Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Attempted outing of editor's identity?[edit]

Can someone please take a look at this and take action? Thanks. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you further explain the problem? That's just a username.Gwynand | TalkContribs 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Concur. That is not outing, as opposed to the myriad sockpuppets who are using more than just the username with an interspersed space. -- Avi (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Nwwaew might have meant a different diff that was a few diffs back from that one, maybe this one. I searched the user's userpage (Roland's) and can't find anywhere where he has given a surname. Seraphim♥ Whipp 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Set of diffs deleted; user warned. Seraphim♥ Whipp 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.10.117.195 - consistently vandaliziing Gargoyles (TV series)[edit]

IP 72.10.117.195 has insistently inserted unsourced original research [1][2] on Gargoyles (TV series) - claiming they are a Disney Executive with inside information. I have attempted to communicate with them on their talk page, and they are currently at level 4 warning, and after today's re-insertion I'm taking it to ANI. IP is from University of Connecticut and I've tagged that on the talk page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you post a notice at WP:AIV? Looks like simple vandalism to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hrm. Did I mix this up again? This is systematic long term editing over a month, and the editor is not active currently, as of this morning. Should it be there instead? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If they aren't active then no it shouldn't go there obviously. I'd keep an eye out to see if they keep making the same edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, I posted level 4 warning last week - they've made the edits again since then, which is why I'm posting here. I'm sure they'll be back again though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Article[edit]

Yes check.svg Resolved.

I'm sure its not the first, as there is a semi lock on the page I only read a little but came across a "no" in front of evidence in the first sentence. Second I saw "father of modern homosexualness" a few sentences later (father of evolutionary biology?"

anyway there might be some more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.240.173 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just random vandalism (it's been removed).For future reference, the right place to put this is Talk:Charles Darwin.-Wafulz (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nilges user Spinoza1111[edit]

Blocked user spinoza1111 is currently filling up the Ayn Rand talk page with insults and POV comments. He is posting from three IP addresses, though mostly his home one. He is not hiding his identity and traceroute confirm the IPs are in Hong Kong as is his primary account. Not sure what you can do about it as it's an IP address, but he's continuing to be very insulting as we was in the past, which got him blocked. Currentlky he's posting wild threats about exposing fraud on wikipedia and personally naming me in his insults. It's tiresome. I created a sockpuppet page with his three IP accounts on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spinoza1111 Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those IP's is definitely not him and you missed his home IP, which is 202.82.33.202. That is the only non-public, static IP address he edits from.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the last one is not him, but I don't think I added him to the list. I'll remove it and add the other one. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talkcontribs) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've added his home account. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In the last ANI discussion opened on 21 April, there was a suggestion we wait and see if the editor would stop. Since he has resumed, it is now reasonable to issue a long-term block to Nilges' static home IP. His use of that IP constitutes evasion of the indef block on User:Spinoza1111. Shell Kinney said when blocking the named acccount in October 2006, User claims to have left Wikipedia but continues to harass and attack other users via talk pages, a diagnosis which still seems correct. I have blocked 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for six months. Others are welcome to review or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this block, although this might lead him to edit through public IP's more. I was always in favor of not blocking him just to be able to easily keep track of him, but it's gotten out of hand now.--Atlan (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe pusher block evasion[edit]

Resolved: YURI2000 indefinitely blocked, AfD closed as WP:SNOW delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

YURI2000 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user YURI2008 (talk · contribs), both highly probably sockpuppets of banned user W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). Specifically now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion along with assorted IP socks on that page, this user is essentially copying Guglinski's MO. And that would be to create articles (and add to existing articles) about Guglinski and friends' utterly non-notable fringe theories, which all rest on the basic premise that quantum mechanics is somehow completely wrong. Beyond simply the MO, YURI is copying Guglinski's unusually bizarre formatting (compare to this AFD). I think it's safe for an admin to go duck hunting here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • User:YURI2000 openly admits to being User:YURI2008 or vice versa at the AfD. Not sure how checkuser works but, I'm thinking this is definitely a good time to use it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking?[edit]

Two anon IPs (perhaps used by the same user) have recently been engaing in edits which are entirely reversions of my edits (see Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 and Special:Contributions/58.8.18.130). Is it possible this constitues Wikistalking? Normally I would lean toward WP:AGF and raising this issue on the user's talk page, but given the anon nature of the edits and the multiple IPs involved, I don't think this will work. Advice please? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am conflicted on this. Most of their edits seem like good edits (such as restoring links to articles that exist, which you had removed) yet, one cannot deny that they are only undoing your edits and little else. I don't see anything so disruptive as to merit a rangeblock yet (given the drifting nature of the IP it would be all that would be effective). Other than specifically reverting only PRODs and deletions you have done (which in itself is somewhat onerous and creepy), have you seen any other reverts done by someone in this range which is unambiguously bad? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the revert done by Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 of my good faith addition to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, without talk page discussion, qualifies as unambiguously bad - I did this in an attempt to clarify the PROD situation. In my defence, at the time I removed the links, the article was deleted; it was recreated after I removed them (and the anon's edit summaries, saying "article not deleted as claimed," smacks of a big lack of WP:AGF). If I am going to be Wikistalked, I am outta here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't get all panicy now. There's no need to assume that I am dismissing the problem. However, rangeblocks aren't to be taken lightly. Looking at the two addresses you provided, it looks like we can catch them both with 58.8.10.0/20 rangeblocks, which is a fairly small range (4096 addresses), but I am not that experienced with such blocks. Perhaps another admin with more experience with rangeblocks could weigh in here as to if this is either necessary or feasible to do? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey now. Some of your edits followed a pattern fit for "correction", as the IP(s) saw it. There's nothing really wrong with that, is there? wp:brd isn't unambiguously bad. Certainly "as claimed" should not have been used. 86.44.17.45 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the partial support. I am a big fan of WP:BRD, but the "d" stands for discuss, and the anon IP makes this impossible (and has not initiated any discussions - edit summaries don't qualify). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to topic-ban an IP?[edit]

You will recall the interesting editing of 24.82.152.201 on the Stanley Theatre (Vancouver) article some days ago that got the article semi-protected. The protection has worn off, and the IP (yes, the same one) is back in business deleting content.

Perhasp flat-out blocking this IP for a month would be useful, but a topic ban would really be the thing, if possible. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Stanley Theatre (Vancouver), right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. Corrected my original link above. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I also notice that the IP address is coming from Winnipeg, quite a ways from Vancouver. Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I had noticed it was Shaw Cable, which is a Vancouver ISP, and I thought it was a peripatetic address. I may not have looked closely enough. Importantly though it is still the same IP address as from last week. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's see if it keeps up? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban requested[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson (talk · contribs) has continually edit-warred on the Barrow, Alaska article. His issues are related to adding "Sports" and "Popular culture" sections, as well as re-adding external links including a hotel website and his personal website. Last night I removed the trivia tag he had placed on the popular culture section. A look at the edit history and Talk:Barrow, Alaska#Sports shows he has ignored consensus on the talk page and reverted several editors in regards to this tag. I also removed several external links that were not directly related to improving the article. On the talk page, I pointed to WP policy and guidelines and mentioned why each link was unnecessary. He chooses to ignore this and reverts my edit twice. It's just a continuation of his feeling of ownership. He has been blocked in the past for edit warring and is very close to violating 3RR again. (2RR may be appropriate in this latest case because it's a trend) A checkuser was performed that showed one of the suspected editors was not him. The other two (Okpik2008 (talk · contribs) & Tundra4 (talk · contribs)) were stale. I don't know what that means in regard to CU, but their edit history shows the only edits they've made is to simply agree with Floyd on the talk page. He has been warned several times about OWN & 3RR, but chooses to edit war and add information that is agains consensus. I'm asking that he be banned from editing the Barrow article. Thanks. APK yada yada 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support article ban - I regrettably concur wholeheartedly with APK. If you look on my Talk page, User:Reezy, who also tusseled with Floyd, made a remark about him and I said that Floyd is valued, but that he has major ownership issues. The fact is, Floyd has turned the Barrow article into his own private vision of his hometown. Unfortunately his COI and OWNership issues make him an edit warrior who has been blocked for inappropriately deleting content and fighting with anyone who doesn't do what he wants. He Puts his own links to his private sites up on the article, and then edit wars to keep them in, against WP:EL. --David Shankbone 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have given him another warning. If he continues to edit tenditiously on this article, he will be blocked again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats at Goal! 2: Living the Dream...[edit]

