Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive266

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

William_H._Cade[edit]

Can someone check that the IP that's been editing and promoting this article, 137.186.185.189 (talk · contribs) isn't, in fact, the person himself? Location checks out. Adam Cuerden talk 23:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am being harrassed[edit]

Unjustified protection of Patrick Pearse article[edit]

Patrick Pearse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been protected against policy by administrator R. fiend. In the past few days an editor with a seemingly dynamic IP has twice removed unsourced information and information sourced from a biased source, and described why in the edit summary. R. fiend has twice reverted these edits with no edit summary or post to the talk page, and after the information was removed again he semi-protected the page. As an editor clearly involved in a content dispute with no BLP problems he cannot semi-protect a page, especially as his actions have prevented the anon editor from editing the page while still allowing established editors to edit. The information was subsequently restored by another editor with the edit summary of "revert deletions by anon editor - have the deceny to get an account and identify yourself", clearly showing the effect the semi-protection has had already. 81.153.128.31 04:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian Army Ranks[edit]

user:Horemsa has uploaded Image:200px-IT-Army-OF10.png, Image:210px-IT-Army-OF10.png and Image:50px-IT-Army-OF10.GIF. These are fictional rank insignia that are not and have never been in use by the Italian Army. Now he is trying to push these self-created ranks into the article Italian Army Ranks and the template Template:Ranks and Insignia of NATO Armies/OF/Italy. Furthermore I suspect user:Horemsa to be one of the many socketpups of User:Yomar, or User:Yormar, or User:Iormar which have already been blocked indef. The reason for this: all 4 users uploaded fake rank insignia and are now trying to push them into the articles: Italian Army Ranks and Ranks of the People's Liberation Army. This problem is really annoying as the user is not just using a multitude of socketpups but also a wide range of IP addresses: first example, second example and a third example Can something be done??? Thanks, --noclador 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure Horemsa is the same person as those others and I've blocked all the registered accounts indefinitely, subject to review. This sort of sockpuppetry and dogged recreation of deleted images is very disruptive and I don't want to bother deciding what finite amount of time I should block him only to have him come back and do the same thing again. Maybe if he requests an unblock and promises not to do this funny business again... For the IPs, you could try semi-protection for the relevant pages. Grandmasterka 07:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
In this situation I fully support indef ban. The user's only goal here is vandalism. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
user:Horemsa has been identified as socketpup of Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Roitr. --noclador 06:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sploooshman (talk · contribs)[edit]

I am concerned about the contributions of this new editor. The first things he did are nominate a swathe of articles for deletion, several of them ridiculous in nature, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterford Township, New Jersey, a nomination for a real township in New Jersy of 10000 people looks ridiculous in nature.

He replied to me telling me to read WP:N. To me a spree of AFD nominations as the first edits

  1. is not the typical profile of a newbie editor.
  2. smells like a WP:POINT action in order to protest the AFD process, notability criteria, or similar.

Any comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This smells fishy to me too. --Haemo 11:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks like a newbie. I have given them a friendly warning. However, should the continue to list valid articles to AFD, or list them for invalid reasons, then provide a warning and then block for a short period of time. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Appears to be disruption to protest something. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First off I thank you all for failing to inform me the was a posting about my on ANI. Secondly, can someone point out exactly which of my nominations to AfD were considered disruptive or vandalism. I correctly nominated articles for deletion, many of which for failing notability guidelines. As there is no clear guideline on the notability of towns/places I was not aware of a supposingly clear consensus about keeping articles on all towns regardless of whether or not they had historical, social or cultural significance. The fact that a town has 10,000 people is, in my wikipinion, not sufficient to warrant it having an article. While many cities and large towns are notable, smaller towns are not so much so, however the wikipedia community has since corrected me on this (or appears to have, several AfD's were closed without allowing proper time for discussion that may have resulted in opposing views).

To user Ta by shi da yu, could you please inform me as to which of my AfD's were invalid, yes some of them may have resulted in a keep decision, but should we block all users who nominated articles for deletion which are subsequently kept? Also, I do not believe that I have breached any policy, as all of my nominations had valid reasoning behind them, so why would this warrant a warning or block?

To users Sjakkalle and Richard Arthur Norton, thankyou for making false assumptions about me, if you can now point out which of my nominations were invalid I may consider thinking of nominating articles in the future to protest a particular point just to satisfy your beliefs.

Sploooshman 11:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Advertising on Striptease[edit]

There are three photographs of strippers on this page. One of the photographs advertises the (unnotable) stripper's name and the club she performs at. This seems a clear-cut case of advertising to me, since neither the stripper nor the club are notable. The IP has engaged in an edit war, and some (well-meaning) editors have re-inserted the advertising feeling that to not name the woman (whereas the others aren't name, and in far more suggestive poses) "objectifies" her. This seems like a pretty open-and-shut case to me of advertising? The Talk:Striptease page currently has this issue raised, although right now consensus is against me. --David Shankbone 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If, as you say, well meaning people are on both sides of the argument, how is this not a content dispute? Administrators have no special rights to, or powers regarding, adjudicating what is or isn't an appropriate image caption. There's clearly nothing sufficiently egregious about this text to warrant any kind of administrative action, so what do you want wikipedia administrators (whose powers are limited to page protection, blocks, editing protected pages, and deletion/undeletion) to do? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this fall under the right to privacy and no advertising policies, thus making this more than a simple content dispute? MSJapan 20:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan raises my issue. This is more about advertising (perhaps it is Ms. St. James herself who is the IP who insists on keeping her name and nightclub where she performs in the title). I raised this as admin issue because, of the no advertising policy, regardless of the intentions of other editors. I take a lot of photographs, and there are friends I photograph at times - does this mean I get to put their names in the captions if they aren't sufficiently notable? I think this seems obvious where this could lead. Aside from that, isn't there a clearly defined policy about this already that make any content dispute irrelevant? --David Shankbone 21:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that it takes precedence, in this particular case, but I could see WP:BLP becoming a significant concern in debates of this sort. "Jane Doe stripping" shouldn't be our caption unless we can verify that it is Jane Doe in the picture, to be specific. This might be a topic for the village pump to take care of, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrators should not get involved in this content dispute. First of all the dancer is not a stripper and there is no specific nightclub mentioned. The name is relevant to the section about new burlesque. DavidShankBone is involved in a few content disputes making constant reverts without compromise and has made reverts to: Erection on
20:35, 29 June 2007;
20:44, 29 June 2007;
20:51, 29 June 2007;
21:43, 30 June 2007.
and to Supermodel on
16:48, 29 June 2007;
17:05, 29 June 2007;
18:28, 29 June 2007;
20:16, 30 June 2007;
21:42, 30 June 2007.
While not breaking the 3RR comes close to gaming the rule if not doing so. In the case of erection and striptease the issue was raised on the talk page by other editors. DavidShankBone refuses to raise the issues himself. He seems to only follow the rules that suits him and complain when others 'break' them. He should just be ignored and not given any attention for his content dispute so that the community can resolve this. As for his unsubstatiated allegations please check that this ip isn't even an US ip. -196.207.32.38 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...well, clearly the photograph doesn't even belong on the page. Yes, I didn't research Lucky St. James to see if she was, in fact, a stripper. So, I will remove the photograph. What was obvious about the caption that it was an unnotable "dancer" mentioned at an unnotable venue. Regarding Supermodel there was vandalism reverted, and then a particular editor created a "List of Supermodels" in the article, which has been problematic on the page since every Supermodel who ever existed was getting their name inserted, making the entire page a big list. I suggested to the editor to create a List of Supermodels page, which they did. Regarding Erection I took a better photograph of an erection (that was not mine) as part of my body parts photography project. A person objected to how large the erection was, and another person who photographed their own erection (and has inserted their own penis on multiple pages) also was upset that their own erection no longer illustrated the article. It's interesting this IP finds it so important to bring in unrelated issues to support having the name of a dancer on a page. It's also interesting that this IP knows a lot about this dancer. What vested interest do they have in seeing their name there? Why is it so important? Who knows. Who cares. It's still advertising. --David Shankbone 00:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't twist the facts. I proposed that the section be moved to another topic with maybe a link to that instead and not for anything to just be willy nilly deleted by anyone who felt like doing it which is inconsiderate. Your reversion weren't for vandalism (if there was vandalism at all) only, you also reverted content to the way you wanted it. There are other ways of dealing with long lists instead of deleting them like using multi-columns. If you remove someone else's image and replace it with your own you can expect some resistance and you can hardly be seen as objective in that regard. There is no consensus to remove anything yet as you yourself noted. This noticeboard is not the place to complain simply because consensus isn't in your favour which is why I recommend this be ignored so the proper procedure be followed. And please don't make allegations about ips, I don't know more than what I read here. -196.207.32.38 01:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand that this is an issue about advertising Lucky St. James and her act on Wikipedia. She is neither a notable burlesque performer nor is the club she performs at a notable club. That's the issue, pure and simple. Thus, it is advertising, and against policy. Unless you can explain how she passes the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, which you have yet to do. You've only said "Some people don't think Oprah is notable." --David Shankbone 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't seem to grasp that your advertising issue is relative, meaning that what you consider advertising others don't. Please stay on the topic you raised about advertising and not notability. You are only raising the issue here because you lost to consensus on the talk page and rules don't mean anything to you. You have now reverted on
21:43, 30 June
00:30, 1 July
01:23, 1 July
03:52, 1 July
05:14, 1 July
05:20 1 July.
That's 6 times in less than 24 hours and 5 times in less than 5 hours. You are definitely gaming the system and your edits are becoming disruptive on a number of pages. -196.207.32.38 11:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment. As Luna Santin points out above, it may be more productive to take this up at the Village Pump. As I see it, both sides of the debate are making a valid point. Although it's now getting a bit uncivil. (Calm down folks! Remember WP:LAME!) This kind of content dispute can actually be turned into a productive Wikipedian direction at the pump. I don't know if this kind of content dispute has come up before, and it would be interesting to see what the precedents are. Silly rabbit 13:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrus revisited[edit]

