Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hpfan1[edit]

Hpfan1 (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor who has difficulty restraining his enthusiasm for Abercrombie & Fitch related topics. His enthusiasm has, over the past couple of years, led him to upload many copyrighted images. I gave him a final warning in September.[1]. Today I noticed that he's uploaded several copyrighted images since then. I've left a note on his page that he can be unblocked as soon as he posts a note to show that he understands and will follow Wikipedia:Non-free content. In case I miss it, any admin is invited to unblock him once he's posted such an acknowledgment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

ChrisO's subpage: User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems[edit]

Resolved: Elonka seems satisfied with the current content of that page. VG 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with replaceable image Image:Albertfish-full.jpg[edit]

Today, I've been involved in some edits to this image and an associated article. The sequence of events:

  • I removed the image from Albert Fish, replacing it with one (Image:Albert Fish 1903.JPG) further down in the article that was a free license image that provided the same information; his visual appearance. Both are mugshots, but one old enough to be PD while the image I am discussing here is not, having been published in 1934.
  • I tagged Image:Albertfish-full.jpg as being replaceable and orphaned [2], as it was no longer on the article and it was clearly replaceable by the free content mugshot.
  • User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use and orphaned tags from the image, claiming in the process that the image was PD by way of being published in the U.S. before 1923 (which is incorrect; the image was published in 1934). He then reinstated the image to the Albert Fish article. I reverted this obvious error, and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the reversion and informed him of the WP:NFCC policies I was removing the image under [3].
  • I re-removed the image from the article as unneeded fair use [4], as we already know his visual appearance from the free license image at the top of the article.
  • User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use tags and orphaned fair use tags from the image again, with no explanation as to why [5] and did not reinstate the image to the article.
  • I re-instated the orphaned and replaceable tags to the image [6] and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the correct procedure to handle the warning tags [7].
  • Following this, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) returned to editing without ever having responded to me. Much later, he made a minor edit to the image adding in "original" with respect to the source statement. [8]
  • Another editor User:Wildhartlivie has removed the replaceable image and orphaned fair use tags [9] claiming "image can be and is used in article to illustrate subject prior to execution; fair use rationale is provided" and reinstated the image to the article [10]

I've stopped editing on this image and article, as this is obviously devolving. There's a number of problems still extant here. The image is most definitely still orphaned, and User:Wildhartlivie was out of line for removing the orphaned and replaceable fair use tags. User:Wildhartlivie claims there is a fair use rationale provided, but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components.

In my opinion, the image should be deleted. We have a perfectly serviceable image for depiction purposes in the 1903 mugshot now at the top of the article, and the 1934 mugshot doesn't bring anything to the table that the 1903 shot doesn't, except that he's older, which has no bearing on the article. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1 in that it is clearly replaceable (and has been replaced) and #8 in that there's nothing about the image that having the image removed would cause detriment to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Lastly, though fixable, it fails #10c.

Would an administrator please step in? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

For one, it does illustrate his face in greater detail. While there is a clear silhouette in the first, the detail of his face is not that clear. Your statement of but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components. doesn't make any sense. if that is your big problem clean-up the rationale. Or don't make the statement. This sounds like a content dispute, you think it isn't fair use, others think it is. Take it to images for deletion. Fair use is full of personal opinion and we don't just delete on personal opinion around here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry you feel that way but in blatant cases where fair use images are replaceable, we do delete, and this is a blatant case. So what if the image brings better detail? Is there some detail of his face that is important to the content of the article? Answer: No. This is a blatant case. And, with all due respect, I asked for an administrator to step in. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Because the whole purpose of an image is to bring detail to an article. A PD image is relatively useless if it doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question. One could argue that the PD image doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question because of the age and size of the image. And with all due respect this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and if you don't like other people responding to your questions you might not want to ask them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


The picture when he was older is more meaningful, as it's what he looked like just before he was a fried Fish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I have restored the free image per the non-free content policies. βcommand 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    Why don't you wait to see if your speedy deletion is approved before you hide it from public view?--Crossmr (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just list it for IFD and let everyone debate it for seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Just listing the image for seven days is not the panacea that some here seem to think it is. There's a reason we don't send all CSD articles to AFD. That same reason applies to images. There's no point to putting something to IFD when it is blatantly a violation. There's been scads of debates on here before about whether to allow fair use when the fair use image is higher quality. Guess which side of that debate has routinely won? Hint; we're the free encyclopedia, not the free encyclopedia except when non-free content is higher quality than the free content. There is nothing conveyed by the 1934 image that is not conveyed by the 1903 image. If there is, then please state it here and now. All I'm hearing so far is "It's better, therefore keep" or "This is what he looked like before he died". You can do better than that, can't you? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. Clear detail of the individuals face. The earlier image is small, poor quality and washed out on one side. As the speedy deletion tag clearly states: illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information,. This does not adequately provide the same information as the poor quality of the photograph leaves the characteristics and details of the individuals face difficult to discern.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That might have been a valid argument if the "characteristics and details of the individuals face" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have an issue with the representation of this. In fact, I returned the image to the article, further down the page in the section that included discussion of Fish and his execution. I did not removed the tags yet leave it orphaned as User:Hammersoft stated. I removed the tags here, one of which stated Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. I then returned the image, with some other page edits which included repositioning the images here. The image was not orphaned. I have an issue with my name being brought up on this issue without having been approached in any way prior to, or notified when, it was posted. I stumbled upon this discussion, which does allege wrongdoing on my part, while checking another issue. There is obviously a difference of opinion regarding the use of this image. If the rationale or licensing had an issue, then there should be no reason why that cannot or should not be addressed. There is most definitely a difference between the image used in the infobox, which was taken 31 years prior to the events which make this person and the article notable. There is a great disparity in the appearance of the individual, and the image under discussion here illustrates the man at the time these acts were committed, following his arrest. It illustrates his appearance at the time of his execution, while the other depicts someone in a far different condition and place that relates to 1934 in no way. Why not stick an image of him in grade school? That is as much like the man who committed these crimes as the 1903 image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I have deleted the image. (Partly I7, partly IAR to scuttle the argument). "Looks better" isn't, and has never been, a valid non-free content rationale. The image isn't just replacable, it is replaced. I'm one of the staunch defenders of fair use when it is appropriate; this is most definitely not a case where it is. — Coren (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
    This is more than looks better. The free image does not adequately describe the subject as I pointed out the facial details are not clear because of the low quality, size and washout on one size. IAR isn't a trump card, you need to explain why you did something. The Free use clearly states that when the same information is conveyed by a replaceable image it should be removed, this isn't the case at all. You've already gotten more than one person who feels that to be true. If someone uploaded this kind of image of someone who was alive it would probably be immediately punted from the article as quality too low. Yet here you have someone who is dead and you claim it good enough when a better one exists.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    As I've said above, that might have been a valid argument if the "facial details" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
    They're relevant to identifying the subject which is the purpose of a photo.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A Possible Sock[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TNA_World_Heavyweight_Championship&action=history hows Secretaria and Secretarian editing the same article. Suspicious? PXK T /C 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Young editor in trouble?[edit]

Resolved: WP:OVERSIGHT Tiptoety talk 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Could I have some extra eyes on

He came to my attention when he slapped a {nonsense} tag on another editor's User page ([11]) for no apparent reason.

