Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive276

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

Noticeboard archives


Blocking of Iantresman by Tom harrison[edit]

History: A week ago, on 16 July, JoshuaZ filed a proposal to ban Iantresman. Five hours later admin Tom harrison blocked Iantresman indefinitely. He did not give his reasons at the time and in fact has not participated in the discussion before or since. On the contrary, he says he does "not plan to spend any more time on it".

My complaint: As expressed in my first and later contributions to the discussion, I consider the blocking of Iantresman after just five hours to be unnecessarily prompt, unfair to him, and detrimental to a reasoned discussion, but my primary complaint is Tom harrison's refusal to explain and justify his action. If he has spent the requisite diligence to ban a user, then he owes it to that user and the community to explain his reasoning. Anything else smacks of abuse of administrative privileges.

Requested action: I would like an admin to (1) unblock Iantresman until such time that cogent arguments for the necessity of a ban are put forward, and (2) take a wooden ruler and rap Tom harrison firmly on the knuckles.

--Art Carlson 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the arguments there in support of blocking Iantresman were accurate and Tom Harrison did the block and had community support for doing so.--MONGO 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Give it up Art. Iantresman wore out the community's patience. Shell babelfish 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
If Iantresman wants to appeal his block on the grounds of wrongful or overprompt action then he should use the facility in the block notice. There is no need for third party intervention. Perhaps Tom Harrison was not acting in strictest accordance with WP:CIVIL, but that is no reason to overturn the block in question. Please can we end this here, now? LessHeard vanU 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
indeed: WP:CS was created so that such discussions are conducted there, not here. What is the point if we're still duplicating them on AN/I? dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee by emailing one or more members using Wikipedia's email this user function or at the email addresses shown at WP:AC. Thatcher131 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the admins do not hold themselves to higher standards of transparency (not to mention courtesy). I guess I'll get over it. --Art Carlson 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rape victims[edit]

A determined editor who does not like the category about a moth ago de populated the entire category but was reverted by admin User:Pascal.Tesson and warned to take it to XFD, if he disliked the category. He has done it agin and this time after depoplating it has gotten it speedily removed without and XFD. I have recreated the category with the edit summary saying that it was deleted without an XFD. I have informed the admin who speedily deleted it that it should be put up for XFD insted. I am more than willing to go by true consensus not by personal dislikes and likes of a subject matter. I have reverted many edits of the above mention user User:SqueakBox. I think I dont want to do more as it may violate WP:Stalk. I want quick admin action over it as he has shown that he will revert his way to his desired outcome. Thanks Taprobanus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to take it to Deletion review. Simply recreating it something usually results in delete/undelete wars, which is defenitely not desireable. --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've put it up on WP:CFD instead; I doubt this will end up in a wheel war. As far as I know, Zscout370 is a perfectly reasonable person :-) ugen64 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't implying anything... :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks lioke trolling to me, DRV yes this is almost wheeklwarring and I would have thought a short block on Taprobanus (talk · contribs) would be entirely appro[priate. After all the cat is used in many u8nosurced articles and outs living rape victims. Is this what we want, the encyclopedia that trolls innocent people? SqueakBox 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So that I cannot make my arguments in the CFD. Pretty smart move. Thanks Taprobanus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I said a short block, that wouldnt prevent such a thing. Well done for making it clear that living people should not be in the cat and hope you well help me police it over the coming years (assuming the deletion fails), SqueakBox 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes ofcourse, will you then change your vote ? thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to say I'm really disappointed in SqueakBox's attitude here. A month ago, I asked him nicely to stop depopulating the cat and submit the whole thing to CfD. No answer. Then after laying low for a while he goes at it again hoping no one notices. This is not the wiki way. Pascal.Tesson 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

initial cap for honorificabilitudinitatibus and a casteist troll[edit]

A user is constantly reverting some highly pov, ORish, and socially exclusive articles like Unnithan, Valiathan, Malayala Kshatriyas etc. in order to remove tags and reinsert stupid caps for what he calls proper names. Some of the articles are merely family history (eg. Kiriyathil Nair The user is an SPA here merely to push his narrow minded pov related to his caste. When unreferenced template is added he gives false reference like some random "State Manual" etc. which actually is no Reliable Source and which in all probability doesn't refer to the subject. His shying away from quoting relevant parts is suspicious. The fact that he is not able to cite a single RS or web resource for these fringe things speaks enough for him. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He is refering to me above..Well he states that there is no web source for my Manuals...for one, they were published in 1906 and 1940 respectively and there is no real web source for these old books. have a google search for "Travancore State Manual" and you will find plenty of references...besides if ur still doubtful u may check out and its publication page for the books. I ordered my copies from that very source. Also it is said that the Kiriyathil Nair article is family history. I oppose this contention because while the Eleven original families belonging to that caste are indeed mentioned, today there are thousands of families under that class. Those are the original families mentioned in a collection of legends known as "Keralolpathi"...the article also clearly mentions that it is based on legends. The fact that such a group or caste exists also needs to be taken into consideration. He also says that Malayala Kshatriyas is OR...kindly check out the page number references given at the bottom of the article which will prove they come from a book. You also say that Unnithan, Valiathan etc dont need to be in capitals. Well they are titles of nobility and need to be in capitals. you also keep changing the title of Maharajah to maharajah etc. These are wrong. You state the Manuals to be an unreliable source. They are certainly far more reliable that your contentions because the first was authored by the Deputy Prime Minister of Travancore state and i would say he, being in his position, was certainly more qualified and in position to verify facts than you. It appears you havent heard of these books but search and you will find them. So what i want to say is that just because u dont find the references good enough, it doesnt mean they arent suitable references. Manu
you have been dealing with the banned User:Kuntan. you can ignore him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Blnguyen, Why don't you revert the banned user's edits? Check dysentery for example. You need to oblige him on that count, my boy.16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
O! ok thanks for letting me know...Manu

WP:SOCK raised to 'teach me a lesson'[edit]

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I'm User:Sprigot and a WP:SOCK has been raised against User:TharkunColl, and I've been nominated as his Sock.

Obviously I'm refruting the claim - which you can read here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TharkunColl

The claim has been raised by User:Giggy on behalf of his 'adoptee' User:XAndreWx.

Giggy has just said (on the above suspect sock puppet page) that he raised the WP:SOCK against TharkunColl and I so that (in his words) we would "leave him alone" (meaning his adoptee, XAndreWx).

