Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive467

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Admin Advice Requested[edit]

Resolved: Allegations fully investigated and accounts blocked. Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to take this to Checkuser, but I'm not sure if it fits there, at least not yet. There's been an edit war at Esther Hicks over portions of her BLP page. One user has already been blocked for 3RR, and the page is currently fully protected for talk page discussion.

Ahnalira was the main force behind the removal of most of the information on the page (that was not corroborated by the subjects own website bio page). From his/her user page, they appear to have a clear conflict of interest (they run the website for this person's business). However, since the discussion has gotten heated, several other single purpose accounts have popped up to support the removal of any information not already on the subject's web site. These editors are Kmcgloin (talk · contribs), Melcapp (talk · contribs), MoriahBaron (talk · contribs), and Gacuster (talk · contribs), all of whom are recent accounts with no other edits except to this page (and similar subjects).

I'm a late comer to this article, and I've tried to keep the peace on the talk page and encourage discussion. It does seem peculiar to me, though, that so many editors have the same viewpoint and don't seem to cross paths. I wanted to bring this here to seek the opinions of admins. Is this a matter for checkuser? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm investigating this matter, and will return results shortly. Anthøny 02:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
(EC with Anthony)As for being resolved because the page is protected, I'm not sure that's the case. These accounts are still in play in the discussion, and to be honest, I'm not sure of their logic of removing sourced material. If there's puppetry of some sort going on, then we're trying to gain consensus when one side is still acting in bad faith (and discussion-stacking). Since the protection, two of the single-purpose accounts have chimed in on the issue at different times, then both said they had to go.
I'm just wondering what to do here, if it's resolved with the full protection I'll just continue as scheduled. Thanks! I appreciate your attention to the matter, Anthony. Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That's fine; I'm not an admin, so any suggestions I make can be overridden by someone who is. It is being looked over, though, so at least an eye is being kept on it. HalfShadow 02:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I have looked in to the matter and compiled a report with results here. Thanks for bringing this matter to light, Dayewalker. Regards, Anthøny 03:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nickthearmenian12 and Hampar Kelikian[edit]

Nickthearmenian12 (talk · contribs) insists on adding a huge quote from People Magazine to Hampar Kelikian. I've removed it twice, and issued him two warnings about copyright violations. His latest edit was on my Talk page, saying, if wikipedia is not worried about it then you shouldn't be either. It is not your place in my opinion to tell me what I am doing wrong if that is the case then I will try to fix that but you are the only one that is giving me problems. FWIW, he self-identifies as a teenager. Corvus cornixtalk 02:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note and will keep an eye on it. Continuous re-addition of copyrighted content is grounds for a block, but hopefully a little education will make sure it doesn't come to that. --jonny-mt 04:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Without that content, and a further stripping out of all the fluff and peacock vios, there's not much left to assert notability. I'll leave it to others to decide if it needs an AfD. ThuranX (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


More and more unfree images are being uploaded with bogus licenses[edit]

Like I mentioned a day or two ago, a number of people editing the 2008 South Ossetia War are uploading images they have found on one Russian website or another. They are sticking bogus Creative Commons and other free licenses on them when the images all seem to have a commercial restriction on them. I've been here before about this. People are creating sockpuppets to upload as many files as they can for whatever reason. I got a few deleted the other day but many many more seem to be appearing. Once they're found out and warned, they abandon the account and move on to another one, resuming the uploads.

There are probably others as well. Can someone please nip this in the bud now, delete the images that need to go and block? Otherwise we're gonna end up with a gargantuan mess of copyvio images. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking fish is on the Commons, which administrators of the English Wikipedia have no jurisdiction over. There is commons:COM:AN though.
Also, these are just two accounts. Is it really a pressing matter?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, nevermind speaking fish then.
A pressing matter? Only if you think it's a bad idea to let people upload unfree images to Wikipedia under free licenses. I was hoping someone with more time than I have and who isn't about to go to bed would take the time to investigate this more deeply, but if it's considered fine to do that, then by all means ignore me and let them continue. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me know what Commons images that need my attention still on my talk page, I'll get round to it eventually. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, there's a Commons report here as a follow-up location if the problem continues. The English language article is semiprotected and the Commons account has gone inactive. A lot of new users are unclear about noncommercial licenses and make mistakes in good faith. Please post to Commons if uploads resume under a new account name. DurovaCharge! 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User With Personal Attacks And Plenty of Socks[edit]

Not sure what to do about this one, so I'm bringing it here for admins. Zombified24 is a new editor, but his first edit was to his userpage where he admitted to being several other users, including Harlot666, Wikihatingjew, Zombified22, and Haroldandkumar12. He also made some pretty agressive statements there about wikipedia and other editors [3]. In this incarnation, he's been warned several times about personal attacks, as seen here. [4] [5] [6] [7] He's been warned in all of his previous incarnations, and blocked in at least two of them.

In this edit, [8] Zombified24 not only says he has plenty of accounts, but also makes a remark that could be anti-Semetic.

I'm not sure how alternate accounts and blocks relate to sockpuppets, so I'm bringing it here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Not only has he done nothing of value to help build the encyclopedia, all he does is insult other people, brag about his sockpuppets, and make racist comments. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Specialwolf (talk · contribs) [9]. Also, not all the accounts are indef blocked. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. I also blocked Metallicafan1bryan (talk · contribs) but on further analysis, I believe he is a friend who made an edit from Zombified24's computer but normally edits from his own computer on a different network. Still, his contributions are mostly in the same vein. A second opinion on his block would be good to have. Thatcher 13:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot guy[edit]

Is BrvHeart (talk · contribs) related to these users from a little while back? --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, or even likely. However, the majority of the edits are reasonable - with just the addition of [[bare feet]] (not the most salacious - fantastic word, not used nearly often enough - site on the 'pedia) being of any concern. Should this user be blocked, or just have that element of their edits reverted, or should nothing be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost certainly the same guy. I'd say revert his edits on sight, and block (since the sockpuppets were blocked earlier). I've done so. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, nice one. He was being phenomenally disruptive and clearly had no intention of contributing constructively. Alun (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, he's back. I asked Alison to run a checkuser on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I already did. No other accounts apparent. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew[edit]

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not possible.
Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).
I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" without which the article was not readable, and I added "by their political opponents".
He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).
I left a message on his talk page.
Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I urged you do something.
After I explained him [10] he goes to other pages to report his story.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't delete anything, then you can safely ignore him and he'll go away. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
How easy it is...
If you were proud of the WP:NPoV and quality of wikipedia articles, you would already have banned her. That is just the 5th time.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Continuously changing spelling variation[edit]

The Wikipedia user, "Samuel_Webster", has decided to change the spelling of the word "centre" to "center", without taking into consideration that the spelling "centre" is preferred in the articles that this person has edited.

He/she does not care about the spelling variations used in the articles, regarding the Olympics, and has also been told by other users not to change the spelling to the American variation. Here are more reasons of why it should be kept in British spelling.

This user has been notified against his/her actions already. However, he/she continues to change the spelling in more pages, quote, "virtually all names spelled with "Centre" are incorrect". Now the spelling of all "centre" has been changed to "center" that has anything to do with the Olympics.