His userpage claims that he's twelve years old, and also releases some other personal info that should probably be redacted. (I've blanked for now, but I don't know how we deal with those cases — do we delete?)

The bulk of his non-userpage edits appear to be to add images to articles. He's been uploading to Commons, apparently. Looking at the images he's uploaded, he's universally claiming that the pictures (mostly of celebrities) are his own work — a claim that I find somewhat implausible.

Is there a Commons admin who can have a look at those images? I suspect that they're all bad. (Commons upload log: link.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Information on userpage has been deleted and an e-mail sent to oversight. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering the content of those images (they seem to all be celebrities of some kind), I think its extremely unlikely that they're of his own work. Also, he's tagging the permissions as 'my soul'... Celarnor Talk to me 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Bidgee2[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by User:Nancy Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like...
1. User:Firemanpb shows up today and makes a bunch of gender-differentiation edits ("firefighter"->"fireman").
2. He is reverted multiple times by User:Bidgee and is eventually indef blocked after multiple warnings by Black Kite.
3. User:Bidgee2 shows up, apparently created before the block but after the final warning, and starts making the same edits.

I suspect Bigdee2 to be a harassment/vandalism account, but I don't see that single edit (so far) as actionable for a SSP nor the name similarity sufficient for a UAA notice, hence me posting here for action at any admin's discretion. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinite blocked by Nancy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The vandal is clearly a return of Firemanpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who even made 2 attacks in Water vole [12][13]. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, PromoProductions (talk · contribs) has just been blocked. Not sure if there's a connection, but it's a new account that also edited the Firefighter page after Bidgee2. Dayewalker (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Same troll. M.O. of sexist and (now) racist edits is easy to catch. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Back again as 71.196.61.53 (talk · contribs) and trying to start something at WP:AN [14]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
And yet again, now to the COI board [15]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted that one. dougweller (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mahalios trying to impose layout change at List of Prime Ministers of Spain[edit]

Resolved: All three editors (Mahalios, Onlyonetime and the IP) are now blocked for long-term edit-warring and abuse of multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know if this is the right place to report this, but since Nov 3, Mahalios (talk · contribs) and I have been involved in a sort-of reversion war at List of Prime Ministers of Spain. The main point is that he is trying to impose a big layout change in the tables, removing the PMs' pictures and timelines, and changing the alignment. I have repeatedly called on him to discuss this layout change, both on the article talk page and on his user talk page. All my requests and offers for a dialog were met with deafening silence and a new reversion. This contrasts with my behaviour: with each reversion I have worked into integrating the content changes from him and another IP user into the article, so that only the layout change would be put on hold until proper discussion took place. On the other hand, he has simply reverted to the same version over and over, without even bothering to write an edit summary - except the first one in which he argues that my previous revert, in which I scolded an IP user for the pretty much the same behaviour, was inappropriate. Summing it up, Mahalios' is not willing to collaborate and has a pretty slant and invicil attitude. I don't know the procedure for these kind of cases, but sicne he has not responded to my messages I doubt mediation would help. What can be done? Habbit (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Enlist other editors! Advice to do this is available at WP:Dispute resolution. Briefly put, your overall strategy should be to begin a discussion and obtain consensus as to what the article content should be. If this editor doesn't want to get involved in the discussion, they have no grounds to complain, and repeated reversion against consensus without discussion constitutes edit warring which is a form of disruptive editing. If the other editor persists in reverting against consensus, post warning messages on their user talk page (see WP:WARN) and if necessary report them here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
He has been asked for a discussion several times, and even politely warned. There was no response but the most absolute silence. By the way, I suspect that at least one of the following three users is a sockpuppet of the others, because all three follow the _exact_ same edit pattern: extremely wide changes, without a single edit summary, reverting (not stomping) others' changes on sight, etc - Onlyonetime (talk · contribs) Mahalios (talk · contribs) 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs). I don't know the procedure for this kind of cases, but I guess an admin might run CheckUser and, without telling us the actual links found, act on the result. Thanks for the advice, though - this madness is really wearing me out... I mean, if they want the PMs' portraits out, can't they just say it on the talk page? -__- Habbit (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Earlier today I indef blocked Onlyonetime as a sock, based on a checkuser report from July, where the abuse was proven but he was given only a short block. The nominator's statement from the checkuser case (3 months ago) shows the very same problem as was reported here by Habbit. Obstinate rearrangement of lists of prime ministers, heads of states and monarchs are usually involved, often involving additions and removals of content. It's been going on for six months. If people will take a look at the contribution history of Mahalios (talk · contribs) and 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs), I think a verdict is justified that they are vandal-only accounts. They never communicate on Talk. They are vandals in the sense that they have no intention whatever of following WP policy or seeking consensus. If that's an acceptable conclusion, we can proceed to give long blocks to both of them without going forward to a checkuser. (It is highly likely that everyone we're discussing here is actually a sock of the same guy). WP:SSP is also an option, but that is usually needed for more subtle cases. The badness and the obstinacy of all the edits suggests that a vandal classification is justified. Any article these guys have ever touched should be checked for remnants of vandalism. Both IPs involved in this case are from Belgrade, in case that rings any bells from other sock investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's please reserve the word "vandal" for people who edit with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. "Disruption-only" is a better term for somebody like this. looie496 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Serial hoaxer?[edit]

Resolved: Articles redirected and deleted respectively, user indefblocked
  • Kibara Mortifica, a plant which according to Google shows up only on Wikipedia. Its common name "Alpine Widowveil" also only shows up here;
  • La Sos del Rey Catolico, a town in Spain which may or may not exist per Google (my Spanish is rusty), and which is, oddly enough, one of the last places where Alpine Widowveil lives.

