Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive321

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

If anyone has a moment[edit]

Can someone skim a second pair of eyes over this AfD, which (aside from degenerating into a farce of sockpuppetry) is starting to fill up with bizarre BLP violations and vague allegations of interference by the Cabal, all by the (almost)-SPA Farstriker (talk · contribs)? As I've already posted a fair amount to this AfD - and apparently am now part of the Cabal myself - it would probably be less likely to end in a reversion/block cycle if someone who hasn't commented did any necessary snipping.

Also, if I am now a member of the Cabal, I'd like to lodge my extreme displeasure that neither the groupies nor the secret Wikimedia gold bullion have turned up yet.iridescent 01:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored the really egregious part and left a friendly message. Your cabal certificate and pin are in the mail, along with the key card to access the gold bullion stored at your local branch of the Federal Reserve. Unfortunately, the groupies have been diverted for an important strategy session at the Pentagon and will not be available for several days. --Haemo 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... (The annoying thing about that AFD is that all the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments are quite right in his case.)iridescent 01:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that cabal membership entitles you to access to the Bar de l'Admin Rouge on production of a block log containing at least one user whose username indicates a crusader for The Truth™. I see your block log qualifies you here. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting Discussion I do note that a fair portion content was removed prior to the the edit by Farstriker @ 1900 on the 2/11 it was this diff by Farstriker at 0100 on the 2/11.but was restored two minutes later here and his comment was removed in the reversal process in error. Gnangarra 10:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Rkowalke insists on exposing personal details of fellow editor[edit]

User:Rkowalke is a WP:SPA that graduated from Warren National University (WNU) and now edits primarily just that article and the talk page. He has exhibited what I would characterize as an edit pattern of trying to minimize any negative information about WNU. He exhibits severe violations of WP:AGF frequently bordering on violations of WP:NPA against any editor that adds information critical of WNU to the article. He has talked about revealing what he believes is my personal name despite my protest and requests that he discuss the article and not discuss his fellow editors, [1], [2], and [3]. His editing pattern includes blatant plagiarism at which point he showed zero remorse but instead denied that copying information from the WNU website and including it without quotes or reference was plagiarism because this was for the WNU article and he wasn't claiming that he wrote it. Talk:Warren_National_University/Archive_2#Faculty_Section_plus_miscellaneous_.28plagiarism.29 He has been banned for violating WP:3RR [4]. Since his block for 3RR his edit warring has gotten much better but he has probably become even less civil. For example, he recently has insisted on posting the city location for an anon account that added an edit that he didn't like. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. TallMagic 03:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TallMagic that posting the city location is highly improper, as it is clear from other contributions by this IP under what user name this IP used to edit. --Paul Pieniezny 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well I've deleted it five times and Rkowalke has added it in six times. He says that I am badgering him and I must produce Wikipedia policy showing that it is inappropriate or this will go on forever. Is there some explicit guideline wording that I can reference? Thanks, TallMagic 15:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That would be WP:PRIVACY, in particular the last sentence. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much to both SheffieldSteel and Paul, you both help make Wikipedia a friendly and professional place. Regards, TallMagic 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
More importantly, it is considered a violation of WP:NPA policy. The user is singling out an individual(s) and posting personal information which has been proven to be a big no no by the arb committee. --Anon user FNA I already forgot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.0.204.13 (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Rkowalke has responded. While the response was refreshingly delightful because it was civil, I don't consider it positive, otherwise. [10] TallMagic 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I tried to put an end to the problem by deleting the entire 6-kB series of comments (about the IP user's location and whether or not it was OK to post this information) from Talk:Warren National University, on the premise that the comments were not about editing the article. In the edit that TallMagic highlighted in the comment above this one, Rkowalke (this is the same Rkowalke who deletes the welcome messages, warnings, and other comments posted on his User talk page, leaving edit summaries like "Stay off my page Orlady - you're harrassing me and I don't like it") restored the entire block of deleted material with a note saying "Suggest archival - not removal". I find that it is getting increasingly difficult to abide by the admonition WP:NOFEEDING. --Orlady 04:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:AS 001[edit]

I ask that someone look over the contributions for User:AS 001, who does not seem to be here for the purpooses of building the encyclopedia. All of the edits from this account have been either criticizing admins or opposing the nominations for adminbots. Community input requested. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 23:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by this diff, I think Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs) may be the person to ask. ViridaeTalk 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), right? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 23:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Bah, I screwed that up twice. ViridaeTalk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And based on this diff, he would appear to be a sock of banned user Bill Ayer (talk · contribs). He was also created 47 minutes after Bill's indef block. Someguy1221 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol I wondered why there was a banned and sock template. ViridaeTalk 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Bill Ayer claimed to be airline CEO Bill Ayer, and as I recall, was told he could create a new account as a privacy issue. However, he created two accounts AS 001 (talk · contribs) and AS 002 (talk · contribs). The first was to avoid a block the the Bill Ayer account, and the second to avoid a block on the AS 001 account. The contribs do make him look a bit sockish. - auburnpilot talk 14:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've reblocked AS 001 indefinitely as a disruptive single-purpose account. On reviewing Bill Ayer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s contributions, he doesn't seem new, either. I do not see any reason to think this user is making a good-faith encyclopedia-building effort. Comments welcome. Picaroon (t) 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They're socks of banned user Dereks1x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Picaroon (t) 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This is just a bunch of admin who have nothing better to do. Where's the disruption, the reason for blocking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AS 003 (talkcontribs) 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, User:AS 003 has appeared, been blocked and appealed his block. I've reviewed and declined the unblock request. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour[edit]

Resolved: Seems resolved, at least for now; Dir en grey has been semi-protected per this report at AN/3RR --Parsifal Hello 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I am being targeted with uncivil behaviour from Cyrus XIII.

I added templates to the Dir en grey article, as I feel the article needs minor adjustments to meet the Wikipedia guidelines.

Cyrus XIII has continued to vandalise my posts, which were meant to improve the article. The Dir en grey article has original research, misinterpreted citations, and is becoming a news release for the topic. The lead paragraph in-particular has a misinterpreted citation.

I requested the use of the talk page, and had to give a friendly warning to Cyrus XIII on his/her talk page, after they called my contribution "crap" and made ill-considered accusations.

I warned this user again, because they have since repeatedly made ill-considered accusations; by modifying my signature to make it seem like I am a different editor. I have asked Cyrus XIII to stop their uncivil behaviour, and directed them to various Wikipedia policies. This user has since vandalised the same article, and seems to want to cause an edit war.

I request that an admin please intervene, by imposing minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary, and to investigate my claims to improve the Dir en grey article to meet Wikipedia guidelines. Information can be found at [Dir en grey talk page] at the heading Unencyclopedic content. There are also warnings on Cyrus XIII's talk page. Update: This sentence in-particular "and are among the Japanese musicians who have enjoyed notable success in Europe and North America." in the lead paragraph; is unnecessary, and its references say nothing of the sort. 122.49.135.245 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, 122.49.135.245. From the Dir en grey talk page, it seems that Cyrus XIII believes you are a user repeatedly blocked for three-revert rule violations and ban evasion through editing anonymously. What truth is there to that belief? Thanks, William Pietri 04:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A quick review of the article in question and the edit patterns of the involved parties shows that this anonymous editor is most likely an IP sock of Jun kaneko (talk · contribs · logs · block log). --Kralizec! (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

William Pietri, occasionally when I visit the Wikipedia, there will be a new message waiting. Mostly it is about a dispute I have no knowledge about, and in rare cases, I am even blocked from editing. In fact, I remember the first time I went to edit an article, my IP was blocked. That was early last year. Cyrus XIII was politely informed about making ill-considered accusations, as I don't appreciate being called a fraud, nor do I like my contributions being disregarded as "crap"

I also don't appreciate your post Kralizec, as you're making assumptions and assuming bad faith. 122.49.135.245 05:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None of my contributions were disruptive, and I tried to improve the article to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, and for people visiting the article. 122.49.135.245 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So just to be sure, you are not Jun kaneko? If you are not, then you should go create an account, so that you are not mistaken for other people. Once you've done that, go to the talk page of the article in question and start fresh by politely suggesting one modest change. Once your fellow editors have reached consensus, then feel free to make the change. I'm sure it's upsetting to be mistaken for someone else, but Cyrus XIII has clearly had to deal with someone who has been very disruptive, so you should treat his very reasonable misunderstanding with sympathy, not with requests for punishment. Thanks, William Pietri 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually did not request for punishment, I requested that an admin look into my claims about the article, and carry out a "minor disciplinary action on Cyrus XIII if necessary"

The section "2007: The Marrow of a Bone" is becoming like a new release section.

