as this. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
You could try a Request for Comments as a first step. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Last of the Time Lords[edit]

Just a note: you may want to keep a watch on this talk page - two discussions about sourcing an item on gay.com UK have degenerated into IPs attacking homosexuality in general - I've removed both so far, but I think the same IPs will start up again. Will (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, over the next few days. They seem to be active around 12:00-13:00 UTC or so, though, so I may be useful only in retrospect. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've put it on my watchlist. I'm in the UK so hopefully my sleep and edit patterns will approximate the discussion there. LessHeard vanU 20:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Editor with agenda[edit]

There's an editor who submitted two articles, both referencing non-existing pages, both with just a few sentences, the bulk of which were attacks on the articles' subject (BLP). I edited the offending and inaccurate material out of both, leaving a single line of text, then submitted for deletion as attack articles under BLP to get the histories removed (one person probably didn't meet WP:BIO, I don't remember about the other). Both articles were immediatley and quickly removed from Wikipedia. However, it appears that the editor at issue has an agenda that is being perpetuated on Wikipedia, an agenda related to attacking a certain author. I was wondering if anything more should be done about this editor, and what? They may have stopped after the deletions, but I don't know if that is sufficient.

Please, if you're an admin, don't access my contributions and find and post the name of the editor I'm discussing, just offer me suggestions on what more, if anything I should do. Thanks.

PS In spite of the reactionary nature of the policy on BLP, being able to just tag articles with attack and get them deleted ASAP is appropriate for an on-line encyclopedia where "anyone can edit." It works, and it works well, and it works how it is supposed to work, at least in these cases. KP Botany 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The right things to do is document the user's behavior and, if you feel it is necessary, make a full case here on ANI for a block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16 (talk · contribs) blocked[edit]

I blocked Hornetman16 for 12 hours after events described both here, on his user talk page, and on this IFD he's been disrupting. However, he continues to declare that he will not rest until the image being IFDed (which is somewhat controversial in itself) is deleted. Would it be a good idea to increase the length of his block? --Coredesat 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I say leave it as it is, if he disrupts post block, then he'll get reblocked fairly quickly. Having said that, by his post block comments, an increase in block length would still be protective..... Ryan Postlethwaite 19:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I declined his first unblock request. I also cleaned up his userpage (it had personally identifiable information on it, and he's a minor) for him. Honestly, as long as he promises to continue to disrupt our processes and get that image deleted "as God as his witness," I don't see him being a productive member of the community. ^demon[omg plz] 19:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • *bangs head on desk* He evaded his block to edit his userpage then told me it was ridiculous that he couldn't edit it. --Deskana (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I just semi-protected his userpage so he can't try that again. ^demon[omg plz] 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the block should be left as is, but if he rsumes after it expires then the next block should be much longer. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • When me and Alison admonished him for editing while blocked, he asked someone else to let him. I'm starting to think he's not going to fit in here. He's showing contempt for the rules. I feel somewhat sorry for him but that's being counterbalanced by how much he's driving me insane. --Deskana (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • He's driving me insane(r), too. However, I think we need to defuse the situation and back away. I'm going to protect his page for a few hours for unblock abuse. He needs to step away, too, and take a breather here. Besides, you just reset his block to 12 hours from just now! - Alison 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Holding off with the prot, as I think he's stopped. We'll see - Alison 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • He's persistent, that's for sure, and does not currently seem interested in community consensus. I hope he'll learn, but I am somewhat skeptical. Flyguy649talkcontribs 20:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with him since the beginning of the current IfD. I have served him a formal warning and admonishment. My patience is running extremely thin. —Kurykh 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman16 has since promised to change his behavior; I am ready to unblock him if there are no objections. --Coredesat 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP again[edit]

The subject of the debate I'm trying to have (tricky since the other side doesn't appear to want to take part) is the subject of external links and weather they are sources and what standards should apply for them. This isn’t directly a matter for WP:AN/I

However the problem is the behaviour of some of my fellow editors. Now I admit I’m suffering a bit of an attack of “the good old days” but it used to be that when you reverted someone you would leave at least a token comment on the talk page (heh could be quite funny in some cases with the blatantly token ones). Obviously I accept times have changed but Wikipedia:Revert#Explain_reverts still supports this position.

