Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive370

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

Noticeboard archives


Consensus or not[edit] (talk · contribs)[edit]

This situation was not accepted at WP:AIV because it's too complex, so I'm posting it here: (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Also uses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probable socks of Pericles626 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). Slow motion vandalism of Garrison Keillor, A Prairie Home Companion (film), and related articles for at least six months. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If these are suspected socks, then I would place the requisite template (sockpuppeteer) on the IP's user page to identify that you have expressed concerned that these reflect the activity of a single user. Also, there is no restriction to opening up a sockpuppetry case that deal with anon IPs in order to have admins take a look at it. However, most of the time the outcome comes back to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible intimidation[edit]

I got a 3RR warning [2] on Wikipedia:Reliable sources from User:Francis_Schonken, that I consider highly unjust and intimidating, as well as highly disruptive to a constructive solution.

  1. I am here publicly accused of editwarring by the same user that is involved in this dispute on extremist sources (he thinks there should not be any impediment to the abuse of reliable sources in highlighting extremist sources).
  2. I made three different proposals to make myself clear and all edits were accompanied by TALK: [3].
  3. Since I was seriously discussing a very serious proposal per TALK already, this hardly counts as sterile edit warring, the spirit of the rule.
  4. This user did not respond properly to the rejection of his arguments and recurred to reverting instead, thus provoking a 3RR situation.
  5. Reverts without TALK or per proven misunderstanding of the edit using TALK should be allowed to be undone per TALK or edit summary.
  6. Evaluating the Schonken answers, rephrasing was no luxury since he is obviously playing dumb to my anwers (for instance here: Re. "it is not paraphrasing I refer to". Exactly. We shouldn't need to be worrying about it being paraphrasing or exact quote).
  7. I esteem this action creating strife, rather than encouraging to engage in TALK to resolve the issue.
  8. If indeed User:Francis_Schonken is an administrator (?), his involvement should be addressed on this level as well.

As such, I experience this undue 3RR warning as an attempt to impose another point of view by force, avoiding TALK. Rokus01 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You were warned that you were about to break 3RR...when you were, in fact, about to break 3RR. It is common for an engaged editor to issue the warning. I also notice Francis edited the talk page concurrently with his reverts of your edits. Further, the fact that you happen to be discussing a matter does not excuse you from edit warring, especially on a guideline page. Just take the warning for what it is, and stick to discussion for the time being, and follow dispute resolution as necessary. There's no need to get worked up over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Threat?[edit]

Hi all, rather than being paranoid, I was wondering if an admin could cast their eye's over this comment [4] and possibly ask the editor in question to cease making such statements. Thanks Shot info (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done.RlevseTalk 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
NP, although I think his parting edit sum [5], gives his/her regard for your efforts. Thanks anyway and hopefully it will make a difference. Shot info (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me...[edit]

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody make sure this thread gets archived properly? Somehow I don't think shunting it off onto it's own subpage is going to allow that to happen. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread has died now anyway. That tends to happen when these sort of threads get moved to a subpage. The thread was also naturally coming to an end, so maybe it would have archived automatically after a day, but we will never know now. I know Betacommand has been manually archiving some noticeboards. Maybe he could deal with this subpage? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
And it still sits there, abandoned and forlorn... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I moved the thread as it is over 50k. People who have slower browsers find that this page especially loads up very slow, because of the big threads. D.M.N. (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to do a cut-and-paste archive of the ORT subpage, but I'm not sure which archive to put it into--should it go into the latest archive, or should I try to put it with other stuff that was discussed on Feb 11-12? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've added the thread to the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366 and redirected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford_Round_Table to the archive. I hope I didn't screw anything up... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Hempbilly (talk · contribs) has violated WP:3RR attempting six times to add poorly sourced derogatory information about accusations of pedophilia ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) to an article about a noted person whose work opposed America's conservative agenda, in violation of WP:BLP. There is a report above concerning his warring in a similar way yesterday to the same ends on a different article ([12] [13] [14]). He is actively continuing this behavior at the moment (the last such edit was within the past few minutes), and indicated that he intends to continue. I believe we should run a checkuser on this editor inasmuch as he is clearly more experienced than his small edit count would suggest, has shown no interest in discussing or otherwise participating, has refused to answer directly whether he is a sockpuppet, and exists for the single purpose of adding controversial material about liberals and removing such material from articles about conservatives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Wikidemo allegations, they are groundless. He accuses me of adding "poorly sourced derogatory information" although he fails to explain how its poorly sourced. Its sourced to the National Review, and last I checked, the NR certainly meets all the criteria for inclusion based on WP:RS. It also adds a check to Ritters utterly ridiculous claims that he was "set up" into meeting an underage girl in the bathroom of a BK.
The example Wikideom goves for the Bernie Ward page is similarly baseless. The material was cited and sourced to a WP:RS, and last I checked thats the requirement ... not some strawman about whether the material is too salacious or descriptive.
Another similarly poor argument of Wikidemo’s is that I only trash talk some kinds of people, and strip information from articles about other kind of people. Reading minds is not advised, especially considering that its not possible to do so. And while there may be some truth in the articles I have been editing … so what … iof that was grounds to ban or block me, there would be thousands of other editors who would fall under this wide net. (Don’t see you complaining about the others Mr. Wikidemo)
As for the checkuser request, sounds like someone is a bit to eager to go fishing .... but go for it, this IS' my only account, although I have edited under IP's before.

