Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive393

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

12-year old girl[edit]

Resolved

The one and only JESSICA (talk · contribs), a 12-year old girl, has just added her name and e-mail address to her talk page. What is the standard procedure in such cases? AecisBrievenbus 22:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Blanked talk page, administrator needs to delete the page and it's history soon. Rgoodermote  22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly you could explain to her this isn't Facebook, while you're at it. 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that the history is blanked I will do that. Rgoodermote  22:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
DoneRgoodermote  22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted the page, and after many edit conflicts, left the user as note about personal info. El_C 22:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Er...sorry about that. Rgoodermote  22:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all; you couldn't know. El_C 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this user page is just a trap set by someone to catch pedophiles. I just had an encounter with Rio de Oro who posted this. I'm not saying that he created this user page, there are many people with this mindset... Count Iblis (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed resolved tag, doubtful. I suspect a sock of the LBHS Cheerleader. The username is similar to one used by her before. Rgoodermote  22:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It could be a trap to catch pedophiles, but it could just as well be a pedophile trap to catch children. AecisBrievenbus 22:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Let us Assume Good Faith then and tag this as resolved. Rgoodermote  23:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just for future reference: WP:CHILD. Tiptoety talk 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by Die4Dixie[edit]

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

Die4Dixie is harassing me in relation to the Jeremiah Wright article. See [1] (same behavior towards another editor [2]) and [3]. TheslB (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Further harassing behavior on the talk page for the Jeremiah Wright article: [4]. TheslB (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm just not seeing any obvious indications of harassment in those diff links. Care to give more background? Because at the moment there seems to be accusations being thrown around by both sides with little evidence to prove anything.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
User:Die4Dixie accused one of us of being a sockpuppet (or atleast a good hand/bad hand) of the other one of us. His justification was that we both removed warnings from our talk page, though I did it per WP:DTR. Grsz 11 23:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As I said, this isn't proof of harassment, and as far as the accusations against yourselves...well there isn't much proof of that either.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually the accusation was made here. Check history of talk page. Rgoodermote  23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
no accusation. I think that you both might be socks of different users. I just want to " trust, but verify"--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That is an accusation and a very serious one, by the way found the diff. [5]. Rgoodermote  23:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty much the opposite of assume good faith. Also, this diff encompasses the whole thing, although there's unfortunately an intervening edit. See the section "Interest of fair disclosure" toward the bottom. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Anybody have the feeling that this has turned into a misunderstanding on both sides in light of a heated edit war?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have a feeling the accusing user was angry because his edits were reverted on several different grounds that we tried to explain. Grsz 11 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest everyone step away for a while and grab some tea and biscuits. Rgoodermote  23:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If an accustaion, then remove from talk page there, and I make and stand behind it in this forumDie4Dixie (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
and my concern is more for TheslBDie4Dixie (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Get some tea mate. Rgoodermote  23:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

<ironic reindent>I would agree with that suggestion. This seems like a misunderstanding, I'm not seeing how this is ANI-worthy. Not much evidence of harassment or sockpuppetry but a whole lot indicating repercussions of edit warring.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said they were socks of one user. My accusation is based on 2 weeks of editing ad an immpressive amount of wiki skill for THES. what brand neww user makes a user page before his first edit? tea time it is, "mate". maybe you could do a usercheck with your "cuppa" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Die4Dixie (talkcontribs) 23:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you trying to self-fulfill this report of harassment? Grsz 11 00:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please review WP:CIVIL. Thanks. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a bit of a weak criteria for sockpuppet evidence. Anyways, I am tempted at archiving this discussion because 1)a sockpuppet report belongs on WP:SSP and 2)there is little supporting any accusations made in this thread.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
so being reported here is the true harrasssment? I'm the harrassed?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Archive it quickly before salt is poured into tea. Rgoodermote  00:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Please send me a link to my user page so that I can share this farce with my brothers for their enntertainmentDie4Dixie (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikihw[edit]

For the past month, Wikihw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly made the same edit on the Georgetown, Washington, D.C. page, which is problematic for various reasons explained by multiple editors on the article talk page. [6] The user has been asked several times to please come to the talk page and discuss the changes, but hasn't and won't even acknowledge us. I'm hoping that someone else can take a look at this and maybe get through to this user? Wikihw has been editing off and on since June, and has potential to be a good editor so long as he/she is willing to work with others on talk pages when needed. --Aude (talk) 05:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the user is ignoring requests and this is a dispute problem, I would open a WP:RFC user. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What?[edit]

Resolved

I am correcting a poorly constructed article about Marine bacteriophages. I have attracted the notice of someone who thinks I am vandalizing the article. Please see the article yourself and his version of what should be a Wikipedia article on the topic versus mine. I asked him, after he reverted my edit accusing me of vandalism, what he was talking about (because my edit is and was clearly not vandalism considering the state of the article). He then accused me of vandalism for talking to him. Can someone speak to him and nip this in the bud so I can work on the article? Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

That last one was me. Sorry. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, so, I just realized. This article is about an important major scientific discovery. It is surprising Wikipedia does not have a general article on marine bacteriophages. Someone just created one. I am trying to make it encyclopedia worthy and useful to the general reader. Please contribute in like manner or allow me to do so without interference. Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that CWii just made a mistake. Tiptoety talk 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you tiptoety :). And I didn't revert on the article. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith? I'm still being accused of vandalism by the person Compwhizii was protecting.[7] What is going on? The virus articles need major work on Wikipedia. Can I edit them? Or not? --Blechnic (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Can this just stop? --Blechnic (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think what happened is that your last edit deleted two references. That looked like vandalism, so he rolled back all of your edits without even looking at the other edits. That's one reason I don't use rollback; I always do a multiple-edit comparison, then undo if appropriate - which it was not, in your case. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but this [8] certainly is not vandalism. It's a talk page message regarding the warnings. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The article was trashed by reverting it. It may be uncivil, but content that nowhere resembles an encyclopedia should not be the order of the day for Wikipedia articles. --Blechnic (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't exactly civil sounding, but still. The user still needs to be careful about what they label as vandalism. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears that I may have made a mistake in the classification of your edit. Simply undo the changes I made. And, you were put in my blacklist. When you edited my talk page, it was immediately reverted. Please accept my apoligies. Mistakes do happen.DougsTech (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Are users allowed to maintain "blacklists" that automatically revert edits to their talk page? —Random832 (contribs) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I accept your apologies if I can now return to editing the article without inteference. Will this be okay? --Blechnic (talk) 01:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

NPDougsTech (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, resolution. I'm going to mark this one. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost. This is snowballing.[9][10] What is going on here? --Blechnic (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I put resolved on mine and Doug's user talk pages. Maybe this will be sufficient, but I think I have been listed somewhere as a vandal. Can this be fixed? I'd still like to edit the marine bacteriophages article. --Blechnic (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you've been listed as a vandal - the reference to the black-list above was most likely regarding a personalized user script like [Vandal Proof], which will automatically undo edits by listed users. It's not a pervasive stigma or anything. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that when Blechnic erased some warnings from his own User Talk, that may have set off some people as well. Though the unjustified warnings are annoying, it would be better to leave the warnings in place and post an answer below them. That would enlighten other people as to the true situation. EdJohnston (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, Blechnic has every right to erased said warnings per WP:TALK if he/she has acknowledged them, or, in this case, they were erroneous. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


This is out of control. I'm a nerdy researcher, not someone looking to make friends or enemies. If you knew anything about Marine bacteriophages you could see how a plant pathogens researcher could get sidetracked into rewriting this article. But if you know nothing about them, your eyes will soon glaze over and you will beg for mercy from the boredom of what I do for a living, and you will not want to be my friend out of the danger that I may bring up the topic over the dinner table. I will assume good faith that this whole matter will be resolved and disappear entirely in the next 24 hours. Plus, the check box is cute. --Blechnic (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Genre dispute and incivility on Talk:Flyleaf[edit]