This person has made the changes repeatedly to many pages that can be seen on his contribution page.

The attitude shown by the user is even made clearer reflected by the sarcasm on the personal page. He/she further threatens other users, if the spelling gets reverted back to "center", the account of that user will be banned, and blames other users for modifying the changes others make for "vandalism". Bleedingshoes (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving this from Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism to a more suitable venue. I'd discourage a move war in either direction without some more attempt at discussion. Looks like Samuel is claiming these are proper names for the buildings in question; has anyone attempted to address that claim? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User, regardless of their merits in editing, has a very troubling and spiky attitude to people who disagree with him. --mboverload@ 02:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Troubling diff: Rv spelling vandalism by Bleedingshoes. --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues

"Don't feed the trolls," as they say. Sorry if I'm violating that dictum. However, I'm not violating WP policy by using correct spellings. The spellings are PROPER NAMES, and virtually all of these spellings use "Center." You need to prove 1) that IOC always uses UK English (they didn't when they were in Atlanta); 2) that this has relevance for WP spellings (I don't see that it does), and, far more importantly, 3) that this means you can use a different spelling for PROPER NAMES. If my last name is "Gray," and there's a page about me, are you going to change it to "Grey"? I'm trying to assume good faith, but you seem like a trouble-maker. Note, trouble-makers eventually get banned from WP. --Samuel Webster (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

THIS COMMENT COPIED FROM Template talk:2008 Summer Olympics venues --mboverload@ 02:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

From nbcolympics.com, search using "center", and search using "centre". Center looks like the correct spelling. LegoKontribsTalkM 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Even the official website for the Beijing Olympics uses the "center" spelling. - auburnpilot talk 03:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, it's highly likely that the website for the olymics is properly localized and translated such that folks in centre locales see "centre" and folks in center locales see "center". The world is flat. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


(ec x 2) I came across this at WP:AIV a few hours ago and investigated a bit. It seems Samuel Webster has a extensive history of battling over American vs. British English. I reverted him once on {{2008 Summer Olympics venues}} because WP:ENGVAR states the variation of English should be left as the original author wrote it, in this case, 'centre'. These page moves and changes seem to be Samuel Webster's latest battlefield, and he's the one who keeps firing the first shots. The Olympics templates and articles are highly visible at present and this centre vs. center stuff is silly.
Plus, for what it's worth, the beijing2008.cn site seems to use American English throughout, which leads me to think it was translated by an American. I'm not sure if it has an 'official' English spelling. Or I could be wrong. KrakatoaKatie 03:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi KrakatoaKatie! I was pissed off at orthographic anti-Americans for a while, to be sure! (I'm not American, but I'm a student of Noah Webster, and of Samuel Johnson!) But not once did I violate WP policy (well, there might have been a couple accidents). I spent a lot of time correcting the efforts of British teenagers who seemed to be spending their afternoons violating WP:ENGVAR. Nothing wrong with that. Indeed, people who enforce WP policy should be thanked.
What's relevant here isn't my past behavior, however, it's WP policy. These are PROPER NAMES. They are all (with one exception: Qingdao International Sailing Centre) spelled with the International/American spelling "Center". End of story! I can't believe this is even being discussed. (The Web pages aren't localized, by the way: Use a UK proxy; still comes up Center.) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I find it bizarre that you think I'm firing the first shot. I'm trying to improve WP by correcting errors. I guess that's a "shot", in some sense, and, perhaps, first fired. Seems a stretch, however. Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you reading this from the US? If so, you may be reading a localized version that differs from the british version. Toddst1 (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence that the website alternates spellings depending on your location. Even so, I used a British proxy to find the Olympic site through Google.co.uk and there wasn't a bit of difference. - auburnpilot talk 04:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR for guidance on when to use U.S. versus British spelling. Does the article have a strong national tie to one country or the other? If not, then who got there first to establish a national preference is the deciding factor. See Maize and Press up . For something really amusing, see Talk:Color/Archive 2#Page move (not done) for a historical and linguistic analysis of "color" versus "colour," rife with ad hominen attacks on "upstarts from a nation less than 300 years old" and "small island nation" inhabitants. The Spanish Wiki had an equally inane argument over whether "papas" or "patatas" was the correct word for "potatoes," pitting country against country. Edison (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How does the MoS apply at all here? It is the name of a building, clearly there is an official name for it. BJTalk 04:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Bjweeks: stop being intelligent! Not allowed! :) Samuel Webster (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
From WP:ENGVAR: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling and grammar. For example, center and centre are not to be used in the same article. The exceptions are: ... titles (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force)."
I take that to mean, if the official title (name) of the building includes "Center", then the article should use "Center" in the name of the building, regardless of which English variation is otherwise used in the article. See Capital Centre for an example of this, where a US venue used the British spelling in its name. The article, written in US English about a US venue, nonetheless uses the proper official name of the venue, which happens to include "Centre" in the British spelling. --Clubjuggle T/C 09:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Summary. We have two issues: 1) the spelling of proper names; 2) the spelling of the text in these articles about the 2008 Summer Olympics. Any reasonable person should regard the first issue as a no-brainer: the spellings I've changed to the "Center" spelling are correct as they are, with the "Center" spelling. (Use a non-US proxy to look at the official sites to verify.)

The second issue is more complicated. WP:ENG cites a tie to a place, institution, etc. IOC is internationl, not UK-based. Yet their preferred spelling is UK-spelling. But these Web pages are not, of course, about the IOC. They're about the 2008 Summmer Olympics, which are not taking place in the UK, they are taking place in China. When the Olympics are taking place in the U.S. (or Japan, Mexico, Israel, etc.), the official Web sites would very likely be nearly exclusively in some variant of American English. WP pages about the games would be in some variant of American English. In 2008, the Summer Olympics are in China. The official Web sites use International/American English. This is not surprising, since this is the variant preferred by most Chinese (they have their own English: logical puntuation, as in Europe, with American spelling: "International American"). Since WP prefers logical punctuation, and since the 2008 Summer Olympics are taking place in China, whose citizens (increasingly, even in Hong Kong) prefer American spelling, I think there's a strong case for using International/American English (American spelling and logical puntuation) in these articles. It also just seems unprofessional to have the title be in one dialect, and the article body be in another, esp. since there's no strong case for it (as there is with the Australian Labor Party, for ex.). Samuel Webster (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note, of course, that I'm in Canada, and http://en.beijing2008.cn/venues/ does indeed use American spelling for "Center". When I switch to French http://fr.beijing2008.cn/venues/ the word "Center" changes to "Centre". This says that these are not actually proper names for venues as they would never change. As well, their proper name would be in Chinese, and likely does not actually contain the word "Centre". The versions on other language pages would be localized transliterations, not translations. BMW(drive) 10:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the proper name for the current venue is the Chinese one - the problem here is which translation is appropriate. I suggest that, as in other cases where a variant of English is not the local language, that it is the choice of the first (major) editor of the article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Tisk tisk tisk. Samuel Webster, if you would like to say it's a proper noun and that it's a name of the place, let's get official here. The officially official name for any venues containing the word "center/re" in Chinese is "中心 or 館“. Like Bwilkins said, the name is translated from Chinese, so that is why it appears to be "centre" in French. Interestingly enough, earlier mentioned, the site is being translated by American English-speaking people. So they did not get the translators to put it into UK English, the standards set by the International Olympic Committee. You can therefore not use this standard as the "golden rule" for the spelling on WP articles.