Resolved: Legal threats are legal threats. Indef. blocked per this edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Must say at the outset I haven't seen this movie and it's not really my cup of tea, however somehow it wound up on my watchlist. User:Goalproducer as his name suggests, claims to be the producer of this movie and is using it's wikipedia page to drum up commercial support for the film- in particular, he continuously reverts what I presume to be an accurate plot summary because whilst the film has been realeased in Europe, it has not yet been in the United States (see e.g. [3]).

More importantly, this situation has now escalated to the point where fairly blatant legal threats have been issued [4] and User:Goalproducer's behaviour has generally taken a slightly incivil turn (e.g. [5], this edit in response to this one from me).

Would be good to get some admin input I think, I have only recently come in to this but it seems to have been going on for some time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin Opinion: Sounds like a pretty clear violation of WP:LEGAL, as well as a WP:COI. Block indefintely, until he retracts the legal threat. Edit: I see he's now been blocked indef. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war NOW[edit]

Could someone please deal with this request urgently; Matthew (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has decided that if his change is not accepted, rather than following the procedure in the flow-chart here, he will continue reverting and claim that the other side is in the wrong. It makes me fu**ing mad, to be honest; the fact of the debate is immaterial, his attitude needs some serious dealing with. TreasuryTagtc 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see you're both on the edge of 3rr in a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it's worth Fully-Protecting the article, and in the process take the discussion to the talkpage to seek a resolution? D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggested that four times and Matt reverted each time. He was then blocked and immediately unblocked. He went over 3RR, I didn't. TreasuryTagtc 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's as may be, which is unhelpful, but the fact is Moreschei has no business unblocking someone seconds after they were blocked on the grounds that a contested issue was "clear", actually. TreasuryTagtc 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Aah, Moreschei has now formally decided that I get no say in NFCC issues. That is a disgusting abuse of adminship. Who the HELL does he think he is? TreasuryTagtc 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple as this. TreasuryTag has very poor judgment as to what constitutes an NFCC violation, as has been proven long before. Therefore, if he contests removal of an image this does not mean the image does not fail NFCC. On this occasion it most emphatically did fail NFCC. Matthew should not have been blocked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it not have simply been courteous of him to wait for a further opinion before warring? And who gave you the authority to rule without discussion that I can no longer voice my opinions on the topic? TreasuryTagtc 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether right or wrong, we can at least agree both were edit warring, I think. Wizardman 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed. And one made 4 edit-war reverts in 24h; one didn't. TreasuryTagtc 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably. In which case I think a brief protection might have been better than one-sided blocking (with all respect), particularly since the blocked one was most likely right. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably. Since Matthew did 4 rv's and treasury three, the one block probably ended up being too process-wonky and holding to 3rr too literally. Wizardman 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge deal either way. Storm in a teacup, if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down" - if you continue in that vain I'll get started. TreasuryTagtc 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Threats are probably unhelpful here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The larger problem here is that both Matthew and TreasuryTag are well-intentioned users who make good clean-up edits to Doctor Who articles, but who are prone to becoming overly... programmatic in their views of policy interpretation, and are prone to dogmatically enforcing their policies. Both are also prone to... not displaying good judgment on whether or not something is worth pursuing.
In this case, I think that the numeric revert counting is unhelpful in evaluating who is in the wrong. This was an edit war between two equally culpable editors, and while one hit four reverts and the other didn't, I think that parity between the sanctions is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I think its your attitude that appear to be the problem, not Matthew. Just because you don't get your own way doesn't mean to say you should come running. Matthew is upholding the non-free content criteria, and I full support him. I myself have had my rollback removed (now reinstated) for upholding the criteria. I think, as Moreschi said, you need to calm down. Qst (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, from my vantage point you are being rather incivil, Treasury. Defuse and calm down. Wizardman 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I consider it incivil to revert-war rather than politely discuss, whether or not friendly admins accept the warring. It's just basic courtesy, which if other users won't show me, I won't show other users. TreasuryTagtc 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Qst (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Good.
So what? Rather than casting dark aspersions over my behaviour, take it up with my ex-mentor or just block me; what's the point of just "muttering" if such a thing can be done online? TreasuryTagtc 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I would hope that concerns about your editing could be taken up with you directly instead of your mentor. Do you understand why people find your conduct here frustrating? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lets all take a step back to calm down here. TreasuryTag, I couldn't block you because (1) I'm not an admin and (2) You haven't violated the blocking policy, but nonetheless, your attitude throughout has not been exemplary. Qst (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, particularly now you're haranguing Qst on his talk page for no good reason. Deep breath, please. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • 3RR does not apply (or obviously should not apply) to users enforcing Foundation policy, which Matthew was. The image clearly fails WP:NFCC, because apart from failing NFCC#8, it isn't even a screenshot from the episode that it was placed in. Matthew should not have been blocked, and Treasury Tag urgently needs to go and read WP:NFCC before he starts anything like that again. Black Kite 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Treasury's take on NFCC has not been what I'd call heedful. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Enforcing the 3RR policy does not mean we check our brains at the door. Thatcher 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism/sockpuppetry at board game articles[edit]

There seem to be a number of similarly named vandals making nonsense edits (links to ordinary English words like "is") to board game articles (Backgammon, Jacquet (game), Uno (game), Draughts, Go (board game)) and vandalizing user pages. The trouble seems to have started when the puppet master was reverted on some categories s/he added.

Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (suspected puppet master)

Billy Costa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (already blocked)

Roger Parslow (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (already blocked)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered the same problem on many band articles. Mr. Greenchat 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize those last two users were already blocked when I posted this. I informed them of this thread anyway. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
How about we confron the puppet master and have him/her prove to us that he is not a puppet master.If he is, we block him. Mr. Greenchat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No need for confrontation, per the WP:DUCK test it is really obvious sockpuppetry. The two socks listed (plus at least one IP not listed) have been indef blocked. I'll go block the sockmaster; duration to depend on previous contributions. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good Mr. Greenchat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think that User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja was created after User: Dakota Blue Richards was blocked for violating WP:USERNAME (as that is the name of an actress being used as an account username). As you can see, the contributions are essentially the same from these two accounts. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was one of the editors who reverted on the category additions and other things. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Nastasija account has been blocked for 3 days, since edit history prior to this doesn't seem to show bad faith (whether the edits were useful or not is another matter). However, if sockpuppetry continues, it should be noted here, and the block length can be increased. --barneca (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia point?[edit]

Resolved: Page deleted as a G5.