I have been unsuccessfully trying to mediate a dispute over the genre of Flyleaf. The problem is over whether Christian rock applies to this band, and properly sourcing such a claim. I have opened up an RfC, but another problem lingers from the incivility on both sides of the dispute, which I am bringing here for help. User:Hoponpop69 is in favor of adding the Christian rock tag to the article, and has been slinging personal attacks (see here); this is apparently a standard MO for him. On the other side, User:Dwrayosfour is against adding this tag. This is more of a personal dispute; he's accused me several times of being impartial and siding with Hoponpop (see here/here); while I've tried to stay civil, it is getting challenging. I would greatly appreciate an admin that is more experienced in dealing with the ill-defined music genre field to step in and help out. The article is currently fully protected; I would like to deal with this issue quickly so that editing may resume. Thank you very much. GlassCobra 02:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone tried dispute resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Because several editors are involved, WP:3O is not applicable, multiple requests for mediation have been turned down, and there is a current RfC open, as I mentioned. GlassCobra 10:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Block review: Concerned anon[edit]

I blocked Concerned anon (talk · contribs) in the heat of a 4chan attack on Gavin collins. Concerned anon posted here and I reverted, then, eventually blocked. As a lot of adninistrators know, it's very, very hard to AGF with anything associated with 4chan attacks, so this stood out as just part of the whole when I saw it.

Could others review this situation and his points at his talk page? I have to get out of here for awhile, so I won't be able to discuss this further, but I'll accept whatever consensus is reached. If others feel I was blatantly in the wrong here, then I apologize, but like I said, anything 4chan related is usually a bad sign. Metros (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand why you blocked; we typically respond to SPA trolling with great speed. I'd support an unblock though. The "concerned anon" makes a good point -- not wanting retribution from 4chan, he made a sockpuppet so he wouldn't have to post his username here. Because of his post I finally know how they organize their trolling campaigns (and after reading a lot of those posts, I feel like I need to wash my brain with a wire brush, but that's another matter.) Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I was bold and went ahead and unblocked. Hope that was the right thing to do, but I didn't want to leave it dangling, and I'm about to sign off for the night. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Can see why you blocked; I might have done the same. Given the user's responses, though, unblocking to wait and see (as Antandrus has done) makes sense. No harm assuming good faith, and it's easy enough to deal with any problems as/if they come up. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also everyone, please feel free to review the protections I've been issuing tonight relating to this matter. Due to the volume of the different IP addresses I've mostly protecting rather than giving out blocks. Feel free to lessen or remove ones that seemed hasty. But let me assure you, my "wire brush"-ed brain had some reasons for them as well...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This came up before - an anon posted here that J Milburn was due to come under attack. Personally, if it were me, I'd block all the IPs attacking the page for one week AO for harassment - I can guarantee you almost all the IPs involved in these attacks are one-offs. I agree with the unblock of Concerned anon; he's not the kind of person we want to drive away, especially given the fact that he's actually ratting 4chan out rather than joining in the attacks.
Having said that, I recommend that all the edits associated with tards on User talk:Gavin.collins be deleted and/or oversighted immediately - this style of attack has generally depended on past revisions to work, so removing the versions from anon access takes the wind out of this attack type's sails. I have done so and restored both the good edits and the semi-pro. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 06:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm curious whether oversight would be an acceptable solution in these cases -- swiftly removing the one oldid would render all later attempts to edit that oldid producing error messages. Granted that I doubt that's within a strict interpretation of oversight policy, and the response time might be too slow to make it worth it, anyway, but the idea still comes to mind... – Luna Santin (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I tried when Milburn was attacked; I got a faster response telling Milburn to selectively nuke edits myself. -Jéské (v^_^v Detarder) 06:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Behavior by User:Nyannrunning at Talk:Johnnie Ray#Question[edit]

We have been trying for a very long time to work out disputes over this article with User:Dooyar, who disappeared after mediation was opened, and now, User:Nyannrunning, who also has posted contentiously using other usernames, one of which we suspect is User:Dooyar again. User:Dooyar was blocked last fall for similar attacks (see User_talk:Dooyar#Blocked_.282.29). Our sock puppet report was denied, mostly because it was filed the week of Thanksgiving and this user wasn't online that week. After that, she basically backed away from major editing until recently again, and is now using another name (the Nyannrunning) that wasn't in the report or registered until after the sock report was filed, as well as another username registered the same day (User talk:Debbiesvoucher, to see the same "get help" commentary). Tonight, this user has posted personal information about my visual disability diff, which was only ever mentioned once on Wikipedia, in a now long archived dispute resolution some months ago with the Dooyar name diff. Now once again, she has told me to get help diff, which is one of the specifics for which she was blocked before. As this diff shows, she also has been quite rude, accusing me of running off our admin mediator, calling my comments "nonsense" and general incivility. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Poor old Johnny Ray. Add them to the SSP report, and if necessary ask WP:RFCU, abusive / block-evading sockpuppetry will normally be investigated if it's disrupting articles. Guy (Help!) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Funny, we've used that lyric as our email subject. Pinkadelica instituted a RFCU and posted a note about incivility at the Talk:Johnnie Ray page, after which Nyannrunning left a legal threat. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS[edit]

When I try and edit the WP:ERRORS page I get a message saying the page is protected, and I can't enter any text into the page. And yet admins told me last night the page was not protected, only protected from moving. That doesn't seem to be the case for me. Is this some sort of bug, or has someone got the story wrong? Gatoclass (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Only Move protected, try WP:VPT. However I will fiddle. come back in 10 mins.ViridaeTalk 05:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, figured it out, it's because I was clicking on the "edit" link for the DYK time template on the ERRORS page, which apparently is transcluded so it takes you to that page instead of the WP:ERRORS page. Sorry for the misunderstanding :) Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IP block?[edit]

User:Runtshit is now up in 450 sockpuppets, all edits with a clearly disruptive agenda. Just today we came across at least two new ones. Several of the usernames chosen constitute direct threats. Has his IP numbers been blocked? Isn't there any action possible to take, beyond just blocking the accounts? --Soman (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We can try WP:CHECK to have his IP address blocked. Hopefully it's not used by innocent users... עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've openned a request for checkuser for Runshit. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See this archived discussion - apparently a checkuser has been done in the past without any success. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be good to see if there could be a new checkuser, to see if it is still several IPs used (are these IP from the same server?). --Soman (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Delete this page"[edit]

Resolved

Some apparent vandal has moved Parvathi Menon article to Delete this page. Can some admin move this page back to the original one? Thanks - KNM Talk 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An important Information was wiped out voluntarily[edit]

Resolved: Simple content dispute, no admin intervention required.

Sorry molesting you, I'm not quite shure if I'm right here, but I urgently need your help, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Informationsdienst_gegen_Rechtsextremismus&action=history Thank you in advance, Pitohui (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hibernation?[edit]

Are the administrators in hibernation? Will anyone care to the discussion above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Review_of_block_on_User:Suciindia. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing else for any admins to do; the ball is in Suciindia's court to accept the policies as recently explained. EVula // talk // // 17:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, disruptive editing, and personal attacks from previously blocked user.[edit]

User:Shabiha has once again consistently made personal attacks on myself in liue of an open discussion over a simple editing dispute. She has already recently been warned by site admins about edit warring, and was previously issued a temporary block for blatantly insulting me with religious slurs on my talk page without provocation.