I'd appreciate it if someone better versed in plants and Spanish would evaluate these two. I am almost certain that Kibara Mortifica is a hoax, which is why I proposed it for deletion, but I could be wrong. J. Spencer (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • The town certainly exists, but already has an article - Sos_del_Rey_Catolico - which I've redirected to. The plant looks like a hoax to me too. Black Kite 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Kibara Mortifica is definatly a hoax. All you get from searches is the Wikipedia article (On a completely unrelated note, the title of this would make a wonderful punk band name) Rgoodermote  23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! That's certainly an odd day's work - two hoaxes and a duplicate of an existing article. J. Spencer (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I've deleted the plant article - no need to keep it around for the full PROD run. Black Kite 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Three hoaxes. his version of the Sos_del_Rey_Catolico article is full of hoaxes and ridiculous statements. The statement about the origin of the name is OUTRAGEOUS. Total hoax made in total bad faith. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've indefblocked the user; two hoax articles is clear evidence of deliberate disruption. They can ask to be unblocked if they so desire. -- The Anome (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Btw, the name "La Sos del Rey Catolico" does not exist, and it makes no sense in spanish. I'm going to ask for a speedy deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Um, apparently Sos del Rey Catolico does exist, unless he's hoaxed a bunch of travel guides. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, the problem was the "La" before it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Block/Unblock, Caspian Blue, AIV reports, copyrighted material... am i missing anything?[edit]

Caspian Blue, who I am familiar with, initially made an AIV report here. This is a relatively common situation - CB makes AIV reports for things that are not blatant vandalism quite a bit. I responded with an nv response. After CB pointed out a few diffs, I blocked User talk:Occidentalist for 48 hours, mostly because I thought it was a copyright situation at the time, but also to force the user to answer the warnings that CB had been posting on the talk page. Per Occidentalist's unblock request, I looked even further into the diffs and couldn't really find an obvious copyright violation. I then unblocked, and brought here. As I am frequently frustrated with CB's single-mindedness with Korean articles, mis-filed reports, accusations of bad faith on anyone who disagrees with him, and lack of clear English skills, I need someone else to field this one - I feel I'm biased. Thanks. Tan | 39 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed at your biased accusation here. I only tried to delete some content from Prostitution in South Korea that I considered "copyviolated contents" after googling and suggested the newbie to "rewrite them". Most of his non-violated contents are undeleted by me. However, the newbie ignored that and adding same materials that Comfort women suffered last July caused by Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) and Priorend (talk · contribs). Such material was now deleted for plagiarism, and the newbie directly went to edit the article with same materials. Moreover, you are the one who blocked him with the tool and blamed me for showing "bad faith"? I informed admin, Fut.Perf who has observed the July case, so well, will see.--Caspian blue 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree I should not have blocked the user, and showed a degree of bad faith myself in doing so. I deeply apologize to you for blocking the user you begged to be blocked, Caspian. See, I need to not be involved with this anymore.Tan | 39 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I begged you to block the newbie? I reported him/her because of the copyviolation concerns, and I provided you a google result. The final judgment falls to your responsibility. I'm frustrated with your bad faith and such labeling. Here are google results why I thought I should report the newbie to AIV.--Caspian blue 05:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you reverted him adding language with citations under a claim of copyright violation? He cited his sources and you replaced it with an paragraph unsourced from February. Caspian, what logic is that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

????? I don't know what you're talking about. Because the unsource version does not violate "copyright" policy. So that's why I suggested the newbie to "rewrite" the content.--Caspian blue 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
A short quoted section like that isn't a copyright violation, especially when the source is given. By the way the www.wellesley.edu link only shows a generic page and not the quoted sections. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Caspian, on the google search for the text that starts with "According to Katharine Moon", the only exact copy of the text is a wikipedia mirror of Comfort women article. That paragraph is a paraphrase of [16](in particular, "debt bondage" appears on page 178). It appears that both his paragraph and the text on that source are taken from articles by the same author Katharine Moon, as in page 270 that document cites a work by him, just like Occidental does. That would be the reason because they are so similar.
At most, User_talk:Occidentalist makes a sloppy work of making clear if he is making a paraphrase or a direct quote. Please take more care when addressing work done by newbies. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:98.28.245.78[edit]

This guy hasn't really vandalised anything, but he is not contributing to the 'pedia. All he does is repeat 'get a life' on Talk:Midget. I want to scream swear words into his face and slap him. He's that annoying. I have warned him, what, four times? Please, could someone block him and the other accounts he uses:
User:24.33.130.253
User:24.33.131.162
User:66.213.25.12

See here for more details.

Must...take out...anger...*Whacks PC, breaks it*

Oh, sh-

--Editor510 drop us a line, mate 12:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The most recent edits by any of the IPs listed were a couple of days ago...and the oldest were a couple of months ago. Sorry, but blocking an IP which shows no indication of being stable isn't the ideal solution. If it's really that disruptive then you could ask for protection at [[WP:RFPP|this page], but to be honest the likely response is that there isn't enough recent activity at Talk:Midget to justify protection. GbT/c 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Help!![edit]

Resolved: Can't help you.  Sandstein  14:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can any help be offered if sysops on Wiki other language abused their power and blocked me over personal issues? Thanks. 158.143.153.244 (talk)# —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

No. We users of the English Wikipedia have no authority over users of other language editions.  Sandstein  14:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So whom should I refer to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.153.244 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Please use the dispute resolution mechanisms instituted in your language edition of Wikipedia.  Sandstein  14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Academic freedom article[edit]

Could somebody please take a look at the Academic freedom article? For the last couple of days an IP, User:67.167.249.238 keeps adding a link to a personal blog[17] by a radical activist to this article. The blog is not directly releted to the article but rather is a general political blog about the current events and issues. It is also pretty radical, so there is an additional WP:UNDUE concern here. I reverted the addidtion several times and left messages both at the IP's talk page and at the article's talk page explaining my objections. The IP has not replied to either of these messages but keeps adding the link back, most lately this morning[18]. This is in clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS since an objection to the link has been raised and no consensus for adding the link has been established. However, I have already reverted the IP 3 times and am close to 3RR, so I do not want to revert again. I'd like for a previously uninvolved editor to revert the non-consensus addition of the link and maybe leave a few extra warning messages for the IP regarding 3RR, edit warring, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:SOAP etc. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit undone, IP warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He carried on anyway, now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ban request[edit]

Resolved: No action needed. Multiple administrators are already monitoring the Chiropractic article. --Elonka 22:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

May I request a page-ban for a single purpose account? TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) only edits chirporactic pages and consistently pushes to whitewash them. He is obstructionist, rude, condescending, and I cannot find a single contribution that actually has added content of note.

ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you proposing just a ban from the main Chiropractic page or a more general topic ban? It's not entirely clear to me that either one is warranted but in any case the scope of any restriction should be clear. I's probably suggest a general 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring and encourage use of talk pages as a better way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't in the past few months edited more than just the Chiropractic page, but I think a general topic ban with an encouragement for him to branch out and see more of the encyclopedia would be good. He does not seem to be helping the situation at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:AE perhaps? This here page is for WP:DRAMA. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
? How is AE going to help? He's not subject to any arbitration cases that I'm aware of. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) appears to be a very infrequent editor, with only three edits to the Chiropractic article in the last month. Though he definitely appears to be a single-purpose account, I'm not sure that a ban would really do much, since he so rarely edits anyway. Also, there are already several admins actively watching the article, so starting another ANI or AE thread doesn't really seem necessary. ANI (and AE) are usually used to request the attention of administrators, when they don't seem to be paying attention to an area of dispute. Or in other words, if someone wishes to request a ban, it's probably best to just bring it up directly at Talk:Chiropractic, or to contact one of the admins that's already supervising the page. --Elonka 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I want someone to look specifically at this account. There is enough going on at Chiropractic to keep an army of administrators busy. We need more eyes on the matter, and this particular account has been a thorn in the side of all these proceedings forever. He hasn't made a single decent contribution ever. In fact, it looks like he's acting more-or-less like a meatpuppet. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
SA, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. To request sanctions, you must file a report at WP:AE, preferably utilizing diffs that show policy violations. I believe that case requires notification to users before they get sanctioned. Please check that carefully and adjust your request to reflect any notification requirements. Jehochman Talk 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, I was a party in that case, and I don't know what the hell you are talking about. We can request sanctions at ANI for behavioral issues. There is nothing in that RfArb that says this is not allowed. I have warned this account multiple times (see the history of his user talk page). Your comments here are completely unclear and unhelpful. If you think AE is the place to go, please refactor it there yourself and stop bullying me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:Pseudoscience enforcement}} TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) made a controversial edit by restoring an original research tag without a valid reason. TheDoctorIsIn should be notified about the sanctions. QuackGuru 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is unresolved. I don't see any reason for removing the tag. QuackGuru 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What QuackGuru calls a "controversial edit" is part of a long-lasting content dispute among multiple editors. I looked through TheDoctorIsIn's recent contribs and, besides the editwarring over a tag which multiple editors are involved in, I see for example an informative talk page post with information such as an expert on the subject might contribute. I don't see any problems requiring a ban of any sort, unless such a ban is applied to all the editors editwarring over the tag. ScienceApologist says above, "I have warned this account multiple times", but besides the notification of this ban discussion, which contains no information as to any reasons for such a ban, I see nothing from ScienceApologist in TheDoctorIsIn's user talk page history since February, and the message at that time related to a page other than Chiropractic. Coppertwig(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in Mukuro Rokudo[edit]

Resolved: Situation is now subject to admin-monitoring. --Elonka 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Serpent132 has been editing the Mukuro Rokudo article, trimming the sections to minimun as it was a FAC. More important, he has been removing information from the lead mentioning it was repeated in other sections. I tried talking to him on his talk page sending info about deletion and reverting edits mentioning WP: Lead and other stuff. However, he has not stopped doing that and in this state is impossible for the article to be GA (is currently a GAC). Im requesting help here because I may also require to be blocked with these edits. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, which really isn't an administrator matter. However, the revert war is of concern, especially as neither editor has been participating at the talkpage. Both editors appear to be well past WP:3RR; however, neither was formally warned, so a block is probably not appropriate at this point. I've given 3RR cautions to both of them, and left a note on the talkpage that WP:DR procedures should be followed. Tintor2, I sympathize with your frustration, but just putting warning templates on someone's page is not really "talking to them". I recommend taking a deep breath and trying, at least once, some good faith communication. --Elonka 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Discussion has been started in Talk:Mukuro Rokudo#Edit-warring but Serpent has not responded. Instead, he keeps reverting the edits and has been used this anon account to keep reverting and remove the warning from his talk page. It does not seem it is still good faith.Tintor2 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on things, and if reverts continue, or anyone continues edit-warring without talkpage discussion, I'll block as necessary. --Elonka 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And there has been yet another revert, even after the warnings. By all appearances, Serpent132 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem interested in discussing his or her changes and reversions to the article. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Update Elonka as blocked Serpent132 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for revert warring after receiving multiple warnings from different editors and for not discussing his edits on the article's talk page. It should be noted that Serpent132 has yet to edited a single talk page except to remove warnings or notices from his own talk page. If Serpent132 agrees to participate in the discussion about his edits, I would recommend that the block be lifted. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

False articles about human migration[edit]

Over a period of more than a year, CARLMART (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly creating unsourced and unverifiable articles on immigrants Hispanophone and Lusophone countries, despite repeated warnings left on his talk page about the importance of using reliable sources. He refuses to discuss this with anyone; in fact, he has never once contributed in the Talk/User talk namespaces in over one year and 1000+ edits on Wikipedia [19][20].

Some of these populations are notable, others aren't, but he fills all of these articles with the same vague, plausible-sounding generalisations which turn out to be false upon further investigation:

  • A neologistic group name like "Iranian Mexicans", "Korean Hondurans", etc., which cannot be found in any reliable sources
  • A population figure, sometimes inflated by as much as 25x over what reliable sources state
  • Claims that the group in question first came as refugees from some revolution or war (in reality, most of themturn out to have come as guest workers)
  • A list of religions they allegedly follow (just listing all the religions popular in the country of origin and destination)
  • A list of languages they speak (see "Religions")
  • A list of cities they allegedly live in (just a list of big cities in the destination country, without any evidence that the migrants live there)
  • Often, a bit of original research about surnames and intermarriage and their effect on how society views the population in question. He especially likes to add to articles about Filipinos about how people with one Filipino parent get mistaken for Spaniards, for some reason [21].