Wikipedia:Deletionpedia Patrol seems to me to be a WP:POINT violation. It basically advocates trawling through the list of deleted articles and recreating them. While I'm sure the intentions are good, the concept of recreating prods soon after they're deleted, just to do so seems quite a bit disruptive to me, especially since it basically duplicates WP:DRV. Any thoughts? SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

I agree with you, SJ. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I've speedied it as a G5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have requested the pages' content here. I would like to recreate it, but in a way that is not a violation of WP:POINT. Basketball110 My story/Tell me yours 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the main problems is that while Deletionpedia probably does contain a few articles that could be resurrected with a bit of work and research, it also contains articles that shouldn't be restored under any circumstances - BLP deletions and pedophilia-related articles spring to mind straight away. There's nothing to stop people trawling it themselves, but I don't think we need it advertised on Wikipedia itself. After all, as Swatjester says, that's what DRV is for anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • To be honest while I see the political issues this project raises, I don't think this page duplicates DRV, because DRV is primarily for authors of a page and/or administrators to request re-creation of a deleted page, whereas this is a project organized for locating pages that should be submitted to DRV; for example, a page abandoned by its original author that got illegimately PRODed or CSDed. There's no clear POINT violation, since the project seems targeted at addressing a legitimate problem, rather than as an attack on current deletion practices. Ideally users would be able to do this type of deleted article review on Wikipedia itself, at least for articles that don't pose legal issues, but this isn't currently possible. Dcoetzee 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is no more a policy violation than a list of pages deleted at afd would be, and there are various such lists around, including people keeping lists of the pages they are proud for having gotten deleted.. People restoring pages do so at their own risk. DGG (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Including this page. If people want to restore it they should go to DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just process wonkery really, though, because the page was deleted as G5 (created by a banned user) so re-creation by anyone else avoids the deletion reason. Black Kite 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the Deletionpedia page does what DRV doesn't do, i.e. it allows non-admins to see the deleted page under discussion and if anything will be a tremendous asset for DRV discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that it's useful for DRV discussions, the question is whether a project that advocates trawling DP for articles to resurrect is necessary a good use of projectspace. Black Kite 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that making bunches of articles go through DRV for insufficient reasons or making them go through AfD twice is an extraordinarily poor excuse for a "project." Deor (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, unindent) I see utterly no harm in this project. It merely points out that there is a stash of deleted articles that routinely archives them, so that one can see deleted articles. Articles are deleted for many reasons; often they are legitimately deleted, but sometimes not, and pointing to Deletionpedia as this project did, and possibly coordinating editor efforts so that work is not duplicated, could very much help this project by identifying improperly deleted articles, as well as by providing what can be sometimes useful: deleted content, which may be of use for merge, etc. Deletionpedia merely provides to any user what is already available to any administrator. The project page was very careful about not encouraging rash restoration of articles that have been deleted. So I'll be proceeding to Deletion Review, I think.

The suggestion that this project duplicates Wikipedia:Deletion review is preposterous. It is a project to examine deleted articles, using a readily accessible cache of them, to determine if there is usable content. Deletion review is a process to discuss and find consensus on restoration of deletions, it does nothing to identify such content for discussion. The deleted project page would feed Deletion Review. (In some cases, with some speedy deletions, it could bypass deletion review, as, for example, it has been suggested here that any user could restore this project page since the deletion reason was creation by a sock puppet -- something which I haven't verified yet.)--Abd (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please - this is just taking the piss something which I haven't verified yet. - Abd and Sarprillia are in constant contact, the standard tactic is that one proposes something and the other supports it, it's a clear pattern, such as here. It insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that's not the game here. Yes, I know I'm blocked but look into the edit pattern of Abd and his meatpuppet it speaks for itself. --87.112.64.32 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to answer this one. I'm in regular contact with the Sarsaparilla, yes, but he does not tell me everything he is doing, I often learn about stuff quite a while later, and, in any case, I had not looked at the deletion reason when I wrote the above. Sarsaparilla is interested in Wikipedia governance, and so am I. Yes, he mentioned the governance discussion to me, in email, but we did not coordinate in any way and, in fact, we disagree about quite a bit. I looked at it and made my own comments. He may have done the same, from what Fredrick day charges. It was a huge discussion, and I have not read all of it.
As to the topic here, Wikipedia:Deletionpedia patrol, please see [6]. The creator of that project suggested I join it. So I did. I think it's a good idea, whether the creator was Sarsaparilla or not. I had not researched the fact. I see that in edit warring with Fredrick day on my Talk page, what is apparently Sarsaparilla, editing IP, suggests to me that I recreate the article instead of going to Deletion Review. As often happens, I disagree with Sarsaparilla. It was well-written, so why should I take the time to rewrite it?
Fredrick day knows that people read the diffs, and he knows that some of his wild charges will stick in people's minds, because he knows how to feed people's mistrust of each other. That he was so effective at doing this is one reason why I put so much attention into dealing with him as a blocked editor and vandal. He essentially bragged that he could do what he does even if blocked. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I see no reason not to provide User:Basketball110 with a copy, but I'm a little unsure of myself with regard to the undeletion policy and the GFDL with regard to a banned user's posts. Is there any reason I can't restore and move it to Basketball110's user space, and delete the redirect? That seems better, GFDL-wise, than just provide him/her with the text. But then technically I'd be recreating banned user's edits, without taking "responsibility" for it myself. Seems completely harmless to me, but I'm about to leave for the night and don't want to come back in the morning labeled a meatpuppet of a banned user or something. --barneca (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's always email. Muskratatouille (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that was my first thought, but they don't have email. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe the user was saying that copies of deleted articles can be provided by email (as opposed to getting entangled with all these GFDL and G5 concerns). 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


Hmm, Muskratatouille, a tasty Muskrat soup created a few hours ago. No relation to "Eat Mor Rodents," I hope?-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Sarsaparilla to stop it, even though I see that almost everything he does is aimed at project improvement. He's blocked, in my opinion unjustly, but he doesn't make things better by editing here. He disagrees, apparently. He's not my meat puppet. Fredrick day used to claim he was simply my sock or I his. Too bad about checkuser, eh?
As to the issue, I had signed onto that page, having been asked to join by the creator and agreeing with the page content. It really should be restored, simply, because it was, in that sense, not only Sarsaparilla's contribution. The license issue is cleaner if it's simply restored. But in an edit to my user page -- which at that point was unprotected, hopefully it's been protected, what must have been Sarsaparilla suggested that I simply recreate the content. But I don't have a copy.... Because I'd signed it, it should not have been speedied, so proper form would be to restore it. I'll ask for that, and then if someone still thinks it should be deleted, it would go to MfD properly. Speedies, if not for legal reasons, I understand, should routinely be restored on request. This one is obviously controversial and thus not a speedy candidate. (This is not claiming that the deletion was improper, per se, though I'd have thought that the fact I'd edited it should have been enough to prevent speedy. It's also possible that edits crossed, it was only a little while ago that I signed it. I wasn't aware of this discussion at that time, I was merely responding to the suggestion on my Talk page. Which was later removed by Sarcasticidealist. This is getting ridiculous.) --Abd (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has been restored at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol, per Basketball110's reasonable request. The speedy per WP:CSD#G5 was completely valid (all other edits didn't significantly alter Sarsparilla's original text), but I see no reason Basketball110 can't take responsibility for the page and repost it if that's what he wants. Of course, seeing the conversation on this thread, I see an MfD in the page's future, but if Basketball110 wants to repost it, I don't think it's speedy material anymore. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was User:Sarsparilla's User page redirected to Abd's User page, if they are not the same person? Corvus cornixtalk 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins should follow the rules.[edit]

I would respectfully ask that more senior admins take new admin user:Sarcasticidealist under a gentle but firm wing and remind him that admins are supposed to set the example of good behavior. Anytime a single admin fails to follow the rules it jepordizes the community's ability to have confidence in all admins' professionalism. Based on this diff[7] it is evident that this admin violated WP:TALK in both spirit and letter, and based on his contribs list[8] he did the same to many other users' talk pages plus deleted at least one whole article. This behaviour is especially disturbing considering his answer to Q#3 at his RFA, to wit...

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Easily my most stressful conflict was prompted by a Wikiquette complaint about an administrator deleting text from a talk page ...