Most recently, this user is again engaging in disruptive editing on the Barelwi article, which is a religious sect within Islam that this user subscribes to. It's a simple editing dispute that normally wouldn't belong here, however after consistent warnings from myself regarding personal attacks and insults in Shabiha's edit summaries and talk pages comments, and after being reverted by several other users due to his/her consistent disruptive edit warring, I feel that there is nothing more I can do. I would suggest this user is dealt with a little more sternly this time, as the same edit warring, personal attacks and disregard for user consensus is what led to his/her block last time. I would like to call User:Scythian1, User:Xe Cahzytr Ryz, and User:Abureem as witnesses to the same disruptions and edit warring I speak of. MezzoMezzo (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I Shabiha replies that User Mezzo is Salafi or more particulalry Wahabi in belief and is editing Wikipedia Just either to Show Other Movements in bad Light or just to prove that Salafi Doctrine in bestt Light see Salafi article receives a tag of Non Neutrality and by his editing Deobandi Article got a large Section for Criticism section[11].He has habits of writing and Inserting Offensive words in other's Movement here.He has tried hard to get delete almost all the Articles of Scholars on the Barelwi page See [12] but was failed badly when Other Editors removed them. one recent Example when his Prod's were removed are here[13] ,[14],[15],[16].In all the discussion he accuse me not following site policies When I revert any of his POV and disruptive editing on any Article. The Article belonging to barelwi Sunni Movement are facing real threat from him see also history and Discussion of Dawat-e-Islami where Several Users have Complained his behaviour and accuse him of editing with Malafide Intention See here.The Intention is Clear by his actions .The Continous recent Insertion of Non Neutral Biased material must be dealt with stern action.All the editors in his List are either salafi or have pro Wahabi attitude by their edits.The User:Hassanfarooqi, User:Msoamu , User:AA ,User:MuhammadYusufAttari, User:Saq_mso are witness to his Inappropriate actions.Please Stop him .Shabiha (t 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Wahhabi? You realize that calling me that was what got you blocked in the first place? I really don't think I need to say any more, I come here to report personal attacks and she literally just did it again right here. And then called to witness users I have gotten along just fine with in the past...that's just confusing, but regardless, something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 15:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
'Wahhabi' is considered by most to be a derogatory term and not one that should be used in a collaborative environment. This guy appears to have been given a final warning a few days ago about his edit warring. Contribution history is full of him accusing people of being liars. -- Naerii 15:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Derogatory term? wahab is the name of Allah in Islam and the terminology Wahabi was Popularized after the name of founder of this Movement Mohammad bin Abdul Wahab in Saudi Arabia.The Modern follower of him recognize themselves more with Salafi but How Wahabi became derogatory and When ,we dont know and I think most of the scholars on the Earth uses this terminology for Saudi Islam.what is wrong with that?
  • You changed your name yourself and trying to Start accuse Others.You still have Same Ideology and Movements are recognized by their Ideologies and by the name of its Founders Which are same.
  • Moreover Wikipedia has Page Over it .It is a faith this is fact and I wrote nothing new but by my experiences I told that either You are Salafi or ....

If You are Correct then I must accuse you of Personal attack by saying that AhleSunnah of South asia never Used this terminology Barelwi Which was Used by You in Your arguments .Traditional Sunnis Who follow Sufism in South asia dont Like this term Barelwi but People like You Uses it.

  • The editing dispute is due to the Insertion of POV and Biased Content sourced to Unverifiable Sites which are Non Neutral .

I am always ready to accept all form of Criticism and editing but It must be from Neutral Sources .Am I wrong? Shabiha (t 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about the edit dispute, edit disputes don't belong here. This is about your constant stream of abuse to myself and others via name calling and accusations. You literally just did it again here and are even trying to defend it now, despite another user taking notice of what i've been talking about. Thank you for the input by the way, Naerii. I've never seen a user been reported for personal attacks and instead of making a relevant defense, launching that same personal attack again on the incidents noticeboard. This is beyond ridiculous, something needs to be done. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If Wahabi is abusive then It is again POV because It is a well Organized Movement in the World and has large followers.Your Claim is disputed and debatable.Moreover If a Person have beliefs according to this Movement then What should Neutral person Say about that Person?the answer would be Obviously that he has Wahabi faith.

Here and there Your all claims are Just Claims not facts supported by Neutral person.

  • DON'T You Know that almost all the Scholars of western world and third World Calls this Movement as Wahabi Movement and recognizes Individual Person as wahabi.
  • Additionaly the dispute was all about your POV edits which are Supported by Unverified Non Neutral Sources.
  • Is this is not Your personal attack on me ,

This is about your constant stream of abuse to myself and others via name calling and accusations. and This is beyond ridiculous

Really Something needs to be done to Stop this User who is Constantly attacking me personally and damaging neutral pages.Shabiha (t) 09:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously copy pasting my own comments to you verbatim again? Even after me telling you two or three times that this is trolling? Seriously, we have usage of what is acknowledged by everyone but this user of a derogatory term, which they were blocked for before, and now even trolling, right here in the incidents board. I think I can rest my case at this point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty obvious to most. Shabiha, my suggestion is, give up while you're ahead - your above behaviour is heading straight for block territory if you continue. The harassment and no personal attacks guidelines are instructive here. Orderinchaos 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Banning SPA RTFA from Don Murphy[edit]

I've no particular interest in this article. But whilst there's been disagreement on whether to keep this article or not, we should all agree what has to happen as long as we have it. With any BLP, and especially one where we know the subject is (rightly or wrongly) unhappy, we need to make sure our WP:BLP policy is enforced in letter and spirit and the article is at all times neutral and fair. We need our best writers collaboratively on it, and not people with agendas and obsessions.

RTFA (talk · contribs) is a self-admitted two-week old single purpose account (and probable sock) with an obsession with this article (all his edits are to it). He's continually been inserting negative content [17] [18] etc. This is exactly the type of user we don't need near an article like this. Earlier today, he restored a pile of his edits that had been challenged by other users under the BLP policy. (See here for edit summary). His mentality was he saw no harm in them, he thought they were neutral, and so it was for others to show him what was not. Looking at his other contributions, he's perhaps not an overt trouble maker, but he's certainly not helping us keeping things neutral.