My only 'crime' against XAndreWx was to report him for WP:3RR - which was proven and he was blocked (not hard as he had been blocked once before, been unblocked and went on to be blocked again just two days later) - and to report him for being a suspected sock puppeteer - related to the consistant 3RR behaviour.

The relevant quote by Giggy (right at the end of this page) is:

"the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone"

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.

Otherwise admin intervention in this case would be very welcome. Sprigot 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While not commenting on the dispute itself, I think what you're talking about is WP:POINT. Confusing Manifestation 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi I'm here because I agree with User:Sprigot. That's right, it is WP:POINT it's also an extreme case of WP:BITE too, as Sprigot had only done a few edits before a formal accusation of being a sock puppet was aimed at him. To reiterate, this is how User:Giggy described his motivation for filing a sockpuppet accusation, complete with his own use of bold type:-

"Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! "

The bold caps seemed somewhat threatening. All this, even entry of a sockpuppet page, was directed against a newcomer too. I feel some sort of admin action upon User:Giggy is in order.Merkinsmum 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Giggy has withdrawn his checkuser request and dropped the matter. It would be helpful if you were to do the same rather than seek punishment (which admins do not do). Neil  12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Neil I don't want to seek punishment - but I do want to be vindicated (as not being a sock) - saying 'assmume' innocence is a bit much - isn't it supposed to be disproved ? I don't want the allegation of being a sock hanging over my head - perhaps if an admin could rule that I wasn't a sock it would bring some 'closure' to the matter. Sprigot 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this send out the message to Giggy (and others) that it's OK to accuse people of Sock Puppeteering, via a formal route, because nothing happens if they do ? No warning of Disruptive (WP:POINT and WP:BITE) behaviour, no clam down don't be silly - no 'anything' ? Sprigot 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Checkuser is not allowed to be used to clear someone - this would be a violation of privacy. It is only used to confirm sockpuppet abuse when clear evidence of such exists. As such evidence does not exist in this instance, we assume you are not a sockpuppet. I am sure that if Giggy persists in making unfounded accusations he will be asked to stop. I would imagine he will read this, and will realise he shouldn't make accusations of sockery without compelling evidence in the future. Nothing is going to happen unless he carries on - admins are not the Punishment Committee. Neil  15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Neil - I feel better now that you have put this into context for me - I appriciate the time you've taken to help here. Sprigot 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens rename Al-Aqsa Intifada without consensus.[edit]

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

Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the page histories here and here. Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens have repeatedly renamed the page today without consensus.

An earlier admin closed the requested move of Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada at Wikipedia:Requested moves with the edit summary "removing closed discussion". See this diff. The same admin then archived that discussion. See this diff. The admin's edit summary was "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

Then there was a mediation attempt at

There was no consensus to rename the page. There has never been a consensus to move the page. --Timeshifter 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This may be a great case of WP:IAR. He's said it very well, the " mediation was a farce, with entrenched partisans simply insisting on their own POV" . I rarely support an admin who does something out of process, but this time he's correct; we need not abide by the results of a mediation if it ignores key policies. The Evil Spartan 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
OK. I followed your advice, and the advice of WP:IAR. Please see:
Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My edit summary: "Per today's WP:ANI discussion, please see WP:IAR. This common sense compromise, discussed previously, improves and maintains content, and is clear." --Timeshifter 23:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverted. While I appreciate your boldness, I really do think this is the appropriate name. It may be commonly known as that in the Islamic world, but it's a bit more common to use second intifada here. It's also more POV. Though internet sources are using multiple sources, such notable sources as Al-jazeera are calling it the intifada. I'm posting this comment on the talk page as well. The Evil Spartan 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"it's a bit more common to use second intifada here." You are incorrect. See the previous discussions and mediation that I linked to. What do you have against "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada"? And I don't believe you are an admin, so what gives you any more authority than me or anybody else on this issue? And even admins have to try to follow the rules. WP:IAR is a last resort. Which I used with probably more justification than anyone else, since I have participated in the previous discussions. --Timeshifter 00:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not claiming any more right of authority than you have. At this point, I'm not sure it's WP:IAR at all - there is no consensus. Anyway, I find those compromise titles to be awful and unencyclopedic: it makes it sound like there's more than one second intifada, and we need to distinguish this one with by saying it's the Al-Aqsa intifada. The Evil Spartan 00:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
There ARE more intifadas than the Palestinian ones. --Timeshifter 00:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you get it. WP:IAR doesn't mean that you get to do whatever the hell you want and revert regardless. IAR is supposed to be used whenever the encyclopedia is not benefiting from a policy or guideline. This doesn't apply, either way. If two respected users, Jayjg and Humus see that the page should be located where it is, then maybe you should ask them why rather than ignoring them. Go discuss it with them and see why they moved it. — Moe ε 00:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Why aren't you yelling at them? I did not change the name completely without consensus. I tried to use a compromise name only AFTER these 2 admins changed the name. The intransigence of these 2 particular admins is well known at WP:ANI. I have discussed the naming with them both many times. As have many others. And the word 'intifada' itself is not easy to translate. My compromise name is much more clear. See:
"In fact, even the correct translation of the Arabic word 'intifada' seems to be contentious, with Oxbridge's 'uprising' set against Collins' 'resurgence', 'throwing off' and Encarta's 'shaking off'. An educated Arab has described it to me as 'a difficult word' whose modern Palestinian coinage is new and whose predecessor in classical Arabic meant something more like 'awakening', as if from a bad dream." --Timeshifter 00:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not yelling at them because An/I isn't a complaints department. I would suggest going to Jayjg and Humus' talk pages and requesting they clarify the exact reason for moving the pages, if you have not already done so. These users are admins for a reason, because they gained the communities trust, and performing a page move over them would be frowned upon, to say the least. I have no opinion on which revision is correct or not, but maybe if you explained these things to the admins who confirmed its location, maybe they can expain their reason in full. Regards, — Moe ε 00:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
From looking at your user page I do not believe that you are an admin. So maybe you are not familiar with WP:ANI. And maybe you are the one that needs to ask them. I have already discussed this with them many times. --Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Kid, regardless of whether or not I'm an admin makes no difference, and yes I'm familiar with WP:AN/I considering I've been on Wikipedia for two years.. — Moe ε 03:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Please apologize for the personal attack. See WP:NPA. --Timeshifter 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:IAR. — Moe ε 04:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Please see this NPR page:

"al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade":

"Al Aqsa Brigade - Also known as the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, it is a secret armed group which sprang from within Fatah, the leading Palestinian political movement. Formed after the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 and named for the famed mosque in the center of old Jerusalem where the intifada began, it has claimed responsibility for many bombings and armed attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers. Its exact leadership and relation to Fatah remains unclear."

