Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive302

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology[edit]

A spammy article. Lots of edits by IPs. Please watch it for the next few days. -- Cat chi? 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure the folks at WP:COIN are aware. Shalom Hello 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Hamilton[edit]

Interesting comment: This page (here) comes up on all kinds of NET searches and there are Wikipedia articles on "Paul Barresi" and "Anthony Pelicano" and the Character "Nathan Hamilton" is described in the Book: "Tom Cruise, An Unauthorized Biography" (again there is a Wikipedia article on this book!) "Nathan Hamilton aka: Big Red" is mentioned in the book - see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=xob2eZ4v834C&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=Nathan+Hamilton+aka+Big+Red&source=web&ots=QJyKgEBZ_x&sig=iR3oVmYVz9DHWpIpC0FVRVSmbnI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result

==============================================================================[edit]

NOT TRUE.

  • UMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Nathan Hamilton is dead! He died on June 18th 2007 in a waterskiing accident in Monaco. There are public records of this! This is abuse of keeping the hurtful things on here - the family of Nathan Hamilton has suffered greatly by both the exagerations and the lies posted on Wikipedia over the months! It is strongly suggested to remove all references to him. This story is more grave and deeper than anyone realizes. I never thought that an encyclopedia could be the source of such grotesque human suffering and pain! Do you create these articles to torture others or what???76.167.91.119 (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This AfD has attracted an unusual number of anonymous editors, apparent sock puppets, and single purpose accounts. Nathan Hamilton is a deceased, gay porn star who allegedly had an involvement with Tom Cruise. There are sources to back this up (such as MSNBC), but the claims are controversial. It looks like this AfD may be subject to a reputation management campaign by those would like to spin Wikipedia for their own purposes. - Jehochman Talk 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You reason is here: [1]. The Evil Spartan 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Holy hell that page is unreadable. I thought The Sun in the UK was bad. That page is a wet dream of conspiracy theories and other cruft. Spryde 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nathan Hamilton is not deceased, according to WP:OTRS. MSNBC's gossip column makes no mention of Hamilton or "Big Red," only indicates that someone claimed an encounter with this famous person. There is no reliable source to connect Hamilton to the "Big Red" who alleged the encounter, and no statement directly from "Big Red" or Hamilton of the encounter. There is only an individual Paul Barresi who claims to have talked to "Big Red," and plans to publish a book about it. -Jmh123 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Since I did this for an investigation, a synopsis of the article's history: The article was started by the newly registered User:Robin Redford on May 30 with the edit comment, "I have researched sites on Nathan Hamilton, Paul Barresi, Anthony Pelicano and have called Westminster Abbey and intereviewed Nathan Hamilton personally."

Editors started to revise and remove unsourced material, and on June 1, 2007 there was this diff [2] with the edit comment from Redford, "If you give me a change to document all the sources and references this is the story that should stand otherwise I will provide you a list of over 700 other stories with problems that I will legally h." Redford also stated here [3], "I can produce the Real Nathan Hamilton and all the documentation to prove this article -- why are you harassing us?" An anon IP from France, 86.217.198.239, began to add Wikilinks and in-line refs. User:DESiegel tried repeatedly to remove the "inline links that look like refs but aren't," Redford edit warred, and was blocked. An anon IP in France, 90.5.208.226, reverted one of DES's revision, commenting on this diff [4] that, "The 'edited down' story is untruthful and Nathan Hamilton will sue Wikipedia if it is posted again!" According to earlier versions of the bio, Hamilton was living in France. After one more reversion by User:Cquan, there was a break of nearly 2 months.

On July 21, a French IP 90.45.142.43 added in the notice of Hamilton's death and began to edit the entry. The French IP added in various elaborations to the "edited down" version, again not sourced properly or just not sourced: such as television appearances, a conversion to Judaism, more on the Pellicano/Barresi story, and an upcoming memorial video.

This continued until the OTRS was informed that Hamilton is not dead, the article was edited accordingly by Somitho on July 31 and the article was protected. Remarkably, while the reference to his death was removed from the lead, it was never removed from the body of the article. Robin Redford then added prod tags and removed them several times, settling for a not verified tag.

User:Phil Sandifer deleted some unreliable material on August 11, and semi-protected the article til August 31.

On Sept. 1 209.244.42.67 deleted reference to the death notice being published in Europe, but not the death, and then started adding in the unreliable sources again. Deleting, adding, deleting. Added a prod tag and the obit tag, exactly as previously deleted. Added a bit more about the sex with famous actor allegations. 71.127.234.96 deleted the prod tags. Redford added a speedy delete tag. User:Haemo removed it as it was an incorrect tag.

Later in September 209.244.42.67 started adding categories, lots of categories. 76.86.105.146 and Redford started building the article again just a little. I did a clean-up, removed the unsourced material, Redford asked for the deletion, and I nominated the article for deletion. -Jmh123 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I dare say the false claims of death further support the hypothesis that somebody is doing a spin job on, or via, this article. - Jehochman Talk 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
WHAT FALSE CLAIMS OF DEATH - Just cause some says that he is not dead does not prove he is alive - - I would like to see ANYONE at WP prove that this guy is living -- how do you know if he is dead or alive??????????

Suspected sockpuppet manipulation of this AFD, six month block on sockfarm[edit]

  • LaniMakani
    • first two edits are to this AFD.[5][6][7]
    • Next edit is to agree with Robin Redford at a talk page.[8]
    • Adds a citation flag on fourth edit, which is quite rare for a new user but characteristic of Robin Redford and Roz Lipschitz.[9]
    • Agrees with 76.86.105.146 on fifth edit (another suspected sock from the same drawer).[10]
    • Adds a spam template on sixth edit.[11]
    • Removes a link with a deceptive edit summary.[12]
    • Argues for another article removal on a talk page. Note overuse of capitaliation and punctuation, which is characteristic of other suspected socks.[13]
    • Agrees with Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford two other talk pages.[14][15]
  • Roz Lipschitz
    • Votes to the AFD nine minutes after LaniMakani.[16]
    • A sample comment at a talk page where the others cluster, using the same prose style and voicing agreement.[17]
  • Robin Redford
    • Votes to the AFD.[18][19]
    • Posts a very serious personal attack against an article subject. Note similar prose prose style with excessive punctuation and capitalization. There are other similar examples, but this extreme one should make the case. I later blanked it.[20]
  • 209.244.42.65
    • Votes at AFD.[21][22][23]
    • Posts to a different talk page in the same prose style as the rest. Different DNS location, but I have reason to suspect that's irrelevant in this case. Interested editors can contact me offline for an explanation.[24]

Also note how several of these !voted at other pornography bios recently.