I propose a topic ban for this SPA. Indeed, as this is the only topic he ever edits, perhaps we should simply block this account and leave the user free to resume editing with whatever main account he uses to edit elsewhere.--Docg 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong support. Topic bans for obsessive editors of problematic articles are a good idea and supported by numerous arbitration cases. It seems to be the emergent standard for dealing with tendentious editors; they can then either redeem their reputation through good work or wander off - and we win either way. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. ViridaeTalk 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally support. We do not need this sort of problem user messing around with BLPs for whatever personal reasons. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Seems prudent to me. Just as we would similarly ban those intent on editing in the other direction. ++Lar: t/c 22:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec)Sock stirring up trouble. Obsessive focus on controversial BLP. The Hand says "block". Relata refero (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a little strong, don't you think? He's edited the article once since the DRV, to implement a version of the article he felt was well-sourced and not in contravention of our guidelines. When he was reverted, instead of throwing a hissy fit and embarking upon an edit war, he brought it to the talk pages of the involved editors, the BLP noticeboard, and the talk page of the article itself, and has not touched the article itself since. Classic WP:BRD. Please, no knee-jerk reactions. Steve TC 22:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
1)BRD does NOT apply to material he was aware was already disputed under the BLP. 2) This isn't a question of what's "fair" this is a question of "is this user's presence helping us keep this bio dispassionate and NPOV". This is about what's best for the article, not the rights of an anonymous user who's editing from a sock with nothing to lose.--Docg 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Would such a ban include the Murphy talk page or not? I would point out that the article has been locked again after erupting again after RTFA editing again. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The request for protection I put up was due to edits like this and not the content dispute of RTFA. The protection is unrelated.
I would encourage the talk page be banned as well. This is becoming problematic, so if this editor wants to contribute, and I encourage good contributions, it won't be in the very most sensitive area of this BLP, at least not in the near future. Support topic ban. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll only point out that before RTFA's edit, numerous meatpuppets from the DM messageboard have been editing the article in an attempt to remove as much as can be got away with. See the messageboard itself for proof of this. RTFA appears to be acting in good faith. In his own words, "I am only an SPA because DM has harassed editors in the past when it comes to editing his article." I don't think anyone can disagree with that. Steve TC 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Absolutely.--Docg 22:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this move - SPA socks with self-admitted agendas should not be editing BLPs. FCYTravis (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the past, veteran editors have been harassed by Don Murphy and people that he recruits from his website. You can see this taking place here. As I explained to Rjd0060, who questioned my use of a SPA, I disclosed the reasons at Talk:Don Murphy/Archive2 as well as at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Don Murphy and Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Don Murphy. I do not wish to be harassed on my veteran account because I have personal information in my page histories. Per Doc glasgow's recommendation, I brought up my revision on the film producer's talk page to discuss what elements can be included. Discussion is underway to determine how to implement my revision, and I do not appreciate the lack of good faith by Doc glasgow. The content I added was how it was reported, and Don Murphy has acknowledged his own reputation. I tried to substantiate this by quoting him twice. I have not caused any trouble -- I reverted a sockpuppet that had reverted my expansion (and the sockpuppet was eventually blocked). I participated in the deletion review to inform editors about the film producer's notability. I followed WP:BRD, though in retrospect, this approach was not compatible with WP:BLP. If anything, would be permitted to participate in discussion on the talk page? RTFA (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with your using a sockpuppet per se in this case because of the reasons you outline, it seems it is the way you are editing the article that is, well probl;ematic enough to see you discussed here (and as a fellow editor on the article I am going to opine myself on the rightness of wrongness of a topic ban but will fully respect what is decided here). Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
But he's not editing the article. Since that one edit, he's brought this up purely in talkspace. Why would that be problematic? Steve TC 23:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
strong supporthe made changes to a highly explosive topic TODAY- reverting to his own writing that caused one DRV and one AFD. He is a probably enemy IRL of the topic's. He is pushing a non NPOV agenda.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The DM meatpuppets have been strongly advised to insert as much nonsense as possible into the article (as per the messageboard). Why are they not the subject of an AN/I thread? Steve TC 23:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
They were not considered worth a thread here and were just indef blocked. RTFA is actually being treated with far more respect. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Good answer; thanks for the clarification. Steve TC 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

••indeed said puppets are deleted as they appear. Fact is Steve YOU left the project supposedly because of Murphy, going so far as to post the F Murphy expletive on your talk page. Then you show up supporting this attack account. Methinks thou doth protest too much.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If everyone wants, I can keep my hands off the article itself and solely participate in the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I just wanted to make others aware of additional content to shape the article. RTFA (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't have to make that offer; you've already refrained from editing the article in order to engage other editors in talkspace, all in the interests of improving the article. Steve TC 23:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
a bit late IMO- you showed up today a week after things quieted down and started again. We don't know who you are and all you do is obsess about Murphy. You tried to insert a REPUTATION section in a BLP article as if you were qualified to assess such a thing. I think you should go back to your real account and if you want to attack Murphy do so as a man.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I only added the "Reputation" heading in addition with the "Transformers involvement" heading because both were major subtopics under the overall topic of his career. If there is a different way to separate the information, then we can structure it differently. The content under both headings is valid. My revision of Murphy was not purposely negative -- I wrote about how his foresight and his drive were considered admirable. RTFA (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
you have tried for two weeks on multiple talk pages (including the discussion page for the AFD) to get someone to post YOUR version of Murphy with whom you are obsessed. Today a week after you failed you posted it anyway. TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, during the deletion review, I could not post my revision because the admin had deleted the article and its page history. The AFD was withdrawn because of overwhelming consensus that Don Murphy was notable. Unfortunately, after the brief gatherings at the deletion review and the AFD, editors went elsewhere. Discussion wasn't able to continue, but at the present, it seems to be going on. We can see what progress will be made. RTFA (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
WILL be made? I repeat Doc's question from your talk page- what is your obsession with Murphy? Why must YOUR version of the article be included?TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Note that "TheUnknownCitizen" is another probable SPA sent to aid Murphy's agenda. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There isn't an obsession with Don Murphy. All my edits have been focused on the film producer because Murphy's supporters have frequently harassed editors that get involved with this article. Doesn't mean I don't work on articles about other people. I was aware of the harassment and used a SPA to be able to add content without fear. I'm not trying to push for my entire version of the article. The version consisted of verifiable information from reliable sources, and I asked editors in the past and today to evaluate what content can be included to give readers a better idea of the personal life and professional career of this public figure. RTFA (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean notable figure since public figure is a legal term and would definitely not apply to Murphy. I also note that since you have come along there have been renewed attacks on the article, DRVs and AfDs and now this. If you ARE not obsessed I would hate to see what you do obsess about.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The "renewed attacks" are as a result of incitements here to vandalise the page in order to have it "locked" in a state of permanent blandness. Steve TC 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, Steve that link goes no where. Nice try.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted by MB admin. Luckily, I have a copy of the page saved, should it be required. Steve TC 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The thread has been moved by Murphy; check the same forum, it's still there but under a different name. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
My apologies, I meant "notable figure". In addition, I have no involvement with any acts of vandalism on the article. Why would I vandalize the article? It would encourage more of a lockdown and not enable me to share content about the film producer. In addition, the DRV was the result of the admin being convinced at Wikipedia-Review.com to delete the article unilaterally after there was traffic on it. I never intended for any deletion processes to happen. The ensuing AFD was not my intent, either. I actually obsess about fly-fishing and Robert Jordan's books, but that's beside the point. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose topic ban per Steve. Looking at his contrib history, the only problematic edit he made to the article was his last one on March 29, in which he reverted to a pre-DRV version without discussing it first. In light of this, a topic ban seems overwrought. Blueboy96 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Totally support this. The situation was sparked off by this editor and will continue to be an issue as long as this editor and SPA are active on the topic. Powwowjoe (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Powwowjoe (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Interesting, a little SPA sent by Murphy no doubt wants a productive editor banned from a topic. Can we just get Murphy's "stooges" to go away? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Josh, it was Doc glasgow who made this proposal not an SPA or Murphy stooge. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose per Steve and Blueboy. RTFA has been established to be an editor in good standing who is legitmately afraid of harassment. We need to allow such users to be able to do good work without being subject to attacks. No edit by this user has been problematic and I see no good reason to topicban this editor. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • ignoring the incivility of sockpuppet user JoshuaZ, he states RTFA has been established to be an editor in good standing. IS THIS TRUE? Just because he says so don't make it so. And no Joshua, I neither know nor like Mr. Murphy especially. I just see this RTFA thing as something wrong and bad for the project. As do several admins I see.TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I didn't engage in uncivil behavior but if you want me to I'll say simply that your accusations demonstrate that you have no idea what the bloody clusterfuck you're talking about. And given your above miraculously finding this issue as a new editor demonstrates that you are not only another Murphy but a liar also. Go away. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I guess I would have to resort to profanity if youtube had videos that looked like that too. Personal attacks aside, I would like an answer to the question WHO said that RTFA was actually an established user except RTFA himself?TheUnknownCitizen (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
            • He has confirmed his identity to a number of trusted editors including a checkuser. Now go away. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. BLP requires that the content adder needs to prove the validity, not the content remover, as this account should know. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Incredibly irrelevant. All his additions were sourced. And he has made only one edit to which any serious objection was made. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Everything added was cited to reliabe sources, as far as I can see. Since the reversion, the user has taken this up purely in talkspace; as such, a topic ban is surely a knee-jerk reaction. Steve TC 23:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doc glasgow has instructed me to discuss before editing, so I have done so. I was unwise to follow WP:BRD in this instance. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • support, considering he helped trigger the whole drv mess in the first place. if you're too scared to edit the article from your main account, please don't edit it at all. -- Naerii 23:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but the admin who unilaterally deleted the article triggered this. Don't pin the blame on me, and editors like H have suffered because of their involvement with this article. RTFA (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well suffered relatively, don't confuse Murphy with the GNAA, I am another victim of the Murphy forum, believe me. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, WP:SOCK#LEGIT reckons RTFA's usage of a sock account to be perfectly legitimate. Steve TC 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If he were an abusive sock he would have been blocked banned indefinitely without this tread, the SPA isn't the problem but it is a description of the circumstances. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As RTFA has pointed out above, reinserting the controversial material wasn't a very wise thing to do, and he stated that he won't do so again. His edits to the Don Murphy talk page seem rather sane to me, too, so I see no real need for a topic ban yet. --Conti| 00:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FT2's findings that this is "an alternate account used by a legitimate Wikipedian in apparent good standing, who is separating their edits in relation to this article from their other edits." In the circumstances, I can understand why someone might not wish to edit from their main account. No evidence has been provided that this accounts constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts or is otherwise editing in bad faith. WjBscribe 01:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't doubt any of that. The faith of the editor isn't my problem, my problem is that it simply is not helpful to allow a wikipedian who's obsessed with this article on a living person, and not editing neutrally, to continue to do so. It isn't fair to allow an anonymous SPA to target an article and use his position to fight against the subject's wishes. If someone isn't even willing to stake their wiki-reputation on their edits, they should not be editing an article that the subject is concerned with. It is cowardly. (And before anyone accuses me of hypocrisy since I'm anonymous - I don't insert critical material into BLPs and certainly never work against the wishes of the subject.) Editors who choose (and no-once forces them) to work on BLPs should be open and accountable for their edits and biases. He says he fears Murphy? Understandable perhaps. But in that case, how neutral is he? Editing in fear? And what's motivating him in this obsession? I'm not about to guess or assume the motive for any of it, but I am going to assume (on the evidence) that this isn't good for the article.--Docg 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • "Obsession" - I'm not seeing where you get this from. That someone (a) wants to edit the Murphy article and (b) would rather not use their regular account does not mean they are obsessed. His edits related to the topic are fairly light if he has an account that makes a "considerable number" (to quote Thatcher below) of edits to other topics. You seem to actually be arguing that those who edit BLPs (at least if they are adding rather than removing material) should not be able to do so anonymously at all - that's going pretty far against the current grain and I don't think you'd find much support for such a policy. I do actually think that if someone deliberately inserts defamatory material into a BLP, they should be deemed to have waived their rights to anonymity and it should be appropriate for the Foundation to assist the defamed subject in identifying them. This is a long way from that scenario though as the material added by RTFAs is sourced and appears accurate - its addition may not constitute balanced coverage, but I see nothing defamatory there. WjBscribe 16:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

