Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive267

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:SkoopPop[edit]

I was just over on Wikinews and apparently there was a JB196 sockpuppet trying to take credit for finding the Chris Benoit edit. The account name was User:SkoopPop, and I found the same username has registered here on Wikipedia, so we may want to block this account as a sleeper account of JB196's. — Moe ε 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please link appropriate diffs from Wikinews. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Only one diff [1] and the URL he provides gives the name Jonathan Barber, also known as JB196. — Moe ε 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Open proxy and two sleepers blocked. Good eyes. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. — Moe ε 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy[edit]

I strongly suspect User:Plumbing is a sock of DreamGuy. Plumbing is a new account who answered a RFC under cats [[2]]. Others think Plumbing is a sock, too. See [[3]]. Shouldn't we block Plumbing for 24 hours as a warning? Plumbing did help with constructive comments for several RFC so this should be taken into consideration.

I don't want a huge fight with DreamGuy so I am not asking for his blocking and this account will self destruct (not edit) in 5 seconds (to prevent stalking by DreamGuy).Mikkke2 16:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser rather than here? And lay out your reasons there for thinking it's a sock of DreamGuy specifically? That's the procedure. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC).
Perhaps a nice 24 hour bad-faith block (or sock check) on Mikkke2 who 'doesn't want a huge fight' but takes time to make a non-accusation of stalking. Peace.Lsi john 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to admin: From his edit history (and the post here), Mikkke2 is clearly a trolling sock account. Someone may want to look into it deeper, but it's probably an untracable proxy. Peace.Lsi john 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as somewhat of a (modest cough) expert on DreamGuy's alternate accounts, I have to say that I see no evidence whatsoever that plumbing (talk · contribs) is the same user. --Elonka 17:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In view of good relations, I withdraw my comments about DreamGuy and Plumbing. I think there is a link but don't want to pursue it. If you are so anxious to defend DreamGuy, then you should also defend Plumbing against this wikistalking editor which Plumbing wrote about (Plumbing isn't stalking him but User:Tvoz is...see [[4]]Mikkke2 19:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please block me[edit]

Please block me for 1 year AND please say "blocked upon user's request". I am an alternate account of an established user. I am worried about suspicious behavior of DreamGuy, an administrator, and didn't want my regular account blocked. DreamGuy has shown he is partially an honorable man by not doing so and let some debate go on. I am finished.

The blocking admin should have had no contact with any articles that I've written and should use the reason "blocked upon user's request". If these conditions are not met, I do not wish to be blocked.Mikkke2 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy is not an admin. Also, please do not make multiple threads on this issue. If you have further comments, please add them at #Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help or #POV pushing and socks of DreamGuy above. --Elonka 20:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator misconduct in deletion debates[edit]

I have just discovered that User:Evilclown93 has speedily deleted Category:Fictional affluent characters. There is an ongoing debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and another at Wikipedia:Deletion review. This category and its predecessors have now been deleted without consensus three times. The admins involved are not showing respect for the will of the community, but are doing what they want because they have the technical ability to do so. Please could someone advise me of the appropriate action to take to get higher authoritities to investigate and resolve this matter. Thank you. OrchWyn 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

XFD is not a vote. If an administrator feels that something really should be deleted, even with 100% consensus to keep, he can IAR and delete it. Will (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And then he should not be surprised to find it undeleted later. --MichaelLinnear 03:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Even if every other administrator feels that it should be kept? Is there no appeal? Is the power of an administrator completely unlimited? Would you like it if an administrator did this to something that you wanted kept? OrchWyn 03:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
(ec) But they would have to have a damn good reason if it was 100% to keep. The deletion message for this category was "housekeeping". It could just be a genuine mistake. Until Evilclown responds we won't know. Grandmasterka 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
With regard to the comment that "it is not a vote", no one is saying it is. If you look through the debates, the keepers have put forward many more arguments, and most of them have not even received the courtesy of a response. You really can't say that the deleters won the intellectual debate. All that happened was that one of them who had the power to delete went ahead and did so. OrchWyn 03:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your previous remarks condemning an admin for egregious misconduct by going against consensus at the very least comes across as saying it's a vote. Doczilla 05:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Uninvolved comment: There were five comments to speedy delete in the CfD. I recall seeing this category in CAT:CSD earlier today; I presume that's where Evilclown found it as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are also many advocates of retention. And the only grounds for speedy deletion are previous deletions which were performed without consensus, and the latest of which is now up for review. If one accepts that this was a legitimate speedy deletion, then what's to stop any admin deleting any category regardless of the will of the community, and then speedy deleting it every time it reappears regardless of due process and the will of the community? If you agree that the speedy was not correct, please use your powers to restore it asap because right now the current non-existence of this category is distorting a discussion in which many users have participated in good faith, by creating what should be a false impression that the powers that be have already made their decision. OrchWyn 03:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey there; I've replied on your Talk page. I don't feel comfortable reverting Evilclown's decision to delete without hearing what he has to say first. Besides, isn't it on DRV? Nitpick: I don't consider myself to have admin powers, but admin rights. :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

At this time, it would be appropriate to close the discussion on Category:Fictional affluent characters at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 1 and wait for the deletion review on Category:Fictional wealthy characters at Wikipedia:Deletion review to reach a conclusion. Instead of recreating the category under a different name, the interested editors should have gone to WP:DRV if they wanted to dispute the administrator's decision.

Also, although the Category:Fictional affluent characters page itself does not exist, it currently exists as red links in many articles. When the WP:DRV reaches a conclusion, I recommend either deleting the red linked categories or changing all of the red links to correspond to the "wealthy characters" category name. Dr. Submillimeter 09:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur with Submilli. This is an end-run around DRV. Have some patience. >Radiant< 12:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's on DRV, why is it here? If one such action is begun, see it through to the end before taking a different route. Starting two at the same time makes it appear that somebody is just determined to get their own way one way or another. Doczilla 05:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT - please help![edit]

This individual individual destroyed my harmless anti-genocide denial userbox and messed up my profile page code, so now even if I revert to previous version, nothing is lined up properly - nothing works. He completely destroyed the work in which I invested hours of my time. Take a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bosniak . Please help! Are there any objective administrators around? Please help. Bosniak 04:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The template was deleted per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 25#Template:User Against Srebrenica Genocide Denial. If you feel it is necessary, go to WP:DRVRyūlóng (竜龍) 04:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just userfy the userbox and you'll be fine. --Hemlock Martinis 04:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Userfying is the wrong answer. This type of content is not welcome here. Remember that using userpages to ... campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea. Vassyana 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Bam Bam Slim Fast and Lee's Summit[edit]

I noticed a lot of attempts by multiple users to create articles about this Seattle based radio announcer yesterday, using various different versions of his name, all of which were speedy deleted. e.g. Bam Bam AKA Slim Fast (which has now been protected) Slimfast BamBam etc Also many additions of his name to the Lee's Summit, Missouri article as a notable resident. Finally, the explanation came from one user that Mr. Bam Bam had said on air that he should be included in WP and his upbringing in Lee's Summit noted. [5]. Another article involved is Church of lazlo. I write this to ask for some extra eyes and help, as it seems likely that this might be a recurring theme once he gets back on the air today. Thanks.--Slp1 11:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Article has been semi-protected.-Wafulz 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Wafulz! --Slp1 21:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutralhomer[edit]