The section "Style and subject matter" contains much original research.

The lead paragraph also contains original research, as well as sentences that are Unencyclopedic, as well as misinterpreted citations.

After recent disruptions, I feel the aid of an admin is the only way to correct the article if needed.

Mostly I only view the Wikipedia, I rarely edit articles. Mostly only to make it more encyclopedic, but I guess creating an account is a solid idea. 122.49.135.245 05:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence strongly suports that this is Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), based on historical editing patterns in the various articles involved, and on the his reactions today to the reverting by two editors of the inappropriate templates he added to two articles. His post here at AN/I shows that he is learning how to WP:GAME the system, however, his multiple reverts on Dir en gray and Visual kei today along with his typical harrassing warnings on my page and Cyrus' page today, show his identity.
In addition to the IP listed above, he edited today using: 122.49.156.30 (talk · contribs). This can be seen in the Visual kei revision history for today, here and here.
He also posted today on my talk page, accusing me of Wikistalking for reverting his changes, and he also placed warnings on Cyrus' talk page. These are actions he has done in the past, such as a month ago when he posted approximately 15 messages on my talk page from two of the IPs listed below, after I requested semi-protection of the page he was IP-vandalizing.
With at least two of the other IP's he's used, he signed his user name Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), in IP edits: here and here.
He has edited using these IPs in addition to the two listed above:
Also please note:
I hope that provides enough information. I understand the need to assume that an IP user from a dynamic IP range may not be the same as another person who has used that IP. But in this case, it would be a huge coincidence and very unlikely, that an unrelated user would immediately take up the same patterns of harassment and edit warring previously shown by another editor known to use the same IP range. This user has caused a lot of hassles for several articles and at least three editors, over a period of months. --Parsifal Hello 05:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain the type of harassment I am committing? My warnings were fare considering your actions, and the refusal to use the talk page.

How trying to improve the article, to be encyclopedic, and remove original research; disruptive?

It seems you have an issue with someone else, and are reverting my posts to be vendictiv, and/or protecting information on the page for personal reasons. 122.49.135.245 06:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To explain, if you have previously been banned from Wikipedia (which is different from blocking), then you can't edit at all, regardless of how good your edits are. JuJube 06:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned, I mostly just view articles. If there is something wrong with it, I try to fix it. (such as removing original research)

I have never even been blocked, and I'm quite disappointed in regards to how this simple matter is being handled. After reading the Dir en grey article, there were problems with it. That article linked me to the Visual Kei. Reading that article I found it became very repetitive, so I placed a template up informing people about that.

Parsifal removed the templates from the Dir en grey article, citing "vandalism" and then removed the templates from Visual Kei article, citing "vandalism"

How is that vandalism? read the Visual Kei article, it repeats itself, and the problems in the Dir en grey are evident. It seems these users have other motives for their edits. 122.49.135.245 06:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to read the Visual Kei article, and notice how repetitive it is. Then check the history log, and notice Cyrus XIII's entry. Update: afterwards, please read the history log for Dir en grey and take note of their entry's. These two users seem to be quite disruptive with their edits, and appear to have other motives for their edits (as the templates are clearly evident to the articles) 122.49.135.245 06:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


Comment. I am not going to argue with this user. He filed his report here about Cyrus, not about me. He didn't even mention my name in his report. After I provided evidence to help administrators here decide how to handle the situation, now he's complaining about me - what a surprise. And for someone who claims not to edit Wikipedia much, he knows a lot of abbreviations and policy terms, and how to find this noticeboard. I didn't even use the word "vandalism" in my edit summaries, I used the abbreviation: "RVV (IP - SPA))", because I recognized his behavior from the prior incidents. As far as I can see in the revision history, Cyrus also didn't use the word "vandalism" either. So, how did this inexperienced IP user know the meaning of RVV?

Suggestion. It seems to me, semi-protection of Dir en gray and Visual kei for a month or so would be helpful. --Parsifal Hello 08:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My comments are directed at the admin's for assistance in cleaning up these articles, because it was obvious that it was the only way to get the situation solved.

I was hardly "complaining" about you, and to be frank, your contributions appear to have a different purpose. A question, how exactly am I inexperienced? Saguy1982 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you were not complaining about me. Now that you have an account, I will view your actions from here on with an open mind. I would be pleased to discover that you are not the same person we've been discussing, who caused so many problems. (Even if you are the same person, if you have now decided to change your ways and start over with an approach respectful of other editors, and without edit warring, that would be OK too, however unlikely that may be.)
Regarding my comment referring to you as an "inexperienced IP user", that was not intended as an insult and was based only on your statement above that you mostly view articles and don't edit them.
I'm willing to start with a clean slate with regard to your new user name and interact with you based on your current actions. Over time, if the old patterns re-emerge, that will be apparent.
Regarding the edits to the articles, I will not be much involved with those. Cyrus is knowledgeable on those topics and has been working on those articles along with a few others. My purpose there has been to help stop edit-warring and to vet references, at the request of some of the article editors who were seeking an uninvolved third party. I will still watch the articles for edit-warring, but I will mostly leave the content discussions to you and the others who are better informed on those topics. --Parsifal Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(PS. When you respond to comments on talk pages, please use colons : to indent your replies, so we can see the threading of the conversation, as I have done with my reply to you above). --Parsifal Hello 21:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up. Ok, so now I've reviewed some of your edits, and while this will progress to a content dispute not specifically related to the AN/I report, I am entering this here "for the record". You need to review the Wikipedia policies WP:Verifiable and WP:Original research. In this diff of your edit to Dir en gray, you used this edit summary:
(Minor article fixes. Original research and nencyclopedic content removed. Two sections still need work. Note on talk page)
However, your edit removed three completely solid reliable sources that support the content of the text you removed. For example you removed this text from the section about their tour success: "'' Again, all shows sold out within days.", and you removed the Wired magazine news article footnote that clearly stated in detail how fast the shows sold out.
You removed this phrase from the intro of the article:
"As of 2007, they have released six full-length records."
Then, on the talk page you described that as "Unencyclopedic. That statement was directly supported by two reliable source references that you also removed, which is inappropriate. And what exactly is unencyclopedic about stating how many albums they've released?
To say the least, this is not a good start for your new account. You've removed reliable references that directly support content of the article text and then changed the text to remove the information supported by the references.
Your various other talk page complaints about the article are too complex for me to go into here. A few of your edits seem like they may be OK. But the removal of valid, reliable source references and the text they support, is a bad start, so please don't continue down that path.
If you think the references do not support what the text shows, then quote the reference on the talk page and show the editors there how you see the reference being misinterpreted. I've read those references myself and they seem correct. There is no reason to remove them. If you want to debate about that, do so on the talk page; but please do not remove sources without discussion.
I suggest you read and follow WP:CONSENSUS and Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss. --Parsifal Hello 22:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe Parsifal has helped improved the article, and that this situation is pretty much resolved. As discussions are taking place on the articles talk page, which were refused before, apart from Cyrus XIII's rather abruptly rude comment. As I don't have much knowledge on the subject, I think its best for those that do, fix the issues remaining, either by reworking or providing references. Saguy1982 23:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

administrator attention needed, please[edit]

[posting this sub-section here, because it follows on to the comments just above - the next subsection below was posted prior to this subsection --Parsifal Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ]

Administrators, I know you are overloaded on this page, and this is a complicated report, but this needs your attention. As of now, I am disengaging, other than adding this sub-section to request that someone please review this situation.

The new account Saguy1982 (talk · contribs), has already shown the same disruptive edit-warring and uncivil user-attacking as Jun kaneko (talk · contribs), per the discussion in this report.