I am almost certain that user 69.208.210.158 and 68.253.216.115 (and possibly others) [1] are sock puppets for blocked user User:TyrusThomas4lyf based upon the common theme for recent edits as well as the Chicago based IPs. One indication of this can be seen by comparing [2] and [3] along with the edit summary at [4]. In addition, we have the recent missive [5] in the characteristic style that got him banned to begin with. I am requesting admin intervention. Myasuda 01:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty much convinced that you're onto a sockpuppet match, but I'm going to file a checkuser request just to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe checkuser can reach back as far as two months, and the sockpuppeteer's last edit was 40 days ago, so it should work. Shalom Hello 06:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TyrusThomas4lyf provides a summary of prior incidents which deal with articles that 68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs) is currently editing. Note that User:TyrusThomas4lyf has also posted under the aliases IlliniPride and 68.253.206.119 (talk · contribs) in the past (the IP being a close match to the one currently being used), and that 68.253.216.115 (talk · contribs) has never denied my edit summary assertions that he is in fact User:TyrusThomas4lyf. Myasuda 13:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested Block of IP Address: 24.252.41.126[edit]

This IP Address has gotten 7 warnings, and has not ceased their vandalism. The last warning given by Trusilver was a block, and I'd like to quest a block on 24.252.41.126 immediately for persistent vandalism and for the welfare of Wikipedia. Geosultan4 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispite that statement, the block does not seem to have been put into effect at that time because there is no block notice on the user's talk page but they seem to have closed up shop for now. ww2censor 13:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Trollpedia[edit]

Trollpedia (talk · contribs)

Yes well, normally I would block this account as an inappropriate username, but the user has already been around for a few days, and doesn't seem to be making any edits, that are of a negative, or harmful nature that I can see. (I didn't go through each and every edit of his/hers just picked a few random ones.) Because the account does not appear to be editing in a malicious manner, I'm hesitant to block it, anyone have thoughts or insight on what should be done? Let the user be, block it and request he/she pick a new name, etc, etc? KOS | talk 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me say it this way: If the choice is to keep the username or else lose the editor, I'd rather keep the username. Experience has shown that it's usually possible to keep editors happy if you approach them respectfully about username problems. Take this to WP:RFCN if necessary, but I just can't justify allowing this name based on its (probably unintended) connotation. Shalom Hello 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling this user is mired in an extensive conflict of interest ring involving the articles Ebon Fisher, Frank Popper, and Joseph Nechvatal.-Wafulz 14:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Defamatory, irrelevant statements added to article on Norman Golb[edit]

Please note that someone has begun adding an offensive, partially defamatory exordus to the stub article on University of Chicago historian Norman Golb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Golb) in which he rails against a number of anonymous internet bloggers and attacks Golb's scholarship in an entirely ad hominem manner. It doesn't seem at all relevant or appropriate for an encyclopaedia article. The author of the remarks is clearly driven by animosity and has not responded to comments by myself and others on the discussion board. I plan to delete the remarks each time I see them, but I think you should block this individual from posting because it's entirely offensive.Critical Reader 08:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Blimey. Urrgggh. Protected the article for the time being as an emergency measure, give me a bit of time to work through the rest. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thesultan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has violated WP:3RR in addition to WP:BLP; I have warned him for the former.
Moreschi, can you please delete the text "To the individual who keeps adding a series of defamatory and irrelevant statements to my treatment of the exhibit controversy, which is worded in a perfectly neutral manner: See the discussion page. Either we reach a compromise on neutral terms for the article, or we have an edit war, which will lead to you being blocked from contributing to wikipedia." from the (now protected) San Diego Natural History Museum page ? Thanks. Abecedare 09:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Removed. J Milburn 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

58.166.231.72 and Sunrise (TV program)[edit]

58.166.231.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is constantly removing references from Sunrise (TV program). He/she has removed the references that back up claims that Lisa Wilkins has left Sunrise, and that Samantha Armytage has replaced her (first removal). I contacted him about the incident, and he replies stating "the fact that Samantha Arymatage is the new co-host doesnty need to be referneced as it is common knowledge". I revert, and around an hour later, he reverts back, this time including an edit summary: "removed references to Lisa Wilkinson as she is nolonger an anchor. Ifpeople want to mention her, please create a section on the history of Weekend Sunrise and do it there". I explain and explain again. My final revert at 21:27, and this time he makes 2 further edits: [7] to remove "(formerly Lisa Wilkinson)", the next, [8], a few small notes about previous presenters, unsourced.

