Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive470

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

IP efforts to undermine process on changes needed in Anthony Burgess article[edit]

On July 17, I removed a large number of laundry lists of "facts" about the author, including irrelevancies like he was flatulent, had back cysts and the chicken pox, and included a stark listing of places Burgess lived in his life, the names of some pets and his favorite foods, here. to this article, based on the article being largely unsourced and full of laundry lists of "facts" about the author. After doing so, I left this note, explaining why I did so. When I approached the article, it was in excess of 89KB and contained exactly three inline citations for all of this. A query was posted on the talk page, to which I responded, further clarifying my issues with the article, here. I did a bit more work on July 20, and added citations needed tags, here. The next day, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted part of it here, calling it vandalism. The rest was reverted immediately after here, stating vital to an understanding of Burgess to know the many different countries and places where he lived and worked, despite that the article already contains most of the residence information in the main body. I left a note on the talk page for this IP here, explaining the issues with the material, and included an admonition about calling good faith editng "vandalism." I reverted here, stating removal of this was NOT vandalism; it is unsourced trivia with no context or relevance. I was quite clear in all of these talk page notes as to what in specific is at issue and why it is.

The next day, User:Pleather reverted again, stating Sorry, those cuts were far too extensive. Much of this IS sourced, from his novels and memoirs. Could be improved, but certainly doesn't deserve deletion. He then added three fact tags to the article. I again addressed this on the article talk page, here. User:Pleather responded on the talk page, asking for time to work on the article, but also implying that I was not in the position to make a call regarding the material because I wasn't familiar enough with Burgess' work, and declaring that the material is vital to understanding it. How that was vital wasn't explained. I replied here, agreeing to allow time and further discussed the specific problems in the article as it pertains to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. My comment is that the everyday person who reads that article will no better understand why farts, chicken pox, back cysts and the pets are vital to his work than I do. It isn't a requirement to have preknowledge of the subject of the article, it is incumbent upon the authors to make it understandable and readable. Otherwise, it is just so much fancruft. Two days later, User:Pleather made this edit. It changed the "Habits" section heading and added a three sentence introduction to the section, stating changing section heading, adding intro. Starting to make this real bio material, not just gossip and trivia.

No other changes were made to the article, thus on August 13, I made this entry on the article talk page, noting that nothing else had been done on the page in nearly three weeks. In the interim, User:Pleather was active on Wikipedia, making over 50 edits between those times. Meanwhile, only one non-bot content edit was in total on the article. When a new account made a few minor (and grammatically incorrect) changes, IP 77.99.78.38 corrected them. I waited another week with no movement of any kind on the article. On August 24, I went back in and began removing some of the trivial facts, leaving edit summaries for each systematic change. Edit summaries included notes unreferenced; relevance and context not established, bare listing unencyclopedic, not a fan page, and also questioning again things like favorite foods, chicken pox, back cysts, and questioning the context for this material. I also made efforts to preserve some of the more descriptive content and changed it from lists to prose. This is the diff spanning those changes. In the interim, someone else added a few inline citations for fact tags that were placed. On August 26, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted this work, stating These deletions are far too extensive and betray an unfamiliarity, to put it most kindly, with Burgess’s work. This material IS sourced, as a glance at the indexes of the two biographies will confirm. I'm not sure how referring one to the indexes of a published book constitutes proper sourcing according to WP:CITE, nor does the IP make that clear. Nothing was addressed on the talk page of the article. I made a rather detailed entry on the talk page delineating my issues with the IP's reversion, also commenting on the patronizing tone in the edit summaries. Then I reverted this change here stating not to revert it and referred anyone reading it to the talk page for discussion. At that time, I requested an outside opinion by an editor whose work I trust. That editor's comment was entered here.

This morning, another IP, 145.246.240.14, reverted the article, stating This axeing of large sections of the Anthony Burgess page is inappropriate, misconceived and borders on vandalism. See comments by Pleather and others. Concurrently, persondata placed on the page in the meanwhile was removed. Again, the work was referred to as vandalism in the edit summary with no forthcoming discussion entered on the talk page. I made this entry on the talk page, this time more strenuously detailing some of the article issues and reverted the change here, clearly telling whoever to take it to the talk page. I then noted on the talk page that I had put in a request at WP:WikiProject Biography and WP:WikiProject Columbia University, both interested projects, for comments on the issue I am trying to clear up, and stating "Please stop edit warring anonymously regarding this article and allow input from other editors." Soon after, IP 77.99.78.38 reverted again, calling it vandalism. This is the third time this work has been called vandalism. No talk page discussion has been forthcoming by any of the opposing parties since the end of July. No productive work has been done on the article by these parties since the changes by User:Pleather at the end of July. The actions by these IPs are becoming tenditious. They refuse to leave the article with improvements or give the requests for input from the projects time to be made. Some help with this would really be appreciated at this point. This article, as it was, is an issue that needs to be addressed. It can't when any changes made to it are reverted and called vandalism. I apologize for the length of this, but it covers the problem thoroughly. This must stop and the contentiousness of the actions by the IPs need to be addressed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an WP:RFC is the way to go. Corvus cornixtalk 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandal[edit]

Resolved: Referred to correct noticeboard. — Satori Son

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this, but I suggest IP blocking of IP 71.252.102.174. This user edited various sexual and anatomical entries with subtle non-professional and nonsensical terminology, obviously for personal amusement. As this appeared to be repeated occurrence, with seemingly no other useful or constructive edits made, I request that this user be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.157.229 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is a better place to report this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bracha L. Ettinger's persecution on Wikipedia - probably a symbolic massacre on political grounds[edit]

Archived; please contribute to the already existing thread above.  Sandstein  09:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

I would like to draw your attention to this: Bracha Ettinger had been added to a list who monitors "self-hating Jews" who are helping Palestinian. Indeed she is an activist of human rights and works against the occupation. It seems that she is monitored by some right wing extremists, and this is visible in Google, and therefore her name is taken from just any possible place on Wikipedia, so that she will not be considered influential. Ettinger is very influential. This is a scandal. This seems like a massacre, a purge, no less, of a very important artist, feminist, theorist. This is probably done as a political persecution, unless it is the work of a crazy anonymous person. Please check Ettinger on Google Books, and on Google Scholars, and help me to restore her dignity and name, and also our dignity as a group of serious contributers. This cleaning of Ettinger's name seems to me a very serious affair. Artethical (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for the admin community to do here. Can you clarify? Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Me neither - what is it you want done? you realise that administrators have special buttons to help the community with certain matters, they aren't generally enforcers as such and cannot mandate content in articles. --BLP-vio-remover (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see the threads above on this page. Ty 23:49, 27 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:Naadapriya refuses to comply with WP:NPOV[edit]

User:Naadapriya is a single-purpose civil POV pusher in his attempts to glorify Karnataka as the the be-all and end-all of the article, Carnatic music. He keeps insisting on placing WP:UNDUE weight on certain parts of content in the Carnatic music article, and resorts to synthesis and unreliable sources to support his position whenever he is in a dispute in this article. Several users have expressed concern over various proposals he's made, but notably between April and June (See Talk:Carnatic_music#NPOV onwards). I've reverted his edits but I think he has no intention of contributing constructively - rather, he'll continually revert war, as his contribution history shows.