  • The comment from Saguy1982 immediately above is not what he first wrote. He changed that comment after reading my comments on the talk page, and rethinking the fact that he had shown his true identity by impulsive actions I will explain here.
  • His comment above is also simply false. The situation is not resolved. I do not believe he considers that I improved the article. He removed the sources I restored at least twice and has argued about it on the talk page.
  • I went out of my way to show good faith when Saguy1982 created his new account. But his first edits were to remove solid reliable sources, that I had personally vetted by reading them. I reported that here, and then I did NOT revert all his changes, I only restored the references he had removed with related text I had personally confirmed was supported by the references. I added a note on the talk page, explaining my actions.
  • He also replied on this page (above) and called my good-faith edit vandalism. He used an IP to post that note, and to place the vandalism warning on my page while logged out. Then he logged in and added his signature to the vandalism warning. Then after he saw my report here, he changed his mind and erased the vandalism warning from my page.
  • He then continued his edit war and deleted the same reliable reference from the article a third time. How reliable is that reference? It's a report specifically about the topic, from the association that produces the Grammy awards!

Now, this new account has shown his true colors, he has shown that he is the same user that's been edit warring on this article all along. I really tried to accept his new approach with good faith, but we see the result. I don't listen to this band or this kind of music, and generally, I don't edit this kind of music article. I'm there because I was invited months ago, to help stop the edit-warring with consensus from an outside editor.

Saguy1982 has shown himself as a sockpuppet of Jun kaneko, based on showing identical edit-warring and uncivil user-warning, within his first few edits. It's very unlikely that's not the case, because he knew in advance what the problems were with Jun kaneko, from this report that goes into all of it in detail, yet he couldn't stop himself from doing the same behaviors again, multiple times.

What should be done? What's the usual response to this list of offenses: Extended-multiple-instances of IP- and user-account sockpuppetry, edit-warring, harrassment, and vandalism... ?

In addition to any actions on those accounts, Dir en gray and Visual kei should be semi-protected for one month as a cool-down period. Other articles may become targets after that, if they do, the same solution should be applied.

As I said in my initial comment here, he is learning to WP:GAME the system. Cyrus concurred about this in his comment below. While Saguy1982 has replied to my post on the article talk page, pretending politeness (right after posting a vandalism warning on my talk page), he has not addressed the actual concerns and he has specifically avoided my invitations to form consensus or to provide examples of the way in which the sources he removed don't fit. He's dodging the issues and trying to make up for his lapse in posting that vandalism notice and comment.

I can't continue working on this without backup. If there is no admin who is willing to look into this and either take action now, or issue some unambiguous warnings to this user (and follow up later to make sure they are abided), there's nothing more I can do, and I will withdraw from editing the articles or trying to save them from damage.

I should withdraw anyway, because he's harrassed me in the past and I don't want anything further to do with him.

So I guess at this point what I'm saying is - either someone monitoring this board will take this up as a project, or, this disruptive user will continue to disrupt. If an admin here does take up this project and has any questions, I'm happy to help if I can.

Thank you. --Parsifal Hello 00:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

repeated request for a reply from an administator[edit]

Hello - would someone please reply?

If this report is too complicated, or if it's in the wrong place, please at least offer me the simple courtesy of an explanation.

I'm a long-time productive good-faith editor, and so is Cyrus, who also provided information in this report. I don't go to the trouble of providing detailed evidence without good reason.

Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I formatted my request in a way that is not helpful for you. Ok, fine, so tell me what the problem is.

But complete silence, on a report where two established editors have alerted you to disruption by a known mutliple-blocked edit-warring vandal, and a likely IP sockpuppet...

what's up with that?

Would you rather that we simply ignore the disruption and move on to other articles?

I did not do this work to benefit myself, I'm trying to help Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia not want my help? Or is this noticeboard too overloaded and the system in need of some new procedures?

At this point, all I'm asking for is for someone to acknowledge this report, please.

--Parsifal Hello 08:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

continued... comment/evidence added prior to above thread[edit]

I should probably comment here as well: First of all, I have to agree with Kralizec! and Parsifal, that the editing patterns and IP ranges (122.49.*.*/219.90.*.*) match way too closely, to leave any genuine scope for a "wrong guy" scenario. That being said, it is true that I have dismissed the latest edits by Jun kaneko (talk · contribs) to the Dir en grey article and talk page as "crap", owing to the fact, that when it comes to this character, my ability to assume good faith has long since fallen through.

It has been about three months now, since this alleged 40-year-old with "almost 20 years experience within the Japanese music scene" started to edit war his way through several articles (the ones I am aware of being Skin (Japanese band), Visual kei and more recently Free-Will and Dir en grey). His conduct is characterized by a general disregard of consensus, a highly rude and dismissive attitude of anyone who disagrees with his opinions and a penchant for making threats of "reporting" someone or wrongfully claiming to have done so (and by now, as we can all see here, actually doing it). He has violated the 3RR at least six times and was subsequently blocked on several occasions, included aforementioned case of block evasion, were he acknowledged his identity while operating under an IP.

Below, you will find a more extensive IP list, that was compiled by browsing through the histories of several of the aforementioned articles and some related talk pages. It is divided into IPs used before the Jun kaneko account was registered, as well as those used after it was abandoned and contains additional links to illustrate the events I have outlined in the previous paragraph.

It might not be elegant to state the following in a venue where my own conduct was called into question in the first place, but as Parsifal pointed out, Jun kaneko already knows a great deal about our ways, policies and procedures and still shows virtually no inclination to contribute to this project in a respectful and collaborative fashion. Hence I'm going to be as straightforward here as I can and suggest to block the guy for good, before he gets too proficient at gaming the system and evolves from a blunt, edit warring nuisance into a seasoned, opinion-pushing WikiLawyer.

Before
Registered
After

- Cyrus XIII 15:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure one of the most used internet providers in South Australia has only a few users! Excuse my sarcasm.

You are ignoring the issue, this report was about cleaning up the articles. None of my contributions were disruptive, and unlike yourself, I have been civil in my discussions.

Your accusations are mind blowing, ignoring the fact that you persist that I am someone else (who appears to still have the right to edit) You seem to be excluding other people from editing, by mentioning the Wikipedia policies as "our ways". The Wikipedia is an open community for everyone. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix the article myself, placing reasons in the talk page for each edit. I request an admin have a look, and comment on the changes. Saguy1982 20:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without prejudice to User:Jun kaneko and User:Saguy1982, there may be a simple solution to this - request checkuser. Having dealt with a similar case myself I understand that some editors reading this will be baffled by the sheer volume of work that has to be done to show edit patterns across multiple IPs and registered accounts that may belong to one user. In this case go to checkuser and look for a code B or code F - ban/block evasion. And use diffs to illustrate any edit pattern that is found--Cailil talk 00:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

new WP:AN report filed by the same disruptive user[edit]

The highly disruptive user who started this report has been continuing to cause trouble, edit-war repeatedly, and post personal attacks. Now, he has filed a new report:

on WP:AN here.

I'm linking that here for reference. --Parsifal Hello 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

PS... the report from WP:AN has now been moved to this WP:AN/I page, here. --Parsifal Hello 01:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Stalking[edit]