Neutralhomer continues to vandalize the redirect from Jews to Jew[6][7]. After reverting to the last non-vandalized version of the redirect, he threatened to block me, accusing me of vandalism[8][9][10]. Requesting intervention. Perspicacite 12:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Have reported this user to WP:AIV. Continues to remove 77,000+ words from an article. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
He appears to have some sort of anti-Semitic agenda. The only difference between the page he is reverting to and the July 2 version of "Jew" is that the "Jews" page is under Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. Perspicacite 12:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I am actually insulted! Wow! No, I don't read the page, don't care what's in it. 77,000+ words down to 17, I revert it. The content of the page, I leave that up to someone else. I ask, though, you take retract the "anti-Semitic" comment, because it is rude, uncalled for, and not anywhere close to what I am doing. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be a content dispute, but it should be noted that you should not be copy and pasting the text from Jew into Jews as is occurring. If you want to move the article, the correct venue for discussion is at Talk:Jew. Will (aka Wimt) 12:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I actually have no interest in the subject what-so-ever. I see it on the "Recent Changes" page, clicked on it, revert, Warn2'd the user, and went on from there. Seen it was reverted again, Warn3'd and well, you get the idea. I have no real interest in the article, I leave that up to someone else. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this a content dispute? He deliberately put the article into Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks. He then proceeded to harass me for reverting his vandalism. I would think his edits merit a 24-hr block at least. Perspicacite 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it seems to me to be an innocent mistake. He is reverting to the copy and paste move from Jew seemingly introduced by an IP here which happened to contain that category. I see no evidence that he is deliberately introducing that category. It is true Jews should stay as a redirect (unless Jew is moved there properly and with consensus) but I see no grounds for a block. Will (aka Wimt) 12:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
AGAIN...I do not read the articles, when I see a article that has been reduced from 77,000+ words to 17, I instantly revert it. The content of the article, especially something like Judaism, for which I do not understand and don't claim to even understand in the least, I leave up to someone who does. I am not going to catch a category at the bottom of a page. If I did, I would have certainly removed it, but again, that is not my department. Actually, reverting vandalism isn't either, I just do it to help out.
So, again...I was not vandalising, I was reverting what I thought was vandalism. I have no agenda and I am not and have not vandalised. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This user apparently has a long history of incivility[11][12], referring to the "bastards" (no doubt the Jews) behind 9/11.[13][14]. Perspicacite 12:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No doubt his past edits involving Category:Participants in the September 11, 2001 attacks and Cat:Victims of 9/11 are coincidental. Righttttt. Perspicacite 12:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
My edit summary on the September 11 page was about people who were Islamic, for one, who took down the Twin Towers. But, I shouldn't have lost my temper and said that on my edit summary.
But it had NOTHING to do with Jewish people, actually had nothing to do with Islamic people. Just 19 "bastards".
Now, you need to stop this personal attack you are going on, because you can be blocked for that. - NeutralHomer T:C 12:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Perspicacite, you seem to be entirely lacking in any kind of good faith assumption here. Neutralhomer has said that he just saw what appeared to be a blanking of content and reverting it. Trying to insinuate from this and his previous areas of contribution that he is antisemitic is not acceptable. Please stop this now. The issue in question is resolved, let's all get on doing some productive. Will (aka Wimt) 12:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Neutralhomer, I would appreciate it if in the future you look at the articles before you edit them. Perspicacite 13:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite seems to be at fault here.--trey 22:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutralhomer needs to read what he's reverting. Corvus cornix 23:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Never revert unless you're sure you're reverting to the correct version. --Masamage 00:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hoserjoe[edit]

I´m in an argument with two or three users -don´t know exactly, cause the one mentioned above might have two usernames. It´s about IMO unverified or poorly veryfied information regarding the an allegend post world war 2 terrorist/insurgent movenent in Germany. Instead of some hard facts I get called a nazi sympathizer and THAT crosses a line. Look under warnings on this discussion page: Talk:Werwolf Markus Becker02 17:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The diff is here. "Nazi sympathizer" indeed crosses a line, despite the context or maybe because of it. That's a blockable offense. I can't block, but I shall warn. Shalom Hello 04:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Both is ok with me.Markus Becker02 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom placed Gazimestan speech on probation[edit]

I have reverted this article Gazimestan speech with the comment that's in the tag "The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator". There seem to be two issues, the emperors-clothes web-site is deemed non-RS in all circumstances, and there has been serious POV entries made to this article. I don't know what the next step would be if it's reverted again. PalestineRemembered 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#User:Nikola Smolenski. I posted this two days ago - it's disappointing that the edit war has been allowed to continue without intervention, in blatant contravention of article probation. Unfortunately I can't act myself because I wrote the original version of the article which other editors are now fighting over. I'd appreciate it if another administrator could review this and act. -- ChrisO 19:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a bit, though I'd like another admin to pop over there and make sure I'm not too involved to have done so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In indirect relation to the above, I've also made a minor modification to Wikipedia:Copyright to make a sentence clearer, give the Wayback Machine its official name (i.e. Internet Archive) and link to an external source explaining its status (see diff). It doesn't affect the existing policy, merely the wording. The edit is being disputed by a user involved in the above-mentioned edit war. It would be helpful if another admin could check the diff and advise on whether it's a reasonable clarification. -- ChrisO 19:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

New Seven Wonders of the World editwar[edit]

Snjv has been making several edits to the New Seven Wonders of the World, insisting that the company is a "for-profit" institution. This user references the company's terms and conditions as somehow proving that the company is not a non-profit. I think that perhaps this is a very literal reading of the words "non-profit", and saw no mention of anything relevant on the page the user linked. This article, on the other hand, by the MSN Travel network, explicitly mentions that the company is non-profit (" . . . says the nonprofit organization conducting the balloting"). Two messages on the user's talk page went without a response. I am in danger of breaking the ever-fearsome 3RR on this, and would like assistance if possible. Please communicate with me via my Talk page. Sorry to trouble you guys! --Action Jackson IV 20:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, so you should follow the steps of dispute resolution. And of course, don't violate the 3RR. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Right. Well, I'll just work on step two for the next few months :) --Action Jackson IV 20:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

unrepentant personal attack by User:01001 on User:Pete.Hurd[edit]

In response to this request to cease personal attacks, I get this response. I feel this scurrillous allusion to racism is intended to cast aspersions upon my professional character. I request it be deleted from the article history along with this AN/I section. I also request an admin weighs 01001's long history of disruption in and consider a block, other forms of communication are proving unsuccessful. Pete.Hurd 21:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Done - as for the second case, at least two eyes are already on the problem. Cheers, WilyD 22:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Panairjdde sock[edit]

I strongly suspect User:FormerlyPanairjdde is a sockpuppet of banned user Panairjdde. Could you please deal with it? --Angelo 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Username hard-blocked. Grandmasterka 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


User:200.223.252.243 trolling only account[edit]