Here's the problematic articles I'm aware of that have already been dealt with:

  1. Vietnamese Cubans (deleted by WP:PROD)
  2. Vietnamese people in Mexico (deleted by WP:PROD)
  3. Ethnic Chinese in Mozambique (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual [22])
  4. Korean Mexicans (rewritten; external links in the new version prove the non-factuality of the original version [23])
  5. Koreans in Argentina (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual, since it was a thinly-rewritten version of this UC Davis web page, which he declined to cite [24])
  6. Koreans in Peru (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [25])
  7. Koreans in Chile (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [26])
  8. Koreans in Guatemala (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [27])
  9. Japanese Honduran (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Honduran)
  10. Iranians in Spain (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [28])
  11. Malays in Spain (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malays in Spain)
  12. Iranian Mexicans (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Mexicans
  13. Japanese Spaniards (I'm planning to rewrite it later; already found numerous WP:RS which contradict this article [29][30][31][32])

I'm trying to go through some of his other creations; he keeps creating more and more and I can't keep up. I strongly hope that an administrator can review this and take some appropriate action to prevent him from adding more false statements to Wikipedia. Thanks, cab (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything good coming out of him? Given the number of hoax articles, zero talk page edits and zero user talk page edits, I'm willing to block him until he at least acknowledges the problem. If he cannot even bother to respond to anyone's questions, then he's become more disruptive than useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree. If people ignore their talk page, and refuse to responde to reasonable requests for discussion, they are being disruptive. A block will at least force him to explain himself, and that is all we want out of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

According to this the user has created over 80 articles, after random sampling a few of those that aren't based on human migration I didn't find one with any sources. Having said that - assuming the articles aren't hoaxes - from the information given and the occasional link to IMDB it seems like the topics could potentially meet the inclusion criteria; although I image the majority of reliable sources would not be in English. Guest9999 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In view of the above, I have blocked CARLMART for a month, so as to stop him from creating more articles with dubious content and to induce him to comment on the issues that have been raised about his articles. I do not object to any administrator unblocking him if he reacts appropriately to these concerns.  Sandstein  14:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine with that but if it continues, I would support an indefinite block until he responds. If he cannot even bother to respond and request to be unblocked, there's no reason to allow his disruption to continue. We've blocked for editors who make MOS changes without discussion. This should have a much higher bar for reentry. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Celebrity... Get Me out of Here! (Series 8 UK)[edit]

Could someone review edits to this article? Unsourced rumour and speculation keeps being added to who may be taking part in this series which starts in 1wk in the UK. As of now there is no official confirmation of who is taking part. [Official ITV site] Ros0709 (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a invisible comment telling everyone. If that doesn't work, list it for semi-protection. It's mostly new users who don't know better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion - and for doing it! Ros0709 (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IP bloke whose question was rv'ed[edit]

76.110.173.184 blocked for telling the unpalatable truth in an article?

The site he added info from appears to be a government site, if so it is a reliable source regardless of whether people want the facts of the matter included in line with the politically correct POV. He shouldn't be blocked for representing reality, although his comment could have been in a more encyclopedic style. Has he made any (other?) racist comments? Sticky Parkin 16:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes but he didn't cite the source and made a very pointed and broad conclusion from it. For this edit alone, I would concur that he should stay blocked. --Rodhullandemu 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
He should be warned or briefly blocked but as a new user he could be given the chance to learn/adopt an encyclopedic style before being permablocked- he's trying to add info he thinks should be added. Sticky Parkin 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
New user? See this section above - same person. And more to the point - this edit to my talk. He's right that we can't block the entirety of Comcast dynamic, but we can do our best to keep his offensive POV out of Wikipedia. Incidentally, he synthesised "(blacks) account for only 20% of the population but commit 75% of violent crimes" out of a page which deals purely with homicide rates, not violent crime as a whole, which should tell you how concerned he is with actual facts.Black Kite 16:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
He says he has nothing to do with the Promopromotions/other site or bloke. Has a checkuser been done? Sticky Parkin 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(a) A checkuser is pointless on a dynamic range which covers a whole /12 range block. (b) They're the same user, but why does it matter? They're both blocked for their own edits, not each others. I don't believe that defending such a clearly non-new editor pushing a repeated racist POV is a worthwhile task, but YMMV. Black Kite 16:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
While the edits were unsourced and unencyclopedic (at their most helpful, cluelessly disruptive), I didn't understand the harsh, untemplated block and talk page deletion until I read in this new thread it was a sock of a known, disruptive editor. Block's ok and understood but at first it wasn't clear what was happening. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. this makes it clear that they're one and the same. Black Kite 16:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
(ec's)To Black Kite, WP:AGF of the reasons why people ask for clarification please. To Sticky Parkin, I also reviewed the website mentioned here as the source and found it did not back the claim, and also concluded that the editor was misrepresenting the information to support a POV (and considered that we were being trolled by the ip), but the post had already been removed when I returned with to add my opinion. In short, someone with a racist POV placed an unreferenced comment in an article and, after being blocked, commented here as an ip - providing a source which did not reflect the claims made - in pursuance of their agenda. The post was removed, presumably for trolling. Not much more to add, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Aye; I'd already pointed out the links between the two, which is why I was a bit grumpy about it :) Black Kite 16:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh sorry, what he said was he promises to be good, even though he was naughty in the past, I think that's what he's saying, though I'm tired . If so a block is fair enough. [33] I support representing reality is all, over the years I've grown to increasingly despise a false representation of reality made for political purposes. But I agree a WP:NPOV style is crucial on topics such as that. People shouldn't be blocked for adding facts in an encyclopedic style especially, but then he's not doing that anyway.:) But his edits above we'ren't unsourced, he added a government source, though he added was perhaps a sqewed representation of what it said.Sticky Parkin 16:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; sorry if I was a bit harsh there, but we quite often find that those who at least make an attempt to source their POV edits are more dangerous that standard trolls, because there's a greater chance that their edits might steal past recent changes patrollers. Luckily, this one gave himself away by sticking his POV next to the "sourced" statement. Black Kite 16:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Anyone who does this [34] should be indeffed. We don't need people like this thank you very much. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit-war in progress[edit]

Hi all...I have found myself in an edit war onThe Hoobs with User:TR Wolf, who simply refuses to adhere to WP:VER. He insists on the addition of a sentence that he "cites" by a link to this page, which is basically another wiki. If I revert again, I cross 3RR, and as frustrated as I am, I still don't want to do that. I'm going to try ONCE MORE to explain to the user why his edit is not acceptable, but would someone else take a look at the article and see if I'm off-base with this one? Thanks...GJC 01:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with h2g2 is that although it is wiki-like, some of its articles are peer-reviewed and thus could be considered more reliable, but of course we know nothing of the credentials of the reviewing peers. Having looked at this link, it's impossible to tell whether it's passed that test; my inclination is to say not, but it's up to the editor to provide reliable sources, but I don't think this is one. However, his edits aren't bad-faith, so you are caught by 3RR. Leave it with me a while. --Rodhullandemu 01:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
His response tells me a lot about what we're dealing with here.GJC 02:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone)[edit]