After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me. She reverted my first edit to the page on Oct. 29[37]. She then followed me onto the Frank Gaffney article where she attempted to start a fight with me[38] and again here.[39] She left this highly uncivil comment on my talkpage.[40] She appears to have violated WP:OWN, WP:STALK, and WP:CIVIL. I'm not looking for a block. I'm looking for someone to notify her she's in the wrong. Perspicacite 05:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't see that as uncivil at all, let alone "highly uncivil". At first glance, she's correct about the MOS issues; if you disagree you should discuss it with her either on the article talk page (which you haven't touched yet) or on your talk page (where she came to sort things out). As to the rest, turning up on one page does not a stalking make, and IMHO, it's a weak start to a claim of sockpuppeting. Note also that right at the top of the page it says that "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department". As it says in bold, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." You should try that first, and then proceed to dispute resolution if that doesn't work. Thanks, William Pietri 06:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Virtually none of what you just said is correct. I did post on the talkpage. I already dealt with the MoS issue. She did not come to my talkpage to "sort things out." Nowhere in the above post do I accuse her of sockpuppeting. Did you not read what I posted? I also already posted on her talkpage, contrary to your statement. Thanks for your... input but I'd like another opinion. Perspicacite 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll take those in order. You posted on the talk page of Tokelau only after making this complaint, and after my comment above. I'm glad you've dealt with the MoS issue; that suggests we are in agreement: the main thrust of her comment on your talk page was correct. From her behavior, I believe she did contact you on your talk page with the intention of resolving the dispute, but only she can really know that. Earlier on this page, you suggest an RFCU may be in order, which seemed to imply a sock-puppet allegation. Your comment on her talk page was only ten minutes before posting this; I still had your contribution history open from the discussion earlier on this page. Sorry for the error. However, that comment was only to menace her with coming here, so it's hardly the discussion of the disputed edits I was suggesting. As to the other opinion, I'm sure you'll get it, as I'm off to bed. And you're welcome for my... input. Any time. William Pietri 06:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well done except that once again, you're wrong. The MoS issue was taken care of before any of your posts on this issue. The RFCU was clearly directed at the other user, not her, and nowhere is an RFCU mentioned in this post. Again, thanks for the 'input'. Perspicacite 07:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Relax, Perspicacite. I never suggested that the MOS issue wasn't taken care of, and I'm glad you did the right thing. Next time, feel free to mention that right out rather than hoping people find it in your edits. I brought it up because you were asking for her to be told that she was wrong, when it seemed like the main thrust of her concern was in fact right. That would also make it a concern worth answering politely, and not deleting. To my eyes, the RFCU comment was directed at both of them, coming, as it did, directly after a threat to get the two of them blocked. Sorry if I got that wrong. That it was not in this post is immaterial; admins are supposed to look at the whole issue when getting involved in something.
That out of the way, I'll remind you again that the way to get editorial disputes resolved is through dispute resolution. This is mainly a place to handle urgent issues requiring admin powers, not small issues of content and behavior. That road begins with civil discussion, something I'd encourage you to try more of. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then feel free to open an [[WP:RFC|RfC]. Hoping that helps, William Pietri 16:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a point of information: (I am very new to WP so please chastise me if this is out of order). Is it permissible for Perspicacite to type uncorrected untruths?

He typed: "After a dispute regarding Tokelau Alice.S has followed me onto several other pages, attempting to start edit wars with me."

As far as I know I have not edited any other article page whatever that Perspicacite has also edited! (I did raise a question as to correct categorisation at the Discussion page of our article on Frank Gaffney but this was not particularly directed at Perspicacite until he chose to draw attention to himself there by personalising things again).

Am I entitled to insist that these untruths are withdrawn?

I have no wish to start any war with anyone and my peace offer has already been rejected out of hand: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlice.S&diff=169113629&oldid=169105522

What exactly is a "RFCU"? Alice.S 10:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. RFCU is a Request for Check User to see if one user might be a sockpuppet of another. --Kateshortforbob 10:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Alice.S's last statement is pretty much a blatant lie. She followed me to Frank Gaffney, here, and Economy of Australia. Since she continued to stalk after being warned she is up for a block. Perspicacite 11:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?!

1) I have never edited Frank Gaffney. If you wish to maintain otherwise, please provide the diff.

2) Are you really saying that I am unable to defend myself here? - it was you that rejected my peace offer. If I get e-mails from several users that you have also rubbed up the wrong way (by your uncollegiate and ignorant reverts) alerting me to this page, are you really saying that I should not draw editors' and administrators' attention to your habit of blanking questions/ comments/ your page rather than entering into constructive dialogue?

3) My contributions to Economy of Australia were after your untrue statements - not before - just check the timestamps.

4) Unless someone points me to some policy I am aware of, how does it constitute harassment of you to make the corrections I did at Economy of Australia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Australia&diff=169128603&oldid=169092129 ? (If it was indeed yourself that perpetrated these howlers then I see no need to apologise for correcting them. This is an encyclopedia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alice.S (talkcontribs) 11:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and helpful explanation, forbob. I presume that he must really mean WP:RFC/U since not even he can be peddling that hoary old stereotype about all Asian women being dolls or puppets! Alice.S 11:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This above post clearly merits a 24 hour block for incivility. A longer block for stalking is also merited based on her stalking me onto the Frank Gaffney page[41][42][43], WP:AN/I,[44][45]. Perspicacite 12:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You should probably be careful here, Perspicacite. It is YOU that is in the wrong here, not Alice. I would encourage you to file an RfC on this, and see how it goes. You'll see very quickly where you have gone wrong, and that Alice has violated no policies in her actions regarding you. K. Scott Bailey 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The worst thing I can see in Alice's contributions is performing a revert that changed some Commonwealth English spellings to American English on Tokelau. Hardly block-worthy stuff. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 14:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I did do that I am very sorry for my sloppiness. (I thought I had actually changed US spellings to Commonwealth spellings to keep the article spelling consistent and because the article topic had a strong national link (per WP:ENGVAR).

I think the basic point I would stress here is one made by User:Jimbo Wales recently: "I am running out of patience for incivility at Wikipedia,... Some people simply should not be contributing to an encyclopedia.... and note that all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." --Jimbo Wales 21:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC) [46]

If I have indeed been guilty of incivility towards User:Perspicacite (or anyone else) I most contritely apologise and genuinely promise to strive for higher standards in future.

Thank you everyone for your input.

PS: Will I be alerted automatically to where I can read my "RfC" ? Alice.S 20:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate unreversible move with creating artificial history by user:Martintg[edit]

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

Martintg (talk · contribs) has moved the Estonian pirates into Estonian viking expeditions amidst the WP:RM discussion that did not seem to go his way.

To make a move irreversible, he made a three-step move:

  1. he moves the page first
  2. then blanks the page
  3. and then restored the redirect, thus creating a redirect with an artificial history, a dirty trick known as AndriyK's trick by a user who invented it.

I hereby request the deletion of the redirect with the artificial history so that the article could be moved back and the proper discussion is allowed to ensue. Such action is specifically prescribed by ArbCom in cases like this.

In addition, please warn Martintg (talk · contribs) in no unclear terms to stop such repeated disruption. --Irpen 19:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I see a pretty strong consensus for the move. A bit sloppy, true (fixing that now), but consensus non the less. EdokterTalk 20:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
For future reference, if you see a page move issue, you can simply post it at the Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, where an admin will fix the issues. With content disputes, or page move disputes, those should be worked out on the article talk page, of course, but for the move history issues, the WP:SPLICE page is a good place to start. Cheers! ArielGold 20:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPLICE is for cut and paste move fixing and history merges, to request a page be moved over a page with a history, WP:RM is the place to ask. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The WP:RM is ongoing! Don't you see? And in the middle of WP:RM the user moves the article and salts the earth. --Irpen 20:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Calm down, I'm just pointing out that WP:RM is the place to request repair of things like this, not WP:SPLICE. Mr.Z-man 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
To second what Irpen was saying, the WP:RM just got going, no consensus is being formed, the result of no-consensus is the status quo, not the change. Additionally, along with interrupting the opinion forming, Martinq was performing the move by several steps, all designed not to be a cut-n-paste, but rather commensurate with techniques previously ruled against by ArbCom. Further, the RM itself is being conducted without a great deal of insight -- but that part, at least, is a content issue. Geogre 20:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I've un-scorched it by deleting all but the last revision. Redirect scorching is a dirty trick and inherently disruptive. I've repeatedly gone on record threatening blocks for people who use it intentionally in move wars. Fut.Perf. 20:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, this was obviously an intentional trick to freeze the move. Oh, and could you also un-scorch this too? --Irpen 20:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Intentional or not, the talk page showed pretty much consensus over the new title, even more so because they couldn't agree between Estonian pirates and Estonian vikings. Should I move it back? EdokterTalk 22:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had the courtesy of informing me of this incident report so I can atleast have my say. Sorry I made a bit of a hash of the move, I couldn't decide between the different capitalisations of the title and messed things up a bit. The move itself was most certainly done in good faith, I was the one who followed process and initiated the move debate to begin with, there was very extensive discussions, many alternative names were discussed and a compromise title "Estonian Viking expeditions" was found that was acceptable to all involved in the discussion here Talk:Estonian_pirates#Estonian_Viking_Expeditions. Thus having found a compromise, I believed I did the correct thing to close the debate and move the article. Irpen was never a party to the debate, so I am somewhat puzzled at his late involvement after the apparent resolution of the debate, as well as post-debate inputs from Irpen's collegues Alex Bakharev and Paul Pieniezny after notification via this incident report here on WP:ANI, but who were never a part of the debate despite the fact that it was posted on WP:RM to canvass wider views. The whole thing is all rather odd. Looking at the time line:

  • 18:54, 4 November 2007 - Apparent concensus achieved. [47]
  • 19:05, 4 November 2007 - page moved according to concensus [48]
  • 19:18, 4 November 2007 - Irpen posts incident on WP:ANI, claiming WP:RM is still ongoing
  • 19:21, 4 November 2007 - Berig confirms agreement with new title [49]
  • 00:08, 5 November 2007 - Alex Bakharev moves the page back, claiming WP:RM is ongoing [50]
  • 00:12, 5 November 2007 - Alex Bakharev casts his vote [51], agreeing to move.
  • 01:30, 5 November 2007 - Paul Pieniezny casts his vote after admitting he only became aware of the RM debate after reading this ANI and attempts to restart the debate [52], with apparent ignorance of the previous debate having moved beyond the initial title proposal.