A few other throwaway accounts and roving (but similar) IP addresses round out this sockfarm, but that ought to be enough to establish the case. I'm blocking all registered accounts in this family for six months. Salient factors include persistency over several months, manipulation of multiple AFD discussions, and the extreme nature of the worst BLP violation (this editor habitually violates WP:BLP). DurovaCharge! 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well hedid not die in Monaco; it was port grimaud- don't you read frenchnews or is that too good 4 u americans?

Forked content?[edit]

Someone mind looking at Wikipedia blocked by China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. I am not seeing much difference. People have tried to redirect this but it seems that the creator has other plans. Spryde 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the creator is a sock of ClueBot: [35] ;). The Evil Spartan 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Good ole' ClueBot. Sometimes savior, othertimes, protector of the wrong version Spryde 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[36]: According to one of the edit summaries, the latter article is blocked by the Chinese government. Or at least was censored.
Are copy-and-paste "copies" treated the same way as cut-and-paste "moves"? Because even if some part of it is censored, the edit history is not preserved.
Also, the easiest way to get the bytesizes of the articles to be similar seems to be a revert of [37] and previous similar edits - and User:SummerThunder is being mentioned in a couple of them. LegitimateSock 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you mean the summary that says "the other version is protected by the chinese communist party members, many sensitive information were deleted. read and compare.", I think the user is claiming that the other version isn't NPOV. Even if the claim is true, we still don't do POV forks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've indeffed the account that created the page as a probable SummerThunder sock.[38] DurovaCharge! 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

racist & threatening language is in this article below[edit]

Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_(soccer)_players

sorry, I'm new to this so don't know what to do about it so hope someone who knows what they're doing will pick it up!

respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simian crease (talkcontribs) 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just simple vandalism that's been reverted, nothing to see here. east.718 at 18:58, September 24, 2007

COBot gone wild[edit]

COBot just blanked User talk:M.V.E.i.! He's not happy about it. --Orange Mike 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Blocked, operator notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Wikihermit disappeared. Spryde 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The operator of that bot is still active and should respond to notification of malfunctions. — madman bum and angel 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It can be unblocked, I think I have fixed the problem, but can't tell until I run it again :). I'll watch the next few edits for any errors. CO2 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 Done - unblocked - see how it goes - Alison 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Persistant vandalism by user 75.112.133.254[edit]

See history Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. Request IP block user 75.112.133.254 or semi-protection of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SooperJoo (talkcontribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not overuse the V word. This looks more like an edit war of some kind than vandalism. WP:AN3 perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This does not seem to be as straightforward as the initial post makes out. The edits in question are arguably good faith attempts at removing BLP violations, unsourced or unreliably-sourced text from the article. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on their talk page. They're dialoging by edit summary and have gone way over 3RR. I've basically final-warned them now and asked them to state their case on that talk page - Alison 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555 Violation of numerous policies[edit]

Resolved

User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [39]

Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

Removes tags [44]

and has ignored requests to discuss [45] UnclePaco 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


I don't see anything in the diffs you provided that can be called "violations of policy". The image you mentioned doesn't have a caption, so there's no way to tell what it is and why it belongs in the article. Also, you left your message for the user less than a day ago, so there's a strong chance they haven't seen it yet.

I have two suggestions for you:

  1. If you add the picture back in, make sure to include a caption explaining its significance.
  2. Bring up the matter at Talk:Dominican Republic. User:BigGabriel555 has been active at that page, so there's a good chance to get their attention there. Other contributors may help you to resolve the dispute and build consensus there.

I hope this helps you out. Caknuck 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

Resolved

[46] - Corvus cornix 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - by User:Satori Son. Silly vandals - Alison 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, all sorts of nonsense was poured on to that talk page. I wouldn't make too much of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
(ECx2)Looks like a moron, not a real threat. If you really want to jam the kid up, report his post to the feds, but otherwise, he got blocked for 72 hours. I suspect he will immediately begin attacking pages again though, so perhaps a far longer block will be needed. ThuranX 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Quick protection of the talk page too next time. Don't want him to say anything he'll really regret down the line. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved

[47]. Corvus cornix 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just delete it, it's crap. Crap with a legal threat = acount ban, in my mind. ThuranX 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
{{db-nonsense}}. :P — madman bum and angel 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked. - indef. Silly vandals (yet again) - Alison 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over Reliability[edit]

Resolved

I need several admins to clarify something so that there's no confusion over the issue, as there seems to be a few people abusing their admin duties. Where exactly in Wikipedia's TOS does it state (with no confusion) that a site which happens to contain pornographic images and/or links to pornographic websites is automatically deemed unreliable as a reference for content? TMZ.com owns the rights to the infamous "Kramer" video, they've watermarked it, and its used as a source on Wikipedia. A site that I'd like to use as a reference has legal fight videos, the site owns all rights to the videos and has also watermarked them with additional details. According to Alexa.com the site in question ranks in the top 5,000 most visited websites in the world. So where in Wikipedia's rules does it state that this site is unreliable as a reference whereas TMZ.com (a celebrity gossip site) is reliable? Playboy.com contains pornography, why can various wiki articles (including those not related to the magazine) use pages of that site as a reference if pornographic sites are thus "unreliable" in the eyes of Wikipedia? It seems that some contributors and admins are creating their own liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Can someone just show me a rule? KimboSlice 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. --Haemo 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio image uploads[edit]

Wriggsey (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of copyvio photos under apparent fraudulent free license - would someone mind cleaning this up? Thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I'll go through and check out the images. -Andrew c [talk] 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus[edit]

It seems that another edit war has broken out at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have tried to mediate and "arbitrate" in some of the previous disputes, but I've given up the hope that I can be of assistance. The article's protection log is massive, and neither side seems willing to compromise. Please review, advise, intervene or anything else you deem necessary. Have we reached the stage of RfC or perhaps even RfArb here? AecisBrievenbus 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I propose we give it a little more time. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars, but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hamroll3[edit]

Could somebody who is knowledgeable about rugby please take a look at the edits of Hamroll3 (talk · contribs)? Every single one of them seems suspicious -- like he's creating articles about his school friends and adding them to rugby articles. No reliable sources or Google hits for rugby players with the names he's creating. Corvus cornix 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of Hungarian rugby league, which itself is made up of nonsense and a few WP:BLP issues, it seems he isn't the only user who has participated in this nonsense. Resolute 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't even worth cleaning up. The article is pretty blatantly a hoax at best, and vandalism at worst. I've AfDed it, but really, it could qualify as a G3 speedy candidate. Resolute 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:talk self delete undid...Looks like a bug in the 'bot.[edit]

Well, someone vandalized a page, and got called on it. He erased his own user:talk page....and got called on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.5.235.52&action=history