I'm not too sure what to make of all this... Sebi [talk] 11:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot II mis-archiving this page.[edit]

Resolved: Patched code to handle slightly "malformed" configuration - in this case, the trailing space after "250K" was causing problems. Миша13 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This morning, MiszaBot II went on an archive rampage of this page. The bot archived 15 sections in a minute or two. But that's not the problem. The problem is that the 15 sections were archived to 15 different archives. :) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive265 through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive279. At this point, I'm not sure what can/should be done about this. The one-section archives are just about worthless, and I worry that whatever caused the bot to misfire like this could happen again. Not sure if the bot should be blocked until the cause if found, or what. - TexasAndroid 14:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza is currently reverting the bot, so it looks like the owner is working on the situation. :) - TexasAndroid 15:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've blocked it for until the mess gets sorted out. --Evilclown93(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That was completely unnecessary, since the operator (me) was already acting on the problem - and it's not like it's running continuously. Миша13 15:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the clown did not notice you were already on the case, but checking would have been nice. Until(1 == 2) 15:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'd assume if he didn't reply to a message where TexasAndroid has already noted that I'm on it. Oh well... Миша13 15:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the block log, Evilclown93 blocked the bot 2 minutes before TexasAndroid made any such comment. Perhaps Evilclown93 wasn't aware you were working on it. - auburnpilot talk 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV[edit]

  • Apostrophe (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...Stop being so goddamned obtuse...don't give me that this is your opinion nonsense...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and this editor has been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured. Below this post are those of fellow editors who also expressed that this should be posted elsewhere other than WP:AVI where it was initially posted. Netkinetic (t/c/@) 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
doesn't look like a obvious case of vandalism, more like an edit war. Might want to try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead. Nat Tang ta | co | em 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree -- this is probably worth looking into, but is also probably more suited to a discussion board, such as WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You might list them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Corvus cornix 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin using admin powers despite a conflict of interest[edit]

User:Matt57 recently created the article Edina Lekovic about a spokeswoman for a Muslim organization. A new user with the username Lekovic showed up to try to remove sourced content from the article. This user proceeded to edit war with three established users. SlimVirgin protected the article at the new user's version, and made a statement about BLP on the talk page. I posted referring to her conflict of interest, and she responded that she had none.

She has had a serious conflict with Matt57, as one can see here (search in the page for Xiao). In this thread she referred to Matt as follows: "The bottom line is that you're a bad editor, a knee-jerk reverter, and you're out to attack Islam or Muslims." This also shows her view of Matt: "This is the seventh time it's been protected since March, the 14th overall. Matt, note that if the reverting continues after this protection is lifted, I'm going to consider taking you and your friends to the ArbCom. The article's been held hostage long enough. Wikipedia's not a platform for Muslim bashing."

It might help to note that both Xiao t and Ibn Shah were sockpuppets of a banned editor, and SV herself was edit-warring to include the statements of a graduate student in Islamophobia. Matt noted this on her talk page; she deleted his postings. I myself asked her to explain what she had meant by "Muslim bashing" in the 3RR board with regards to the Islamophobia article, and she never responded.

It is possible that the page goes against the spirit of BLP, though everything is sourced, is relevant to the subject's notability, and is presented in a neutral manner. Despite SV's claim that the article contains only criticism, it actually contains none. The subject was criticized on national TV (read about it here) on the basis of the information SV is referring to, but we did not report on that criticism. All that said, I think that it was improper of her to use her admin tools to side against Matt and myself as part of this dispute.

I would like the input of other admins on this issue. Arrow740 05:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you aware that we take exceptions when issues revolve around WP:BLP? Do not harm, that is what it means. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You've got to be real careful with articles on people of minor notability. Usually the articles are short to begin with, so the presentation of any potentially negative information, even if properly sourced, can be problematic under BLP. Especially if the subject him/herself objects - see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden for an interesting case study. - Merzbow 07:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Calling that edit anything but judicious quote mining is being too charitable. Not all "sourced" material is created equal, and unless someone can bring up some actual material to go with it, rather than cherry-picked quotes from magazines which she edited, I can't see anything wrong with eliminating that version. --Haemo 07:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I support SlimVirgin 1000% on this one. I don't see any conflict of interest here, just good use of the admin tools. The original article as created clearly breached the spirit of BLP; guilt by association through a cherry-picked quote, not even by the subject, just published in a magazine she worked for. --John 07:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Criticizing someone does not equal a conflict of interests. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 is being incivil and disruptive towards me.[edit]

Note: The user behind this smear campaign is a sock of banned editor Kirbytime: [9]. Arrow740 05:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I came across this mfd and noticed that the main user who supports keeping the article, matt57, has solicited several meatpuppets to favor his view. I vote delete, and also add that matt shouldn't use off-wiki forums for vote-stacking. My vote was struck out [10] and I am called a troll. Matthew then proceeds to come to my talk page and posts the same response he does on the mfd. I remove the note from my talkpage and tell him to stop trying to pick a fight with me. (matt57 has a history of picking fights with users, as well as wikistalking). He reverts my talk page.[11]

Can someone tell him to leave me alone? I'm looking for an outside opinion on this.--Flamgirlant 08:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have NOT solicted any meat puppets. Please AGF. Why are you believing a sock puppet's allegations? On your talk page I had asked for evidence for your allegations of meat puppeting. You removed the query twice and then answered it finally on the MfD's page. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 08:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • You accuse someone of recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki, a bannable offense, and then when they ask you to provide your evidence, you revert, saying that fighting doesn't help wikipedia. That doesn't help at all. --MichaelLinnear 08:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I've made this a subsection of the previous thread, because the issues are connected. I was asked to look at Edina Lekovic by someone who was worried that it had been created by Matt57 as an attack page. I protected the page on the version without the disputed criticism. When I looked into the issue further, I saw that Matt57 had recently added the article to a public watchlist that he created called Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam/Islam_and_Controversy_task_force/Watchlist. I nominated it for deletion because I feel it's a POV magnet, and it's particularly inappropriate to list BLPs there when the aim is to disparage people. This is the MfD that Flamgirlant is having the problem on. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
At this stage, whether you meatpuppetted or not is beyond the point. You are being incivil by reverting my talk page. Why do you keep telling everyone to assume good faith? It is very obvious what your purpose here on Wikipedia is. The only thing you do here is revert articles related to Islam: [12] The only time you ever edit outside of Islam-related articles is to stalk other users you have started edit wars with. And now you want me blocked or banned?[13] Just leave me alone. I want nothing to do with you.--Flamgirlant 08:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever Matt's failings may be, accusing someone of meatpuppetry, the reverting his request for you to provide evidence on your talk page as vandalism is ridiculous. If you didn't want anything to do with him, then why did you level accusations that require you to produce evidence? --Haemo 09:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I reverted it as vandalism the second time he posted it on my page. At the time, the evidence seemed clear. matt was the most vocal defender of the page, and 2 SPA (one of them talks about a post in a private forum) which refer to matt by name come and vote keep. That's my evidence. Now maybe it was a strawman meatpuppet, but when matt calls for me to get blocked or banned for even bringing it up, there is something terribly wrong.--Flamgirlant 09:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You're ABF again and again. I misread Michael's comments as "accusing someone of meat puppeting is a bannable offensive", when he actually said that "meat puppeting is a bannable offense". I deleted my comments but you're still linking my diffs. I'm not calling for your banning or blocking. Next time, please dont make false accusations of meat puppeting without evidence. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 09:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
You have to understand that Matt gets this a lot; the SPA brigade on Islam-related topics is really quite ubiquitous. You probably were unaware of this, I think that everyone just got a little bit too hot under the collar. I recommend that, since you and Matt now understand one another, that you both just walk away. --Haemo 09:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I don't want any trouble. I apologize to matthew if I was too aggressive. It's just that I feel like I've seen a lot of stuff being flinged around and I'm trying to blow the whistle and someone throws a pizza slice in my face.--Flamgirlant 09:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that a lot worse things could be thrown at you. If a pizza slice was thrown at my face, I'd eat it :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Let us please, focus on a system for de-adminship. This is the need of the hour. I'm not naming any names and I'm not being vengeful towards anyone specific (even though it may seem so) but there are admins who would not get another RfA if they were to stand for one right now. Its like a university's tenure system, where a bad professor cant get fired. Quoting an uncited sentence (which is still true, we all know it) from tenure:
Others criticize tenure for allowing professors, once tenured, to be less concerned with performance in all areas, reasoning that their jobs are relatively secure.
And thats exactly whats happening here. Although a lot of proposals have been made for de-adminship, none went through so I dont know how successful I'll be but I might give it a try. I feel this is very critical because it lies at the heart of the present situation where admins are bullying the whole scene basically when they feel like it, and this spoils the whole website. Because when there's chaos in the leadership, the whole organization is effected badly and it suffers. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I don't see it that way, but if you do, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the best place to go with it. --John 16:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a procedure for de-sysoping admins. Go visit WP:ARBCOM. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up[edit]