Hempbilly (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to assess the merits of content, but rather behavior problems that require administrator intervention (i.e. blocking Helpbilly to prevent ongoing disruptive editing). A quick review of Hempbilly's talk page and contribution history reveals an escalating campaign of inappropriate edits, and more recently, cursing in edit summaries, personal attacks, etc). He is now up to 6RR on one article with no indication of stopping, after being reverted by four different editors who agree the material is inappropriate. My conduct is not at issue here. This is a reading of Wikipedia edits, not minds.Wikidemo (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Last time I tried editing on this ID, I was chased off by individuals so hell bent on owning an article that I decided to go anon for a while, looks like thats where I will have to go agian. Congratulations everyone, you won! Now you can relish that victory cookie even more.
And calling my edits "poorly sourced" and "derogatory" would seem to qualify as discusing the merrits of the content. There goes that standard for some and a standard for others that you seem so keen on upholding. Hempbilly (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I was actually surprised that this is here -- I had just filed an AIV report. WP:BLP/N#Bernie Ward has information of Hempbilly's POV-pushing/BLP-vios. at Bernie Ward. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was a good first step. I brought it here because the problem has continued and expanded since you brought it there. It's an immediate behavioral issue concerning more than one article now, and BLP/N is simply not set up to quickly handle people who become disruptive editors overall. Note the admission, and threat, to continue these inappropriate editors anonymously. Would a checkuser show these anonymous IP accounts? Can we do an IP block here? Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - this now-blocked[[15] editor has blanked his talk page[16] and user page,[17], claiming as he does here that he is abandoning this account to continue the disruptive edits under anonymous IP accounts to avoid detection. This is a vow of and admission to abusive sock-puppeting. Accordingly I've filed a checkuser request[18] to figure out what anonymous IP accounts he refers to sockpuppeting under so we can check for possible WP:BLP violations in those edits, and also to prevent ongoing disruption under the anonymous accounts. On his way out he tried three times to insert the BLP violations into talk talk pages as a protest against their getting removed from article space.[19] [20] [21] I suggest that a longer-term block and/or IP block is called for under the circumstances.Wikidemo (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got the two pages in question (from Hempbilly) watchlisted to monitor for any abusive changes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not just semi-protect the pages in question for a couple of days? Problem solved. One has literally no random edits and the other one that is has said random edits reverted almost as fast as they're made. HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There is little justification now that Hempbilly has been blocked for 3RR and for BLP vios. In the case of Bernie Ward, which has seen increased activity in light of recent news, the BLP vios. were reverted within minutes -- although that didn't stop from chit-chat from occurring on the talk page. If it escalates with various socks of Hempbilly or more random IP edits, then one can request RPP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser has confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Hempbilly that Hempbilly has three other accounts. I haven't even begun to look and see if they have been misused for edit warring, but TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has quite a history. The checkuser has blocked his IP for 2 weeks, so altering the 24-hour 3RR block I made this afternoon would be largely symbolic, but there is a question of what to do next. The most obvious option is to indef all accounts but the original (User:TDC). But beyond that, can anyone make a really good case not to impose a community ban? That's the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why a community ban cannot be implemented. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've reviewed the edits from the three other accounts and only found four recent contentious edits worth reverting, all from TDC. Some raised BLP concerns and others were just contentious. I reverted these four for BLP reasons and so as not to reward an abusive sockpuppet with being able to slant article point of views. All four accounts showed history of disruptive editing, disputes, etc., particularly TDC, which has quite a block history. However, other than the four I reverted all of the problem edits were at least a month ago and now buried under many subsequent edits. Rather than try to undo any of it, I figured it's better to leave things up to the discretion of the the people actively involved in the articles. I'm pretty satisfied that the abuse was real but the damage not widespread. Wikidemo (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


It has been brought to my attention that Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently reposted a deleted article, Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As far as I can see, the reposted version was the same as the deleted version, which is a violation of GFDL as well as deletion policy. Somebody who does not have a history with this user (i.e. not me) needs, I think, to find out whether this was taken from a site he believed to be GFDL, or whether it was just another in the extensive series of problem edits from this user. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page history shows a restore a few days ago, and Alison protecting the page as a redirect. I also don't see it in Vintagekits' recent contributions. Can you be more specific? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, while I also have a somewhat adversarial history with this user, he seems to have been unaware of the backstory involved (User talk:Vintagekits#Are you ill? and hasn't attempted to create this. He seems to have edited a few articles extensively worked on by David, but in a constructive fashion, as far as I can tell. I saw the briefly-recreated article on Lauder-Frost, and his edits to it (I think he added a reference or two) seemed temperate and not for the purpose of making a personal attack on the subject. It appears to me to have been a mistake rather than deliberate misbehavior. Choess (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are wrong: [22] is the diff where VK reposts the entire article, from what source is not clear. It's the deleted article in its entirety, without attribution. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I expect the edit was in response to the indef blocking of David Lauder et al, whom he had clashed with on this and related articles previously. Its typical of his style to edit like that to make the point that the editor he is in conflict with can't respond. He got the contents of the deleted article from another wiki, I expect, and didn't consider the GFDL issue. He backed of quickly enough, though, when warned to do so, suggesting it was an error more than anything malicious. Rockpocket 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
He did seem unaware of the lengthy and complex history of that particular article, and as soon as I realised what had gone on I tried to make sure the new history was deleted and redirects protected. I'm not sure what more preventative action could be taken at this stage, three days later. He stepped on a landmine, it's all been dealt with, think it's best just to quickly move on? One Night In Hackney303 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add that in the course of my research into the history of this situation a couple of weeks ago I discovered at least one off-wiki mirror of the GLF article. Relata refero (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Page-move nonsense[edit]

The article The limit of the semantic web is currently the subject of an AfD, and the article's creator, User:Identityandconsulting, has taken it upon himself to move the article three four times in quick succession, leaving a trail of silly redirects and making it difficult for anyone who wants to participate in the AfD to actually look at the article. Could someone straighten this mess out? Deor (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's being cleaned up, but the copy on his userpage needs to be stripped of all the article categories (I can't figure out what section he has them all in). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm cleaning it up. I left the AFD templated tagged page even though its currently only a redirect, because of the need for the content to remain while the deletion debate goes on. Keep an eye on this user, he's being incredibly disruptive, and trying to game the deletion debate. SWATJester Son of the Defender 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed the link at the AFD (we have to do something so people can find the thing). I would just call it snowballed, but I already commented and would rather avoid any sort of technicality arguments once he gets to the inevitable deletion review stage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Community ban of user:CompScientist[edit]

For a bit of background, I came across user:CompScientist after a WQA report was filed regarding incivility at Nissan GT-R. The problem was a bit deeper, with extensive edit warring by CompScientist and various IP addresses which were recreating content or edits that were, for all intents and purposes, identical or very similar in style. Similar edits were made at supercar and at Vietnam War, where original research was inserted or text that was known to be of dispute were recreated against consensus and/or discussion. In these cases, one of the IP addresses would challenge the validity of the discussion and consensus, and content therein, and there would be accusations of bad faith thrown about.

After CompScientist was blocked for 96h on 01:58, 9 January 2008 for initial sockpuppetry and for filing false AIV reports against myself and possibly other editors/administrators (my memory is a bit foggy), he protested the block but was declined. He was blocked not long after for 1w on 12:14, 19 January 2008 for vandalism at Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and elsewhere.

Checkuser was performed and confirmed that nearly all of the IP contributions at Nissan GT-R and elsewhere were in fact, CompScientist. The block length was increased to 1m on 18:12, 21 January 2008.

Wikipeadian (talk · contribs) soon cropped up, with edits to Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War that were very similar, if not identical, to CompScientist. As a result, the block was reset and extended for 1m on 11:17, 3 February 2008.

