Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive307

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Uncivil anonymous editor[edit]

Some time ago I removed an image from the article Turkic peoples. I have explained my rationale on the article's talk page. An anonymous editor keeps re-adding the image, but refuses to engage in a meaningful discussion. Instead she or he puts rude (and crude) texts on my talk page and in edit summaries:

The first is from 88.233.22.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), the next four from 88.233.181.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and the last two from 85.101.255.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The edit patterns are so similar that I am convinced this is all the same person.  --Lambiam 02:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't read Turkish, the manner of edits, including use of non-english and the repeated use of Lambiam's name like it is, clearly directing edit summaries at him, then again directing even comments on Lambiam's talk page at him by name, the poor english grammar in multiple comments, and so on, incline me to concur. This isn't particularly a content dispute because there's no apparent discussion going on that multiple editors could weigh in on (because the IP uses Turkish and broken english to insult, not discuss). I'd support a rangeblock, as it looks like they're coming from the same range of IPs. (I could be wrong, my technical IP intarweb-fu is lousy, I just tighten the nuts on my intar-tubes to get less static, and turn the steamvalves for more bandwidth.) ThuranX 03:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the Whois data, the range is 88.233.0.0/17, which is 32,000 IPs. If it continues, we can semi-protect the page. I've removed the image for the time being, citing Lambiam's talk page comment, with which I agree.--chaser - t 05:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The most recent edits are from the 85.101.128.0/17 range anyway.  --Lambiam 06:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
All 3 IPs belong to Türk Telekom, and are routed through the router named gyt_t2_2-gyt_t1_1.ttnet.net.tr (seen from my house), so it's likely they are in the same city, but there doesn't seem to be a closer relationship between them. We can't rangeblock a major ISP. --Alvestrand 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so s a rangeblock isn't particularly viable. What other options do we have? Semi the Turkic Peoples page for a while, and Lambaim's user talk for a week? I don't like semi's on talks, as it stops legit IP's, but case-by-case, it might work for this situation? ThuranX 18:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I can read Turkish. Translations as follows
Source Text
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
Less than fascinating...
On the technical side a range block is a bad idea. you'd have to block an 85.101.xxx.xxx range. The IPs are dynamic so blocking a single one is rather pointless. All it takes is the reset of the modem.
-- Cat chi? 21:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:VartanM[edit]

...is assuming bad faith [5], falsely accusing me of insulting and baiting someone by my edit comment here [6]. Just want to indicate that User:RaffiKojian, who insulted me on my talk page [7], is also editor of Armeniapedia.org, a non-Wikipedia and non-neutral external Wiki, which I simply called unencyclopedic and POV in my edit comment. Atabek 12:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Atabek has baited User:RaffiKojian here. Then when Raffi tried to defend himself he was reported to ArbCom. I am the third user in the last 24 hours to be reported by Atabek [8],[9], [10] . His assuming bad faith left and right and then reporting people when they're trying to defend themselfs. --VartanM 12:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is how [11] Raffi was "defending himself". Thanks. Atabek 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Two accounts assisting in promotion[edit]

Resolved

Brianlane‎ was recently caught mass spamming links to a website he has created. Upon further looking through his edits, he created an article on Chuck Wolber...which was then edited by Chuckwolber. That user, Chuckwolber, created the now deleted article Brian Lane (developer) and has been adding information about a Brian Lane Embedded Developer to the Brian Lane article as seen here. These two account appear to exist primarily to promote themselves and each other with a clear conflict of interest. IrishGuy talk 18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Users informed about WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:EdenHeroineGirl[edit]

This user just redirected her talk page into a talk page in the article space. I've talked to her before about this, so could someone else talk to her? She might listen to you guys. The Hybrid 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

message left. ThuranX 21:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Buh6173[edit]

Buh6173 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in quite uncivil behavior in the Talk:Konjiki no Gash Bell!! pages. This manga/anime, which is known in English as Zatch Bell!, has had some changes in the dub which he feels are so major that there should be separate pages for the Japanese and English version, despite an agreement having been reached some time ago (before I came - there are editor-only comments on the various Zatch Bell pages that bear me out) to use the English names. He disagrees vehemently, comparing the American version to stuff like Cardcaptors (which has skipped episodes and changed characterizations, something the dub has yet to do) and snidefully insulting those who defend current policy by accusing them of liking a "crappy show". Without reaching any prior consensus with anyone, he changed redirects based on the Japanese names to have their own articles which were virtually identical to their English counterparts. Most of the redirects were fixed, but it seems he's determined to have his own way. An admin might need to get involved here. JuJube 20:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets on Invisible Man[edit]

I don't run up against this sort of thing very often. Apologies if there was some protocol I missed. The following five users:

are or have been engaged in editing around the page Invisible Man (band). Chaz Butcher is the name of the guy in the band. The band is at AFD where the above accounts are getting a bit aggressive. They're also reverting me on the page Invisible Man, a really important piece of literature they're using for promotion purposes, in my opinion. I argued that the band should be deleted, but even if it's kept, I think it belongs on the disambiguation page. I'm not an admin, not familiar with how to deal with sockpuppets, and I'm an involved editor too. Could someone help me sort this out? Thanks. --JayHenry 21:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Chazbutcher (talk · contribs) has been blocked for persistent vandalism, but 74.56.141.2 (talk · contribs) continues to revert the same material on Invisible Man (band). Ralfferly (talk · contribs), Chazbutcher (talk · contribs), and 74.56.141.2 (talk · contribs) have all weighed in on the AfD on the band. -Jmh123 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm confused. How does Forgottenrebel fall into this? -WarthogDemon 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any edits by that user on the Invisible Man (band) article or AfD. The only connection I can see is that User:Forgottenrebel's edits are almost all in late 2006 on the entry for the band Forgotten Rebels, which is Chaz Butcher's former band. -Jmh123 03:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We're now getting page blanking of the Invisible Man (band) page from various IP's--one from India, one from the Czech Republic. Could the article be semi-protected while we wait out the AfD? Thanks. -Jmh123 05:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Matthew (talk · contribs)[edit]

Possibly running an automated script on his main account[12]. Carbon Monoxide 21:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

User says this is not a bot, just a manually-assisted script. "AWB on wheels", he's calling it. That seems right to me, and it's harmless edits anyway. Moreschi Talk 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that particularily bad? He doesn't seem to be harming anything as such. HalfShadow 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's fine. As I said, harmless edits anyway even if it were a bot (which it isn't). Moreschi Talk 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of a user page for advertising[edit]

Maybe I'm being really, really, dense, but I can't actually find anything in policy on whether it's acceptable to use user pages for advertising. Maximus145 (talk · contribs) has (as well as some creating some really weird pages, now deleted) posted what appears to be blatant advertising as a user page.iridescent (talk to me!) 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that fall under soapboxing? HalfShadow 21:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It does indeed fall under WP:SOAP. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It also falls under WP:CSD#G11, one of the criteria for speedy deletion. The userpage has been speedied. AecisBrievenbus 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PAWNGAME[edit]

Would somebody please semi-protect PAWNGAME? It's getting hit hard by anons, I've been tyring to keep it attack-free, but it's impossible. I listed this at WP:RFPP, but it needs to be done now. Corvus cornix 22:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotected for 24 hours; don't want to do it for longer if it's at AfD as it prevents people improving itiridescent (talk to me!) 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it will ever be improved, but thanks. Corvus cornix 22:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't either (see my comments at the AfD) but what do I know - someone may find a Wired article or something about itiridescent (talk to me!) 22:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is Anti-anon predjudice the norm on Wikipedia?[edit]