Note that User:Lekociv was not in fact Edina Lekovic, nor was User:Oneandonly666 a meatpuppet recruited by Matt57 off-wiki: both are checkuser-confirmed sockpuppets of the same banned editor behind User:Xiao t and User:Ibn Shah - an editor, whom, judging from the above discussion, has very successfully manipulated several of its participants. I think Matt57 is owed an apology.Proabivouac 02:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Note also that User:Flamgirlant is a sockpuppet of User:Kirbytime, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime.Proabivouac 03:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A list of JB196 socks needing block[edit]

I just noticed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/IP check#JB196 that there is a sockfarm requiring blocking. Only some of the 18 have been blocked. Would an admin please block the rest? Flyguy649talkcontribs 02:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Whoa! All done before I could even check. Thanks, Deskana & others - Alison 02:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A cookie to whoever can figure out why I did it so quickly :-p --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just give us the cookies anyway. I'm hungry. HalfShadow 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Also only 1 (user:AproxymatelyJB1962) of the 7 listed at the top of the IPCheck report are blocked... Deskana? Alison? The race starts..... now! Flyguy649talkcontribs 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Missed again - Alison 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting sloppy Ally :) SirFozzie 07:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikiabuse.com seems to be defunct as of now, which is a shame as you could have had the rare treat of JB's righteous indignation at my daring to reveal his name being punctured with this diff: [14]. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Prolly just as well, really, as all sides seemed to be in agreement that it was turning into a warzone. You had it particularly hard, too. Note also that WikiReview is also down. Hmmmm - Alison 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Out of interest, Looch told me where the "196" comes from. It comes from the date of his cat's birth; January '96. How about that? - Alison 18:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team edit warring by User:Alexander the great1 and User:Uuttyyrreess[edit]

There have already been a couple of ANI posts about these users' POV-pushing and edit warring on articles related to Macedonia; for the latest, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive265#Large-scale_revert_war_using_multiple_accounts. Today they've been active at Steve Stavro. In my opinion, Alexander the great1 has violated the 3RR. I was about to report him at WP:AN3, but I noticed that there was an IP edit made an edit similar to Alexander's, and that Uuttyyrreess has too. Given the evidence that we've got of off-wiki coordination, I consider Uuttyyrress a meatpuppet of Alexander. I think both deserve a block, especially since they are both disruptive considered on their own merits--for instance, Alexander has been editing from open proxies. I would do it myself, but I've edited Steve Stavro. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a false accusation of the highest degree. I have not reverted that article more then three times. I reverted it once because it was vandlaised. All the other times I added relevant content. The constant accusation that all Macedonian editors are sock/meat puppets has a very racially prejudiced tone as a sockpuppet check has already been done on several editors including my self and Uuttyyrreess and it came up negative. I have not been editing from open proxies that is again a false accusation. What makes this case even stranger is the fact that Akhilleus only singled out the Macedonian users of Wikipedia. User Laveol edited the article 4 times yet Akhilleus chose to focus exclusively on the Macedonian users only. This leads any reasonable person to the conclusion that this complaint was racially motivated as only Macedonian users were targeted and the accusations were false. Alexander the great1 04:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the great1 is a confirmed sockpuppeteer, a user of open proxies, and has been blocked twice for edit warring. I expect that if an administrator takes a look at this s/he can decide whether Laveol has violated the 3RR or not. Or someone can report him to WP:AN3 if they feel it's necessary. As far as I can see, though, Laveol hasn't used sockpuppets or open proxies, or solicited edit warring off-wiki, so why would I post on the administrator's noticeboard about him? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never used open proxies. I did not even know what the meaning of the term was until I did a search for it after reading your accusation. Do you have any proof beyond hearsay to back up your accusation?

Just because I have been blocked for “edit warring” in the past doesn’t mean that every edit I make can be classified as edit warring. And if you look at the history/talk page for Steve Stavro you will see that I have been more constructive then Laveol. Its also humorous that you call me a “confirmed sockpuppeteer” considering there has never been a “Requests for checkuser” for any of my supposed “sockpupets” and this account. One of the sock puppets was used on 2 articles a total of 5 times and the other one has never been used. I created those accounts before I knew what a “sockpupet” was. I have never used them since or in a “large scale edit war” or anything like that. I think it is an overstatement to call me a “confirmed sockpuppeteer”. Alexander the great1 05:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I believe it would be a good idea to ask for both editors to be CheckUsered for evidence of Tor use, given the recent problems on Macedonia-related articles. If this is shown to be the case, I would advocate blocking both accounts and any Tor nodes discovered in the process. -- ChrisO
I have filed a report here. Mr. Neutron 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

I have just blocked Unfreeride (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 48 hours, see block log. The user's contributions consist solely of pushing some weird POV (I think) against the entire the world [15] [16] [17]. (User)talk page comments have been less than constructive [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and include suggesting WP:POINT violations [26]. I invite discussion on whether an indefblock is warranted. – Steel 16:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

All I needed to see was the guy "citing" Stormfront. Goodbye, please don't come back. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking through his history, he has a strange fascination about racial differences. Until(1 == 2) 16:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Normally I would say that after a first block it's too early to discuss an indef block, but there are enough diffs which show a disturbing pattern that it seems appropriate in this situation. Certainly there are enough to make a case that this editor is a POV soap-boxer with some odd issues, rather than a good-faith contributor in need of guidance. I would also normally suggest more attempts at dialogue with an editor before an indefblock, but I didn't see anything to make me hopeful that it would help here. I guess I would support the indefblock, but if no further action is taken then this editor should be watched closely after the current block expires. Doc Tropics 16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, I just denied this user's unblock request. There wasn't a shred of regret in his request. I doubt very much that this user will last long after the block expires. I'm certainly not against an indef at this point. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I just protected the user's page after they removed the earlier denied unblock and made a new one as if nothing had happened. Nothing wrong with making the extra request but losing the earlier unblock was sneaky. Please review if this was incorrect. Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

noface1 sockpuppet[edit]

Resolved: IP warned. Shalom Hello 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

the user noface1 He has created multiple sockpuppet accounts such as mootoogs lawyer, noob101, and nibbo 2. If you check the ip's used by these accounts you will see that they are the same.

also if you check the logs you will see "11:20, 26 April 2007 Noface1 (Talk | contribs) created new account User:Mootoogs mum (Talk | contribs)" this futher proves my point that he is making sockpuppet accounts to vandalise mootoogs user page.