As a result, I watchlisted all of the pages that CompScientist was involved in, and noted an edit by Mcknight11 (talk · contribs) on Vietnam War at 01:42, 17 February 2008 that was an identical edit by Wikipedian earlier. Per a comment here, I believe that it is appropriate to call for a community ban of CompScientist, given that this has become a clear abuse pattern. I have listed, with the help of Daniel Case, an extensive list of prior edits and IP addresses and usernames used by CompScientist -- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this community ban. From the first time I encountered him, through spurious reports on AIV, I find him very disruptive and he has certainly exhausted my patience, not only through his constant sockpuppetry but his vandalism to my talk page, in which he has attempted to make it appear to me that an SSP had been opened on me. He has the benefit of a dynamic IP, so we need everything possible to convey our distrust of this user. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kborer at socialized medicine: 3RR violated several times[edit]

User:Kborer has essentially reverted to a specific version (see also talk page), removing a key distinction (that socialized medicine is a term as opposed to a single system) four times in less than 24 hours, and and six or seven times in approximately 48 hours:

one two three four five six seven

Note that while there have been minor changes, the primary fixation seems to be to remove a (documented and referenced) issue with respect to the use of the term. Note that this is also a repeated pattern on this particular page, reverting three times or more within a short period of time. There is a clear pattern of violation of the spirit of wp:3rr.
The use of POV sources is also more than tendentious: witness the lead sentence being changed to "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am cross-posting this to the 3rr noticeboard, didn't realise there was a separate one.--Gregalton (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken[edit]

Francis Schonken is repeatedly violating BLP policy on the Prem Rawat article by linking [[23]][[24]][[25]][[26]] to a anonymously written, self published web sites that contains enormous amounts of unsourced OR and such derogatory unsourced claims as Rawat is "an 'alcoholic'and "Rawat smoked cannabis "four or five nights a week" when in residence at Malibu" and "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued."[[27]]. If I try to remove this link in accordance with BLP policy that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" he threatens me with a 3RR on my talk page despite BLP policy saying "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I would appreciate it if Admins will ensure BLP policy is upheld.Momento (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a clearcut BLP violation; if you can't get consensus, take it to WP:BLPN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's already Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The allegation of heavy drinking is also voiced in a reputable source i.e. Washington Post Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears; Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru by Chip Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 15, 1982. Andries (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, it's not a requirement that all of the content on external links adhere to WP:BLP. BLP is for the content of Wikipedia. We don't need to enforce on sites X links removed from Wikipedia. That's not an endorsement of keeping the links; I haven't read them. But saying that we can't link to something because it contains OR is to radically misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? That is new information to me and a positiion that was contradicted by he arbcom in several cases. Andries (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you link to one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, rereading my comments, I definitely overstepped my position. Give me a couple of minutes to refactor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Your view Sarcasticidealist is completely at odds with BLP policy which states = "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" and "Self-published websites should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". And further from Links guidelines - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.Momento (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. please note WP:FORUMSHOP (part of a behavioural guideline here at Wikipedia);
  2. "Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource" appears like a sound source to me. You're far from convincing me of the contrary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bamford and that COI tag[edit]

User:Bamford is back to removing a COI tag that got him blocked just the other day. Prior thread is here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff here which appears to be a "threat" to continue removing the tag, should his block be extended? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked for another 24 hours, (see block review below). I'd say he's had his chances at WP:AGF after this one and if he continues, a week long block would be appropriate. MBisanz talk 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account[edit]

I want to create an alternate account User:Intercontinental ballistic missile. I have some questions.

  • Can I create such alternate account?
  • Will the name User:Intercontinental ballistic missile be acceptable?
  • If I create the acoount, then what will be the password. The same password I use for my present account, or other password. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead, just make it crystal clear on the user page of both users that each is an alternate account of the other, and don't edit as if you were two people. Use any good password you like. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And maybe read through the policy αlεxmullεr 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus. Intercontinental ballistic missile (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that my log[28] clearly telling that I have created the alternate account, but the other's log is empty[29]. I have no idea why this happened. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
It shows up here - note that I used the different text box. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.99...[edit]

This has been brought up here at least twice before, but the situation doesn't seem to be improving, please skim through the discussions located here: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x, it started out with this user using some articles as a propaganda machine and me reverting him, since then, he has started using misleading and offensive edit summaries, make personal attacks in English and in Czech and worst for me: going through my contributions and undoing my edits, these edits 99% of the time look to be good faith. The user has been active for months maybe even years, he has acquired over forty blocks and two range blocks, he's not active right this second, but last night he went to undo my edits again, when I reported him, administrators failed to block him and an administrator (not going to name) removed him from AIV telling me to report here, obviously not even looking through the abuse reports from which the situation is very obvious. Numerous users including many admins are familiar with the situation most notably user:Kubigula who has seen him in action and has received personal attacks from him as well. I'm here to seek help since I'm finding it difficult to receive it elsewhere and I'm starting to think that simple blocks aren't working and it's time for something else.--The Dominator (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Martinphi removal of POV tag[edit]

Martinphi removed a POV tag at Yi Ching[30]. Despite being asked to replace it[31], he has not done so. Instead he has place a citation template there (my edit was cited). I do not want to edit war with this user who also wikistalked me to the Project Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and reverted me there[32].I'd be grateful if someone could help. Mccready (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, this is not a drawn out edit war, and does not need admin attention. I would suggest politely pointing out that the POV tag should remain so long as one editor thinks the POV is present. That said, I also think you two should just stay away from each other and each other's talk pages: use the community talk pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
User has been trolling on multiple articles which I happen to watch. He makes highly POV, pseudoscientific, or non/against consensus edits, then reverts, then goes to your talk page to scold as if you've broken policy (he apprently learned a small bit from all his blocks, but his basic manner remains unchanged). In the current instance, he is acting as though the whole article is POV because the lead does not mention criticism; the criticism at the time consisted of one sentence. This in spite of an {{expansion}} tag on the section. POV tag was removed per general consensus that it shouldn't be there. And I placed no {{cite}} tags on the article. Look at his block log and edit history Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Martinphi is correct in removing the neutrality tag, IMO. Mccready has not explained what aspect of the article's neutrality is in dispute. He has been asked to state the neutrality problem in respect to: WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:NOR. This he has failed to do [33]. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Could an admin now have a look at this. Both [[User:Martinphi] and User:Sunray have reverted the POV tag despite advice above in this thread and despite advice from another user on the talkpage. of Yi Ching. User:Sunray is also inserting OR. I have requested an apology from Martinphi for his inflammatory, uncivil and wrong accusation of trolling. Mccready (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it again. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the tag, but only under the condition that you hash out your arguments on the talk page, and then abide by the consensus. If you believe more of the community needs to be privy to the argument, try WP:RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be referred to arbitration enforcement. Martin is under restrictions for making disruptive edits per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

User: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has just been brought to my attention. He has a long history of vandalism and unconstructive editing. WHOIS shows this is an ADSL connection, which I believe to be static, but the pattern of edits is more than persuasive that this is one editor. He has had numerous warnings, and stops when warned only to return with the same pattern of editing. My view is that we could do with a rest from this and have blocked him for a week (I was considering a month) to prevent further disruption and to bring home that his style of editing is unhelpful. There has already been discussion between two editors here, but my opinion is that this cannot continue. Would anyone care to review this block to make sure I'm not out of line please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a BT IP and probably dynamic. With those you're better off just blocking for short periods. One Night In Hackney303 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
IPs in the ranges 81.145.240 - 81.145.242 are dynamically assigned by BT/AOL and best served by blocks lasting 31 hours at the very most. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

JK Cromwell[edit]

Despite having been previously blocked for edit warring, JK Cromwell has continued to disrupt and add unsourced information to multiple articles. For more information, see her contributions. I believe her block should be reinstated and extended. Serendipodous 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked and extended this to 48 hours. Returning to an edit war once a 3RR block has expired and replacing unsourced material is disruptive editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of UkraineToday[edit]

UkraineToday is a banned user (I don't know how to format a link to a block, but here is the line from Yamla's log: # 20:02, 7 September 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "UkraineToday (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (violation of WP:NLT, continuing email harassment).