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

A series of IP reverts today by Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) all had the edit summary "Anons don't get to decide our priority". The 'IP range' that Canadian Paul reverted is not a newbie... in fact they have been making very positive contributions to Wikipedia for quite a long time. Is this the sort of atmosphere that Wikipedia is trying to cultivate and promote? If the user were vandalising or trolling then, of course, standard edit rv's would be just fine. But the message that is being sent by Canadian Paul is the opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit"????? that foundation was thrown completely out the window today by Mr. Paul and his "Anons don't get to decide our priority" edit summaries. WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN all thrown out the window. Canadian Paul would do well to be reminded of that Wikipedia was built on the contributions of IP editors. 156.34.221.91 23:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment for context: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs)'s edits seem to have been in response to the edits by 74.105.128.49 (talk · contribs). AecisBrievenbus 23:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
"Anons don't get to decide our priority" is antithetical to Wikipedia. We examine ideas based on their merits rather than on the contributor. Indeed, many registered users are just as anonymous as an IP since their accounts are not linked with a real-world identity. Rklawton 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Then again, usually, it is the members of a WikiProject who decide on an article's priority to that WikiProject, is it not? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe the "We" would be "the Wikiproject". --Haemo 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
My only comment on this is that Anons don't get to decide our priority for the exact reason that registered users who aren't involved with the project don't get to decide our priority - they're not members of the project. Apparently, someone has decided to extrapolate my entire feelings about anonymous editors from a few edits. I never said "Anons don't get to edit Wikipedia" I said "they don't get to decide our priority" and that's as true for them as it is for any person, registered or not, who is not a member of our project. Feel free to check my edit history – with the exception of a fight that I had with User:Ryoung122, after which I apologized for my actions and settled the matter, I've never been uncivil on Wikipedia. Also, my contribution list shows that I've assessed hundreds of articles for WP:CANADA, so I have a solid basis behind my decisions on WP:CANADA's priorities. Cheers, CP 23:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "our" should've been replaced with WP:CANADA project to clarify to the editor he wasn't getting slammed. I am an anon(currently not at my Static IP location) But my static IP IS in fact a member of a Wiki-project... one I was invited by a Wiki-admin to join. The anon in question edits Canadian music articles frequently. His contributions should hold some merit... regardless of whether he has a make-believe name ot not. 156.34.221.91 23:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, and if so I apologize for not making myself more clear in my edit summaries. Note, however, that I never edited his priority ratings of Wikiproject:Canadian Music, just of those under Wikiproject:Canada. A certain band may be of mid, high or even top priority to Wikiproject:Canadian Music but, in the grand scheme of things, may not be as important to Wikipedia:Canada in general. Note here WP:CANADA's importance rankings. Unless they're the Canadian Beatles, it's very unlikely that any band is going to be ranked as "vital to Canada" as concepts like "Prime Minister of Canada," "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" and "Toronto." I understand your concerns, and hope that you will Assume Good Faith concerning my explanation. I'm a little disappointed that User:Rklawton, who is an admin, couldn't do that for me, but que sera sera. Also, as an incidental Canadian Paul is not a "make-believe name," but a nickname that I've had since before I was on Wikipedia. It's more likely to identify me than something arbitrary. Cheers, CP 00:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
IPs only play "second fiddle" to registered editors when it comes to RfA participation, the ability to create articles, and the ability to upload images. Other than that, they are just as valuable as registered editors, and should be treated as such. EVula // talk // // 00:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think its a fair comment to says thats only true in theory. Ip's are generally much less trusted than registered editors, their comments are more likely to be ignored, any major edits are more likely to be reverted, and they are more likely to be given vandalism warnings for edits that a registered user is unlikely to be warned for. It may be against the spirit of wikipedia, but there's nothing we can do about it, so many of us do trust ip's less, myself included on occasion, its just one of those things.--Jac16888 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, just one of those facts of life things. Just look on it as "numerical profiling"! ---- WebHamster 00:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It just occurred to me, that in some strange way, its almost like racism, and its actually very bad that its accepted, and so common all over wikipedia, like just the other day there was a discussion on here where a editor with other 8000 edits was reverting an IP's comments because they thought it was against the rules for unregistered users to participate in !votes and discussions and afd's etc, plus there was also a comment in this discussion by another user, possibly an admin, i forget, saying that it doesn't matter because anon comments are usually discarded by closing admins. This is really quite unacceptable, i think i wil have a go at writing an essay/guideline about it tommorrow --Jac16888 00:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Like racism? Really, that's the comparison you're going with? - CHAIRBOY () 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd say that it's more like ageism (I know I'm using the wrong term here, but hopefully it will be understood what I'm saying in a moment) – people who are younger generally have disadvantages such as lack of experience that allow older people to dismiss them, sometimes with good reason. Yet many many younger people have the wisdom, talent or maturity to stand alongside their older compatriots. Yet because some, maybe even a significant, amount of young people cause trouble and lack the wisdom, talent, maturity etc., young people as a whole get a bad reputation and are often dismissed. Replace "young people" with "people without accounts" and "older people" with "people with accounts" and the statement reads just as true. Cheers, CP 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The difference, of course, is that kids can't help being young, but anons choose to be anon. It's a null program. People who make an account are tying their edits to an audit chain, building a chain of accountability and making a statement that they stand behind their record. An anon IP makes no such investment. Anonymous editing is a cherished part of Wikipedia's heritage and future and serves a great purpose, but in the same sense that people without established credit records can't expect the same buying power in real estate, anon IPs should understand the basic difference in their status compared to folks with accounts. If I were an anon editor, I could write this and never be concerned that it might gain me some long term enemy. But were I to run for RfB some day, someone might provide this diff and use it as PROOF that I'm part of some elitist conspiracy against the peace loving peoples of Anonyia. I'm putting my words out and taking responsibility for them. Why would an anon editor expect entitlement to the same treatment without that investment? - CHAIRBOY () 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting view, one that I'm not certain that I completely agree or disagree with. But that's probably just my accountability speaking. Haha.

Anyhow, I've defended myself twice against these accusations and hopefully shown that they are baseless without taking too much of a side in the overall debate. I'm going to stop paying attention to this incident, so if there is a serious concern from an admin who wants to talk about my behavior outside the context of this grand conspiracy of me hating everything anonymous, they can come speak to my on my talk page. Anyone who wishes to not assume good faith me can feel free to levy conspiracy theories, accusations, incivility and anything else they feel like in this little section and I won't hold them accountable, mainly because I won't see it/pay attention to it. I'm here to work on articles, not relive my high school days. I'm also removing all reminder of this nasty experience from my talk page as well. Cheers, CP 02:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends upon the area. I check out both IP and registered red-linked editors the first time they pop up on my watch list. There are always a good handful of IP contributers to science articles--I sometimes use my IP at work to make edits to various articles. I've always been treated respectfully, even with one edit that seemed like vandalism (I deleted an extra line so the article wound up saying something silly).
As for project priorities, I invite outsiders with an interest in botany to come on by to WP:Plants and help us set priorities any time you have an idea that would improve that area on Wikipedia, anons and registered users. We have now and then been driven to fix something by an anon or registered user who is not a project member, and the door should always be open to contributions by anyone in the Wikipedia community. I hope WP:Canada considers this for the future. KP Botany 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is getting a little too dramatic for my liking. The timetable is this: I make a poorly worded edit summary as I attempt to explain why I'm lowering the priority of an article. Instead of "Anons don't get to decide our priority" I should have written "Non-project members don't get to decide WPCANADA's priority." No one is "closing the door" to anons editing articles related to WP:CANADA, certainly not me who represents WPCANADA not in the capacity of founder or director, but as mere editor. What we do close the door on, from my understanding, is non-project members deciding priority, because we've had problems in the past with "my favourite band" becoming Top priority in WPCANADA. I hope WPCANADA doesn't consider it, because I've spent my time carefully reading and formulating an understanding of what each of the class and priority rankings mean, which allows me and anyone else who has proven their understanding of these criterion by joining WPCANADA (well, I suppose not proven, but at least one is showing willingness) to more effectively implement the criteria. User:EVula has missed one important other thing that anonymous editors can't do, something else I'm involved in: reviewing Good Article nominations. This is not the first time something controversial I've done has been blown out of proportion. When I nominated an article for deletion one time, I was accused of attempting to commit "supercentenarian Holocaust" on Wikipedia. I made a (small) mistake in wording and apologized for it, and once again a big issue has blown up over it – thankfully not directed towards me, just peripherally. Cheers, CP 01:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I really think this should be the final word on the topic. Assume good faith, people! --Haemo 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's really a matter of wheat and chaff. I often monitor IP editor recent changes. The overwhelming majority of IP edits are constructive. I'd even go so far as to say that most of the corrected misspellings and minor formatting improvements are done by IP editors. There is the one or two in ten that are vandals, but those are generally obvious. IP editors do a lot here. They should be afforded the same personal courtesy as a logged-in user. But having an account does make you more accountable for your actions, and gives you more credibility in discussion. - Crockspot 01:05, 8 October 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.

Neolestat[edit]

I speedied this new page last night because it looked like spamming, and also because it did look like the creator of this page had had several attempts to create it previously, using different user names. Page has now been deleted. Could an admin look at attempts to create this page &, well, not quite sock-puppetry? Thanks --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's only been created, then deleted once... — madman bum and angel 04:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin's block of 172.192.43.160 [edit]

Because I've previously interacted with him under another IP address, even though that interaction was removal of apparent vandalism, I'm asking review of my block. There's not enough room in "block reasons" for my reasons:

  1. Adding words (not terms) which may be calques from German into the category Category:German loanwords, in spite of the clear wording of the CfD result of Category:Calques from German
  2. Adding words which are clearly not from German into that category.
  3. Adding redirects to that category
  4. Adding all words which contain the character string "LOG" to the log article, even if not derived from the Greek.
  5. Doing all of these after I've explained that I don't consider them accurate
  6. Re-doing all of these while claiming to be reverting my vandalism.
  7. Adding mysterious alternate spellings to articles.

