Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive432

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

Noticeboard archives


Further personal attacks from User:Radiolbx[edit]

Resolved: Radiolbx appears to have left, and Milonica's issue is being handled elsewhere

(see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive431#User:Radiolbx)

User:Radiolbx's personal attacks of me continue - I'm unprofessional and an ambulance chaser now. This all appears to be in regards to a content issue regarding WKHQ-FM, which he admits to working at ([2]). I've tagged his talk page with {{uw-coi}}, but I don't know if it'll make a difference. JPG-GR (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And, a jerk. JPG-GR (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
He is indeed being a little incivil, but I think an issue like this could have been better handled at Wikiquette Alerts. Also, in his [last edit, he said "You win" and hasn't made any further edits (granted that was only like 20 minutes ago). FWIW, I think Radiolbx was acting in good faith (even though his edits were not particularly encyclopedic) and it's somewhat sad that he was driven away from the project so quickly.
If he continues to make incivil comments, let me know and I will issue a warning. But dollars to doughnuts, I think he's done editing here. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Duly noted, and actually wasn't even aware of WP:WQA. Thanks! JPG-GR (talk) 19:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The other person involved here, Milonica (talk · contribs) dropped a note asking for help on my talk page; I'm overloaded, and suggested they try editor assistance. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

User: Nunh-huh Vandalism[edit]

Resolved: Absolutely, positively nothing to see here -- see my comment

User: Nunh-huh has continuously defied my corrections to the article; Charles Somerset, 1st Earl of Worcester. I NEED HELP! PLEASE! He is using his abilities as an Administrator for Vandalism. It is NOT right, and something needs to be done about it! Rbkl (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It's not necessary to bold names as you are doing, nor is it necessary to make numeric lists. I can't speak to the factual details of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This appears to be a content (formatting mostly) dispute, and I can't find any use of admin tools. Am I missing something? --Selket Talk 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Nunh-huh's last (and only second) revert was at 17:44, 13 June 2008 . Your first attempt to engage him in dialog was at 18:27, 13 June 2008. As of the time I am making this comment, the current revision is your version of the article. What is your complaint again?
In the future, please do not make spurious complaint to the administrators' noticeboard without first attempting to reach a compromise with the user. This is stated clearly at the top of this page. Thank you. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur, after three edit conflicts. Rbk1 is trying to bold names and do other edits in spite of the manual of style. Rbk1, your edits are the incorrect ones, here. Tan | 39 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin failed consensus[edit]


We have already had a debate about Kingsford Smith International Airport (KSIA) to Sydney airport (Since it's known as Sydney Airport and no longer KSIA) [3] and the consensus was to move. Now Admin NHRHS2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) failed to tell us on the talk page or getting a new consensus, again moving the article back to it's old name which most people agreed to change! Bidgee (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Requesting my move to be reverted, and by the way, I am not an administrator. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec, possibly moot) And you gave them, what, 9 minutes to reply to your talk page message before running here? Perhaps you need to at least try to resolve the issue before escalating it? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I did and they replied. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, I moved the page back to Sydney Airport. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  19:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:BLP issues at Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)[edit]

copied from an earlier section to unify discussion

Could someone else step in on this please? WillyJulia (talk · contribs) apparently doesn't like that myself and another editor are enforcing WP:BLP policies on Chris Crocker -- I know, not everyone's cup of tea -- and they seem persistent in speculating who the person is despite being asked not to and now here they are copying my user page which may not be a violation but it is creepy. I have to take a break now but would appreciate uninvolved parties suss it out more civilly than I feel I would. Thank you! Banjeboi 00:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Left a quick note with them, asking them to check out the article's talk page; between your message and the fact they seem to have stopped editing for now, not sure if there's much else to do right at this moment. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort although they had already been engaging the talk page, the problem was they were posting the possible identity of someone who has purposely kept their identity and location private due to ongoing death threats. I believe that violates WP:BLP. Perhaps I erred but they also filled their user page with multiple copies of a copyrighted picture which has been added and removed multiple times from the article. This perhaps led them to copy my user page onto theirs. Perhaps not a violation but I would like help in how to approach this since I'm now of such interest to them. Any advice appreciated. Banjeboi 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A personal attack?[edit]

WillyJulia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has made a statement on their user page "Benjiboi is a ripe fruit that bruises easily. When in doubt ask!"[4]. Could that be classed as a personal attack and/or assuming bad faith with another editor? Bidgee (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, actually they copied my user page to theirs and I'm unsure how to handle it per thethread above. Banjeboi 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. I missed it. Thank you for the message. Bidgee (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a single-purpose user that probably won't be around long, so the situation should take care of itself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a thread further up about this called 'help please'. Does this mean the stuff is continuing? :( Sticky Parkin 11:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Help!!!! This is continuing and we may need oversight to clean-up this] edit summary and some of their other work. Banjeboi 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
This is continuing, WillyJulia also added a WP:AIV on him, reasoning that he removed comments. It has already been removed by an administrator. Arienh4(Talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was a recent case at MfD where an editor copied someone else's User page, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tamr007. That one closed with Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
and the editor continues[5] with the other editor then the issues with the article. Bidgee (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The editor also told me to stop reverting the blog that they where reverting [6]. The blog in question is about the article rather then the person there for there isn't a problem with the BIO [7]. Bidgee (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I can see why they might be confused. The blog link at the top of the talk page mentioning wiki in the news is the exact same link that keeps being removed per BLP at the bottom... --OnoremDil 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Which I've stated more then once in my edit summarys which the user must be reading for them to reply. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me. I agree that the link can't be used as a reliable source, but if it's a BLP violation just to include it in a discussion, then it should be a BLP violation to prominently display it at the top of the talk page. --OnoremDil 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
that was i was trying to say BIDGEE said This is very complicated. The link in the This page has been mentioned by a media organization. The mention is in section may say where his from however it's not being used to state where he may live rather to say that Wikipedia has been mentioned but your using link and trying to state where he lives (or lived) which is against the WPBIO policy. If you have an issue with the link then take it up first to get a consensus. I hope that makes it easer to understand. This is also the last edit I'm going to make since it's 2am in the morning so I will not be replying until sometime later today or tomorrow. Bidgee (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC) very complicated? you can say that again!--WillyJulia (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. WillyJulia, the article already states he is Tennessee-based and has for some time, this is verifiable. It also states, per the subject's own MySpace site that he is now in Los Angeles. These are in reliable sources by wikipedia's standard. The link on the top of the talk page has nothing in the article that isn't already in the biography we have and, in fact, it refers to us because, I believe, we have the best article on him available. You wanted to include he's from Tennessee? It's already in there. You want to say he was born there or what his identity is? You'll need reliable sources and concensus to include that. I'm very open to reporting those details once we have the sourcing to do so. Banjeboi 00:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned the user about a personal attack against Benjiboi, and observed that they were just edit warring against Bidgee about the removal of a copyrighted image from their User page (which was eventually deleted from commons as <gasp!> a copyvio).
This user is frankly just causing problems. I would endorse a short block to get their attention until they can learn at least one Wikipedia policy. (So far, I count WP:BLP, WP:NPA, WP:RS, and WP:COPYVIO as all being violated in the space of like 20 minutes) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To put it more bluntly: Please block this user as an WP:SPA with no contribs that do not relate to exposing the real identity of a WP:BLP, and for being a general PITA in other ways. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They are now in communication with Bidgee (talk · contribs), so maybe he/she can straighten this person out. Perhaps advocating a block was a little premature -- the user is violating policy and generally creating a ruckus, but I think I was mostly just pissed off that I opened their somewhat-NSFW user page while I was at work. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't copying somebody else's User page a violation of GFDL? Corvus cornixtalk 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I have just issued the user a final warning after his reinsertion of a personal attack against User:Benjiboi on Talk:Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity). He doesn't look like he's going to be able to play well with others, and I'm not seeing any reason for anything other than an indef block. Horologium (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all who helped on this. I'm seeing this editor as only pushing to include chat comments as a source to "out" the concealed identity of a BLP, and not in any civil fashion, and then turning on editors, including myself. I hope they can leave that all behind but in the meanwhile just a thanks for helping deal with it all. Banjeboi 01:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