I would appreciate some objective intervention. The user, Tb, and I have been engaged in combative editing of this article for several days. Tb continues to revert text that I have changed and cited without providing any new information to support his claims. Because I am unfamiliar with the procedures to deal with such a problem on Wikipedia, I would appreciate if somebody could view the discussion page and provide some help. Perhaps blocking the user would be in order, but that would only serve to delay the problem. thanks for you input! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.157.11 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:3RR issue for both parties involved. Both taking a step back and discussing would be beneficial, as may be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like neither Tb (talk · contribs) nor 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) had been formally warned about 3RR yet, so I went ahead and put cautions on both of their talkpages, as well as a note at the article talkpage. If either one of them reverts again within the next 24 hours, their account access should be blocked. --Elonka 22:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Correction: 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) was warned at 22:13, but has not reverted since the warning. --Elonka 22:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like 76.124.157.11 (talk · contribs) did another revert at 23:04. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 23:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Already blocked by Will Beback. --Elonka 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to give some more history; the anon user here was blocked three times for repeated vandalism (blanking of large bits of text repeatedly); the pages had to be semi-protected for a couple days, and during that period he refused to either use edit summaries, engage in text, or do anything else. He was IPsocking to avoid IP blocks, and even went so far as to blank the IP socking report once. He seems to be willing now to discuss, but even so, I am extremely frustrated by an editor who makes many changes, discusses one, ignores most of my requests for discussion--which you can see go back to the beginning of the vandalism, and now--and continues to insist that the reason the page must say what he wants is because he has the facts, and text of mine which simply says that there is a controversy gets reverted. I would appreciate the help of some neutral voices in the discussion. Tb (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicktoons: Globs of Doom claimed original research[edit]

In some ways, this could be viewed as a long-term abuse case, but it is hard to tell from how many contributions are involved.

The involved parties include: Majora999, KensouYagami, and the IP 69.137.144.243. If you look at the IPs contributions, they vary, but include mainly tweaking of spelling/minor fixes, blatant vandalism, and addition of questionable material.

The two users claim the IP is "vandalising" the article by adding Bessie Higgenbottom as a playable character, as well as several others that are apparently not playable. They also state that there is no multiplayer mode, but have been unable to provide a source to contradict this. I have been waiting and waiting for this to go away, but it wont, so I would appreciate if an administrator would look into this.

If you need any information, just let me know on User talk:Jock Boy my talk, and I will be watching this page and the article's talk page as well. Thank you. Jock Boy (t/c) Sign 23:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article for two weeks. A number of IPs were edit-warring to add unsourced material and original research. The videogame was only released October 20, and it is hoped that the topic may settle down soon. EdJohnston (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates in Barack Obama[edit]

Resolved

Someone is messing with the templates that show up at the bottom of the page, substituting the N-word and otherwise fooling around. We need help from someone who can quickly track down what's going on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's OK now. Thanks, to whoever fixed it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody blanked the template after it got vandalized. I restored the template and semi-protected it. If this happens again, the easiest way to find out which templates could have been vandalized is to click "edit this page" and scroll down. There is a list of transcluded templates there, just look for any unprotected or semi-protected ones. J.delanoygabsadds 02:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll copy this info to the Obama talk page. Thank you! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This tool may also help: [35]. Note that there may be a short lag before edits appear, because the tool is using the toolserver database. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
And this tool lets you check which templates are unprotected, which can be another way to find vandalism: [36]. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Special:Recentchangeslinked? — Werdna • talk 03:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just remember to filter it by namespace or you won't see anything useful due to the obscenely large number of "related changes". — CharlotteWebb 05:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Block of Addbot[edit]

I have temporarily blocked User:Addbot in the absence of any response to my concerns at User:Addshore's talk page. The bot is making buggy edits and substing templates which are not usually substed, listed in several places as templates which shouldn't be substed, and outside the mandate of the bot's approval at the time it was approved. I will unfortunately not be around to deal with this further at this time, so I'm reporting it here for review and appropriate followup action. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If I had to guess, someone probably messed up AWB's list of templates that should be substed, and since a good number of bots (mine included), draw from that list, anything would be passed onto it. Oh well, good block, I'm sure Addy will have it fixed shortly. MBisanz talk 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by possibly banned users[edit]

I'm not sure if a 3rr report is more appropriate. They have been edit warring over Ayodhya debate for a few days. They have each accused the other of being a sockpuppet of:

Both of those accounts were banned by the arbitration committee. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar). EnviroboyTalkCs 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

They're also edit warring over the edit war report at WP:RFPP (oh, the irony). No idea whether either (or both) is socking/banned/bonkers. CIreland (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the whole mess started with this addition by User:Backtalking khartoumi, blocking indefinitely as "Hkelkar." Might be some truth to that one at least. I see that nobody has bothered to use the talk page at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The two IPs above have been blocked 72 hours for edit warring, as also 128.122.253.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think they were up to 60RR at Ayodhya debate. If this doesn't help, semi-protection might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
They also briefly fought over Microcephaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which had to be semi-protected. EnviroboyTalkCs 04:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on the article but it's an entire mess of unsourced garbage. The only decent citation offered is differing version of Britannica. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Microcephaly warring, man do I feel embarrassed at my culture. Anyone who argues the West is prejudicial should head out there and see what real intolerance looks like. Mix in politics to everything and it's just a disaster. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:BalkanFever and User:Alex Makedon[edit]