As my interaction with him was only in response to vandalism reports under his previous IP address, I don't think I should be considered an "involved admin". I've only reverted those changes which I consider clearly wrong; if I'm wrong, and he does understand English well, some other changes may be subtle vandalism, which will require an expert opinion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

65.188.22.40[edit]

I reverted ~6 edits of trolling by 65.188.22.40 (talk · contribs) to the talk page of apparantly-gone User:The Evil Spartan and left him a {{uw-vandalism3}} template. He replied to it by demanding arbitration. I'm not sure if he means the ArbComm or arbitration. Could an admin please look into this? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It means "you should ignore ranting and raving from a troll." HTH. Raymond Arritt 00:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it could possibly be trolling, but at least personal attacks ("You['re] odd for a [C]hristian. It explains why [C]hristians make lousy friends.")
But it certainly is curious how, before these edits to User talk:The Evil Spartan, he hadn't edited for nearly a week prior? He had been accused by TES of trolling three weeks ago, and I don't know why he was leaving comments for TES; they seemed really irrelevant to anything, so this does seem like trolling. Ksy92003(talk) 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
He left this message for FloNight - he's thinking of seeking an ArbCom ruling against everyone saying he is trolling and/or vandalizing, claiming we're violating WP:NPA. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting... I was recently involved in a situation where somebody was telling me that it was a personal attack when I suggested that he and another user were meatpuppets... I didn't accuse them, I only suggested that it was possible. I'm not sure that you can have a strong case for somebody making personal attacks towards you if they feel you're trolling, but either way, it isn't WP:NPA if you have strong evidence that supports your accusation. Ksy92003(talk) 00:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate username[edit]

Username is SexTard. jonathan (talkcontribs) 00:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UAA is thataways. I'll file it for you. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And filed. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How did you know about this? S/he hasn't even made any edits, so how did you know that there was a user with that name? Ksy92003(talk) 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Try Special:Recentchanges; that also covers logs. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User creation log too. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a "new usernames" page somewhere for seeing this stuff, plus registrations show up on the recent changes page--Jac16888 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
#cvn-wp-en also lists inappropriate names when they are created. *Cremepuff222* 01:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

1 year block of anon making death threats[edit]

I've blocked an anon user for 1 year, anonymous users only,[13] for making death threats and other threatening comments. [14], [15]. Those edits to my user and talk pages where there untouched for nearly 3 hours. The anon didn't make any other edits after the ones made to my userpage but I felt obliged to block the address for 1 year due to the severity of the threats. I bring this action here to see if anyone disagrees with it. KOS | talk 00:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Making death threats are very serious offenses. I believe that an indefinite ban should be in order for anybody who threatens another. Ksy92003(talk) 00:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
IPs are almost never indef'd unless they're proxies. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice that they were anons... when I looked at the section heading, the thing that jumped out at me was "death threats" and I overlooked the "anon" word. Ksy92003(talk) 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Likely sock of User:Renandchi2, FWIW. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Very likely. But I've shortened the block to 31 hours; it's a dynamic DSL line. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Was just going to suggest the same. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 01:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Tagged using {{IPsock}}. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 01:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur[edit]

Hi! David Adam Lewis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been editing this and a number of other Judaism-related articles to have them reflect academic and critical perspectives. While I agree that these perspectives are currently often underrepresented in articles on Jewish subjects and note that much of the material added has been of quality, I have attempted to explain to the user that traditional religious perspectives, agree with them or not, are also important perspectives in traditional religious topics and I have encouraged adding in content on more modern prespectives without overwriting material representing persepectives he disagrees with, as well as discussing major rewrites with other editors and obtaining consensus. As can be seen on User Talk:David Adam Lewis, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Recent changes, there has been an ongoing dispute covering a number of articles. The user has chosen to ignore my advice, indicating that in his view he is entitled to make these changes and WP:REVERT prohibits reverting over an edit dispute.

Because this user's edits are definitely not vandalism and if this editor could be encouraged to work with others the project might be improved, I would appreciate it if another administrator would review the dispute to determine whether I have acted appropriately. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Spammer creating multiple user accounts[edit]

These new usernames have been created in the last hour or so, and each has a similar plug for a commercial website on its userpage. I've {{db-spam}}'ed the userpages and assumed the admin who deleted the userpage would take care of the name block without my having to go to WP:UAA. These accounts are likely being created by the same person, though, and more may have gotten through before I noticed these three, and there may be more on the way. Would it be proper to request a block of the underlying IP? --Dynaflow babble 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

More:
--Dynaflow babble 02:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd indef blocked one of them, with an IP block. Hopefully that ends this. --Haemo 02:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Can someone also do a name block on Picturephotodigital and Getacaijuice per the promotional-usernames clause in WP:U? --Dynaflow babble 05:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

SkiersBot[edit]

SkiersBot (talk · contribs) has been mistagging articles related to Dungeons & Dragons as stub-class articles of WikiProject Comics; could someone block it until User:SkierRMH sees the comments I left for him about it? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 05:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Could I get some help undoing his edits? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FreeSWITCH and comments about me personally are false.[edit]

The user Calltech has posted comments that are false and make me and our project look bad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:FreeSWITCH#86.92.134.171_comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WT:WPSPAM#Newbie_briankwest_.28aka_86.92.134.171.29_gone_wild

I want these comments removed as they are false. If I must i'll have the community post comments and back me up on this one.

Briankwest 18:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Which community? —Cryptic 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't this be construed as an intent to disrupt the project through recruiting meatpuppets? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
What comments are false? Who are you? What project? What community? If you want Wikipedia administrators to help you solve your problem, you have to state your case clearly and succinctly. You need to explain what has happened, what has been said, and what you want Wikipedia administrators to do. Until you do that (it's not very hard, I don't know why you haven't already) then it's not unreasonable that your complaint lie idle. -- 217.42.190.82 21:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Just about everything but the first sentence of the briankwest_gone_wild link that says I'm Brian K West and I admin the FreeSWITCH.org site. The rest is totally false about me as it was some other person and NOT ME. The FreeSWITCH community is what I'm talking about. Briankwest 00:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I heavily doubt recruiting meatpuppets (as you say you are willing to do) is going to make your edits any more accepted. If you have a concern with regards to personal information, go see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight; don't try meatpuppetry. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 09:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Briankwest's indignant behaviour here is incredible. He and another member of the FreeSWITCH development team User:Trixter ie have been posting comments on my talk page and on the FreeSWITCH using anon IP addresses as well as their WP identities creating confusion while concealing their association with the FreeSWITCH article. Just today trixter revealed his true identity and the use of the anon ID 86.92.134.171.29 in question. They both have been employing sockpuppetry techniques to conceal their association with the project in an attempt to avoid WP:COI. They created the confusion on my talk page, one by posting under his identity and the other following up with an anon IP, appearing to be speaking as (or for) the other. Now claiming that his reputation and his project's reputation is being damaged after trixter, a member of his project team, made abusive comments here Talk:FreeSWITCH#Suggestions for Improvement is laughable. Calltech 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Another member of the FreeSWITCH community User:Trixter ie admitted to using multiple IDs including IP (86.92.134.171.29) and being the source for the abusive comments that I mistakenly attributed to Brian K West. My apologies. Calltech 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, because of the high number of SPA contributions on this article's talk page and because of the apparent sockpuppetry and WP:COI tactics used by some users, a complaint was lodged here WP:COI/N#FreeSWITCH.E2.80.8E by editor Cryptic contributing at Talk:FreeSWITCH. Calltech 19:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Leuko[edit]

Resolved: Without diffs to provide any amount of evidence, this comes across as a minor dispute between two editors. AN/I is not a step in dispute resolution. EVula // talk // // 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Diffs below. Issue not resolved. Bstone 15:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to bring to the attention of the adminship the user User:Leuko. Recently Leuko has been using bullying and extremely uncivil methods in an attempt to get his edits to be the final ones. Moreover, he has come to using various level 3 warnings on various editors' talk pages for "vandalism" as a first-resort when trying to get his position to take hold. These warnings imply that he is an admin and has the ability to block us. This is extremely disturbing to a casual editor such as myself. I wonder if someone might be able to take a look into this and perhaps talk to Leuko about his heavy-handed attitude and his absolute improper use of the warnings. Thank you. Bstone 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Level 3 and 4 warnings do not insinuate that the issuer is an admin, as has been pointed out at WT:UTM. No comment about Leuko's actions. -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 06:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It fooled two of us. That's all I can really say about it. In addition, however, and quite separately than the "fooling" issue, is Leuko lack of civility and bullying (vis-a-vis the bogus vandalism warnings). As well, Leuko saw it fit to edit my user page just a few days ago. This was uninvited and certainly not approved by me, yet he did so anyways. In short, Leuko is a loose cannon and must be dealt with. Bstone 06:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Bstone, if you really want something to be done, help everyone out and get links to the diffs that show us exactly what happened. Basically, if I could get a "I did this[1], Leuko responded with this warning[2], I did this[3], etc.", I think it would be more effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to provide the diffs that show this case, but anyone who's interested in knowing what happened can start here and follow the trail. Someguy1221 07:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're unhappy about his editing your userpage (which, incidentally, you don't own; anyone is free to edit it), you should bring it up with him on his talk page, not here. EVula // talk // // 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I may not actually own my talk page, but I believe it to be clear that any unauthorized editing of my talk page can and, in this case, would be considered vandalism. One can see the changes as follows:

Leuko's unauthorized and unapproved editing (aka vandalism) of my user page[[16]]. Looking at this link one will notice the high number of bogus "warnings" issued by Leuko to me [[17]]. Bstone 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved? The other editor who has harassed and bullied by Leuko hasn't gotten a chance to post here as he was probably sleeping. Please reactivate this. In addition, I will be adding the links and diffs (see above). Thank you. Bstone 15:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please. Reviewing the talk page of the article that this content dispute is about reveals all that is needed. Leuko was wrong to use a template regarding a content dispute. You were the first to claim his edits as vandalism, and it is clear that you knew he was not an administrator, so claiming that that is the reason you brought it here is disingenuous at best. You brought it here hoping to get a leg up in what is a content dispute in which both of you have acted inappropriately. As above, AN/I is not a step in dispute resolution. This is resolved as concerns AN/I. —bbatsell ¿? 20:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


Bbatsell, I beg you to tell me how you know what I "knew" and what I didn't "knew". I promise you that I was under the impression that Leuko was an admin. Furthermore, I view his edit to the InfoBox in that article to be pure vandalism. The reason is simple: it has absolutely nothing to do with the article and entirely violated NPOV. Thus, I removed it. However, before closing this you should wait to hear from the other user who has been wikistalked and harassed by Leuko. This case is not resolved as Leuko has not been counseled on proper use of warnings. When that happens then this case will be resolved. Bstone 21:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Bstone. Leuko has been issuing warnings to other editors with such authority that it gives the impression that he is some kind of administrator. Clearly, there must be a distinguishing quality between warnings issued by admins and “normal” editors, i.e., not all persons should issue such warnings. This may drive people away from editing wikipedia. I had only made one edit on a page, and I got a warning that sounded like “You will be blocked….” Additionally, Leuko needs to relax a bit and allow other editors to edit pages. If anyone goes against Leuko, they are threatened by warnings. Yep, that’s Leuko. DrGladwin 17:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, I like how you make a big deal about how apparently only admins should make certain calls, yet ignore an admin when he tells you that this isn't an administrative issue. :P
The first diff you provided can easily be interpreted as a personal attack, meaning that a warning from him was probably justified. I see absolutely no effort in your contributions to leave a message on Leuko's talk page, which you should have done before running here. This is a personal dispute, and this board isn't the place for dispute resolution. {{resolved}} is only there to inform other admins that this doesn't require their attention, because it's a personal dispute, and not an administrative issue. EVula // talk // // 00:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

IP's from Mercedes-Benz headquarters in Spain vandalising Lewis Hamilton article[edit]

All of this IP's contributions have been vandalism to Lewis Hamilton's article. According to IP-Adress, this traces back to Madrid, Spain, but more importantly, Mercedes Benz headquarters. I suggest the IP should be blocked to avoid future edits like this; also so that this doesn't get out into the media, and possibly suggest that Mercedes aren't against Hamilton winning the 2007 Formula One title. Thanks, Davnel03 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the media would have a field day with this one--Jac16888 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The page has been protected already.Rlevse 17:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Why would we hide this hilarity from the media? :) --Golbez 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to contact BBC or Sky News about this, then go head :) It would make Mercedes Benz look VERY bad. Davnel03 19:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
gosh I wouldn't want that to happen... (go Lewis!) --Golbez 22:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Those goofy little Spaniards... HalfShadow 22:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
goofy, little and spaniards? You forgot to tell us about yourselves. -- 41.251.64.174 18:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

What about 195.235.176.225 (talk · contribs)? See this and this vandalism from August 7, a few days after the incident between Hamilton and Alonso at the Hungarian Grand Prix. Is this Mercedes-Benz Spain as well? AecisBrievenbus 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently that is the SERVICIOS ADMINISTRATIVOS CONTABLES Y ASEGURADORES in Aragon, Spain, whatever the hell that is; I haven't taken spanish in four years. Someguy1221 22:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Translated: "Administrative, Accounting and Insurance Services". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
They're in the same /16 so same telco, but as far as I can tell, not related beyond that. –Crazytales 01:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary at Historical pederastic couples[edit]

Wikipedia has had some serious problems with paedophile activists in the past. I believe that this issue may have reared its ugly head again in Historical pederastic couples, which currently has a four-paragraph introduction devoid of any reliable or verifiable sources, and presenting man-boy sexual relationships in an absurdly positive light; e.g., the only "source" being an ambiguously-named author supposedly claiming that pederasty was mandated by law in antiquity, and referring to such relations in glowingly positive terms.

I deleted that material in accord with WP:V, along with several blatant BLP violations naming living people who were boys at the time that men were having sex with them, which had been removed before. I have been reverted four times now in the past two days, most recently by an editor whose edit summary is a blatant and harsh personal attack.

This raises issues which would belong on the BLP, personal attack, reliable sources, and fringe theory noticeboards. So I am raising it here in hopes that some action can be taken which will prevent bringing the project into further disrepute. Thank you. 1of3 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