Why is this a problem? Well I like debate. Facts, logic and reasoning this is what I feel policy should be built on. At the moment I’m getting blunt force reverts (and the odd argument by assertion or ah hom) which makes doing these things difficult. I would like the people who take a different position to me discuss on the talk page but obviously I can’t force this. What should I do? Geni 21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Brpminchio (talk · contribs)[edit]

From his or her contributions list, appears to be semi-subtle spamming over a two-week span. All 60+ contribs, most unreverted, are a list of links to the same site, section titled 'The Great Vitoria knows' with each listing giving descriptions as images and tips. At the linked site, however, only a Google map image displays with a lot of surrounding advertising. Since it's in a foreign language, maybe I'm missing something important. -- Michael Devore 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks. They left quite a mess (thank goodness for rollback!). I've indefinitely blocked the account as single purpose / spamming & if they return, we can review the block. - Alison 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Block requested: User admits being a sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. Riana (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User Evenpaint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has admitted using a sock puppet Protectpeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) of puppet master His excellency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Both names should be blocked (Eventpaint, ProtectPeople). --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 01:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Riana. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Prank image on John Scalzi[edit]

Resolved

John Scalzi is an award-winning sci-fi author...a while back, he put a prank photoshopped picture of himself (Image:Scalzidevil.jpg) in his own article and noted the act on his blog. I'm actually a Scalzi fan, but the image, while maybe suitable for his userpage, is not really suitable for his Wikipedia article. I removed the image and nominated the orphaned image for deletion, but it's already been restored. Off-wiki, Scalzi has prompted editing of his article before; it would probably be best to head off an off-wiki campaign before it happens by deleting the image. Videmus Omnia 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If it was uploaded as GFDL, I see no reason for deleting. Just move the photo out of the infobox, and add a caption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Move it out of the infobox, it'll scare the kiddies. See no reason not to have it otherwise, gives people a bit of insight into the man. Riana (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It seems somewhat representative of the guy and is properly licensed. It's a bit unencyclopedic, perhaps, but the again what harm? I think it's kinda cool actually - Alison 02:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, thanks. Videmus Omnia 02:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and it's fine for the guy to edit wikipedia and, to an extent, his own article. However, his article could use a {{Notable Wikipedian}} tag - Alison 02:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It's on the talk page. Videmus Omnia 02:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personnal attacks and vandalism by User:132.211.195.38[edit]

In Talk:Barbara Kay controversy, Talk:Montreal-style bagel, User talk:Boffob. Notice his edits to the main articles, repeatedly reverting to older versions by User:Lance6968, just like anonymous similar IP's such as 132.211.195.82, 132.206.58.39, 132.211.195.57 and 132.211.195.140 (and possibly others) have done in the past. Some of those IP's were blocked before for this kind of behavior.--Boffob 22:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have opened a case of suspected sockpuppetry: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lance6968. Victoriagirl 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles fair use review[edit]