If he does continue, I ask that either he be blocked or the article protected again under the version where there are no concerns over undue weight - [1]. There needs to be discussion, and at present, that's not what he's offering - all he's doing is repeating [2] [3] the tendentious argument of 'stalling' and there being 'no valid concerns', 'all languages are great', 'there was consent by many editors' (despite that section of concerns). This is unhelpful for the matter at hand of NPOV and unreliable sources. Note also that shortly before that second diff, the article was protected for several months. The fact that this same argument is being used after the article has been unprotected does not inspire confidence. I expect to be away for a couple of days or so and I don't want this pattern of protect and unprotect to continue.

In other words, I request a few admins keep the article on their watchlist over the next few weeks. I'd be more than willing to respond to questions or concerns on the matter if it continues to escalate. Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Please also note I haven't informed him of this complaint, so I'd be grateful to whomever does inform him. Thank you again - Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't know why you didn't notify him yourself. Maybe I'll find out myself soon enough. ;-) I've done it for you now. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ohconfucius: The section Ugabhoga that Ncmvocalist has repeatedly deleted (without discussions) through reverts was well discussed a while ago by many editors and it was added with valid RS. It is NPOV. I have answered all concerns of Ncmvocalist in discussion page. I do not understand why he has brought the issue here. Hope he is not expecting wikipedia tool to 'babysit' his POV's while he is gone away. Please reject unwarranted complaint that will waste the valuable time of AdmnsNaadapriya (talk) 08:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And he continues again with the revert warring without discussion. That section is removed due to NPOV concerns, and persistently readding it is unhelpful. Other forms such as Thillana and Githam only have a mention for the same reason - they're not elaborated as a significant form sung in all Carnatic performances, or as something that is taught as a matter of utmost importance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down needed for IP[edit]

Resolved: Articles semiprotected for now, no activity overnight. Temp blocks and semi-protection will be used when necessary.

An IP-hopping anon has gotten out of hand over a dispute as to which images to use in some articles, and has been violating NPA. I tried to block the IP for a cooling off period (48 hours), but the user is hopping around (66.176.139.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 67.191.12.203 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 71.196.103.28 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), 98.211.229.109 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and 98.211.229.110 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) so far, all Cox Cable, so a range block is out of the question). I also suspect there is a connection between the anon user and this sockpuppet case, as Comayagua99 was the anon's first target. At this point I need other heads to review the blocks I've made and to step in, if appropriate. -- Donald Albury 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Prior to your posting here, I had submitted request for page protection on four articles that seem to be the focus of the same anon: South Florida metropolitan area, Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida, and Brickell, Miami, Florida. No comments or action have been taken on those requests ... but I'm wondering if temporary full protection would be better than the semi-protection I had requested so that all involved can sit back and discuss. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Update: The four related articles have now been semi-protected for two days. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: The anon is currently posting under 66.176.46.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot). See:
--- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am confident that this is the indefinitely blocked User:Miamiboyzinhere. He is a Cox Cable customer and he is hopping IPs, probably every time he logs into Cox. Semi-protection of his target articles may be the only way to prevent disruption from him. -- Donald Albury 19:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think your evaluation is correct. Perhaps semi-protecting all the relevant pages for 2 weeks, and block if the user turns up anywhere else. All your blocks on this so far are sound. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep watch on these articles, and will temp block IPs and semi-protect articles when necessary. Maybe he will get tired of his games. -- Donald Albury 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
WHAT? I thought "cool-down blocks" were specifically against policy Smiley.svg. — CharlotteWebb 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops personal attack and profanities[edit]

here and here

by User:Kékrōps

--193.198.2.199 (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Next time, please use WP:AIV for obvious cases of this sort.  Sandstein  11:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I may have been too hasty; the infractions were from August 25 and therefore somewhat stale. I have no problem with another administrator undoing that block in response to a reasonable unblock request.  Sandstein  11:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the unblock request was not exactly what I like to see, but since this report was a little stale I can't object too much to Stifle's reducing the block to three hours. I'll also leave a note with some friendly advice for the future. — Satori Son 14:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the remaining IP autoblock and left a note. — Satori Son 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Inexcusable personal attack[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for a month.  Sandstein  12:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Located here from User_talk:214.13.162.2. This is nothing short of slander. WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: sections rolled together after duplicate report. Sigh. I was hoping for a constructive argument with this editor, who disagrees with the film project's inclusion of links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Unfortunately, I just noticed this edit in his/her recent contributions to an editor with the opposing viewpoint ("DIE IN A FIRE!") Steve TC 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
A month, to let him cool off. And if he does it again... fire him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Gah, you almost deserve a block for that pun-ishment, Bugs. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No, there's a rule against pun-itive blocks. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrivance[edit]

The William Rodriguez page has been a mess for months now, with edit warring and sockpuppetry. Because this also involves BLP and other serious issues, I am posting this here instead of the suspected sockpuppets page in hopes this gets attention.

  • Wtcsurvivor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - blocked in late May for disruption and Wikipedia policy violations. I do believe that this is either the subject of the article or someone close to him, given how dedicated the user has been in editing this article (and pretty much just that article). Also, the tone and content of the edits make this clear. The problems are long drawn out over months before the block.

Also, the way they all use edit summaries is telling, some adding the four "~" in the edit summary, and other characteristics. In the most recent edit summary by 69.116.203.231, he mentions another user's real first name, [4] With this edit summary, I can't ignore the page any longer. The user's name is known from elsewhere on the Internet, with the dispute carrying over to the Wikipedia page. This is not the first time for mentioning other users' real first names, with this previously done by Wtcsurvivor. [5]

I am not an uninvolved admin, so can do nothing but recommend other admins please take a look. I'm quite tired of this ongoing drama. --Aude (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There's ongoing edit warring there, so I indefinitely protected the article. Ping me when it gets sorted, okay? lifebaka++ 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre blocked indefinitely[edit]

Closing to centralize discussions - we should talk it over with Sceptre on his talk, or else on the RfC for Sceptre. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