I made two legitimate edits, one removing the entire listing of Pope John Paul II's titles...as per the talk page discussion; the second was removing a bit or non-trivia from the Eric Cantona article. This IP address then reverted both without so much as a valid reason. I re-reverted, stating again my valid reasons. This same IP user again changed it back. I looked at the edit history at it appears to me, that it's probably a registered user hiding behind their IP address. Or it's a new user who is simply trolling about reverting my edits. Batman2005 23:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutral party's input... I disagree with Batman2005's conclusion that the IP's edit revert is pure trolling, at least as applied to the Pope John Paul II article. I am not a fan of IP editors in general, but in this case I agree with the IP's edit, which was to revert the deletion of a relevant portion of the Pope article. Batman claims that the issue was addressed and somehow resolved in his favor in the discussion page. That is not the case. I don't want to get overly involved in this issue, but I am troubled by Batman's overreaction to someone disagreeing with his edit, and his own history leads me to believe that he has overreacted before in other edit conflicts. I don't know who the IP editor is, but I felt I needed to offer a defense, in case it is a new user that doesn't know much about these conflicts. I am also uncomfortable with Batman's decision to take the issue here, instead of communicating with the IP on the IP user's talk page (which if I checked correctly, he didn't do). --Anietor 01:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, I never claimed that the issue was resolved, I simply pointed to the talk page disscussion. Which you ignored and reverted...shame on you. I don't give a damn if you're uncomfortable with my decision to bring the discussion here. It was quite obvious, as you pointed out, that the user is only a trolling account, going around and reverting my edits...notice you ignored the fact that they reverted my edits to the Eric Cantona page. If you have problems with where I chose to take my grievances, that's just too bad. You can either deal with it or get over it, cause i'll take my grievances to whatever forum I feel appropriate. Batman2005 03:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that User:Anietor is the IP address. Batman2005 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Batman, please calm down a bit? SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I am perfectly calm. Batman2005 05:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet of banned user[edit]

Would someone block a Leah01 sock?[15] User:66.216.231.232 Leah01's page says retired, but I think the sock puppet notice should go on his/her page as long as he/she remains active in sock-puppetry. His/her socks tend to start out light-weight, but they're "give-em-an-inch-they'll-spit-on-you-and-call-you-names" type socks, so it's better to simply block and revert. User:Leah01, and his/her blocks.[16] MrDarcy usually handled these, but he has retired. He had way too much patience with this user, allowing him/her to simply agree to stop using all the socks, then indefinately blocking once they started resurfacing and using anons. MrDarcy tended to have great patience with everyone, even this user who attacked him and abused his patience beyond belief, so I'm sorry he's gone. KP Botany 01:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

John Scalzi; On- and off-wiki war[edit]

Recently, the science fiction author John Scalzi, who edits as Scalzi (talk · contribs) (and apparently the IP 67.76.243.31 (talk · contribs), reported the death on Wikipedia of Fred Saberhagen based on a report he personally received from Harlan Ellison. The information was repeatedly removed as uncited at first, which led to some off-wiki angst at Scalzi's website (see also some of the other threads on the blog homepage). There has been a lot of argument back and forth, and even vandalism to the John Scalzi page reporting his death. Not sure if any admin action needs to be taken right now, but the issue is far from dead and personal attacks are flying. Probably worth monitoring given the notability of people involved, this brouhaha has already drawn the attention of Fark. Videmus Omnia 02:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems to me User:Hexrei could stand a block for making personal attacks (falsely reporting the death of a fellow Wikipedian and then cursing at him). Other than that I don't see anything the community can't take care of. -N 02:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block of Aminz (talk · contribs)[edit]

For those not aware, the Islam article has been a war zone recently and there has been edit-warring left and right (although things have calmed down recently). The issue at this moment, however, comes down to a recent one-week block applied against Aminz (talk · contribs) for violating the three-revert rule. I don't want to go into the details about this – it has played out in multiple locations (mostly User talk:Aminz#Unblock request, but also User talk:Tariqabjotu#Interesting pattern, User talk:Blnguyen#Bias against Arrow, User talk:Blnguyen#Aminz, and WP:AN3#User:Aminz_reported_by_User:Arrow740_.28Result:page_protected.2C_week.29) – but ultimately I believe Aminz's block is excessive. Yes, he has been blocked before, but his latest block was almost six months ago. Yes, he has been edit-warring, but some have suggested that two of his reverts ought to be considered consecutive (thus making only three reverts). Recently, blocks for revert-warring on that article have only been applied when four reverts in twenty-four hours, no fewer (although I'm not really a fan of this principle). That would make Aminz's block imbalanced in comparison. However, even if we were not going to accept the two reverts as consecutive, the block is still excessive. Any comments? -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is really one of those 'just for edit warring' blocks (aka "not technically 3RR"), it should at least be dished out to the other warriors in that dispute. Unless his edits have simply been absurd and inherently disruptive, it seems inappropriate to block only him, as it takes two to edit war. The length seems a tad severe (what purpose does it serve) for a controversial block, so at least reduce it. The Behnam 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not. His reverts were not consecutive, and the argument to treat them as such should be disgarded because of his extremely disruptive behavior on main page day and since. I encourage everyone to read the discussions tariqabjotu linked and also User_talk:Proabivouac#Completely_unproductive, which he didn't link. Arrow740 04:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I said it was controversial because it generated controversy. I don't yet have an opinion on the consecutiveness of the reverts or not. As you were the member of the dispute against reducing the block I expect you to treat the block as completely appropriate, but don't say it wasn't controversial. Perhaps another way of putting it is that it wasn't a "strong" block with a legitimate basis that is clear to pretty much everyone involved. Unless a consensus among the disputants has been reached that the block itself was appropriate, it should be considered controversial and the block should at least be reduced until a consensus is reached, as there is no point in risking severity. Consider: if it turns out that the block was indeed inappropriate, then there was no rightness in issuing the block to begin with, and as such the editor was blocked unfairly. Since the appropriateness of the block remains in question by the non-blocked disputants, the block should be at least reduced until the issue clears up to prevent further possible damages. However I may take a look to make my own opinion on the actual events leading up to the block. The Behnam 05:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I was responding to the "if." Sorry for not being clear. Arrow740 05:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris dejoseph[edit]

The Chris dejoseph article was tagged by User:Hu for speedy deletion as an attack article. I removed the speedy tag and put on an unsourced tag as it was not clear to me that the article was an attack article.

User:Hu questioned my decision. We have had a short exchange about this [17], [18] and [19]. I have to say that this case is ambiguous enough that I thought it might be good to get a third opinion from an experienced admin as to whether I made the right call or not.

--Richard 05:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I decided to speedy the article as {{db-bio}}. --Richard 05:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Images uploaded by Chrisg21090 (talk · contribs) - help requested[edit]

Please see User talk:Chacor#Sorry! Need help! and User_talk:Chrisg21090#False_license_tagging.2Fimage_source. This user has uploaded a whole bunch of images as PD-self (including two NASA images, which was what drew my attention to this user). After some discussion, he claims that the rest of the images have indeed been taken by him.

I'd ask any admin with the time to a) check his story, see if there's anything that is weird with his claims that I might have missed; b) check the images to see if they match his story; and c) check to see if these images are elsewhere on the web.

As everyone knows, we're getting stricter with imagevios. I've already assumed good faith all the way through, and this user is willing to let an admin double-check everything. Thanks in advance to whichever admin takes on this. Chacor 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Check the others carefully. If any other is clearly not by this user, assume they're all not by him. Od Mishehu 08:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone willing to go through it all? I personally have no time to do so. Chacor 11:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't see anything clearly wrong about the images still tagged as self-created. --Carnildo 09:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your bot's going around and tagging some as having no source, Carnildo... Chacor 10:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My previously deleted post during my 24 hr. block[edit]

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Sarvagnya. Plz. refer Telugu script and others[edit]

This sock-puppetry case was confirmed earlier by an administrator investigating it.

Please refer to Telugu script and other Telugu or Marathi related articles, for possible cases of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry against the above user, for circumventing WP rules like 3RR, multiple voting etc.