Interesting. Perhaps a user should be permitted unquestioned edits of their own user:talk page? Or do I misunderstand its purpose? Sean.Roach 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk page doctoring (changing what others have said without their consent) or personal attacks are usually not put up with. Talk page blanking, though discouraged, can be allowed although archiving is preferred. In the case of that IP talk page, its the first type of talk page editing I mentioned not the second. In which case its absolutely acceptable to revert and not allow.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I can see that reading. The way I read it was the user, whose talk page was in dispute, answered the criticism with an apology...then turned right around and gave a pointed attack at the very same people he or she was apologizing to. I did find one "edit", where a letter was cut out, but it looked accidental. More a matter of where the cursor fell than anything else. I say this because while the resulting word is in fact a word, it isn't a rude one. That would have required the addition of another letter.
However, why the user turned around and blanked everything, replacing the whole with a single pointedly rude comment, I can only speculate. When I posted this, I figured "Tiptoety" for a 'bot that mis-parsed the changes, not a human. I suppose on the grounds of it being a personal attack, (although somewhat scattershot in application,) it would merit the editing, as you stated it. I still can't see it as one person putting words in the mouth of another.
In any case, not a 'bot, thus not a bug. My original concern was unfounded. Sean.Roach 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unnoteworthiness and a disambiguation page[edit]

After some debate over the deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie, it was decided unnoteworthy and deleted. This has been taken to mean that the disambiguation page should also include no mention of the film, not even so much as a line to distinguish it from the other documentary film of similar name produced a year earlier. Another user is making me discuss this here in order to add this single line. what can I do? Brinerustle 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages should only include links to Wikipedia articles. If there's no article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. Corvus cornix 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also been fairly aggressive in removing external links to the non-notable movie. Even to the point of archiving the ongoing discussion at both Talk:Zeitgeist and Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation) as the discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the article pages in question. I also and semi-protected both, Zeitgeist (disambiguation), Zeitgeist. I don't think that external links need to be on either page when it refers to a non-notable movie, especially the Zeitgeist article. The movie was also taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 19. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good. The constant disruption over this film is getting ridiculous. If people want to write a well-referenced article about it, more power to them. However, no one has stepped up and instead there's been a months-long campaign of general annoyance promoting it. --Haemo 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This may be a tad extreme . . . do you think it'd help if we full protected both pages and semi protect the talk pages? I don't think it would create too big a problem. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tareq 50cent (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: indef block + deletions — Scientizzle 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The above user apparently does nothing for Wikipedia but upload copyvio pornography (except for a previous short vandalism career for which he got a short block). Could someone please delete the uploads and handle the situation appropriately? Videmus Omnia Talk 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by User:Scientizzle. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Anwar saadat and TMMK article[edit]

Reposted report

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

  • added many inline external links to the TMMK website
  • added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘officers’
  • removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
  • removed citations
  • removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

(User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. SWATJester Denny Crane. 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The persistent reversion to WP:NOT is a problem. It stopped while this report was first on ANI, resumed after it was archived, and stopped again when it was reposted. Will the user again revert after this second discussion is archived?

The subject itself may be the larger problem: extremely thin results of searches for reliable sources ("Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" gets 127 hits; ‘"Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" -wikipedia’ yields 10)—very brief comments in a few newspapers in India—suggest that its notability is marginal or worse. Should it be on AFD? — Athaenara 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The TMMK is notable, that is really not the problem. The problem is that Anwar seems to not want their obvious links to Islamic terror groups noted, which is generally how the TMMK is known. IT is known as a subsidiary group of al-Umma, a terrorist Islamist group in Tamil Nadu.16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talkcontribs)
Maybe so, but reliable sources of information about it are the proverbial needles in haystacks. I worked on it a bit today for WP:NPOV. — Athaenara 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
And I agree, your work has done quite a bit for the page. However I do believe you are a little too pessimistic about the notability. On a google search I ran, I found no less than 10 mainstream articles mentioning the TMMK in detail, both some charity work and its ties to islamist groups.Bakaman 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

User ‘Anwar saadat’ again reverted to his preferred version — references gone, references section gone, instead a wholly WP:NOT WP:NPOV mouthpiece for the organization once again— and this time he didn't wait until the discussion was gone from this rapidly archived board.

My sole aim here (I first heard of the article from a listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion early this month) is the neutral point of view. Admin attention, please: may Special:Contributions/Anwar saadat be blocked from editing the article at least for awhile? — Athaenara 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a report on WP:AIV. — Athaenara 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (As per "To report persistent vandalism or spamming" pointer in this project page header.) — Athaenara 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have fully protected the article. However, it seems Anwar has a lengthy history of disruptive editing, not only on this article but on many others. People have been trying to engage him in discussion for months, but he continues to revert without discussion. I would advocate for a block in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have also blocked Anwar saadat for 31 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Too soft. It isn't only about one page. A pattern of disrutive editing, revert-warring and showing no interest in discussions on the talk page extends to a significant time period. A 31 hours block might not get the message across. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid, are you sure that you blocked this user? I checked his blocklog, & I'm not seeing that he has been blocked. In response to NHN's comment, this user has been blocked for longer periods up to one month for similar misbehavior in the past, so maybe a longer block is warranted. If he is blocked for more than 24 hours, perhaps the article could also be unlocked -- why make other editors suffer for his misdeeds? -- llywrch 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a longer block is warranted. If the block currently in effect lasts only 31 hours, page protection is helpful. — Athaenara 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
His response on his talk page, in which he characteristically removed two messages from other editors (Hindu edits and Oh Anwar...), was to claim that edits like this one were "reverting vandalism." — Athaenara 14:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


multiply-blocked editor using new IP to evade block[edit]

Resolved

This user has been blocked multiple times under his user name and as an IP. He is now active again, edit warring and vandalizing, while evading a current block.

New IP being used to evade current block:

User name and associated IP's:

Diff showing newly posted comment by the IP, signed with name of user in the text: [48]

Prior report at WP:AN/3RR earlier today for multiple article 3RR violations and edit warring: [49]

Result of 3RR report: (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )

This user was also blocked and warned on Sept 19, here: [50]

Just prior to that, his rather extreme three-word response to my uw-3RR warning and WP:CONSENSUS explanation on his talk page: [51]

I thought I should report this here as his edit-warring vandalism is continuing. --Parsifal Hello 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

additional info... Although the two IP numbers look quite different, they resolve to the same area:

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 81.158.90.219.in-addr.arpa PTR 219-90-158-81.ip.adam.com.au.
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 210.175.49.122.in-addr.arpa PTR 122-49-175-210.ip.adam.com.au.