Now UkraineToday's socks are springing up really quickly. We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3 named socks, 3 IPs) from January 18, then this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd) (2 named socks, 7 IPs] from January 26, then Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th) (2 named socks and 7 IPs) from February 2, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) (1 named sock) February 17, and two more IPs (one blocked by Jehochman, the other, User: I have not reported yet (the IP has been used by other editors in the past).

I have applied for semi-protection (granted a few hours later - jd2718) for the article WP:RFP#Ukrainian Parliamentary Election, 2007 he has been trying to edit. Do I just keep reporting the socks as they appear? Is there something else to do? Jd2718 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding User:Douglasfgrego scenarios[edit]

There has been a fairly unpleasant incident this weekend with this user getting indefinitely banned as a result. I don't question the process as the user used, to say the least, 'intemperate' language. However, the reason I'd like to broaden the discussion from what anyone can read above - and it's a given that we'd prefer to avoid banning contributors - is that the situation clearly spiralled out of control before everyone's eyes. Nobody wanted the matter to end up as it did but it ended badly because everyone got mad.

Feelings were running high on both sides and I'd suggest that we need a 'red button' that anyone can hit in any such situation. This 'red button', a chill-out button, when pressed, would prevent any addition to any discussion for 24 hours. An enforced time out. Then everyone can come back a day later to sort things out. By button, I don't necessarily mean a red thing on the screen; just perhaps an admin, or maybe any participant, to intervene arbitrarily to shut a heated dialogue down. I think if this had been present yesterday, we'd have avoided the fracas we had. We need to avoid driving contributors away. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Threat of violence[edit]

[34] Corvus cornixtalk 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And another - [35] The guy's jumping IPs.Corvus cornixtalk 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Five different IPs in total, two appear to be proxies, two are dynamic (Verizon and AT&T), but the fifth is interesting - a college IP from Indiana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Match anyone we know? Black Kite 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it? :) Corvus cornixtalk 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. That's why I asked. :) At a guess, probably an off-wiki co-ordinated attack, I know this editor has had problems with this before, as have many others. Black Kite 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) He's been harassed for a long time; look at the history of Jack's user page and take your pick, though I suspect those are mostly the same person. It might be related to this; they're tagged as sockpuppets of "Grawp" but I don't know if that's significant. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Maybe it means that we've found the specific location and institution of one of our most prolific current vandals. I don't know if this was known before. Grandmasterka 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's just Grawp posting calls to vandalize on 4chan again... nothing to see... although the recent history of my user talk page is amusing... east.718 at 01:05, February 18, 2008
That's been going on for a couple of months. Frankly, if life is this empty for 4-chan members, one wonders why they don't consider suicide... HalfShadow (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, they probably say the same about us, but with this significant difference: we have created the largest encyclopedia in the history of the human race, while all they have done is ... is ... :) Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Started their frontal assault on Scientology. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Norman Rogers[edit]

  • There is a complete moron vandalizing this article from various IPs and accounts with the name "Norman Rogers" in them. The article should be semi-protected and usernames with "Norman Rogers" in them blocked immediately. JuJube (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
The article has been protected and if such users continue to vandalize, please report them to WP:AIV. SorryGuy  Talk  00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I've semi'd the page for now (with full move protection), but I expect we might want to extend it to long term full protection in the near future. More about this rather old meme can probably be found on Google. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Triberocker feuding[edit]

In a discussion of -puppetry by Triberocker, I noted

And he appears to look at this situation as a feud. For example, after the checkuser result, I gave myself a temporary link to his block log, so that I could see what (if anything) followed. He responded as if this were a tit-for-tat thing.

I now note an edit in which Triberocker appears to declare just that.

(The administrative action taken in response to the -puppetry was to temporarily range-block anon edits from some Valparaiso University IPs. No block was applied to the Triberocker account itself.) —SlamDiego←T 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Could someone close the 'tardgate, please? HalfShadow (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-pp for three hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)re
It seems our immature interlopers may have some sleeper accounts, one of which I have just blocked indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking by a 75 IP[edit]

I've blocked the same 75 dynamic IP a few times towards the end of 2007. Apparently this IP has been stalking me, with these mysterious edits - (these are users that I indefinitely blocked) - [36] [37] [38] - this is suspicious as well. This IP has been causing more trouble, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#75_IP. Could someone look at this situation? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

continual lack of good faith and WP:OWN displayed by one editor[edit]