Plz. also see the page for reports, for checking User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 08:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to delete this thread as nonsense. But I wont. You are the one who has violated 3RR on that article and going against consensus of multiple editors. I have even reported you and you should be blocked soon. Until then, carry on with your nonsense.
ps - can any admin please take action here Sarvagnya 09:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't delete this thread without reason. This is unrelated to your 3RR complaint against me.People have had enough of the notorious "editor gang," plaguing painstakingly-done projects on Telugu, Marathi, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and umpteen number of other articles. I think it is high time that the "gang" and others of its ilk be exposed, for greater good, come what may. I know that I haven't wronged and have challenged the gang's hegemony. If the latter is a mistake I'm ready to accept any possible action, including a permanent block.

No sensible admin would blindly do whatever you say, without going into the merits & demerits and understanding the problem fully. It is beyond doubt that some users, have greatly undermined WP's purpose, by imposing their fanatical ideas upon countless number of helpless users and wasted countless precious man-hours with petty politics/ideas.
Mind your language and note that you have no business to use uncivil language against me. Despite all the animosity (which I'm sure there is) I haven't ever used a word in your fashion. I strongly suggest that you read WP:CIVIL.--AltruismTo talk 09:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Unblock User:Matrix17 since he has been misthreated[edit]

Resolved: smelly sock sent to 48-hour laundry. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock user matrix17 since he has been misthreated by users>yamla and steel on english wikipedia. its obvious that they have blocked him not in good faith and for the best of wikipedia but because they dont like him. and since user steel uses word like bad ass and stuff like that to describe matrix17 i think its quite obvious that something is very wrong.matrix17 has contributed with alot on wikipedia he was the one who started the articel for example on riyo mori winner of miss universe and he has done man good articles on swedish celebrities and sutch. i think its something smelling about this blocking and i would rather see him ge tunblocked then being blocked for 6 months which is way to far. i also saw tha tone admin sayed that matrix17 should apply for adoption here on wikipedia, but how can he do tha twhen hes talk page has bene blocked (which is obviously steels work so he cant communicate with other here) i would like to now how that admin thinked. anyway my standpoint is unblock matrix17. hope not to get censored just because this is my opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi there little sock. -N 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
      • i guess its easy to blame a sockpuppet for a opinion. when you all know its wrong and just wants to get ridd of someone who has a different opinion.--86.90.169.62 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
        • user yamla sayed that she blocked matrix17 because he had created a nn bios on Ebba von Sydow which was proven not to be a nn bios. and afterwards she didnt even apologize to the user or unblock the user. how can matrix17 have done anything wrong when it wasnt a nn bios and thats why yamla blocked him. then anothe ruser first unblocked him and then user steel blocked him again, thats not nice at all in my book anyway.--86.90.169.62 14:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I know this says resolved... but I just noticed a new editor asking around about Matrix17 and adoption. He claims to be Matrix17's friend, though he seems to have a strong interest in editing the exact same articles Matrix17 did. I hear quacking, but I'd like another admin to review.--Isotope23 13:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Usernamedit (talk · contribs) is a sock and ought to be blocked, preferably by someone uninvolved. – Steel 14:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

GiorgioOrsini yet again[edit]

User:GiorgioOrsini repeatedly destroys absolutely necessary corrections to grammar and formatting; deletes legitimate warnings and comments on his talk page; falsely accuses people of vandalism when they correct grammar, formatting and NPOV; and has insulted other editors on talk pages and in edit notes. He was recently temporarily blocked for confirmed sock puppetry, but obviously that wasn't enough since he keeps blatantly violating both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia rules and guidelines. See his edit history for more details, especially in relation to the Neo-Nazism and Ustaše articles.Spylab 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, check all 'contributions' of Spylab on Neo-Nazism - complete removal of the text related to the Thompson's concert in Zagreb [20], removal references and strictly referenced text, mutilation of the originally contributed text under pretext of grammar correction and formatting. Also, Spylab comments (warnings) on my talk page are offensive and not civil. See the Neo-Nazism talk page, too.--Giorgio Orsini 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Unlike Giorgio Orsini, edit histories do not lie. He has total disregard for Wikipedia and English language rules, and should not be allowed to continue to destroy necessary corrections to grammar, formatting and neutrality.Spylab 10:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indefblocked Giorgio (if/when the inevitable unblock request is turned down, we can consider it a community ban). To a casual observer this may seem harsh, but I am convinced, from looking through talk pages as far back as December, that in any given dispute this user is 100% of the problem. – Steel 14:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus for an unblock request[edit]

Resolved

Per the blocking policy, I'm looking for a consensus of sysops to unblock Ned Scott. The 12-hour block relates to obscenity in a DRV "Cut the bullshit matthew" followed by removing warnings with edit summaries of "fuck off" [21] [22] The block was clearly appropriate, but the contrite dialog at User_talk:Ned_Scott#Blocked (with an editor Ned Scott has previously been in conflict with) including "I will resume reading and considering other people's comments, and not swearing at them" leads me to say that the block no longer serves any preventative purpose and should be lifted. What do other sysops think?--Chaser - T 02:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 12 hours is like, tomorrow. He can wait till then. -N 02:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
And the user has been blocked several times before, according to his block log. I'm inclined to let him wait it out. Exploding Boy 02:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Previous blocks were for 3rr and an early block for spamming.--Chaser - T 02:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I too would be opposed to an early unblock. (disclaimer: I have had disputes with Ned Scott before) In my experience, Ned is usually extremely contrite during the block, but then simply goes back to old behavior when the block is lifted. On June 24 when he was blocked for 3RR, I offered to support an unblock if he would avoid editing the Juice Plus article and just participate at the talkpage.[23] At 04:27 Ned agreed, saying he was done with that article completely. So he was unblocked, but then at 21:49 on June 24, he was right back to that article and edit-warring again,[24] making another 4 reverts in 26 hours. Then June 26, he was blocked for 48 hours for 3RR at a completely unrelated location, the WP:BLP page. Now he's blocked again, for incivility. I actually think a 12-hour block is very lenient considering recent history. I would be opposed to lifting the current block -- Ned needs to take some time off from Wikipedia, calm down and realize that there's a problem. --Elonka 02:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
While I don't think blocks normally calm people down, his behavior in the past and the behavior that lead to the block is clearly inappropriate. If a block does not prevent the behavior in the future then a longer block or other action is needed, and I agree with Elonka that a 12 hour block is very lenient. I say let it stand just as we would for anyone else who was uncivil. DarthGriz98 03:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks all. Elonka's example has changed my opinion as well.--Chaser - T 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I have unblocked. There is a heated dispute here and both sides should calm down, but it's long been demonstrated that blocking people to calm them down doesn't actually help. Wikipedia is not your mother, and it's not helpful to send people to their room for swearing. If people have serious issues with Scott's behavior, I'd suggest opening an RFC. >Radiant< 08:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The specifics of this particular case notwithstanding, I'll offer the general comment that while a block may or may not help an editor cool down, it often serves the twin purposes of
  • discouraging the behaviour in the future (even if they don't contritely acknowledge their errors, they want to stay unblocked); and perhaps most important
  • allowing other editors – the ones who are able to interact civilly – to work in peace.
Whether or not a block is appropriate for a single participate in what appears to be a multi-editor argument is obviously strongly situation-dependent. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm generally in favor of very short blocking for incivility and releasing blocks early after an apology. I note in passing that ArbCom has generally abandoned civility parole, and in cases where it has been recently proposed, the maximum block length is one hour. If "cool down" blocks are to have any value at all (and I know this is debateable in some quarters) they should be lifted once the blockee has indeed cooled down. Thatcher131 16:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am almost certain it is a sockpuppet[edit]

A user that has the single purpose of whitewashing the lead of an article I watch, Monicheewan (talk · contribs), is obviously not a new user. I am not entirely familiar with the disruptive India-related users so I'd like some opinions. I suspect Hkelkar (talk · contribs) because I had the unfortunate experience of fighting with his sockpuppet Rumpelstiltskin223 (talk · contribs). This account is warring for the same notions Rump's did and also has a similar style of edit summary. I suspect that he is Hkelkar's sock but I'd like some more familiar opinions.