My first instinct is to block User:Haiduc for about 2 days to a week for a nasty personal attack. What do other people think? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I just went with my instinct, still interested in what others think. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not wrong.  ALKIVAR 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Haiduc's comment may have been uncalled for, but I can't say it deserves a block. Note that the previous edit summary mentioned 'men porking boys' and that 1of3 started this argument by accusing Haiduc's side of being 'boylove apologists' (see the talk page).
In addition, I'd say that his mass removal borders on vandalism. The introductory paragraphs could stand some improvement, but I see them as fairly neutral - certainly not advocacy for pederasty, as 1of3 claimed. The way, the truth, and the light 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, complaining that text is "biased in favor of men porking boys" is not a personal attack by any means. It is a critique of content, which is encouraged and not censored for minors or delicate sensibilities. Saying that, "I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with 'boylove' apologists," is not an accusation of anyone in particular, and if any of the people involved do happen to be such apologists, referring to them as a group is not a personal attack. We must have the freedom to call a spade a spade when the reputation of the project is at risk. As for the text in question:
  • "love affairs between adult men and adolescent boys"
  • "classical pederasty ... has both love and mentoring as principal characteristics"
  • "emulation of the Socratic ideal"
  • "In antiquity pederasty was sometimes mandated by law, a requirement eventually superseded under the early Christians by prohibition under pain of death or castration for both partners. This move was impelled at least in part by their intent to promote Christianity.... This was accomplished by the systematic destruction of ... classical pederasty, which was an important educational and cultural aspect" -- this is where the sole reference of the introduction is given as, "In Sparta, the ephors fined any eligible man who did not love a boy, because, despite his own excellence, he failed to make a beloved 'similar to himself.' Aelian, Var. Hist., III.10" -- just how are we supposed to verify that?
  • "Age-structured, in which men pair up with boys"
  • "classical pederasty, shudo, and Florentine sodomy" -- note that "Florentine sodomy" is wikilinked to the separate words, leaving the term undefined
  • "their sexual phase lasts only until the coming of age of the younger member. The friendship, however, may continue indefinitely and is seen as one of the chief benefits of such relationships."
If you think the text those excerpts are from isn't biased, tell me: Where is the discussion of rape, child sexual abuse, emotional trauma, abuse of positions of authority, shattered lives, destroyed reputations, and peer bullying? 1of3 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's not perfect. There are a few statements there I find biased, but overall it's simply a factual account of historical pederasty. The solution is for someone interested to fix it, not delete it.
As for not mentioning negative aspects of pederasty, that's just not the topic of the article. A short section treating those in historical context, and linking to other articles about the topic, would not be a bad addition - but again, someone needs to write it. I'm not going to be the one to do it; the article simply isn't in my particular interest. The way, the truth, and the light 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Jimbo has a different opinion. Since when are negative aspects "just not the topic" of an article about relationships? Are you going to tell me that Marriage should not refer to divorce? I doubt it. 1of3 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
That message by Jimbo has absolutely nothing to do with my reply. As for negative aspects, I explicitly said that it would be desirable to include something about them - just not to make them the central subject of the article. The way, the truth, and the light 05:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it was way too harsh--especially if this is the user's first offense. The edit summary was uncalled for, but I can think of more than one user (all of them admins) who regularly communicate just as abusively in their edits summaries. A warning would have sufficed.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 03:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not an admin (just putting in my 3 cents) but I think for something like the above, it should be longer than a week, but hopefully that week will give Haiduc time to realize you just don't put crap like that on Wikipeda...or anywhere for that matter. I think Until(1 == 2) was right in blocking Haiduc. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Crap like" what? Are you referring to the personal attack or the user's editorial focus?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The edit comment was not only so offensive I thought it was likely to cause disruption by driving off contributors, but it also stays in the edit history of that article forever. That sort of nastiness cannot be allowed, and if you know other editors who regularly talk that way, let me know about them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 04:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol, believe me, you already know about them, and they have never been blocked and never will be. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It was not a first offense. I was implied to be "like a feudal lord issuing fiats and pillaging and burning" on the talk page, after which I specifically cautioned against such attacks. 1of3 04:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Temporary fix for BLP concerns:, I have commented out the section on the 20th and 21st century, pending further discussion. I recognize not all the people are living, that some of the relationships were freely acknowledged, that a few may have been sufficiently documented and notable to be included in any event. I also realise that not all of them were in fact sexual, but including them in an article on "pederastic couples' when they many not meet that definition would seem to be itself a BLP violation. I will have no hesitation in blocking anyone who reverts this section as a while, pending the necessary discussion. Anyone who reverts a particular item should be very sure of the justification, and should discuss it on the article talk page first. I regard this as a temporary fix, not a solution. DGG (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I would support unblocking Haiduc so he can participate in the discussion, if he agrees not to edit the article in the interim. DGG (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As the aggrieved party, I would agree with this. 1of3 04:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
So it was never about the personal attack, was it? It was just an excuse to get rid of someone you disagreed with on an article. Isn't that dishonest? The way, the truth, and the light 05:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
He didn't even ask for a block. And he wanted the person back to discuss the matter. So... no, not dishonest. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not want a block; what could possibly help defuse tensions any less? I was hoping for someone to revert back to my version, protect the page for edit warring, and give Haiduc a stern talking to about BLP, V, and RS concerns on the article's talk page. 1of3 05:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I apologize for any improper assumption about you. I conflated the motives of you and the blocking admin, assuming you were in essential agreement. The way, the truth, and the light 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that a week's block is rather excessive in this situation. Yes, Haiduc's edit summary was a personal attack, and a bad move. However, 1of3 provoked Haiduc by callling him a "boylove apologist" (the comment is clearly directed at Haiduc, the primary contributor to that article). 1of3 also completely failed to assume good faith (as can be seen in the discussion at Talk:Historical pederastic couples#The intro). I think that there's fault on both sides here, and the best thing would be for everyone involved to take a deep breath and try to engage politely. Yes, 1of3, you do have to discuss this with Haiduc and any other interested editors. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and it's all the more important on controversial topics that editors discuss major changes rather than edit warring.
    I think that Haiduc's block should either be removed or shortened to about 24 hours — that would seem more commensurate to the offence.
    Disclaimer: I have had past dealings with Haiduc at Homosexuality in ancient Greece when that article was subject to disruptive editing and edit warring by a persistent problem editor. That editor eventually resorted to a death threat in an attempt to get his way, and was banned. During that (quite stressful) period, Haiduc maintained an even keel and behaved admirably. He also did a fine job providing reliable sources for that article as the problem editor demanded. Based on that experience, I would expect that Haiduc would work to improve Historical pederastic couples and resolve the NPOV concerns to everyone's satisfaction. It seems to me that 1of3's unilateral approach caused unnecessary drama and tension; I hope that the situation can be resolved without further name-calling or personal attacks from anyone. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I've also had a previous encounter with Haiduc and I get the impression that he can be difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, he seems to be a predominantly good contributor (seeing his history) - I agree with you on that. The way, the truth, and the light 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I take exception to this accusation that I directed any sort of comment at Haiduc. When I said, "I'm not going to be arguing ... with 'boylove' apologists," Haiduc hadn't yet reverted me. At that point he hadn't edited any of the article since my first edit to it, so how was I supposed to know that he was a major let alone the primary contributor? I didn't even know that until I read the above comments just now. The two editors who had reverted me at the point I made the "boylove" comment were User:Welland R and User:The Wikipedist, and without regard to any motives that people might impugn upon me, I was certainly not calling either of them boylove apologists. As should be abundantly clear from the sentence structure ("I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with 'boylove' apologists.") the only people I thought might be the apologists were the people who wrote the terribly biased introduction to that article. It is no secret that pedophile activists have in the past knowingly collaborated to bias pertinent Wikipedia articles. Must my assumption of good faith be so broad as to forget everything I know about those incidents and deny that they might ever repeat? Does assuming good faith mean I must believe that those who have glorified pederasty in several paragraphs of unsourced and highly questionable text can have no ulterior motives for doing so? I do not think so. My initial assumption of good faith was utterly abolished when I saw that the obvious BLP violations removed weeks ago had been re-inserted. Nevertheless, I hold no ill will towards Haiduc; that I reserve solely for his biased edits. I hope that we are still afforded the opportunity to call edits biased when we see them as such, or is that no longer considered civil by those with the necessary saintliness to pass RFA? 1of3 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's fine to identify bias in edits, but don't attribute motivations to the authors of those edits unless you've got solid evidence. I don't see that here. (Incidentally, removing this sentence from your comment was a good move — the opinion it suggests is, I believe, unsupported by the scholarship on the subject.) —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Where did I attribute motivations to any author personally? I know full well that we can describe groups such as "boylove apologists" which may or may not be empty, and doing so is not a personal attack. Are you saying it is, or that it's not civil to do so, or something else? What do we civilly call groups with suspect motivations in that regard, then? 1of3 14:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
1of3, what "group" are you referring to when you talk of "boylove apologists" in this context? Is it the group of editors who have contributed to the article? I believe your comment is defamatory, uncivil and unsupported by the context of the debate. I deleted your comment from the article's talk page in order to protect both you and Wikipedia from disruption or legal threats, and left an appropriate warning message on your talk page. You chose to both ignore the warning and re-insert your comment. Emotive subjects (such as the article in question) require IMO a very high standard of civility in order to facilitate positive encyclopaedic edits. Comments which could defame or wrongly label editors are counter-productive. DuncanHill 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
They are nothing more than what the indefinite noun phrase specifies, just like "Rotary Club members who advocate wife-beating" may or may not be an empty group. There is no personal attack or incivility in either hypothesizing that group's existence or stating opinions about them, and you would never suggest there was until edits start appearing in articles, claiming that the first Rotary Clubs mandated wife-beating in their by-laws. Then suddenly it becomes "defamatory and uncivil" to even suggest they exist. Poppycock! Such a claim strikes a blow against the project's ability to defend it's mission. Please review WP:NPA with particular attention to the difference between referring to persons, "individual contributors," and groups, for whom there is no such prohibition and with good reason. Have you, per chance, ever used the term "vandals?" To whom were you referring? 1of3 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As I am no longer able to maintain my assumption of good faith I am withdrawing from this debate. I shall remove the article and its talk page from my watchlist, and shall cease adding wikilinks or removing obviously inappropriate entries from it (which I have done in the past). I have indeed used the term "vandal" - but only in reference to editors who have been obviously vandalising Wikipedia, and only in a way that is appropriate to the context of its use. DuncanHill 16:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Who doesn't wish for a bright-line rule for vandalism, which is often not clear cut, or POV advocacy, which is almost always not clear cut? 1of3 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Haiduc lost his temper in any already heated dispute (1of3 was hardly saintly in his use of edit summaries) - it happens. The comment was totally out of line but it was however a first block so I think a week is rather harsh. I agree that 24 hours would seem appropriate. WjBscribe 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm frankly surprised that nobody warned 1 of 3 for his vandalising of the article. He deleted almost half the article on more than one occasion. Just because material is not verifiable online does not mean it is not verifiable at all, and the article cites extensive references. I support unblocking Haiduc, who obviously lost his temper in the edit summary. He is a solid, scholarly contributer who has helped the project immeasurably. This one block seems clearly punitive to me. Also, as to the BLP concerns, I fail to see how deleting every entry in the subsection 20th and 21st century helps the article or project. Many entries were not BLP violations at all, and the article about Alexander Ziegler, whose entry in the pedarsty article so concerned a few editors, mentions the scandal and name of the youth in question. It seems clear to me that this issue compels people into knee jerk reactions, and I would invite people to look at the article (and its editors) dispassionately. Jeffpw 08:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Since when is removing any amount of unsourced material considered vandalism? The only source provided in the material I removed, apart from the obvious BLP violations, was a citation to "Aelian, Var. Hist., III.10." Given that there are three Aelians, that is not even a verifiable reference and thus is also subject to removal as WP:V plainly states. Moreover, even if some classics expert can verify it, it was used in support of statements which it does not support, as is clear from the sentence at the beginning of its footnote, which refers to Spartans exclusively, and saying nothing about Christians. 1of3 08:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
"Aelian, Var. Hist." refers to the Varia Historia of Claudius Aelianus. I've disambiguated the Aelian link in the article. It doesn't look to me as if the citation is trying to support anything about Christians; it's supporting the clause "In antiquity pederasty was sometimes mandated by law". But this is a content dispute which should be dealt with on the article's talk page, not here. Many of the comments you've tagged as problematic could be seen as supported by later cited material in the article. You should have raised your concerns with the article's editors, rather than deleting the entire introduction. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 09:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Our article on Claudius_Aelianus#Varia_Historia says, "He is not perfectly trustworthy in details, and his agenda is always to inculcate culturally "correct" Stoic opinions, perhaps so that his readers will not feel guilty." Is anyone seriously purporting that this is a reliable source? 1of3 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
True, the editors using the source need to make the readers aware of this. But that requires careful judgment, so much in fact that we should probably defer to qualified secondary sources to interpret Claudius Aelianus for us. To be clear, historical works like this should be treated with caution, but equally you will need a secondary source to back up the assertion (probably correct) that Aelianus was writing with an agenda. The concept of reliable sources is a tricky one to apply to primary historical sources. In one sense they are all unreliable unless a secondary source interprets them. In another sense they are less prone to POV interpretation by the same secondary sources. It is often best to present both the primary material and any conflicting secondary interpretations by later writers (in this case that could be any later writer from the time of Aelianus up to the present day). No-one ever said history, or writing an encyclopedia, was simple. Carcharoth 16:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 1of3 was a bit uncivil to say the least in his own edit summaries, even if they can't be classified as personal attacks per se -- he meant his comment as an insult and that is a sentiment that showed through brilliantly. His edits could've been summarized by simply explaining the need for those edits. It wasn't necessary to refer to the other editor, especially in the way that he did, which generally will end up inviting more edit warring (not to say the other editor wasn't also guilty of the same thing). That said, the intro was in desperate need of cleanup because it sounded like an article you might find in a pro-pedophilia newsletter. This should definitely not have been remedied by deleting nearly the entire thing though. I tried to clean it up as best I could, by removing the POV remarks and conclusions while leaving only the facts, even if many of them are in need of sources.