I needed an admin to review the status of this article to see if it violates fair use. I noticed that it had a quite a bit of audio samples on it, to be exact, 25 of them. Under our fair use policy, wouldn't that contradict the fact we should have minimal use? — Moe ε 23:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge I am biased (ex WikiProject The Beatles) but are you aware how much influence the Beatles have on Western 20th Century culture? 25 samples? Which ones did they have to leave out? LessHeard vanU 00:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is more that they aren't discussed than that they're being overused. --tjstrf talk 00:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
For an article that lost its FA status for, amongst other things, being too large? Another aspect of attempting to square the circle that is being castigated for being both too complex and too concise..? Oh, don't pay attention to me - I'm just an editor who opted for the more tranquil waters of NPA than attempt to satisfy the contrary demands of third parties on one of the most popular hits for WP (oh, and vandalism... what the individual FA gets in its day in the sun is what The Beatles gets every other day!) Look at it this way, would Einstien be questioned over the over-reliance of mathematical equations in the article? What Einstien was to physics then the Beatles were to Western popular culture... thus ends the rant! Anyhow, I've mentioned this at Talk:The Beatles - which might have been a good venue to commence this discussion. LessHeard vanU 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
That sure was a lot of senseless babbling to say, "I moved the conversation to Talk:The Beatles... — Moe ε 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
"That sure was a lot of senseless babbling..." Nope, that was a rant - as indicated. LessHeard vanU 09:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

IP rolling troll continually attacking userpages[edit]

An IP troll has appeared on wikipedia and they are continually blanking user pages of random editors then switching IP when blocked starting the whole thing again? What do we do about this? Francisco Tevez 10:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore, hurl profanity in his direction privately, and wait for him to get bored. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 10:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The range is a bit too broad for a range block. I am handing out userspace protections in return for lollies, please contact me. Riana (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocking his IP address for 20 minutes should be enough to make him need to switch his IP address - no need to give him more than that. Od Mishehu 11:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Concern[edit]

WHat is this doing on wiki? Image:Immad.JPG - Kittybrewster (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Volatility to Volatility (finance) move was done via copy/edit[edit]

Can someone with admin rights please take a look at Volatility (finance)? It was created from Volatility by a copy/edit rather than a proper page move. I've tried to correct this type of problem in the past myself only to be blocked by an admin with an itchy trigger finger. Thanks. Ronnotel 13:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Will take this one Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru[edit]

im not sure if this is the right place to post this or not but this user keeps trying to say im a troll and a sock puppet. He is also telling others that I refuse to listen to him and hes giving me grief about my archive. He refuses to listen to reason and I was hoping a admin could talk to him. Thanks.TheManWhoLaughs 15:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Lord Sesshomaru

Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs); original research, content forking, and material in userspace[edit]

I'm having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly tried to place his original research in a range of articles, and has now turned to content forking to achieve his goals.

On June 19, I nominated Francesco Dionigi, an article created by User:Doug Coldwell, for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi). He later copied a substantial portion of that article's text into a new article, Birthday of alpinism, which I have now nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). In my opinion, this is an evasion of the AfD process through content forking.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Doug maintains an impressive array of sandboxes in his user space. For instance, his sandbox 50 is an essay on the ancient Greek work eidos; he has tried to include bits of this in the articles idea, Theory of forms, and eidos (philosophy); when these attempts were rejected by other editors as original research or irrelevant, he created eidon (now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon). As another example, Doug created the article Good sense (now deleted) from material in his Sandbox 48 (most of the revisions have been deleted at his request); this material, somewhat reworked, has now shown up in Good will (philosophy). A set of sandboxes, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_47, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_63, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_65, and User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_67 contains ideas related to the ancient Greek word Nous--which have shown up in Nous and Noema, among other articles. Note also that an anon IP, probably belonging to Doug, requested the creation of Divine Nous on June 8, after Doug had encountered stiff resistance to his edits on Nous; Doug now supports merging Divine Nous into Nous.