I went looking for a reason why this edit to my talk page might have been done and I am now fully aware of the current puppet issues related to user:Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents but there is no policy/guideline I know of that supports his comments being deleted from another user's talk page. Removing comments addressed to me represents a parochial attitude that insults my intelligence and independence as a Wikipedia editor. The decision to ignore him or to be sucked-in by support him was my decision to make. An admin electing to make that decision for me was offensive.

There are two more related issues of rules being (not?) followed that need to be raised at this point.

(1) I see this user described as "banned" but so far I have found no WP:ArbReq to support that. How was this decision made - it would be nice to know that the rules were not broken by an admin on something as serious as banning.

(2) The whole articles deleted by the admin, was there any other edits added by anyone other than the "banned" user? If so the deletion would be inappropriate per several WP rules.

Thank you for your time. -- Low Sea (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Users can also be be banned by community consensus. And banned users cannot edit, and if they do, their edits may be reverted by anyone. I don't think anything wrong was done here. --Bfigura (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasticidealist is cleaning up after a longtime troll and sockpuppeteer. It has been some time since I was involved in the Sarsparilla case, but if this is Sarsparilla, then Sarcasticidealistr is only cleaning up the latest mess he has created. Quite within the normal purview of admins, and not abusive at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Sarcasticidealist was only cleaning up crap from Chin, such as this spam. Well within his bounds. seicer | talk | contribs 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts too. I've also informed Sarcasticidealist of this thread, per common courtesy. --Bfigura (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's advisable to discuss an issue with an admin with that admin before starting a post on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Totally support Sarcasticidealist's actions. It was essentially spam. 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the misfortune of being from Edmonton, SarcasticIdealist is a good administrator. I recommend you take another look at what happened. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, Chinchilla is not banned. He's blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, which any admin can do under the appropriate circumstances, and requires no arbitration or community consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If there has been no ban imposed, then the block can also be lifted at any time by any admin. In the words of Dr. Strangelove, "It requires only the will to do so." 129.174.91.115 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The underlying user, known as Sarsaparilla, is considered banned only because no admin has been willing to unblock. —This is part of a comment by Abd (of 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:
FYI: According to this edit[9], the user Sarsaparilla was tagged as officially Banned at 09:51, March 25, 2008 by user Equazcion. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'll fix that. He was tagged banned, yes. By Equazcion, an opponent of Sarsaparilla, who is not an administrator. No ban discussion has taken place, to my knowledge. He is considered banned for the reason I stated, by default. But when the same was said about Fredrick day, some administrators objected, though they weren't willing to unblock. (It was SWATjester, actually, who closed the discussion, if I'm correct, citing three admins not willing to accept a banned description, but, in fact, there were only two or maybe only one; one had expressed conflicting opinions. By the way, it's considered a bit rude to intersperse in Talk like this. Small thing, though.
He wasn't blocked for any offense that would normally result in an indef block, however. A lot is routinely said about this case that is pure crap. The recent contributions deleted by Sarcasticidealist were all clearly intended to benefit the project; SI is within his rights, in my view, to remove contributions; however, in the other direction, when I've done the same with the contributions of Fredrick day -- which often interlace with those of Sarsaparilla, and which are typically vandalism, personal attack, and general attempts to stir people up, the very definition of trolling, I've been warned and told that Fredrick day isn't banned, merely blocked, and that his "useful" contributions should not be reverted. And removing stuff that, all by itself, could get him blocked was considered, apparently, removal of "useful" edits.

Fredrick day was blocked for vandalism, plus the vandalism was consistently personal attack (against Sarsaparilla, myself, and another user). Sarsaparilla was blocked for .... what? "Trolling?" All indef blocks, a short block has never been used with this user, and warnings have been, apparently, considered unnecessary. The user has never repeated behavior that he was warned about, except for the very vague, "Don't express ideas like that around here, it's disruptive."

When he was indef blocked for creating a hoax article, he was actually offered the opportunity to return, provided that he refrain from editing WP space, i.e., from making proposals or working on policy. I.e., solution to article space hoax: please, user, only edit article space. It couldn't be more obvious. This user is blocked for making unpopular proposals, dangerous ideas.

I have no serious complaint about Sarcasticidealist, he is doing, generally, what is within his rights; though, I will repeat, when I did quite the same with Fredrick day contributions, I was severely warned. I was told that I should not remove Talk page edits unless the user was banned, that being merely blocked wasn't enough. There is a double standard, rather clearly. I think SI is at least technically correct to remove the contributions; but any other editor should be able to bring them back if they choose (and are willing to take responsibility for them). That's what I've done in the past with some of Sarsaparilla's contributions, and there have been no warnings or other sanctions as a result.

And I suggested the same with Fredrick day contributions, that if anyone is willing to take responsibility for them, bringing them back after I reverted them out wasn't edit warring, I'd treat those as original edits (and, indeed, when that happened, I left them alone). But that wasn't enough for Fredrick day, and there is some fear around here that bringing back Sarsaparilla content (which is almost always positive, helpful, and his problematic contributions would be less than 0.1 percent of his edits) is going to bring charges of "meat puppetry." It is, indeed, but mostly from Fredrick day, who repeats "meat puppet" over and over, knowing that it does affect how some people think. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - I've been moving the last few days (still in Edmonton though, Wanderer) so my time online has been sporadic. I think my actions have been pretty clearly explained above (thanks all), but if there are any lingering questions or concerns I'd be happy to address them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible need for oversight to delete an edit from the history[edit]

Um, I dunno if this is a hoax or not, but apparently purports to give a valid debit card number an expiration date. If accurate, this should be oversighted right out of the edit history, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably better safe than sorry. I suggest just emailing <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org> rather than making the problematic edit more public. I have emailed them about this instance. WjBscribe 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't really know where to go, and I wanted to get it oversighted ASAP. I guess I should have just checked WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions, eh? Ah well, I'll think of that next time. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've deleted the edit, but it should still be oversighted. --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend is back[edit]

The saga continues. The talk page protection just ended today and the person is back to vandalizing my page 5 times already.(1, 2) If the offer still stands, can someone do a short range block and semi-protect my page again? Here is a list of the IPs used. I think that's most of them. He's now up to 42 vandalizations of my user and talk pages. Thanks. APK yada yada 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the semi protect of your talk page. --Kbdank71 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. APK yada yada 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
He's back with another IP. He is vandalizing a user that undid his vandalism to my talk page. He also left Durova this message. APK yada yada 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Er, maybe it's not the same person. The IPs are similar but the recent IP location is Ottawa. APK yada yada 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it's the same person. Can someone range block? APK yada yada 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, that ip adress has one hell of a tongue on him, nasty! Realist2 ('Come Speak To Me') 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IP impersonates me[edit]

Someone impersonated me at Talk:Randall Munroe to apparently damage the reputation of the subject of the article under the smokescreen of a credible inquirer. --Jedravent (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the only edit by that ip. Unless it happens again I suggest that you WP:IGNORE the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, how do I deal with this?[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, inappropriate tags removed.