And, didn't you say, "there's nothing called International English" in the Water Cube article edit? So why are you saying that it's "International/American English" now?

Lastly, just to let you know, Hong Kong still uses British English for the majority as the Brits only left in 1997. Further more, the University of Hong Kong is a prime example of UK English usage. Check their site. Please don't assume things. And, speak to a Hongkonger. When they say "can't" they'll say it the British way.

Bleedingshoes (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • After a lot of contemplation, I have to say this: If indeed, beijing2002.cn is the official site of the Olympic organizers, then that makes en.beijing.cn the official English version for the organizers. As sad as it is (and so contrary to logic) I would have to say that en.beijing2008.cn is canonical for the naming/translation standard into English. Of course, if they suddenly hire a bunch of local translaters, it will change quickly ;) Remember, the largest English TV market is probably the US. BMW(drive) 12:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Per my comment on Talk:Beijing National Aquatics Center and Bwilkins' comment just previous, I'm 90% convinced that the IOC's preference is not canonical for this building. The building doesn't belong to the IOC, any more than the 1996 Atlanta venues do. There may be arguments why the Web site is also not canonical (e.g., produced for a US audience, produced by a US vendor out of spec for the BOCOG). But in absence of any clear evidence that BOCOG or the owner of the building (the PRC government?) feels differently, the Web site is pretty strong prima facie evidence that Center is the official spelling used for these games. - PhilipR (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


BMW(drive): Why are you sad? And what is the logic that is contradicted here? Sorry if I'm missing something. And why would anything change if the translators were local? The Chinese generally prefer American English (though not as strongly as Japanese and Koreans). Actually, how do you even know the translators aren't local?
Bleedingshoes: No, it has TWO (at least) proper names. You seem to think the Chinese are too incompetent to give something a proper name in a language other than their native language. A peculiar view. Linnaeus had two proper names. One was Linné, used in Sweden, the other, Linnaeus, was used in an international context. The Chinese chose names with "Center" as international names.
Astonishing so much time has been spent on this.
Ok? Are we done now? Samuel Webster (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User With Personal Attacks And Plenty of Socks[edit]

Not sure what to do about this one, so I'm bringing it here for admins. Zombified24 is a new editor, but his first edit was to his userpage where he admitted to being several other users, including Harlot666, Wikihatingjew, Zombified22, and Haroldandkumar12. He also made some pretty agressive statements there about wikipedia and other editors [11]. In this incarnation, he's been warned several times about personal attacks, as seen here. [12] [13] [14] [15] He's been warned in all of his previous incarnations, and blocked in at least two of them.

In this edit, [16] Zombified24 not only says he has plenty of accounts, but also makes a remark that could be anti-Semetic.

I'm not sure how alternate accounts and blocks relate to sockpuppets, so I'm bringing it here. Dayewalker (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Not only has he done nothing of value to help build the encyclopedia, all he does is insult other people, brag about his sockpuppets, and make racist comments. Antandrus (talk) 04:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
User has admitted to being a sockpuppet of Specialwolf (talk · contribs) [17]. Also, not all the accounts are indef blocked. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser  Confirmed and blocked. I also blocked Metallicafan1bryan (talk · contribs) but on further analysis, I believe he is a friend who made an edit from Zombified24's computer but normally edits from his own computer on a different network. Still, his contributions are mostly in the same vein. A second opinion on his block would be good to have. Thatcher 13:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot guy[edit]

Is BrvHeart (talk · contribs) related to these users from a little while back? --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, or even likely. However, the majority of the edits are reasonable - with just the addition of [[bare feet]] (not the most salacious - fantastic word, not used nearly often enough - site on the 'pedia) being of any concern. Should this user be blocked, or just have that element of their edits reverted, or should nothing be done? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Almost certainly the same guy. I'd say revert his edits on sight, and block (since the sockpuppets were blocked earlier). I've done so. Nandesuka (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, nice one. He was being phenomenally disruptive and clearly had no intention of contributing constructively. Alun (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, he's back. I asked Alison to run a checkuser on the account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I already did. No other accounts apparent. Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Cedjje deleting Nudve citations from article Self-hating Jew[edit]

Those are not my citation, but ratherNudve's.

Help! --Shevashalosh (talk) 12:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not possible.
Please, see the history starting 10:35 (and sooner if you like).
I corrected a spelling mistake, I added a "/" without which the article was not readable, and I added "by their political opponents".
He reverted in attacking me, and he added the "quote" at another place (again with spelling mistakes).
I left a message on his talk page.
Fed up. Ceedjee (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I urged you do something.
After I explained him [18] he goes to other pages to report his story.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If you didn't delete anything, then you can safely ignore him and he'll go away. -- SCZenz (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
How easy it is...
If you were proud of the WP:NPoV and quality of wikipedia articles, you would already have banned her. That is just the 5th time.
Ceedjee (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Detective help wanted[edit]

Hannahmontanafan112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) popped up on August 16, and created three reposts of deleted material in extremely rapid succession. I'm investigating who this might be, but am hampered by my inability to see the histories of the deleted articles. I know the histories of the Vanessa Hudgens stuff, but not the Britney stuff. Can someone tell me what accounts created the older versions of Britney Spears' sixth studio album, Britney Spears's forthcoming album and Britney Spears Forthcoming Studio Album?
Kww (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope that's useful for you. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Insults, edits, strange threats on userpage etc[edit]

Hello. This user User:tharnton345 has been leaving a number of personal attacks, a stream of unexplained edits and a number of bizarre threats and strange messages on talk pages. Some of it is documented on his talk page by both myself and other users. --Breadandcheese (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's more interesting is that he admits to being a sock of a former blocked user here. Isn't that gorunds for a block in itself? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The user self-identifies on his userpage as 9 years old. He is apparently making some useful contributions, and needs to have our core policies (e.g., that the fact that he supports the independence of Scotland in the future does not mean that he can deny that locations are in the United Kingdom in the present) explained to him in a clear fashion. He also needs to be strongly cautioned against providing personal identifying information on his pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
When they were Fila934 (talk · contribs), they self-identified as 17. On the internet, no one knows you're a dog. Delicious carbuncle (talk)

Difficult situation[edit]