He uses the account noface1 for his legitamite edits however he uses other accounts for vandalsim. also the a user page and user talk pages of mootoogs lawyer and noob101 have been deleted but if you check the log you can see the accounts still exist. 81.159.252.29 16:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

and if you comapre the user description with noface1 and nibbo 2 on the user pages you will see they are very similar and if you compare the contribs they both edit very similar things, eg the article Banbury 81.159.252.29 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

in fact he has actually used the account nibbo 2 to make changes to noface1 's user page see: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=nibbo+2&site=en.wikipedia.org 81.159.252.29 17:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, slow down please. Normally we handle such cases at Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. The first thing I need to do is check the contribution log of each user, so let me jot the names down first:

And I'm also curious to compare

After checking all the contribution logs, I make the following observations:
  1. Noface1 appears to be a good-faith editor. (The complainant did not deny this.)
  2. The suspected sockpuppets have been gone since March or have not contributed at all, so they are irrelevant.
  3. Noface1 reverted three edits - correctly - by 81.159.252.29, so the IP apparently devised a more ingenious plan of action than simply revert warring in order to get his way. Of course, it didn't work. I'll give him a "uw-aiv" warning, and I hope he learns not to do this again. Shalom Hello 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting a block for User:216.83.121.194[edit]

Resolved: long-term vandal IP now indefblocked - Alison 04:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this is the right place to post it, but is there any chance an admin could sort out User:216.83.121.194? The person has been vandalising articles by adding false information practically for two years now (though I've only discovered this guy in November 2005). One of the vandal's recurring edits involve a "merger" between Bratz and World Wrestling Entertainment. The vandal created numerous accounts over this time and noticed by users including myself. (see here, here, here, here and here). The IP address was blocked in June last year for six months but it seems to have little effect as he returned after the block to continue vandalising. I'm not sure if it's possible, but is there any chance this IP can be blocked for another extended period if not indefinetly? To be honest, I'm getting sick of this. -- Oakster  Talk  18:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Whoa! Ok - I've seen the checkuser results and in light of the evidence and the account's previous 6 month block last June for sockery, I've indefinitly blocked this IP (something I think I've never done before). If it becomes an issue at some later date, we can review the block - Alison 18:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou very much. -- Oakster  Talk  18:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Weird, I was about to start a new topic on this IP address. Endorse the block. Given the number of sockpuppets I've seen recently, I think it should probably be hardblocked, but I guess we could wait and see how this block works. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I tweaked the block to switch off AO, so that's that. What a history - Alison 19:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NFCC Violation[edit]

Resolved: Listed the image for speedy deletion Will (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

at Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who). Same story as last time, users inserting images non-compliant with our NFCC (the funny thing this time is that it isn't even from the episode :-P). Matthew 18:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny, everyone except you seems to not class it as such. Will (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We can't possibly justify this illustrates a plot point from an episode which hasn't yet been filmed. Mark H Wilkinson 20:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not justifying it's a plot point. Also, NFCC says "illustrates a topic in a way that words alone cannot", which I think the image does (Titanic's damage to the TARDIS, which is discussed in the article). Will (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The article just says that Titanic damages the Tardis. It doesn't say anything else. The image merely identifies that. There's no real discussion. I'm very dubious about this fair use claim. Moreschi Talk 21:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, there should be something on the TARDIS' impregnability to the Titanic's unsinkability in the article. We do give a lot of discussion on the Titanic's history within Doctor Who in the article... Will (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested that it be speedied. Matthew, please, next time you get in a dispute which you're losing, discuss it on the article's talk instead of running to ANI. Will (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Tush, but ANI has Teh Major Sex Appeal, y'know? How else to explain its magnetism? Moreschi Talk 21:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It's the wall from the hatch! Will (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Fair use review also works. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

User Impersonating Me[edit]

Resolved

Hi, this is Black Harry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I recently voted (oppose) at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/TheFearow. A few hours late HarryMaxwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) voted (oppose) on the same RFA.

This isn't much of a concern, however HarryMaxwell's signature is this '''[[User:HarryMaxwell|<span style="color:black">HarryMaxwell</span>]]''' [[User:HarryMaxwell/Highlights|(Highlights]]|[[Special:Contributions/HarryMaxwell|Contribs)]] which yields HarryMaxwell (Highlights|Contribs) (See this Diff).

This is exact same as mine signature (Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs)).

Could someone look into this.

--Black Harry (Highlights|Contribs) 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Interesting. He was reported to AIV earlier for repeatedly posting the same RFA. After a while, he apologized and all was well again. Hmmm - Alison 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is something that sockpuppets get up to sometime. I also see the imitator has claimed 2,000 plus edits at one point. Does his prose style remind you of any now-blocked user you may have had experiences with in the past? --Fire Star 火星 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok. I'm not sure. I dont think know if he is impersonating you BlackHarry - his name is different. And I dont impinge on you. I know you wouldnt sockpuppet. It was just strange. Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Well, the signature is similar and he probably used yours as a starting point to do his, but since he is not using your name but his own, I don't think you will be mistaken for him. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr talk 23:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a quick look at contribs, but HM Tiger? That rings a bell, though I have no idea where I saw it before... --Dark Falls talk 23:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

according to the website HM Tiger is a insperational buisness.. sure that article can be flushed as a speedy? --Fredrick day 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • (ec) Well, I missed something that was right in front of me...As for the speedy, I tagged it already. --Dark Falls talk 23:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Multi-IP, single purpose vandalism on KTUL[edit]

During the course of RC patrolling on May 26th, I reverted a piece of vandalism on this article that referred to various on-air talent as "Lensmeat". This anon was blocked for 31 hours. However, since that time, other vandal edits have appeared that look remarkably similar to this.

First instance

[27]

[28]

On this last edit, it seems our vandal has gotten himself a Qwest account, but, you can see, is up to his old tricks. If you look at the history of the article, you can see this is but a small percentage of this account's "contributions" to this article. I'd like to request an appropriate block on either or both accounts. Thanks--Ispy1981 05:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kitrus stalking and reverting[edit]

For several weeks User:Kitrus has been reverting on a number of articles. His modus operandi is to show up for an hour or so, revert me (and others) in a half-dozen places, then disappear for a day or two, only to do the same thing, all while refusing to use Talk: pages. The pattern appeared to start on June 10, and he has reverted me (and other editors on those articles) many times since then. Examples:

If someone else makes edits after my edits, he will keep that person's edit but revert mine, sometimes to almost comic effect; here, for example he reverts back to his previous edit, describing the intervening edits as "vandalism"; but then realizes someone else has edited as well, so he then reverts my edits only, with the comment "Oops".

When challenged to produce sources for his edits on Pierre Rehov, he first produces spurious sources that don't back up his claims, then insists "I don't need a source to state the very obvious" while re-inserting the link, then finally re-inserts the unsourced claim with a "fact" tag. In another instance, when challenged for a source on a WP:BLP is, he reverts, insisting the source is "the internet; are you that lazy?" It's almost impossible to force him to the Talk: page. He reverted The Arab Mind 9 times over 3 weeks, while making only one Talk: page comment (after his 7th revert). He reverted Pierre Rehov 5 times, but only commented once. He commented once on the Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks article, and has reverted at least a half-dozen times since, without comment. He has reverted Islam and antisemitism 5 times without comment.

He has been slowly expanding the range of his stalking; he followed me to Ethnic nationalism on June 19, Islam and antisemitism on June 25, and on June 30 he stalked and reverted me on East Jerusalem, Foreign relations of Israel, and History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union. The last two are particularly troubling; on Foreign relations of Israel he removed a lengthy footnote I added to the article, making a sentence meaningless in the process. On History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union he re-inserted IP antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews and Bolshevism, that, among other things, claimed that antisemites "justly" accuse Jews of "pursuing Bolshevism to benefit Jewish interests", and that Bolsheviks had a "well-deserved" reputation of being "a gang of marauding Jews".

He has also created a User_talk:Kitrus#Possible_Sockpuppets section devoted to me, wherein he lists anyone who has ever reverted his edits to my most recent version.