I wish to report the behaviour of user User:Mathsci who continually has tried to discourage me from contributing and editing articles on French localities in a significant display of WP:OWN and particularly WP:OWN#EVENTS. This first started with accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [39] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [40] and [41] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [42] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [43] and still displaying WP:OWN in [44]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" today at [45] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [46], [47], and given warnings [48], [49]. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have hardly edited recently [50] because I am busy giving a graduate course/preparing a book. I did buy an 800 page book on the history of Marseille (in French) on a recent brief trip back to France: I have used this a little to check historical details mentioned by other editors on the page of Marseille and have suggested using it as the source for a detailed article on the chronology of Marseille (a similar article already exists on the French WP). Michellecrisp appears to have followed me to Aix-en-Provence. I own neither of these pages but have them on my watchlist. Much local information (eg detailed local history) on both these places is only available in French. If dates are added which contradict the chronology in an authoritative and encyclopedic history they will be corrected using the reliable source. Michellecrisp seems to have gone on a tagging spree on information added mostly by other editors long ago and has not tried to source the information on her own (such as population estimates from INSEE). Often sourcing information is not hard to do with a knowledge of French: the official information is often only available in French. I have no idea why she has brought this to WP:AN/I. Her choice of the word "continual" is odd considering my recent wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
My original comments stand. I am not questioning Mathsci's knowledge of French topics. but the violation of principles of assuming good faith and clear WP:OWN (I have given seven examples above of this which has occured over the past month) which has regrettably developed to personal attacks. It is against Wikipedia principles to discredit or put down other editors for lacking knowledge. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Your content dispute does not represent what happened on the actual pages, where you added faulty information (mistaking a TGV station for an SNCF station, quizzing the climate of Aix, dismissing the ancient monuments of Marseille, getting dates wrong). I have no idea why, without adding any significant content to either of these pages but merely tagging indiscriminately, you have seen fit to bring your grievances to WP:AN/I. You have not made any very clear arguments on the talk pages and most of your taggings that I have had time to look at are easy to justify. They mostly concern long standing additions by other editors. If you tag without discussion and add faulty information, is it not to be expected that somebody with access to detailed information will check the information and add sources? That does not constitute ownership of an article: it merely means that sources are being provided. Data from dubious websites that contradict acknowledged encyclopedic history books will be corrected in this process. This "dispute", of your own making, should never have been brought here. Your tagging was provocative: you seem now to be objecting when proper sources have been added to justify material of long standing by other editors. That seems unreasonable on your part. It seem odd that you have been tagging with no intention of checking the information for yourself, which cannot be so hard, even in Australia. I think you have misrepresented the recent editing history: you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a content dispute but an issue of user behaviour. My issues is here are your comments that you have directed to me that violate assume good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS. ownership of article includes trying to discourage others from editing not necessarily "owning" in the literal sense. Please let this be reviewed by an administrator.Adding faulty information such as the SNCF edit was done in good faith. I have never deliberately added faulty information. Feel free to check the history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence where I have found some references and tried to improve wording. I have brought this grievance here because after repeated warning you fail to assume good faith and have developed into personal attacks, and a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles"? On the contrary you have chosen a very public place to misrepresent my WP edits. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is very clearly a content dispute. Please take follow the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in resolving this issue. Your dispute does not belong here. If necessary, please request mediation. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Please clarify how this is a content dispute? I am reporting the issue of user behaviour, specifically WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS as evidenced in my diffs in the original post. This is not related to specific content. I am not disputing the content of any article mentioned, I am disputing the validity of editors asking other editors not to contribute to certain articles. One of the things Mathsci is questioning is my right to tag articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed "content". You still need to work through dispute resolution to get this taken care of. That's what it's for. So far, I don't see anything that specifically needs an administrator to do anything. Any user can warn another for violating policy or guidelines. You are having a dispute with Mathsci, and the steps on WP:DR are there to help you work through the dispute. Please take advantage of that information and the steps found there. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have said that I am on a wikibreak because I am otherwise occupied in real life. Michellecrisp is needlessly wikilawyering here because I have added "of note" after the word "fountains" in Aix-en-Provence to describe two particular fountains, picked out in the cited Guide Michelin for Provence. From her contributions here and on my talk page, she is simply trolling to make a highly ill-conceived point that appears at the bottom her user page. She is being highly disruptive. The presence of this inappropriate report suggests that she is set on harrassing me and does not properly understand how WP works. I unfortunately have no time at present to engage in interactions with Michellecrisp unrelated to actual content in WP articles. Thank goodness she has stayed away from mathematics articles. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Michellecrisp has added fresh citation tags to Marseille. She has inspired me to prepare a WP article on Pierre Corneille's play Médée when I return to France. Can someone please award her a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone note the continual lack of good faith displayed by Mathsci towards me and less than subtle personal criticism in their above comments? Could an administrator please read my original post? I have attempted to warn the user in question of potential WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS violations and only came here because the user persisted with this behaviour to this point with no cessation as shown in the rather rude edit summary here [51]. I have made several warnings which I stepped up to higher levels (the next level being reporting here) but this behaviour towards me continued (as shown in the seven comments I have provided in diffs above). I would like to continue editing or tagging article I see fit without being rudely discouraged each time I edit an article. With the exception of Masalai I have never experienced this in the 20 months I've been on Wikipedia. An example as shown in my original post was Mathsci reverting one of my edits simply because it was me, I changed some text to conform to policy WP:LAYOUT and removed non-relevant links . [52] is not a content conflict but one based on one editor disliking me editing French geography articles. Where is the evidence of my disruptive behaviour? Tagging is not disruptive but as per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT Michellecrisp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been no revert war. One revert of your edits does not warrant the needless and inappropriate drama you have been creating here. You are behaving out of all proportion, apparently because you have been upset when some of your errors have been corrected. Please desist. Normally people with some knowledge of France or the French language edit pages related to France (the pages on Aix-en-Provence and Marseille are not "geography articles" as you quite wrongly suggest). When this is not the case, such errors are to be expected and should not be taken personally. Now you seem intent on exacting some form of revenge, quite outside wikipedia rules. Why not make yourself a nice cup of tea instead? Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a revert war, therefore not a content dispute. The above comments still reflect a lack of good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS as displayed continously despite my repeated warning. This continues with Mathsci's recent revert of my comment[53]. I might have said geography but perhaps more broadly cities and towns fall under a category of geography and places. My original complaint stands as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS. Comment on content not editors as they say. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp, please, please, please, take some time to learn about WP. I can remove any comment on my own talk page if I wish. Your complaint is absurd and, as an administrator has already said, whatever your grievances, no administrator can help you. One remedy is to get a detailed book on the history/recent history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence, read and digest the contents and then transfer that information to the English wikipedia. If the only books are in French, polish up your French. Become an "expert" on the topic. You are wasting time, space and energy here. Go and have that nice cup of tea now, it's starting to get cold :) Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW you risk being blocked if you continue publicly harrassing me here. You have read but ignored that I am on a wikibreak. You are starting to be extremely disruptive. If I am not editing/reverting how can you continue to make these very unreasonable claims about wikiownership? Please stop now. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not harassment, I am reporting your behaviour of accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [54] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [55] and [56] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [57] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [58] and still displaying WP:OWN in [59]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" at [60] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [61], [62]. Become an "expert" on the topic. is classical WP:OWN#EVENTS. Please provide diffs of harassment to back your claim. I have provided diffs of violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS Michellecrisp (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
An administrator has intervened to tell you that you are mistaken and yet you persist. This might suggest that you have some kind of personal problem. Kindly address this problem in private and stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Since I am not editing mainspace or talk pages at the moment (that is what "wikibreak" means), your behaviour here constitutes harrassment. You raised your points three days ago and nobody has agreed with you. What exactly do you expect to happen? If you have difficulty understanding these issues, please seek help privately elsewhere. Your comments on my advice "Become an expert on the topic" seem quite unintelligent. You should probably also remove this inflammatory comment on your user page:

One thing I don't like is when editors display WP:OWN. No one owns articles on Wikipedia and no one can dissuade other legitimate editors from contributing. There is no hierarchy for more "experienced" or "qualified" editors.