We frequently hear of this Palestinian group in the Western media. The name "al Aqsa" is common now in English, and it is necessary in the name of this page if people are to understand the conflict, and the roots of names like "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade".--Timeshifter 00:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

One problem with that is, if I read the article correctly, the name "al Aqsa intifada" does not come from the name of the group, but directly from the name of the mosque (after which the group is also named.) Further, the reason for the name "al Aqsa intifida" seems to be the claim of Palestinians that this wave of terrorism was a reaction to the visit of Ariel Sharon to the vicinity of the mosque, which makes it a POV title because many others believe that the terrorism was a planned thing and that the Sharon visit was just a pretext. So "Second Intifida" is the NPOV title. 6SJ7 01:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
NPR describes it as the "second intifada" in your excerpt and adopting their usage seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad business. Jayjg and Humus are strongly partisan editors; Jay has already been reprimanded at least twice by the Arbitration Committee and (as Fred Bauder has put it) he has "a long history of partisan activism" concerning Israel-related articles. It's absolutely inappropriate for two entrenched partisans to impose their own viewpoints in this way. They have no chance of being seen as neutral parties in this debate and it's very disappointing that they have - not for the first time - ignored WP:CONSENSUS. One would think that Jay, as a former arbitrator, would at least respect our basic community principles. Sadly it appears that partisanship is overriding principle. -- ChrisO 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A personal grudge from a hardly neutral colleague. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation. After many weeks if not months of discussion, there is not hope for consensus. The article was under POV title way, way too long, and the move to an undisputably NPOV title Second Intifada is long overdue. Regarding the NPR link: 1) NPR is not a strictly scholarly source, but I guess it may qualify as RS. 2) Timeshifter's quote above is from "Al Aqsa Brigade" entry. 3) Here's what more relevant "Intifada" entry says: "The second intifada began in late September 2000, after comprehensive peace talks at Camp David failed the previous summer. The second intifada has grown into Israel's longest war." The highlight's mine. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it is clearly not appropriate for someone as identified with one side of the debate as yourself or Jayjg to take unilateral action. It'll be seen - is already being seen - as an effort to impose a partisan solution against consensus (and you can hardly argue, given the requested moves summary quoted by Timeshifter, that you had consensus). You should undertake dispute resolution rather than attempting to impose a solution. -- ChrisO 01:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What side do you identify me with, ChrisO? This is not a game of tag, and not a battleground, even though many editors work hard to make it so. This is an encyclopedia and I am fully responsible for my actions and words. I reject your self-appointed supervision. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Your rejection of dispute resolution and consensus-building is noted, and I'm sure it will be noted by everyone else as well. -- ChrisO 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris, this has been discussed and debated since March! There have been straw polls, there's been move requests, there's been mediation -at some point, we have to finally say enough! At no point in the whole debate did anyone advance an argument or provide evidence that "Second Intifada" is a POV title -mainly because it would have been impossible. There is also no way around the fact that other encyclopædias, like Britannica title it "Second" [1]. Irrespective of how it might look to you, there hasn't been a "partisan solution" imposed, period. Intransigence by some editors in the face of the overwhelming evidence against their position has to, at some point, be regarded for what it is, a form of gaming the system. This seems to me to be a perfect situation where WP:IAR is needed. <<-armon->> 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Humus wrote: "Timeshifter's arguments failed at the talk page and at the mediation." Armon wrote: "there hasn't been a 'partisan solution' imposed,..." Both are laughable statements. The Humus arguments have almost always failed. Just go to the pages that I linked. Neither of these 2 hardly ever compromise. --Timeshifter 03:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with and support the above comments by Humus and Armon. Let's stop with the filibustering, people. If Second Intifida is objectionable, let's call it second Palestinean Uprising, or some descriptive phrase that no one likes. Really.--Epeefleche 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not the way we're supposed to operate - Wikipedia:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution set out what's supposed to happen. I'm not making any judgments as to which name is preferable, but a coup de main by one side in a dispute is the worst possible way to try to resolve the question. -- ChrisO 08:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: There is currently a proposal on Talk:Second Intifada to retitle the article as Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). This (entirely sensible) suggestion has been rejected outright by at least one highly partisan editor, and it stands to reason that this editor's allies will oppose any resolution which includes "Al Aqsa Intifada" in the article title. CJCurrie 04:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, but rather another attempt to push the same POV. We've been through this. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". And per WP:TITLE#Use English words: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Of course this is a wrong place or this discussion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close[edit]

Can I suggest that we've thoroughly established that there are good reasons (even if you disagree with them) for all sides of this dispute and discussion of it does not therefore belong on this board. Please take this to Talk:Second Intifada, the original article talk page or another more appropriate forum. --Dweller 09:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct - Talk:Second Intifada from here on, please, content disuputes are not an issue requiring administrative attention. Neil  12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Edit warring at Wikipedia:lead section[edit]

There is currently edit warring over whether citations in the lead should be:

  • a) mentioned with both interpretation given
  • b) decouraged for stuff given in the article
  • c) encouraged at all cost
  • d) mentioned at all

I'm all in favor of it being covered (and I have reverted the removal of the section twice), but User:SlimVirgin and Jayjg are steadfastly removing the section. How the mention of the "summary" interpretation "encourages policy violation", I fail to see, but in any case, more people need to step in and watch the page if this is ever to solve. Circeus 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been going on for a year. Other editors have given up, left the project, and stopped editing policy pages altogether. Same story, different article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it funny how admins who really should know better - on both sides - each manage exactly 3 reverts before an ally steps in and takes up the revert button. This is known as "gaming" 3RR. Neil  15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that article is a poster child for the Dmcdevit solution (1RR) once it's unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


User:Jpgordon added info about Oprah Winfrey performing fellatio on a donkey, etc. [2]