In any case the user is wasting my time. He claimed I was committing OR, I pointed out how this was wrong, so he now states that the source, BBC News, is a "sensationalist tabloid". I don't think I should tolerate this kind of disruptive crap from a user who very much seems like a SPA sockpuppet of a banned user. Any ideas on how to resolve this problem? The Behnam 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Similar edits, so its probably a sock. ~ Wikihermit 03:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree things look fishy. I can't say if that's a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, but it's certainly a sockpuppet of someone. -- tariqabjotu 04:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocked indef. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Alsace[edit]

That stork picture attracts a lot of vandals. Could you semi-protect the page ? Thanks, RCS 08:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for a week. You'll usually get a quicker response if you go through WP:RFPP in future. Neil  11:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attack[edit]

My main page was vandalized in a personal attack by GreekElite shown here: [25]. Please help me. --Asams10 08:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just roll with it; he doesn't look like he's on a vandalizing spree or something -- it looks more like a joke. Poor taste, yes, but I would just let it go. Keep ANI posted if it happens again. --Haemo 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't have said anything but he's got a history of doing it to others. I'd call it abuse, not a joke.--Asams10 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Factory farming edit war[edit]

There is an edit war at Factory farming. Will someone please lock the page down? WAS 4.250 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained edits, Removal of Maintenance Tag[edit]

Over the past week, a User, lpcrocks has been constantly removing maintenance tags from the Linkin Park articles, most notably The Document. I've asked the user to please stop, or at least state some rationale towards the edits, but it has been in vain. I'm not exactly sure what if there is a penalty for such an offense, but it sure does not seem very civil, especially since the user is ignoring me. I have given the user three warnings, and one final warning, with links to Wikipedia's policies. See the user's contribution list. Thanks for your time. --►ShadowJester07  13:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a tag removal warning. However, it might be useful to give a note about WP:3RR if there isn't one already. The user does, however, seem to think that he/she has improved the article and is removing the tags (although I cannot explain the {{fact}} removals), but (likely) the same person did try and add a source [26] even though it's not the greatest way of doing it in the world. Perhaps a little nudge in the direction of WP:ES? x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, I'll try that. Thanks for the help :) --►ShadowJester07  14:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalized Users[edit]

Krummy2 15:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Serial copyvio check help needed[edit]

It would seem that Paul venter (talk · contribs) has uploaded at least two copyvios, Dorothy Gurney from [27] and Vibration-powered generator from [28]. I have warned him about this and waiting for a reply. However, past experience leads me to suspect these 2 incidents could just be the tip of the iceberg, so I'm requesting help in looking through his contribs for further copy and paste jobs. --W.marsh 17:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yikes, here's part of his reply: "You obviously don't write many articles. One starts with a source and then modifies it drastically". [29] Cleanup on aisle six please. --W.marsh 17:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours, and will make it indefinite if he does not stop. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for handling that side of it... it does seem like he feels he has a right to start with a copyvio and just make tweaks here and there and add more content, which hopefully isn't also a copyvio. I looked through his new articles in his last 500 edits and most are clean at a glance. But some started out as copyvios, and were mostly rewritten... others he seems to start with a source and change some words, e.g. Icadyptes salasi [30] from [31], which has some similar phrasing but not outright copy and pasting that I can find. Very difficult cleanup job here... but as far as I can tell a lot of the content he adds is actually not a copyvio, at least not as detectable with the search engine test. --W.marsh 18:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Thompson[edit]

I saw an article by the Boston Globe, and went to the wikipedia article on Thompson. I noticed it was removed by Eseymour.[32] The article? A discussion about a memoir writen by Thompson in which he admits giving information to the White House during an investigation. Included is a statement from the Thompson campaign, which does not deny it.

I reinserted it, and ask for clarification from Eseymour. This user then starts throwing out claims. He asserts someone made a section to make Thompson appear negatively. That another mentioned the birth of his son to make him appear bad. That discussion about his fundraising is NPOV. So I expand that one of the sections since it is short (Eseymour removed much of it). Eseymour removes it. Then an anon adds something, Eseymour removes it.

I went through Eseymour's history and he has been spending much time downplaying criticism, reverting edits, and adding in material conducive to Thompson's platform.

My first ever edit on that article was by reverting Eseymour's removal.

Opinions on the page welcome. C56C 17:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I'm trying to figure out why CJC47's only edit in two weeks is to wholesale revert me and let Eseymour's edits stand. That user didn't give any reason, but signed on for the first time in weeks within minutes of the edit conflict. C56C 17:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

first - I have never edited that page, I have no interest in editing that page. While this is a content issue, just a cursory glance at the talkpage is setting off all sorts of WP:OWN bells with me. The claim in question is from his own bio and talks about how he leaked information to the white house during Watergate. The reason for removing it is that it gives undue weight to an incident in the past. Well I'm not an American but that seems to a fair significant thing for someone to do in the context of one of the major American political scandals of the last century. I would suggest that anyone who knows a bit more about American history than me head over and has a look but as I say, I'm getting a WP:OWN vibe. --Fredrick day 17:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think others need to start watching that page. C56C 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It might be worth also hitting up the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you haven't already. — Scientizzle 18:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Now Eseymour is removing the quotes from Thompson and claiming that quoting the word "MOLE" with a QUOTE is a "copyright violation."[33]

An Imposter[edit]

This user has adopted a user name very similar to mine and has copied my user page. I don't want to do the blocking because of the potential for a perceived conflict of interest. Could another admin give this a look. Thanks. -- No Guru 14:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. --Tango 14:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you ! -- No Guru 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Uh, are you sure? I'm not seeing anything in the block log. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, neither do I... Wikipedia went down for a few minutes just after I did it. I thought my block had gone through, it would appear I was wrong. Sorry. It appears the imposter has created a new account too: User:NooGura. I'm about to go to bed, so if someone else could look into this and take appropriate action, it would be great, thanks! --Tango 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've blocked NooGura but when I try to block User:NoGura it tells me they're already blocked - even though there's nothing in the block log... Waggers 21:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I unblocked & reblocked this user (indefinitely) so there is now a record. However, Tango will you post a note on NoGura's page explaining why he is blocked? It's only fair to let this person know he's blocked, & if he requests an unblocking it will help any Admin in reviewing the case. -- llywrch 21:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I put the standard "indefinitely blocked as an imposter" template on his user page, but it was removed (probably because the block log said he wasn't blocked) - I'll put it back. --Tango 00:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, redux[edit]

I happen not to be a banned troll, so I'll restart this discussion.

Both SqueakBox and DPeterson continue to redirect the articles Pro-pedophile activism and Anti-pedophile activism to Pedophilia. A quick glance at this talk page shows that a vote on the proposal was failing 3-6 before it was closed and declared "no consensus." The "being bold" defense clearly does not hold water when the idea has already been discussed extensively, with the majority of users disapproving. The merge is a dead issue; the proposal clearly failed. Please take appropriate action.