It suggests that you are looking for "test cases" in your own faulty misreading of WP policies. You are acting as a vigilante and that is quite a serious offense. It suggests that you are set on disrupting the project to satisfy your own personal agenda. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect (and noting full well I used to do the same in 2006 when I didn't know any better) administrators are merely users with extra rights and there's about 1,500 of us, so citing one of us is not going to mean much. However, you're of course welcome to cite *me*, as I like feeling important. :P Orderinchaos 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you: I am quite aware of this. The editor User:Michellecrisp seems to be wikilawyering. In the two articles under discussion, she has not added any actual content and seems intent on creating some kind of dispute. As I have already said, I am too busy at the moment in real life to edit the wikipedia, except en passant. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

with regard to your claims to harassment, unless you can provide diffs (which you have failed to) then it's WP:KETTLE. Secondly, an admin made a comment, but haven't you noticed that generally a resolved icon is shown to close off the incident report. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a particularly persistent individual who has made a faulty accusation that you are incapable of supporting. Since there has been only one reversion so far, your behaviour here seems to be highly irrational. Please nurse your bruised ego elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
BTW, without making any attempt to analyse your mental processes, the fact that you have posted this non-existent "incident" is a proof of harassment. You have given no evidence of repeated reverts (because there have been none) or any other abnormal behaviour. You merely seem to be inordinately displeased and now seem intent on extracting your revenge. Is there something I might be missing? I am all ears, Michelle. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
[63] ;)Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning any reverts except one. "Incapable of supporting" my claim? My complaint centres around your seven comments to me displaying WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS that's in my original post. It's that simple. It's plan to see that you have assumed bad faith about me all along.Michellecrisp (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Mathsci claims above that "the two articles under discussion (Marseille and Aix-en-Provence, she has not added any actual content". Well I've added a few references to strengthen the articles, [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] how is that not helping? This is again another example of bad faith of MathSci. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Another example of Mathsci's assuming bad faith with their edit summary of [70] which another editor commented as "these citation tags are more to do with your dispute with MichelleCrisp than anything else" [71]. May also be considered evidence of WP:POINT. No coincidence that Mathsci wanted to disrupt an article that I was editing earlier that day? Michellecrisp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

More V-Dash socks[edit]

User:Supertoolbox is going around and changing the userpages of User:V-Dash socks to make it appear as if they were Jeske socks. Anyone want to handle this? shoy 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. But, we should ignore these to whatever extent possible. I see no value in bothering to create userpages for throwaway troll accounts. Revert, block, ignore. Creating a collection of trophies only encourages them. Friday (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(merging duplicate threads)

User's talk page has a personal attack against Friday and Jeske... dont know how this started or who's sock this user is, but it should be investigated. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! The user has been blocked. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. It's nice to know that I can sit down and play a video game without worrying about getting blocked due to this guy. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeke_Couriano is another V-Dash sock who is going around...he just tried to say I was Jéské sock. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another...MatthewCouriano (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
He's been blocked. Please only report unblocked socks, and, as Friday says, please do not tag them as V-Dash socks - he's taken to altering sockpuppet tags (meaning tagging them gives him more targets), and I notice he's now waiting until I'm not on. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was already blocked. I'll go change that tag, since Slakr just banned it without a word (no offense)...—Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of pop culture lists[edit]

WillOakland (talk · contribs) has been removing "in pop culture" sections from articles unilaterally. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. WillOakland (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He also took it upon himself to do this [72]. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I changed the passive "could be" (by someone else, it always seems) to "please do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillOakland (talkcontribs) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I urge you to discuss these removals on the talk pages of the applicable articles, as large-scale removal of such sections generally results in a widespread edit war, which is very much unwelcome.--Father Goose (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit summmary, being WillOakland's third edit since registering, and the user's general behavior strongly suggests this is a sock account.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Will seems pretty familiar with the swing of things which does suggest a previous incarnation. Though that in itself is not an issue unless it was a banned person. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This WillOakland is also deleting large amounts of information in Trivia sections as well as taking it upon his/herself to change the trivia template without discussion so it appears that damage is being done on a large scale in different sections. I am talking about referenced items being removed unilaterally not long after a trivia tag is applied also. I really think Admins need to intervene with this person. UB65 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly did not imagine that a mere change in tone of the template would be a problem. WillOakland (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Trivia and "In pop culture lists" are almost always bad news - they trivialise important and serious subjects and make wikipedia look stupid and tacky. The pop culture list creators make the mistake of saying their subject has something to do with their pop culture item, when plainly it is the other way around *only*. If some video game has the Eiffel Tower in it for example, that is not a fact about the tower but a fact about the game (and thus should not go on the tower page). Further, their inherent listy nature (rather than seamless prose) is a major detraction. People don't read lists, but (bored teenage?) editors love adding their personal favourite pop culture tid bits. GAH!!!
But my rant above is not what ANI is for. Thus, let me say that WillOakland would likely have a better impact on wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, removing trivial trivia and pop culture additions when they appear is a lot easier than removing established lists which require more consultation. That's where your more likely to get quick results.--Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
rg ::PS, Ah, maybe that was what he was thinking in the case that I was mostly concerned with. The information had been a part of the article for some time as far as I can tell and then somebody added the trivia tag a few days ago and so boom, he removes all of it. UB65 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
FYI at that point I was just going down the list of article that link to Family Guy. WillOakland (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I guessed you were doing. FWIW, my method was to review your contributions and then look at the few articles which interested me. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • It really boils down to retaining the information rather than just deleting it. Incorporating the information into the article takes a few minutes but is much better than losing it by cutting. I agree with Merbabu's statement:

...would likely have a better impact on Wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve Wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk)

PS, articles do look way better with the information incorporated into the article rather than set apart as tivia and pop lists , etc..