--Martintg 11:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh great... another truckload of double redirects to clean up. I'm going to delete them all now to make way for a future move. If it's one thing I hate, it is the mess being left behind in move wars. EdokterTalk 11:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up the mess. I guess that is why the bucket and mop is the admin's icon :o). Martintg 11:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
As everybody can clearly see, I voted against (so where is the consensus?) before this thing was closed at WP:RM. That one faction has worn Berig out, does not a consensus make: the argument also ran here. Note that my argument (the most recent book called "Estonian Vikings" talks about something completely different, so this title is ambiguous) is not taken into account. Martintg must have noticed this book, as he had obviously checked Google Books. As for the mess left behind in move wars, that was Martintg's doing: he is now being rewarded for it. --Paul Pieniezny 12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest, instead of buying what Martin is saying about just "messing up the capitalization, but acting in good faith, to please take a look at the thread's start. Martin's post conveniently omits that he not just moved the page claiming the consensus but deliberately scorched the old redirect by blanking and restoring it after the move creating an artificial history. I repeat, he did not "correct" the original redirect to reflect the upper case second move, but blanked and restored it. Period. The mess with cAsEs followed later. Please red the thread at top. You would need to be an admin to see the deleted parts of the redirects history though. If he felt there was a consensus, he won't need to employ move tricks. Besides, there was nothing like a consensus in the first place and, most importantly, the devil is in details: the trick employed in the move, not even the move itself. --Irpen 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please stop this. It is plainly obvious that Martintg acted in good faith. I am totally uninvolved in the discussion - because, quite frankly, I don't care what the article is called - but reading through the move thread at least I had an impression that consensus to rename the article was reached. Oh, and can I remind you of another user doing exactly same as Martintg recently - moving a page and salting the original article - all that knowingly and without any consensus whatsoever. And he got justly blocked. Strangely you fled instantly to his help, leaving no stone unturned until he was unblocked. Double standards? -- Sander Säde 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting reply. You cannot see what Martintg has done wrong, but he did something that someone else got rightly blocked for. And no, consensus has not been reached: one of the people who voted for the new name is now backing my opinion that the name is ambiguous:[53]. --Paul Pieniezny 17:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that Martintg thought that the consensus was reached, acted in good faith and "salted" unknowingly. The other user - much, much more experienced - did not participate in discussion, just moved a highly controversial page and deliberately salted the redirect. See the difference in their actions? -- Sander Säde 17:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Salting "unknowingly" and "in good faith"? Well, help me understand how and why he blanked and restored the redirect "unknowingly". I can see the cAse correction as a possibility of the good-faithed salting but not blanking and restoring the original redirect. Look at the top post of this thread again! You cannot see diffs if you are not an admin but Martin knows that these diffs are exactly right. Martin certianly deliberately salted the redirect. If you claim otherwise, ask him first. --Irpen 18:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Martintg moved, blanked the redirect, and recreated precisely the same, all within one minute after moving, and he did the same thing, systematically, on two separate moved pages. That does look like he knew very well what he was doing, and it certainly had nothing to do with the confusion about capitalisation. Fut.Perf. 18:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I meant to say exactly that. --Irpen 19:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Apart from assuming bad faith, what is your point? Dojarca did what you describe [54] when he moved Template_talk:Soviet_occupation to Template_talk:Soviet_occupation_zones, there was not even a peep out of you, Irpen or anyone else. Martintg 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
And Dojarca got what he wanted, despite protests his one-sided move was not undone and still isn't. Considering the question here, I do think Martintg's move was according to consensus when he did it. Oth 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, are you sore at me for nominating Anti-Russian sentiment for deletion, is this what this is all about? User:Mikkalai agreed that the critisms of that article had merit. Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, you know. Looking at the timeline above, you posted a compliant to ANI 13 minutes after I made the move, are you stalking me? Martintg 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sore? No. I did not even remember who nominated the article for deletion and was not thinking about it at all. And I am not stalking you. I do not click on your contributions. I suddenly saw an article on whose move proposal I voted under a strange name in my watch list and clicked to investigate how come. What I saw at the place of the original article's location was not a redirect but a redirect, followed in history by the blanked page and immediately followed by a revert, that is a redirect with a deliberately created history, a scorched page. See above what Fut.Perf. says as well.
Now, could you please answer in a clear way, why you did that? Why did you blank and restored the redirect immediately after your move? I do not mean the cAse confusion. I mean blanking and restoring, you know exactly what I am talking about. Are you saying that you did not deliberately scorch the earth? A straight yes or no would be appreciated. --Irpen 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Redux[edit]

  • Now Irpen is reverting within 5 minutes after my attempt to close the debate [55], even though there is no reason in continuing with the original rename proposal. I did this also in good faith after a request from User:Termer [56]. So I don't understand what Irpen is trying to achieve by keeping a move proposal open after it is clearly dead. Can somebody please remind Irpen that Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It seems all rather pointlessly antagonistic and disruptive to me. Martintg 23:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
    • All I am requesting is that you, a highly involved in the debate, leave it to others to close it this or that way. Move debates are concluded and closed by uninvolved admins, not by users who initiated the move. --Irpen 00:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Can you provide a link to a policy or guideline that states admins are required to close a move debate, particularly when the proposal has clearly failed and the initiator wishes to withdraw it? There is no formal page like in XfD debates, it is all confined to the article talk page, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make here. Martintg 00:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Irpen why exactly would you like to request that the article should be renamed Estonian Vikings? I mean, feel free to request it but why do you insist that it should be done under Martintg name as he has clearly withdrawn his request?--Termer 00:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I must say the whole thing what exactly is going on in here is very confusing for me. We worked hard to find a consensus on the talk page, it didn't come easy. Once we found the middle ground as far as I got it Martintg just went ahead and renamed the article. It seems he made a mess with the redirects? Is that the problem? So what's the big deal? The first time I moved an article on WP, I used the copy/paste method. So after that I knew how should it be done. Hope that Martintg learned something also with this.
One thing that might have confused the situation, it seems that Martintg forgot to close his requested move. After the consensus was met, it was no longer relevant and should have been closed by Martintg immediately. Now, am I getting this right, has Irpen reopened the requested move that was opened and closed by Martintg? If thats the case, it wouldn't make any sense to me. Why would anybody want to reopen a requested move that is no longer relevant and has been closed by the user who had opened it? --Termer 00:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Termer, Marting did not "unintentionally made a mess with the redirects". As explained ad naseum he made an intentional mess through scorching the original page to prevent his move from being reverted. This is a classical trick that even has a name given to it by its inventor. Martin knows that he did that and why. Before ever saying again about a "good faithed move" straighten it out with Martin and let him explain it to you why and how he made a page move. --Irpen 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you seemingly obsessed with my alledged wrong-doings? Do you have a personal issue with me? As I said, and others agree, I am telling you again, I moved the article in good faith believing there was a consensus at that time. Read the talk page. If you have an issue with "scotched earth" or "salt and peppering" or what ever it is called, why is it that we didn't hear a peep out of you when Dojarca did what you alledge I did [57] when he unilaterally moved Template_talk:Soviet_occupation to Template_talk:Soviet_occupation_zones, without any discussion, debate or even warning. Martintg 01:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Irpen I accept this as your opinion. Until it's not explained, why would anybody in their right mind use any tricks for moving a page according to the reached consensus, your opinion is not going to make any sense to me.--Termer 01:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this still an issue? All the old redirects are deleted. This is now a plain content dispute with dead horses being thrown around. I'm closing this discussion. EdokterTalk 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