Equazcionargue/improves09:46, 10/8/2007
Not to nitpick here, but the article does not lack either sources or references. What it lacks, and has been tagged as such, are inline citations. I haven't a doubt that Haiduc would be fixing that problem were he not blocked. The other articles he has edited, while contentious, have certainly been grounded in fact. Jeffpw 09:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, someone above says they are surprised that no-one warned 1of3, in fact I did, specifically about his defamatory comments accusing Wikipedia editors of being "boylove apologists". I also removed his comment to that effect from the article talk page for that reason, however he subsequently reverted and restored his comment. I did not get further involved as I do not wish to get into a dispute with an editor who uses such language. DuncanHill 10:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, DuncanHill. I just saw your warning to 1 of 3 on his talkpage. It's nice to see that somebody looking at this dispute was able to remain objective. Jeffpw 12:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I note the version Halduc reverted to included such fine encyclopaedic content as "drama teacher David Le Brocq, twenty seven at the time, returned the love shown him by Karl Donaldson, his fifteen year old pupil, engaging in a six-month long relationship". The article is, at the moment, rubbish. Every unreferenced "couple" in that article should be removed; a section entitled "known or presumed pederastic couples" is also inherently non-neutral. It should be "known" only, and avoid presuming anything. Neil  12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As User:Until(1 == 2) was asking for opinions on the block, I think the block was a bit hasty and a stern warning would have been sufficient. As others have said, it is also a bit long. How about reducing the block to 24 or 48 hours? As other have pointed out, Haiduc has done good work on articles in this area. Carcharoth 12:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In deference to the wishes to discuss BLP issues with Haiduc and concerns about sternness, I have reduced the block to 24 hours. It is still not an appropriate response though, but 1 week for a first offense is perhaps a little long, so I reconsidered. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I wish we could relieve wikistress as easily as we block users. 1of3 15:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Attempted harassment measures[edit]

Resolved: Being handled on OTRS. SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Frater210 has indicated on his talk page after uncivilly responding about NPOV violations that he is attempting to find information about me and ThuranX to harass us, as seen at this forum thread. This seems to cross the line into potential harassment, and I would like some input on the matter. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 05:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

To expand on this report, the user, who identifies himself as the American film producer Don Murphy, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of ColScott. I've researched this situation further, and I found previous discussion on this matter here, here, and here. There is also discussion at Talk:Don Murphy about inclusion of his official site due to examples on his forum of his attempts to find out information about users with whom he enters disputes -- such threads on his official forum are found at the aforementioned forum thread and here as well. His grudge seems to be centered on the fact that his article has been vandalized a few times, leading him to rail against Wikipedia and attempt to put his own article up for AfD. From what I've seen in discussions, there's obviously vigilance against this user and his sockpuppets, but what concerns me is the attempt to acquire personal information, the conduct of which implies intended harassment. What are the options in which off-wiki legal action can be taken against this malicious behavior? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 15:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Being handled on OTRS. SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citations[edit]

User:Comatose51 has recently removed/deleted a bunch of citations with the (seemingly false) statement "Remove Stratfor link and the statement it references because it requires a paid login. Stop linking to them. It is against Wikipedia policy.". As WP:V doesn't seem to suggest there is any such policy, and it seems counter-productive and against the rules of common sense (we often reference New York Times articles which require a membership to view, as valid citations - we just get other members to vouch for the contents of the web archive if we have any doubts) - I'd request that these edits all be reverted. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 06:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems we've recently made our Wikipedia:External links page less clear, and that as a result it was being applied to references. I've explained to the user in question why that's wrong, and I believe all the changes made under that mistaken application have now been undone. - Nunh-huh 06:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember reading that the NYT archives will soon (or already are) free to view. It seems that the "pay for access" model (for newspapers at least) is finally giving way to the "get the money through advertising" model. Carcharoth 12:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not quite that clear cut - the NY Times is making everything pre-1923 free, because that's all public domain, and they are also making everything since 1981 free, presumably since that stuff's all digitized already. Confusingly, for articles that were published between 1923 and 1981, some will be free and some will not. Natalie 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Donreed[edit]

This user has a history of adding unsourced info and has been warned on numerous occasions, including quite recently. I've just found these [18], [19] & [20] and reverted because, yet again unsourced speculation. Quite frankly, it's tiresome and he has been warned that he could be blocked. Also, he almost never leaves an edit summary. The difficulty is some of his edits are useful, grammar & punctuation changes; some just crass- changing mdash to "--", for example. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 07:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible Activist POV promotions[edit]

Incidents involving possible activist POV edits by 198.168.27.224 (Aleut IP user) on at least four separate stubish articles on ethnic groups in eastern Russia that have been reportedd to be have transgender individuals by the user in question. The user repeatedly sites an African anthropologist Hermann Baumann ethnic studies cited in the book Transgender Warriors written by Leslie Feinberg always on page 40. I have reverted the Koryaks and Aleut then finding that the Chukchi and Yukaghir have the same information and citation I ask an administrator to arbitrate. These exact edits may be a lot more numerous. Unsure if it is Feinberg Leslie promoting his activism or book in the articles, or some random user using Leslie's book. The citation may very well be false on page 40. -- Kain Nihil 13:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to have my former user page and talk page deleted.[edit]

Hi!

Sorry to bother you guys with this but I'm currently experiencing real life stalking by my ex-girlfriend who is datamining the Internet to search for clues to my current whereabouts and workplace.

I recently changed accounts to this account from User:MartinDK due to my wish to disengage permanently from former disputes and my own past actions in those disputes. I regret those disputes and scrambled my password so I can't log in to MartinDK. Due to the severity of my situation is there a way for me to have my past user page and talk page including subpages deleted or possibly moved to my current talk page as subpages for full scrutiny? A checkuser will reveal that MartinDK is me beyond any doubt as I have been editing from a static IP belonging to me before I recently moved and the current IP is also static though shared but there are very few other edits to Wikipedia from that IP and none of those edits are to anything that I normally edit.

I'm sorry for all of this, I really did not ask for it to happen to me and I certainly don't want to avoid public scrutiny. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted all your userspace from MartinDK. Do you also want to rename the account? If yes, to what name, and you or I can ask a bureaucrat to do the change. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 14:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you SO much!! I've filed a request for renaming it. EconomicsGuy Return the fire! 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

64.40.108.168[edit]

This IP address has been warned multiple times about vandalism to multiple New England Patriots-related Patriots, including Super Bowl XXXIX and Super Bowl XXXVI. Similar (and in many cases exactly the same) vandalism was made to those pages, as well as New England Patriots, New England Patriots strategy, Super Bowl XXXVIII, Robert Kraft, etc., causing some of these pages to be protected during that mid-September period. Also during that time my user page was vandalized by this IP address, as well as my talk page by the same IP and by another IP with a similar edit history. This vandalism ceased until today, when 64.40.108.168 began its vandalism again on Super Bowl XXXVIII and Super Bowl XXXIX. The latter vandalism made references to the page protections as well as protection to my user page that was accepted. I am requesting that action be taken against this IP. Thanks. Pats1 T/C 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. For now. --Alvestrand 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sm565 complain for Adam Cuerden.[edit]

Resolved: article already protected, editor warned

(forum-shopping redacted) by ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC))

I deleted Sm565's POV tags because he just simply tagged any bit of criticism as POV, and then refused to say anything actually wrong with it when asked, other than it was unfair to criticise homeopathy. He then spent most of the last week making facile and pointless objections wasting all the editor's time. I tried to archive some sections, but was repeatedly reverted, so I just did what is done with other examples of trolling on heavily-trolled pages, and put it in a {{hat}} {{hab}} to try and allow editors who aren't a meatpuppet for George Vithoulkas like all the ones we had descending a few months ago to actually edit productively. Adam Cuerden talk 08:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not anything wrong. I did not revert anything besides the tag POV ONLY after other users you agree with removed the statement which the main editor ( AFTER reaching a consensus) put in the article. You did not take any action against that. Whoever visits the talk page in homeopathy he will understand. --Sm565 08:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

His actions seem to me within the boundaries of civility, making this nothing more than a content dispute. Follow dispute resolution if needed. Please be warned that attempting to place homeopathic practicers on the same pedestal of reliability as the NIH or the AMA, as well as attempting to dismiss modern science as mere theory, will be generally fruitless. Someguy1221 08:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The essay by Sm above was posted to WP:RPP; I turned it into a protection request for him in good faith. If anyone objects to me making the request, feel free to get rid of it. Sm, forum-shopping is very much frowned upon on Wikipedia. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 09:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The article is already protected anyway. Adam Cuerden is correct; a quick scan of the article history and talkpages reveals quite clearly that the only tendentious editing is occurring from User:Sms565 and other POV-pushers, amongst other things adding {fact} tags to clearly cited material. Thus, I have redacted the forum-shopping posting above, make a comment on Sms565's talk page, and marked this item as resolved. ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is totally unfair and inappropriate.Only the fact that you avoid addressing Adams behavior in the talk page which the main complain is a sign that you reading is not in good faith.