A content dispute over whether to include Greek in the languages section of the "Republic of Macedonia" article has turned rather ugly. I have been called a "vandal" and "nationalist troll" and compared to Adolphos (Adolf Hitler) and Osama bin Laden by User:BalkanFever for attempting to restore Greek to the list of languages spoken in the country. The fact that Greek is spoken there is confirmed by numerous reputable sources. He and User:Alex Makedon, who has also described my edits as "pure Greek nationalistic propaganda", have tried to argue that the sources are ambiguous. They are not. User:Alex Makedon has also engaged in further insults and threats, apart from violating WP:CANVASS by spamming a plethora of like-minded users to support an AfD nomination he has instigated. Most seriously of all, he has used extremely offensive language against countries and ethnic groups other than his own, referring to Greece in particular as "Hellass", deliberately altering the endonym Hellas in order to render it a compound of hell and the fundamental orifice. After being asked to retract this inflammatory statement, he simply repeated it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Kekrops called me a ridiculous nationalist for citing the source, among other things. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Languages Section for his continuous incivility towards users who disagree with him, accusing everyone of trying to "expunge minorities" etc. He even directed his insults to an outside user (Luka Jačov). BalkanFever 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And Kekrops is hardly innocent when it comes to offending people, continually putting the words Macedonia, Macedonian and Macedonians in scare quotes to assert that the country, ethnic group and language are not the "real" Macedonia/n/s. That's after his continual use of the offensive term "Skopjan" was taken to ANI a while back. More of his incivility: comparing Macedonia to Nazi Germany (funny how he gets hurt if I call him Hitler in retaliation) and accusing me of ethnic nationalism. And no, he wasn't restoring Greek to the list, he added it, probably to further his nationalist motives, but whatever. I don't have time for senseless bickering with him, so hopefully an admin can lay down the law. BalkanFever 09:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cool it guys. BalkanFever and Kekrops, I know you two are perennial sparring partners in all your national disputes, but at heart you love each other. So c'mon now. Fut.Perf. 09:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
All's fair in love... BalkanFever 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To FP: No, I am not going to have a laugh over this spat like I usually do, nor I am not going to let the insults just go by this time. Being called a "nationalist troll" by BalkanFever is nothing new, but his insults have escalated to an altogether different level. Enough is enough. My father's family fought the Nazis during the occupation, and had their home bombed by the German Stukas, for which Germany still refuses compensation. Did his?
To BF: No one is going to force me to call another people "Macedonians" when that is how I identify. My resistance towards your desire to impose your point of view on me cannot reasonably be construed as incivility. The equivalent would be for me to try to coerce you into using Macedonia only for the Greek region. I use the scare quotes because that's what they call themselves, but I don't have to agree with that self-identification, do I? The "ridiculous nationalist" comment was the result of extreme provocation, and was not directed towards you personally, as I didn't bother to check the edit history before posting it. But I stand by my view that seeking to expunge any references to the Greek and Bulgarian linguistic minorities, which incidentally have been restored by a non-ethnic partisan administrator, is an eminent example of ethnic nationalism·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they did fight against the Nazis. Happy now? BalkanFever 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing that riles me the most about all this is that if I really were a "nationalist troll", I would've certainly opposed the inclusion of "Macedonian" at Greece#Languages from the very outset. Naturally, I've done nothing of the sort. But when I dare to request the bare minimum of reciprocity, and am actually backed up by the sources, I'm an Adolphos. I mean, fuck me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reciprocity has nothing to do with anything. BalkanFever 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant reciprocal behaviour, not content. That's what the sources are for. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

My few words on the matter:

  • User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has been stubbornly adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 8 times up till now in the last few days. [37]
  • Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong evidence that the language is not spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: European Council [38][39][40], United Nations [41], Britannica encyclopedia [42] , BBC Educational [43], Eupedia [44], none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page.
  • The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page [45][46] and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated.
  • The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has some bad reputation for using unproper language and racial personal attacks: "Fuck You", "Drop the dead donkey", "That's rather rich coming from a Slav".
  • This user has heavily offended Republic of Macedonia refering to it as the nazi Griechenfrei republic [47] just because we do not happen to agree on adding a language that is just ambiguously reported in a single cherry picked irellevant source, that he by some personal reason is insisting on.
  • In the bottom line this admin board report he has made is just a WP:GAME to cover his disruptive editing and vandalizing.

I hope you do something about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ and his recent (and not so recent) disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the fact that Greek is absent from your sources does not constitute sufficient evidence to support your assertion that there is no Greek linguistic minority in the country. Omission does not constitute denial. As for my "unproper" [sic] language, I have lost my temper on a few occasions but I have also been severely provoked: comparing the exodus of a few thousand refugees on the losing side of the Greek Civil War who escaped with their lives to the genocide of 350,000 Pontic Greeks is more than enough to ignite me. Regarding my calling you a Slav, well, aren't you? "Racial attack"? I don't see it on the list of ethnic slurs. I even qualified the remark by saying that it wasn't intended as a slur, but merely to illustrate the point that you constantly bait Greeks with accusations of a national obsession with the "immutability and continuum of 2500 years of Ancient Hellens", despite being a member of a Slavic ethnic group who calls himself "Alex Makedon"—Alexander and his Macedonians were not a Slavic people. And what's wrong with Drop the Dead Donkey? It was one of the better British comedies of the 90s. I shan't bother replying to the more inane allegations, but the one about my being "alone" is a blatant lie, as a cursory glance at the edit history will confirm. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Update: Rummaging through edit histories, I've made a rather interesting find. User:Alex Makedon used to be this guy, according to this. And one of the IP's more noxious posts was this, signed Alex Makedon: "Too sad Wikipedia is full of Hell Ass Neonazi wishing bloodshearing, wars and ruin just on etnic-national basis to its neighbouring country." Emphasis mine. I rest my case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Weren't we talking about Republic of Macedonia Languages [48] related arguments. Even if irellevant i will say a few words on the matters:

1,2 years ago: my noobish second account from my first days on wikipedia is a closed matter in 2007, i still keep linked on my user page "see earlier account Alexander Mak" so all know my "alter ego"
7 months ago: my heavilly provoked comment by the Hellenic Neonazi[49] that were auguring dismembering of Republic of Macedonia and were fueling nationalistic hate among the Albanians in Republic of Macedonia in hope for a new 2001 civil war were in a critical moment for Republic of Macedonia, 5 April 2008 when Greece managed to pospone Republic of Macedonia's NATO access