Rillio 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't add them; he reverted your removal of other people's comments. Arguably some may be tasteless, but tampering or removing other people's comments is of utmost rudeness (unless they consist of blatant vandalism). —Kurykh 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
i removed racist attacks on oprah, jpgordon added these back in. this is inexcusable. can someone in charge of this place do something? Rillio 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What racist comments? —Kurykh 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And in case you didn't know, the person was saying that the comment about Oprah doing whatever with the donkey should be removed from the article. So I don't know what you're getting at. —Kurykh 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
that person was being sarcastic, obviously. swap "oprah" for "your mom" and i think you'll see that it is an attack on oprah Rillio 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Quit your bellyaching. Jpgordan didn't do anything wrong, move along. — Moe ε 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
)(ec) Actually, the comment was placed by an anonymous IP and was unsigned. At that time (July 14, 2007), the Oprah Winfrey page contained vandalism, which the anon obviously did not know how to fix. The vandalism was reverted about an hour after the above comment was left. I have added a header to the Oprah Winfrey talk page and context for the above note.[3] Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so its ok for jpgordon to insert "oprah is a lesbian and a whore and sucks donkey dick"? i think this is really rude to oprah. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rillio (talkcontribs) 05:05, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

No one said that, so stop misinterpreting the comment. No one called Oprah that, let along Jpgordon. Let me modify the comment to make it clear:

Who ever wrote that "Oprah was a lesbian and a whore that could suck a donkeys dick" should change that, Oprah is a beautiful woman that helps all the neddy children. [Italics and quotes are mine]

I didn't have to do this, but it seems like I have to in order to stop this farcical complaint. —Kurykh 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Rillio seems to have some misconceptions about what is and what isn't appropriate here, and what may be done about it. Vide his edits to User talk:Deeceevoice. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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

User talk:Velocicaptor[edit]


Someone may want to take a look at this gem. I removed the fair use images, but someone may want to deal with the ridiculous soapboxing in that edit. I'm not feeling particularly forgiving right now, so I'd appreciate someone else having a look.--Isotope23 talk 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It's just classic trolling. --Haemo 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While I think he should be able to say what he likes, and it certainly isn't offensive, just a little incorrect. By the time WW2 rolled around we hadn't been allowed to own Negroes in 74 years. So it was hardly a case of maintaining the right to negro slaves. History is always bent though to support an opinion --Hayden5650 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You would say that Jews would be workers, not talk-show hosts like Jerry Springer is today, raking in big money for doing nothing but cracking jokes. isn't offensive? IrishGuy talk 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Not offensive? Please... That post was offensive on so many levels and I'm not even part of the ethnic groups he was disparaging. He's lucky I've the sense to post a notice here rather than just carry through with my first inclination.--Isotope23 talk 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with Irishguy and I have removed that post. BLP can be violated outside article namespaces and should be treated seriously, and that comment about Springer, was BLP, liable and any other thing we could toss at it Regardless, it wasn't for the benefit of this encyclopedia, and comments like that need to stay in the peanut gallery. — Moe ε 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit War in the article on Pro-pedophile activism[edit]


Admin intervention is requested in regards to the edit war currently in progress in the editing of the Pro-pedophile activism article. Three editors have repeatedly deleted almost the entire article without providing any legitimate reason for such a drastic action on the appropriate Talk Page. All attempts to encourage meaningful discussion have failed. The only reasons provided for the deletion of so much material were that the topic is not liked by these editors and that they think the entire article should be deleted. Since WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly explains that personal opinions on a subject should carry no weight in the discussion of the topic's place in Wikipedia, and without legitimate justification of why an article should be deleted a deletion cannot go through, the repeated deletion of the majority of the text of this article is definitely unjustified. I would like to also point out that one of the editors engaged in this behavior has previously nominated this article for deletion. The resulting vote was "no consensus," with 18 votes for Keep (or 19 if counting one that read "Neutral, leaning keep") and 5 votes for Delete. Seeing as these editors have yet to provide sufficient basis for the drastic edit they would like to see occur to this article, and continue to engage in an edit war with editors who wish to discuss the proposed change on the Talk Page, admin intervention seems necessary. Could an admin please take a look into this issue and do something about this edit war? Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard remedy: full protection on the Wrong VersionTM. Hash it out at the relevant talk page at your (plural case intended) leisure. —Kurykh 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't look closely enough to see which side they're on, but it quite appears that Sdhrfr (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, since they're spontaneously registering and leaping into the middle of a heated dispute right as people are hitting 3RR. Watch for autoblocks, or if anybody feels this was a bad move, feel free to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Just my $0.02 from my encounter at Lolicon, but SqueakBox has a history of engaging in POV edit waring. His particular statement that "NPOV condemns child pornography"[4] is particularly worrisome and makes me wonder if he can edit any related article in a neutral manner. --Farix (Talk) 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR[edit]

There are currently 8 outstanding 3rr reports on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. It would be great if someone could respond to these, thanks! Perspicacite 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor blocked for making legal threats and being disruptive is back[edit]

Please forgive me, I posted this first on another admin. board before realizing my mistake!

A sockpuppet of User:Mayor Quimby, one User:, is back. This user's activities clearly indicate that the user is antithetical to the ideals of Wikipedia and its editors. The user's anon. IP sockpuppets were blocked for making legal threats, vandalism and being very disruptive. All editors are cautioned that this user is full of beans and is looking for confrontation, and so please be careful not to poke.

Here's the info on (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I would ask for one of two things:

  • 1) Please block the IP
  • 2) and/or protect the following pages that the sockpuppets regularly target so that anon IPs cannot edit:

It would be better to block the IP again, I think, because this user is bound and determined to use our encyclopædia project alternatively as a personal soapbox and vandalism playground. I also append a record of this user's history: [[5]] Thank you.Mumun 無文 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked again, this time for two weeks. CitiCat 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CitiCat!! ^^ Mumun 無文 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:White Hispanic[edit]

This talk page is getting worrisome. Several IPs are making edits to the talk page that have little to do with the article itself but are ramblings and rants. This has persisted for some time and I think requires the attention of an admin. Examples

These are just a few examples, overall the talk page is looking more like a forum or a blog. There is a similar pattern by some of the same editors on the Talk:White Latin American page.Muntuwandi 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're free to remove any posts that are not in compliance with WP:TALK's general ideals about what is to be discussed there. You can remove these without admin assistance, correct? — Moe ε 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Suggested solution: I've moved all talk page discussions to Talk:White Hispanic/Archive 1 and semi-protected the talkarchive. If you encounter anymore off-topic ranting, move it there. This will provide a disincentive for others to use the talk page as a forum and, hopefully, by the time semi-protection elapses, such antics will cease. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll continue to observe the situation. Muntuwandi 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


Could you please deal with this user? I'm sick and tired of these personal attacks and continuous reverts ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). I made him note Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written like sports magazines' reports, with interviews, quotes, redundant statements and lots of external links. But all his answers are things like these. All I realize about the guy is that he is not interested at all to collaborate in the Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 14:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he makes more personal attacks then report it here and someone will deal with it. ugen64 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Somali people vandalism[edit]