Doug does not agree that his articles are forks (see his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). I'd appreciate some outside opinions as to whether there's any policy violations here, including whether Doug's sandboxes are appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

    • Comments regarding these points:
      • True, sandbox 50 is the article Eidon, which I worked out in a sandbox first before making it an article. However did not first try to put these ideas into other articles. I make edits to these other articles, but not on this particular subject.
      • true I do have an array of sandboxes to work out the articles first in a soadbox, however note most are deleted. Only the remaining are being now worked on.
        • You can go through my Contributions and see how I work and edit in the sandboxes. I make as many improvements as I can before I enter and make it a new article. You can see through the history how this went, then shortly therafter the new article was actually made. This sometimes actually makes an article so good in initial quality that ultimately there are few or no further improvements - example Petrarch's library and Palazzo Molina and Francesco Nelli and Petrarch's testamentum.
      • Sandbox 47 is the article Nous pretty much the way I worked it out in the sandbox. The points that I improved upon must not have been objectionable to other editors, since most of it is still there. The original article before I did a major overhaul was last edited on April 9. I did the overhaul (worked out in a sandbox first) on April23 - which most of that is still there to this day (so apparently other editors didn't object to most of it). Of course some edits have been done since then for additional improvements.
      • Sandbox 63 is the Noesis article worked out in this sandbox first. Yes, this part was later deleted.
      • Sandbox 65 is the article Noema which I did a major upgrade to on June 17 - no editor has objected or even made any edits to it since I did this major improvement.
      • Sandbox 67 is only dictionary definitions I made to this "new" sandbox of as June 16. I haven't even worked with this material yet since I just obtained it.
      • Birthday of alpinism is a completely different subject that Francesco Dionigi which is explained in Talk of the prior. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be avoided in the new article. If different references are desired, I can certainly furnish that. The article so far has received nothing but Keep from other editors.
        • Its interesting since these Keep votes have come in --Akhilleus has made several improvement edits to this article he nominated to be deleted.
      • I agreed with merging Divine Nous with Nous to go along with the other editors to expide the process. If I would have objected, then there would of course been an objection to this. So to make matters simplier and to expide this I figured this was the best procedure. It really doesn't matter with me if Divine Nous is merged, not merged, or deleted. Whichever they feel they want to do with the article is fine by me because it looks like Nous pretty well covers all the points anyway. I was just trrying to help matters by going along with everyone else. Whereever they want my vote on this is fine by me, since it doesn't matter to me. I haven't put in a vote one way or the other on the article or edited it.
      • Other articles I have started (many of which are few or no edits) are on my User page - mostly concerned with Petrarch.--Doug talk 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sandbox 50 has many deleted revisions that are substantially similar to Doug's contribution to Eidos (philosophy) ([27]). Doug tried to include similar material in idea ([28]) and theory of forms ([29]). Doug's changes have been objected to on the talk pages of those articles (e.g. [30], [31]), and some have been reverted. After most of the material that Doug contributed to Eidos (philosophy) was removed [32], Doug started the article eidon, which is so close to the removed material from eidos (philosophy) that it's a content fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes I did make major improvements to the article Idea starting on May 15 - most of which are still there to this day (so apparently other editors are not objecting).

Here are some example parts I added for improvements that are still there and were not there before I added them and are not being objected to:

History of the term "Idea"
Where ideas come from
Francesco Petrarch
René Descartes
John Locke additions
David Hume additions
Immanuel Kant additions
picture of "Walk of Ideas"
Wilhelm Wundt additions
Validity of ideas
Many additional references and sources added with inline citations and footnotes - including new Bibliography. Basically all the References now on the article are what I contributed. The article previously did not have a Reference section - I provided all the references - a major improvement.--Doug talk 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • P.S. Forgot about the parts where I expanded the "See Also" section and added the links to
Wikisource
Wikibooks
Wikiquote
Wikiversity