im trying to add a vital piece of information to the article and users are just shouting WP:BLP!! at me i have many reliable sources so there is no reason not to add it!--WillyJulia (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

People are shouting WP:BLP at you because you are acting as if you have not clicked on and read that link. Please do so now if you haven't already done so. In a nutshell, it says we have to be extremely careful about disclosing any sensitive and/or damaging information about living persons even if you have a reliable source. Since Crocker has indicated that he intends to conceal his real identity, that makes it sensitive information and we must be extremely careful about what we disclose and what we don't. Even if you have a reliable source.
If you check the talk page, you will say that I, for one, think his state of origin could probably be included in the article, but not his real name. Other editors may also have different opinions. However, Wikipedia operates by consensus, so it is vital that all controversial changes (such as this one) be discussed on the talk page. You have not really discussed there, other than to make a personal attack against Benjiboi. This is not how Wikipedia operates, and the community is rapidly losing patience with your unwillingness to learn and abide by our rules. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well nobody has disagreed instead they just delete things i write.--WillyJulia (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
If people are simply reverting you, then that is a sign that something is amiss and that you should stop reverting them and talk it out, rather than continue the edit-war. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And actually, people have disagreed. People like me. See the talk page, AND the paragraph immediately preceding your assertion that nobody disagrees. I think including his real name is in violation of WP:BLP, and even if it weren't I think it is unethical, since he has committed no crimes and a lot of people hate him. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, you got reverted, now is the time for discussion. Bold-revert-revert-revert-etc. isn't helpful. shoy 19:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Dispute[edit]

Resolved: I think for now, I can handle this issue.

Alright, I'm bringing this to ANI, as I'm asking for administrative input. Let me give give you a little background information, for those who aren't aware of it. The Prem Rawat dispute has been quite a long dispute on Wikipedia, from what I've gathered, and includes these articles. An arbitration case resulted, where article probation was imposed. Now, I'm mediating the case on the content side of things, and so far, it's remarkably been going OK, albeit with a few bumps in the road, as well as one today, which is why I'm here. This thread started on the Prem Rawat talk page today, as I made a request to all parties here, which they all agreed to. Regarding the edits that were made today, I was asked about them on my talk page here, where Arbitration Enforcement was possibly requested, however, I am not sure if the recent edits fall under the terms of probation. What I am sure of, however, is that something needs to be done, and that is why I am here. I understand this is a contentious topic, and one that few administrators are willing to approach, but it needs some action, whether administrative, well, that's why this needs to be discussed. Thanks, and I hope something can be done here, whether its AE, protection, or whatever it is, something. Thanks again, Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Prem_Rawat#Declaration_of_agreement_to_proposal_by_mediator, in which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) agreed to the terms of the mediation. But today, he went ahead and made these unilateral edits bypassing the agreement. See also this user's block log. Why should active editors that are making excellent progress in constructive discussions in proposal pages set forth by the mediator be penalized with article protection? User:Francis Schonken should do the right thing by self-reverting and following the process that has been agreed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, at the moment, this "suggestion" that I made, remains that, a suggestion, and a mediator has no ability or power to enforce anything, merely to make suggestions. Possibly, this suggestion could be somewhat solidified? I think such things as a topic ban should really be used as a last resort, but one thing I do know, something does need to be done. Perhaps the edits made by Francis should be undone, that is not really my call to make. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 01:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Your suggestion was accepted as a sound proposal by all active editors, as a step in dispute resolution, and an orderly debate is currently taking place because of that. Why should the disruption of that process be allowed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not saying that it should be, however I think that a topic ban here would be extreme, and that's why I'm asking at ANI. I note that no one else has commented I thought, no one wishes to touch a topic such as this... Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the one edit has disrupted the dispute resolution process. There hasn't been any disruption that I've noticed. Jossi hasn't even objected to the substance of the edit, only to the process. This is just informal mediation. If folks want to get caught up in procedure then they should pursue formal mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is not about "process" but about fulfilling commitments made. Francis should undo these changes and discuss them as we all are. Wyy should he be exempt of making edits without discussion as agreed? Should other editors simply go ahead and bypass the mediation process, forfeit the agreements made and let hell lose all over again? Is that what you are asking we do? I find this to be completely unacceptable behavior. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Just informal mediation - Not a very nice way to describe the good efforts of a MedCab volunteer, which has led for the first time in a long time to an orderly debate, consensus, and true collaboration, is it? I would have hope that such efforts would be more appreciated, rather than be dismissed as it was nothing. Shameful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Will is right. As I stated previously on the Rawat Discussion page, this process is only informal mediation, with no formal requirement to adhere to this process. Let's separate the process from the people. I think we all believe that Steve is doing a fantastic job and that his efforts are much appreciated. It is unhelpful to make personal comments such as shameful, about a stating a fact that the mediation is just informal, when you know that Will (and myself) strongly support what Steve is doing.
  • Having said that, I agree that the recent edit to the main article wasn't helpful to the goodwill around the current mediation, but any formal complaint needs to stand on its own feet in respect of the specific editing, and this case hasn't been made yet.Savlonn (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • While I do appreciate your comments about my efforts, I didn't bring this to ANI to be complimented :-). I brought it here to see if any further action needs to be taken regarding the recent edits, and I am still waiting on outside input from a user/administrator that isn't actually involved in the dispute. I'd appreciate outside input. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 07:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is voluntary - it can be frustrating when parties feel that an editor isn't respecting the mediation or their agreements, but that's a conduct issue as opposed to content and needs to be dealt with in another format. As far as this particular situation goes, since it just came out of arbitration and the committee didn't feel sanctions were necessary, its unlikely that a single act by an editor, regardless of how frustrating, would rise to the level of needing sanctions. Shell babelfish 10:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, for the indicated edits I felt covered by the outcome of these discussions (I participated in all of them):
Probably I should have given clear links to these discussions in the edit summaries.
I don't exclude that I might have misappreciated what looked to me (for all aspects of my edits) enough consensus for proceeding with the updates. The lack of content remarks, however, seems to indicate I didn't misinterpret anything. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, you have participated in the mediation pages, that is not disputed. Just that suddenly, out of the blue and without any discussions you decided to delete material, add new material, and change the article structure. All this without an attempt to explain your edits or make proposals as everybody else is doing. So far four editors have asked you to re-consider and self revert: Rumiton, and myself in article's talk, Will Beback in your talk page, and user Savlonn in this thread. So I would hope that in the spirit of collaboration and consensus building, you do the right thing, by self-reverting and making proposals that can be discussed and assessed alongside all others proposals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, stop the harassment --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone to self-revert is not harassment. shoy 19:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Asking someone to do something once is not harassment. Making the same request over and over in multiple forums may be harassing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