In the Somali people article, (talk · contribs) was repeatedly removing the "Prophet" honorific from Muhammad's name and changing "Somali diaspora" to "Somali infection" ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). The former is actually a legitimate edit as per WP:MOSISLAM. The latter edit is vandalism and the IP (based in the UK) has since been blocked for 24 hours. Subsequently, (talk · contribs) (based in Taiwan) made the same edit with a vengefully-worded edit summary ([18]). I blocked the new IP address, but I am planning on protecting the article if this continues. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One admin suspects this anon. editor is banned user DavidYork71. -- Gyrofrog (talk)
Based in Taiwan? Hardly. I'm taking it to WP:OP. In any case, can I ask why you have brought this here? I don't see much to comment on. The Evil Spartan 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant the IP address is based in Taiwan. I'd already changed the block to indefinite based on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection. This was more of an alert than a request, I apologize if it is misplaced. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fallujah vandalism[edit]

It isn't clear to me that this is vandalism. While the user might be having trouble with the syntax, he or she is citing references. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see it either. Just taking a quick glance, I don't see unsourced personal commentary. I see statements which have moved from borderline pov in the earlier edits to fairly neutral in the last edits which were backed by a BBC article and an article. Is there more discussion in one of the archives? I don't see where any strong consensus was formed on the talk page that the information couldn't be added if there was a reliable source with it. I only see where people were saying that it didn't belong because earlier mentions were based on "eyewitness accounts". Either way, I'd say this is more of a content dispute than a case of vandalism. --OnoremDil 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have declined to issue a block on the same report at AIV. I see it as a good faith entry (and thus not vandalism) of a well sourced comment. I don't see personal commentary in the most recent version. - Philippe | Talk 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked editor Saintrotter (talk · contribs) is editing under an IP sock[edit] (talk · contribs) is a static IP address that has only been used by Saintrotter (talk · contribs) aka Rastishka (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for persistent POV pushing, trolling and soapboxing on his userpage. Beginning this month, the static IP (which was not blocked along with the two usernames) has resumed editing and based on edit history is pretty clearly the same editor. IP makes tendentious edits centered around race [19], and is even signing his IP edits using his old BANNED username [20], [21], [22]. The IP has been blocked twice in the past. I think it's time for a permablock for this IP, as it is a static IP assigned only to this particular indefblocked user and leaving it open can result in nothing but more block avoidance. The Parsnip! 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a Checkuser case. [23]. The Parsnip! 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism from multiple socks[edit]

Several newly created, and seemingly single purpose accounts are active in the article History of India.

--Ragib 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated blanking, stalking and trolling by users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs)[edit]

Please help with this problem, users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) are have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page [24]. They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [[25]. They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling. The contents they had removed on this page LTTE had valid citations from reliable sources. Also I have added the totaly disputed tag, which they keep removing claiming its trolling and vandalism. I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Both users are unwilling to discuss or come with reason for their actions, apart unilateraly imposing it on everybody. Please help Sinhala freedom 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Said users have also been accused of violating WP:STALK. Snowulf4d has also removed warning from his talk page. Watchdogb 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues[edit]

Having a problem with a sockpuppet on a AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage. The sock nominated the article for deletion while bouncing between two IP's, one that traces back to Shaw, the other with no RDNS. They admitted both IP's were theirs, however claimed they were due to having a dynamic IP, which is false since Shaw's IP's would always resolve to Shaw.[26]

The puppet then attempted to insinuate after much arguing that he was the person in question Mark Pitcavage.[27] I think its pretty clear from the fact that Pitcavage is an adult, would have plenty of information on himself, and has not posted as himself so their would be no COI issue, that this is in fact not Pitcavage. Can these IP's be blocked for menacing and possibly close the AfD since it was nominated by a sock, if that is policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TrevASLer is the IP user; clearly a username just created to file the AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
And all of them are socks of a long-established user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If that is known for a fact, then perhaps a block is in order. I would just like the AfD to no longer be the victim of the sock puppets attacks and now, impersonations, which is probably the item that bothers me most. Luckily it was far from a convincing impersonation. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The user in question was User:Michael Dorosh, whose last edit to his userpage is "I find it much more satisfying to make anonymous edits these days." I don't think creating a new user to nominate articles for deletion is an acceptable use of alternate accounts, nor is editing things as both that user and the IP (in addition to using his former username up until about a month ago). The attempt to pretend that he was Mark Pitcavage is also not really all that cool. I have blocked the sock. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

New user plagiarising Encyclopedia Britannica[edit]

The user Whenclaim made the following edits, in which s/he created introduction content that was copied and pasted directly from Encyclopedia Britannica:

And these are just the contributions I took the time to check. I'm sure there's more. Also, for a new user, this person has been extremely active, like s/he is trying to make as many contributions as possible to gain a reputation, and seems very knowledgeable in using Wikipedia. I've seen behavior like this before in sock puppets, which is what I suspect here. 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there some other way I should be reporting plagiarism? Should I not be reporting it at all? 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I just found the wp:plagiarism page. Sorry, I'll list there. 23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Early DRV closure[edit]

Someone want to swing by Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_23#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Dramatica and close it--a sock of the blocked nominator now wants it closed and there's rather overwhelming support for the endorsed closure. It's peppered by ED trolls and sock play. — Scientizzle 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, ED is Good (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and closed it...that'll work, I guess. — Scientizzle 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind...closure has been reverted... — Scientizzle 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for five days won't kill... —Kurykh 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking[edit]

Very slow and tedious edit war going on in which, every day or so, User:Omulazimoglu adds unsourced original research to Tobacco smoking#Islam without comment or explanation, and I revert it. This has happened several times (at least four, I think), but not often enough to trigger a 3RR violation.

I have left a warning on the editor's talk page explaining why I keep reverting him. The editor's only responses were to re-add the unsourced material back to the article without comment, and to leave a snarky comment on my talk page.