On my talk page, I've just accused (with the template) of being a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Pwok. The template was added by User:Rushdittobot, who I think is a sockpuppet of Brianlandeche, who was indefinitely banned for proxy editing for banned user Bluemarine. Aleta Sing 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You find an admin to block and revert ;). John Reaves 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:RBI ? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, John, I guess I could have done that myself, but since I'm in the middle of it, I thought I should get someone else involved! Aleta Sing 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
He's also running amok on Matt Sanchez and Talk:Matt Sanchez. I've reverted him on the article page and added to his case at WP:AE#Bluemarine. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a username issue with having 'bot' in the name on an account that does not and is not intended to operate a bot? Avruch T 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked anyway, but yeah. Horologium (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake radio/television stations?[edit]

Cans someone that knows how, check Special:Contributions/Word67 and see if the stations he is creating articles about actually exist? John Reaves 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

K15AE is fake only the Wikipedia article appears and a ton of Japanese or Chinese websites (some one could do a better job I did google). KJTV-CA appears to be channel 32 [10] out side source. I will check the others shortly. Rgoodermote  17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
List of reals and possible fakes
  • K15AE-appears to be fake.
  • KJTV-CA backed up by outside source [11]
  • K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas [12]
  • K41CZ-appears to be fake
  • W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source [13]
  • W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [14]
  • K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [15]
  • W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source [16]

There are a lot more but this should be enough till I get done with the rest. Rgoodermote  17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued List of reals and possible fakes (should say possible real)
  • KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [17]
  • K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source [18]
  • K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source [19]
  • K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source [20]
  • KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [21]

It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up. Apparently ([User_talk:Word67]]) he is a sock of banne duser Dingbat2007. Is anyone familair with his MO? Does he create real article so he can slip in fake ones? John Reaves 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Well I took a look at his contributions and I see that the user does indeed have several real radio stations. So I believe like you said his MO is to make real Radio/TV article and then he slips them in. Probably in an attempt to prove some kind of point. Take a look at his contributions [22] and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I asked the admin who blocked him about his MO. Rgoodermote  18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Dingbat2007 had no deleted contributions - i.e., I don't see where he created any bogus articles. All the edits I saw scanning just now were insertion of bogus information into articles: false cities and networks. Not to say that his tactics couldn't have changed over time; that block was issued 9 months ago. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For US broadcast station checking purposes, the FCC Broadcast Station Database is the definitive source. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"Fake" entries may be errors or premature. K41CZ says "K41CZ is a low-power television station in Lubbock, Texas affiliated with FSN, the station is owned by Una Vez Mas Holdings, LLC". In fact, from the FCC database, Una Vez Mas has two low-power licenses in Lubbock, TX, "KDFL-LP", and a pending license application with no call sign assigned yet. [23]. The facility number doesn't match, though. (More to the point, are UHF broadcast repeater and translator stations even notable? They're just relay stations. It's like listing power substations or cell sites.) --John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say that broadcaast repeaters/translators/STL links and the like are not only non-notable, they are something that probably should not be made available to people that wouldn't normally know about them. Along the lines of WP:BEANS. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

K41CZ is definitely fake; I have gone ahead and speedied it. There is no way FSN airs on broadcast television, period. Nate (chatter) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will bookmark that site. I was just doing a simple lookup for the call numbers. I was unsure of the information in the articles myself just didn't know where to look. Rgoodermote  00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can comment on Dingbat (sorry about taking so long; if it deals with TV stations you can usually leave a message on WP:TVS and we can get back to you quicker than we can here).

Dingbat/Word's usual MO is to create fake TV station articles where the station is inexplicably affiliated with a cable network, or modifies an existing station to be so (for a good example, see WSB-TV, which he converted to Nick Jr. 2 Action News several times). Usually if it has FSN, The Disney Channel, a redlinked non-existent channel or any cable network that would never air over a broadcast station as an affiliation, better safe than sorry to revert him and report to AIV. Nate (chatter) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fury of Five Disruption[edit]

Not sure where else to bring this, but I've worked through dispute resolutions steps and this is getting serious quickly. Fury of Five is apparently a defunct hardcore band; I noticed this article as a NewPage. It appears to meet standards for notability, but I was concerned about a subsection describing the lead singer's academic credentials. The most outrageous is that he co-authored a book on "Phaethon" with James Diggle (author of Odysseus Unbound. I tagged the article as a hoax and started a discussion thread seeking sources. In the 12 hours, five IPs and one named user (James Diggle (talk · contribs)) commented indicating that they had personal contact with the singer and that the assertions were correct. None of these editors have edits to other articles. I filed an SSP case here (which has not yet been responded to. I also filed an RFC to seek further comment.

Now the article's creator, FOVD (talk · contribs) (note similarity to the band name) says that the lead singer is actually Dr. John Underhill of the University of Edinburgh. While that appears to be patently ridiculous, I'm afraid it might raise BLP concerns. In addition, 79.70.35.199 (talk · contribs) in the past few minutes has been adding these edits. Help please. // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a request that the page be protected at WP:RFPP and it looks like the editors making the nonsense/vandals edits have been blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the comments on the article's Talk page should be removed as BLP violations. Corvus cornixtalk 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism continues. Corvus cornixtalk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand how so many different IPs, which WHOIS traces to different ISPs, are making coordinated edits. Is this one user with Tor proxies? // Chris (complaints)(contribs) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Could be from a message board somewhere. If a proxy check reveals nothing that would be my guess. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility of a User[edit]

Resolved

I believe that this discussion may have alerted Charmed36 to a pattern that he may or may not have previously realized. As I believe that he and I are on the same page - at least in our general goals for WP and our edits - I am closing this discussion as a "withdrawn complaint." However, I reserve the right to bring it back up in the future, if the pattern of incivility continues. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The user Charmed36 has made a history of making incivil comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, not only toward me - which is what brings me here today - but to other editors, particularly newbie and IP users. I have brought up WP:CIVIL numerous times, but the user apparently believes that it does not apply to him. I am unsure how to proceed at this point and would like to see this practice resolved. The edit in question that brings me here today is here. I have been called many things, both on WP and in RL, but a "liar" is not one that I will willingly tolerate. Respectfully submitted for comment, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am going to directly warn the user. Personal warning. Rgoodermote  22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that InDeBiz1 (would that be the music biz?) is in the habit of edit warring to include unourced material in the biography of a living person. They are also getting a warning. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah charmed mentioned that. If you have not issued biz a warning I will get to that. Rgoodermote  22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no reason for a warning for edit warring. I practice common sense when editing, particularly when it comes to artists that have established nicknames among their fans, such as is the case in the article that has prompted this discussion. I am not going to allow a user who apparently believes that a certain nickname is "tacky" (see the edit history that prompted this discussion) to remove commonly-known information. I would also warn that a dangerous precedent is in the works here, if it becomes a requirement to cite each and every nickname for musical artists. Do we realize how many articles in the encyclopedia could immediately be challenged, in regard to that information? Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It does not matter edit warring is edit warring. Right now I am seeing that both of you are at fault and you both need to log off and get some Tea and Biscuits then come back later and when you do stay away from the articles you regularly edit and each other. Rgoodermote  22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, while not an "attack" on anyone, edits like this are pretty indicative of Charmed36's attitude around WP. For the record, I'm not asking for a blocking... yet. I would just like to see this particular user held to the same standard that I and many thousands of others follow everyday. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