--Parsifal Hello 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

A new IP now added to his list, and he's claimed it by adding a new signature on his prior post at this diff: [52]

--Parsifal Hello 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This incident report seems to be resolved for now. The block on the user has been extended to one week for IP block-evasion by the initial blocking administrator. The IP edit-warring seem inactive currently. --Parsifal Hello 17:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Photography edit war on model Ana Beatriz Barros[edit]

Resolved: user agreed to change the restrictions on the usage of his images

We have a photographer who has uploaded quite a few good photos, but he is also putting in his byline on all the pages. For those pages without photos, I figure let him do so until we can have a byline-free photo. But on Ana Beatriz Barros he has violated the 3RR rule with his photo, replacing my (byline-free) image. His photo is not of superior quality, and typically on model pages, since they are paid for their bodies, we should have full-body shots (even physical measurements are given in the infoxbox). I've tried to discuss it with him, but he is edit-warring to keep his by-lined photograph in the lead. If that's okay, I'd like to start including my byline as well. --David Shankbone 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

These aren't freely licensed photographs. User:Sacredhands puts these stipulations on the photographs:
Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

1. Use of photo must include a link to my website: http://christopherpeterson.com

2. Use of photo must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson"

3. Use of photo must include informing me of your use of the photo

4. Use of the photo must be placed in writing and sent to me detailing your exact use of the photo
--David Shankbone 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I rerverted the article to use the free image with a suitable edit summary, and left a note on User:Sacredhands' talkpage. ELIMINATORJR 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since he is uploading his own photos, he can check "what links here" any time he wants. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that his images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. If he is unwilling to modify his licensing requirement then I suggest treating the images as unfree. Thatcher131 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I concur, we can't agree with condition 1 and 2 on the article (but it is okay in the image description), and therefore we can't use his image. I think that 3 and 4 make his image non-free but IANAL. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Following a discussion on his talk page, the user agreed to license his content with the following message:
1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.
2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.
Sounds good to me. What do you think? -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue in this case is that we already have a freely licensed, high quality image that doesn't require a byline. It is also licensed under the GFDL license, which allows commercial reproduction without permission or notice. His is none of these, and thus goes against our principles. --David Shankbone 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
His revised terms don't require permission or notice for commercial use either. east.718 at 18:22, September 24, 2007
  • Not sure to what extent this applies here on En Wikipedia, but Commons licensing policy states, as a restriction that must not apply to a free license, "Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses". Videmus Omnia Talk 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the photo credit, per Wikipedia:Captions (admittedly just a guideline) here, the photographer's name is generally only included if the photographer is notable. Videmus Omnia Talk 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    I guess he meets the first criteria as he is now just requesting notice. And the second does not apply since he is not requiring his name in the caption of the picture. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there are self-promotion issues here, as well. All of his photographs include his byline, something I don't do. This isn't about my photo being the lead; anyone can see my Sean Combs photo was recently switched out of the lead and I was fine with the replacement. More, I have an issue with "Photography by Christopher Peterson" plastered all over the articles. I don't have a website, all my work is done for Wikipedia, and I don't include bylines. My issue is with his insistence on self-promotion on multiple articles. --David Shankbone 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
His proposal is to have his link on the picture page, not on the article. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Then should we remove his byline on all the articles? --David Shankbone 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I would leave them for now, no point in removing, but check to see he doesn't add them from this point on. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The point in removing them is that we aren't here as a vehicle for self-promotion. --David Shankbone 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Try to assume good faith. You place your name in every image you upload, no one is accusing you of the same. By all means do as you please, I have no power to stop you. The issue seems resolved and can end here, if you are willing to leave everything as agreed, the decision is yours. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no comparison between having a User name in a file and putting a name in the byline of an article, and that issue has been discussed to death. I'm not going to chase down his name off the articles, but it sets a precedent. --David Shankbone 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think it will. If you ever find others doing it and citing his as a reason you can point them to the above resolution and that situation can easily be resolved I guess. As I said I cannot stop you, nor would I bother to. Also a file name would appear in Google Images, much like yours does en masse, so its debatable, a debate I am not going to participate in. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
A Google Image search is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One can also find my images on the Commons via Google Image search. The issue is what is on our articles, not whether there is no way, no how that a photographer's images can be found via the site, so I think your comment is irrelevant as it regards me. There is a fine line between discouraging contributions and preventing self-promotion on mainspace. The issue has been well-settled, over and over. I'm in no violation; Christopher is. That's all. I won't be doing anything about the other pages, but your arguments above deserved an answer since they are "old news." --David Shankbone 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I am happy all is resolved. I have no clue of your past battles, so I am sorry if I stirred up some past issues. I think you both do good work and take amazing shots, and hope you both continue to do so. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
David, he should not be credited in the caption of the article, only on the image description page. He seems to have agreed to this. Rather than fix them yourself, which might be taken the wrong way (and as you are well aware, Wikipedia has a shortage of good photographers and should not do anything to gratuitously drive them away) why don't you compile a list and ask him nicely to fix them, and give him a reasonable time frame to do so. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
marked as resolved. -- lucasbfr talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues - Thegoodson[edit]

User Thegoodson (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) recently added a long partisan screed to the already very long New antisemitism page. User:Malik Shabazz deleted it and reposted it to the talk page for discussion, where I expressed my view that it was comprised almost totally of "original research, highly tendentious and POV claims and overreliance on partisan sources."

However, I became suspicious that it might contain some copyvio material. A google search quickly revealed that the entire edit is a word-for-word copyvio from a partisan website (see section entitled Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004).

I posted a message regarding the copyvio to the offender's talk page, but while there I noticed he has about ten warnings for uploading images of unknown copyright status to Wiki, including eight since February this year. Along with the copyvio, he also added a couple of new inflammatory images to the New antisemitism article which I suspect are also of questionable status.

It appears that rather than learning from previous warnings, this user is becoming more brazen and diversifying his borrowings to including large chunks of other people's writing to boot. I haven't checked his edit history for further copyvio's but it appears to me there is an established pattern here that is not improving over time. Gatoclass 14:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Month long edit war on Quicken Loans[edit]

I think I would have asked for administrative attention on this before except for the extreme slowness of this edit war. It has been occuring over a variety of issues with the page, first over the inclusion/noninclusion of questionable critisism and details of a class-action lawsuit against the company, and has now gravitated to unreferenced employment information. Those involved include apparent inclusionist 68.40.113.91 (talk · contribs), apparent deletionist 12.165.188.130 (talk · contribs) who is registered to Quicken Loans corporation, 130's apparent sock/meatpuppet Clayc313 (talk · contribs), and Rockfinancial (talk · contribs) who has been on both sides of this extended edit war. I mostly have no opinion over what is being deleted/included except for the now well-sourced info on the lawsuit (which is no longer being warred over). Why I bring this here is all involved parties' abject refusal to respond to repeated warnings and requests to take their issues to the article's talk page. I even requested and received a weeklong protection three weeks ago, yet the edit warring continued almost immediately. I have lost any patience I may have had remaining for these users. The reason I am placing this here instead of requesting protection of the article is that these users have proven their unwillingness to even begin to discuss the issue, except maybe 68.40.113.91 [53]. Someguy1221 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Much edit warring, with a conflict of interest to boot. I suggest WP:AN/COI and WP:RPP for this case. The Evil Spartan 17:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A nasty grudge holder[edit]