--Doug talk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Whether you've improved Idea is discussed at Talk:Idea. As you know, because you were part of the discussion, not everyone thinks you've improved the article. However, the reason I started the discussion here is not because of your edits to Idea in and of themselves; it's because you're creating articles like Birthday of alpinism and eidon as content forks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Look at it this way - its obvious that I am trying to make major improvements to Wikipedia as is shown by my work. Perhaps I don't get every little rule correct, however assume good faith. If I broke a rule somewhere, it wasn't intentional. I am not trying to put in any particular "ideas" that others are objecting to. If they object to something I put in, I just let them take it out and leave it be. Its just not that important to me rather it is there or not. Most however is not objected to and is still there, so it must be alright. If you don't like something I added to an article, just take it out - I really don't care. There are so many articles to work on that I am too busy anyway to be concerned with nit-pick items. I didn't see you objecting to these points I added to the article Idea. As I already explained in the Talk section of Birthday of alpinism, this is entirely a different article with "different" viewpoints. If you want different references (being the only content items similar to the two articles), then just let me know and I will obtain them for the same material, since there are many references on this material. Eidon is also a differnt article (or anyway I thought it was when I initially wrote it), however you feel they are close - so my suggestion is then why not merge them to make one good article since Eidos is now a stub. It obvious by the quality of my articles that my intentions are to write excellent articles - which apparently I have since most are not edited much. There are some however that do get a fair amount of activity and become an outstanding article from what I started - example being Aemilia Tertia. So my friend whatever you want to do with Divine Nous, Nous, Eidon, or Eidos, it really doesn't matter to me. I have bigger and better things to do. My next major improvement will be on Giovanni Boccaccio and the article On Famous Women - so I thought I would give you a heads start on this one. FYI: I am the one that found the ISBN number for it.--Doug talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not quite sure what you are referring to on edits however here are a few in the last couple of days
  1. Petrarch - Added that Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca were his literary models.)[33]
  2. History of Rome of a similar climb by Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans (ascended Mount Haemus in Thessaly). [34]
These are not exactly "disruptive" edits, however are constructive. In addition, you can see the quality of my articles I have started and work on.--Doug talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary: this edit, small though it is, is destructive and incompetent guesswork. "Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans" is an (uncredited) quote from Petrarch; leaving out the quotation marks was already irresponsible. But that Philip is not Philip II of Macedon, as actually reading Wikipedia's article on him would have told Coldwell; Macaulay's schoolboy would have known it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
This is strong language, and I was testy when I posted it; but, upon consideration, I cannot call any of the words here wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is true I did a major upgrade and major improvements to the article Nous on April 23. If you compare what I added, it turns out most of that also is still there to this day (so apparently has not been objected to by other editors). These are the Sections that were not there before that I added for improvements that are still there as major improvements:
Anaxagoras
Plato
Aristotle
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Neoplatonism
Plotinus
Augustinian Neoplatonism

The Section originally called "History" with identically the same wording has been relabeled "Overview of usage by ancient Greeks" and moved to the top. These are all major improvements which are still there to this day which no editors are objecting to. Of course there has been some additional edits to improvement my major improvements, which is to be expected (since there is always room for improvement). My major improvements have been then a springboard for other editors to work from, which they have. The previous edit before my major improvements was on April 9, which then was basically a stub with no references. It is now a full good quality article with the major improvements I made (which have been improved upon even more). The part of certain IP addresses of Divine Nous "probably belonging to Doug" is just that, a guess. There has been 5 different IP addresses that have worked on Divine Nous. I noticed that Nous, the article I made all these major improvements to, was flagged that perhaps Divine Nous should be merged with it. My first choice would be to delete Divine Nous, however had I said that there would of course been an objection. So since there only 4 choices here (merge, no merge, delete, keep) I chose to merge since this apparently was what the other editors wanted, so I went along with them. Whichever vote they want from me on that article I will be glad to give, if I knew what they wanted without an objection.