SPA Blocked[edit]

Despite strong objections from a minority, I am reading a clear consensus to end RTFAs editing of the Murphy article. Since that's the only purpose of the SPA, I have blocked the account, but not the IP. The user can return to editing whatever other articles from his main account. There's a sockfest of other SPAs here, and I'd support blocking the lot (on both sides). If consensus overturn my block later, so be it. But right now I see clear consensus support. I do this without prejudice to the intentions or civility of RTFA who seems a reasonable person, over-obsessed with the wrong article. And let's ban all SPAs from it too. --Docg 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is strongly against what SOCK says. You are a highly involved editor given your previous reverting of his edits. I strongly object to both this block and your blocking. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe we have any grounds for criticising Doc glasgiow for his involvement in this articvle. Thanks, SqueakBox
I support a topic ban and I don't see a consensus at all. Especially not for blocking. -- Naerii 00:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope sorry, unless I am missing something very obvious I do not see any consensus for a topic ban, let alone a block. Please overturn. ViridaeTalk 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I have no interest in the contents of this article. I have never reviewed them. I reverted once when the edit summary indicated that RTFA was aware that he was inserting material that others had challenged under the BLP. I regard myself as a wholly neutral party here, I sought and obtained consensus before acting.--Docg 00:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You have strong opinions about BLP-penumbra issues which is precisely what this discussion and block has to do with. This discussion was only here for a few hours. This is a SOCK compliant account we are talking about. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
As do you. So what? If having strong views on BLPs in general stopped admins taking BLP related action, we'd really be sunk.--Docg 00:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I support Doc's judgment here. This is a sensitive BLP, and past arbitration precedent supports being sensitive towards BLP subjects when socks are involved. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for being an uninvolved admin, Doc. As an editor to the article really all I am interested in is content, and you seem to have acted in an exemplary admin fashion (I am not saying you are right or wrong per se, but that's another matter, your actions in themselves are right). Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
"Sensitivity" is being adhered to; RTFA has not edited the article since the revert, preferring instead to take it up in talkspace. There is no ill-behaviour to prevent; therefore a block is unnecessary. Steve TC 00:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we all know what the RTFA Stands for and as such it should be banned anyway as an inappropriate usernameTheUnknownCitizen (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
RTFA says this. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Er, RTFA is a redirect to RTFM which is within Wikipedia guidelines for acceptable user names. Now, if we want to talk about someone who should be blocked how about the edit right above SqueakBox who is a clear SPA from the Murphy boards. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if you support blocking people just for being sockpuppets I expect you also support the block on RTFA then? You can't have it both ways. -- Naerii 00:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The block was carried out way too fast, IMHO. 1,5 hours just isn't enough to form a real consensus. There was no real need to be quick, either, since User:RTFA stated he won't edit the article anymore for now. --Conti| 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RTFA unblocked, no consensus for a block in this very short discussion. No continuing rverts of controversial material - he engaged on the talk page after the initial one, legitimate and understandable use of a sock per the sockpuppetry policy as long as he sticks to the talk page. ViridaeTalk 00:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternate proposal[edit]