Sceptre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just been blocked indefinitely for abusive sockpuppetry. In a nutshell, he used an IP to harass kurt and Giano (You can see the contributions here). He's just posted an unblock request, and I'd like to guage opinion about what we do. Quite frankly I'm appalled at what he's done, and I'd support the block staying for a considerable length of time. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe not indef but definitely warrants a block of at least 2 weeks. I'd decline the unblock, GDonato (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of if he is to be unblocked, he has violated the trust of the community, so someone ought to deflag his account creator status at [6]. MBisanz talk 16:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Gone. Removed by Jennavecia. Synergy 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Uninvolved parties may wish to review Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 as well as the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Sceptre_-_Abuse_of_rollback in deciding what is best in this situation. MBisanz talk 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Strongly support the block by FT2. Totally unacceptable behaviour. Given Sceptre's recent history of vandalism and disruption, a block is completely justifiable. Sceptre needs to show he is committed to editing without disrupting the project and its editors before an unblock is considered. EJF (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support unblock once the editor assures us it will not occur again. I'm not a fan of punitive blocks. NonvocalScream (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (multi ec) :Very juvenile, the comments that is. I have no experience with Sceptre but see that he/she has a long contribution history and a long punitive block seems to be a shame. Perhaps an apology to kmweber and Giano, an apology to the community, and a short block would be more just. (Assuming that Sceptre's history is otherwise reasonably clean.) --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    You do know that Sceptre is a former admin, de-rollbacked former vandal fighter who has been blocked on other occasions? MBisanz talk 16:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block, that behavior is absolutely positivity unacceptable. Any unblock needs to come through Arbcom. RxS (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse - He definitely, IMO, needs to apologise to KMWeber and Giano for harrasement if unblocked. There was a discussion actually just yesterday about Sceptre and his "abuse" of rollback at AN. I think he should be kept blocked as it is clear this user has civility problems with both KMWeber and Giano. D.M.N. (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What's staggering to me is that there is no apology and he's currently arguing that it's not big deal because changing someone's name to read KUNT is "vandalism" and not harassment, like it makes semi-acceptable. --Procutus (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse This was completely childish (especially coming from an ex admin) and the block was entirely appropriate. Wait until the Arbitration findings are finished before a block length is discussed. Synergy 16:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What really needs to happen here is that we all stop wasting time scolding, counseling, tolerating, and discussing Sceptre, and move on with project work. Dozens of hours are going to be wasted on the RfC, ArbCom bullshit, etc. Just indef block as a sock and move on. Tan ǀ 39 16:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for that Tan. But hes already been blocked indef. It was his unblock request that brought this here. If no one wants to unblock, then we know how this will end. Synergy 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse indefinite block on the basis that doesn't necessarily mean blocked permanently - at the moment his attitude is that vandalising other editors user space is acceptable, so a block is clearly appropriate. However, if he apologises, then a finite block - perhaps of a week - could be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No way in hell should we consider banning Sceptre; despite his civility issues, he is a good contributor (huh, maybe him and Giano were meant for each other.) We should see some conciliatory measures taken, however. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse Until he admits he was wrong, apologizes, and on the condition no further covert misdeeds come to like, I will not support an unblock. MBisanz talk 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sceptre should be unblocked if and when he agrees not to interact with or comment about Kurt or Giano in any way, shape, or form. — CharlotteWebb 16:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the link to ArbCom regarding this matter? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - remain at indefinite until the Frostie Jack matter is concluded, when it can be revisited, or upon any other change in circumstances. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sceptre does a lot of good work. He also lets himself get wound up too easily. He seems like he's had a chip on his shoulder for ahwile now, which is unfortunate. He's not the first otherwise constructive contributor to be caught using a sockpuppet to "blow off steam" and vandalize; I won't name others out of respect, but they have generally been allowed to make amends and resume editing.

    I'm not a big fan of forced apologies; I think they're demeaning to both sides and ultimately meaningless. I'd rather have us come back to this block in a week and unblock him with the understanding that he will stay away from Giano/Kmweber, or at least interact civilly with them when necessary in projectspace. I don't know what it would take to get the message that if someone annoys you, the best approach is to ignore them. Honestly, the absolute worst thing you could do to Kurt would not be to ban him or vandalize his userpage, but to stop paying attention to him. But then, Sceptre's hardly the only Wikipedian who doesn't get that.

    Anyhow, I think a week is enough. If I catch an editor with much less to their credit than Sceptre at WP:SSP, I generally give the sockmaster 72 hours to a week. OK, we don't need to go easier on someone just because they make good contributions, but we certainly don't need to be harsher toward them than toward a garden-variety sockpuppeteer/vandal. I'd like to see a commitment from Sceptre to avoid Kurt and Giano for his own sanity, but I don't think we need to force it. Either he'll learn from this or he won't. MastCell Talk 16:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse block; I'm certainly no fan of Giano or Kurt, but such baiting is completely unacceptable especially from someone who knows better. It was a wilful attempt at creating drama and bad feelings, and the exact opposite of what we need now. Once the AC matter is concluded, I expect the AC might look at Sceptre formally and place a bound on it, but unblocking before then would be a Bad Idea(tm). — Coren (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse shortening of block. Keeper ǀ 76 16:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block --Winger84 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse shortening block - Sceptre has apologized on his talk page. I suggest unblocking him, allowing him to apologize to the relevant parties, and then letting him go. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I too endorse the notion of shortening the block. As stated above, Sceptre has offered an apology (even if his arm was twisted to secure it). I'm not sure what block length is sufficient here, but I doubt a longer block will have any longer "fix" for the situation. If it were up to me, I'd shorten the block to "time served" and allow Sceptre to make his amends and get back to work, so to speak. Should the situation arise again, a long-term block might be necessary but an indef at this time is uncalled for. Shereth 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indef block - (ec) I think Mastcell and LessHeard vanU have the right idea. Block for a week (which gives the FrostieJack crap time to be concluded), and then unblock. I think it serves as an excellent reminder that there isn't a dual definition as to what harassment entails, as per his talk page comments here and here. One rule for everyone. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You cannot indefinitely block Sceptre. End of. Considering the minimal (if anything!) amount of day-to-day trouble he causes, compared to the incredible value he adds as an editor, particularly the Doctor Who WikiProject, where he has brought lots and lots and lots of the more recent articles up to GA and FA status - this is utterly absurd. To be honest, Will adds as much if not more than, say, Betacommand, and causes so much less trouble, you have to give him at least a chance. And I'm not entering any further dialogue about this, because I know someone will shout at me due to the Beta reference. ╟─Treasury§Tagcontribs─╢ 17:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As MastCell says, the problem here is that Will just doesn't seem to "get it". An unblock that is conditional on an apology isn't the right way to go. But just telling him to stay away from KMWeber and Giano isn't really a satisfactory solution either - it fixes the symptom, but not the underlying problem. I think Cas is on the right track at the RFC - either formally or informally, Will needs to agree to some sort of mentorship, and needs to work on backing away from problems. The recent conversation at AN about his use of rollback exhibits the same problem as the current conversation on his talk page - an unwillingness to say "I'm wrong". Well, that doesn't make him unique.