A good faith reader who will go through the discussion , my complain and the request will not find the EliminatorJR|< statament objective. The request is to protect the under dispute sign in the article and to restore my comments. "a quick scan of the article history and talkpages?" how you went through so quickly it is a extremely long discussionin which I have participated only for a month!

Whoever sees the quality of the comments of the group of the editors including Adam he will agree with this.

Tendentious editing??: The cited sources dont state what is claimed in the article. Thats why I had to copy and paste them in the talk page and explain why. Even Adam agreed. Examples: [21] [22]

Please another administrator intervene - NPOV needed--Sm565 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to ask another parent. Although the essay here predates WP:RPP's essay, you're simply trying to find a way to get Adam in trouble. Do all of us the honor and drop it. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 18:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it is not appropriate to hide other users comments - its not about anyone. My report was vanished and nonone can tell what I was talking about. --Sm565 20:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was removed because you were forum-shopping, which is (at the least) hated on Wikipedia. However, the post here predates the RFPP essay by about thirty minutes, and the essay is linked on the Homeopathy prot request I filed, if it's still there. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 22:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a report about unacceptable behavior. Nonone has the right to edit others opinions.I had to give examples and explain. Using this excuse you can remove everything from this board if you dont agree with some editors view. --Sm565 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

sigh... Sm, posting an essay to several different pages in a hope that someone will take action in favor of you is explicitly disallowed on Wikipedia. Your essay here was removed when I pointed out you posted the exact same one to WP:RPP. Just drop the axe. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


The report was about censorship both in the homeopathy talk page and here with the absurd excuse of forum shopping. If an obective administrator decides to explore he/she will see it immediately.I m a new user and not familiar with all the tricks........--Sm565 18:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll explain why your essay was removed. If you post an essay begging for action to be taken against someone in more than one public forum here (talk pages, here, WP:RPP, WP:COI/N, etc.), the chance of that action being taken plummets like a rock, and the chance of your complaint being acted on also drops by about as much. People here call that "forum-shopping", and they do not like it because it makes you look like you're trying to get someone banned or blocked to fulfil a personal goal. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 23:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I wanted someone banned I would make a report for this (as I as told) and I assure you if an administrator decides to look then he/she will find out that the shopping forum exscuce it is absurd. My only request is to not consider the case resolved as it were my mistake.IF you are curius look into it and you will see.--Sm565 01:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding users WesleyDodds, Doczilla and J Greb[edit]

Recently I've been contributing highly to popular superhero articles, Batman, Superman (Kal-L) and Green Lantern. Firstly, here are the massive edits I did to Batman - shortly, WesleyDodds disagreed with one or two changes of mine yet, for no reason, chose to revert everything, including all of my other helpful edits. Then, I restored to my revision to Batman, revealing I followed WP:CMX/E guideline yet WesleyDodds returned and reverted everything again, even though he really disagreed with one or two things I did. At Kal-L, I contributed ok to the page (could have done a mistake or two accidentally, see [23], [24]) then Doczilla also probably saw one or two things incorrect and, instead of fixing it manually, had every single one of my useful edits reverted. Just because this user too felt one or two things I did may not have been correct he did not have just revert to the last revision. This had me very upset me. All of these users did not revert manually and, to save themselves time, chose to revert nonchalantly to the most recent revision. And finally for Green Lantern I did a major update, had probably one thing incorrect, and then Doczilla reverted it all pretty much because he saw one thing wrong, I had the word "fictional" taken out. During these times, Doczilla "threatens" me to not edit all at once or else I'll get flat-out reverted. Then says more in regards. J Greb does the same, he also tells me to now edit all at once. And similar warnings went on for a while, see my talk page. Honestly, there is no rule claiming that its disruptive to add a mass amount of edits in one instance and these users continue to enforce this upon me, tell me to stop or it will all get reverted just because they do not wanna manually correct what actually needs to be corrected. I again I restored the data to Green Lantern with the word "fictional" in, and Doczilla reverted all of my appropiate edits once more, telling me to stop making so many edits at one time.

What I would like is for someone to tell these users that it is perfectly okay for me to perform a massive amount of edits at once and that if they disagree with anything, they can edit the page manually instead of undoing all of my other appropiate edits. Please tell them to stop reverting the whole page because it is unfair and seems a bit like WP:OWN. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this today at Kal-L, even stepping in to figure out one point of contention, the DABlink section. However, most of Sesshomaru's edits consist of adding blank spaces in some places, removing them in others, and various contentions about the word 'fictional' and various conjugations/tenses/parts of speech of the 'fict-' root. WP:COMIC calls for the implementation of 'Fictional' as a qualifier/descriptor to maintain 'out of universe' writing style. In regards to the Batman, I thoroughly concur with Wesley Dodds, I too would've reverted wholesale; there's no explanatino for the extra spacing and removed spaces, the word fictional's a part of guidelines, and so on. As for the other articles and arguments, they seem to be the same. I'd suggest that if the user is trying the same thing at different articles, and multiple editors continue to independently revert him, then perhaps it's not them who are at fault?
Finally, I can personally attest to the quality of all three accused editors in working towards consensus on talk pages. I've had agreements and disagreements with all three, but all are great editors who conduct themselves well.
(one postscript - I found this because I watch AN/I, not because I'm also aware Sesshomaru would be coming here, in fact, he said that a while ago, and I didn't see it, and so figured he'd dropped it, then my watchlist popped with this.) ThuranX 21:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I must thank ThuranX for letting me know about this, since Sesshomaru did not notify me after starting this. When someone makes a lot of changes to an article in a single posting with blatant errors, yes, that can get flatly reverted by people who know MOS, who know WikiProject guidelines, and who know from experience how these comic articles get edited. We know the history behind the guidelines and we know what kind of changes will simply get reverted by others. When one person makes a lot of changes all at once, the sheer volume of red lettering makes it very difficult to tease the exact changes apart. We have to read the entirety of both versions line by line every single time. What's ironic about this complaint is that, if you'll look at the edit history, you can see that after reverting, I did then go through examining Sess's changes and incorporating many of them into the articles.
This complaint is awfully premature. Looking at the edit history, anyone can see how little time has been spent trying to work these things out among ourselves. Sess hurled a WP:OWN complaint at me. Glancing at the edit history, I don't see that I'd worked on the Kal-L article since one day in January. Likewise, I have no particular history with the Green Lantern article.
To stick up for others getting this accusation, I must say that Wesley watches the Batman article very regularly. But frankly, the article needs it as it gets frequently vandalized and, due to the character's fame, frequently edited by newcomers who don't yet know how things work around here. It needs the ongoing attention of someone who really knows the article, who really knows its edit history, and who really knows our style guidelines. I can think of no one I'd rather have watching the Batman article than WesleyDodds. We want WesleyDodds watching Batman, we need WesleyDodds watching Batman, and that's a truth worth handling.
Sess asked for more feedback regarding what we didn't like about his edits, and yet he/she then gets up at arms because we took the time to answer. Looking at Sess's edit history, you'll see how little effort was made to work this out before jumping to AN/I. Sess came to my talk page to gripe about a revert I made, even though someone else reverted after me and therefore the reversion I'd previously made no longer applied before he/she even raised the issue. I edited one sentence after that without re-reverting anything, and that is when Sess started fussing at me. Doczilla 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'd say something more in support of J Greb too, but Sess's complaint against J Greb wasn't even enough of a complaint with substance to respond to, beyond what my edits in support of J Greb's edits have already effectively said. (Here's a weird aside: Sess-whatsit griped that I use too many talk page section headings during the very same weekend that somebody else griped that I should a lot more, one per comment.) Doczilla 03:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I echo ThuranX's comments. I can vouch for all three editors as being some of the best in the comics project. Equally those edits are actually pretty minor (odd messing around with spaces) and where they aren't they go against comics guidelines and I would also have reverted some of those edits if I'd seen them first.
I also feel other avenues should have been explored more thoroughly before bringing this up on the admin noticeboard. (Emperor 01:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