I honestly think that this action by Doc was overwrought. As I mentioned earlier, we're looking at an editor who has made only ONE problematic edit so far to this article. I looked at his contribs, and it seemed that most of them were reverting edits by Murphy's meatpuppet army. In light of this, I propose that RTFA be restricted to suggesting any changes he wants to make on Talk:Don Murphy for two weeks. Thoughts? Blueboy96 00:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An obsessed editor is still precisely what this article does not need.--Docg 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Doc, I can't see how you've concluded that this editor is "obsessed" about the article. They weren't involved in editing the article for several days after the DRV closed. Unless you know what volume of edits this person's main account is making and to what articles, I have trouble following your conclusions on this matter. WjBscribe 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not the point. I thought a block would be OK, but given the number of people who disagree, going ahead and blocking is the worst idea possible. Doc has been really, really cavalier recently, and I think he should reconsider his approach. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If there's a consensus for the talkpage restriction instead, I suppose it could work. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This is not a good idea. This article is at current, a sensitive one. NonvocalScream (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. If RTFA is a good faith user who has decided not to tie his main account to Don Murphy (something with which I can readily sympathise), that does put a slightly different complexion on it, but only slightly. I don't think that article needs SPAs, and trying to work out which ones are sleeper socks and which are editors avoiding the shitstorm Murphy tends ot unleash on anyone whose edits he dislikes is probably going to give us a weakness that will be ruthlessly exploited. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why I checkuser'ed him as soon as he became a concern, early on. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
To confirm information cited above, and comment: as stated on the original DRV, user:RTFA is a second account of a user with a wide range of reputable contributions on many topics, and whose past editing history makes it very likely this is a legitimate routine interest in the Don Murphy dispute and article, rather than an "obsession". To comment on Doc's original concern, if a user who edits on many articles and project pages related to related themes creates an alternate account for one topic where harassment may occur, that account will have edits to that one topic and possibly no others. Checkuser results confirmed as far back as the DRV that this user has an apparent good reputation and active editorial involvement in his main account, which edits on a great many topics, and that in the context of his wider editing (which is separated from RTFA's editing for legitimate reasons) his editorial interest in Don Murphy seems completely unexceptional from here. As a personal view, he probably has equal right to edit the article as any other experienced competent editor, as best I can see, until and unless he were to actually visibly edit badly. He should not be treated with suspicion merely for segregating his Don Murphy related edits from his other edits, which is permitted in any event, and very understandable in this area. He is not editing anything Don Murphy related with his usual account. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe it's appropriate to block someone for merely being "obsessed" with an article. You could say that about any FA author, too. Whatever the appropriate solution to the Murphy issue is, it's certainly not to block someone who is actively seeking to improve his article. There may be a problem with allowing this contentious article to be freely edited in general, but I cannot see a problem with allowing one interested editor to work on the article as long as it is freely editable, as long as he respects consensus and NPOV in the process. Everyking (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm aware of an editor who has over 1,000 edits on an article they managed to get to GA. Most definitely a good faith editor, if not a particularly efficient one at that time in their development :) I agree with the unblocking, and with FT2's rationale above. Orderinchaos 02:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Urgent action requested[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Erkusukes, the anon IP 149.68.31.146 (talk · contribs) belongs to the banned User:Azad chai, which is the same as banned User:Azerbaboon. I posted this info at WP:AE, but my report has not been reviewed yet. However urgent action is needed right now, as the IP continues edit warring in defiance of the ban. In addition, a couple of new SPA IPs emerged that follow me and undo my edits. These are 85.211.2.204 (talk · contribs) and 85.211.4.163 (talk · contribs). Also according to the same cu, User:Erkusukes is the same as User:Merjanov and User:Cn111, and all 3 are likely to be socks of banned User:Verjakette. However, Erkusukes continues edit warring in violation of wiki rules, since no action is taken as result of the cu. I remind that Armenia - Azerbaijan related articles are covered by the latest ruling of the arbcom, see [19] Urgent action is requested to stop disruption by banned users. Thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged the accounts/IPs listed in the Checkuser report ... can someone keep a watch on the IPs? Blueboy96 05:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. The only ones that are left are SPA IPs 85.211.2.204 (talk · contribs) and 85.211.4.163 (talk · contribs). I believe they are open proxies. What could be done about them? Grandmaster (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Report it to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I added both IPs to the same cu, waiting for the results. Grandmaster (talk) 07:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I added both to WP:OP as well. Grandmaster (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Another one: 85.211.4.116 (talk · contribs). 3 rvs, no comment or edit summary. Looks like someone tries to bait users restricted by the arbcom parole, as most of editors editing Armenia - Azerbaijan area are restricted to 1 rv per week parole. Grandmaster (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked and edits rolled back. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt action. Grandmaster (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The anon is back, reverting pages, please check contribs of 85.211.2.190 (talk · contribs). Grandmaster (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been dealt with, thanks. Grandmaster (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is continuing to occur, see history of Caucasian_Albania; IPs in the range 85.211.2-4.*, but there are useful contribs coming from there. I recommend putting these articles on semi-protect for a few days, as they all contain the images that are the source of the dispute:

There are more pages being involved in this silly game (see 85.211.2.190), but I think those are retaliation and protection on those wont be beneficial.

Note that 70.21.139.214 has the appearance of being a reasonably static IP, and it has previously been working together with the IPs that are currently causing a problem (evidence), but 70.21.139.214 has yet to play up again. John Vandenberg (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Another IP vandal: 85.211.3.239 (talk · contribs). I think it is time to semiprotect some articles. Grandmaster (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Jd2718 is obviously really the banned Jamiechef2[edit]

Resolved: Vexatious request, IP blocked for disruption. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

seeing contributions history, the anti-Jewish POV pusher Jd2718 is obviously a sockpuppet or the original account of Jamiechef2.

diff1 diff2 diff3

Edit summary from this sockpuppetteer: "we don't automatically delete the comments of banned users; this had merit" when the edits were from "Michael-mike1", who is obviously a return of Jd2718's sockpuppet Jamiechef2.

Jd2718 has obviously been using these sockpuppets to subvert discussion, commit personal attacks on other users, evade the 3 revert rule, and own articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. I'm not clued up on what to expect from Jamiechef2, but nothing in the edits provided looked sinister to me. Certainly, blind reversion of edits by banned users should be reverted, IMO, if the edits are productive, as those were (though I would advise Jd2718 to be careful doing that, after what happened recently to Majorly). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
An administrator needs to remind this IP user who made this report not to attack other editors in his/her edit summaries. I issued a warning about this with all the usual links to our policies, etc. After my words of advice the IP decided it was still OK to leave edit summaries like this: "undo neo-nazi", "undo CAIR propogandist", and "undo obvious racist socking".PelleSmith (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read Jamiechef2's sockpuppet page. These are almost EXACTLY the same type of edits Jamiechef2 does, he's a racist anti-semite whose goal is to POV articles on food by removing any israeli mentions. You can read the contributions of any of Jd2718's numerous sockpuppets to see what he does.

In this case, Jd2718 is obviously using a sockpuppet to try to push POV and fake support for his own racist views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You've linked to Jamiechef2's RFCU, I still see no evidence that Jamiechef2==Jd2718. Unless hard evidence is brought forward (perhaps I've missed it?), calling the accounts listed at the RFCU Jd2718's is simply not true, and should not be done. His sockpuppetry isn't obvious to anyone but you, and I don't think you're going to convince anyone by making these repeated assertions without backing them up with hard evidence. And please, ease up on the racism comments. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Look at where Jd2718 edits. Look at his constant edit-warring along with the jamiechef2 sockpuppet farm, reverting to its racist edits. Look at his adding back of comments by his own (banned!) sockpuppet as linked above. He's either running it directly or he's got a meatpuppet making those for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.23 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at where he edits. I'm not convinced that editing the same articles as a banned user makes you their sockpuppet. I'm not aware of him edit warring to restore racist edits on the whole, and I certainly haven't seen it so blatant that it's aroused my suspicions. And I will say again that simply calling it his banned meatpuppet, and then using him restoring the edits as "proof", doesn't actually prove any sock/meatputtpetry. At least, that's my opinion. Maybe you should create an suspected sockpuppets report or request a checkuser if you're certain. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

reply by jd2718[edit]

The reporter, 76.30.205.23 talk, also with edits as user:M1rth, has been warned several times about WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and edit warring. The IP started editing last week, M1rth last month.

The IP and M1rth share: narrow focus on editing a few aspects of the Arab Israeli conflict, preoccupation with Middle Eastern food, frequent failure to sign talk page posts, preoccupation with sockpuppets of user:Jamiechef2, and now, preoccupation with me. The user never links my name, calls me racist, saves his most offensive language (ill-considered accusations, mostly) for edit summaries, and uses the word "undo" in summaries, whether the edit is a real "undo" or just a normal revert.

List of warnings he has received, as M1rth:
[20] by user:Aitias
[21] by user:Chetblong
[22] by user:SirFozzie (for Canvassing, relatively minor)
[23] by user:JzG (a relatively minor "tread lightly") [24] but then blocked by same (for attacking user:Alison)
[25] by Anthony
[26] by me (I guess that's not so interesting) [27] and again by me with an agf3 template
[28] by user:Gwen Gale "please calm down"
[29] by Anthony "final warning"
[30] me again, on Civility, with a warning that next time I would ask for him to be blocked
[31] echo by user:Tiamut
[32] block by Anthony for edit warring followed by [33] a final warning by Anthony. user:Jayron32 declines to unblock user:Martinp23 declines to unblock
[34] and by user:Tiamut

Warning he has received, as this IP:
[35] by user:PelleSmith

This is just 6 or 7 weeks. It does not seem that he has made any progress on AGF, on Civility, on editing norms.