    Over the last 4 years (can you believe it?!) I've seen too many good contributors spiral out of control here. That doesn't help us - it waste's people's time, it costs us good editors, it creates more antipathy towards the project. A block isn't going to solve anything, it just creates a bit of breathing room within which to craft a solution. Is there someone who is (a) willing, and (b) acceptable to Will, who could serve as a mentor? Guettarda (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

    Sceptre's most recent comment still shows a disturbing lack of clue, I would strongly support a mentorship if we are going to unblock in the near-term. MBisanz talk 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Hmm, my support for an unblock is declining with more posts. MBisanz talk 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummm...yeah. To his credit, he isn't trying to hide anything ("Jimbo considered banning me..."). But he really doesn't get it. Some sort of mentorship - by someone he'd take seriously - is desperately needed. Guettarda (talk) 17:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block for now. I blocked the IP that Sceptre was using to harrass Kurt a few days ago; unfortunately I softblocked it by mistake, which meant that Sceptre could still edit through it. A new, or even new-ish, account that had produced those IP edits would've been indeffed in a flash, though, without any opportunity to say sorry. Given Sceptre's failure to accept that this was harassment on his talkpage, the fact that an apology had to be dragged out of him, and the complete failure to assume good faith of the blocking admin in his unblock request, I'd say that some sort of block that says "No - you don't do this" is completely in order. Black Kite 17:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block. User blatantly does not understand that what he did was the very definition of abusive sockpuppetry. He does seem remorseful, but it appears to be remorse over getting caught not for his actions. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - And the talk of shortening it is silly. It's indefinite, not infinite. Shorten it to what? We need to leave it as is until the situation with the CUs and ArbCom are resolved. Leave it alone, otherwise it just lengthens the block log and serves an unnecessary purpose. Jennavecia (Talk) 17:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
    Shorten it to fit the crime, is what I meant. I can see leaving it in place until the CU and ArbCom issues/Frosty Jack issues are resolved, that makes perfect sense. Keeper ǀ 76 17:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. - I do not endorse an indefinite block, but certainly some sort of block of a non-temporary length is in order in this case, per MastCell (talk · contribs) and Kyaa the Catlord (talk · contribs) - However GDonato (talk · contribs) and Jennavecia (talk · contribs) have also made wise comments here, so I defer to community consensus. Hopefully the processes in place through either Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 and/or the Arbitration Commitee can address some of these issues with all parties involved. I also think that Mentorship is in order, will suggest that below. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse, but certainly not indefinite. Some kind of parole (like I was on) could help greatly, but blocking him indefinitely is almost certainly not the answer. Yes, he's done a few bad things, but we all make mistakes. He has done a lot of good for this project, both via content and administrative tasks from when he were an admin. Qst (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I endorse David's suggestion. Sceptre apologized and i'd say to shorten the block because this thing is getting ridiculously out of hand. ☃☄ --creaɯy!Talk 17:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse indefinite block, not necessarily an infinite one, but certainly until the blocking arbitrator and checkuser feels all issues are resolved to his satisfaction.  Sandstein  17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As to the apology - it's pretty pathetic, in my opinion. Pretty typical of the sort of non-apology "I'm sorry I got caught" kind of thing we see from politicians these days. And I'm still baffled as to the whole "It's just vandalism, not harassment" thing. I have to endorse until we get a more satisfactory response from this editor. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse block - It needs to stay as is until this is sorted out. Rather disturbing that he would do this. --Coffee // talk // ark // 18:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentorship[edit]

Perhaps Mentorship would be in order here. This is something that could be worked out in conjunction with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sceptre 2 and with the Arbitration Committee. I do not feel that I am the right person for the task, but it might be a good idea to be discussed. Cirt (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The editor's career here seems to be going in the wrong direction. Mentorship? Maybe, if he's willing - but maybe a long vacation would be in order first. One of the two axioms: "How badly does he want to edit?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. It's like he's working his way from Vice President down to Mail Room clerk. He knows the rules. He needs to set a spell and reflect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good path to go down, I've asked him on his talk page to make some suggestions. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposing mentorship for an editor who has been active for 3 years and is a former admin is at best naive and at worst insulting. At this point he clearly knows all the policies and pillars and chose to ignore them. Maybe he needs some friends to gripe to or a blog to let off steam, but a mentor is not going to be able to stop someone from logging off and vandalizing as an anon to let off steam. Thatcher 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but if Sceptre is on a static IP, why not indefinitely softblock it? If his account is unblocked, then he wouldn't be tempted to do that again. Black Kite 17:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I could not possibly agree more with Thatcher. Mentorship is for newer users who do not yet know the ropes. Tan ǀ 39 17:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. He isn't trying to be deceptive about what he's doing, he just doesn't seem to get the fact that what he's doing is wrong. Look at his most recent comments (like what MBisanz linked to above) - he seems not to understand why what it is he is doing is wrong. Having someone to talk about his actions might be helpful. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(after ec) I also concur with Thatcher. Sceptre knows the rules, chose to ignore them, tried to conceal it, and now is protesting that it was not as bad as virtually everyone else is telling him it was. How precisely will a mentor help here? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec X exponent)Mentorship is also for those who have forgotten how to hold onto the ropes and are willing to allow another editor to help them "get a grip". Sceptre didn't seem to find the idea insulting, and agreed to think about it on his talkpage. I would volunteer, I haven't done much with Sceptre in the past (positive or negative, that I recall). I've been here over two years less than Sceptre and wouldn't presume to "tell him how to edit". I certainly think I might be able to tell him "how not to edit" though. Of course, Sceptre's decision really, not ours to decide if "mentorship is an insult". Keeper ǀ 76 17:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at what Cas had to say on the RFC. This seems to have the basis for a useful model for mentorship. Guettarda (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) thinks it is a good idea. I am aware of Sceptre (talk · contribs)'s prior experience and that is one reason why I thought that someone more experienced could be the mentor, perhaps a member of ArbCom or something - but hey this was just a suggestion to open up to the community. I'll defer to consensus on what the community thinks is best in this situation, and/or the processes of RFC/ArbCom. Cirt (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not intended as an excuse for Sceptre's behavior: You do know that he's a kid, right? Corvus cornixtalk 17:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Another good reason to not make children admins, except in cases of exceptional merit.  Sandstein  18:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
So am I, what of it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Not this shit here, guys. Take it somewhere else if you want to get huffy, David. Tan ǀ 39 18:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) I don't know about mentorship in this case, but perhaps after the block (which I endorse but suggest should be reduced to two weeks at this point, giving the editor plenty of time to reflect over the foolishness of his actions - especially considering the trust the community has placed in him in the past), some sort of community probation would be beneficial with a couple of trusted admins providing some oversight to ensure that he doesn't get into this kind of silliness again. This would provide a couple of people who would be able to say 'hey, that's not a good idea' if they note Sceptre sliding into a situation like this again, and perhaps offer some assistance in handling the issues that crop up around him. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Crossposted from Sceptre's talkpage by request[edit]

Sceptre asked for the below to be crossposted here. Here is the comment that he requested to be crossposted here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell and Keeper have hit the nail on the head here. It was a terrible mistake and I regret it. I'm not the first, nor will I be the last, editor to vandalise while logged out when annoyed. I think blocking me with no warning or defence, for a tenuous claim for harassment (four edits does not harassment make - my intention was to vandalise the page, not to harass Kurt). About 30 months ago, I did engage in harassment of another editor (which I regret as one of the biggest mistakes I've ever made, and consequently apologised a thousand times), and the matter was deferred to Jimbo. Jimbo considered banning me, but was courteous enough to contact me to say "please don't do it again" - if I promised, he would take no action. And I've been true to my word. I have not engaged in wilful harassment since. If a checkuser emailed me privately beforehand to explain myself in regards to the vandalism, I would've admitted to it and said I wouldn't do it again. Sceptre (talk) 17:08, 28 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.

Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock[edit]

Attention please, It seems to me obvious that Bracha Ettinger is being removed from everywhere for political reasons. Ettinger is an activist for human rights and fighting for rights of Palestinians in israel. Some people therefore consider that she should disappear from visuality. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere. Anybody who has doubts can look at Google Books and Google Scholars. I am going to proceed to put her bak where she was removed from, since this seems completely unjustified. I tend to believe that this kind of censorship should not be permitted on Wikipedia. Artethical (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are multiple IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger across the project. These edits are removing her name from articles such as feminism, Aesthetics, Gender studies and many more. Ettinger is a feminist psychoanalystist, academic and artist - she is not a hoax (see Google scholar[7] to verify). This IP user has put her bio page up for PROD as well.

Also with this edit they seem to claim to be a sock puppet of MArina T.[8]

The IPs are switching fast so it seems extremely likely that this is either someone using open proxies.

I could do with some help here, since my time is limited. I expect there will be further edits done while I'm offline so could sysop keep a set of eyes on this.

I'm going to semi-protected the effected articles. And I'm blocking the IPs for 3 days. But I'd appreciate if somebody could keep an eye on things. The IPs are:

The articles in question are:

--Cailil talk 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

At least in the case of Lacan, this was a lone edit - I don't see why a week of protection is called for here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions Phil - but this removal is happening across many more pages than I originally thought and this is the 2nd time today that this has occurred on a number of the pages. On top of that this user a) knows what they're doing and b) is uisng open proxies. If anyone have any ideas on how to handle this better I'm all ears--Cailil talk 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not Marina T, Marina T is a sock of Nimrod Kamer, a known Israeli troll who was banned both from English and Hebrew Wikipedia.
Marina T used to promote this non-notable woman ([9] [10]) and link her from unrelated articles. I'm here to clear Marina T (=Nimrod Kamer and his sock puppets) carp.
Bracha L. Ettinger was created by Marina T [11] (who was banned from Wikipedia). 89.0.6.132 (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with the trolling case of Marina T/Nimrod Kamer but at a glance I'd say Ms Ettinger is probably notable. A dissertation included her and her body of academic and art work seems significant and somewhat influential. If there are undue weight references to Ettinger's work in many different articles, then these need to be evaluated/addressed individually and modified or removed. Wholesale wiki-wide reversion of even a troll's work should be considered carefully on its merits. (Although at least some of them are so jargon-filled as to be impenetrable to an outsider to Lacanian theory.) I'm going to try to look over the articles in question and perhaps report back here if I come to any firmer conclusions. Cheers, Pigman 20:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
This definitely seems like drive-by and indiscriminate removal of all references to Ettinger. 89.138.176.28 (talk · contribs) marks all the removals as "spam" when this is not so obvious to me. Some are removal of references that include Ettinger's publications on academic/university presses. This seems more a content dispute over Ettinger's importance but when an IP-shifting editor quickly does this serially to all mentions of her, I'd have to call it vandalism. I think protecting the articles was a little overreactive for just a couple of reverts on some of them but it's also hard to talk to a shifting IP. Cailil did try[12] without success. The IP above merely cites two Google searches (4,560 and 5,840 hits) as evidence of Ettinger's non-notability but I think the Google Scholar search [13] is somewhat more telling with 23 hits. All in all, I think Cailil is handling it about right considering the IP(s) don't seem to be overly communicative on talk pages. Cheers, Pigman 22:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Pigman. I have no problem unprotecting everything if people feel that semi-protection was an over-reaction. But I could see no other solution - the IPs jump too far and too fast. Any help looking fater this would be much appreciated--Cailil talk 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, some of the removals were on target. Ettinger, for instance, was probably unduly represented in Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva. Similarly, in Film theory it amounted to adding a mention of an essay by Ettinger. Fine, but there are so many essays of film theory that we can't go adding every one, and Ettinger would make few people's top 20 lists. Ettinger is notable enough for an article, but it looks like her name was spread around a bit more than is wholly appropriate, and it would not surprise me if it were done to spam. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Phil. Unfortunately, I don't feel qualified to evaluate which references to her in Wiki-articles are good and which are overstating her influence. It's just not in my areas of knowledge. However, blanket removal of all refs and PRODding her bio article seemed a tad over the top. It's clear to me from her article that she's notable by WP standards; her actual influence, importance and pertinence to these other articles is another matter. I can't judge that. When the IP editor insisted she was non-notable despite her fairly impressive list of art showings and publications on academic presses, it lowers the IP's credibility in my eyes.
Cailil, I think the semi-protection is fine for the moment. It would certainly help if the IP would come forward with a consistent account, even if only the same IP account, to discuss the matter. In lieu of that, I'm just hoping people with a better grasp of Ettinger's influence (or non-influence) will look more closely at these mentions listed at the top of this thread. Cheers, Pigman 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Phil some of the removals seemed in-line with undue. Nevertheless the problem is when somebody using open-proxies begins prod-ing a bio article (that demonstrates notability properly) and launches a crusade to remove all references to that person from wikipedia. Yes the level of Ettinger's representation is problematic but this IP's behaviour is just as bad. If this person were doing this in good faith they wouldn't be using open proxies and they wouldn't be prod-ing perfectly notable articles.
The fact is that Ettinger is notable - I'm personally not a fan of her's and I do think she was being listed too often. She is most notable in gender studies and psychoanalysis but I agree she may be over-represented on WP. However, one does not address undue weight by giving an edit-summary of "SPAM". And also the IP began removing more than just references to Ettinger - see here & here - that's just blanking. The lines removed in the 1st diff might be unsourced but it is perfectly sourcable. Then there were the removals of Ettinger's name from the lists of artists and lists of feminists - which are just as bizarre as the prod-ing of the bio.
And just to be clear the semi-protection is only for a week in all cases but that can be reviewed--Cailil talk 11:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at this: [14] [15] (1600 hits on Wikipedia) [16] (hundreds of hits on flickr). This is a proof it is a spam and she is non-notable academic (evey prof has publication).

She is so famous she has only article in the French Wikipedia (create by the same troll Nimrod Kamer). This troll liked to her from major articles like psychoanalysis, women in art, art history, feminism, aesthetics and so on. This article should be deleted.