InDeBiz1 said he would not comment on my discussion talk page anymore and he did. I was through with the issue, but he reverts me all the time even on the articles I worked hard on creating. If we share similar taste in music then we do, but don't revert me on the articles I manage. Charmed36 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want both of you to get some tea right now. Also per WP:Userpage I have to let the user remove comments. But I do consider both of you being uncivil in your removing of my warnings. So this goes with my both of your at fault theory. Log Off, Get some tea and biscuits and then stay away from articles that could make you two conflict. Rgoodermote  22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed in creating all Ciara's articles. Charmed36 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So? What's your point? Are you now trying to say that I am not allowed to edit those articles? Yeah, okay... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
No I am saying you both stop for a while and get some Tea and Biscuits. That is the only way you two are going to still be able to edit on Wiki. I highly recommend mediation WP:Mediation. As this is a dispute not some thing and admin needs to deal with. Rgoodermote  22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to your comment, actually. But your intentions are noted and agreed with. HOWEVER, I find it extremely disappointing that the issue at hand of this thread has been totally ignored thus far, that being Charmed36's incvility in his edit summaries, not just toward myself but countless other editors, as well. (By the way, I don't drink tea, nor eat biscuits. I'm an ice water and celery person, myself.) Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Right now it is a dispute between you two. If you have proof of the others then provide diffs. Until then it remains that both of you are being very uncivil towards each other and other users. This being so you are both at fault. Until you provide diffs this is over and you both need to go to WP:Mediation. Rgoodermote  23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here we go... Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, and Example 12. Those are just in the past month. Now, compare my edits over the same time period and you tell me who apparently has a problem adhering to WP:CIVIL... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Give me a moment to find some one who can do a little bit more than me. But I read the summaries on each of those and I do see a lot of incivility. Number 11 though seems semi-fine as he was being legit in removing what is just purely dumb vandalism. But pointing it out was a little harsh. Rgoodermote  23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Left some one a note. They should be here eventually. I am going step out of this entire thing as I am near the breaking point. Need to go find my Earl Gray and Biscuit mix. Rgoodermote  23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to let this issue go because we probably will never get along. Charmed36 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Mediation and I am marking this resolved. As Dispute and users are going to Mediation.Rgoodermote  23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, the issue at hand is not resolved and I have removed that tag, as such. The issue here is not necessarily between Charmed36 and myself, although that certainly is an element. The issue here is his incivility, not just toward me, but others. That element makes this a still-unresolved issue. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I am permanently removing myself from this. I have informed an admin. This is a dispute between you two. I understand there is incivility towards others other than you. But right now that is not the problem. If you two can not get together things are not going to get done and you are just extending the issue. The user is not at a level of incivility that he is a really big problem. I will leave final note telling him of his actions. Other than that your dispute is the most disruptive activity. I need to go my Earl Gray is cold and the Biscuits are being salted. Rgoodermote  00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved. Charmed36 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think that the complainee can really make that decision, when the complainer still says that there is an issue. Personally I hope that the two of you can resolve this before it does require use of any admin tools. I am quite sure that you are both dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of modern music. This means that, like it or not, you're on the same side. If you can each make a small effort to be more civil to one another, and to discuss changes without reverting one another, there is a potential big reward in terms of reductions in your stress levels (and those of bystanders) - not to mention a more productive use of editing time, which again makes for a better Wikipedia. Something to think about. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for resolving the issue and working with Charmed36 to better Wikipedia's modern music sections. In fact, as I've already stated on somebody's talk page (don't remember whose, at the moment), I'm much less concerned about his attitude toward me than I am his attitude toward IP users and newbies who may be chased off by some of his edit summaries against them. That was the whole point of opening this thread, moreso than the fact that he upsset me by calling me a "liar." Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm finish with this issue. Charmed36 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'd welcome any input from uninvolved editors. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC) >(struck out following InDeBiz1's "resolved" tagging) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User adding thousands of many improper possibly incorrect year of birth cats[edit]

I take exception to this title. I highly doubt I have added thousands of year of birth categories period. Most of these have been added based on information that previously was in the article. Another large chunk are based on information from project vote smart. Others come from Who's Who in America.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I did an analysis of my last 2000 edits. This takes us back to March 28th. Several of these are repetitions of editing the same article. Many involve issues such as placing people in religion categories, placing people in from Sterling Heights or other location categories or placing people in a category based on what university they are an alumni from.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got a problem with User:Johnpacklambert, who has been, for at least 2-3 weeks, at an edit count of up to 100 or more per day, adding birth year cats to biographical articles formerly in the category "Year of birth unknown." While this ordinarly would be the type of thankless, tedious work we're always glad to have editors do, in this case what flagged my attention a week or so ago was that this editor is, about 25-30 percent of the time, adding dates of birth that are unknown; he is apparently guessing by their date of graduation, or the age they were in a given year (without taking into account that most people are not the same age for all 365 days of a given year. About a week ago, I reverted 80+ articles yet the editor continued to do the same thing. Today I noticed that he was still going strong so I made several comments to his talk page, letting him know that adding cats for estimated birth years is highly improper and unencyclopedic--one of the things that undermines Wikipedia's credibility. After three notes, he refuses to stop, saying that putting in a discrete birth year cat based on an estimated birth year is better than "cluttering" the "Year of birth unknown" category. Perhaps an admin could ask him not to continue to add unsourced birth year cats, or at least to use cats such as "1950s births" where the decade of birth is known (though this proves difficult if someone may have been born late in one decade or early in the next). Thank you for your time. Badagnani (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. I'll keep watch. This is concerning as there are serious WP:BLP considerations with putting private information about people, especially based on guesses. If there are no sources as to the birth years, I would suggest reverting per WP:V. -- 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year. If the information can be specified to a given month, the percentage can be proven to be higher than 50%. If the age is based on the year of high school graduation, this is even a more likely thing. I think you people do not properly appreciate people's editing at all. These are based on well reasoned estimates. You have also severally under estimated how much of a behomoth the year of birth missing category is. you also continue to ignore the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to base year of death on estimates, and have provided no convincing argument against doing the same for year of birth.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia here. We deal in verifiable facts, not educated guesses. --Carnildo (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You did not address the question. If your statement was true, than deaths would have to be absolte years, however death years allow estimates, which contradicts your statement. The question is why is the standard for deaths and births different, not why either standard exists.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Johnpacklambert: please put your points at the bottom of the section. This usually results in a discussion that is in a more logical order, and makes more sense. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year - So you're saying that there's a 50% chance of your information being WRONG? That's not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
And either way, it is still WP:OR, violating the core principle of WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the policy as it stands, I don't agree with adding death year categories for discrete death years if they are unknown, whatever the categories say (I checked, and they do each say "for people born in approximately X year). I recommend removing that qualification in each death year cat. The top-level death year cat page and its discussion page don't have any information about the policy regarding this, but I think it's clear we shouldn't be adding cats for discrete death or birth years unless those are sourced. That's what cats such as "1850s births" or "19th century births" are for. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I still hold that this section is listed under a false title.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Would you rather it just be called User:Johnpacklambert editing? Might as well be NPOV in titles as well. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There, I've changed the title to make it NPOV. Or something like that. Perhaps more accurate.
On the charge of OR, a lot of this may not be. If a source said someone was born at 12 minutes after noon, would it be OR to say that they were born during the daytime? I think not. It is a well-known fact that "noon" and times near it occur during the daytime, it should require no OR to derive that. Likewise if it says that someone was 18 in 1988, it should not be OR to be able to do first year college math and subtract 18 from 1988 and get a specific year.
Now, as noted, the specific year may be wrong by +-1 year or so. Encyclopedias (at least the EB, to my knowledge) have a way of handling unknown but estimated dates. They put a little "c" in front of the estimated year. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that a lot of "c1281" birthdates in the EB were computed by EB staffers when they were unable to find a reliable source stating year of birth, and only had age at a particular date.
Sticking in dates is a thankless task, as someone mentioned. It would be ill-advised to supply estimated death years for living people. But if the person has reliable sources asserting they are (or were once) living, then it should require no OR to conclude that they were born, and only simple math to determine a close year if other reliable dates are available. If the final date is shown as "estimated", and can be trivially shown to be no worse that +-1 year, then the estimated date is probably far better than a completely worthless but completely accurate "unknown". After all, one could simply replace the entire article wiht a name and "Facts not reliably known." for the entire article body.
Just my opinion. I think his work is good, as long as verifiable corrleations of years and age can be found, and if the birth dates are shown as estimates. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the work is probably in good faith even if slightly misdirected. If the user has reliable 3rd party sources for the dates (Who's Who I think would probably count) than let him add them (as it is sourced information that can be verified). If however he is guessing (even an educated guess) than a broader guess is better so sourcing to decade is reasonable (especially for mid-decade births). The problem with the high school or other graduation thing though is not everyone graduates at 17,18,19. Some people graduate earlier and some later for a variety of reasons. I think OR in cases like this is probably okay as long as it can be sourced. As long as the user doesn't state his "estimate"/best guess as fact than a born approx with an inclusion in the decade category should be fine. And yes whatever the decision of consensus is it should work both ways for births and deaths.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Two things. My point was that claiming there were thousands of edits involving year of birth issues was misleading and inaccurate.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Point two, if someone is in the category 1950s births, should this exclude them from the category year of birth missing. I have found people who are in both so I am wondering.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a year of birth unknown (as opposed to missing) category? If so it would be reasonable (IMO) to have people with estimated birth years in that category as well as the decade category. Just my opinion here, I suppose others may differ. If we have an estimated (from fairly reliable numbers) birth year I don't think it can be stated as 'missing' anymore. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)I'm assuming that "year of birth missing" means that there isn't a year of birth listed in the article. I'd say that putting in the decade would remove the "year of birth missing" cat but, a "year of birth unknown" cat if it doesn't exist should probably be created and the subject listed both in the decade and in "year of birth unknown" cat. Saying that discussions of what categories exist and/or should exist probably belongs somewhere else. Perhaps User:Johnpacklambert would be willing to put this particular type of editing on hold for now and we can work on reaching consensus at the new discussion. And perhaps User:Badagnani and he could shake hands and apologise to each other for any misunderstanding as I'm sure they both have very good intentions and no ill will was intended from either side (I hope)Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Birth dates estimated by an editor are WP:OR and not in any way acceptable. Birth dates estimated in and cited to a reliable source are ok if characterized as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I disagree with this if reliable dates are present in the article to use to compute a birth date, and if the birth date is clearly marked as estimated or approximate. As I mentioned before, this is no different than asserting that Noon occurs "during the day". To give an exact birth date not supported by available facts would be OR.
(addemdum) Note that we have Template:Birth year and age that computes an approximate age given a birth year. Since the age is a computation and not a quote from a citation, and it is only an approximation of the correct age, it must be OR and not allowed by policy? Then why is this template allowed to exist and be used? I think that it is fairly clear that computations from available facts to establish other useful date approximations do not violate OR, or else IAR must have been applied to the creation and use of these templates. If so, I suport the use of IAR in the specific case under discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Year of birth unknow exists but it is supposed to be used for those born in the distant past whose year of birth is unknown. Year of birth missing and year of birth missing (living people) are supposed to be used for those in the recent past or present whose year of birth could be determined with more searching of information. The line between year of birth missing and year of birth unknown has not been followed well, and living people are in all three categories. There were also until recently, and probably are still, people in the year of birth missing (living people) for whom a death date is given and others who were head coaches of football teams in the 1920s for whom no information is given since who probably should be moved to possibly living in not year of death missing categories. We could make a category "exact year of birth missing", which might be a good thing, however I will let someone else do that.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A Pat on the Back[edit]