This editor seems to be a good-faith contributor to other articles (with minor exceptions) so I am hesitant to leave a level-4 "final warning" on this editor's talk page. He doesn't seem inclined to explain his edits, however, so the third opinion way of resolving disputes won't work. And he edits Wikipedia infrequently, so a short-term block will likely go unnoticed. -Amatulic 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did it again, re-added his unsourced original research about Islam to tobacco smoking. without explaining why. I have left him a final warning. -Amatulic 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Vision (Marvel Comics)[edit]

There's a low level revert war going on here, and the page has already been subject to protection in the recent past. Now I've already blocked one of the participants, Asgardian (talk · contribs), a couple of times for what I perceive as disruption, so I don't want to step into this dispute in case my judgement is clouded. I'd appreciate a more neutral admin than I may be to have a look and take what they feel is the appropriate action. Cheers, Hiding Talk 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort it out. Neil  15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Inapropriate user page[edit]

The userpage of Strich3d contains the passage Articles I started:(but were vandalised by bulgarian and greek nationalists), which is in violation if Wikipedia:User page. It contains an attack against Bulgarian and Greek users and it clearly not facilitating to collaboration. The user has been notified about this but continues to revert back to the version in question. I request administrator assistance. Mr. Neutron 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note it was not Strich3d, but a third party. Mr. Neutron 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And what comes off with User:Strich3d and the user that supports him by adding this back a number of times? --Laveol T 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at the history of the page, I count more than 20 reverts stretching back two months. Mr. Neutron 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong violates blocking policy[edit]

Ryulong has indefinitely blocked the whole /20 class -- i.e. 4096 IP addressess without proof or evidence that open-proxy operates on each of this address. I think this is blatant violation of blocking policy. He also abusively reverts others' comments here and on Talk:Mozilla Firefox (check histories). 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've been removing this thread for the past hour or so because the IP above is a TOR proxy, as have been all other IPs that posted this message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryulong's range block looks sound for now; an ARIN lookup confirms that the entire range is in fact allocated to a hosting company, indicating that few to no legitimate users will be editing from there, while proxies will likely be scattered throughout. Should any legitmate users encounter a problem, the block can certainly be revisited. Krimpet 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the four other TOR nodes that had posted this message:

Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fine, but why start by reverting the edits (denying other users a chance to judge for themselves), instead of just responding to them in the way that you have in the first place? Gerry Lynch 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Because it's someone very likely banned and using TOR proxies to edit (editting from open proxies is forbidden)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The intended target of a block is not the editor, but rather the proxy itself. Absent editing patterns, admissions, abuse itself, and etc that can confirm that the editor editing from the proxy is a banned user, then we can not reasonably assume that an editor using a proxy is a bad editor, for they are permitted to freely use the proxy until it is blocked. Navou banter 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so block and not rollback even though it allowed me to block five TOR nodes...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, just block, no rollback if they are legitimate edits, for they are allowed to edit articles, discuss, post reports here, etc. Navou banter 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Navou hit the key concept here, but I feel I can articulate it better, or at least differently. That the edits came through an open proxy is in and of itself insufficent reason to rollback or treat them as the contribution of a banned editor. If enough have been reviewed to show a pattern of vandalism (for a particular proxy or proxy set and a particular time period), they can be rolled back or speedily undone in other fashion as vandalism. GRBerry 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sivasubramaniam Raveendranath[edit]

This biography is a coat rack at the center of a (as far as I can tell) politically sensitive PoV war. I honestly can't make heads or tails of it and protected until they can do something more constructive than argue in edit summaries. Circeus 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring and protection of this article is unfortunate, all of the concerns raised by warring editors could have been easily fixed without any edit warring. I just did not see it yesterday also we have a life outside of Wikipedia too. About Circueus concern that this is not a biography is only partially correct. He becomes notable by him being forced disappeared, that too he being a vice chancellor of a major university in Sri Lanka makes it even more notable. See Reda Helal and Boris Weisfeiler. I would like to get a chance to work on this article section by section. I also disagree taht this is coatrack. If he thinks that this is is coat rack, why not put it up for XFD ? ThanksTaprobanus 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

amatulic always deletes my contribution on tobacco smoking...[edit]

Hi; I want to ask you if you could ask the user amatulic why he always ondoes my contribution on tobacco smoking...Best regards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulazimoglu (talkcontribs) 06:28, 25 July 2007

See my edit summaries; I have explained each time, but you have failed to explain your edits, or otherwise engage in any discussion about your rationale for violating WP:V and WP:NOR policies. -Amatulic 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Injecting original research into articles is frowned upon. There is already an incident filed here regarding edit reversions to the tobacco smoking article.
There is a good chance both parties will end up at 3RR if this keeps up... --Aarktica 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see the report I filed in the section above: #Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking. The problem is, User:Omulazimoglu repeatedly re-adds unsourced, unverified, POV original research — without one word of explanation — to a section of an article I spent some time cleaning up. His reverts wouldn't trigger a 3RR as they happen once a day, rather than 4 times in 1 day, so I have not reported him there. His edits (repeatedly adding unsourced original research) constitute vandalism. After reverting a couple times, I finally left him a warning, but his only response was to complain rather than explain. In order to stop his disruptive edits, I left an escalating series of warnings on his talk page and reported him here.
Fortunately, User:HG came in and vastly improved the disputed section, so I believe the issue is resolved unless Omulazimoglu chooses to continue his disruptive edits. -Amatulic 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Oldwindybear[edit]