I made a mistake accusing Shot info of bieng a Cabal. I try to apologize. But he keeps on telling me to go away. What more can I do?--Angel David 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just leave him alone and hope it all blows over. Corvus cornix 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah just forget about it. I've seen this personality wars where people just get mad over nothing. Just let it go. The Evil Spartan 16:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hamster Sandwich (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

I find this slightly odd... an administrator that puts an oppose comment on my RfA 24 hours after is closed. He also hasn't edited since august 6th, and that was his first edit since. Could this be a comprimised account? EdokterTalk 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm...seems like a coincidence to me. I suppose he just started editing after a long vacation or something similar. Plus, it just seems like an accident, as the comment was added three minutes after the RfA was closed. Perhaps the user didn't notice this? Also, if someone compromised an admin account, they would be doing much more dangerous things. In any event, I don't think this is a compromised account. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually 24 hours and three minutes. EdokterTalk 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, didn't notice that Face-grin.svg Still, I think we should AGF on this one unless the account starts doing something very serious. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I left him a note. I just wonder how he would end up on an old RfA. EdokterTalk 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Could be compromised... this strikes me as strange... a sysop should know such basic policy... -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethanol Rules[edit]

A several times banned user is operating again under a previously temp blocked username after another indef block last night. Here is a list of all socks so far:

As you can see from their edits, they are clearly the same person, consistenly adding racist rubbish about jobs and "foriegners" and using false edit summaries. They regularly edit articles such as Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat, Outsourcing etc--Jac16888 08:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the links (now I can see... ;)). Use the {{vandal|username}} template Spryde 11:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
oh sorry, i used the template on my sandbox, and just copy and pasted the code from there to here, didn't realise it wouldn't work--Jac16888 11:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Make any sense?[edit]

Resolved: with little or no bloodshed. --barneca (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you express your opinion whether the following sentense make any sense? If not? why not?

The space passengers alighted from the space vehicle and were taking in the surroundings with much enthusiasm.Check My Simple English 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where this belongs, but it isn't WP:ANI. My best guess (if I understand your question) is you want to ask here. That said, the sentence makes sense to me, but I don't think it's worded well, and I don't think it's "simple English", which may or may not be what you're asking. --barneca (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.Check My Simple English 14:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Gibbon related articles[edit]

Resolved: Both IPs are anon-blocked. Talk pages tagged with {{anonblock}}. Vassyana 15:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Two anons that appear to be the reincarnation of Stevewk (talk · contribs · logs) / Gwilmont (talk · contribs · logs) who was blocked multiple times for edit-warring and sock-puppetry over this family of articles, have turned up to restore his/her prefered version of these articles. – ornis 14:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of comments and !votes from an AFD[edit]

Resolved: Material restored CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional restaurants, some comments and !votes were removed, apparently inadvertently, by User:ILike2BeAnonymous [54]. Since that deletion, other !votes have been added, so a simple undo or rollback does not restore all deleted text. What is the fix? Cut and paste from a version where the deleted material still existed, or some other technique with the admin buttons? What both gets all comments and votes restored and is in accord with all GFDL attribution rules? Edison 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by anonymous IP[edit]

Resolved: IP and a sock both blocked. Please use WP:AIV next time. --barneca (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The IP 24.224.174.170 has been participating in continuous vandalsim, most recently to Borat. The last post on his talk page is a final pre-block warning. Please block him. Bonus Onus 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually, a quicker way to get action is to report repeated vandalism to WP:AIV. However, at the time of your original post, their final warning was 4 days old, and they hadn't vandalized for almost four hours, so (depending on which admin took the report) it's likely they wouldn't have been blocked. However, they've just now started up again, so I've given a final final final warning, and will report to WP:AIV if it continues. --barneca (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Disuptive editing on Children Overboard Affair and talkpage by User:Skyring[edit]

In the past few hours, User:Skyring has:

  • Performed two non-consensual edits in succession that removed factual and relevant details without clear talkpage substantiation (here & here),
  • Sought to justify those edits by misrepresenting my block history and engaging in hand-waving exercises on his, MastCell's and the article's talkpages
  • Selectively deleted my reasonable response to the aforementioned on his talkpage (which asked for honesty, good faith and a focus on content)
  • Disruptively and repeatedly renamed the talkpage subsection I created and had linked to elsewhere, thus breaking the links (here, here, here, here, here,

here & here.

All the while, I have politely asked him to not misrepresent my actions and stick to debating content and the actual matter under dispute, which he has yet to do, despite ample opportunity. He calls for calm whilst continuing to repeat actions that he knows are the cause of the disruption and discontent. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Brendan.lloyd made an edit, without first obtaining consensus, here, which had the effect of casting doubt on facts that were not in dispute. On reviewing the article today, I noticed this and chose a more objective wording. Since then, Brendan has cracked a wobbly and evades my argument here. I cannot characterise his summary above as honest or accurate. --Pete 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, no requirement for consensus was asserted when I made that edit nearly a month ago. The article had been witnessed by other editors without complaint since. It had withstood a certain test of time until you changed it to remove granularity/detail. My summary above, and the Wikipedia record, speaks for itself. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"A certain test of time". By jingo, that's rich. The material to which you objected first appeared in 2004, see here, my friend, as an amplification of one of the very first edits I ever made on Wikipedia. How about we discuss your edit of long-standing material so as to put a personal political spin on it? --Pete 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, could you help us understand why you've brought this here instead of pursuing our many avenues for dispute resolution? I'm wondering if perhaps you missed them. Thanks, William Pietri 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this not the place to report disruptive editing? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

One Night In Hackney[edit]