It seems that it is almost every day that there is some blowback about admins stepping out of line - either for outright questionable use of the buttons, or for simple incivility. Some of these complaints are entirely infounded, unfortunately, some of them have a basis in reality. That said, this afd is an excellent example of what works here at wikipedia. Kudos to Sandstein and Lar, who ec'd with opposite closes, and chose to relist it rather than create more drama over the close. Pastordavid (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just gave them each a half barnstar. I saw that earlier today, but was in too short on time to say anything about it then. Well done for avoiding more wikidrama, something we already have far too much of. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Range block needed?[edit]

Resolved: Anon blocked 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255.

Sorry if this doesn't really belong here, but as three of these are already blocked, the helperbot deleted them from WP:AIV when I put them there. These IPs have identical edits, all vandalism. I've blocked three of them but each time I do this, another pops up with the same edits, the same articles. Looks like a block on a range may be needed? - eo (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am really loath to block the full 65,536 IPs, but I cannot find where MegaCable of Mexico subdivides the 189.192/16 section any further. Let's start with the range from 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255, which is only 26,624 IPs, for now. -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material on high school article[edit]

A new editor, Monkeyking123 is continually replacing a pretty inflammatory section on controversy on the Mountain Pointe High School‎. When I reverted and explained it was unsourced, they responded that it didn't need a source [24]. He has since reverted again, and I don't want to edit war over this one so I brought it here. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits were reverted (quite properly) by someone else. Of the three edits, two of them are very clearly vandalism, which in my mind makes the third edit equally suspicious. Some digging on the web seems to show that in fact the incident quoted is in fact a complete fabrication. However there was an actual cheating incident at this school that made national news a few years ago, and if someone wanted to add it they could, as there are decent citations available. I've left a comment on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald[edit]

Resolved: User:Dank55 has contacted Ed. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is sort of a strange request, but I'm requesting an intervention with Ed Fitzgerald. I feel that he is trying to get himself deliberately blocked by continuing to engage in disruptive editing behavior during his RFC. Would an admin who is friends with him have a talk with him? The last thing I want to see is Ed blocked. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disurptive edits by User:98.203.11.142[edit]

This IP has been making disruptive edits to pages relating to Arab Christians. First he was simply changing references to "Arab Christian" to "Arab Muslim", as in this edit and this edit, so I warned him on his talk page. But he ignored me, and soon was making edits like this, adding "faget" to pages about Arab Christians. I warned him again, but again to no avail, and now he's making these sorts of edits. I don't know what to do; he isn't responding to my warnings, and he hasn't made a single edit summary.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. If he does it again, let me know and I'll block him for longer. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SunCreator[edit]

Since this report against me was first filed on April 19th, User:SunCreator has not been able to let go of the issue, and is still pursuing it on WikiProject Notability, in effect ignoring all the editors and admins who have given him advice. Unfortunately, SunCreator has also become obsessed with me and is now stalking my contributions. Today, SunCreator showed up at Talk:History of Hawaii to restore off-topic attacks and trolling made by User:67.169.127.166 against User:Hokulani78. Article talk pages aren't used to attack editors, criticize their spelling, and rant about political beliefs. I removed the comments as off-topic per WP:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article") and SunCreator reverted them each time.[25], [26] Now, SunCreator has become obsessed with my talk page, adding no less than six messages [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], while I have asked him three times to avoid using my talk page. [33], [34], [35]. Could someone ask SunCreator to stop wikistalking me and to avoid harassing users on their talk page when they have asked him to stop? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on his talk page. --MPerel 07:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban[edit]

Ban this user User:Chocho123 with Immediate effect. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. WP:AIV is probably a better venue for this in the future however. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital Audio Broadcasting[edit]