UB65 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • In the end, it boils down to "does this information enhance the reader's understanding of the subject?" If the answer is no, then excise it. After all, this is (or was last time I looked) an encyclopedia. (And if the answer is yes, include it in the main article, rather than in a separate section). Black Kite 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Having done it a few times before, it is not that easy or quick to integrate trivia into prose. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Burntsauce reincarnated. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, disruptive editing. I'll start to revert these. This kind of disruptive editing does call for administrative intervention. We've been through this nonsense several times before already. If the user won't stop he needs to be blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't support sockpuppets of banned editors, but I fully support the outright, unilateral removal of poorly written, indiscriminate pop culture sections. When there's mostly bathwater and very little baby, sometimes it's best to start from scratch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, you can only prune an overgrown bush when you've actually got a bush. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not simply revert these. In some cases, you have reverted original research and unsourced speculation right back into the article. By all means put back specific references if they're notable, significant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced. While I disapprove of this guy's methods, on the whole his edits are improving the encyclopedia. And that should be the bottom line. Nandesuka (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the Fat Man and Nandesuka; such content is rarely useful, and if it could have been integrated into the article, it should have been. Reverting all of them makes no more sense than deleting them to begin with did. And I'm not comfortable with logic like "sounds like" referring to previous banned users. Haven't we learned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course I will simply revert these. I am looking through them and selectively reverting - a number of the deletions are clearly inappropriate. In many other cases there is no useful content there so I'm leaving them as is. It's not up to me to chase behind disruptive editors with a broom cleaning up their messes. The editor admits here[73] that he is conducting an "intervention" on Wikipedia. Again, we have been through this ridiculous thing before, and it resulted in arbcom cases, administrators being de-sysopped, and so on. We don't need that kind of thing here. That is not what this project is about. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Nor is this project about defending the inclusion of unsightly, unencylopedic garbage in articles. I have no comment on the editor but generally support the edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it is. Keeping up the encyclopedia always involves being on the lookout for people who are more interested in making points than actually contributing. I'm not defending bad content, just dealing with a disruptive editor who is causing unnecessary drama. Again, we have been through this issue before. The issue has been settled already, which is why we have a guideline on the subject. This kind of nonsense always causes trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That's unfair to the editor. What point is this editor trying to make other than every article should be readable, well-organized and well-written? The editor is greatly improving the readability and presentability of articles in a minimum amount of time; I have a problem scolding anyone for that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. I've looked through and carefully read most of this editors content deletions over the past few days, and reverted perhaps 1/3 of them. As a rule I've reverted when I saw that the deletions eliminated a substantial amount of encyclopedic material, and let them be in cases where there was very little or nothing salvageable. One thing that he, and some other users, gravely misunderstand is that many of these articles (e.g. Kermet the Frog) are pop culture phenomena to begin with, so that the subject's place in popular culture is part and parcel of their notability. For an actor to participate in popular culture (e.g. taking a role, voicing a character) is what they do. An important event such as the Tiananmen Square massacre is important not because people were killed and jailed but because it reshaped culture. To actually deal with the articles this editor disrupted would take days...and that's what we do here, deal with and improve articles. To go about deleting content you don't like is a lazy, pointless exercise that does more harm than good. If you don't like trivia, edit articles for real but don't come here to cause trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting useless information is "editing articles for real." The text you restored contains encyclopedic gems like: In October 2005, Kermit embarked on a tour visiting 50 "incredibly fun - and some just plain strange - places around the world to celebrate my 50th year in show business." You're pouncing on an editor and calling him names for trying to keep articles free of this nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Quoting a piece of material you object to is besides the point. If he had wanted to delete that particular line he could have. He didn't though. Instead, he deleted a bunch of other material that another editor partly restored, including some encyclopedic content such as "On Kermit's 50th anniversary in show business, the United States Postal Service released a set of new stamps with photos of Kermit and some of his fellow Muppets on them" and "A statue of Henson and Kermit was erected on the campus of Henson's alma mater, the University of Maryland, College Park in 2003." I did not touch the Kermit article, and nobody deleted or restored the section you quoted. Deleting large swaths of content as "trivia" is a disruptive activity that serves no valid purpose and sets us back instead of forward. It is counter to guidelines. Please don't encourage people to make disruptive edits. Wikidemo (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Including large swaths of content as trivia is also a disruptive activity. Simply reverting removals of it is even more disruptive. It's a very good thing you selectively reverted them, rather than just blindly reverted everything. SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, good faith edits aren't disruptive nor are rollbacks of disruptive edits. When someone makes a large number of improper edits all at once, the simplest thing to do is simply restore the old version and I wouldn't fault anyone for that. But with trivia it's worth the extra few minutes to see if there is anything worth saving or not because 90% of all the content in trivia sections is usually useless.Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad people choose to just delete content instead of fixing it. I know it's easier to delete...that's plain enough, but some effort needs to be put into improving articles by integrating content that belongs. No doubt, some content needs to go but it's a little lazy to just delete everything unilaterally. Put a little work into it and you end up with a better article, which is why we're here! RxS (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've got a red-linked user, brand new on February 5th, and his first activity is to immediately start to whack trivia lists. [74] Sounds like hosiery of some kind, eh? Aside from that, the meataxe approach contributes nothing. It's the lazy way, the "I don't like it so no one else can have it" attitude. Because actually working on the articles would require a time investment and would not be nearly as much fun as chopping. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Oh, yeh... words like or similar to what I said about the now-banned user called Burntsauce, whose attitude and approach were similar (though maybe not identical) to this current red-linked user. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out to Mr. Redlink that the reason Burntsauce was banned was not because he deleted trivia lists, as such, but because he didn't care what anyone else thought about it and wouldn't take any corrective action to work with the wikipedia community. And Mr. Redlink's most recent edit as of this writing does not look encouraging in that regard either, with its "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" stance. [75] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
He's already been warned, so the above is overkill, as of the moment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Just so we're clear... yes, trivia sections should be dealt with... with a scalpel, not a meataxe. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Swatjester, removing large blocks of material deliberately on the basis of ones personal opinion about content without prior discussion is vandalism; that is not the way toward cooperative editing and is destructive of the encyclopedia. (As you say, the same would apply to similarly reckless additions--and we revert them as spam with hesitation, and block for them to prevent further damage). Vandalism can be reverted. If one doesnt think it vandalism, then it's B as the first step in BRD, and the second step is R. Either way, BB would have been fully justified in just reverting back these deletions, and suggesting that if it were constructively intended, they be done more reasonably. I'm not all that happy with the entire principle of BRD, which i think leads to just this sort of problem, but if B is justified, so is R, as a necessary part of it. The rule does not read BD. The Bold may be necessary to provoke the discussion, and the R shows it is not obvious, and lets the discussion proceed in a hopefully peaceful spirit. Its the subsequent insistence of repeating opposed Bold moves that turns it into edit warring. The plain meaning of "It's a very good thing you ... " is as an attempt at intimidation. DGG (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
No, editing pages with the intent of damaging Wikipedia is vandalism, editing pages because one believes that they should be one particular way and disagreeing with everyone else is disruptive and/or tendentious editing. Neither is acceptable, but calling good faith but disruptive editing vandalism is not an assumption of good faith, and tends to engender bad faith in the person you accuse of being a vandal. I am also of the belief that while "In popular culture" sections are bad, but that wholesale deletion of such sections just because they include a "referenced in Family Guy, South Park or the Simpsons" entry is a bad way to go about it (personally, I'd like to see an external PopCultureWiki developed that houses these sections, since it is occasionally interesting to read them even if they're not encyclopedic). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the best idea I've heard all day. Just as there is a separate wikisource and wikiquotes (the latter filled with unattributed stuff), there could be a wikitrivia, and then the stuff that's either questionable or "unencyclopedic" could be moved there, and then theoretically everyone would be happy. What would it take to get something like that going? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I vote we call it 'WikiPop'! We could then port over the WikiPop deletionist editors' versions to yet another version, called 'DietWikiPop'! (end humor.) ThuranX (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I also think this is a superb idea. I would totally contribute there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nihil novi on Spiritualism[edit]

I want to flag up a persistent pattern of reversion by Nihil novi on the Spiritualism topic. [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].

As one proponent in the development of the page, I am doing in an attempt to "do the right thing" and out of a wish to avoid flaming any further fires by dropping vandalism or WP:3RR warning on an other editors' talk pages.

I am perfectly happy for material to be removed from the topic that others do not feel is supported by the references and citations provided. I am cognizant of the relative policies and need for consensus but I have made the point that if they wish to remove offending content, they can do so with reverting entirely good reference formating [ [81]], improved images [82], [83] or [84] versus [85] and layouts [86]. Indeed, the removal of the Feminist, Abolitionists or religious principles sections is being done with any discussion and that where references were requested for Post-WWII section they were provided [87].