(ec) - Ok, I just went over the edits. Nothing spectacular in the revert. Though beyond what TX said above, I note that the user also apparently removed things like the default sort for the categories. I think at this point, the user should attempt to start a talk page duscussion about "Characters" vs. "Fictional characters" (Probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics.) Incidentally, I vaguely recall such a discussion in the past, and the concerns were that there are characterisations of real people in comics, as opposed to truly fictional characters. But anyway, I look forward to the discussion. - jc37 01:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted the past relevant WikiProject Comics talk page discussions on Sesshomaru's talk page. Here they are: [25], [26], [27], [28] WesleyDodds 11:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I understood what I did wrong. From now on, I'll start a discussion on talk pages instead of warring or coming here to report fellow editors. Is this over? May I go about my own way? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Doczilla is presently warring on my talk page, see for example [29], [30], [31], [32]. I gave my final response here and yet, he replies that this thread isn't over, disruptively. I'd like for someone to confirm that this discussion will not continue. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Two reverts do not an edit war make. You shouldn't go deleting the evidence while the AN/I discussion is still in progress. Yes, it can still be found via edit history, but there's no reason to make people hunt through the history to figure this mess out. And again, bringing this here is premature. Doczilla 19:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Posting four "see for example" links could be construed as misrepresentation since it could give the impression that there were four reverts. Two of those links are to minor edits on my own remark. Doczilla 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Requesting independent review of an arbcom enforcement request[edit]

This has been on the arbcom enforcement board for two days without a response. I think it's legit and enforceable, but since I've blocked this editor more than once before it may be a better deterrent if a completely different sysop intervenes this time. DurovaCharge! 07:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't look like obvious reverts to me (especially as they are not the same edit, seem correct, and are well explained), but could be seen as such. I will tell him to be careful and remember his restrictions in future. Neil  12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
In general, it would be a good thing if a few more admins watchlisted and responded to reports at WP:AE. We have just a couple of people specializing there (Thatcher131 has been the most active), but it's labor-intensive, burnout-inducing duty if performed in excess and needs to be spread around more. (I try to deal with some of them myself, but since the editors involved are often people I've had to be giving procedural advice to with my clerk hat on, often I'm not the best one for it.) Newyorkbrad 12:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd already placed a block and was trying to state that on the various pages this issue has been raised when Neil reached his differing conclusion above. I do think it was a clear '2RR violation' (as, in fact, the user himself admits). Normally I might have left that for someone else to block if they felt the need as I'm not big on blocks in general and found the 'forum shopping' on this slightly distasteful, but he'd just been warned about the same thing a few days ago so I went ahead. Others can certainly disagree and/or reverse as I internally debated and researched the matter for quite some time myself. By the letter I think a block is warranted, by the spirit it's a marginal case. --CBD 12:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. At the moment it seems to be mostly myself for the Armenia-Azeri stuff and a few other things, ElC (currently taking a break from this AFAIK) for Armenia-Azeri, and Thatcher131 doing damn near everything else. It's a nice place, AE, calm and peaceful. Consider it a relaxing break from ANI, but do think about what you do there and try to be fair. Moreschi Talk 12:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
But the two edits were the same. The second revert just had a few additional edits made to it, which just disguised the revert. This user admitted that he did it, and said "guess I deserve a block" which serves to prove that Chris knows about this restriction, and yet still violated it. He was only warned about it about a couple weeks ago.
The restriction also doesn't make a ruling about whether or not the edits were correct. Unless it's obvious vandalism, the edit needs to be discussed on the talk page and be limited to one revert. Chris began the discussion after he had made two reverts. I wasn't aware that there were exceptions other than vandalism. What other exceptions are there? By Chris' own admission, he violated it and was open about receiving a block.
One more time: the two edits were the same, and they were disputed, so it wasn't just obvious vandalism. Ksy92003(talk) 13:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
He did get blocked - what's your point? Neil  15:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Kys92003, a bit of unsolicited advice... you and Chrisjnelson seem to have a bit of history. It might be a good idea to find some other areas that interest you if you possibly can, and edit there, because it might be best to leave the advocacy of what to do in this case to those that might be viewed as somewhat more dispassionate than you are. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. First of all, I didn't think that Chris was blocked; the comments on his talk page, as well as the lack of a "You've been blocked" template led me to believe that he wasn't blocked. So forget those comments.
  2. Secondly, I didn't have anything to do with this originally. After Chris violated his restriction, Sasha Callahan (talk · contribs) reported this to the ArbCom enforcement page. While looking at her contributions, I saw that she had gone to ArbCom enforcement about Chris. After two days had past, and nobody had left any comments about this, I decided to leave a comment on Sasha's talk page. I suggested to her that, if nobody responded soon, then to ask Durova about it and let Durova decide how to go about the situation (because she has experience with all the Chris conflicts in the past). After some more time had past, and Sasha hadn't made any more edits, I assumed that she wasn't gonna get back on and decided to go ahead and leave a comment for Durova, and that's how we got here.

So, that's how I got involved with this particular situation. I didn't even know that Chris had made two reverts on that article until after I read what Sasha had said. Believe me, if I had known earlier, I would've been the one to report it, rather than Sasha. I didn't even know until about three days after, and I only got involved when I saw from Sasha's edit that he had violated it, and didn't know earlier, and my actions in this situation were only to make certain that it got somebody's attention. As Durova said earlier here, "This has been on the arbcom enforcement board for two days without a response. I think it's legit and enforceable." Ksy92003(talk) 22:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki Raja[edit]

Comment To admin, please take a look at the e-mail or previous e-mail belonging to Netmonger (if he has changed it after the report). If you want, I can forward you the e-mail he sent me for clarification. Thank you. Wiki Raja 16:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
For any admins interested, Netmonger's story is not the first situation of this kind concerning Wiki Raja.Bakaman 23:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Vandal: 172.202.58.167[edit]

Why does 172.202.58.167 keep removing referenced and accurate and informative text from George Michael? How do I block this anonymous vandals? Darkieboy236 14:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected for 72 hours due to edit warring over "English"/"UK". Please talk it out and establish consensus on the talk page. EdokterTalk 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, and thank you. As the UK is the correct name of the country, I believe that having this info is correct, although I accept that England is not incorrect. Darkieboy236 14:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, 172.202.58.167 appears to be going through the list of article that I edit and has changed the nationalities of people from British to English. As English in itself is not a legal nationality this user is causing problems. This user is preventing conversation and discussion about this matter as he/she is anonymous. Please can you block this IP address to avoid further incorrect edit and to prevent the user from edit warring. The user has already changed the George Michael article more than three times and will not engaged in discussion. Thank you for your time. Darkieboy236 14:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I only see one edit from 172.202.58.167. Are there any other IPs involved? BTW, it is not uncommon for Brittish citizens to be called English, Welch or Scottish... it's a matter of pride I guess. For example, Gordon Ramsay is Scottish, but has the Brittish nationality. EdokterTalk 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, user 172.143.79.68 has now removed my edits from a number of the articles I edit. This is getting annoying. You are right, many people in the UK refer to themselves as English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish. Althought I have no particular problem with this, when it comes to an encyclopedia, it is factually incorrect to refer to these as their nationality. Any person born in these four regions is British and from the United Kingdom. We have UK passports and not English passports. It is extremely problematic to refer to a person in the UK as being English, because many people have parentage from more than one of the four regions. For example, Tony Blair, who has Scottish, English and Irish ancestory...what would be listed for him? Well, his Wiki entry states that he is British and then goes on to specify in more detail the breakdown. How would you list someone with an English father and a Scottish mother that who was born in Wales? The Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende states that he is from The Netherlands, not North Holland or South Holland. You state that it is a matter of pride, this might be true, but the accuracy lies with UK and British: this is correct and what should be stated. No one from Germany would list someone as being from Bavaria without stating Germany. Many immigrants see themselves as British and not English, etc.Darkieboy236 22:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The article the ANONYMOUS user refers to is from America. This is from a nation that thinks the United Kingdom (the parent nation of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) is in the Middle East according to a survey. This does not make the article incorrect, but not accurate when stating George Michael's correct nationality. His nationality is always British, and will remain so until the day the UK is disbanded. Therefore, the article should state his nationality as British and not English. There is only one fact. Darkieboy236 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Darkieboy236" regularly goes through articles adding UK and changing English decriptions to British. The George Michael article had GM described as English with a reference with quotes from GM himself for quite some time! After asking this user to stop reverting back to his version as he was altering statements that were backed up with references he then added several useless references from unofficial websites so that he could use the same arguement. This user has repeatedly changed the article back to his version - this user has also been blocked previously for edit warring on a similar subject. I belive there was also a consensus met a year or so ago not to add UK to every geographical description as it is unncessary and looks stupid.