<<< So I take it that [[User:Francis Schonken will not voluntarily self-revert. This is noted for the record. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • That may be so, but what can be done here? This doesn't fall under ArbCom jurisdiction, as far as I know. Steve Crossin (talk)(email) 20:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I add my voice to those who are asking Francis to self revert. And I would remind Admin WillBeback, who reverted me within the hour for "no consensus" [8], that he should apply the same rules to Francis as he does to me.Momento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Shell Kinney makes an excellent observation. Here's hoping this particular disagreement dies down, as such things often do. If concerns continue regarding elements outside the current arbitration decision, suggest initiating a formal request for clarification on the case. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 20:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New sock of blocked User:Bov[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been editing Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center exactly the same way Bov and his known sock have. I don't know if a checkuser is necessary, but, again, I can't block because of previous edit conflicts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Bov isn't blocked as far as I can tell. The last block in his block log is dated 16 March 2007.--Atlan (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
His primary IP ( (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is blocked for multiple edit warring, and it's noted in the block note that it applies to Bov. If Bov edits, it would clearly be considered bypassing the block of his (static) IP. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vadalism from[edit]

There is an anonymous editor who seems to like making up characters in films, and changing the actors who played parts in random movies. Thought I should mention it. Mathewignash (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert emergency[edit]

Resolved: But the article needs a close eye kept on it - Alex Muller 23:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an obscene image on the Tim Russert page. I imagine it's from a compromised template, but I can't go poking around looking for it at the present time. Somebody please fix it, immediately? Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not there now. ViridaeTalk 23:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The vandalism was made to Template:Infobox journalist, so if you want to watchlist it then feel free to do so. Gary King (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: IP has been blocked for two weeks by an admin. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

user: keeps posting that Maureen Orth wife of Tim Russert is dead. If he's right i owe an appology, but if not the ip needs a block for repeated vandalism.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russrt is deceasedad, and i think that you owe user: an apology. heres a source if you need it [1] 01:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I know Tim Russert is deceased, the ip says his wife is dead too, haven't seen that.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
And it looks like the IP's been blocked, thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
A two week block was given to the IP. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Regard abuse of Wikipedia policies by user[edit]

Well, it has been repeatedly brought to the notice of the administrators that a particular user from Pakistan, through a set of anonymous IPs has been indulging in personal abuses, POV pushing and racism against India.

He has violated the following rules: WP:CIVIL ([9],[10],[11],[12],[13]), WP:3RR ([14][15]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (,,,, and obviously, WP:NPOV

However, I observe that nothing has been done to this regard. Moreover, this last edit by the same editor clearly indicates that the user is unrelentive and gives the impression that the admninistrators are acting partisan in this regard. This is a very serious issue and may have far-reaching consequences. If this editor is allowed to continue uttering his venomous racist nonsense then I may have to escalate this matter.

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing.

-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

From the diffs, it looks like his "racist nonsense" is actually accusing you of racism. Since you accuse him of the same, in the above post, I'm not sure what an admin could do to help - other than ask you both to make more of an effort to discuss things with one another in a civil manner. ETA Accusations of sock-puppetry have also gone both ways. The names of banned users User:NisarKand and/or User:Beh-nam have been mentioned. Something for a CU to look into, in their copious leisure time, perhaps. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Old Pathan 1921.
Dear all, this whole 'race related' incident occurred when User:Ravichandar84 (obviously a Hindu from eastern India if you click on his user page) uploaded and added this image on the right of an old street bum in former India (now Pakistan) to the Pashtun people article. What Ravichandar did is nothing but provocation to start war with Muslim Pashtun people. Out of all the images available of Pashtun people, why did Ravichandar84 choose the 1921 image that shows an old man with torn rags who looks like a street bum? Answer: That's Ravichandar84's way of telling readers that the old man in the image is Pakistan and that Muslims look like that. Trust me I am an expert on Hindus and that's how most of them think about Muslims. Most of the top Bollywood superstars (Shahrukh Khan, Feroz Khan, Dilip Kumar, Aamir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Zayed Khan, Kader Khan, Sussanne Roshan, Sanjay Khan, and many others) in India are Muslims and of Pathan ethnic background, meaning they are Pashtun people, and the funny thing is most of these are not added to the Pashtun article and instead an image of the 1921 old man with torn clothes is added. In 1921 that's how most people in the world looked and dressed but why do we need such old images to describe what Pashtuns look like in 2008? That's why I was against the useage of that image from the very start. If you look at the Pashtun people article, I've added most of the images there and I think I've done a good job. I help Wikipedia and I respect all the people. Ravichandar84's mission was to put up ugly images of Pathans in the Pashtun people article and when that failed he now wants to file cases against me because he is obviously angry and not satisfied.-- (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat at Leather Pride flag[edit]

this diff I've since reverted. (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 48 hours, and will semi-protect the article if they begin IP hopping, but that will also leave you unable to edit the article. -MBK004 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history, this appears to be a work of an editor who has been banned for similar edits, and an inability to understand that people cannot own a page on Wikipedia. See User:HenryWLasterLeatherPride (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who is likely the same person as User:HenryLaster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); both editors have made statements about not accepting alteration of the page. It's a low-level but chronic problem, and the 48 hour block is probably not going to have an impact on this topic. Horologium (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I found the same misinformation over at LGBT symbols‎, so you may want to keep an eye out over there as well. ➪HiDrNick! 03:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)[edit]

Requesting administrative intervention here:

A couple of hours ago, Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) tagged FICT as "rejected". I undid this, noting discussion was ongoing and it can't be rejected because it had been accepted in the past. See also: Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)#Failed proposal. A further look into it revealed that the tagging may have been partisan due to his vote to reject the new guideline. Both me and Avruch (talk · contribs) asked him to stop edit warring, which he did. However, he then canvassed five editors [16][17][18][19][20] with a rather uncivil message, and when I asked him to stop, he replied "Up yours, buddy". I'm not sure what intervention is exactly needed, but I feel as if I've done all I can and it's not deterring him. Sceptre (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

He just needs to calm down. Tagging it as anything other than what it is right now is not crucial, and it can wait through a discussion. I don't know the point of view attached to the people he notified, but it wasn't exactly a neutrally worded notification. Time to just take a little break and come back with some perspective and distance. AvruchT * ER 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • (A) Contacting participants to a talk page about further developments in the context of the ongoing process is not canvassing. (B) I was furious when Sceptre threatened me with banning, and made the unfortunate comment; however, I immediately reverted my comment and posted the following: "Please don't threaten -- that's not called for" in its place. I think that Sceptre is being a bit disingenuous in not giving the entire story and a stretching the tale a bit here. Thanks for looking at thsi and I appoligize for creating an issue that need to come this far. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Death of host[edit]

Page needs to be freeze on Tim Russerts page. Should lock editing till more is found out about his death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected—semi-protected, meaning unregistered users (such as yourself) or those with new accounts and few edits are unable to make changes to it. Do you mean the Meet the Press page? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gabriel Murphy Article Redirect Versus Stand-Alone - Assistance Needed[edit]


The issue at hand is whether the article "Gabriel Murphy" should be a redirect to the article or if the article has enough content outside the scope of to warrant a seperate article. The issue first arose back in February 2008 when the article was proposed for deletion ( Back in February, the article was very small with only a few references (I cannot figure out how to link to the history of the article back in February of 2008).

The article was re-written in May with 17 sources to newspapers and magazines. Here is a link to the article:

The article was brought-up on deletion review on June 2 regarding whether the new article should be stand-alone or merged into The result of the "voting" was 4-3 in favor of keeping the article seperate from Here is a link to the deletion review discussion:

Nontheless, the article continues to be redirected to and has had semi-protection placed on the article. Any assistance/guidence on this issue would be appreciated.

ill take care of it. Smith Jones (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks for your help- let me know your conclusion(s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A question for Admins.[edit]

Resolved: User's technical question resolved by Onorem

Edit Great Iowa Flood of 2008, and see the last bit about the Wapsipinicon River: it does not save. Why? I was planning a larger sequence of paragraphs regarding the Great Iowa Flood of 2008, river-by-river, north-to-south, east-to-west which I sort of originated, but someone else did the work to make it real, and I continued.

So: Why am I forbidden to save? Someone with heavy admin privs has fiddled with the article. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a missing </ref> tag. I'm guessing it'll work for you now. --OnoremDil 05:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. So much gets cut for a slight error. I'll keep you in mind when something so silly becomes so frustrating. I do major articles with minimal markup skills; again thank you. --Ace Telephone (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Cazique (talk · contribs) This user has returned from a blocked and immediately has resumed the edit war he was blocked for. See his recent edit history for proof of his reticence to do anything but continue warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Uther, you kinda forgot to mention how involved you are. And it would have been courteous to notify the user of this thread. This situation is just getting ridiculous now, I'm so bored of it - drama here will solve nothing. It's only a damn redirect you're fighting over. Alex Muller 16:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Drama? The user threatened to game the system, and a couple of IPs popped up to make the same edits as he had been. I'd classify that as tendentious editing, myself, and have left a sharp warning on Cazique's page suggesting not to do that. I've suggested dispute resolution instead of that course of action. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Mind you, I do agree it's a kind of silly thing to be fighting over. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Silly, I'd go for an insane thing to be fighting over. Other than Cazique getting his own way with the redirects, I can't see a way for this too end. That's not to say I'm not critical of UtherSRG's behaviour, as I am. To engage in a three-day revert war (over a redirect) for an admin, is frankly unbelievable. Is there any implementable form of mediation that could calm this down? Mark t young (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hurrah, I've stepped into a clusterf&$k. This edit suggests that Cazique is encouraging meatpuppets to keep reverting. I've asked for clarification, and will be keeping an eye on the articles in case they need protecting. Can someone else take a look at this situation? The participants seem to think there's nothing that can be done other than the fighting. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say we think there's nothing left other than fighting. However, I do believe that no dispute resolution will have any effect. Blocking Cazique further would work, as would blocking his admitted sock/meat puppets. Short of that, protecting the articles in question would limit Cazique's influence to just himself, cutting off his meatpuppetry. As things stands, I've indef blocked the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, two problems: we don't indef IPs, and you're involved in the dispute here, so using your tools is probably a pretty bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Indef isn't permanent. It can be undone. Preferably when the conflict is no more. If you think my actions were incorrect, undo it. But perhaps you're right. I'll instead post here what actions I would take instead of doing them. I don't know why someone else hadn't blocked the IPs for whatever period of time when they popped up. *shrugs* - UtherSRG (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, semi-protection would be in order here. Guettarda (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
True, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Banning Uther and having his adminship removed would solve this. He quite clearly should not be an admin. Cazique (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My being an admin has nothing to do with your edit warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

O-kay, bad scene all around here. Uther, please undo your indef-blocks and remove the semiprotection on the articles; you are involved, and should not be using your tools in relation to this case. As I said, I *am* monitoring this, and will semiprotect if it's needed - three IP edits does not require protection. Cazique: as I see you've erased my query about whether you're blatantly recruiting meatpuppets, I'll say this here: the majority seems to be against your point of view. If you feel there's a problem with that, dispute resolution is that way. Further edit-warring - by yourself or by IPs - will result in a block. This is a ridiculous thing to be fighting over, and it's time for everyone to stop. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to dive into the whole history of this dispute you would see that I have already read that and done everything I feel I could do. But how can I reach a consensus when people wish to be ignorant and not answer points I raise and instead ignore me or sidetrack the issues. Wikipedia is not a democracy and this needs to be done the right way. Cazique (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've read the talk pages and see that the majority of the people involved feel that the current situation is the best compromise. You are the only one continuing to fight. Take it to mediation if you feel it hasn't worked, but continuing to edit war is not acceptable. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony - done, and done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No Uther not done and done. You have failed to unblock the IPs. Do I need to take action?! Cazique (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I lifted the blocks on the IPs. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, Tony - it really looks like 3RR evasion, and since IP blocks have been discussed, I would say that semi-protection is in order. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And note that the only edits by both IPs have been edit-warring on these articles. Guettarda (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am aware of that. They've made two and one edits on each article respectively; if they continue, an uninvolved admin can semiprotect. Uther is far too involved to be using his tools in this dispute. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Correction Guettarda, you mean to say have been reverting back to revision without hatnotes which were provided in wrong context. Cazique (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather, they have been undoing hatnotes that Cazique himeslf acknowledges improve the article but doesn't want in solely for his own ulterior motives. From Cazique's response to me on his talk page: "Yes I already aknowledgd the hatnotes were an improvement repeatedly but did not agree to have them in until a concensous was reached as they further strengthen Uther's redirect and make my redirect look less valid." I am pleased that the admins seem to be prepared to protect the integrity of these articles from the recent unproductive silliness.Rlendog (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have said a million times now! I am all for having hatnotes in the articles as they help the average joe, but only when used in the right context. Two sets of hatnotes were provided by both parties and should only be included once a consensus has been reached. The improper use of the strawpoll and your opinions based on an illogical reasoning are yet to do resolve this. Cazique (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