Mike D78 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What action would you have an admin take? Corvus cornix 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever is appropriate for the situation. Since they keep reverting the pages to redirect even after a long discussion resulted in no consensus on the idea, I would consider their changes to be vandalism. But I'll let an admin decide what action is necessary. Mike D78 06:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently begun watching the relevant pages. There are clear problems here, with just as clear solutions. The main Pedophilia article has become bloated with activism information, most of it pro-, that simply duplicates information from the Pro-pedophilia activism page and completely takes over the article. What needs to happen is both Pro-pedophilia activism and Anti-pedophilia activism need to be moved/redirected to Pedophilia activism, and the duplicated material deleted/merged from the main article.

I've submitted a move request at Requested moves, but if revert warring and edit warring is happening, the relevant pages may need protecting and those engaging in the behaviour may need blocking. Exploding Boy 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning people - Mike D78 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sockpuppet of the pedophilia-obsessed Kirbytime (talk · contribs), as was Flamgirlant (talk · contribs), who was the originator of the above thread. - Merzbow 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The time has clearly come to be bold. Exploding Boy 06:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Being bold is how we got here and Mike is much more likely a sock of Voice of Britain (talk · contribs) an out and out pedophile activist, SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Get an admin to run a usercheck on me if you suspect I'm a sock; otherwise, quit accusing me of this nonsense in every discussion I post in.
Being bold is most certainly not how we got here. Constantly blanking and redirecting an article without consensus is not bold; it's defiant and disruptive.
Mike D78 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That would be pretty pointless as you you would just start again. Being bold is exactly how we got here, whether you like it or not. Please, after a few days here you dont have the experience to lecture users who have been here years and your "it's defiant and disruptive" is a personal attack. Please desist. I anyway suspect you are just using policy to try to justify your pro pedophile beliefs, for which we have WP:IAR, SqueakBox 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
But Exploding Boy is not anybody's sock, and rightfully sees that something's not right. Editing warring just isn't the way to solve disputes. Pro-pedophile activism has now been locked, and the material is duplicated on both pages. Exploding Boy has proposed a merger between pro- and anti-, again, and I'm getting dizzy with deja vu. There has to be a better way than this. ETA: looks like he's got things into some kind of form to carry on the conversation without reduplications everywhere. -Jmh123 07:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, I am most certainly not a sockpuppet of "Kirbytime" or any other user; in fact, a look at my contributions will show that I've been editing since before his last account was blocked. I don't appreciate you making these unfounded accusations against me, and furthermore, simply the fact that a banned user originally brought up this issue does not mean that the issue is not relevant. Mike D78 07:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who locked that article; it wasn't me. I've proposed that the Pro-pedophile activism article be renamed Pedophilia activism, and that all activism related to the subject be included in that article, unless there's a good reason for separate articles (ie: there is a lot of information, too much for one article covering both sides, which is unlikely based on the current state of all related articles, and the fact that the anti-pedophilia activism information currently available comprises about 2 paragraphs). Exploding Boy 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Expecting pro- and anti- paedophilia activists to cooperate on a single article is "a bit" optimistic. Dan Beale 15:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
They will by necessity be separate sections, so ne'er the twain shall meet. Exploding Boy 16:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, Mike D78 is probably another sock of Kirbytime. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 14:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Again Matt, stop making these unsubstantiated accusations against me, or I will consider them to be personal attacks.
Mike D78 22:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the Pro-pedophile activism article is safe for the moment from edit warring, its counterpart is not as lucky. Could the article on Anti-pedophile activism also be protected, at least until the ongoing discussion reaches some kind of consensus? Assistance of an admin would be really appreciated. What is happening is that information is getting deleted from the free-standing article on the topic and a redirect is getting placed on the page to the general Pedophilia article, yet the latter contains no information on the Anti-pedophile movement. The only reference to any kind of pedophile activism is within the section entitled "Pedophilia-related activism" that has a link to "Pedophilia activism," which redirects to the Pro-pedophile activism article. As can be seen, not only is a pointless redirect/link loop created, but information relating to the subject of Anti-pedophile activism is getting completely deleted from Wikipedia. Please help! Homologeo 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Safe? SqueakBox 00:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected. All three are now protected but the protections expire on the same day, so admins should keep an eye on the situation for obvious reasons. Exploding Boy 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfair[edit]

We are all making inputs in Wikipedia with good faith and clean intentions. I have made similar edits in the past in Telugu language, Telugu script, Brahmic family etc., and my edits were reverted without giving proper reasons. When I cited references they were branded fake. When I gave page numbers they were termed 'unreliable'. When I reproduced large chunks of material on talk pages they were ignored. When I tried to protest collusion of certain group of persons I was threatened with blocking. When I complained to some administrators they expressed their helplessness, busy schedules and inability to understand the topic. So, who will come to the rescue of well-meaning people? Please see the talk pages of the earlier mentioned articles. I strongly suspect sockpuppetry in this case too.Kumarrao 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For convenience sake, the Talk pages in question are Talk:Telugu language, Talk:Telugu script, Talk:Brahmic family and many more
Just saw Sarvagnya's Contributions. What is there to decide? What do you mean by "similar users"?
Unless you provide the supporting diffs, i'm afraid, it is not going to help the case. Thanks, - KNM Talk 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong in giving the link of a user's contributions. Nothing confidential about it. I'm sorry I can't elaborate any further for obvious reasons. Most of the concerned will understand. Don't try to bait. --AltruismTo talk 05:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Elaborate. You are here to get us to do something, not the other way around. If you're going to be so lofty with your request, we're going to toss it aside. —Kurykh 05:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


      • Somebody plz. tell me where my previous (immediately) complaint is?

I have just been unblocked after a 24 hr. block, thanks to User:Blnguyen. I didn't mean, not to elaborate on the main issue (the diffs) here. I am requesting for checking if there is indeed Sock-puppetry involving,

My complaint
  • Code letters: E, C and D

Also, plz. see my formal complaint, in the page for sock puppetry reports against User:Sarvagnya. Thanking You, AltruismTo talk 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Fernandobouregard is Jimbo?[edit]

Resolved

So is this user actually Jimbo Wales (I doubt it) or is it blatant impersonation? His user page is a copy of Jimbo's user page, his talk page is an out of date copy of the Jimbo Wales article talk page.--Atlan (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was some really quick action by Deskana. Case closed.--Atlan (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not resolved after all, as Deskana's blanking of the page was reverted by User:Orangemike.[34] -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and incivility - need administrator's help[edit]

I am being wikistalked and they are being incivil to me. This is against wiki policy [[35]]. I made a very neutral comment on the talk page of Senator Barack Obama here [[36]]. User:Tvoz, who POV pushes at the Barack Obama article (as he as edited 239 in this article, far more than any other article he has edited), began wikistalking me.

I created a very obscure article about the Astronaut Hall of Fame. Immediately, Tvoz begins contentious editing there. That article is so obscure that this is not a chance event. Later, I edited about the very, very obscure Johann Schobert, who is NOT the famous composer Schubert. Guess what, Tvoz follows me there and causes trouble.