If you go through the last 2000 edits I did in my Contributions you can see the parttern is that I work out an article first in a sandbox. Then when all the bugs have been worked out and all the improvements added, I then make it a new article (or a major section improvement to an existing article). This then produces quality and there are few (if any) further edits needed for some time for these major improvements made. Also you can see the many other improvements I have made to many other articles (from ice cream to botanical gardens to science to history) as well as much vandelism reverted. There are times these improvements are then even improved further, which is the way it should be.--Doug talk 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you don't edit cooperatively. This is a wiki; the product of several minds is usually better than one. And when your "improvement" is justly criticized, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, youi create another article with the same information and the same sources, and lie about it. The temptation to do so must be strong; that is a lot of work to waste; but it would be better to edit cooperatively from the beginning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I edit in a very cooperative manner and try to please as many other Wikipedians as I can. Ultimately I won't be able to please all, however most times I can please most others. I have noticed that certain areas are however more sensitive than others, in particular religion and philosophy. One example, in these other fields, where recently an editor felt I wrote up an article that looked like an advertisement for a historical society. That was not intentional when I wrote up the article, since I have no connections to the society (therefore no motive). Anyway I rewrote the article (in cooperation with other editor requests) so that it didn't look like an advertisement, which completely satisfied all the other editors. That article is Mason County Historical Society. Other articles that I have started that have been expanded and improved much, that I contributed again to in cooperation with other Wikipedians, that ultimately produced a quality article are:

Other articles that I work on often in full cooperation with other Wikipedians are:

There are several more articles I work on in full cooperation with several other Wikipedians, however the list would get too long if put here.--Doug talk 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, you may get a more productive result out of a request for comment than out of the Admin noticeboard, as there does not seem to be a clear-cut policy violation. I would recommend listing it there and seeing what sort of comments come out of the woodwork. Pastordavid 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, does seem to be turning into one, doesn't it? I will be busy for a few days; if someone else write one, please post here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

How about copying right out of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Compare the earliest revision of Genealogia deorum gentilium (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogia_deorum_gentilium&oldid=106348439)--"Boccaccio's on the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." and the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Humanism: "His De genealogia deorum gentilium (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." That's a direct quote, copied into Wikipedia without attribution; given Doug's seeming unfamiliarity with research standards I believe he was unaware that was he was doing was incorrect, but it is plagiarism and copyright violation nonetheless. I have to wonder if the same problem is present in other articles he's written. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text from Encyclopedia Britannica that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the article Street Light Interference I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as to What seems most likely to be happening in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--Doug talk 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Public Domain status doesn't mean it's not plagarism. You still must attribute the words of Thomas Paine or Shakespeare to their authors. I suggest, quite seriously, you research plagarism as it applies ot the writing of papers and such. You've probably got an old high school/college copy of Strunk & White's somewhere, might be worth keeping it at hand as you continue to edit Wikipedia. ThuranX 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Britannica", in this case, did not mean the 1911 Britannica; the text was copied from this page, which is copyright 2007. There's little doubt that the text was copied from that page, because it was one of the external links in the original version of Genealogia deorum gentilium. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in my other articles I do give credit if it is copyright material - two such examples are in Francescuolo da Brossano in addition to the examples in Street Light Interference described above. The material for the major section additions I added above to Nous and Idea were public domain text. I referenced this as such at the bottom. Article of Idea has a very extensive Reference section now that I added, where there was nothing before I made the major improvements to the article. The article on May 14 was tagged as not having any references - so I provided many. I do 1000's of edits and apparently at that monent thought it was the 1911 public domain text of Britannica. I realize it was a short sentence, however should have been credited accordingly anyway. Thanks for noticing this and removing the text. I'll watch it closer in the future.--Doug talk 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I can only agree that Doug's edits have been disruptive and damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. When I nominated some of Doug's work on Jerome's De viris illustribus for deletion, I provided some documentation of his original research agenda (for example, to prove that the New Testament was written only several hundred years ago). More recently, at Talk:Divine_Nous (diff), Doug has denied any connection to anonymous IP edits from his area of Michigan that are very obviously him. I think this should be investigated, and that his lies to make himself look better/different should be weighed in any evaluation of how he participates in the Wikipedia community. I warmly embrace the amateur nature of the Wikipedia project, but Doug is a crackpot, not an amateur. He edits and creates many articles about ancient Greek philosophical ideas, not because he is interested in them or knows anything about them, but because they fit into his original-research project. Most recently, after I called successfully for the deletion of "Good sense" Doug has put the same dubious, half-understood, error-riddled, and often nonsensical material at several other articles (Idea, Nous, Divine Nous, Eidos (philosophy), etc.). These contributions have been thrown together by a method totally contrary to any integrity; they are full of footnotes, but in fact the citations (I've looked some up in my library!) often do not justify Doug's original-research statements, and Doug culls indiscriminately from any bad source (he treats ref-desk answers as fact; he has recently been treating John Opsopaus as an actual source for ancient Greek ideas, as in a recent attempt to get yet another fork going at Noesis!), so that it's much worse than nothing. The few expert editors out there (I don't claim to be an expert in Neoplatonism, but like Akhilleus I know ancient Greek) struggle to keep up with and contain these messes. In the history of my involvement with Wikipedia, I have generally been content to see quality material build up; Doug's projects stand out as the only counter-argument that seems to say, "Wikipedia doesn't work; a small team of expert classicists is not enough to keep several articles from reflecting garbage ideas from one problem user, which the community has no effective way to keep up with." I'd love to be proven wrong and see the system do something here, & send the message that if the scholars on Wikipedia express unanimous dismay about bad material, it can count for something, & that the system will work and keep the bad material from spreading and lingering. Wareh 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For those not up on the problems here: This is not even a plausible crankery. The New Testament is the best attested Ancient Greek work of literature; it has a dozen manuscripts of pre-Byzantine date, (and hundreds of papyrus fragments) all in genuine third to sixth-century writing, found all over the Eastern Mediteranean, and many of them with Koine variants not in the standard text. The Church fathers quoted all of it, one place or another. Petrarch didn't have enough Greek to read Homer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this is almost all content disputes, probably beyond ArbCom's mandate. Do we need a problem editors page, with the resulting abuses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Republicofwiki[edit]