IPs aside, upon returning from his block (for edit warring, on this series of articles/redirects) Cazique returned to edit-warring on the same articles (his only post-block mainspace edits have been to these articles). The apparently sock/meatpuppetry aside, I think it would be reasonable to reblock based on his immediate resumption of the edit war that got him blocked. Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable to block you for disobeying wikipedia policies by not assuming good faith and acting incivilly. Don't become involved in a situation unless you are aware of all the facts. Cazique (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked Cazique for 1 week (it's his fourth block in 11 days). Even after repeated attempts by several users to reason with him, he's still reverting to his preferred version of articles and categories, and leaving messages like this. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism or not, feedback wanted[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could comment on this edit [21]. Someone keeps adding the word "terrorist" to the Hamas article, and others keep taking it out, characterizing it as vandalism. I think that's clearly not the case (it may be POV, or violate other policies), but I'd appreciate some neutral input: is this vandalism? I left this on the vandalism talk page, but almost no one comments there. IronDuke 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Militant" does seem most appropriate, as the term "terrorist" is gone into in great detail just one or two paragraphs later in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for feedback, Badagani. However, my concern was with whether using the word terrorist here was vandalism, as per WP policy. Thoughts? IronDuke 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin opinion here: In this situation, "Terrorist" is not vandalism, per se, but rather, a possible NPOV violation, and repeated insertion definitely falls under tendentious editing and/or point-making. umrguy42 05:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Umrguy42. It is extremely troubling to me the way people go throwing around the V-word for anything they disagree with. "Terrorist" is definitely not an ideal word to use in that particular sentence, and edit-warring is forbidden regardless of the circumstances. So that's all actionable. But calling it "vandalism" is unnecessarily inflammatory.
However, at the moment I personally would probably not bother to point this out to either side. As you may have noticed, the people who feel passionately about these issues, um, they get pissed off rather easily, and that goes for both sides. (See also, every freaking thing that has happened in that part of the world since 1946) I would just deal with the edit warring as it comes, and if the worst thing that happens is that a bad edit is incorrectly labeled as "vandalism", count yourself lucky. (Heh, although if the worst thing anyone says about Hamas is to use the word "terrorist" instead of "militant".... oh nevermind, I'm just not going to get involved! Anyway: Not vandalism, but is pov, and is edit-warring) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

PoV, maybe even disruptive but not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC) (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Stale simple vandalism report. Next time, try WP:AIV

This user has been consistently abusing Wikipedia for over six months, making numerous abusive edits, all of which are destructive in nature. Can we please perma-ban? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweekly (talkcontribs) 02:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't perma-ban nor indef block IPs. He hasn't given even gotten a block. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
i mislike how you instantly come here to try and have a user PERMANENTLY BANNED for an unspecific "abuse" without even bothering to give hi a WP:WELCOME first. i think that we should at least give this user a welcome before we take him to WP:ANI to be sumarily executed. That is why I went and gave hi ma welcome and I think we should wait before proceding with any bannings other than what the admins have deemed necesary. Smith Jones (talk) 03:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As CWii says, we don't ever permanently ban IP addresses, because tomorrow it could be a different person. However, I'm a little surprised the volume of vandalism yesterday didn't result in a report to WP:AIV and a short block. That said, remember that our blocks are preventative, not punitive -- I would have reported the IP sooner, but since the IP stopped vandalizing anyway, the same goal was accomplished (and arguably, the way I would have handled it would have created unnecessary extra work for the admins). If the vandalism stops, the vandalism stops, whether it is via block or user boredom.
In any case, the proper thing to do if this resumes is issue a "final warning" to the talk page, and if the vandalism continues, report it to WP:AIV. This is simple vandalism, and not even all that frequent, so there's no need for a report here. (P.S. Kudos on the welcome message, Smith Jones, all too often we are lax about that. Good show!) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

blacklist request[edit]


based on this edit and a few others adding '' to the page, i'm requesting that the site be blacklisted. there's nothing that will ever be useful at that site. It's a fan-made parody of a trailer for hulk, which involves defecation as a main theme. It's a copyright infringement, i'm sure, which we shouldn't be linking to. thanks. ThuranX (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator[edit]

Resolved: Complainant commented that dispute resolution was being pursued elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We really need help at some place. On the Russians page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it here. It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then User:Melesse for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did this. She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it here. Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on this. I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Wikipedia is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions.[22] [23] [24] [25]. Please get into this. MaIl89 (talk) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't ignore acne, no matter how hard you try. You just have to outgrow it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive IP address[edit]

The IP address has been deleting articles wholesale and replacing them with lengthy essays written in a highly unencyclopedic tone. At United States Postal Service, he has removed all the content and pasted in copy from the USPS's own website. At New Wave music, he has deleted sourced copy and replaced it with a rambling unsourced POV essay full of song lyrics quoted in full, in flagrant violation of copyright. At National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, he has pasted in the entire constitution of the organisation. What can be done to stop this troll? Malcolm XIV (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they are editing in good faith, but don't understand the ground rules sufficiently. I also agree that their edits have been disruptive, and detrimental to the quality of several articles. Accordingly, I have now reverted several of the articles they have edited to earlier versions, warned them about copyright problems, asked them to read the other comments on their talk page, and called their attention to your comments here. I think they can now be regarded as having had their attention drawn to this behavior; if we don't see any improvements, and they don't follow policies from now on, policy enforcement will probably be necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've placed a final warning on the user's page for continued page blanking after the last warning. If they continue their disruptive behavior after this, report them to WP:AIV. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The similarity between their editing pattern and that of User:Johnny Spasm is also interesting. -- The Anome (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Seems likely to be User:Johnny Spasm, due to removal of copyright notices from images uploaded by that user and re-addition of them to articles. TigerShark (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk spam[edit]

The ref desks keep getting hit by what I presume to be spam bots. Semi-protection is the only effective thing we can do, but this method stops the many good faith IPs who ask and answer questions. Can we blacklist the site please? (AnonTalk dot com)

Also, here's the IPs (all blocked 24 hours for now but are probably open proxies):