Tvoz is all violating AGF by calling me a sock because of my 2nd very neutral Barack Obama talk page edit. [[37]]

For wikistalking, incivility (calling people socks just cuz you don't agree and want to push POV, and not AGF, Tvoz should be blocked for 24 hours. Help! Feddhicks 18:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks is an obvious sock puppet of Dereks1x. · jersyko talk 23:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would hope that an uninvolved admin would indef block this latest sock of a community banned user. Please also see recent abusive edits [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] to my Talk page by an unknown-to-me IP address, whose timing seems curious, considering the above. A 31-hour block is in effect for the IP address, which seems rather light to me, but we'll see. Tvoz |talk 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Tvoz accuses User:Plumbing of being a Feddhicks sock and therefore a Dereks1x sock. This is wrong. Plumbing is a sock of cat POV pusher DreamGuy [[43]]. According to Tvoz's logic, DreamGuy=Dereks1x, which is a false accusation. Given that Tvoz's 2nd most favorite article to edit is Cat Stevens, I suspect that Tvoz=DreamGuy=Plumbing (as all 3 edit controversial stuff about cats or cat stevens).
For more information, see my AN/I report about Plumbing and DreamGuy below. Mikkke2 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This speaks for itself, I think. Tvoz |talk 17:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If it doesn't, then Mikkke2's total of 10 edits to Wikipedia do. · jersyko talk 18:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
(disclaimer: I have been in previous conflicts with DreamGuy and/or his alternate accounts). However, I see no link between DreamGuy (talk · contribs), Plumbing (talk · contribs), and Tvoz (talk · contribs). Their writing styles and edit summary usage are completely different. The Plumbing account definitely has very few edits and may be a sockpuppet, but I see no evidence that it's a sock of DreamGuy's - it just seems to be an account that is popping through multiple RfCs and doing what is requested, offering comments. --Elonka 20:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been involved with this situation before, but I indef blocked Mikkke2 as a single purpose account with the sole intent to harass another user by making accusations against him or her on multiple talk pages. A clear case of Wikistalking and no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia, so... 20:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about DreamGuy - seems to have been dragged in here to deflect attention from the original point, which is that I believe Feddhicks, Plumbing, Mikkke2 and likely others are more socks of banned user Dereks1x, likely using proxies. Feddhicks is engaged in disruptive editing at Barack Obama and making false accusations here. Tvoz |talk 00:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

POV warriors who delete large portions of text[edit]

What remedies are available for blatant POV warriors who delete large portions of text which does not meet their own POV? I have seen a small group of editors go around and delete huge portions of referenced text that they personally don't agree with. They cite policy for these deletions, but their policy reasons dont stand up to any scrutinty. It simply is a way to delete large portions of referenced text. What remedies are available, other than RfC and Arbcom? I have no problem accepting other peoples view points but destructive uncompromising deletions of large portions of text are terrible. One editor in particular, has been an editor for over a year and a half, and never actually adds anything to wikipedia, his only purpose is to actively get articles he doesnt like AfD'ed.

Any suggestions? 216.60.70.152 23:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

that you be less vague ? this is a board for people to bring specific incidents to the attention of administrators - what specific problem do you have? --Fredrick day 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I would rather not name usernames or name particular pages right now. I am just wondering if there is anyway to stop this behavior. Would another policy page be a better place to ask? 216.60.70.152 23:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is -- you revert it, and refer them to the talk page. --Haemo 23:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestion Haemo. Wow, if it could be that easy. :) I am talking about deletions that go on for months, even years. A third party moderator didnt work. RfC? Can a person have a RfC for several users at one time? Does wikipedia have any policy on this to stop this abuse? 216.60.70.152 23:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, it looks like you have some serious content disputes then, not simple POV warring. There's a difference between removing text, and having a content dispute, though the line can be blurred. To answer your question, yes you can have an RFC for a set of users -- just remember to notify them all, and provide evidence. --Haemo 23:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is a content dispute. Most articles or referenced sections that paint the United States in a bad light are removed. Thank you for your response. 216.60.70.152 00:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is about State terrorism. It was filled with all sorts of original research which had all sorts of links to sources that didn't actually discuss State terrorism. It has been cleaned out several times, and it will remain clean. If the IP editor wants to put stuff back in, he needs to find sources that actually refer to State terrorism. Jayjg (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The cleaning has only just commenced. This article is one of the worst POV violations I have come across. Not to mention the other policy violations including WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT, it needs a lot more work to come close to being neutral.--MONGO 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
MONGO your personal bias is well known and legendary. I would have no problem if these editors actually contributed text to the articles, but they don't. 69.153.81.182 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As of this posting, you have a total of 12 edits including the 2 to this noticeboard. Do you really think you should have a problem with other editors contributions, additions or deletions? As for MONGO's personal bias, it is very legendary. He is biased towards reliable sources and Wikipedia policy as well as bringing article to FA status. As someone with only 5000 edits and a relative newbie to MONGO, I defer to his wisdom when he thinks deleting material will make it a better article on it's way to FA status. If these State Terrorism articles wish to be Featured Articles, listening to MONGO is the smart way to go as I think he is in the top 3 FA article contributors. --Tbeatty 00:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sue W. Kelly[edit]

Resolved

This is very strange. Zy4477380 (talk · contribs) and Super6066 (talk · contribs) are obvious SPAs, reverting the article to a promo piece style, which have been their only edits. I reverted. Recently, Lewis2007 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article, removing relevant information such as the fact that Kelly was chair of the page committee. He's done this three times and his only edits have been to add a POV-pushing link to several articles of congressional Democrats. Are these the same person using sockpuppets? Is there any known banned user who edits in this style? hbdragon88 01:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is insufficient data to link Lewis to either of the two previous accounts, who both edited in January. Keep in mind that Mrs. Kelly is a prominent politician. However, Lewis2007's pattern of adding spamlinks is problematic. He hasn't done that in two weeks, so I think you can wait and see. Shalom Hello 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG just indef-blocked him. Thanks Guy. hbdragon88 23:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Jay32183[edit]

Jay32183 (talk · contribs) has previously been blocked twice for incivility toward users who disagreed with him on the interpretation of policy [44]. Now he is arguing with Tyrenius (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nighthawks in popular culture (2nd nomination) and, while he's avoided the colourful language of the earlier incidents, his attitude has been highly combative ("It's not enough for me to know you're wrong, or for the closing admin to know you are wrong. You need to know that you are wrong"). He's threatened Tyrenius with a block for continuing to advance an opinion that he believes is against policy and insists is in bad faith. I've tried to ask him to stop, but to no avail. Perhaps someone uninvolved in the debate would have better luck. —Celithemis 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the debate, unfamiliar with Jay32183, I found his attitude to be sharply uncivil - especially to Tyrenius, I agree with the all of the above. Modernist 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Blocking threat.[45] Failure to AGF.[46] A word of advice from someone uninvolved might help to steer him in the right direction. Tyrenius 12:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a limit to assuming good faith. Jay32183 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed Asha[edit]

and the other suspects / people being questioned. It seems premature to categorise them as British Islamist terrorists. - Kittybrewster (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that they are nationals of countries other than the UK, and (AFAIAW) not charged yet, then, yes, it does seem premature. LessHeard vanU 12:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely - I've reverted on Asha. Will look at doing some of the others if I'm not beaten to it. David Underdown 12:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
All removed, I've generally removed category:British muslims and similar as well as none are British nationals, I left it on one as he was born in the UK, although largely brought up in Iraq. David Underdown 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
AFAIAW ???? - Kittybrewster (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As Far As I Am aWare. Whoops... ;~) LessHeard vanU 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusations and defamation of me by user HattoriNanzo[edit]

I would like to complain for the nasty behaviour of user HattoriHanzo, who runs defamation campaign of me publishing false accusations. He accuses me that I have complained to the noticeboard that he has inserted citations, which I never done. Moreover, HattoriHanzo behaves uncivil and continues to do so systematically. He thinks that I have conspired with some guy named Evula. His false accusations:

His personal attack to me, stating my writings are "truly idiotic".