He seems content to log on every day or two for an hour, revert me (and several other editors) on 6-10 articles, then disappear. Page protection has been tried, but has been ineffective, since he simply waits for it to expire, then reverts again. I'd like a block on him for 3 days to make it clear to him that he needs to follow Wikipedia policy with his edits, properly source claims, engage meaningfully on the Talk: page, and not simply edit for the purpose of reverting. Jayjg (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I started checking the diffs you provided for Islam and Antisemitism. Can you please explain how they serve as a related evidence. The first two are [59], [60]; as far as I can see it is dispute over addition of "Unverifiable-external-links" tag with User:Humus sapiens. So is the third revert. The fourth revert is this [61]. It is sourced to Lewis and User:Kitrus is hardly alone over addition of this.
And lastly the fifth revert is this one [62] with edit summary: inks are overwhelmingly pov; the passage is refrenced by Lewis which is the reasoning behind these five edits. It is not a revert of you but User:Sefringle --Aminz 05:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest we statistically compare him with User:Sefingle (or you) on the Islam and Antisemitism article. --Aminz 05:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
As you are well aware, I have been involved in lengthy disputes with Bless sins (and you, for that matter), on the Talk: page there, with multiple posts nearly every day - in total, I've made almost 300 edits to that Talk: page. It's always high up in my recent edits list, and that is how Kitrus showed up there. However, since I hadn't actually edited the article in a couple of weeks, he didn't have anything in particular to revert. So instead he added a tag, something he has been doing on other pages as well, whenever he doesn't like external links. Regarding the fifth edit, it is, in fact, a revert of this edit of mine. In any event, this section is not about the lengthy conflict at Islam and antisemitism, in which you are a participant, but rather User:Kitrus's stalking me there to oppose me on yet another article. Please read the entire statement, and follow all the links, and comment on the issue as a whole. If you want to start an entirely different section regarding the many issues at the Islam and antisemitism article, feel free to do so, but don't hijack this section to deal with your own content issues on that article. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not hijacking. You cited evidences from Islam and antisemitism article in which I am involved and know what is going on; So I can give my opinion about that. As far as I can see Kirtus has only reverted you once and his additions were minimal (addition of a sentence sourced to lewis) and a tag; and they are explaiend in the diff edit. In fact, contrary to what you wrote, one of his diffs support User:Itsmejudith's addition; another User:Bless sins's addition; clearly not a blind revert of you or stalking you but supporting others.
As far as I can say: There is nothing, infact nothing, from the diffs you provided from Islam and antisemitism article that supports your claims. I haven't read other diffs but those on Islam and antisemitism don't prove anything. --Aminz 05:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
He stalked me there, and eventually reverted me there. He first edited there on 06:32, 25 June 2007. He had never edited that article before. I had just commented on the Talk: page there less than two hours previously. He has reverted other editors there as well. He has never commented on the Talk: page there, just reverted. If you don't care to read the rest of the evidence, and the pattern of editing displayed, but rather only comment on the area where you have content disputes with me, then your comments will have to be taken in that light. Jayjg (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I've spoken my words. I'd like to provide a diff to User:Kitrus's contributions [63]. It is useful for people to judge among the following two hypothesis: 1. User:Kitrus has general interest in articles (related to Arabs, Islam and Israel) which happens to be close to those of you 2. He is stalking you.
(1) would find some support if one can find articles in this area that User:Kitrus has edited when you were not there. Otherwise (2) would be supported.
The truth may also lie somewhere in between.
One can also count number of his reverts of you and then compare it with his revert of others. A similar but this time converse analysis should be done to count the number of your reverts of him.
That seems to me to be a reasonable approach. --Aminz 06:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Explain his most recent edits to East Jerusalem, Foreign relations of Israel, and History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union, where he showed up to revert me on articles he had never edited before. And this section is about Kitrus's behavior; if you want to start a section about your content issues with me, go ahead. Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not related to content dispute at all. I am trying to find a way of distingushing between hypothesis (1) and (2) above. User:Kitrus has also recently edited say "India-Israel relations" but you have not. Based on my quick search, he has not found the name of this article through your contribution list.
Please note that the correlation between two phenomena doesn't imply their causal relation. (a point much-stated by philosophers of science). Yes, he might have, at some moment, looked at your contributions and have found articles fitting within his area of general interest and might have edited them consequently. Many editors naturally do this particularly when they believe the other person edits certain types of articles with a different POV than theirs. This case might be stalking but my only point is that the case needs close examination. I don't have anything more to say on this. --Aminz 06:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There does seem to be some stalking going on judging by the diffs. I'll leave a note on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Kitrus was wikistalking me at first, because of his/her disruptive edits to Islam and racism, where he/she reverted my sourced additions and attempts to fix the article. [64][65][66][67] He refused to explain his reverts or discuss them on the talk page. I created a section on the talk page for Kitrus to respond, which he/she didn't; instead, he/she just continued reverting wthouot explanation or discussion. I started assuming the edits were vandalism, and marked them as such.--SefringleTalk 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

He made similar edits on Ibn Khaldun.--SefringleTalk 07:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If warnings have been ignored a block appears in order. The only question I have is for long? FeloniousMonk 14:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support a 3 day block as shot across the bow. If his edit pattern continues, longer blocks of a week or more would be warranted in my judgment. Crum375 14:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. FeloniousMonk 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 72 hours with the understanding that a longer block is in order if he resumes the behavior upon his return. FeloniousMonk 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of comment from AfD Disucssion by Alansohn[edit]