Seraphim♥Whipp 11:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, having the Reference Desk semi-protected is really not good. As the IPs that have been used so far are blocked, can I suggest that we unprotect and watch? Cheers TigerShark (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. The IP addresses change so rapidly that blocking has absolutely no effect. As you can see, 4 IP adresses were used in the space of under two minutes. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should try. 3 of the edits were actually from the same IP (193.194...) Having it semi-protected means that it is almost unused, because the vast majority of questions posted are from IPs or brand new accounts. TigerShark (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm strongly against unprotecting for the now because the few hours of semi-protection have been successful in the past and was the only effective tool, but that's just my opinion. I'm happy to go with whatever consensus warrants. Hmm...better still, I'll temporarily add the url to the blacklist and then make a case for it to stay there. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, well you'll have my backing for that. Shall we try an unprotect and see what happens? TigerShark (talk) 12:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
We can try... There's more eyes on it now anyway :). Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) That's odd. Seems three versions of the link are already black listed o_0. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure is! OK, I unprotected it. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the URL blacklist has any effect on body-text-only versions of those URLs. -- The Anome (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've been running an adminbot since December or so that detects and deletes XRumer spam, then blocks the proxies that it's coming from. It should be pretty trivial for me to add a heuristic for this anontalk stuff, which I've been seeing for several weeks now. east.718 at 20:55, June 14, 2008


Any folks/admins doing new page patrol—please be on the lookout for newly-created articles on albums and singles with suspiciously far-off release dates and titles in the format Album(album) and Single(song) (no space). I've just deleted a proverbial metric shitload of articles clearly following the pattern of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer), with a few names changed in the body text; see Special:DeletedContributions/LLOVEU12345. The original hoax party, complete with navbox for all the articles, may be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move Your Body(song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thats How I do(song), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Get Loose(album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waist Line(song), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The HITZ:Remix 09(album). Somebody has waaay too much time on their hands. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Resolved: Both parties have indicated they will accept WP:3O on their dispute. Kbthompson (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

As reported at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Forest of the Dead - disruptive user?, this user has been constantly unconstructive in Talk:Silence in the Library, Talk:Forest of the Dead, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Continuity sections, User talk:U-Mos#When reverted and User talk:Arcayne. He has been incredibly rude to me (to which bait I may have risen once or twice, which I would apologise for), refuses to give any ground on the points he makes despite facing opposition, continues to edit war, ignores my perfectly reasonable request to wait for the project discussion to end, decides to "ban" me from his talk page after I point out that a comment he made caused me offence, accuses me of all sorts of offences I have not commited, and generally assumes authority and ownership at almost every turn. Wheras he does generally seem to be a good user, I don't believe this sort of behaviour should be acceptable from anyone. U-Mos (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So ask him about it. What administrative intervention is required here? I can see none. Bstone (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
My asking, and indeed any communication I make with him, has led to me being fobbed off with accusations and patronism, as seen mostly on my talk page and Talk:Forest of the Dead. He deleted the last message I left on his talk page saying "sorry chum, but I get the last word here". I can do nothing against a user so adamant and dismissive. I wish for him to listen to reason, and he certainly won't listen to mine, so I came here. U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... Arcayne has requested U-Mos not to post on his talkpage. Can U-Mos provide any diffs that indicate violation of WP policy? Otherwise, it is just a dispute that both parties should withdraw from or else seek resolution. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not overly familiar with policies, so could not definitely say if he has specifically violated any. But I'd hazard a guess at ownership (refusing to take into account other people's PoV in Talk:Silence in the Library#Removed paragraphs in continuity section), incivility (my talk page) and edit-warring (constant reversions citied in the Editor Assistance page). U-Mos (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I guess one of the more frustrating parts of interacting with U-Mos (for me) is the fact that he likes arguing (and has admitted such in his talk page); however, when I disagree with him on policy, he charges OWNership and incivility, which is odd, since that is what I pointed out on his talk page that he runs the risk of having his edits perceived as.
I don't think I've broken any rules or guidelines in either my edits in Wikipedia or my interaction with U-Mos. I have been particularly careful in remaining polite, as this user seems to think that AN/I is his personal complaints department filing reports left and right. And I find myself concerned that someone might eventually think I am doing something wrong. Towards that end, I first asked, then reiterated and finally banned him from my talk page, cutting my interaction with him to a minimum. Some people you can work with, and U-Mos isn't one of those, when it comes to Doctor Who episodic articles. It's done his way, or the voice of dissent is "being disruptive" or trying to own the article. As repeatedly noted by a previous admin, it's mostly a matter of a 'large mouth and a thin skin'.
Perhaps he finds me adamant because the matters we disagree on are content issues, and some of the content centers around the addition of fan trivia and synthesis. U-Mos' largest edit-wars himself and complains that there is no consensus for keeping our synthesis policy intact for articles within the Doctor Who wikiproject. When I discuss the matter there, his sole complaint is that he 'doesn't like it.'. I have found that the best method to interact with this editor is to ban him from my user-talk page and then ignore him in article discussion. This means I don't respond to his repeated snipes in article discussion and elsewhere. I would prefer if the user would find someone else to bother, because I am quite frankly getting a bit tired of his abuse. When I explain my point of view, he dismisses them with 'i don't like it'-style comments that fail to address the meat of the explanation asked for, sort of a 'refusing to get the point' thing.
I am not sure that DR would be helpful. My attempts to generate an RfC were perceived by the user as disruptive and trollishness. Again, while I do not mind trying DR, I think the user perceives it as something other than what it is, and won't even try. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely ignoring the above post, which is almost entirely untrue, I had (as shown above) sought editor assistance for this matter. But as some ground is finally being made in the article, I felt that was the wrong place to put this. Basically, in the general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia, I would like Arcayne to realise that his manner in editing is unnaccepatble, and I'm sure he'd find people much more civil towards him if he treated them with respect (and starting comments with "with respect" doesn't count), maybe even as equals. I wasn't completely sure where to go with this issue, so if there is a better place please point me in its direction. Thanks. U-Mos (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I would imagine that in the "general spirit of improving experiences on Wikipedia", perhaps saying that you are ignoring what people say while characterizing their words as "completely untrue" would be one of the first things to avoid. You get good faith and respect, and if you squander it by being rude and/or dismissive, you have to work that much harder to get it back, but that isn't the first time you have been told this. Perhaps my posts lack diplomacy in responding to your behavior, but not one whit of anything I have said is incorrect or uncivil. Perhaps looking at your own posting tone would help lead you to a better understanding of interacting with others. Until then, i would prefer if you would simply avoid my edits, please.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the disputes centres around one subject (Dr Who) and is between only the two of you I think a third opinion may be the first dispute resolution process to try. I suggest that you read the page and decide if it is suitable for both of you - that is, both parties need to agree to it. Having just one party review and comment upon the dispute is a far less drama generating process than the alternatives. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind tring that. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone to WP:30 as suggested. U-Mos (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm (talk · contribs) freaky act[edit]