I have good faith. I'm not using open proxies, I just changing my IP after each edit for security reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.14.238 (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you get an account, as account users can only have their IP's checked by Checkusers. Plus, it makes it easier to talk to you, if you keep resetting the modem. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
She's faculty at the European Graduate School: [17]. They do not tend to add non-notable people. Similarly, she has a book out with Minnesota - one of the best academic presses in her field. Again, a sign of notability. I believe you that she's been spammed across Wikipedia, but it is transparently clear, as a grad student in her field, that she is notable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Ettinger is plenty notable - but she may be given too much weight in a few too many articles. However, that's possibly a systemic bias, or (more likley) an undue weight issue, rather than a "spam" problem. Her work is pertinent to aesthetics, feminism, psychoanalysis & gender studies - since that's exactly what it's about. This multiple IP user has claimed that a) Ettinger is a hoax (in the prod of the bio article); b) that Ettinger is non-notable (here); c) claimed that every reference to her is "spam" and d) that she was being added in a "self-promotional" effort and e) that it is all the work of an Israeli sock-puppeteer & "troll". The last point might be partially true, but the others are verifiably incorrect and as such are major red-flags--Cailil talk 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
PS I apologize for accusing you of using Open proxies - I was incorrect. But using dynamic IPs to avoid scrutiny is a problem - getting an account would indeed be a good idea--Cailil talk 15:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Well now, User:Ori Redler has just started doing exactly the same thing as the IPs (see their recent contribs). MOdernist has just asked for an explanation--Cailil talk 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion Ettinger is notable, but she's not a household name. She was initially overly placed in certain articles and her importance as a figure in the art world was exaggerated. She appears in several articles about cutting edge contemporary art and philosophy. That said - she does belong in several of the articles and I've restored her to most of the articles and lists from which she had been deleted. She appears to be both a published scholar and an exhibiting artist...and it looks like a concerted effort to delete her from this encyclopedia is under way. Modernist (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  1. I got an account.
  2. Ori Radler is a good and respected wikipedian, mainly active on Hebrew Wikipedia
  3. Please help him cleaning Nimrod Kamer's crap.
  4. She is non-notable
  5. Even if she is notable this article should be deleted because it was written by a known troll (Nimrod Kamer) who was banned from ALL Wikimedia projects.
  6. At least delete ALL his spam links and unlock the articles - you all agree she's been spammed.
  7. @Phil Sandifer: In any field you know her? --NZQRC (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK - As we proceed we will be careful and circumspect about Ettinger's appearances where she does not belong. She's been removed from Women Artists and Postmodern art, certain places she belongs others not. Modernist (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot to do. Special:WhatLinksHere/Bracha_L._Ettinger. She's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too. Someone should notice them. --NZQRC (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that Ettinger is mildly notable as an artist and writer. She can stay on lists of contemporary artists for example. However she can be removed from inclusions that indicate an exaggerated position of importance and expertise. Any removals should be careful and indicate on the Talk Page of the article why the removal is taking place, in case of a dispute - discuss on the talk page....Modernist (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC, thanks for registering an account. It makes communication much easier. Re Ettinger: I think it's a mistake to dismiss her just because of who added the info to WP. At this point more people are examining the wiki-links/wiki-refs to her for validity and that should help to balance out the "spamming". Looking at the supporting online sources and documentation, I think you're fighting a losing battle to claim she is non-notable. The sources are too varied and substantive to be dismissed out of hand as you seem to be asking us to do. Cheers, Pigman 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Open proxy now removing her link at the drawing center citing this thread in edit summary here. I've semi'ed the article (only one on my watch list) until this gets figured out because I'm sick or reverting and the truth is, no other new editors or anyone else have shown an interest lately. We're not hampering progress. I think her exhibit at the Drawing Center was an notable exhibit for the Drawing Center. Thoughts on that? I'm not opposed to its removal if its proved to be n-n but this was getting ridiculous. TravellingCari 18:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC - or whoever you and all the other IPs are STOP THE BLANKING you are in complete violation of this noticeboard discussion and any agreements you just keep blanking, frankly you are all out of control! Modernist (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability of Bracha L. Ettinger is a topic for Talk:Bracha L. Ettinger, not for the noticeboard. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is not about this non-notable woman. This is about trolling, spamming, self promoting and abusing Wikipedia. --NZQRC (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this thread is about inappropriate deletions and inappropriate blanking of articles - not the notability of Ettinger, although that has been discussed...Modernist (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The story of Nimrod Kamer and his friends floats every few months in the Hebrew Wikipedia and Israel-related talk pages in other language 'pedias. Poking fun at Kamer's pathetic stabs at self-promotion and stardom is entertaining, but some of the articles about his gang are actually reasonable.
I thoroughly cleaned up excessive Marina T./Nimrod Kamer/Shmila cruft half a year ago, and since then there was only some action around the Ettinger article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Now this is getting to be thoroughly annoying. Looking through this WP specific Google search, I'm finding that IPs are systematically removing all mentions of Ettinger. At a glance, the few links/references I've looked at seem contextually appropriate to their articles. I'm sure some aren't but this strikes me as more of a purge than corrections or adjustments. Of course Ettinger is just the one that we're aware of. It wouldn't surprise me to find that similar removals are going on with other "Nimrod Kamer" additions. With the shifting IPs there's no easy way to track such a varied and concerted effort. As I said, this really is a content question but the method puts it more under the heading of vandalism. Deliberately masking these efforts to evade normal editorial discussion is not being bold but violating WP processes. (As an informal and completely unencyclopedic point of reference, two of my housemates seem to have heard of Ettinger. Neither are in Ettinger's field(s). Proves nothing but still worth noting.) Some of these removals are being done very poorly as well. [18] shows the removal of Ettinger from the Eurydice article but leaves info about Ettinger's exhibit venues and dates, now without any context. Sloppy work that will need to be cleaned up. Hmph! Pigman 23:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

NZQRC's method, besides the bad faith of using multiple IPs and ignoring this thread, breaks WP:EP's core - "remove bias but retain content". All of us here can see that there may be an undue weight problem but NZQRC's behaviour is too disruptive to the project and is moving from a minor irritation to a blitz attack on articles. I've mentioned in the other thread that I'm bordering on blocking NZQRC for continuing to use multiple IPs to indulge in this same behaviour--Cailil talk 00:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually it would be good if we could agree on a process for dealing with this problem. For instance should we revert and semi-protect every article these IPs edit then block the IP? This is my preferred option. This gives us time and breathing space to a)figure out what needs o be review (per WP:UNDUE) and b) it prevents recurrence of attacks where the info is due. Any thoughts--Cailil talk 00:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I would be OK with that. Ty 01:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sadly I am convinced that the Bracha Ettinger story is exposed as hoax, fakery and sockpuppetry. I've removed Ettinger from Women artists and Postmodern art because frankly she never belonged in those articles in the first place. She was placed on a list that read: "it was painting of the artists Valerio Adami, Daniel Buren, Marcel Duchamp, Bracha Ettinger and Barnett Newman that, after the avant-garde's time and the painting of Paul Cézanne and Wassili Kandinsky, was the vehicle for new ideas of the sublime in contemporary art." - its way beyond where she belongs to be, and she's listed but it's clearly a contrived addition...We have to be careful to realize that she is basically notable, and she has authored published essays and books and she has exhibited her paintings in galleries and museums - but like many other notable figures in the art world she is largely obscure and simply isn't that well known....yet. Modernist (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It a mess - Ettinger belongs in certain articles with certain mentions and she should be removed from places that she does not belong..like lists of enormously important and famous contributors to art and science. Although she belongs on more general lists of artists and scientists. She belongs where she is referenced specifically and should be removed where the mention is simply ambiguous. Modernist (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Eyes please on List of painters by name. Ty 03:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The IPs are edit warring, as soon as one stops, another starts, I think there is a deeper agenda at work then what has already come up on WP:ANI. They seem voracious about deleting Ettinger everywhere, irregardless of logic or fairness. I'm at a loss how to proceed...except to keep rolling em back. I sense a ruse, a fake, a nest of snakes.....Modernist (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • more IPS
85.250.86.53 (Talk);
89.139.9.85 (Talk);
89.0.12.202;
89.138.185.137;
93.172.35.29;
89.138.174.146;
89.0.9.203;
89.139.239.124;
89.138.161.140;
89.139.191.198
Ugh. The G-hits from my linked search at the top of this section revealed the following 50 articles which had mentions of Ettinger. At a guess, from the text I saw in the various hits, probably 50%-75% of them may be gratuitous insertions. I'd bet histories will reveal recent activity by our rouge IPs on these articles. I'm going to sleep.