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

WP:POINT campaign by anonymous IP editor/sockpuppet[edit]

Following an extremely hostile and bitter AfD debate, an Earthlink user with one sockpuppet account has been engaging in a WP:POINT edit/revert war over articles I edit or create. I'm getting tired of having everything I work on being immediately attacked to "remove flowery language" or "cut unnecessary section", having <<citation needed>> stuck into the middle of perfectly well sourced paragraphs, and templates about fiction, original research, and NPOV stuck into every section. User will not negotiate with me, claims that vandalism from his addresses(es) are just "another user" on the same Earthlink IP every time, uses said addresses to avoid 3RR violations, and has shown zero good faith in his editing habits (so far I've been accused of being a "fanboy", illiterate, deliberately using "peacock" terms to upset the NPOV of an article I've created, and intentionally uploading copyvio content. These accusations are plainly garbage.

User edits primarily on the following IP addresses, and also has one registered sockpuppet account: GundamsRus (talk · contribs), which he claims is not actually his (and often attempts to defend his right to edit anonymously from it, ho ho).

Current edit war is ongoing on the article here. Since creating and publishing this page at 13:59 today, the user has made 10 unconstructive and questionable edits without any sort of prior discourse or discussion, then used one of his anonymous addresses to defend them and avoid 3RR violation from his sockpuppet account. This is more or less the gold standard this user participates in (he must be watching my contributions page like a hawk). The article was up for less than an hour before he got to work.

Frankly, I'm getting sick of having to babysit every article I create or work on. This user believes his edits are wholly correct, not open for negotiation, and that I am being disruptive by reverting him. As of now, this user has yet to actually contribute any content or material to any of the articles in question, and that's really starting to get to me. He won't discuss his edits, he fills my talk page with rubbish and accusations of every policy violation under the sun (including vandalism), and at the current rate of things, my edits reverting him are going to eclipse the constructive ones I've made (like actually editing or creating articles, for one...). Is there anything that can be done about this? MalikCarr 23:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a clash over content style that is threatening to go nuclear. I protected it for 24 hours in the hope that both parties will try to talk reasonably to each other. Review of my act welcomed, & if it appears both parties are beginning to play nice the protection can be shortened. -- llywrch 18:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I had to protect a bunch of related articles the other day; frankly I wish I could cash in my rouge points and protect the lot of them indefinitely until the parties figure something out. east.718 at 22:38, 11/5/2007
There is an ongoing RFM here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gundam but it started before this explosion of a "fourth/fifth" (I'm officially listed as a party, though I have not edited the articles that the RFM lists) party. hbdragon88 01:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

User:beh-nam[edit]

Moved from WP:AIV

beh-nam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Please be advised that I've been monitoring Beh-nam and he is still harrasing other users [58] [59] after he was warned by several admins and was blocked very recently for the same behaviour.[60] He should not have been unblocked from indef to one week because he continues to vandalise pages and curse other users with no regrets. He is using IPs to spread ethnic hate, hate speaches, racial discrimination, ethnic wars, [61] accusing others for vandalising pages but in reality he is the one vandalising and leaving very offensive remarks on other people's talk pages. [62], [63],[64] I don't understand why is this person allowed to continue with such bad behaviour? Please ban this vandal, seems like he comes online just for edit-war because that's all he does everyday, he will not learn. I believe he is a meatpuppet of Anoshirawan, they both changing the correct word "Afghan" to a false "Afghanistani" name everyday, everywhere they come across it.[65], [66] NOTE: I just provided several of his hate posts, there are many more if you slowly go through his history. His history does not show any such good contribution, they are all related to race and ethnic wars.Khan1982 01:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reset to indef block, obviously not learned his lesson.RlevseTalk 02:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, did you even check the contributions? All but one of the offending links given above are from before the previous block. The only marginally problematic new edit is the one about User:Maria Tahoo ([67]). Is that enough for an indef? (Incidentally, he may actually be right about that accusation). Where he's certainly also right is in saying that this Khan1982 is a banned sock, edits like [68] are his signature. Fut.Perf. 06:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Update: Fut. Perf. blocked Khan1982 for being a sockpuppet shortly after posting the above. -- llywrch 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I looked at the contribs, but based on the Khan1982 info immediately above, I'm unblocking beh-nam.RlevseTalk 20:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Advertisements pretending to encyclopedia articles[edit]

Please check SqlSpec. I have noticed that advertisement for company, product etc is written in such a professional way that it looks like encyclopedia article. If this continue companies will hire wikipedians who has in depth experience of writing wikipedia article and advertise their products. As the article looks encyclopedia article and new page patroller, administrators has constant pressure due to volume of new articles created, such advertisements may go unnoticed. I request all admins to remain alert and not get fooled by professional wikipedians. Thanks. abhih 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will? It's already http://www.mywikibiz.com happened. If you happen to see another professional advert-like article in the future, please do as you've done and either open a case on WP:COIN or alert an admin. Thanks! east.718 at 07:25, 11/5/2007

Another one Total Recorder. I just wonder how can new user write article in perfectly professional way in his first edit on wikipedia. I am really concerned about this. abhih 08:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleting encyclopedic content on a competitor is also a common commercial tactic. Why this deletion but leaving 16 others that have articles, and several more that don't? I suggest that Total Recorder be restored if your only complaint is that it is written too well. Add a sourced encyclopedic problem with the product if NPOV is the issue. We don't delete because articles are not yet perfect. All of wikipedia is unfinished. WAS 4.250 17:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Now I got the meaning of your message on my talk page. We need to aply logic to understand what is advertisement. There are companies which are far far bigger than wikipedia. These companies, like my company, do not need wikipedia for publicity. My company will not even care about what is being written on wikipedia about my company. There are millions on internet to write about my comany and revert vandalism. Even small employee of my company will not interfare. But there are some small companies who want to be on first page of google results for publicity of their product. I am talking about such companies who want to use wikipedia for publicity. Same things apply to bio. Stephen Hawking will not attempt to write his own bio on wikipedia. But there are others who want to use wikipedia and google to be famous. I hope you got the meaning. abhih 18:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I thought Wikipedia used tags that kept articles from hitting the top on search results under certain circumstances. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Microsoft paid a person to edit wikipedia articles on its products. Deleting the competition to large companies' products is an unacceptable POV bias in wikipedia coverage. So long as there exists reliable published unbiased data on a product, we should have an article on it. There exists reliable published unbiased data on Total Recorder. WAS 4.250 19:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I've restored the article. There's nothing in the article which seems to be blatant puffery - in fact it's written in remarkably neutral terms. It does explain clearly what the product does, its shareware limitations and avoids marketingspeak. Improve it, don't delete it. FCYTravis 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

this would be a case for WP:COIN rather than this noticeboard. There is no problem with companies paying people to write Wikipedia articles. The same guidelines apply for paid and unpaid editors, and I think we all know that just because somebody is unpaid doesn't mean they are automatically unbiased... dab (𒁳) 21:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User Dbromage, suspected sockpuppetry, voting fraud, COI and self awarding of Barnstar[edit]

Resolved: Discussion is at WP:SSP. GRBerry 23:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I have listed my concerns in both the Administrators and COI notice board as I believe there has been abuse and COI. User:Dbromage behavior warrants an investigation. If my allegations are judged to have basis, it goes a long way in explaining the editing warring, sock/meat puppetry, and general un-civility, which has occurred in Railpage article over the past year.

Having entered into a good faith discussion with a editor who admits a COI with the Railpage article (see 3-4th November 2007) [69], I've finally become sick and tired of this user Dbromage and his sock and meat puppets.

User:Dbromage I suspect is using multiple sock puppets Thin Arthur, The Null Device and possibly two other IP addresses (see end) to edit, vote and discuss changes to the Railpage article and many other articles (refer evidence) here at Wikipedia.