- - :I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this guy blank the main page. And he only got a level 1? But he did self-revert it. Am I in the right place? Shapiros10 Say "Hi"My work 21:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipediaclouds the brain". Hmmmm. Not good. Bstone (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Oops. He was already blocked and unblocked over it. This thread is useless now. Shapiros10 Say "Hi"My work 21:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he claims his account was compromised. Eeps! Anyway, marking as resolved. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

List of pop punk bands[edit]

I just want to clarify that [this] is considered vandalism rather than content dispute. All of the bands being removed included pop punk in their infobox. I requested that the user refrain from removing these bands, and have now begun issuing warnings as they have ignored my request. However, I just want to be sure that this unjustified removal of content is vandalism rather than content dispute, as I do not want to be blocked if I have to continue reverting this. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a content dispute, but it should be easily sorted out providing you can get consensus from other editors for the inclusive listing. Once you have consensus and the editor continues removing bands, then it is vandalism. As for the Blondie comment.... Eh? Not punk pop? Yeah, right! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I must admit, I am surprised at that. Surely as all these bands have been labeled as pop punk in their infobox (something that is decided upon by consensus itself), then they should be part of a list of pop punk bands. The user has since removed these bands again, and provided no reason, but just the edit summary "Stop tampering with something you know very little about". I have not reverted this, but I have restored the disambiguation links they removed. I am confused as to why consensus is required as to the inclusion of these bands when their genres are already agreed upon....? Nouse4aname (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Any good faith edit that is contested is a content dispute, even if the dispute is farcical (that New York is the capital of France, for example). It only becomes vandalism if the edits are made in bad faith (still claiming New York is the capital of France after being given appropriate references). The editor may well believe that Blondie was never punk pop, which is understandable if they are only aware of the US singles success, but wrong in context of their early gigs, first two albums and early UK singles hits or the mistaken belief that "punk" was only about a three chord thrash preceded by a call of "onetwothreefour!" (I presume the same misunderstanding relates to other disputed bands, but haven't checked). If, as I suggested, you can point the editor toward some references or discussion about what may or may not be considered punk, or pop punk, and they still persevere in removing bands without consensus then you have a claim for vandalism. I suggest finding those references and/or consensus, and discussing it with the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation. I have taken the opportunity to tidy the list up somewhat, checking each and every link, and if there is no mention of pop punk, then I have removed them (I have however left bands that do not necessarily have pop punk, but have pop rock, power pop etc, which are similar). I have also disambiguated a large number of links, and invited the user to discuss any changes they think should be made. New York isn't the capital of France...? Well you learn something new everyday... Nouse4aname (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad vandalism to WP:SEMI[edit]


The protection policy page has been badly vandalized, something in the CSS, I can't even see where to revert it on my PC. MrPrada (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Actually, it seems to be one of the templates or images on the page (I used my URL bar to get into it and try to figure it out) that is messing it up, but I'm not sure which one. MrPrada (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The image seems to be rotating, now its been replaced by a giant "Avril Lavine Rockz" drawing. MrPrada (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Strange goings-on[edit]

Resolved: Users Flyhead, Babba12 and Brandblusser indef blocked. Motofan blocked for 15 minutes and given a "this is your last chance" warning.

Hi. Last night, I got a friendly note from a new user, User:Flyhead. I've never had previous contact with this individual before and it seems he's a model aircraft enthusiast who'd found an upload of a photo I'd taken of one of my own models. I had responded in kind. He and another new user, User:Motofan, are apparently friends and communicate with each other in Swedish on their respective talk pages. My concern is that both of these users and possibly a third, User:Brandblusser, are horribly racist as evidenced by Motofan's placement of a Nazi symbol on Flyhead's page (which I removed on my initial contact) and an equally horrid comment left by Flyhead on the Zulu article. Frankly, I've seen this kind of behavior here before and it worries me. Seemingly friendly and helpful...but not. Is this an AIV issue or what? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Flyhead indefinitely. He has received final warnings before and then made a recent edit to the Zulu article this morning. That sort of behaviour is wholly inappropriate and unacceptable. Requesting review of block. Rudget (Help?) 15:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I would advise someone to check Motofan (talk · contribs) talk page too, that should deserve him a block, IMO. Samuel Sol (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
In line with their focus of attention; I think the language they were communicating in was Afrikaans not Swedish. Rudget (Help?) 15:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and thanks for the correction of the language. I thought Swedish or Dutch, but Afrikaans is based on Dutch, so there you have it. In the meantime, I think it's wise to let Brandblusser know what's up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's time to block Motofan as well. I just removed that damned Nazi symbol from his talk page; the edit stated that he's a "proud member of the AWB."--PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Never mind for now. He just left nice word on my talk page regarding the use of English. I've advised him against the use of the symbol. His edits to F1 articles seem to be in good faith. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Flyhead has already reincarnated as Babba12 (talk · contribs) (blocked). Motofan has a number of minor sockpuppets including Brandblusser (talk · contribs) and needs a trout slap if he is going to be a productive editor. Thatcher 18:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. He's apologized for the AWB symbol on my talk pge - twice, in fact - and in reviewing his edits to F1-related articles, they all seem to be sincere and I'd like to assume good faith. I agree that some advice directly from an admin is in order. I'll go get the trout. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can be persuaded to overlook that twisted symbol in the spirit of "assume good faith", but am I the only one to be disturbed by his comment on his last revision of his user page? To wit: "I hate kaffers!!!" The link & exclamation points are original -- he knows that kaffir is the South African version of "nigger". -- llywrch (talk) 05:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Motofan for 1 minute: no need for a punitive block but I want to make sure that if he causes any more trouble, other admins will be aware of the history. He's been given multiple warnings for various problems and although he has indeed been a productive editor, there's no reason to tolerate this kind of thing. As far as I know, all other accounts mentioned in this thread are now indef blocked and I wholeheartedly endorse them. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih evading block with new account: User:Sunchief[edit]

Resolved: Sock blocked. --jonny-mt 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Thamarih has opened a new account to avoid a block. This is more than mere sockpuppetry.

On Talk:Juan Cole Thamarih was, probably, editing without logging in leaving his IP address open. This IP address is from Brisbane, NSW, Australia. The IP's edits and the logged-in edits were within a minute of each other.

This user has been blocked for a month for personal attacks, etc., on Talk:Ayahuasca. This is the fifth escalating block on this user.

Now, a brand new user User:Sunchief is editing on that talk page, and it's IP address is also from Australia. (Also, he was editing a few minutes before creating the account.)

This account, Sunchief, was created within 24 hours after the block on User:Thamarih went in, picked up the discussion right where it left off and went right back to reverting Ayahuasca:



The IP addresses are different, but that's covered as easily as going to the next internet cafe. The coincidence seems too perfect, and the user has a demonstrated pattern of learning from their blocks.