Women artists The Matrix Robert Doisneau Psychoanalytic theory Psychoanalysis Postmodern feminism Postmodern art Other Luce Irigaray List of psychology topics List of psychoanalytical theorists List of postmodern critics List of painters by name List of French artists List of feminists List of female philosophers List of contemporary artists Linda Nochlin Julia Kristeva Jacques Lacan Jacques Derrida Influences and interpretations of The Matrix History of feminism Hans Prinzhorn Hélène Cixous Griselda Pollock Gender Gender studies Gaze French structuralist feminism Film theory Feminist theory Feminist philosophy Feminist film theory Feminism Feminism in France Feminism and the Oedipus complex Félix Guattari Eva Hesse Eurydice European Graduate School Emmanuel Levinas Drawing Center Cultural studies Christine Buci-Glucksmann Bracha L. Ettinger Art history Antigone Aesthetics Écriture féminine

Pigman 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add that Ettinger was one of the only women artists on whom Lyotard was constantly writing and lecturing. This is for example now a subject of a chapter in a book Gender after Lyotard. I think that we must realize that there is an effort to ruin Ettinger's name and reputation, and we don't know why and by whom.Artethical (talk) 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

part 2[edit]

The attacks against Bracha L. Ettinger are continuing. An anonymous acting from different Israeli IP's is removing all mentions of this artist from different articles with the untrue explanation that there is a consensus to remove her from major topics.

There is no such consensus. My guess is that this user is deleting mentions of Ettinger just because the information about her was added by User:Marina T., who is suspected to be related to the notorious Israeli troll User:Nnimrodd. This suspicion was never properly confirmed, and in any case, the info about Ettinger appears to be sourced and not blatantly self-promotional.

I agree with the position of Phil Sandifer in the discussion above ("Likely Open Proxy IPs blanking information about Bracha L. Ettinger possible Marina T. sock") - it is possible that Ettinger is not be the most notable feminist, psychoanalyst or artist and in that case she shouldn't be mentioned in every article on these topics, but such drive-by removal of her name from every place without proper consensus is definitely wrong.

Also, this frequent IP changing is worrying and the user already admitted that he is "changing my IP after each edit for security reasons". If he would be acting in good faith, he wouldn't have to change his IP all the time. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and i forgot to mention that this anonymous editor wrote personal attacks in Hebrew on my talk page twice. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Just how close are the IPs being used? Any chance of a rangeblock? Alternatively, you can watch and perhaps semiprotect the relevant articles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In the earlier thread User:NZQRC seems to admit being the one who was editing from all those IPs. Looks like he made a few posts, then went back to his old tactics. It's a shame because his arguments for many of these edits actually were getting some traction, but it looks like he'd rather be disruptive by hopping IPs every two minutes so that no one can engage him in discussion. If there's any way he can be encouraged to stick to his registered and stand up like a man (woman?) and make a case for what he's doing, he and the project would be much better served. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Replying to Stephen, the IPs mostly resolve to Haifa - and NZQRC is going through a huge volume of them. I don't know if a range block is possible - it will take a significant amount of time and effort just to identify the removals and the IPs involved. As it stands NZQRC is not blocked - I'm bordering on blocking them per WP:DUCK for using multiple accounts (IPs) to avoid scrutiny. This behaviour is beyond the WP:SPIDER level of disruption--Cailil talk 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Quack. The ducks are now blocked at midnight. Given the persistence we may see more, though. A good article for people to watchlist. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are also having a go at any articles with Ettinger mentioned. See Modernist's contributions for where he has reverted. Ty 05:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The IPS are growing, I think admins have to start blocking them wholesale. It's beyond reason, something is rotten. Modernist (talk) 05:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I know that it's fun, but please, do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Last chance: The German Wikipedia is the largest Wikipedia after the English one. Now check those links: [19], [20] [21] (most of the results came from this photo [22]). You can do the same in every Wikipedia you want except the French Wikipedia (she's been spammed in the French Wikipedia too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.35.161 (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


←Thanks Modernist and to everyone else for their diligence in tracking this problem. I'm implementing an emergency semi-protection on all the articles where Modernist reverted NZQRC's IPs (this will exclude the articles where she may be unduely represented). This will be a week long semi-protection. Also I had been blocking these IPs for 3 days. I'm now going to reblock, the one's I've already caught, for a month and then block the next lot for a month too. If any one thinks any of this is overly harsh just drop me a line--Cailil talk 11:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious matter of the elimination and defamation of Bracha Ettinger is clarified through the Facebook of Ori Redler. Ori Redler is an extrem right wing Israeli who is working via right wing Jewish lists to eliminate Bracha L. Ettinger because her name is associated to a list of Israeli jews from the left who are activists for Human Rights. They consider Ettinger wrongly to be anti-Israeli and anti-jewish, eventhough she is israeli and a daughter of Holocaust survivers. Since Redler is working through lists, many people together are working to eliminate her and reduce her importance. This is a political purge: message was passed though lists to eliminate her name. This explains why the eliminations of Bracha L. Ettinger come from many ip adresses at the same time. I am going to proceed to restore her name everywhere it was taken out, and calling upon the Administrators to follow each vandalization of Ettinger and restore to the previous state. I am asking the administrators to help my restoring efforts. 87.69.90.201 (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is a response by the Israeli troll Nimrod Kamer (AKA User:Marina T.) who created this article. Ignore him and don't believe him - He is a lair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.30.218 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I cannot find any proof to this claim. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

part 3[edit]

I've started Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NZQRC - all the IPs listed have been blocked until the 26th of September 2006. Can anyone who finds any further NZQRC socks please tag the IP's talk pages with {{sockpuppet|NZQRC}}--Cailil talk 12:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3 more - tagged but unblocked:User talk:89.139.239.124; - User talk:89.0.9.203; - User talk:89.138.56.247; Modernist (talk) 12:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