A few months ago, it was found out that Steelerfan-94 was using sockpuppet accounts HornetFather19 (talk · contribs) and HornetUncle (talk · contribs) to iminate banned user Hornetman16, see here and here. Steelerfan-94 made his last edit here after Alison requested that he e-mailed her, but Steelerfan-94 said that "it never sends me that message or what ever". That was his last edit, and his account has since been inactive since the end of May, see his contributions. However, for the past few days, I have seen an anonymious IP message leave messages on several of his friends talkpage see [19][20][21], with messages asking the users to e-mail him at "zac1194@gmail.com", see [22][23]. I dunno why he is doing this, asking for users to e-mail him, but I just found it a bit strange. Having asked some of the users he has contacted what he wanted, it appears he thinks his account (Steelerfan-94) is indefinitely blocked, despite the fact it isn't blocked. I'm not quite sure why he's hiding behind an IP to leave comments on other people's pages. Any comments would be appreciated. D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You can leave a note at Steelerfan-94's talk page reminding him that he is not blocked and can edit from his account (maybe also leave messages at the IPs' talk pages). The IP contributions you mentioned do not appear to be disruptive, so I don't think that an admin action is required at this point. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The user's left a comment on his talkpage using his username after I reverted the IP twice. This can get tagged as resolved. D.M.N. (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I posted this below, unaware of this section: Back in May, this user created two sockpuppets: User:Hornetchild16 and User:HornetFather19, impersonating the banned User:ChristianMan16. When it was revealed through checkuser, User:Alison confirmed that it was Steelerfan abusing multiple accounts, impersonating the banned user. Recently, he has talked to Alison and claimed that Alison agreed not to block him. I highly disagree with that, as I believe that is a sockpuppeteer abuses multiple accounts once, there is no doubt they might do it again.

Recently he returned using two different IP's and asked multiple users to e-mail him including User:SRX and User:Wrestlinglover. User:D.M.N. and myself realized the situation and contacted Alison, currently to no response. Steelerfan returned to his account and seems to be bragging that he is not being blocked. I think that per WP:SOCK, and indef block should be given to Steelerfan. -- iMatthew T.C. 18:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not something I have an opinion on but people should note that there was some discussion about this user above in the section "Difficult situation". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know of a way to resolve this? -- iMatthew T.C. 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Stick to the spirit of the law (building an encylopedia) rather than the letter (punishing people for misdeeds 3 months ago). I recommend asking this user directly if he intends to help build the encyclopedia (not work on signatures or have discussions on user pages). If so, let's move forward. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have a problem with that, but it seems unfair to all of those who have socked and been blocked. I just find it completely fair that Steelerfan receives the proper punishment for his wrong actions. -- iMatthew T.C. 20:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(almost) 3RR and incivility over adding a blog to an article[edit]

on 00:39, 16 August 2008, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/02/020402.php was added to the Tucker Max article - a blog. I reverted it because it is not a reliable source. [[24]]. the same user added it back immediately. [[25]] i reverted it again with a more clear explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources. the user added it again [[26]]. I reverted it one last time with an even more detailed explanation as to why this is not a reliable source [[27]] then another editor added it back [[28]] with the message "Look this is just retarded, blog critics is an invite only program and the source backs up something YOU had a problem with. Leave him alone". the problem here is borderline 3RR, incivility, and all over adding a clearly unreliable source. can someone step in and remove the source definitively? thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted with prejudice (um... I hit "rollback" when I meant "undo") and followed it up with a comment at the editors talkpage and a general invitation to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
hello. thanks for the quick response in removing the unreliable source from the article. would you mind watching over the article for a bit? your attempt to remove the unreliable source has already been reverted by McJeff [[29]], the same editor who has fought an RfC to have an anonymous blog removed, and ignored the overwhelming response from the outside editors and admins and still kept the anonymous blog in the article. very strange. he is also the same editor who wrote [[30]] this in a recent edit summary, but he has not received any written reprimand for this behavior. thanks Theserialcomma (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
i also wanted to show this [[31]] this editor, who just reverted your explanation as to why blogs aren't reliable sources, has a history of questionable reverting. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a reasonable discussion on the talkpage, and McJeff did revert his first revert before giving his reasons on the talkpage and re-re-reverting. I think the discussion is ample proof of attempting consensus, so I am happy to leave it to be discussed by you folk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Constant Changing of WP:AN/I Protection Level[edit]

Never in my time here have I seen the protection level for WP:AN/I changed so many times in one day. Choose a protection level and just fucking leave it! Who ever the prick is vandalising will bugger off after a while. --The High Commander (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Sure he will. HalfShadow 16:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Familiarize yourself with the case before commenting, THC. The vandal in question is not your average 15 year old. ThuranX (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Changing the protection level never hurt anybody, lowering it can only help (by allowing anons to edit here). Prodego talk 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

recipes?[edit]

I can understand the a historic recipe might be included, and if there were some controversy over a recipe it might be included

however one user seems to feel quite strongly about having recipes on numerous food related articles.

when I made him aware that wikipedia was not the place for this he changed the section title from recipe into preparation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiyaki

is this really OK for wikipedia?

I would just remove the whole section, but some input from an admin who understands these things a little more than I do, would be nice.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a wiki cookbook specifically for that --The High Commander (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Many article writers don't know that recipes are not permitted at Wikipedia. Typically when contributors active in WPFOOD find this sort of thing, we do our best to preserve some content by working recipe sections into prose, to present the typical ingredients and manner of preparation of a dish, which should be in a dish article anyway. Badagnani (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Direct him to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook --The High Commander (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

-

LOL Badagnani are you joking? you are the editor who changed the section title from recipe to preperation. You are well aware than reciples are not allowed in wikipedia, because I linked and quoted the section that specifically states recipes are not suitable for wikipedia. Merely changing the title to prep. does not change the fact that it is a recipe. Give the major ingredients, don't give instructions. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I beleive that the edit you refer to is exactly what badagnani is referring to as working towards generic incorporation. Let him work on it for a bit and AGF. ThuranX (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mika2008 blocked for a month[edit]

Resolved

Accidental block. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I blocked this user for recreating an attack page that disparages another user without going through the customary progressive warnings based on the seriousness of the page creation and the blocking history. Seems to have a history of creating inappropriate pages, but has also made constructive edits. Don't like to act in so peremptory a manner without bringing it her for review. Also, it seems a shame, because Mika has constructively edited. Perhaps someone can help him to be a better editor? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, they don't seem to have made any edits since their last block on June 24th. Is there something more recent I'm missing? Were the user active, I'd be in support of the block (good edits don't excuse repeated creation of nonsense and attack pages (admins, for easy reference), but I'm not sure it's really necessary just now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, You do have to be able to see name of the deleted attack page, available under Special:DeletedContributions/Mika2008 to know what I'm talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've made a mistake. Undoing. Dlohcierekim 22:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Hersfold. Unblocked. Looks like User:Arthur Rubin has a new fan. Dlohcierekim 22:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, glad I wasn't seeing things. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jman505 / 72.224.49.240[edit]

I believe that Jman505 and 72.224.49.240 are the same person. The IP user just got blocked for, well, going completely nuts, and I'd like to get Jman505 blocked as well, as he's consistently altered chart statistics on Peter Gabriel Discography and related pages, and committed some bad vandalism of his own today. I believe they are one and the same because (1) the IP never completely reverts Jman505, but makes a small change to one of his false edits, probably to help the rest of Jman's edit slip through (example in #2) (2) they'll both disappear for a while, and then suddenly edit within a few minutes of each other: Jman edit IP edit (3) they both had very profane meltdowns today: Jman505 IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaGa (talkcontribs) (06:47, 17 August 2008)