I would like to formally complain about this user's abusive comments toward me and evasiveness towards talking to me and generally violating the wikipedia civility policy. The user has deleted any attempt I have made to communicate directly by deleting posts on their talk page seen here: [55][56]. THe user has also taken to going to other users to have them "watch" me as the user "won't be around much longer" the user is also claiming that I am trying to change wikipedia content under Wiki I don't like without providing evidence. The uer is also continually evasive and unnecessarily personal in comments by criticising word use and spelling, which is done in an uncivil way. I would request that action be taken to prevent this user form continuing to hurl abuse at me just because they dislike me. I have tried to end this but have obviously been ignored. the talk page comments can be viewed here [57] [58] The G8 talk page is located here [59] --Lucy-marie 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. You can make an informal complaint here about misuse of administrative power, not a formal complaint about a non-admin (especially since the instances you link to don't seem any too egregious). The places to go for that are mediation and/or requests for comment. It's up to you whether you think it's worth going through either of these processes with regard to a user who seems intent on leaving as soon as the "Troubles" ArbCom case is closed (though it's true that one can never be sure whether intentions to leave will be carried out). Please note that he can delete comments on his talkpage if he wants to. Being ignored doesn't feel nice, but we all have to put up with it sometimes. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC).
In addition, I should note that there is fairly compelling evidence that User:Lucy-marie has been operating a "bad-hand" sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie. I've asked her for a response. MastCell Talk 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment What does that have to do with anything?--Lucy-marie 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're playing good hand/bad hand, that can be a reason to temporarily block you or (at the least) bludgeon you with the cluex4 for the disruption caused by the bad hand account. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
A quick look through reveals that One Night in Hackney was removing abusing talk page message from his/her talk page; I probably wouldn't have paid any attention to those comments either. Lucy, if you want to communicate with someone, taking jabs at them is not going to do the job. All this said, despite Lucy's inappropriate behavior, I think she may actually be right in the edit dispute: the EU is only an informal party to the G8, and it certainly wasn't a party in 1978. The Evil Spartan 18:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Briankwest Numerous WP violations[edit]

User is the major contributor to an open source project AND the WP article FreeSWITCH (he is listed as the maintainer of the official FreeSWITCH website) and has joined wikipedia a week ago to promote this project. He is now using multiple identities (in same discussion page) and abusive personal attacks as well. Issues involve sockpuppetry, WP:COI and WP:PA. His contributions and attacks (aside from the actual FreeSWITCH article) are found here:

Identities include (all are WP:SPAs):

I believe an admin warning would suffice. He is a definite newbie, but has an attitude and is on a mission to promote FreeSWITCH and attack anyone who opposes him. Calltech 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest WP:COI/N at this point. The Evil Spartan 18:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that should be applied since there isnt a conflict other than the ones documented elsewhere about calltechs bias (as identified by many people in several different projects). Its not a commercial product, its free open source, so the only claim for a conflict would be a close personal relationship, but since there are more than brian posting to the content of that page, it would seem to me that you would have to know something, and thus have a relationship, to be able to say anything informative about the software. I find it ironic that an 'encyclopedia' has requirements that prevent anyone knowledgeable about something is instantly excluded from commenting on it.


Again those listed IP's are NOT me. Please try not to mix me up with various other people contributing to the page. Briankwest 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

-- I am not brian, as stated elsewhere. How can I prove this? Aparently the claim we are the same person can be made without proof, so I ask how do I prove that we arent the same person? 86.92.134.171 19:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)not brian


Once again User:Briankwest is *NOT* User:86.92.134.171 Calltech appears to be pushing a personal agenda here as the the user at *User:86.92.134.171 is a European FreeSwitch user that can be quite passionate (to say the least) in his arguments at time. I know this first hand as I have had many 'sprited' discussions with him. This whole ordeal is giving both WP and FS a black eye. --Silik0nJesus 19:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

64.149.35.171 Might actually be me right before I got my wikipedia account... I fogot to login with it. Briankwest 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Followup[edit]

WP user User:Trixter ie has now admitted to commenting using 86.92.134.171. This user is also a member of the FreeSWITCH development team listed as the documentation specialist working with User:Briankwest. They both employed sockpuppetry techniques to conceal their association with the FreeSWITCH heated discussions going on here Talk:FreeSWITCH to avoid appearing to have a conflict of interest. Their accusations that I am biased are nothing but a red herring distraction from the discussion issues taking place there. Briankwest's (and others') indignant protests are laughable considering the efforts these two users employed to conceal their identities and the manner in which they commented on my talk page. Briankwest posted under his ID and accused me of being biased against his project. I responded to briankwest directly on my talk page. Trixter used an anon IP and responded to that in the first person, appearing to speak as (or for) briankwest. Trixter then proceeded to post abusive comments on my talk page and on Talk:FreeSWITCH under the anon ID. For briankwest to now plead ignorance of what one his project team members was doing is unbelievable, considering the lengths the two of these individuals went to conceal their identities and their obvious conflicts of interest. If others who have posted here, all SPA's, were aware of 86.92.134.171 identity and affiliation with this project, they are equally complicitous in this deception. Calltech 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, a WP:COI/N#FreeSWITCH.E2.80.8E has already been posted by another editor Cryptic involved in these discussion, specifically against these particular users and other SPA's that sprung up on the articles discusssion page. Calltech 19:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurrop[edit]

The "new" user (I hope is not a sockpuppet) Kurrop (talk · contribs) is making many controversial changes as [60], [61] and the subsequent reversions without having discussed a word in articles' talk pages. I have told her [62] that such changes must be discussed first and even having started a discussion (User talk:Kurrop and User talk:Xtv#Controversial changes), (s)he continued making some edit warring [63]). Her last contribution in my talk page could be clearly qualified as trolling (just read how the discussion follows, they are just a couple of lines).

Therefore, since (s)he is "new" (again, I wonder how new is (s)he), I still don't ask for a block, but I ask to an administrator to warn her that this is not the way to make such controversial changes and talk pages should be used. Then I hope (s)he starts discussing. If not, then I'll ask for a block. Thank you! --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 13:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I find complitely astonishing that I have been advised about the three revert rule because I reverted controversial actions made without any explanation in articles' talk pages. The subject is enough controversial -as you can see in the recently closed arbitration- so that any contribution which is likely to be polemical should be discussed first in the talk page. Moreover if some of the contributions made by this user are complitely non-sense. I want to remark I was not the only user reverting the contributions from Kurrop but there was at least two other users reverting his/her contributions. (S)he was pushing for his/her versions without discussing and I asked him/her to discuss first and since (s)he didn't, I came to the administrators noticeboard to ask you to tell him/her exactly to discuss first the changes in the talk page. And then an administrator comes and leaves me a message asking me to use the talk page. Is it a joke?
Anyway, I won't revert anymore any of his/her contributions, but in that case I beg the administrators to look carefuly his/her contributions so that only well discussed changes may be accepted. Thank you very much.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I gave you the standard warning issued to editors involved in an edit dispute. You both reverted the article three times; you both get the warning. "I'm right and s/he's wrong" isn't an exception to 3RR. I will, of course, monitor the edits made by the user. -- Merope 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Xtv: please tell us, citing official written Wikipedia policy pages with references, which policy you believe allows Wikipedia administrators to block, or threaten to block, a user for making what you describe as "controversial changes". -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If I have broken some Wikipedia policy I apologize but I only want to neutralize that articles, because I think they have no neutral point of view. Kind Regards.--Kurrop 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Finlay McWalter: let me read what I said: "I still don't ask for a block, but I ask to an administrator to warn her that this is not the way to make such controversial changes and talk pages should be used". mmm... I read it again: "I still don't ask for a block". Am I asking to block him/her? I think not. I am asking him/her to discuss the changes, think that (s)he did not do. I am sorry but now is too late to search for wikipedia policies, but I am sure there are some of them that encourage editors to discuss controversial topics in talk pages.