My feeling is that this a particular situation is being contrived with two or more editors performing identical and total revisions as a provocation, e.g.; Nihil novi and Anthon.Eff [88], [89] etc and that the reverting have now become "personal" rather than topic related. There can be no rational reason for removing formatted references, improved images etc.

I offer that the edits I have done stand as good and I would appreciate practical assistance in this matter as it has gone beyond a mere content issue. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick response. User:Lucyintheskywithdada is doubling the size of the article with one edit, in the process removing preexisting text and images. Concerns have been raised that she has copied and pasted material verbatim from websites (if interested, here's where she was told), and that her "sources" don't say the things she claims they say (some discussion of that here). She has therefore been asked to bring in a little new material at a time, to give us a chance to build consensus, both with regard to her additions and her deletions. So far, she's not listening. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Anthon is the other party engaged in persistent reversions not just on this page but also over the mass deletion of an infobox from every page it was on. An infobox which he referred for deletion and which failed and so he responded by repeatedly removing every example of it. See 31 Jan to 2 Feb [90].
Anthon refers to a paraphrased section of a book I quoted ON A TALK PAGE to support the use of the term spiritualism in philosophy as having an entirely different use. (This has since been accepted and included in a disambiguation page).
Anthon repeats what he knows not to be true, as we discussed this before, by suggesting that it "came from a website" he found. An assertion I have clarified for him in discussion ... [91]. I took it from a copy of the book, hence the paraphrasing. What he seeks to do here is avoid reference to the fact that the quote entirely contradicted his assertion of the lack of connection between spiritualism and E. B. Tylor.
I want to underline that, in essence, the issue here is of WP:BIAS with two or three editors wishing to pursue the generic term in use for the American movement only. I gave the example of the Football page but no one seemed to want to discuss it. Only two editors, Anthon and I formally discussion in move on the proper admin move page. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Since this is my first block, I want to make sure I did it per protoccol. I've blocked Bamford (talk · contribs) for 24 hours as he's fresh off a block for disruptive editing and started blanking pages [92] and [93] and removing tags he's the subject of [94] and [95]. Of course, if I was worng, feel free to unblock. MBisanz talk 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my $.02 on the above thread about Bamford, however this comment here makes me wonder if 24 hours wasn't long enough. Good catch those for at least the 24 hours, some cooling off is definitely needed, especially with being warned about the removal of the COI tag. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Support block. I suggest to anyone else reviewing this to have a read through his talk page, and a look at his contribution history. He's also made a specific threat to evade any block using different IPs [96]. We don't need this kind of hostile, disruptive editor here. Antandrus (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, over at Wikipedia:COIN#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency, we've caught him or meatpuppets using over 30 different IP addresses. I'm beginning to wondering if this isn't a long-term abuser whose figured out how to spoof an NPIA IP address. MBisanz talk 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd have blocked at least 72 hours. The short ones seem to have no effect. RlevseTalk 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we WP:AGF with people who are obviously just here to make trouble. This should have been indef IMHO. JuJube (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind and will try to be around tomorrow when the block comes off to watch things. My rationale was that if he is associated with a semi-governmental law enforcement body (what WHOIS said), we really don't ned them getting mad at wikipedia. But he's obviously used up his good faith and hopefully knows it by now. MBisanz talk 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

His block is over in a bit over five hours. He's made quite a mess of his talk page; it's rather bizarre. If he goes at it again, I say block him for a week and blank the talk page except for a fresh note and then protect it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


User:Mattisse continues to attribute to me actions I've never done, attitudes I've never had, and opinions I never held or voiced. Her behaviour has escalated over the last two weeks. It seems like she is either unable or unwilling to check edit histories, and instead holds me reponsible as a scapegoat for any activity she disapproves of in the vicinity of the article Uvs Nuur, no matter who actually did what. A listing of the diffs disproving her numerous false accusations would fill several pages by now, but can be provided if necessary.

Her crusade began after I reverted two of her changes to Uvs Nuur (change a, revert a, change b bordering on vandalism, revert b). Before the second revert, I initiated a conversation on her talk page. Although I basically agreed with her intention to split the information about the Uvs Nuur basin from the lake Uvs Nuur, her responses turned increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things. Other editors tried to explain to her what had really happened, which eventually resulted in an apology, which I accepted. Unfortunately, her false accusations didn't stop after that. After a while she even retracted her apology, for reason that in reality I had nothing at all to do with. She kept accusing me of "unilateral actions" that either other people were responsible for or that never even happened.

After all normal reasoning didn't result in any change, I formally warned her to stop the badmouthing. in her responses, she didn't seem to understand the problem, and tried to present herself as the victim. Other editors tried to talk sense into her, but without success. Caught in her assumed role as the "innocent victim", she continued to attack me with unsubstantiated accusations. At the same time, she announced she would leave the topic for others to edit, even though nobody had asked her to do that.

A number of editors have participated in editing the related articles recently. That activity also triggered some content disputes. I am not directly involved in those content disputes myself, mainly because I haven't formed a final opinion yet on the matters involved. Other than adding some information on the lake, I've primarily done minor formal edits to the related articles. Most of what I did in the respective discussions was to ask questions. The latest episode of those debates has evolved on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia#Trying to make sense of the Uvs Nuur situation. This discussion was overshadowed by an independent user conduct conflict between two other editors. When I tried to get the discussion back on topic, Mattisse took that as an opportunity to attack me once more, as if the uncivil behaviour of another editor had been mine.

Although I have no idea what Mattisse is trying to accomplish with all that hostility, I don't see any sign of her stopping any time soon. After I and several other editors have exhausted our good will in trying to talk with her, I have now finally to ask for admin support. Sorry for the lengthy explanations, and thanks for any constructive ideas. --Latebird (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've interacted with Mattisse on occasions prior to this event (which I have no knowledge of) - I don't mean to come to an assumed position where I am "protecting" her, but in consideration of the much effort you've already put into this statement, could you provide some diffs for the turning responses which were becoming "...increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things". I know this case is already pretty apparent, but would appreciate some further diffs for clarification, even though we have a sufficient amount of other arguments being presented here, the additional elements can help for the conclusion. Thank you. Rudget. 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Her user talk page below our initial conversation contains a sizeable chunk of that stuff. Interestingly, in her very first response, she already suggested to "have an RFC over it" (over naming questions that I wasn't actually interested in at that time). In my next contribution I stated that I'd support a split of the topics. A little later she claimed "I see you have merged many articles I wrote", which is utter nonsense. It just went downhill from there. Other relevant discussions can be found at the following locations:
Fortunately, most of the article talk pages (and article edit histories) are not very long, so that it's relatively easy to find most evidence. But of course, I'll be happy to provide other diffs as required to clear up specific questions. --Latebird (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not all are sure what it is you're asking for. The options which appear open to me are Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and maybe Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. The editor appears to have an opinion, perhaps based on some evidence, perhaps not, and seems to be