They're blocked now--Cailil talk 13:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually they are tagged but I don't see a block Modernist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You can check it in their block logs[23][24] - the templates saying "you've been blocked" are manually added and I forgot to add them here. But i've fixed that now--Cailil talk 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to reduce the number of protected pages we have, I am going through articles Ettinger is currently inappropriately linked in and removing her, then unprotecting as that article is, presumably, no longer a target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, good. At least a few of us will have the pages watch-listed in case of any further funny business--Cailil talk 14:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Phil - that's the best way to handle this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, but do we know about any other purging of Nimrod Kamer additions (some of which will be spam, others not)? This is a link to the dashboard for User:Nnimrodd, and this is the one for User;Marina T.
From a quick glance at these I would watch Joshua Simon, Michal Heiman, Herzliya Biennial, Michail Grobman, Efrat Abramov and what links to their articles. Also take a look here for even more--Cailil talk 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am watching them.
No doubt, Nimrod Kamer and Marina T. wrote a lot of cruft in Wikipedia and i purged everything that didn't fit established notability policies, but what remains looks reasonable to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bracha Ettinger is being now systematically persecuted and her name deleted from everywhere probably because she is an activist for human rights in Israel. Her name is being now purged, massacred and deleted by person(s) who write defamatory and untrue information on her. For example she was deleted from the Women Artists page since it was claimed by User:Ori Redler that she was not a participating artist in the show Inside the Visible. Ettinger was in fact both a participant artist in the show AND a contributer to the book. Apparently there is a vicious attack going on all over the place on a major artist, theorist and feminist, who is also a courageous fighter for human rights and a model for many young artists and feminists. I invite the editors to consult Google Books and Google Scholars, and to help to restore her name and dignity. User who deletes her name so bluntly from all over the place and give misinformation should in my view be blocked. Artethical (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are, without question, places where she should be mentioned on Wikipedia. However, and I say this as someone well acquainted with the field, putting her on the same level as Freud, Lacan, and Kristeva in Gender Studies, or saying that, along with Rorty and Barthes, she is one of the major descendants of Lyotard is ludicrous. She's a fine scholar, but she's not on that level at all. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
She should be deleted because she is non-notable and because she's been spammed all over Wikipedia. Her political activity is not relevant.

User:FinancialAnalyst[edit]

FinancialAnalyst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - check the deleted revision of the user page, and the early contributions. This is obviously a returning user, and the likely candidate seems to me to be Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) but that is a guess based on Dimension31's comments in the history of the article now at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The ASCII on the user's page is innocuous, not sure about the (Chinese? Kanji?) script though. Is this a problem, or am I just seeing reds under the bed again? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The Japanese says "Japanese / English", according to Google Translate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • That user certainly has shown copious amounts of bad faith in the past. And Dimention31 jumped right in the fray with the SocialPicks mess (check the deleted contribs) after a long absence. Fishy. — Coren (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: are you sure Dimention31 is active again? I must be missing something. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean active now, active in March after 6-odd months of inactivity (this is when the SocialPicks article was deleted). — Coren (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I really don't think this is a returning user, based on his poor username choice (a returning user would know better) that led to a block, and his complete surprise and annoyance at the deletion of the article. In any case, Dimension31 is not blocked and has been inactive for 6 months; if they are the same user, the alternate account seems legit. Mangojuicetalk 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
FinancialAnalyst has accused me of just about everything but kidnapping the Lindbergh baby; but I don't think there's any evidence to back up this theory. More than one person can be a fan of the same non-notable website. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK< reds under the bed it is then. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Harassment by Badagnani[edit]

Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

complaint lodged by Ohconfucius (talk)

There has been considerable discussion and general agreement on the direction to be taken on Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics by the community editors. All except for one User:Badagnani, who has been harping, sniping about clean-up of the article through judicious pruning, persistently calling it "blanking". Discussions come and go, and he rarely participates, and when he does, it is usually to complain that I have "blanked" this and that. He has repeatedly "requested" that I not "blank" and his count is running at 19 as at the lodging of this complaint.

Other editors have discussed the validity of his complaints, and have unanimously backed my actions as being in line with consensus, and at least one has condemned his actions as harassment:

An administrator, User:Stifle, asked to protect the article, ruled that most of my edits were "constructive":

A near-exhaustive history of our exchanges and his harassment are as follows: Our direct exchanges (Usertalk pages) in sequential order:

  • 21 August 2008 Concerns over the 2008 Summer Olympics - explanation about Coatrack sections.
  • his reply, "I've had long experience with editors who blank massively without first seeking and obtaining consensus, as is our procedure at WP. From today's edits, you appear to be one of those. If and when you pledge to me you will abide by this thoughtful, considered manner of editing, you may post to my discussion page further"
  • 22 August 2008 I refuse to make the pledges he wants, saying "I [am not] obliged to pledge anything to you. I would remind you that consensus is not the only driving principle here on WP, WP:NPOV is a pillar, which the article appears to be violating through undue weight."

all those below, posted to his talk page, have been removed:

  • 25 August 2008 Your protest is noted - Explanation of content move to more relevant locations.
  • 26 August 2008 Yet more massive blankings - on someone else's 'blanking'
  • 26 August 2008 Attention that I consider his actions 'harassment', draw attention to behavioural policies and guidelines
  • 26 August 2008 telling him his juvenile behaviour is verging on the harassment.
  • 27 August 2008 telling him to stop what I consider to be his personal attacks, urging him to seek anger management.
  • 28 August 2008 pre-emptive warning not to engage in edit-warring, removed seconds later.

Article talk page exchanges: 21 August 2008

22 August 2008

24 August 2008


26 August 2008

27 August 2008

28 August 2008

I would also mention that this user's record speaks for itself. He has been blocked several times for disruptive behaviour and for edit-warring. He has had run-ins with a large number of editors which is evident by simply looking at his talk page. I think WP can do without contributors of this type, despite his high level of apparent contribution: edit count and large number of article creations. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about the incidents. Based on overall contributions, I believe that I prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists. This is more of a fervent content dispute that has spiraled out of control, rather than a blatant personal attack. I earnestly recommend mentorship, as opposed to temporary or permanent removal.   — C M B J   06:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had my own frustrating run-in with Badagnani on another article, but on the balance, I too prefer a Wikipedia in which Badagnani exists and continues to contribute. I also note that until recently, Badagnani has done more complaining on the talk page than edit-warring in the article, in this instance, although the edit warring appears to have begun to escalate. I'm not sure mentorship is the answer, however.
Regarding Badagnani's revert on 8/28, I saw nothing wrong with it. The fact that I earlier agreed that non-notable names don't need to be mentioned doesn't mean they mustn't be mentioned if removing a name disturbs the reading flow. I think Ohconfucius has become overly sensitive of Badagnani's edits, and is now targeting them as a focus of complaint, just as Badagnani has been targeting Ohconfucius' edits.
Personally, I think a topic ban is in order. =Axlq 16:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I am with Ohconfucius on this. Badagnani has been unreasonable, even now. If you try to discuss things with him he ignores you. I am not saying I want him banned, but would like for him to see reason. And for him to stop acting like he owns everything. --DanteAgusta (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Barefeet[edit]

I've been embroiled in some kind of sockpuppet frenzy. What are the quickest ways to exonerate myself? I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, but it's turned into something of a nuisance when I come to make edits of my own. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this note from Maunus here already suggests "the best way you can exonerate yourself is by maintaining an impeccable conduct..." Since you were cleared at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco, I'm not really sure what else you are looking for. I agree the best course of action is the very one recommended by Maunus: "Don't worry about it" and continue making quality contributions. — Satori Son 14:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
If that's the best I can expect, it'll have to do. Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Tocino and his behavoior[edit]

Tocino (talk · contribs)

He makes propaganda comments about "seperatists" and other things. His aktivity at the sites about Kosovo are disturbing. Please do anything about him.84.134.104.242 (