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

Per the conclusion of the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274#User:Stillstudying, Barneca and I have compiled a detailed sockpuppet report:User:Proabivouac/Oldwindybear&Stillstudying.Proabivouac 06:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I thought the consensus in the last thread was that, your voluminous report aside, that there was no clear sock-puppetry here and that the best solution was just to let it go. --Haemo 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus was to set it aside until Barneca and I had compiled a report.Proabivouac 07:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, why is there a duplicate thread on WP:AN? Please keep the (potential) discussion in one place. —Kurykh 07:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you page through it, the only things that really jumped out at me were the time things, and the "slip-ups" section. I would suggest that a good test might be to run checkuser and look for a time period when one, or the other, was on vacation. See if both of their edits came from the same vacation spot. --Haemo 07:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent checkuser (last week) didn't find anything. But checkuser can't disprove anything, only prove that two editors have used the same IP. And the checkuser data is only good for two months (I think). Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One week, or maybe five days. Not sure. An Arbitration case perhaps? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It's incorrect to state that "the recent checkuser didn't find anything:" it confirmed that SS and FWS were identical - remember, the CU was on OWB, not SS - and that both OWB and SS/FWS were in the same metropolitan area. See CU results, admission of multiple IPs.Proabivouac 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Without checkuser or very, very, very compelling evidence (Not that yours isn't, Pro) an arbitration case isn't going to do much... If there is sockpuppetry involved, it will be very bewildering for the checkuser report... I think the best way to figure this out is to do what Haemo suggested: Check out the vacation spots, and see if checkuser can prove anything on it. The only potential problem there is if the guy(s) is/are using proxies, but then again, the likelihood of forgetting and making a mistake... --Dark Falls talk 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree here -- "multiple IPs" says very little. I mean, I have an IP address here, and IP address when I visit people in Vancouver, an IP address at my relatives, and an IP address at school. In all, I probably have a whole bunch of them. That's not suspicious -- I'm sure this is true of nearly every editor. What you're going to need is something which could not reasonably be believed to be the part of two unrelated editors; hence, my vacation test idea. --Haemo 07:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, the shared phrases and spelling errors are enough to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these are same writer, regardless of IP or contribution history. It is extremely improbable that any other person, living or dead, shares this particular combination of textual idiosyncrasies.Proabivouac 08:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if it adds any evidence, but can someone email me a copy of the deleted, incorrectly-filed RFA of oldwindybear? --Dark Falls talk 08:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, but I can link you to Oldwindybear's existing, perfectly-filed (and as far as I know, only) RfA with 100% support - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Oldwindybear. Grandmasterka 08:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As one who'd supported, this unanimous RfA proves beyond any doubt that ours is a critically dysfunctional community. How did no one catch that the nominator was an obvious sock of the candidate? How did the previous (and accurate) allegation of sockpuppetry go unmentioned? How did last months'' allegation of plagiarism go unmentioned? And don't get me started about his persona and resumé.Proabivouac 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The evidence of sockpuppetry is overwhelming. I think we need to block stillstudying straight away as a clear sock. OWB needs to be de-adminned as an abusive sockpuppeter so this needs to go to arbitration right away. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can edit using a multitude of socks in the city centre that I live an hour away from, simply by using SSH. Not sharing IPs doesn't necessarily prove anything. Given this much evidence, I think it's time we considered the possibilities. --Deskana (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac I think when this sinks to attacking my military service that is it for me with wikipedia. I cannot for the life of me see why anyone cannot see that your "logic" is garbage. You admit checkuser shows NOTHING similar, not vacations, not anything. You say SS and FWS are one person, but the third went to enormous lengths to set up a scam - why then would he not do the few FSW edits from a third computer? None of it makes sense. Theresa Knott what am I being de-admined for? I have not even edited on the same articles that SS did! What a sad day this is that people can be personally attacked, even for their military service! Proabivouac this is low, even for you. The bottom line is you have a theory, unsupported by any evidence, which you use to harass someone who refused to resign when you demanded they do so. I did nothing wrong. old windy bear 09:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility please. I understand that you are considerably angry, but please refrain from calling other editor's logic "garbage". --Dark Falls talk 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No it is pretty clear. The evidence is overwhelming!Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OWB, if you read the page, he has a lot of evidence, and I see his logic. And yes, you did edit same pages he has. Just look at the page. It lists them. I have to agree with Theresa, the evidence is overwhelming. i (said) (did) 09:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will save you a lot of argument. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, so I resign from wikipedia in it's entirity. I don't know an H Blair, or any of these people. But you know what? It reaches the point of simply not being worth the trouble, and we are at that point. old windy bear 09:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls YOu are good guy, and I can only say a person gets tired of being attacked. While not guilty, I am tired of arguing. I have shut down my talk page, this is my last edit, I resign in toto, and this matter is closed. old windy bear 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case I am going to block your account as that of a confirmed sockpuppeteer and ask for a steward to remove the admin bit from it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Theresa Knott

If you will not simply accept my resignation, without tagging me, then I have to stay and ask for arbitration. old windy bear 10:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, thinking about it. A tag is not actually necessary. If you want to resign that is fine by me. The admin bit will have to be removed though. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse moi, but under what authority are you making this assertion? I was under the impression that it is for the WP:ARBcom to determine. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
It is, but if he wants to resign rather than go through the humiliation then surely that is the best option? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Theresa Knott You are absolutely correct. This is terrible for wikipedia. I maintain to the end I am not a sock puppeter, but fighting this out is going to be so ugly it is simply not worth it, and it harms the encyclopedia. Remove the admin and this is my last edit, I resign in toto for the good of the project. old windy bear 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I assume Theresa's simply speaking for herself. However, that would be essentially standard procedure in "left in controversial circumstances" situations, for reasons which are obvious to anyone who's been witness to "I'm leaving, no need for further action/here I am back again, whatever was all the fuss about?" practices in various cases. Alai 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That is like been too judgmental. Oldwindybear is upset and understandably so. He might choose to come back, but the better course of action we have here is either to seek wider community opinion (if that can get an administrator desysoped) and if not, let us all please move the holy ARBcom and seek their counseils. :) -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any experience of Arbcom? It's not plesent, and takes forever. OWB has said he wants to leave. Why drag him through a very unplesent expereince? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
No, none at all. Is that a bad thing? :-D -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 13:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If the user says he is leaving, I fail to see the use of arbcom. It, as Theresa said, only causes stress and unpleasantness to the parties involved... The only thing we have to worry about is the terms of Old windy bear's retirement, as well as what happens if he returns. --Dark Falls talk 10:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
At this point, I'm fine with arbitration. All the evidence is gathered already, including much which hasn't been presented. In spite of our pleas to make this graceful and easy, OWB forced Barneca and I to go through all this work; there is nothing left with which to bargain. Above, he states "Proabivouac this is low, even for you." Even for me, eh?
The fact that OWB did all this, yet passed RfA unopposed is a community issue. The fact that it was reported to SSP, RfCU and ANI, yet we ignored it, is a community issue. The fact that he's falsely claimed at least some academic degrees is a community issue. There are other things which I am curious about as well. We can't have editors - even otherwise good ones - aggrandizing themselves with false experiences and accomplishments. Did I mention seriously abusive sockpuppetry?Proabivouac 10:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What false degrees? Do you realize you are hurling accusations without any proof of any kind? If you want arbitration, fine, but please, stick to the facts. I offered to resign to end this for the community, but you don't want that - why? What proof do you have to hurl that kind of accusation? old windy bear 10:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
These don't add up, OWB.23:59, 5 September 200518:13, 24 December 200513:53, 9 January 200619:55, 9 January 200620:15, 9 January 200617:48, 16 January 200601:58, 27 July 2006 Like I said, don't get me started.Proabivouac 10:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Mate, oldwindybear has already agreed to be desysopped and such, so I really don't see the use of those diffs. Best not to trip someone over after they're already on the ground...(Theoretically impossible but...) --Dark Falls talk 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
He asked what proof I had.Proabivouac 11:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies mate. I didn't see that. --Dark Falls talk 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Dark Falls, trust me on this: no one wants to be falsely accused and I won't be back, but put a voluntary block on my IP, fine with me. old windy bear 10:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK let's nip this in the bud. How about this. OWB resignes, I ask a steward to remove the admin bit, No one blocks the account or tags it as a sockpuppeteer, if OWB wants to come back he can ask the AC for his admin bit back. Fair? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and resign. old windy bear 10:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Theresa has blocked User:Stillstudying indefinitely and I am supportive of the block. If Oldwindybear decides to come back we can have a full-fledged ArbCom case. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've also asked over on meta for his admin bit removed. I think this matter can be marked as resolved now.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
You said it, sister. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you go to sleep and nothing's been filed, you wake up, and it's over.
I know this section has been marked resolved, but since it isn't technically archived, I'll sneak in a quick comment before it is: I am satisfied with this solution. I'll go look for a better forum for any other comments. --barneca (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. I participated lightly in the previous thread and defended OWB a bit. But now that I really go through the contribs, you guys hit it right on the head. They should have overlapped at some point just by accident but they never did. I'm all the way back to February and nothing. Nice job everyone. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Another sock of DavidYork71[edit]