This is now the second incident that has had to be opened against the user in question within the last week, and this time it is in relation to his actions of removing a fair and justified comment on the AfD for Delone Catholic High School. The user has thrice reverted comments (diff 1 diff 2 diff 3) made by myself in the AfD, trying to without merit claim that the comments do not assume good faith. The comments are a genuine, clear and considered response to issues raised in the AfD. I am of the opinion that the user is doing this for the sole purpose of removing reasonable and justified criticisms of his views in relation to the subject matter at hand, as well as clear and fair assessment of his editorial actions which are the basis for a current Request for Comment regarding the users conduct. Thewinchester (talk) 07:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The entirety of User:Thewinchester's remarks that he was trying to add constitute a personal attack in violation of WP:NPA, as can be seen by each one of diffs that this user has cited. This same user made an earlier personal attack in this same AfD, falsely claiming that I had attacked him, which has clearly been rebutted (see [68]). This user has been blocked in the past for incivility and has bragged in the past about his efforts to provoke a confrontation, boasting that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eusebeus&diff=next&oldid=139430723 See here for details]) in clear violation of WP:POINT. User:Thewinchester's continued abuse of process and incivility undermine any claim of good faith on his part. Alansohn 07:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Alansohn, why don't you leave the comments alone? You have a strong COI in this. If someone else who comes along sees the comments and think that they're personal attacks, they can remove them. Corvus cornix 07:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • The comments were a baseless personal attack that in no way addressed the article in question and no decent person was stepping forward to remove them. Alansohn 07:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I don't see calling someone to account as a personal attack. I also think that the time frame of your reverts (6 minutes, 2 minutes and 2 minutes in that order) reflects that you were not actually waiting for said decent person to step forward to remove them. Orderinchaos 07:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • The personal attacks were rapidly reinserted, and still have not been removed. The timeframe of User:Thewinchester's reverts to reinsert his attacks -- despite the clear explanations for their removal -- further demonstrates bad faith on his part. Alansohn 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I think things need to be put into context here. An 8hr block against one user for a single, heat of the moment comment which even the blocking admin in informal private off-wiki discussion admitted that the block was one step too far in the case you persist in referring to, as opposed to a constantly increasing history of evidence regarding your uncivil editing style which continues to be documented in the RFC currently active relating to you. I don't hide the block and history in question, in fact I have it archived in full on my own talk pages, and anyone reading this ANI report is welcomed and encouraged to read it to get some perspective. The actual comment is no longer available as the user in question who's talk pages the comment was on has had his history deleted by a Bureaucrat for a likely justified and totally unrelated reason to myself. I don't hide from my past actions, and on the face of it, I feel that it could be easily assumed by any other educated person of sound mind that you have failed to learn from yours. Thewinchester (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Thewinchester has topped off his block with a premeditated effort to provoke other users and to use the Wikipedia WP:AN/I process to punish those who disagree with him. Someone who brags that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." is trying to make a WP:POINT, by its textbook definition. Thewinchester has abused Wikipedia process before, is doing so right now and has shown every indication that he will continue with his attacks, incivility and abuse of process in the future, all in his crusade to protect Wikipedia from what he has defined as "Schoolcruft". This user must be dealt with in appropriate fashion. Alansohn 07:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
        • What attacks? Where? Who? Which crusade? What agenda? Where are these WP:POINT disruptions you claim others any myself are up to? You constantly make those allegations, but cannot provide any evidence to back them up. You simply extrapolate comments and the meaning of them into your own narrow minded views in order to make feeble attempts at saying they violated policy, when it's just not true, a fact clearly pointed out to you ad nauseum in not only the last few weeks but again this afternoon by an Admin when you broke rules again in the AfD in question. You cannot provide any evidence of attacks because it simply does not exist, and your continued assertion that it does breaches both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you can't stop, smell the roses, and realise that you've brought every last one of the issues that have been raised against you in the last fortnight upon yourself, then its your own problem. Countless people have tried to help you, to build consensus, and to assist you in just getting along with others, and each time they fail because you hold on to these minuscule extrapolated points trying to justify a pointless position which serves no-one. I've said it here on AfD in a previous incident report that I have given up trying to work with you, and so have many others. If this doesn't help you draw the easy conclusion that you're not playing well with others and it might be time to give it a rest and play nicely in the sandpit, then quite frankly I don't know what will short of the community dealing with you. I can say with a reasonably degree of surity that this will not be the end, as you'll no doubt chime in and try once again to break an argument down point by point twisting and turning every last little word into something which makes it looks like you're the one hard done by. On a more personal note, ive not been able to do any serious and considered editing the last week because you have usurped every last wikimoment of my time dealing with the rubbish left in your wake constantly brought to my attention. I'd like to work on getting articles like Perth Airport up to FA status, but instead I am reduced to cleaning up your crap and getting stuck in an RFC process which we in the possibly vein hope might just help you realise the error of your ways. There are days where I really wish there was a WP:CABAL dedicated to dealing with such users, a group of dedicated uberusers with the time, strength and patience to take on painful editors and leave others to improving the encyclopaedia. If there were a few less users like Alan et al, then the wiki could be a happier place and we wouldn't even have to think about the need for such a cabal. Oh, and that last comment - that is pushing the boundaries of WP:AGF, but when you've got people like Alan who game the system with 3rr and other disruptions, do you blame me for comments like that? Thewinchester (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
          • User:Thewinchester seems to have a tell, part of a pattern of protesting about complaints that were never registered. In the AfD that sent him off his rocker, he reacted to a statement that "In the dozen or so school AfDs created over the past few days..." by insisting that "Additionally, you once again fail to assume good faith and accuse another user of having undertaking a concerted campaign of deleting school articles, and you do so with no basis or justification." It's a great personal attack, but the claim that he was part of "a concerted campaign of deleting school articles" was never made. Here he says " There are days where I really wish there was a WP:CABAL dedicated to dealing with such users", when no one has ever made that claim. It's not like there are a whole bunch of meatpuppets from Western Australia suddenly voting in school AfDs that they had never participated in before. These issues would be hard to justify if User:Thewinchester hadn't described his plan in advance with co-conspirator User:Eusebeus, stating "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm.... Not smart for him, as our project employs similar tactics with a number of known problem editors, and he's just got 'on the list' of a few people in the land down under." (Click here for the details]). At first I thought it was a physical threat, but this is a man who means what he says and follows through on his threats. The Wikistalking and WP:Harassment from a group of people who have developed a sudden interest in schools in the United States is odd to say the least, all the more so as this group is most of the squad from Wikipedia:Meetup/Perth/3 and Wikipedia:Schoolcruft, most notably User:Thewinchester and User:Orderinchaos with broad participation from other members of the Anti-cruft police. I hadn't put the pieces together, but User:Thewinchester's threats that "There's a whole project who given half a chance would lynch the user and hang them from the nearest freaking yardarm.... Not smart for him, as our project employs similar tactics with a number of known problem editors, and he's just got 'on the list' of a few people in the land down under." is happening right here, right now. The same bunch of folks from Western Australia who plan to meet up in Perth on Sunday, August 19th, are all popping up on AfDs for schools on the other side of the world. His malicious boast that "...I'm now going to engage in my favourite sport of poking the bear in it's own backyard. It's the bears fault, as he's lead me there...." (See here for details) is what's happening here. For someone who complains that he hasn't had a chance to improve his article about a train station, he seems awfully determined to devote his precious time to protect Wikipedia from an article for a school 12,000 miles away; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delone Catholic High School is the bear poking incident User:Thewinchester was seeking to provoke, with a few assists from the usual suspects. The pattern of abuse is unmistakable. This abuse of Wikipedia policy by Thewinchester must be put to an end. Alansohn 17:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
            • Oh damn, you're onto us. I should have known it would never work. I'll have to call the rest of the cabal and let them know our plans for evil and world domination have just been foiled. Orderinchaos 09:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you both have over reacted the Afd has five days to run how about taking a step back go work on something else you both making a horrible spectacle of yourselves. Gnangarra 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive forum shopping/harassment[edit]

Resolved

Zeraeph (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has a problem with one of my user pages, which is fine, but in trying to get rid of it she has been excessively forum shopping to the point of harassment. In the past few months she has brought the issue to various user and Wikipedia talk pages, nominated the page (in almost exactly the same form) for deletion at least three times, filed two separate mediation requests (while the MfDs were ongoing, no less), and made a direct appeal to Jimbo himself:

Three of these incidents (two deletion requests and a mediation request) have ocurred in the past week.