If you don't think that adding a second flag to a stub template is controversial when:

  1. There has been just some days ago a dispute (arbitration) about the Catalonia-Spain topic and
  2. All stub templates I have seen have no more than one image, and in territory stubs all have the flag of this territory, not the flag of a bigger or smaller territory

then I sincerely ask you what do you think it is controversial. If this topic were not controversial I think we wouldn't be here spending our time to discuss about it.

Now, after this two points, I think that if an editor starts to make changes which are reverted from 3 different users and after being asked to discuss in talk pages, the best think (s)he can do is to discuss in the talk page where is the problem. If the answers (s)he gives are a kind of trolling "I have the right to change it because I like it and even if all the stubs of Wikipedia have only one flag, I want that Catalonia stubs have both Catalan and Spanish flag because my POV is the right one" and moreover after being warned (s)he continues reverting before reaching any consensus, then probably I will find also some rule which will allow you to block him/her (as I said, now it's too late to search it, but probably in Wikipedia:Etiquette or somewhere else in the immensity of Wikipedia rules, there is something about disruptive behaviour and trolling). Anyway, I insist, my aim is not to block him/her. I really don't care if you block him/her or you give him/her a barnstar for his contributions. Some of his/her contributions might be acceptable. But I was just asking you to tell him/her what I already told him/her and (s)he ignored when she did again the reversions: discuss in talk page.

Just to finnish, as I said to Merope, I give up. After seing that (s)he continues reverting before discussing and what I get from an administrator is something that I didn't say and to question if some clearly evident controversial matter (Controversial: arousing debate, discussion of opposing opinions; strife. Is not by definition the subject of an edit war a controversial matter? are not there opposing opinions?) is not controversial (sigh...), then I give up, I return to Catalan Wikipedia and I don't revert anymore any contribution from Kurrop. Cheers and viel Spaß --Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 04:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham.[edit]

note: the above is a section title, not a comment. --—Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Yidisheryid[edit]

Yidisheryid (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately, I have been involved in some heated content discussions with the above user. Concurrently, the user's civility has been further and further lacking. Now we are getting to the point where the user has been changing my edits, as well as being, shall I say, childish on his talk page in terms of name calling.

I would request that an admin review, at the very least, the user's talk page history, and perhaps take appropriate action (or am I really a prankster? [ -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC) ]

Note: He is not calling you a prankster, he is calling the AFD nom a prankster. This is clear from context. —Random832 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to my involvement, I will not take direct action against the user, notwithstanding multiple disregards of what I feel were both valid and civil warnings.

Personally, I believe the user has exhibited a history of unilateral edits against consensus, potentially POV pushing edits, a distinct lack of civility, misunderstanding, or willfully ignoring, basic wikipedia policies, guidelines, and definitions, and am beginning to think that perhaps the user may find it difficult to edit gainfully and in accord with other wikipedians. I also may be wrong and be influenced by my interactions with said user.

Besides comment about these last particular actions, I am requesting feedback on my understanding of the situation here, and whether or not some further measures (WP:RFC, a longer term block, etc.) are in order, or are uncalled for. Thank you. -- Avi 15:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. the link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sockpuppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples of changing others' edits from this very page[edit]

  1. [64] (These links have been refactored to reduce horizontal scrolling —Random832)
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]

Need I add more? -- Avi 16:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those were all explained, and i apologized long before you brought those examples will never do it again.--יודל 16:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No. Those were the edits you JUST made, to WP:ANI, changing the headings of the section I added here to WP:ANI, AFTER you had been informed it was improper and AFTER you commented to Yossi about what you did on your talk page. -- Avi 16:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
U r right i already made those edit into a separate header and i will never do it again in this form as well.--יודל 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Other diffs/evidence[edit]

OK. user:The Evil Spartan suggested that there may not have been enough diffs. I hope the following will suffice. -- Avi 18:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous evidence of sock/meatpuppetry[edit]

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yidisheryid (note last edit by YY)

Changing other users' text[edit]

  1. [68]
  2. [69] (this includes calling somebody a prankster.
  3. [70]
  4. [71]

Removing discussion-specific templates (such as AfD) when discussions are ongoing[edit]

  1. [72]
  2. [73]

Unilateral edits and moves without consensus[edit]

  1. [74]
  2. [75]
  3. [76]

Incivil edits and edit summaries[edit]

  1. [77]
  2. [78]
  3. [79]

User:Avraham for Disruptive editing[edit]

Avraham (talk · contribs)


He abuses this page to beg other unsuspecting Admins to block a user who has expressed concern to him he should behave according to consensus, see the discussion of what triggered this page: [[80]] with a third user, so consensus of non-blocked users should be in his favor. Although my history with Avi is not only on that page.

While he was using this page to block another user, he did not even hide his clear contempt for conflict of interest, he was at that same instant probably not even in 15 minutes, heavily involved to edit 5 ongoing separate issues according to his wish against that users wish; 1. Zionism 2. Baal Tshuva 3. Orthodox Jews about Zionism 4. Jewish Outreach, of my defense which he has all edited within the 15 minutes before this request, which he would have won them all on false and abusive consensus. if the unsuspecting admins would have acted upon those vicious unruly notice from Avi here.

First of all i would like to deny that i called him a prankster. and for him to bring this as his only link to show incident of my uncivilly is saying what kind of games he is up to to get other users blocked.