The accusation that I am either a puppet or a puppeteer is absolutely baseless. Jd2718 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This IP user is quite obviously User:M1rth. User:AGK had promised to file a user RfC on this subject,[36] but got sidetracked I guess. Could someone else please look into M1rth's history and his relationship to this IP editor? And can something finally be done to stop his disruptions and false accusations? Thanks. Tiamuttalk 12:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, somebody needs to block this guy[edit]

I'd post individual diffs, but honestly, you can pick pretty much anything from 76.30.205.23's contribution history. Everyone who disagrees with him is a "neo-nazi," "propagandist," "racist," "boob." We're all sock puppet apologists and we all need to be blocked. That's going from edit summaries alone. Will an admin please put a stop to this disruption? <eleland/talkedits> 13:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Blocked 1 month. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Also please have a look at 129.7.75.22 (and one or two others in the 129.7- IP range). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Note, this seems to have been a banned user and has been resolved by User:Thatcher. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
That blocked user, FFF, has himself been identified by myself and ChrisO as a sockpuppet of banned User:CltFn. And of course he's doing exactly the same sock-puppet hunting crusade that User:M1rth was, related to the same people, on the same pages. Who wants to bet they're all socks of CltFn?
Two weeks ago I hinted at my thoughts it might be something like that. Many of these alleged socks have seemed so linked with the users who've been "finding" and reporting them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait - you mean that FFF might be socking against his own POV, then using the puppeteering to justify getting his way?! How convoluted. It is odd that he kept insisting that well-established, respectable editors like Tiamat were sock-puppets; I had it down to paranoia alone, but now you make me wonder. <eleland/talkedits> 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I never would have thought of it on my own, if I hadn't seen something like it here before (long ago and unrelated to this). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blatant lies of English836[edit]

English836 (talk · contribs), formerly known as NightRider63 (talk · contribs) and Mgarnes2 (talk · contribs), has taken up the pattern of his former accounts in blatantly lying about information for articles. A past example can be found here where he tried to convince everyone his corporation traded on the stock exchange and a heapful of other lies (also see the related AFDs in that post). There's also User talk:Nationalparks#AHS where he, as Mgarnes2, tried denying an obvious COI where he was using his own blog as a reference on numerous pages.

This brings us to the present where English836 has been trying to explain how a Fire District is notable based on several factors. It starts off with being about the only US district to win this award. There's also a note about a malfunction of a fire truck. I dispute this. I get called a child, told to go back to Global Studies, and one changes to "few". The award is now give by region according to English836. I dispute; he gives an "explanation". I ask for a source; he gives these. I refute again with evidence. And that's where it stands now.

We also had an issue at Image:2007.11.29 - Joesph Saia and Patrick Quigley-AHS.jpg a while back with his lies again. He kept claiming that it should be tagged as US gov't property because the FBI was handling the case. This was false as I stated at his talk page.

What can be done about this? This is very frustrating and time consuming to have to deal with. His blatant lies are disruptive and need to be stopped. He's racking up a lot of issues with the conflicts of interest (linking to his own blog, creating articles about his own ventures, creating articles about his grandfather), these blatant lies, and the personal attacks (referring to yours truly as a fop, saying I need to go back to Global Studies, and saying I was a child). What should be done to stop this? Metros (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

From my (admittedly cursory) inspection, I'd say liberal kinetic application of salmonidae. At this point, an RfC might be indicated, at least. — Coren (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, so far I've been the only one dealing with these situations really. So I don't know who else could certify an RFC. Any other suggestions? Metros (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of block on User:Suciindia[edit]

User:Suciindia was blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Suciindia. They certainly violated WP:SOCK, but I think that the account was controlled by the party office and it is very much possible that the party office has one single IP. Can the block on the main account User:Suciindia be reviewed? Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this was an isolated case of using a sock to get around 3RR. If the user acknowledges that what they did is wrong, and agrees not to do so in future, then I think a second chance should be OK. Discount this if there are other circumstances that could be relevant to my decision making. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

At least the users concerned should be given the opportunity to explain their point of view on the accusation of sockpuppetering. Suciindia claimed to be a collective account, I had proposed that they rather form individual accounts for wikiediting. I think it would be unfortunate if that advice (i.e. complying with wiki guidelines) would result in their block. Moreover, one fact that is perhaps not widely known to most wiki users is that SUCI cadres live in communes. Thus the sharing of a single IP is quite probable. One way out would be to unblock User:Sekharlk (which claimed an individual identity), and leave the rest blocked. --Soman (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to ensure that this does not develop into a large-scale problem, which could easily happen if we treat a bunch of political activists with what they perceive as high-handedness. They appear willing to edit within our norms - see the previous discussion on AN/I - and I think blocking all the accounts is overkill. Someone should unblock now. Relata refero (talk) 09:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur that an unblock is in order, if they intend to edit within our norms... but we shouldn't unblock until they acknowledge their understanding of those norms and explicity state their intent to abide by them. If they have done that to an admin's satisfaction, then by all means. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the diff of the account's last statement. Someone direct it to WP:SOCK, WP:GAME and WP:RS, on its talkpage, get its consent to those guidelines, and unblock. Relata refero (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have posted to the user's talk page as you suggest, noting this discussion, highlighting those policies, and asking the user to review and accept them. If there are novel technical issues here (a community with one IP, for example), then those should probably be discussed here as well. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The statement, "any edits on it from our side needs to be recognized as by the party and not as of any individual" means that User:Suciindia is a Role account, which is not permitted on the English wikipedia (with exactly 2 current exceptions). Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The user(s) has returned and taken to blanking the sock report and leaving personal attacks (calling other editors a "menace" and "hooligans"). IrishGuy talk 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
The same notice was left at User:Suciindia's talk page here, and I have no idea how to parse it. There is a conference to discuss this incident? The blanking of the sock report is odious, granted. I acknowledge that role accounts are not permitted, which is precisely what the user is supposed to take away from their reading of WP:SOCK. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked 31 hours. I think we're done here. Blueboy96 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann 2[edit]

The user is continueing to abuse his admin powers. I first want to ask you to look at the recent [first complaint], and specifically what I wrote. I want you to see what nasty words this user has used previously, a clear violoation of WP:NPA that left me personaly very sad and almost made me leave Wikipedia. He continues to break WP:CON in Assyria (Persian province) by moving the page despite other users are discussing it in the talk page. The Admin moves it for the 3rd time under the summary of no meaningful argument is being presented on talk. I ask you to look at the talk page and decide if you think my and other user's arguement is so weak in that it doesn't need a discussion. This is a clear violation of WP:CON. He is also continueing to break WP:OWN on the Assyrian people page by creating his own rules in the talk page. In the talk page, he declares that the page is ought to be about all Neo-Aramaic speakers. What right does it give him to decide this? That article is an ethnic article and I have suggested that we should try to follow the guidelines we are given by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, but he continues to not back down. I ask you, is this how an Admin should be acting? I am looking at Wikipedia:Administrators, and it states Admins in general are expected to act as role models within the community, and a good general standard of civility, fairness, and general conduct both to users and in content matters, is expected. Dab does not show any of the mentioned. My issue is just a single issue with him. He has created numerious other problems, and then asks users to leave Wikipedia (User Tubesship being the latest.) Notice the strong language he uses. It would be one thing if indeed people were breaking Wikipedia's policies like he accuses many, but its the other way around. In the last ANI, no action was taken, no reply to my complaint. I ask you to at least look into the issue of Dab's overabusing his powers. Chaldean (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is that way. — Coren (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can see he basically said "follow wikipedia's policies or leave", which is perfectly okaym and never used any strong language.--Phoenix-wiki 17:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This parses as "I am RIGHT! How DARE this admin insist I follow policy and guidelines - I am RIGHT!!!!!!". My first instinct, resisted only through heroic efforts, was to block Chaldean for being remarkably tiresome. The article is a mess with multiple redirects all over the place, and I don't think that's Dbachmann's fault. Dispute resolution, please, and be really careful with the language you use to describe the other editors involved. Guy (Help!) 17:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Phoenix, that is the problem; he turns the table and says follow Wiki's policies or leave when I haven't broken a policy. And in fact, it is him who has broken the policies as I showed. It is not ok to accuse someone of something they never did. What policy have I broken? In asking that the page should not be moved until we have reached consent in the talk page?
JzG, how have I demonstarted what you said? I am more then happy of following guidelines and policies, but it is him who doesn't believe in them. These multiple redirects isn't anything new. He does this with different articles where he ultimatly leaves the articles in a mess. Chaldean (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this apart from the links I looked through from your post, leading me to believe that this has something to do with the npov policy. And you havne't shown that he has broken any policies, you've just complained because the admin in question is not agreeing with you. Nowit might be better for you to just not reply to this and got call an RFC or something before someone accuses you of trolling.--Phoenix-wiki 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I asked for you to show me how I have broken any rules (like you said I did) and you came up with nothing. Thats fine, Lets start with WP:CON; explain to me how he has not broken this rule in Assyria (Persian province). He has moved the page on repeatly when there is discussion going on in the talk page. Chaldean (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jtrainor[edit]