IP block adjusted so it's not anon-only. Gimmetrow 07:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't edits like this lead to a block? Corvus cornixtalk 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
[32] An admin gave a "final warning" for that, choosing not to block. Gimmetrow 23:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
JaGa and I have been corresponding about this for some time now, and he posted this here at least partly on my behalf, because I didn't want to get directly involved. But it seems likely the "E. Sanchez" mentioned in Jman505's edit summary is user ESanchez013, someone who (along with JaGa and myself) has reverted edits to the Peter Gabriel discography page. In fact, ESanchez013 reverted edits from the IP address, and (correctly, I believe) tagged the IP user talk page for vandalism. Yet the offensive edit summary came from Jman505, not the IP. Sorry I don't know how to link to these, but I believe Jman should be blocked as well. And so much for me not getting involved, but it's been irritating me for a while now. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Antisemite among us[edit]

Resolved: Please re-report if the IP continues this behavior after the block expires. —Travistalk 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

88.113.45.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) plainly has no interest in doing anything but posting antisemitic attacks on talk pages. Check all his edits. The IP address has never done anything else, so I doubt there's any need to worry about it being used by anyone else. Could someone please give him the longest block possible for an IP? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. If edits like this come up again from this IP, the blocks can be made longer. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and previously given short blocks twice before. Keeps coming back to hit exactly the same sour note. DurovaCharge! 23:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Gwen, I hope you don’t mind, but I agree with Durova and have extended the block to a week. —Travistalk 00:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy you did it, I was thinking about doing the same thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Expect us all to be called Zionist agents in the near future. Nutbags are amusing. JuJube (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gwen. —Travistalk 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
ty DurovaCharge! 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page[edit]

Resolved

Today's featured article image does not appear to be protected on the commons.   — C M B J   02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be protected through its placement on User:Zzyzx11/En main page, which has cascading protection. - auburnpilot talk 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Disruption at Quackwatch[edit]

At Talk: Quackwatch#Conditions for editing there is specific conditions that say you should not remove content from the article but instead try to reword or tag the disputed text. I believe that this edit] by Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of these restrictions. I do not want to simply reinstate the material (which is discussed at Talk:Quackwatch#What is Hufford?, but I think that some enforcement of the rules should be done. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with his edit summary. I wouldn't call it "irrelevant" but it does look like an attempt to poison the well. Oh and "somewhat sympathetic" is rather weaselish, and seems to be an estimation based on the "selected publications" of the ref url which is Dr. Hufford's CV, so possibly original research as well. — CharlotteWebb 22:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • All this seems to me to stem from attempts to argue the case against Quackwatch's views of various varieties of fringe nonsense, rather than documenting what reliable independent sources say about the disputes discovered. How about going back to first principles and including only disputes where reliable third parties have described the dispute, rather than describing the dispute ourselves by reference to the disputants? Guy (Help!) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
But that would mean trimming out a great deal of information, heaven forbid! ;^) I've suggested the same thing many times, but too many of the editors disagree. --Ronz (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Charolotte is correct -- the problem with the information removed by Ludwigs2 (clarify: I mean the "Hufford is somewhat sympathetic to alternative medicine") is that it is not sourced to anything. It's more than likely true, but as far as we know it is just the opinion of the person who added it (ScienceApologist?). I wouldn't raise a fuss, but since it is contested, it should probably be sourced or removed (probably not hard to source). As far as JzG's comment, I don't understand it. Hufford is an academic commenting directly on Quackwatch in an academically published book, and his point is backed up by the 2006 National Research Council's publication on AltMed. Calling AltMed "not medicine at all" overstates the case. II | (t - c) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The edit by Ludwigs2 does not violate the editing restrictions. After reviewing the edit and history, I concur with User:ImperfectlyInformed that the removed information was unsourced and appears to be an opinion or editorialized comment. In addition to unsourced characterization of Hufford's views, the removed material also stated an unsourced assumption about the reason Hufford was invited to present, and an unsourced editorial characerization of Dr. Lawrence J. Schneidermanthe's presentation. Without third-party sources, those opinions were appropriately removed. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicide threat or just dramatic teen?[edit]

Resolved: New mentor found, contact has been made with user. Not a suicide threat
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Kitty53 has twice posted to my talk page that she wishes she were dead and that she hates her life in response to my nominating three of her voice actor articles for deletion.[33][34] I'm fairly certain this editor is a minor, either preteen or teen, and she has a tendency to get very emotional and dramatic about any perceived slight. She will beg other editors for barnstars to "cheer her up" and gets really impatient when they don't respond.[35] (though she'd stopped for awhile after some corrections from others). She seems to be way to emotionally vested in Wikipedia, and perhaps too immature to be an editor here right now. She had a mentor helping her, but that editor has been gone from Wiki since June due to health issues and Kitty is returning to her previous habits. With her past history, I'm not sure if her words should be taken as a possible suicide threat, or just her being dramatic and angst, so decided I should ask here to be safe. Note: to avoid upsetting her further, I have not left the usual AN/I notice on her talk page at this time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic teen. I'll give her an email and see if she wants to talk. No need to rush out an get anyone in trouble. RobNot an admin  05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's not an explicit suicide threat, but it's definitely warning sign behavior. Nothing to actually report. Suggest finding a new mentor. DurovaCharge! 05:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just about to say I wanted to mentor her when you EC'd me..how funny. RobNot an admin  05:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd posted a note over on Adopt a user earlier asking someone to take over for her last mentor, but hadn't gotten a response and she seemed to just keep getting more upset as the evening progressed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As someone who tried commiting suicide a while ago, I suggest being careful, just in case for now. You never know. Try being really nice to her, and give her a really good mentor. Perhaps a cherful, happy go lucky one? She shouldn't be notified, as she may fel as others are ganing up on her. Suicidal teens get that feeling easily. Just be careful with her... Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 05:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Um..going throw myself into this one. I'll take her. But I need to find a way to get a hold of her. RobNot an admin  05:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I know. Been down the dark road more than once due to clinical depression, hence my erring on the side of caution and getting other views rather than just brushing it off as her being upset at the moment. Thanks for being willing to adopt her Rob...hopefully she will calm down some as she seemed to do doing better when she had a mentor before. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I found a way to get a hold of her. Also..I too have been down that road. In fact it was only 6 months ago. RobNot an admin  05:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Great on finding a way to get a hold of her. I'm having trouble figuring out how to respond to her as I'm trying to respond calmly, but I also am not good with talking to kids or young adults and worry I seem like I'm speaking down to her by talking like I would to an upset adult. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Great to see that you'll help her, Rob. ;) Would you like me to talk to her about it? I'm not the best for the situation, but, I may be able to help calm her down. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 05:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(unden)I sent her an email that just barely mentioned anything. But it would be nice for some one to talk to her about why a new mentor would be good. Basic summary of the email. I talked about Cyborg009 and only briefly mentioned the Mentorship. RobNot an admin  05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, good. I'll try talking to her in a calm way. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Would anyone complain if we called this closed and archive it? RobNot an admin  05:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Nope, sounds fine to me. Thanks again to you both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I just left her a short message on her talk page. I think that it would be safe to call this over. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow. She's already replyed. She seems happy that I've offered help to her. Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 05:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Rockefeller2[edit]