I have brought personal attacks to the board, but HattroiHanzo doesn't stop his uncivilties. Vlad fedorov 12:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You conspired with EVula (talk · contribs)? This seems highly unlikely. I am concerned that Hanzo removes huge chunks of referenced text, however. I believe you both should take a cup of tea and discuss your grievances thoroughly. Mother Russia will not collapse in the meantime. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
NOte: I linked EVula's username, for readers' quick reference. —Crazytales [[(!!!)]] 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


UPDATE. Now Biophys also joined HattroiNanzo in his disruptive editing by removing large chunks of text he claims to be poorly sourced, but these sources coming not only from Arutunyan, but also general Troshev and Guardian newspaper. Vlad fedorov 18:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

IP address 220.225.140.74[edit]

- Ip address has blanked article in the mainspace for no reason. Want to report this as vandalism. Article: South Central Railway I reverted article to the last unblanked version. --akc9000 (talk contribs count) 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You may do so at WP:AIV. Unfortunately, yhis particular edit was 3 days ago, so it's a bit late to report. Also, please note that users should usually only be reported after having received a final warning. Thanks, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Alex mond and Armenia-related articles[edit]

The indefinitely blocked Alex mond (talk · contribs) has been creating new accounts to edit Armenian hypothesis against consensus (e.g. [47], [48], [49], [50]). He's also canvassed other users to perform controversial edits ([51], [52]). Alex mond only showed up a few months ago, but I'm wondering if there's a longer history here that I don't know about, perhaps a previously banned user or something. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I had a brief chat with Dmcdevit on this: he mentioned that Alex mond's edits are apparently the spitting image of User:Ararat arev, who is banned. Checkuser was inconclusive, but apparently Arev was the very devil to checkuser cleanly, and the edit pattern is very similar. Moreschi Talk 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

When I first raised the issue on this noticeboard, I was accused of inability to distinguish a good-faith editor from a troll. If the community reacted to my early report of trolling as sternly as it was expected to, I believe we would not have come to this level of disruption. The same applies to Digwuren, Bonaparte, and other trolls mentioned above. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, we now have a brand new noticeboard to deal with exactly the type of crap Mond was pushing! Isn't that nice? Cheers, Moreschi Talk 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug[edit]

Yug is continuing to POV push on Stroke order, which came up here at ANI in the past at some point (which is how I found it), but I'm not sure how to find old topics here. He is refactoring discussions and changing the context of people's comments (as here) and went back into an old thread to insert a link to an archive here. Yug has his view of what the article should be (which specifically uses OR and adds how-tos, which are both clearly prohibited by policy) and after stepping out of the discussion because it wasn't going his way, he's now trying to refactor the talk to be more sympathetic to his position, despite two uninvolved editors' comments about an appropriate place for his work on Wikibooks. MSJapan 19:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass redirects with no consensus, part three[edit]

SqueakBox and DPeterson are at it again, constantly blanking the Anti-pedophile activism article and redirecting it to the pedophilia article, even though a discussion on this idea resulted in no consensus for this action. As mentioned above, they previously engaged in this kind of edit-warring concerning the pro-pedophile activism article, but now, since all info related to activism has been removed for the pedophilia article, these reverts make even less sense. As Homologeo mentioned above, their actions are essentially completely removing info related to anti-pedophile activism from Wikipedia. Would an admin please step in and protect the Anti-pedophile activism article, and perhaps consider action against SqueakBox and DPeterson, as this is the second revert war they have started based on their redirects without consensus? Mike D78 19:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus not to move and why have you reposted given no admin action was needed was the decisioon before and nothing has changed. The material is at pedophile which is locked and you keep duplicating it. You edit war and then accuse others of edit warring, and being bold (which is what my initial action was) is not reason to receive admin action, SqueakBox 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Squeak, I don't know how many times I can explain this to you, but you need consensus BEFORE blanking and redirecting an article. My reverts were simply restoring the previous version of the article before your disruptive edits, which eliminated information.
Clearly if you keep doing this, admin action is needed to protect this article, just as it was needed to protect the other articles. Mike D78 19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont think you have the experience to lecture me on how wikipedia works, admins arent here to support your pro pedophile activism, and once all the socks and SPAs were removed the consensus was not to keep these pedophile promoting articles as they were, SqueakBox 19:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I have used and edited Wikipedia a few times before registering under this name, Squeak, and besides, it requires little experience to realize that, when a discussion on a redirect reaches no consensus, you don't unilaterally go and redirect that article on your own. There were plenty of established users who rejected the redirect.
As long as you continue to accuse everyone who disagrees with your disruptive edits as promoting "pro pedophile activism," we are going to make little progress. Wikipedia is not a battle ground. These articles are not the place for some crusade against others, but are the place for objective documentation of information.
Mike D78 19:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Many people diosagree with me and I dont accuse them of being pro pedophile activists but these articles are plagued with pro pedophile socks (the users having been banned) and you fit the profile, SqueakBox 20:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Jmh123, Homologeo, and Exploding Boy disagreed with your reverting without consensus, as well, and Jmh123 actually voted for the merge. The difference is, they realize that blanking and redirecting without consensus is not the way to go and is clearly agaisnt protocol. You, on the other hand, seem to feel that the ends justify the means and that any disruptive edit necessary is permissible in order to achieve your goals.
An admin already checked to see if I was a sockpuppet or not, and as I told you, I was not. Further accusations that I am a sockpuppet can only be percieved as continued personal attacks against me.
Mike D78 20:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
They got the wrong guy, you are no kirby sock you are a VoB sock and as such deserve no sympathy whatsoever, SqueakBox 04:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Simply not true; get an admin to run another checkuser if you don't believe me. I am sorry you seem to have such a problem with this Voice of Britain fellow, but I'm not him. Mike D78 05:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this is the third report in a week? —Kurykh 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to ask Squeak why this is the second edit war he has insisted on starting in a week? Mike D78 19:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I am asking you. If I wanted to ask him I would have done so. —Kurykh 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine then. It has been reported three times because the first time, no admin did anything about it, and the last two times were in reference to separate disruptive edit wars at seperate articles, although related to the same users. Mike D78 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Its all one dispute, SqueakBox 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, you apparently didn't get the message last time, after an admin had to protect the pro-pedophile activism article against your reverts without consensus. You have no grounds to blank and redirect a page without agreement, bottom line. Mike D78 19:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, content dispute. Go back to the talk page and hammer it out, guys. —Kurykh 19:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion by BBOzzy2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

BBOzzy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for vandalizing Criticism of Mormonism with blatantly anti-Mormon edits. BBOzzy2 is now adding POV tags to Mormonism related articles.[53][54][55] shotwell 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Grandmasterka 20:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Furry fandom[edit]

Resolved

Somebody please protect Furry fandom? Apparently the trolls participants at ebaumsworld have discovered it and are hitting it with multiple anon vandalisms per minute. Already requested at WP:RFPP, but this needs to get protected fast. Corvus cornix 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fursuit[edit]

Resolved

They're now hitting Fursuit. Corvus cornix 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • And now they're not. What's up next? WilyD 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm amused that 3 of us semi'd it at once. — Scientizzle 21:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I was almost in on that party myself, but I stopped to check the other article first and you guys got it while I was gone. X) --Masamage 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey[edit]

Resolved: Page protected; could try WP:RFPP next time.

Past 100 edits to the article has almost been a constant and relentless revert war. Please interfere. -- Cat chi? 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been protected by User:Tariqabjotu.-Andrew c [talk] 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quack! Quack![edit]

Resolved

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ldingley. We have a ban-evading sockpuppet on the loose, and I'd rather speed up the response time by mentioning it here. Shalom Hello 21:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:NokhchiBorz was already blocked on June 22nd for this reason. Shell babelfish 21:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Gardenersville[edit]

Gardenersville (talk ·