The Digital Audio Broadcasting article has been in a terrible state for a long time. Multiple users are doing extreme POV pushing, both on that article, and anywhere else DAB is mentioned (such as HD Radio). You can see the DAB talk page for a good long history of the POV pushing, ownership issues, edit wars, etc. For reference, my changes, which corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted. [36] It is without question the most horrendously biased article I've seen on WP. User:Digitalradiotech even goes so far as to support his anti-DAB statements by citing articles that he has written, published on his own website. The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors, and left the article to stagnate. I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law, such as it is. I'm certainly not going to keep spitting into the wind, having my cited changes reverted, and risk getting blocked for 3RR myself, trying to hold off a gang of rabid POV-pushers (at least I assume it's a gang, and not just sock puppeting, even though the timing is suspicious). Rcooley (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what are you asking administrators to do?
A few minutes of poking around seems to indicate that (a) you have only edited the article and its Talk page a handful of times and (b) this appears to be a content dispute. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
You might want to try dispute resolution. Admins don't have any ability to decide who is "right" in a content dispute, so even if an admin did get involved, they would have no more say over it than any other editor. If there are behavioral problems, we can intervene there, but it does take two sides to make an edit war. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I do not refer only to my edits. The page has had problems for a long time before I became involved. I've seen just how time consuming and useless dispute resolution is... I'll pass. If no-one will intervene, it will remain in it's current, sorry state. (ie. Not my problem.) Rcooley (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After one quick scan I tagged the page with {{advert}} since it pretty clearly is at the moment. There is a basic problem here in that the article is describing Digital Audio Broadcasting as some copyrighted specific broadcast technology, and not in fact "digital" "audio broadcasting" in the general form as one might expect. Having just returned from the NAB conference I can state with some authority that there is more than one way to broadcast audio digitally. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I view what's gone on (which hasn't been a major issue, because there's only been a couple of exchanges between us so far [37]): RCooley suggested the following issues that need to be addressed on 31st March: [38] Admittedly, I didn't see his suggestions on the Talk page. Then on 23rd April, he removed a large chunk of the intro: [39]. Since then I have edited the intro to rectify all of the issues he had with it, and now I see that he's even reported the "issue" on here. As ElKevbo rightly points out, RCooley has hardly edited the DAB page at all (I'm unaware of him editing it before 23rd April), and yet RCooley said that the DAB page has "been in a terrible state for a long time". He also claims that the changes he made "corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted". I don't see where he gets the "several citations" from, because there is only one reference in his preferred version of the intro [40], which was already present, and his edit removed five citations. He has not "corrected inumerable factual errors", because all he has done is to simply delete a large chunk of text.

His usage of language above is highly questionable as well, such as "extreme POV pushing", "most horrendously biased article", "The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors", "a gang of rabid POV-pushers". The intro has been the subject of a large amount of discussion on the Talk pages for a long time, and we had finally reached a consensus view that both sides were happy with, and it's been stable for a few months now. And he has simply come along and deleted a large chunk of it. He also says "I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law". That is clearly an attempt to get me banned without me having done anything wrong here.

And on the Talk page he accuses me of "ownership" and then in the next sentence says "So far, you're the only one who has shown a tendency to ownership and edit waring. I must decline your ultimatum. Here's a better one... BEFORE you revert ALL my changes (fully supported by citations) you'd better have a very good reason to do so." [41]. I don't know if it's possible for you to see this, but I have written most of the text in the sections describing the technological aspects on the DAB page, so at least I have contributed a lot to the page, whereas all RCooley has done is to come along and delete a big chunk of it.

I've edited the intro just before I started writing this entry, and I've described the changes I've made here [42]. Personally, I think the intro is fine as it is now. Digitalradiotech (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, the heading and first sentence of the next to last section (currently) on the talk page definitely shows proprietorship issues at the article.
That's referring to a separate issue to the current one about DAB, because it's referring to RCooley's deletion of a large chunk of the into of the HD Radio page, see [43] - he's deleted large chunks of text on both articles! I can't comment on whether RCooley was or wasn't justified in deleting so much text, though, because I haven't read the HD Radio article. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
But perhaps we are past that now, and it can be ignored. The recent editing I see there has been good, and has improved the article. Note: my opinion is completely seprate from RCooley's, and in fact I know nothing about him, and have not read what it was he was complaining about. But my reading of the article itself (not the talk page) showed some issues, and I believe they are being corrected, and the article is benefitting from it. Loren.wilton (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, great. I see you've added some comments on the DAB Talk page - I'll try and do some editing tonight for that. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Son of Daniel Case[edit]

Resolved

Blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block this vandal indefinitely for WP:User name violation (User:Daniel Case). --David Shankbone 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, I am a homosexual. But if I wanted that to be the only information on my user page, repeated over and over again, I'd have formatted it that way myself. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also blocked User:Daniel Case 2 Nakon 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
He used a bunch of IPs earlier today (and for the record, I'm straight, but he's attacking Wikipedia editors of all sexual orientations apparently). Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


At least the ex-user did not discriminate. An equal opportunity slanderer.
In the spirit of the above statements, I am copying here a statement previously displayed on my user page.
"Rumours that I am bi are greatly exaggerated. I am a bit near-sighted." - Anonymous
Wanderer57 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters, but I see the user page says they are a sock of JJonz, but their talk page says they are a sock of Seancarlin84. Can they be both at once? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page sock id was added by the blocked user, so I took the liberty of removing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility Issues with User:CSHunt68 & User:Jéské Couriano[edit]

I'm getting a tad frustrated at CSHunt68 (talk · contribs), who's crying foul aver what's been happening at Yuan-ti. After I reverted to a version with Primary-source and Notability tags two days ago, I asked for full-protection to head off the impending edit-war. It was granted, and when he brought up that there were third-party sources (which I had initially overlooked due to the lack of citing), I removed the Primary-sources tag. However, that's not what he's complaining about: He's complaining about what I wrote in my edit summary immediately prior to the prot ("Did you even read the page?"). He's now accusing me of making personal attacks due to that, and is crying administrative abuse because I reverted before going and asking for protection. Please advise; I fear this situation may deteriorate further. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 03:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to send him a message on his talk page to let him know about this thread. I have seen your work around here tons before, and I know you often Assume Good Faith and have never made a personal attack, to my knowledge. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
He knows - I linked to here on my talk page (just not the specific thread), where he and I are discussing things. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I objected to your personal attack on the edit. "I have to ask, CS, do you even read the article?" There's no need for such statements in Wikipedia. I also object to the fact that you reverted to your version before requesting the page protection, but that's a minor issue. I will ask you to refrain from such inflammatory, baiting statements in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
You were making as large an issue of the reversion before the WP:RPP request. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
No, not really. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
That's not a personal attack. Why are you needlessly escalating the issue? seicer | talk | contribs 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
It's clearly baiting, by any reasonable interpretation of Internet protocol. I have taken no action, except to indicate to JC that he should not do so again. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
Talk:Yuan-ti seems to indicate otherwise; you were making mountains from molehills. -Jéské (v^_^v Karistaa Usko) 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it does, and I maintain that your comment was both factually incorrect, as you later admitted, and totally uncalled-for - a clear violation of WP:CIV. You could apologize even for your admitted "incivillity", but I notice you haven't. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68
Don't you feel like you should both apologize for incivil remarks and just move on? Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the history (briefly) and so far I don't see a problem that couldn't be solved by both parties taking a break to calm down. Seriously. Jeske, you know the edit summary was slightly over the top and you didn't need to phrase it that way. CSHunt, you know there really no reasonable way to characterize that as a personal attack...it was a very mild insult meade in the heat of obvious frustration. Time to let go of this and move on, both of you. Doc Tropics 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully concur with the above. Apologise, shake hands, and come out editing constructively. Edit summaries are supposed to summarise the edits. We shouldn't be using them to address other users in a non-constructive manner. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If Jeske admits that his behaviour was bad ... it hasn't happened yet. CSHunt68 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Genre Changing[edit]

Resolved: socks blocked

Right. I am getting fed up with this user Special:Contributions/82.38.65.47. They are persistently changing genres on hundreds of articles without any discussion. As we all know, this is highly disruptive and can lead to edit wars. The user has been repeatedly warned, asked to engage in discussion and blocked in the past. They have not changed their ways, may I suggest a longer term block? This user also operates Special:Contributions/Thrice34. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe they're violating WP:SOCK (multiple accounts), you can raise this at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU as appropriate. For straightforward vandalism, WP:AIV. Otherwise, an admin looking here may take action. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I went ahead and hard blocked the ip for a month. The same kind of vandalism dates to at least September 2007 and the ip has been the subject of many blocks previously. No comment on the named account. I suggest Nouse4aname file a sockpuppet complaint or checkuser request for that. -JodyB talk 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)