Following the blocking of multiple socks in the most recent RFCU case, User:Prester John is re-instating all the articles that User:Ultrabias had edited which had subsequently been reverted following the previous RFCU confirmation.

The edit summaries also show a remarkable similarity to the style of Ultrabias (aka DavidYork71). See this, this, this and this.

This has been filed for RFCU but I believe the process with DY71 socks is to block first and ask questions later. So I leave it to the admins to take any relevant actions. Cheers. → AA (talk) — 08:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a comment on whether Prester John is or is not a sockpuppet of David York, but his edits seem to be in harmony with WP:MOSISLAM. See WP:MOSISLAM#Islamic honorifics. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
In the recent incarnation of sockpuppettry, Ultrabias (a confirmed sock) updated MOSISLAM without discussion or consensus and then proceeded to make changes to "support" the new MOS. Prester John appears to be simple reverting to Ultrabias' version of the articles. Many of the edits by Ultrabias were simple search and replace operations and introduced grammatical errors. However, one of the defining charasteristics is the edit summaries (see this one for example. → AA (talk) — 09:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Prestjohn is not a sock of David, if you have any suspicion you should file a checkuser. --Matt57 (talkcontribs) 11:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Both have editing histories that many have found contentious, but I too suspect this is not the one person. Although, you are not not the first to suggest it. regards --Merbabu 12:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Further AA, one shouldn't just block and ask questions later on a slight suspicion or a few similarities, rather one must be really sure. Otherwise you are going to have egg on your face, and it will make it easier for future socks, and harder for those trying to reign in the socks. "Shoot first, ask questions later" must be done with much more caution, particularly in this case when it is almost certain PJ is not a sock of DY. --Merbabu 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree - which is why I brought it here. I had no interaction with the original DY71 but did come across Ultrabias. I have presented the evidence but was certainly not advocating a block based on my evidence alone - it was discussed by more experienced editors that that should be the approach which is why I mentioned it. I am not aware of previous cases of DY71 being associated with PJ but I guess it would be in PJs interest for an RFCU to clear him so that it can be on record they are not the same - since based on editing behaviour currently, it appears to be so. → AA (talk) — 13:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
When we've blocked DY socks fast in the past it's because the socks were blatantly obvious and therefore a RFCU wasn't warranted. However, PJ's account is nearly a year old and an admin that blocked a long term contributor as a sockpuppet would want to see some very convincing evidence such as a positive RFCU or textual evidence (such as that presented in the Oldwindybear case above). Sarah 13:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, AA. From your last post, it seems like your RFCU and ANI were good moves. regards --Merbabu 13:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone pop over to Category:Attack pages for speedy deletion[edit]

I tagged a realtively nasty attack page at 08:30 UTC here and it's still hanging around. Thanks ! Pedro |  Chat  10:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. Pedro |  Chat  11:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, while that was indeed an attack page, it was not particularly nasty compared to most of what else goes in that bucket. --After Midnight 0001 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know. That's why I described it as "relatively". Thanks for killing ti off. Pedro |  Chat  15:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock wanted.[edit]

My friend WereWolf, who left Wikipedia a few months back, tried to return a few days ago but discovered that his IP has been blocked for vandalism. Could an admin please unblock his user account so he can recommence contributing? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

He is not blocked, so he can't be unblocked ([28]). If he is autoblocked by his IP being banned, point him in the direction of Template:Autoblock, which tells autoblocked users what to do to get this lifted. Neil  13:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that was what I meant. I was just posting here so he didn't have to do that, but I'll email him the

template now. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that we have no idea what his IP address or the block ID is - this is done deliberately to protect people's privacy. Neil  13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Block check[edit]

Someone or someones have been creating accounts quite quickly to insert links like these into medical articles. They seem to do it, get a couple of warnings, but not enough to get blocked and then create another account. For this reason I have blocked User:Jayelani User:Ragumani & User:Alagi indefinitely, in spite of the fact that each stopped after being warned (and I didn't warn User:Alagi at all). I think this is the right tack, as they shouldn't be able to create other accounts, and if they already have, the autoblock should catch them, but I'm not sure if indefs are usually handed out for spam, so I wanted to check. Cheers Dina 13:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this URL before. This is a long term spammer. Indefblock on sight without warning. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you can use the special pages --> External inks here to keep an eye on the spam. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How about m:Spam blacklist? —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I've requested it ([29]). Neil  14:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The most important thing is to blacklist the domain at meta and Neil has already requested this.
I dug up as many spamming accounts as I could find to see if they were adding any other domains, which is typical in something like this. I couldn't find any. In investigating this domain, I did not find any related domains that shared ownership.
Web site contact data:
AJ - 94, 9th Main Road,
Anna Nagar West,
Chennai, INDIA.
+91-44-4217 0727
Partial list of accounts adding links:
  1. Pramod2007 (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  2. Daffycrooke12 (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  3. Williammande (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  4. Ebnezar (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  5. Thanisha (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  6. Kanvya (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  7. Mridhula (talkcontribsdeleted contribswhat links to user pagecountCOIBotnoticeboardsuser page logsx-wikistatusLinkWatcher searchGoogle)
  8. Billsberry (talkcontribsdeleted contribs