Resolved: Vandal blocked, checkuser requested. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked twice under the names User:Bjrothschild7 and User:Davidrockefeller for vandalism/anti-semite nonsense. Now continues under new name as seen here.--Gregalton (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for alerting. I'll ask for a checkuser on the accounts. In the future, reports of simple vandalism like this can be placed on AIV. --Slowking Man (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I will use that in future.--Gregalton (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mass "Democratic" -> "Democrat" vandalism[edit]

Resolved: User has stopped. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This needs to be stopped. —KCinDC (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The same IP is still vandalizing, dozens of pages so far and continuing. —KCinDC (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked for 24 hours and asked him/her to discuss the matter on user talk. To be pedantic, the term "vandalism" should only be used for unarguably bad-faith edits—like putting "LOL YOU SUCK" into an article—since it's an emotionally charged term. However, such mass automated changes to dozens of articles shouldn't be done without prior discussion. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Changing "Democratic Party" to "Democrat Party" is in the same category as "LOL YOU SUCK". It's an insult used by Republicans, and the change is not in good faith but for pure annoyance. Another one of the edits changed David Axelrod's description from "an advisor to Barack Obama" to "a top talent manager to celebrity and Chicago Democrat Barack Obama". Another deleted almost all of the Douglas Kmiec article. This wasn't some innocent newbie making mistakes. —KCinDC (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And now I see that he had already stopped. As you might guess, I'm not very good at mental math. Trouts are welcome; line forms over here. --Slowking Man (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for permission to create an article using a blocked name[edit]

Hello I am the PR for an company and our artist first album is entitled, "To Be Announced..." but that title is blocked because so many people try to use it. The page said to come here and state my reason for requesting clearance.

Thank you in advance for all your assistance!

PR Department Corner Office Projects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner Office Projects (talkcontribs) 05:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're representing a company, then you shouldn't be editing any articles that relate to your clients, according to our policies and guidelines. Additionally, your account's name makes it sound as if you're a role account, which aren't permitted without Foundation approval. I really don't want to BITE; anyone better than me at explaining policy want to deal with this user? --Slowking Man (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's been blocked as a spamusername, and a COI template put onto the user's talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Really offensive "Heil Hitler" comments by User:Sceptik[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Swatjester for 2 weeks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I happened to notice this comment [36] on the talk page of the Holy Roman Empire. Personally, I see this as a pretty much offensive and completely unprovoked attack. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User given a final warning. He has been blocked in the past for personal attacks, albeit for 31 hours. Suggest an eye be kept on this one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
...and blocked by Swatjester for two weeks. 9_9 weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to overstep your warning, but I blocked him for two weeks. He was blocked for personal attacks a week ago, and obviously hasn't learned. A warning at this point will not solve anything. SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
As a note, when a user makes statements like "If you don't like my matter-of-fact statements about the treachery displayed by others, but would like to prosecute my own impropriety of "political correctness", I do not care" and "If you don't like my attitude, you can go ahead and make it an indefinite block." it's a fairly safe bet that they don't intend to change their ways. SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
There are very few situations where I would consider a user's request for an indef block... this might be one of them. Concur that two weeks is a good block. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Muraad kahn and multiple articles[edit]

User:Muraad kahn/User:Muraad Kahn (and his probable sockpuppet which I have reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Muraad kahn) has been making disruptive edits to a large number of articles for quite some time now, including Abu Taher, Muhammad Hamidullah Khan, Bangladesh Sector Commanders Conference 1971, M. A. G. Osmani, and Bangladesh Liberation War. The latest in line is Bangladesh Forces. User:Ragib (and, sometimes I) has been trying to moderate him for long (see: Talk:Abu Taher, User talk:Muraad Kahn, User talk:Muraad kahn, User talk:98.112.33.250 and the ongoing Talk:Bangladesh Forces). But, there's no stopping this guy, though he's been warned repeatedly, and even blocked once. I guess, the time has come for some serious intervention, as he refuses to listen to all rational requests (made politely and explicitly). Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency[edit]

Special:Contributions/Cyanoa_Crylate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I was beaten to the punch by User:Kizor, who blocked the user indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And for that matter this and similar incidents should be used to justify making it harder to get access to Twinkle and similar tools. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It won't help. People can use their own versions of the tool. Maxim () 13:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I've used rollback on all of the user's edits but two which seemed non-controversial. S.D.Jameson 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    (To clarify, over half had already been dealt with, but I found several that had not and fixed those.) S.D.Jameson 14:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Category: Collaborators with Imperial Japan to Indian National Army and related articles[edit]

I was wondering of someone can help. The ips 62.25.109.195 and 118.109.85.99 keep added the Category: Collaborators with Imperial Japan to articles relating to the Indian National Army (and other articles). Of note, User:Mrg3105 had added this same category to the Tokyo Boys article. I had pointed out to him over a lengthy discussion that collaborator is a pejorative term, and using it in articles related to the INA is especially PoV since it expresses a very onesided view. He subsequently went on to edit the Collaborationism article as well to change what the article said. I pointed out here too that what he wrote was in fact misrepresentation of what the scholarly cosensus of the implication and usage of the term is, and I voiced my suspicion that he attempted to alter what the article says about what the term actually means. I dont know if the ips are connected to MRG3105, but it is extremely suspicious that the same category is being applied to the articles in this category. Please also note that terming the INA as a collaborator army is a strongly disputed and moreover an extremely PoV thing to do, as the Controversy section in the main Indian National Army and a quick google search will indicate. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:The High Commander[edit]

Could someone please take a look at this editor's contributions? Although the account was started in June, the editor seems to have a much stronger handle on things Wikipedian than one would expect after that short period of time, raising the suspicion that the editor might possibly have had previous editing experience. Then the mix of edits: Hitler, mental retardation, the move of "Spiritual" to "Negro spiritual" because "that's what they are called", the change of "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." in the Communism article to "the United States of America and the U.S.S.R."... they just seem a bit odiferous of a POV warrior. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and see also this from the talk page, which refers to this edit, and my question whether the mangling of the name "Jeffpw" to "Jewffps" was deliberate or not. Almost immediately after I pointed it out, the entire conversation was archived.