Jtrainor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This persons seems convinced of his right to be as rude as he wants. If I behaved the way he is behaving, I'd be blocked for 72 hours. See:

He also persists in not assuming the assumption of good faith.

He also appears to be bizarrely white-supremacist:

He also has included personal attacks on his user page:

He also added a category to his userpage that looks suspiciously similar to User:Willy on Wheels:

And generally is a very unpleasant character.

I think he needs a stern talking to by someone.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the merits, but some of those diffs look quite old, esp. this one, from December 2007. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, some of these are from months ago. This user seems to have established a pattern here of being very combative and it's not just a recent pattern. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at the first few diffs. I'm sorry but they don't look that bad to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Admins are really only supposed to block for serious emergent problems. A user conduct RFC would be the route to take to address long term behavioral problems. Thatcher 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I used my non-admin eyes to look...the first, he told people to grow a thicker skin if they are offended that this guy seems to be white, the second and third, he told you to go away after you posted on his talk page that he needs to assume good faith because he stated that an MFD nomination was bad faith (and since it was closed as a bad faith nom, he was right) and he told you to leave his talk page again after you told him to be civil. Your next four examples of him "not assuming good faith" are: voting in an MfD that closed as a bad faith nom that the nom was "bad faith" and 3 diffs showing him telling people to assume good faith. Telling people to assume good faith is bad faith? The next two diffs, he made an addition to a page 2 weeks ago that is still there, and he identified himself as a white male in what was most likely a joke category. The last 2 diffs are 4 months old. Unless there's more than what's here, it looks like you're peeved that he didn't respond nicely to you essentially telling him to assume good faith when he was actually correct. --SmashvilleBONK! 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see much point in commenting on diffs everyone else has already commented on, but in regards to that last one, we generally don't block users for having a sense of humor. (even if it's not funny, which is certainly open to interpretation, it's incredibly weak reasoning for a block) EVula // talk // // 22:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with everyone else on the edits. I do find this [48] by ScienceApologist to be interesting. Edward321 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be blunt: ScienceApologist is mad because I told him to "go away" when he posted on my user page, . If he's seriously offended by that, he needs to grow some thicker skin, to reuse something I've said before. No apology of any sort will be forthcoming now or ever. I don't think I need to point out the irony of accusing ME of bad faith, while in the same breath accusing me of being a racist and dragging crap up from months ago. Jtrainor (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69[edit]

This user is very disruptive, and slings out WP:PA's like they are candy, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. He also is using his, or a IP to harass the editors responding to the RFC, including myself. He carries out more personal attacks, see here, here, ok then here he reprimands his IP from his IP thinking he was logged in I'm assuming. He appears to be the main and only problem involving the Flyleaf genre dispute. All other users have reached a consensus. I just wanted to add some of his recent disruptive actions. As you can see this is only what he has done on talk Flyleaf. If you digg back further you will see he has a long history of this type of thing. He has been blocked and warned for all of these things, including sock puppettry multiple times. He appears to have a strong agenda for adding 'Christian Rock' to any band that is even remotely associated with Christianity, or even when the artists themselves are Christians he tries sticking that genre in there. He doesn't simply try adding it to the mix, he puts it above the sourced content, and makes the introduction to the article "Blank is a Christian" He always does this without adding sources, and causes disruption in serial succession. Landon1980 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this kind of thing with Hoponpop69 before, notably on Anberlin, where his activity ended up with a [case]; he's adamant that if there are some sources that relate the band to Christian that the genre be listed prominently in the article, even if the band has tried to distance themselves from the genre in published sources. While that's a content issue and not really an admin problem, there are definitely some issues with his communications, as noted above - calling people "retarded" and an "ignoramus" in a discussion is not on at all. I'm predisposed towards taking a side on this issue so won't pursue anything, but it might be a good idea for an admin or two to weigh in with him to try and moderate his discussion style, perhaps. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked Hoponpop69 for 72 hours as a result of these incidents. Additionally, they have filled a suspected sock puppet report that appears to be an attempt to gain the upper hand in an editing conflict. This sort of disruption is not allowed. Jehochman 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio allegations by new editor unsubstantiated?[edit]

Thabizzness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a new editor whose first three edits were on persistent vegetative state blanking three large sections of the article including interwiki links claiming 23:27 "violates copyright"23:29 "violates copyright"23:46 "violates copyright".

I searched the web for copyvio evidence, but all I could find was similar content at one blog [49] when searching for the phrase "misdiagnosis of PVS is not uncommon" However, the blog was created in May 2007, which is after the phrase first appeared in the article in this edit in Nov 2006. I am very familiar with the article's content and what seems to be a normal pattern of development with a good spread of edits from a large number of different editors and some admins such as Neil and The Anome. In view of this, I would be extremely surprised if whole sections are copyvios.

I restored the content 23:46 "no evidence of copyvio", and asked Thabizzness on his/her talk page for clarification of the copyvio evidence.[23:54]. Thabizzness again blanked the content including the interwiki links, 23:48 "Misdiagnoses" violates copyright, 23:54 References: "has some errors with copyright", but without replying to the question on his/her talk page.

Assuming good faith in Thabizzness' complaint, I propose to give Thabizzness more time to respond to the question, and if there is still no response, to restore the content. I will leave the article in its current truncated state while the matter is unresolved. I would be grateful for any comments. I can take it to WT:CP next. - Neparis (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly, can a reference section 'violate copyright'? HalfShadow (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I'm extending good faith to the maximum here, just in case the editor has valid evidence. - Neparis (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I had the same question and went ahead and restored that section, but added a {{Nofootnotes}} tag to it. If someone can figure out how a list of references is a copyvio, then I apologize for restoring it - but it honestly didn't make any sense to me for it to be removed. I did not restore the "Misdiagnoses" section yet, so that's still left for someone to sort out. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 03:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Users BoyDavey73-7 and Peaweahooman[edit]

Could I impress upon someone to block and revert these two. They there are nearly certainly yet 2 more vandal sock puppets of JJonz Derekloffin (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to make this request myself ;) Yes, they are likely sockpuppets of User:JJonz and the banned User:PWeeHurman. Can the blocking sysop(s) please rollback all of their edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 06:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon it is[edit]

MediaWiki:Tagline just got interesting. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I just noticed that too! If I can figure out how to change that, I'd like to put The Free Encyclopedia anyone can vandalize in instead! The Pokemon change just makes my point a bit too obvious, but certainly emphasizes that it's true! - BillCJ (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalkers by erstwhile administrators deserve severe sanctions[edit]

Note - copied from User_talk:Bkonrad#Wikistalkers_by_erstwhile_administrators_deserve_severe_sanction.. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been wikistalked by an administrator Hu12 and