The link he provides is definitely taken out of context it talks about an other person. and regarding his request of blocking me i would like to add that he has declared me in the last few weeks a disruptive user a sock puppet, and more accusations which i would now take some time to gather from his history. but until i can defend myself i would like to declare him a sock puppet that has done every trick on the book to get me blocked. Please let me my make my case that although he is a admin i am a good faith user and should not be blocked. If he wants me blocked our disagreements should be taken to arbitration not to this page, because he has no links where i have done incident that requires emergency admin involvement, it is just one trick of his despicable tirade against me, further more since he has asked to block me in the past for these same accusations and it was rebuffed i would urge all admins to consider that Avi is disruptive here for re-bringing this up without any link but only one that is a lie! Please block both of us or let it go to arbitration.--יודל 15:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment YY, don't play this game, you might not like the outcome. Yossiea (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks i may not like the outcome bu believe me Avi gives me no other chance, i do not want to see him blocked i want him to stop editing in a disruptive way, that's all, i cannot be selfish here, if Avi does this while dealing with me rest assured he is doing it with other as well, and he must stop acting like this, because the price i pay will never be enough to have such a beautiful encyclopedic medium.--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't see anywhere Avraham where has been less than civil towards you even though some of your edits are questionable. Indeed he has been pretty damn courteous to you, he could quite easily have blocked you personally without any trouble, and he didn't need to tell you about this incident report. You should know that the chances are high that of the two of you, you're gonna come out of this worse off than he does, if i were you i'd drop it, do some helpful edits and hope you don't get too long a ban--Jac16888 16:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Listen this medium is not about me nor about avi, Avi cannot block me and has said so himself that he is not allowed to block although he wishes to get rid of me, which i do understand him and i forgive him, this is about an incident which i believe a user is breaking policy and requires the attention of other admin in an emergency way, Avi tries to win discussions now by blocking me and he should be stopped. a normal user can not stop him so this is the only page where to bring this incident--יודל 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am only not allowed to block you to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I am allowed to block you if you are in violation of any policy/guideline. I have chosen not to block you at this point to ensure that there is not even the slightest hint of impropriety. I reserve the right to act in the best interests of wikipedia if the situation so demands it. -- Avi 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - after a brief look through this, Avi hasn't provided a lot of diffs, but the one's he has provided are pretty damning. And YY, your responses leave much to be desired (apparently his unhappiness that you changed his comments was "out of context") - and Avi can call you a sockpuppet all he wants, if he suspects it, and hasn't blocked you. Like Yossiea said, you might not want to keep playing this game - you're losing. The Evil Spartan 17:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • OK i say to guys wait until i gather all my links. you will all be astound, perhaps my not bringing any links makes the case that i am more guilty here then Avi, so i urge all you guys to wait and not pass judgment until i can gather all the links showing Avi's pattern here of blocking me to win his edit fights with me. this is a long pain staking work and i wish not to start working on it but if avi does not retract his request to block me i must do it for the good of wikipedia and forsake my own good in the process.--יודל 17:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment -- A review of Yidisheryid's contributions shows a trend of willful disruption. (The claim that he's never edited another person's comments made at the same time as he's doing it is rather amusing, though.) I'm certainly inclined to block. -- Merope 17:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • All but one of the diffs provided for him changing things on this board have been section titles, which are NOT accepted to be as "inviolable" as signed comments (though he perhaps should have given a visible indication that he retitled it), one additionally added more informational links to the top of the section, before the comments, and the one remaining (which really shouldn't have been cited) was a technical fix to a template he himself had added. Saying someone is in the wrong for "changing other users edits", when the edits being changed are NOT signed comments, is treading very closely to WP:OWN. —Random832 19:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't see what you base this on; heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits. Changing it makes it look like someone wrote something he didn't. Besides, this is not the sole cause of concern; his pattern of behavior shows he's intent on disruption. The discussion I've been having with him since his block shows that he has no understanding of some of our core policies. I didn't block based on this one thing alone. -- Merope 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Of course "heading on talk pages are part of the text that another user edits." All text on all pages are part of the text that another user edits. But insisting that someone not change text you put in, other than for signed comments (a section header is not part of a comment) violates WP:OWN. —Random832 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
          • In general, when making changes to someone else's text makes it look as if that person's edits were more attacking, less neutral, or changes the intended meaning, then it is an issue, I believe. -- Avi 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes. What I'm saying is: the section header is not "your text"; it belongs to everyone. It is not part of your comment. It would be no more reasonable for someone to blame you for what it says (without having a diff to see if you were the one who wrote it), which seems to be what you're worried about happening, than it is for you to attempt to control what it says. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC) For example, when he changed this section header to say you were also being uncivil, he was not trying to make it look like you accused yourself of incivility (as that would be absurd), he was trying to indicate that the discussion found underneath the header is (or, that he wants it to be) about both your behavior. —Random832 20:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
          • WP:OWN is more for not letting others edit articles you "own." That is not the same as editing someone else's writings. Yossiea (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How is a section header different? —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
              • I can edit the page, but I can't do this: "Each article I contribute to contains "my writings" - can I forbid anyone to edit the parts I wrote? How the hell, you stupid idiot, is a section header different? You're stupid and Wikipedia has no place for you. —Random832 20:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" There's a difference between editing an article and editing someone else's talkpage entries. Yossiea (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
                • A section header is NOT part of someone's talkpage entry - it is part of the structure of the talkpage itself. —Random832 22:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

And his most recent edits to this have pushed me over the edge. Maybe it's Guy's leaving, but I don't want to have to make Avi go through an RFC when one editor is clearly being disruptive. I've blocked for 24 hours for civility and disruption (constantly removing maintenance notices really grates my cheese) and left a message on his talk page explaining how he can become more civil. I'll continue to monitor the situation. -- Merope 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tend to endorse. His behavior is has been willfully disruptive here, and I don't see any evidence he respects or cares about the opinions of other editors. --Haemo 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly endorse the block. I was actually on my over to block YY myself when I saw Merope had gotten there first. User:Yidisheryid is clearly being disruptive; the counter-accusation against User:Avraham only highlights the fact that Avi has remained remarkably civil while dealing with YY's provocation and disruption. Avi is also to be commended for bringing this to AN/I. I strongly endorse the block as preventing further disruption and as being a net positive to the encyclopedia. If YY doesn't make some significant behavioral changes when the block expires, I'd have a low threshold for extending it. MastCell Talk 18:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this structured as an "RFAR lite"? —Random832 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because user:The Evil Spartan commented that there were not that many diffs. Thus, I added more, and I placed them in subheadings for clarity purposes. -- Avi 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Anyways, I think this is resolved; YY contacted me by email. He seems contrite about his behavior, and knows he's made a mistake. I don't think we need anymore action here for now; I hope this will be a new beginning for all involved. --Haemo 21:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
    • He also contacted me by e-mail. Please e-mail me and I can forward you his missive which has a somewhat less-than-contrite tone. -- Avi 23:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh he has done that before, look for his edits on yi project here, there are at least (thats what he admited to) 100 (yes thats one hundred) usernames he has used on the yi project to edit with and push POV and disruptive behavior. Been there done that, my opinion ban him. It will come to it anyhow. I hope I am wrong.--Shmaltz 04:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Block for user:Kucu4cocopufzz[edit]

Resolved

There is reason to believe that this user, Kucu4cocopufzz, is an account for vandalism only. Looking at this user's Edit History you can see that the user has only vandalized wikipedia since their account was created yesterday. It would be a good idea to block this user from wikipedia. Thank you. Icestorm815 19:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Next! -- Merope 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User Bromagon multiple instances[edit]

Resolved

Came across user bromagon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Appears to be a new account. Just about all of his entries are vandalism of one form or another - some subtle some not. In any event all of his entries seem designed to be disruptive.--Lepeu1999 19:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocked. Next. -- Merope 19:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks!--Lepeu1999 20:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

James Hansen / sock puppets[edit]

James Hansen has seen a lot of red-user edits recently.