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

Seems a bit suspicious for a newbie, and a possible username violation even. Goes around adding {{fact}} to articles, even dating the additions (I don't even remember to do that, and I've been on WP two years!). Then they oppose my RfA. Sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though I don't know exactly who matches Republic's MO. Can an experienced admin check up on the situation? —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, they are even dating the fact tag! That is obviously a WP:SPA, but I don't think they are disruptive by themselves (yet?). I'd suggest keeping an eye on him to see if an agenda appears. -- lucasbfr talk 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Gotta be someone who's been here before, and obviously hitting "Random article" and added the fact tags. The only sock I can recall with a similar M.O. was User:MsHyde (a sock of the banned User:Cindery), who added unreferenced tags to a few hundred random articles to build up her first 300 edits or so. But I think we'll have to wait and see. MastCell Talk 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked by Ryúlông per WP:HARASS. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock due to the suspicious behaviour, but I may have been wrong. The user showed me where they first found the obscure tag I mention in my unblock decline that so raised my warning bells.[35] The tag was added a long while ago by another user.[36] A couple of users have expressed concern about the block. I myself am a bit suspicious and wary of the user. However, in the absence of solid evidence that this user is the sockpuppet of another specific user, or that the user's intention is to disrupt Wikipedia or harass its users, our principles encourage us to assume good faith. An indefinite block seems a bit out of place without a demonstrated need for it. Indef blocks are generally meant for users who have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to work productively in this environment, not first warnings. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 12:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the following comment to the user on IRC - "Well, I don't know if you're telling the truth or trolling. But Wikipedia policies as well as common sense would seem to indicate that in the absence of clear evidence for the latter, the former should be assumed". I think this sums up my views, it's possible that the user is trolling, however I think he should be unblocked in the interests of Assuming Good Faith. It's trivial to block the user again if he is a troll, yet we could lose a potentially valuable contributer to wikipedia if he remains blocked. --Darksun 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a sockpuppet. Ask them to get over it and get another account; if they feel like editing constructively. — Nearly Headless Nick