Reading the Railpage article the name Dbromage seems to match as the subjects founder - David Bromage .

I’m particularly disturbed that the user has awarded himself and an Administrator [70] a Barnstar using his Thin Arthur sockpuppet (a first on Wikipedia?). [71]

The user has also given false and misleading information to an Administrator User:Durova in order to conceal his identity. [72] [73]

This user has used the Thin Arthur and Null Device sock puppets and has not disclosed his conflict of interest when discussing Railpage article content. [74] [75] [76]

User:Dbromage would have a difficult case against ignorance of COI guidelines as he has advised others on the issue using the Thin Arthur sock puppet. [77]

And I consider the be the more serious, voting against its deletion and making comments against the articles deletion. Afd #2, Afd #3, #4.

The user has also attempted to take action against myself when there is disputed content on numerous occasions without disclosing his/her conflict of interest in the Railpage article. [78][79] [80]

I also suspect that the user is also responsible for meat puppetry using names such as FailpageMustGo, “DFC free Oz” and “Fundie Busters” using throw away IP addresses in a deliberate attempt to stymie debate and discredit any further nominations for the article’s deletion. Look at the timing of the nomination of Afd #4, user:The Null Device and 59.167.77.190.

If these allegations are proven, how will it affect the status of the Railpage Article? as Dbromage through his sock puppets have heavily edited the article. See 23rd July 2007 [81]

Evidence to support my allegations

Please look at this; [82] I consider Thin Arthur and 150.203.56.19 to be the same. IP 150.203.56.19 seems to be an in adverted error of not logging into Wikipedia by user:Dbromage.

If you agree then, please consider this Revision history of Deborah Lawrie

The article was created by Dbromage and then was amazingly edited on the same day by 150.203.56.19. It would be shear stroke of luck that another user with as much knowledge on a remote subject would stumble over it within a matter of hours, and providing finishing references to Dbromage edits. True, there is a two-hour break between edits. It looks as though the same editor is at work.

Please refer to the following link where one user corrects the other. Again, it looks as though the same editor is at work [83]

If your are still unsure, there is more evidence linking 150.203.56.19 to User:Thin Arthur. These are just a few, there are some more in no particular order which I’ve put on my talk page. If you fancy yourself as a Wikisleuth, you can start here [84]

Edits made within minutes

Evidence linking Thin Arthur, 150.203.56.19 to Dbromage

Some other examples

Thin Arthur supporting Dbromage’s vote in an Afd - there are more on my talk page

Thin Arthur, edits Dbromage's contribution.

Now look at user Thin Arthur’s edits with The Null device

Null Device and Dbromage

It seems to me the same user editing in the same manner, circumstantial evidence, maybe, but based on the link between Dbromage and Thin Arthur it is surely enough to warrant a check user request against The Null Device.

Based on the above evidence I believe it would be worthwhile the following user names for check user.

And based upon the edit made here [85] & [86], and user who admitted to having these IP addresses, but was reluctant to disclose his user name to Administrator [87]

Thank you.Tezza1 14:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard does not function very well with long involved investigations, in part because inactive topics are archived in about 24 hours, and also because it is so high-traffick. If you are convinced that there are sockpuppets, I would suggest posting at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets; if you think there are outstanding COI issues, try Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. --Iamunknown 16:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done Tezza1 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unclaimed socks[edit]

I've blocked CBOrgatrope (talk · contribs) and Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) as suspected sockpuppets, but I'm not really sure whose socks they are. Before I blanked CBOrgatrope's talk page, it was an exact copy of my talk page from early October, except he changed all of my signatures to his. Also before blanking, his user page had pieces of multiple pages, including Moe Epsilon's user page and HiDrNick's talk page. CBOrgatrope's talk page archives all belonged to Kurykh (talk · contribs) and were set up by Shrinklefarm (talk · contribs) (all now deleted). The weird thing is that CBOrgatrope appeared to be editing constructively before the block, so I'm bringing this here for input. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


From your description only and not doing any further research, you should immediately unblock CBOrangetrope. That user (according to your description) is editing constructively but is mischevous with his/her own talk page. By blocking, you are damaging the encyclopedia Wikipedia. The talk pages are just support of the encyclopedia, not the reference materials themselves. If you are bothered by the weird behavior, discuss it. As far as Shrinklefarm, you didn't say what is going on. I suggest immediate unblocking of the CBOrgange and discussion.

If CBOranges mainspace edits are good (that's a big IF), I suggest blocking of administrator auburnpilot for a short period because he/she is damaging WP unnecessarily as well as giving CBOrange a talk. Blocking is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not because you think someone's talk page is "weird" (auburnpilot's complaint) Miesbu 16:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no foundation for your suggestion that we should block an administrator because of disagreement with a block he imposed on somebody else. This would serve no useful purpose and we do not engage in such practice, particular when the administrator has voluntarily brought the matter here for review and comments. Newyorkbrad 16:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Miesbu (talk · contribs) is a self declared sock and his/her comments thus far are a bit absurd. As stated above, I welcome input on these blocks. - auburnpilot talk 16:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a wiki-lynching term to call someone "nigger". Yes, they may be black but you are not AGF and launching personal attacks on me. All my comments make sense. In the US South, a nigger is an excuse to lynch them and hang them. You seem very aggressive calling CBOrange names and calling me names. Stop this!Miesbu 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
My favorite is his snarky comment complaining about John Reaves unblocking himself when he blocked himself accidentally. That's the sign of a good-faith contributor to the encyclopedia. ;) (Oh, and I've reverted the trolling section title back to the original.) —bbatsell ¿? 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just a bystander who happened to read this, but it seems to me rather disruptive for a non-admin's user page to state that s/he's an admin and be included in the "Wikipedia administrators" cat (as CBOrangetrope's copypasted page did before it was blanked). Whether that deserves a block, I don't know, but it appears to be more than being "mischevous with his/her own talk page." Deor 16:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I was a little thrown off by the trolled title - "Why in the world does AuburnPilot think he needs a block on himself?" Anyway, re: CBOrgatrope, could he have just copied bits of talkpages for notetaking or other reasons, and accidentally dumped them on his own talkpage rather than on a sandbox page? Also, why IS Miesbu using 2+ accounts? Should that be investigated?  Folic_Acid | talk  16:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Checking a few logs, it seems CBOrgange was created by I.1 (talk · contribs). [88] - auburnpilot talk 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Considering Miesbu's most recent post on my talk page accuses me of using the word "sock" in the same manner that the word "nigger" is used in the US South, I'm fighting the urge to issue another block. During an edit conflict, he/she has posted the same nonsense above. - auburnpilot talk 16:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What?! I've never heard that before, and I am from the South (North Carolina, born and raised). It's off the current topic, but you're right, AP - Miesbu DOES say that he has a "main" account, making User:Miesbu a sockpuppet, at least in my book.  Folic_Acid | talk  16:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for coming on so strong, but the real question is if CBOrange has constructive edits. If so, he/she needs to be part of a discussion that others are bothered by the talk pages, not immediate blockingMiesbu 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser appears to show quite a sock farm in use. I'll be issuing some blocks a bit later (don't have the time right now) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Given that trolling from one of the now-blocked socks touched off the recent BADSITES drama around Robert Black (professor), I heartily approve the block. Thanks for taking the time. William Pietri 20:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I've gone through and blocked a large number of them. This appears to be some long-standing troublemaker; I'm not familiar with their signature obsessions enough to be sure which one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Alledge personal attack on WT:SPOILER[edit]

A minor edit war has just erupted on WT:SPOILER over whether Milomedes comments[89] are personal attacks against Tony Sidaway.[90][91][92][93]

My opinion, Milomedes comments are boarder line PA, but this is par for the course for him during this entire discussion. He has frequently accessed others he disagrees with of bad faith in the past and this accusation is no different. Which is one of the reasons I quite participating in the discussion. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I could understand it being removed as off-topic, they need to take their petty bickering to their respective talk pages. -- John Reaves 21:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry if my single revert has provoked an edit war. If removing doesn't work then the best thing to do with that kind of comment is, I think, to ignore it. --Tony Sidaway 21:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I just found this post and want to state my side. In general, I posted a set of behavior comments which are certainly tough criticisms, but behavior criticisms are not personal attacks:

WP:NPA:"Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks..."