This all could be quite innocent... Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be. He may have editing experience in the previous years of Wikipedia but he seems to be a good editor. :) --eric (mailbox) 10:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Omg I did not know I wrote that!!!!! The guy wasn't even a Jew though so why would I? --The High Commander (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The guy wasn't even a Jew" Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I just looked at my keyboard and 'w' is right next to 'e' --The High Commander (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I suppose that the "upload a picture of a chimp to the Robert Mugabe article labelled as his father" is right next to the "Upload a flattering portrait of Mugabe's father" key? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And as for "the U.S. and the U.S.S.R." and changing U.S. to United States of America, what on earth is the problem? U.S.A is the correct shortening, 'U.S' sounds more like slang in my opinion. And in changing it I chose to write the full United States of America simply because I thought it looked better. --The High Commander (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason it gets brought up is because by extending the abbreviation, you lend undue prominence to the United States (and by extension, all capitalist nations) in an article that works to treat both it and the USSR on equal terms. If you'd also extended "U.S.S.R." to "United Socialist Soviet Republic" it probably wouldn't have been noticed, and on its own it wouldn't have likely attracted much attention; however, in tandem with the other seemingly biased edits, it's questionable. If it is just an honest mistake, that's ok - if you would, read through our neutrality policy and just take a little more care with your edits from now on. We're not looking to block anyone here, just reviewing something that if it continues, could be a problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 10:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Algebraist 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hersfold. I will certainly remember that next time. Cheers for taking the time to explain that. --The High Commander (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have come across The High Commander's edits a few times and in all cases his edits indicated disruptive POV pushing or worse. The worst one was this diff[37] which really made my stomach turn. It had been a while since I have seen something so disgustingly racist and sexist on Wikipedia. I left a warning message[38] at the HC's talk page which was quickly erased. This was actually my second run-in with HC. The first one concerned his addition to a currently deleted article Joachim Andersson. Here is the diff for HC's original edit[39], for the admins here who can look at deleted contribs. The substance of the problem is explained in the message that I left at HC's talk page at that time:[40]. The infobox for the bio of that person had the names of his parents where the last names were different. HC edited the article to add "born to unmarried parents" with the edit summary "added info about illegitimacy". The edit was reversed, appropriately, as a BLP violation. Then there was HC's attempted removal, on censorship grounds, of an image from Pornography related to the making of a pornographic movie. HC first removed the image with the edit summary "rm immoral picture"[41]. When it was pointed out to him that censorship motives are not an appropriate reason for deleting WP content, he changed tack and removed the image again, this time alleging that the image was non-free (the image was from the Commons):[42]. When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [43]. More recently, I have seen the HC go on a spree of removing "Common Era" (more precisely, replacing "Christian/Common Era" with "Christian Era") from various articles on different centuries [44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55] (there are more, see the contrib history). It was eventually pointed out to HC[56] why his edits were inappropriate (and as usual, he quickly removed the warning from his talk page). I have not looked at the other contributions of HC but the ones I have seen show the record of a POV pusher, not, as EricV89 put it, a "good editor". In fact, I cannot see anyone who did this edit[57] as a "good editor". Nsk92 (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And then there's this quickly self-reverted edit where the user added a picture of a chimp to Robert Mugabe with the caption "Mugabe's estranged father" and the edit summary of "lol". Why isn't this user indef blocked yet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
If it was self reverted, then there isn't a problem. Unless you want to say that the user is racist and should be blocked on that regard. Unfortunately, there are a lot of racists, depending on your perspective, and many of the hot topics (ethnic conflicts, for instance) tend to be filled with them. I don't know if there is a policy against having a racist opinion, but I doubt there really is one. If they are civil, they are civil. If they are incivil, they are incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Racism is actually covered by the policy WP:CIVIL, so by that definition the user is incivil. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
To be fair here - "When called on it, he essentially admitted on his talk page that he was acting on POV grounds [74]" Actually, what it says is that he is concerned that children are reading. This isn't a "POV ground". This is a legitimate concern. The difference may be subtle here, but one we should all recognize. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, give me a break. The only image he removed from that page was the one having something to do with homosexuality (the filming of a gay porno movie), which was a non-graphic image directly related to the content of the article. The other images, actually more graphic, he left intact. The explanation at his talk page shows that what he was really upset about is the homosexual content of the image. The attempt to remove the image as supposedly non-free after his "immoral pic." argument did not work was clearly in bad faith. Regarding self-revert on the Mugabe article, sorry, but if you do not find the original edit, even if it was self-reverted, completely unacceptable, I cannot help you. These kinds of racist vandalism edits should never be made in the first place and they are not an acceptable form of "joking". They remain in the edit history where the others can see them and only serve to insult and inflame. It is not acceptable to vandalize and then self-revert. One should not vandalize at all in the first place. Nsk92 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Then say that. You don't need to introduce "POV" into it. HE removed things without consensus. Thats good enough, isn't it? The editor demonstrates and unwillingness to talk to others before editing and ignores consensus afterwards, according to you? Does he revert it back to his afterwards? Is he unwilling to discuss it afterwards? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, give it a rest, will you, please. Removing a relevant non-graphic image from the Pornography article because of the image's homosexual content is POV pushing. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Your hostile mannerisms make it clear that you do not care to listen to others or go to the source of the problem. Instead, you are throwing around pejoratives instead of talking about these issues. Because of this, this will be my last response on the topic with a recommendation that your response should be used to take into considerations on how to deal with the above user. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I do care to listen to reasonable arguments of others. And I don't throw pejoratives lightly or without thinking about them or without justifying my position. I certainly do hope that my response and my other posts in this thread are taken into account when this thread is resolved. Nsk92 (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, respectfully, THC's double standard and prejudice is apparent when comparing [58] to [59]. I think it's fair to surmise that the comment made in the latter diff was nothing more than à propos posturing. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This editor's contributions to Mental retardation and Talk:Mental retardation are also somewhat troubling; edits like this and this on the Talk page, for example, as well as additions to the article itself here and here which appear to be chosen primarily because they use the word "retarded". (In the case of the external links this was done even for organizations that do not use that word in their name - he just gave them new names that used the word.) - EronTalk 16:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

the user's made a habit of showing that he's anti-gay[60], anti-black[61], anti-jew[62], anti-woman[63], anti-down's syndrome, pro-USAUnited States of America, "pro-family", and doesn't mind lying and disrupting to push his edits. Hell of a list for a "good editor". I'd support a significant block for him to have time to read our policies, or a community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, we have [64], which relates to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pearl_necklace_.28sexuality.29 another thread on this very page. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Although he reverted himself straight off, this edit alone is so disruptive as to be blockable. Taken along with all the other disruptive edits (noted above), I wouldn't mind if someone blocked this editor indefinitely and almost did it myself. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The Mugabe edit and this edit[65] are the worst of the bunch. Nsk92 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I was about to add that edit as being, in and of itself, worthy of a time out. I think a block is in order. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Those two edits are so far beyond inappropriate as to require some kind of sanction to protect the wiki. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