Again clear attempts to WP:Game and to switch the attention and distracting from the present day ΚΕΚΡΩΨ vandalism, disruptive editing and lack of real eviednce (displayed above) with digging out things closed more than 1 year ago. Its interesting how ΚΕΚΡΩΨ accidently reported me and BalkanFever that again accidently happen to disagree and contrast his lame interpretation of a cherry picked source and speculations over a Greek minority in Republic of Macedonia with solid arguments. I guess gaming with reports was the only thing left to do to push his POV on the page. I expect something is done about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a one-off remark, it's persistent, inflammatory and unwarranted ethnic baiting of the worst kind. I hadn't realized you'd made the outrageous comment I exposed earlier from your proper user account, and had even engaged in a bout of edit-warring when others tried to remove it. It appears you're hell-bent on denying the existence of Greeks in your country, going so far as to proclaim that "No one in Republic of Macedonia clames to be Greek", despite the nation's official census being entirely unambiguous that the opposite is in fact true. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
And the insults and intimidation continue... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised that Alex Makedon is still editing Wikipedia to be honest. In fact I sincerely believe he is a liability to the ethnic Macedonian editors here and they should have acted first.--Avg (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, is anybody going to provide some outside response here? I'm too involved with the various disputes here to take action. Anybody? Fut.Perf. 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fut. being too involved didn't stop you from asking for User:Crossthets to be indef banned [50]. In fact recently the blocking admin User:Moreschi was sent evidence for another two users User:MacedonianBoy ([51]) and User:Mactruth [52] with extremely severe violations and nothing has happened. I'm starting to feel weird here.--Avg (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Huh? Of course, being "involved" doesn't stop me from asking for somebody to be banned, just like any other user could, whenever I feel like it. What's the issue? In this case, I personally don't feel like pressing for sanctions, because both BalkanFever and Kekrops, despite the nastiness they sometimes slide into, are probably the most intelligent people on both sides of the dispute, and the ones that are actually able to negotiate in a meaningful way. I prefer to get the more clueless ones banned first. – Moreschi seems to be on a wikibreak or something, that's why he didn't get active quickly. Fut.Perf. 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to BalkanFever (my objections have always been only civility-related) but mainly to Alex Makedon. Regarding Moreschi, it's pretty clear from his contributions that he has edited his talk page since the reports, so he chose to ignore them.--Avg (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've involved myself as well. But it seems that Kekrops provoked - his sources are weak, ambiguous, or don't say what he purports. Alex Makedon's responses were and continue to be uncivil, as have BalkanFever's. They all are close on 3rr, (Kekrops closest, but that's only because it is essentially two to one - still doesn't excuse him deleting my warning); they've all baited. As this page falls within the Macedonia arbitration, an admin should review that page, as well as the editors' block logs.
From the Macedonia enforcement logs we find all three:
This is not, essentially, a content dispute. It is a behavioral issue. At least two of the users are aggressively 'marking territory' whether by using preferred names, or, as in this case, by claiming the existence/non-existence of a group of people in a particular region. The arbitration gives an admin wide discretion in setting sanctions. Please consider how best to use that discretion. Jd2718 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
You say I have provoked, attempting to discredit my sources. One of them, Ethnologue, is widely used throughout Wikipedia, especially in regards to lesser-used languages that would otherwise be overlooked by sources such as those promulgated by Alex Makedon, which omit a number of languages spoken in the country in question. The other is entirely unambiguous in its reference to the "Greek-speaking families" of Bitola. These two sources pertain specifically to the present situation, and I have not invoked the multitude of sources which attest to the diachronic presence of Greeks in the area. I must also note that you are not uninvolved in the disputes that fall within the scope of WP:ARBMAC; I recall your rather stubborn assumption of bad faith when I edited Thessaloniki a few months ago to describe it as the "capital of Macedonia, the nation's largest region", a decidedly uncontroversial choice of wording that has stood by consensus since. Your more recent foray into a very minor disagreement between me and BalkanFever pertaining to the perennial Macedonian disambiguation issue simply confirms your involvement. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
1. In February of this year I opened a discussion on the Thessaloniki talk page, that led to two consecutive small edits (no edit war) that have stood since. 2. I have challenged Kekrops' sources, appropriately, on the article's talk page, Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Sources. 3. Kekrops, please strike the unsupported accusation of bad faith. 4. I started my previous comment by writing that I have involved myself; I'm not sure why you need to note the same. Certainly an administrator looking at the behavior of involved parties would want to at least take a glance at mine. Jd2718 (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
My impression that you were assuming bad faith was based on the tone of your language in your initial post here, in which you claimed that this edit of mine constituted a significant departure from your preferred version, going so far as to accuse me of "breaking the compromise". As other participants confirmed, it simply wasn't, and you acknowledged that perhaps your "initial concern was petty". Could your accusation that my initial edit in this case was "designed to get a rise out of" my "opponents" not be a similarly petty assumption of bad faith? Putting it into perspective may help: we are talking about the inclusion, on the basis of at least two reputable sources, of a single word, "Greek", in a 67-kilobyte article·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Perspective can be useful. You opened an AN/I thread over an edit war and series of incivil comments, and apparently that single word, "Greek," was the source. You thought it merited admin attention. I agree. Jd2718 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I did nothing of the sort, thank you very much. I opened this thread only after being likened to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden for wanting to make an edit that would be considered perfectly natural in almost any other country article. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 18:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Those are the incivil comments I was referring to. Jd2718 (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
And I only made those comments after he likened Macedonia to Nazi Germany. BalkanFever 09:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the diff. But after half a day of talk on the talk page, it's blown up again. Luka Jačov used the perjorative Grecoman, and refused to revert himself; now there's a new series of reverts on the article itself (including BalkanFever and Kekrops). Could we get some administrative attention? Jd2718 (talk) 12:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with NikoSilver that Future Perfect's compromise should stay in place until the dispute is resolved. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Sync Guy[edit]

Despite three checkusers this month alone, this fool manages to return despite four years of trying to shut him down. I tried to taunt him into answering me via the talk page, but he has yet to apply a single keystroke to a talk page. This account is blocked, but there are five more waiting to be blocked. What is it going to take? At the very least, creation of sub-accounts by new users should be eliminated. He creates an account and then uses it to create several more. He didn't clobber any articles and isn't likely to given his history, but the five remaining socks should still be shut down and perhaps a rangeblock applied after another checkuser is run. I don't mind playing whack-a-vandal, but this is ridiculous. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the subaccounts are blocked. I've never initiated a checkuser, but I've alerted User:Gogo Dodo to the issue. He's been following this kid's exploits for some time now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
ec. Those five accounts blocked. I don't think that restriction account creation by new accounts would help; it's already capped at 6 per IP. WODUP 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone made another contact with his mum or something? Maybe if we could convince her to watch over her son's behaviour and block or ban him from using the Internet, or Wikipedia. Having her block all Wikimedia-related sites might be the fix if you're really tired of him. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to initiate contact a couple of nights ago using the three early e-mail accounts. All three were kicked back. I'm assuming they simply aren't active anymore. So, whenever this little nincompoop decides he's going to create a slew of Wikipedia accounts, it would seem he's damned well going to. I'm thinking that the recent IP blocks should be extended to include the entire range. Ditto this latest assault. He's managed to keep at it without a single iota of acknowledgement; even a death threat is unlikely to stop him. And no...I am not goingto threaten anyone nor should anyone else. I'm just saying that to emphasize the fact that we're dealing with a remarkably persistent individual who happens to have access to several IPs. Lucky us. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

have we contacted his ISP?--Crossmr (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Lord knows I've tried. I brought this up to the foundation some time ago. Never heard a word from them. Since a checkuser brings up the IP and we have a possible last name on the account which I won't mention here, it seems like a no-brainer. How do we get started? I think four years of goofs, guys and glowballs is quite enough. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr beat me right to it. We should contact his ISP and have them contact him. I don't remember the last case but I don't think it was even this bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it as well, Ricky. :) This has got to stop and now. --