I did not invoke Tony's character. Indeed, on one occasion I have defended him and said I admired his efforts to improve how he personally interacts with other editors. (diff).
I accept Tony's apology. I read WP:RPA after I was personally attacked at WP:TalkSpoiler, and concluded that RPA is reserved for serious PAs such as libels. That's why I chose PA reminder-documentation, mentioned in the post Tony deleted, as an alternative to RPA which Tony stopped me from doing. How self-referentially ironic.
I respectfully disagree with John Reaves that Tony and I are bickering ("a petty quarrel"), because the behavior dispute issues are substantive to the debate itself. The claim of attempted debate suppression has repeatedly arisen in the historic May 2007 mass spoiler removal debate (now over 1,850,000 bytes), and others of the pro-spoiler side concur.
Farix wrote: "He has frequently accessed others he disagrees with of bad faith in the past and this accusation is no different." Farix cannot supply any diffs of my doing this, because it didn't happen. On the contrary, it is Farix who made the first personal attack against me (diff):

Farix (18:56, 23 August 2007) wrote: "Pay no attention to Milo. He has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not interested in discussing the issue in good faith with his ad hominem attacks."

In partial reply I wrote (diff):

Milo (23:59, 23 August 2007): "Impugning my good faith is a personal attack WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. Unless you are willing to repeat that at AN/I with documentation, please delete that second sentence in your Farix 18:56. I'd also like an apology, but I suppose that's asking too much of you."

So at my invitation, here is Farix finally at AN/I repeating the charge, but, what's this? No documentation, because it didn't happen. Tsk, tsk.
Unlike Tony, to his credit, I never got an apology from Farix. IMHO, Farix quit the debate because it was tiringly long, and because his anti-spoiler side was losing the philosophy debate as summarized in my post. Milo 08:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am uninvolved in the present dispute, but can certainly vouch for the fact that Milomedes not only posts extremely offensive bad faith ad hominem personal attacks on a regular basis, but also engages in trolling, wikilwayering, tendentious editing, filibustering, mischaracterising the actions of other editors, cherry-picking policy, cherry-picking third party sources and playing policies against each other. I have been the subject of incivility and ad hominem attacks by him on an almost weekly basis since March 2007. In fact, in my experience, Milomedes seems to make very few, if any, contributions to WP which do not involve one or other of the above policy abuses. I can also confirm that his above attempt to flippantly dismiss the accusation by claiming that it's something other than what it is, and then blaming the victim for responding to his attacks is also typical of his pattern of behaviour. There are literally dozens of citable instances of this sort of behaviour, which I am happy to point out to any Admin interested in reviewing them. An indefinite block on Milomedes is very much long overdue. --Gene_poole 08:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Gene, I'll introduce you.
Gene was called on the carpet for a seeming legal threat posted three days ago, having previously harassed the same user with a loathsome disease libel. Since this occurred in one of my regular article groups, I (and someone else) both reported Gene, so, his trash talk and wolf cries above are likely to be payback. This kind of thing is a normal monthly event when editing articles with Gene.
For those who don't know Gene, here's a quick credibility overview. This is Gene's block log, here Gene's character is discussed at his failed RfA, and here's where a bureaucrat expresses his doubts about Gene's veracity. There's a lot more, but those of you who do know Gene have heard it all before. Milo 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of T3Smile, Achidiac and Rdpaperclip[edit]

Brief summary -

  • Legal threats by Achidiac, one of three closely connected single purpose accounts. [94]
  • Apparent intent being to somehow force an "A. Chidiac" article to exist despite 2 AFDs, a DRV, and 3 SPEEDY deletions of recreations of the newly AFD'ed material.
  • Apparent spurious accusations of bad conduct, couldn't see evidence to warrant this. (I have requested that if this is wrong, to inform me).

Detailed history, diffs and rationale - User_talk:Achidiac#Recent_disputes.

A SOCK inquiry closed at WP:SSP with the recommendation "These accounts are the same person, or several people in collusion. I recommend indef blocking all of them for abusive sockpuppetry". [95]

Cleanup of Chidiac-related images and links needed.

It's been a long, long day today. Can someone double-check that everything's fair and proper to best standards, that the deletions done were correct and none overlooked, and so on? It should be ok but I'd like a double-check on it since a block is involved. Thanks :)

FT2 (Talk | email) 17:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • After a look through the contributions and related AFD, this looks like a completely correct block. ELIMINATORJR 19:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Having seen this one unfold for a while, I also endorse this. Orderinchaos 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Anblik[edit]

Summary: This user keeps recreating LesTout.com, even after it has been speedied many times for violating copyright, and as an advertisement.

Thanks, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 19:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Page is now salted and cannot be re-created. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

IP editor and caste articles[edit]

[relocated from WP:AN]

User:123.176.40.195 is repeatedly vandalising the articles.Pls ban the ip adresss from further editing wikipedia. Thanks John Rambo 20:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. But while you're here, the IP's edits don't appear to be vandalism. -- John Reaves 21:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he is. 123.176.40.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) seems to be editing articles related to certain castes in India. Most of what it's doing doesn't look like blatant vandalism, so I'm presuming the IP is either adding subtle disinformation that I and others not familiar with the subject matter are not able to detect, or it is adding information that Rambo4u just doesn't like. Can someone who's familiar with this stuff take a look? This was probably meant for ANI. --Dynaflow babble 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if that's the case, he needs to try and talk to the other editor first (i.e. something other than "stop vandalizing, you will be banned). -- John Reaves 21:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess that's just how some folks say, "Hello." I would like to know why Rambo4u believes the IP's edits to be vandalism. First, though, I'd like to move this thread en masse to ANI, if there are no objections. --Dynaflow babble 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Hal Cross[edit]

Per an analysis of editing patterns and Checkuser data, I have indefinitely blocked the above user as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. I note this here in case an unblock request claims that I am an involved party, as I have occasionally interacted with this user on Talk:American Family Association in recent weeks. If an unblock request is submitted, a dealing admin may email me for details. Thanks, ELIMINATORJR 23:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved

[96]. This user has also edited as DetectiveStan (talk · contribs) and 217.169.54.253 (talk · contribs). I'm just letting y'all know. Someguy1221 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Pretty obvious sock. I've blocked the main account indefinitely per WP:NLT, this will also shut down his IPs for 24 hours. east.718 at 23:29, 11/5/2007

Block and protection review[edit]

I'd like some input from other users regarding a block I made of 74.162.173.6. Originally, they made this vandal edit to Stargate, which was reverted. Then, they made this edit to Christina Aguilera, which I rolled back as vandalism, but in that edit, they added a source too. The IP then posted on my talk page about in I liked incorrect information in the Christina Aguilera article, and what my problem with capital letters was. They also trolled their own talk page in this time. [97][98][99] In the end, I semi-protected their talk page for the trolling, and blocked the user to prevent more possible disruption. I think I may have been a little hasty with the block and protection though, hence my request for a review. Opinions on whether my protection and block were appropriate? Acalamari 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While all of this might have been the reaction of a newbie upset over seeing his good faith edit reverted entirely (disregarding the initial vandalism), I don't see any problem blocking someone who responds with the maturity of a 7-year-old. Someguy1221 23:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
So you're asking if you did right by blocking a vandal who happened to know how to add a ref to his disruptive edit (which another editor would have had to clean up even if the ref was kept), then made the cyber equivalent of scrawling graffiti on a bathroom wall? Yes, Acalamari, you did right, both on the block and protecting the page to stop further disruption. As a quick aside, I thank the IP for alerting me to the breaking Christina Aguilera news. I would have preferred a Britney story, but this will have to do. Jeffpw 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'll see if anyone else comments, but I'm relieved to know that my protection and block were justified. Acalamari 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please Block Vandalizing Editor[edit]

Resolved

Please block Elephante3333 for vandalism. This individual has engaged in vandalism before and has been duly warned on his or her Talk Page about the consequences of continuing such behavior. This editor's latest act of vandalism can be seen here: [100]. ~ Homologeo 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked indefinately [101] (actually a minute before you posted here). You can bring similar reports to WP:AIV in the future, where the response is generally faster than it is here. Someguy1221 23:52, 5 November 2007