Enough already. This behaviour has been going on for months. This user needs to understand that snowing editors under with bureaucracy is not the way to deal with content they find objectionable. Let the damned MfD run its course. —Psychonaut 21:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally I believe that the keeping of derogatory "watchlists" is against everything Wikipedia is about. I would very much like to see User:Psychonaut/User watchlist deleted. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist was closed, without prejudice, with the suggestion that I relist any individual page for MFD after a "cooling off" period [69] because I was stupid enough to allow myself to be derailed into debating the general issue of many "watchlists" at once. I Listed the page again for MFD 7 months later. I only did this once, [70] but could not find instructions for listing a second MFD, which I made clear in my edit summary.User:Arthur Rubin was kind enough to correct my error and set up a second MFD properly [71] though my reasons for requesting deletion seems to have been deleted by the time he did so [72].
Psychonaut Has kept entries on User:ABenis and User:Zeraeph on User:Psychonaut/User watchlist which he describes as "Monitoring vandals and other problematic editors" in the link from User:Psychonaut (see:[73]). I am not happy with this on a personal level or in terms of WP:AGF.
In [74] Psychonaut states that: "Anyone who I happen to encounter who turns out to be persistent or far-reaching in their policy violations, and who does not seem to be actively monitored by other editors." even though all User:ABenis has ever done is make about 100 good faith edits to a handful of articles (See:Special:Contributions/ABenis) and has not edited anything at all since November 2 2006, and all User:Psychonaut's, self stated, vigilance concerning User:Zeraeph has yielded since November 2nd 2006 is[75] a single violation that is dependent on bending the 3RR almost to breaking point, [76] (the fourth edit being a different, minor edit removing of a link to convicted fraudulant historian David Irving.
Because of these aspects of the MFD I checked through policy and decided that it really IS time to "Solve the root of the conflict" by attempting to resolve the differences between us through mediation as I explained to User:Psychonaut [77]. I cannot imagine why he would have a problem with that. --Zeraeph 22:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Zeraeph, you have just extended your forum shopping to WP:ANI with the above post. Instead of speaking only to my complaint of harassment, you used the opportunity to rattle on about the user page you find objectionable. I'm sorry to say that you just proved my point. —Psychonaut 22:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
It really seems to me that you brought this here, I just responded as it my right. --Zeraeph 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
PS I also have a slight problem with your phrase "snowing editors under with bureaucracy", it seems a little inaccurate as my last comment connected to the previous MFD would seem to have occurred on the 31 October 2006 [78] and didn't raise this issue again until 26 June 2007 [79] when I removed and entry from your watchlist for User:ABenis who has not edited at all on Wikipedia since 2 November 2006, and the entry seemed totally redundant. That would not fit my interpretation of "snowing" anybody under with anything.--Zeraeph 23:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it will make you feel any better, but I had a similar situation with her about a year ago, where several admins called for but ultimately decided against a community ban. The convoluted starting, stopping, opening, closing and refusing to mediate tied me up for months, made it hard to get anything productive done, and almost caused me to leave Wiki out of sheer frustration. I've had no trouble since this ANI report, but I try my hardest to stay out of her way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what point you are making? Also, it seems to me that our differences lasted a matter of some three or four weeks at most, hardly "months", but my memory of this may be faulty, I am checking right now and will happily apologise if I am wrong? --Zeraeph 22:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, sorry, that was in fact 7 weeks from here [80] to here (your link) [81]. I felt that as there has never been even a minor problem between us since our differences were resolved and forgotten, but if you do not agree, I am happy to go to mediation now? --Zeraeph 23:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the situation, I have blocked the user for a period of one week. If anyone disagrees with the block, please contact me. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
There were a couple of points in there; mostly that mentorship had been a good thing. The points were ... First, Zeraeph has forum shopped before, and it tied me up something awful for a long time. Second, I've had no further problems/issues with her (for a year), and the solution proposed by Deathphoenix (mentorship) seems to have been a good one. I hope everyone now involved takes heed of his wise approach. Third, any form of dispute resolution, mediation, arbcom rulings, blocking, etc. is less likely to be helpful than simple mentoring, for the very reasons discussed in the former AN/I link I provided. (And fourth, the situation went on before and after the diffs you gave above, so yes, it was several months.) To Zeraeph's credit, again, I've had no further issues with her, but I've been careful to try to avoid editing similar articles. I'm not sure who started the poking here, but it would be good if mentorship continued in some form. Blocking, mediating, and ArbCom would be less likely to yield a productive result; if Deathphoenix is no longer around, maybe someone else will mentor ?? The issue here is forum shopping which unduly ties up other editors and keep them from productive work; there has been a pattern, and I hope this discussion stays focused on that issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I should also add that I endorse the block for now, not because it's ultimately the best long-term way of handling these issues, but because past experience has shown that the situation will only escalate across many different forums with many different posts tying up many editors if Zeraeph isn't given forced time off while the community figures out the best way forward. I recommend the block stays in place until there is consensus on the forum shopping issue and whether another mentor can be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment That was an error I made pasting the wrong link, I had NO IDEA it went through. SORRY --Zeraeph 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that was a real RfM you posted and tried to get numerous editors to agree to. It's a redlink because not all editors agreed to the mediation, and the page was deleted by the MedCab. —Psychonaut 01:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As an editor, not admin, I have to say the keeping of User watchpages like this is both awkward AND reassuring. One, the big brotherish, tattletale nature of them can easily come off as intimidating and authoritarian. However, Seeing a user like Bosniak on there reminds me that some of these watchlists serve a great purpose when editors come up on AN/I, as it makes documenting patterns of behavior easier. Not everyone has the time to spend all of their alloted daily wiki-time sorting out the long and complex histories some users have fighting each other, and these summaries are useful. Further, as they are publicly visible, it makes arguing for the inclusion of mitigating factors possible. If Editor A has a 'file' on X and Y's conflict, and X sees only evidence against himself, he can certainly contact A asking that AN/I incidents against Y be included for a fuller st of info, and if that's not done, can easily start up a rebuttal section in his user space to counter biased allegations. I'd rather see user page space used than IRC channels. ThuranX 06:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than reward Zeraeph's forum shopping with a discussion of user watchlists here, can I suggest that you take these remarks to a more appropriate venue? The MfD has been closed, so perhaps the Village pump policy section would be best. I don't think the discussion belongs here, because the issue of user watchlists isn't relevant only to administrators. —Psychonaut 11:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
User now unblocked. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Melcsw is a vandal in the Norman Vincent Peale article[edit]

Melcsw has edited this article over and over. He has loaded the article with critisms of this person. Any attempts to revert is reported as vandalism by him. Any attempts to add any counters to his comments with postive statements is reported as vandalism. The discussion page is full of talk about what he has done to this article. It appears to be the only article he edits. It must be stopped.--Panzertank123 00:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, in looking through the article, all the statements are heavily referenced. Why would you revert the inclusion of a referenced statement? If you do, that can be construed as vandalism. If there's an alternate view, include that also, and support it with appropriate references. Bringing a general statement like this to the board really isn't helpful. Go forth and edit, add substantial and sourced material. If he then reverts that, then you have a case...come back then and report specific incidents of sourced material being reverted, and we can do something about it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, AKRadecki, I'm new here, but I've watched what has happened with the Peale article for some time. Is the onus really on the Wikipedia community to balance a one-sided addition to an article? And should we devote as much time doing research to support the policy of Wiki NPOV as a fanatic does to his particular soapbox? I would hope that contributors would be encouraged to write balanced, NPOV articles. You seem to be saying that as long as I can supply references, I can load up an article with as much of one viewpoint as I want, and it's everyone else's responsibility to provide the balance. Is that right? 63.119.136.68 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Many of the posts are not referenced. Also the posts could be made shorter.--216.52.73.254 12:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That article has been edited over and over of time by Melcsw. He has reverted any attempt to counter the criticisms. He had referenced an article. He then included the whole 100+-word quote from that article.

I did not take out his article. I left the main point in and referenced the rest. He however deleted a referenced article that I put in. Actually he had it in originally, under the criticism part. I moved it under a new category and referenced it.

Look under the discussion page. You will see from other people what he is doing. A person like him is what makes wikpedia a joke to many people.

The criticism section of the article is 3 times larger than the rest of the article! This is Dr. Norman Vincent Peale we are talking about, not Hitler!--Panzertank123 12:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated it, lets see how long before it gets reverted again.--Panzertank123 13:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kuban kazak[edit]

Kuban kazak is intentionally showing disrespect to the other users as well as violating wikipolicies in general. (1) He brought on my talk page a link to a highly inappropriate image (mentioned in his PPPS), which is a clear violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; (2) He is engaged in a revert war at Template:Ukraine Labelled Map (which is still in early stage, but the template probably needs protection better sooner than later); (3) He is accusing others of stalking him (however Template:Ukraine Labelled Map was not edited for half of the year, and it has never been edited by him before, yet he came to the page editing it a few hours after me, and he is accusing me of stalking him).

As a wider issue, he stated his refusal to answer Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kuban kazak. He just "refused to participate", stating that "this rfc ain't even on my watchlist".

I'd like independent admins to check on the current uncivil behavior of User:Kuban kazak (if it's confirmed to be as such), and give an advice on how to proceed if a user declines to address RfC, but continue his disruptive behavior. Or, alternatively, please explain to him the need for appropriate behavior, of which responding RfC would be a valuable first step. Thanks, Novelbank 03:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, I thought he toned down but I guess he's at it once again. I think it's heading towards ArbCom. — Alex(U|C|E) 10:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive User User:Ttturbo[edit]

This user, although speaks Lithuanian?, is becoming very uncivil to other users on the project, specifically at AFDs concerning the Red Army. He is also making personal attacks against