MARussellPESE (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

is there a reason why you mentioned that they were both from australia? IP adresses are not necessarily allcoated by continent. i agree with you that Sunchief is probabl ya sock puppet or even a meat puppet. i recommend getting a WP:CHECKUSER to cover everything. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know Australia's a big place, but the DNS lookup on the second IP only said "Australia". If it had said "Sydney" or "Alice Springs" then a sockpuppet accusation would have been weakened. I've not used CHECKUSER, but the procedure seems quite involved and time-consuming. A real advantage regarding privacy, but a difficult tool to use in a timely fashion. MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This edit alone is sufficient evidence. I have indefinitely blocked the sock account and will leave a warning on User talk:Thamarih. Further socking will result in an indefinite block of the master account. --jonny-mt 07:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahid Azal (2007-04-28) and compare the IP addresses in the deleted history? There's also SecretChiefs3 (talk · contribs). The main account appears to be Mr. Azal. For more backstory, see:[33]. Viriditas (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur. Almost certain. These various sockpuppets have been edit warring on Subh-i-Azal and Azali. (Not surprising considering he's claimed to be this obscure and defunct group's leader.) The Ayahuasca stuff has been relatively minor in comparison. His accusations of Baha'is stalking him notwithstanding, he certainly has no difficulty tracking down Baha'i editors on unrelated pages and launching unprovoked PAs. [34] [35] MARussellPESE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anontalk spammer[edit]

I see the anontalk spammer seems to be back, and has hit this page among others: [36] Can anything be done about this, for example by applying the spam blacklist to article content in order to catch text-only URLs, or by having a bot watch for this kind of vandalism? -- The Anome (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See section directly above. Seraphim♥Whipp 11:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now removed all the anontalk spam I can find using both the local search tool and Google. This is probably the best way to stop this spammer: if all their additions disappear shortly after being added, their efforts will be unproductive, and there's no incentive to continue them. Perhaps the rollback bots should be programmed to remove these edits on sight? -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That would work if it were a human spamming but I'm pretty sure those are bots. Seraphim♥Whipp 12:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If we required a captcha confirmation for adding certain blacklisted strings to Wikipedia, in the same way that we currently do for non-autoconfirmed users adding URLs, the spammer would need to expend a tiny bit of human effort for each edit. That, combined with zero economic advantage, should stop them. If we did this for not only the article content, but also the edit comments, that would also prevent several other kinds of bulk vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
First part sounds good; it would definitely have an impact on bulk spam. Sounds like a proposal for the village pump :). Seraphim♥Whipp 13:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now suggested this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)‎. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
This seems likely to be a real need soon, if not already. Seconded. —Steve Summit (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Come to that, the rollback bots should look at the URL blacklist in general, and attempt to spot textual versions of any of those URLs added to articles under suspicious circumstances... --- The Anome (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination) AfD[edit]

Resolved: AfD is closed now, so the point has become moot

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism (2nd nomination), two users keep removing comments from users arguing in favor of keeping the article.[37][38][39][40][41] Can someone please keep an eye on it? -- Kendrick7talk 03:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that the comments that seem to be removed are best suited for the talk page of the AfD as they stray off-topic. They were moved to the talk page and linked to. --Ave Caesar (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
They were not in fact linked to, and I don't think the comments all strayed entirely. I wouldn't expect other editors or the closing admin to generally give the talk page much scrutiny, so I really think this was bad form. -- Kendrick7talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Went ahead and closed discussion with a no consensus. Given that it was nominated for speedy deletion minutes after it was created, then AfD'ed, taken to DRV and then renominated in a very short period of time, the discussion at this AfD was running much in parallel to the first AfD. Many voices for keep, a few for delete, and an edit war of commentary that had relevance on the main discussion page -- hardly off-topic chatter, as one editor stated. Give this more time before reapplying for another AfD, and apply a little more good faith. seicer | talk | contribs 04:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned with your assessment and decision to close, though I don't disagree that the outcome was headed for "no consensus". Your "Many voices for keep, a few for delete" comment is the exact opposite conclusion reached by the admin who closed the first AfD as they noted "18 delete, 5 delete and/or merge, 3 merge and 10 keep opinion". That's 26 to 10 in favour of delete or merge. Certainly that was within the parameters of no consensus, but are you sure you paid it enough due diligence in your closure? By closing it early and for reasons not related to the discussion, seems to invite a 3rd AfD and not squelch it as you may have intended. --DHeyward (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I !voted for "merge", but I support the closure by Seicer. Remember, AfD is not a vote, but a discussion regarding whether the article should be deleted. There was no clear consensus in the discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I told you not to stop messing around with the consensus process.[42] Karma, imo. -- Kendrick7talk 06:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you know what karma is? You need to overcome avidya before you can recognize karma. I support the result of the close but an early closure will only accelerate the next AfD as those that nominate it will see AfD #2 as not being valid. If anything, Karma would be AfD #3 starting because AfD #2 was closed out-of-process because |of constructive, consensus building comments such as this which you refused to take to the talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the closure by Seicer, as well. No doubt they will do another Afd in the next few weeks, after another review upholds it again. It follows the pattern to blank the section when it was in the Allegations article. Btw, the removal of my comments was just another form of desperation to suppress and bait, but to no avail. Sadly, we even see an admin, WMC, doing do: "G33 chatters endlessly. Its no surprise that people remove his comments. Feel free to report me William M. Connolley 21:24, 13 June 2008."[43] He then proceeds to remove my comment, supporting DHeywards edit-warring to remove my comments (and others):[44]
Notice my comment did not stray off topic in any way but dealt with the arguments for why deletion was not valid. It's the power of the argument, not the power of numbers that is paramount, so they felt a need to remove my argument. I did not report this, even though WMC told me to "report him." Better not to feed such negative attention seeking. But since this ANI thread was started by someone else, I thought comment here about it.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I took into account the needless edit warring over valid and supportive comments -- per Speedy Keep. I've seen numerous AfD's where comments in favour or disfavour have been removed and moved to the never-visited talk page under the guise of off-topic, which seriously undermines the entire process. There was no overwhelming consensus on this AfD -- or any consensus, for that matter. If another AfD is filed within a brief period of time, then there is precedent to simply kill the recurring AfD as a bad faith nomination. seicer | talk | contribs 11:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
something we should perhaps be doing more often.DGG (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the historical revisionists would have preferred the war to drag out another year or so, instead of ending it immediately as the A-bomb did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Being told to die in the subject on my talk page.[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for one year for gross incivility

by this wonderful character

they have already been blocked for 3 months on 2 occasions, perhaps 12 months or indef would be nice.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked JJGD for one monthyear. I believe that any recurrence of similar behavior by JJGD should result in an indefinite block. -- The Anome (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Just one? At this point I think a year or more is quite reasonable. Metros (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. -- The Anome (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
That user rolled a die, and came up empty. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wu Language Copyright Problems[