One further note: The High Commander ..T.H.C. and his name uses "high"... inappropriate name for drug reference? not sure if it's enough to block on, but speaks to general attitude towards wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. See Dick Solomon from 3rd Rock from the Sun --The High Commander (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, that's one problem solved. Any response to your homophobic, bigoted, anti-semetic, misogynistic editing habits? ThuranX (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Archie Bunker from All in the Family? Kuru talk 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, what we have here goes a bit beyond Archie Bunker. HC has interesting views regarding Hitler and the Jews which are explained in the discussion at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 48#The opening paragraphs (above the contents box). A few quotes from HC's comments there:"Then perhaps it should mention world Jewry declaring war on Germany in 1933, and how Hitler attempted to have the Jewish people peacefully relocated out of Europe." and another one: "And yes it was England who started the war. Tens of thousands of Germans were being persecuted in East Prussia, and all Hitler ever asked of Poland was for Germany to have a land corridor to connect East Prussia with mainland Germany. Poland refused, and Hitler being left with no other option to defend his countrymen, was forced to invade Poland. Upon doing this, England and her allies declared war on Germany. Not the other way around as many mistakenly believe." Sorry, but that is just too precious. Nsk92 (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, so we've got evidence of persistent, long-term disruptive editing behaviors. Community ban time? ThuranX (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I would support either a community ban or an indef block. The Mugabe edit[66] and this (don't even know what to call it)[67] would probably be enough for me and I don't think that anyone who made these two edits deserves third chances. Apart from the other problems discussed above, there was also this recent pearl from HC[68] at Talk:Burma as well. Nsk92 (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You mean he's not blocked yet? Terminate with extreme prejudice. --Rodhullandemu 03:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, could someone please move Negro spiritual back to Spiritual and revert TCH's edits? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thuranx, please show where racist opinions are not allowed when they aren't targeted directly at others? Because there are many people here that are well respected and have been shown to have the same ideas. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Falls under the category of disruption as explained above. please read before looking for a fight, or editing threads in a way that makes me look like a liar. ThuranX (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Support community ban. Enough is enough. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(out) Just to bring the editor's status up to date, User: The High Commander has been indefinitely blocked by User:Gwen Gale as of 05:10, 18 August 2008. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:WDANTopModel[edit]

Before I contact the User to suggest they remove the content, I wanted other people's opinion. Is User:WDANTopModel appropriate use of User space? It certainly wouldn't be kept if it were in article space. Corvus cornixtalk 04:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That page should be MfD'd. Getting the user to agree to remove it would, of course, help delete it more efficiently. I'm also going to warn the user about COI. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Corvus cornixtalk 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page db-histmerge request with vandalism warnings[edit]

Colin4C Is Harrassing Me and Disrupting Anti-Americanism[edit]

Colin4C is edit-warring and disrupting on Anti-Americanism. He won't let me put a "Neutrality Is in Dispute" banner on the page, even though I dispute the neutrality, and he won't let me fix the neutrality according to my opinion either. He won't listen to my point-of-view in the Talk pages either. When I say that "anti-American" is an opinion he says things like "Prove it" and sarcastic things like "If someone says that the world is round, or that water is wet, is that just an opinion?" He says CNN calls thing anti-American so Wikipedia should too and sarcastically compares my ideas to a conspiracy thory about faked moon landings. He is dishonest about things I said to other editors, and accuses me of driving Equazcion off the article. Actually, Equazcion got me blocked for 4 months, so he drove me off the article. He accuses me of trying to delete the article when I never voted to delete it or said it should be deleted. His edit commentaries removing my banner say things like "removed edit warrior's tag as per concensus view on Talk page". Everything he says to me is a personal attack. I want this harrassment to stop. Here is a link to all of our conversation: [69] Rachel63 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good to me. Perhaps you should list the points that you think are disputable along with your reasons. The okiniwawa rape incident seems to have been adequately addressed. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Rachel63 has been reblocked as a sockpuppet of User:Bsharvy. Same disruptive pattern we've seen for a year. Marskell (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A threat to kill[edit]

Resolved

I don't know either of these users but some intervention is definitely need here: [70] One user is threatening to kill another editor. Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked; just Grawp or a Grawp wannabe. ➨ ЯEDVERS has nothing to declare except his jeans 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler[edit]

 Done TalkIslander 16:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

hello, sorry i am not so sure about how to use wikipedia or how to edit info so cannot fix it myself, but can see that someone has vandalized the page about the death of hilter [71] please fix 58.178.140.162 (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

New disruption[edit]

I think Yopie should be blocked from editing the article Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha, on grounds of disruption. He abuses the Twinkle tool in an ongoing edit war, accuses those who wish to edit the article of vandalism and reverts their edits with Twinkle. The other edits are clearly not vandalism by Wikipedia standards. After an administrator proposed a compromise Yopie has used the Twinkle tool 8 times to revert edits, making it impossible for anyone else to contribute to the article. Wikipedia clearly states that abuse of the Twinkle tool may lead to blocking. StevenB (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Um... the article hasn't been touched in over three weeks, other than a single bot edit. Why are you bringing this up now? Stifle (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I also don't see that you've ever been involved in editing that article. What's going on here? Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It does look like there was a revert war, with neither side engaging in constructive dialogue. Yopie was merely replacing cited material. I don't see that it should have been removed without discussion. Perhaps Steven was one of the anon's involved in the dispute? Perhaps if meaningful discussion of the removal of the material were to begin, a consensus could be reached? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is because I would like to add references to the article, but predict I will get censored by Yopie (as it seems almost everyone else has been) and banned as a vandal. My main interest is in things related to medieval Spain. Reading the revision history of the article and the comments on the Talk page I just can't see how the article can progress when all edits are reverted by Yopie. StevenB (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could predict a lottery win with such certainty :-) I would recommend making the edits that you feel are appropriate - cite them correctly. Make sure they support the article as a whole. Update us if there are issues with your edits. BMW(drive) 17:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I just did some cleanup there, so I'll be watching to see what happens.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Jimbo online[edit]

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

There is currently a discussion at WP:RFCN concerning the user User:Jimbo online, and specifically whether his username is too similar to User:Jimbo Wales. Only a few people have commented on the RFCN, so I am posting here so that more people will be aware of this discussion. I think more outside opinions would be beneficial, since this concerns the potential blocking/driving off of a contributor that has been here more than a year. Is he back? (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, here's a radical idea: How about asking Jimbo Wales himself what he thinks of it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The thing is, regardless of what JimboW things and whether he's annoyed by it, (he'd probably be laid back) this account should be renamed as it's confusing to other users, it seems like impersonation. So even if, as they no doubt are, this person is innocent, some other editors on first seeing their name will think they're being disruptive, when they aren't. So it's in this user's best interests to change his name, too. Sticky Parkin 09:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But what if his name is actually Jimbo? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
So this guy should change his name to prevent confusion to those editors who fail to assume good faith, and think he is being disruptive? Perhaps those who might assume he is being disruptive should adjust their point of view. Kevin (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Consensus at the discussion seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of allowing the name; as far as I'm aware, RFCN discussions are traditionally closed more quickly than most XfDs, so I've gone ahead and closed this one. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow the name. How could User:Jimbo Wales and User:Jimbo online even be confused with eachother? That may be a more valid claim if the username was User:Jimbo WaIes or the like, but this is just silly. You know how many Jim, Jimmy and Jimbos are on this planet? Jimbo Wales doesn't own the exclusive right to the name. — Moe ε 12:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How could they be confused? A user pops onto this Wikipedia thing he's heard about. He knows that someone with the absurd name of "Jimbo" invented it, but not much else. While he's looking around, he comes across a p