Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism[edit]

Resolved: I'm on it like white on rice Tan | 39 03:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is pretty backlogged. AnyPerson (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at 98.223.164.233 (talk · contribs), whose listing was removed from WP:AIV without any action. The editor has a huge page of warnings for vandalizing wrestling related articles, has been blocked twice in the last two months, continues to vandalize this evening, but apparently nothing is to be done? AnyPerson (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they have stopped (no edits in about 30 minutes). Let us know if it starts up again -- Samir 03:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And quit forum-shopping, AnyPerson. Stop getting worked up about one editor - you left a not-so-polite message on my page and shopped to JulianColten as well. Three admins have now said that there is insufficient evidence for a block. Tan | 39 04:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't care how many admins tell me that there is insufficient evidence for a block (and I only count two). If a person is vandalizing and the admins can't read the evidence provided to see that the person is vandalizing, then I'm going to continue trying to get somebody to block the vandal. The admins (You and JulianColten) are obviously not reading the vandal's edits properly. At the point when I reported them to WP:AIV, they were currently in the process of mixing possibly good edits in with obviously vandalistic edits, but the two of you shrugged. What does it take to get a repeat vandal blocked? AnyPerson (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless a vandal is operating a bot or otherwise editing at a rapid pace, there's no need to get so worked over having to revert an edit or two. John Reaves 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Great. I guess I won't bother to report vandals any more, if admins don't care. AnyPerson (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
When there is a question whether a person is editing in good faith or vandalizing, most admins will err on the side of caution... This is A Good Thing™, in my opinion. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So you're telling me that admins can't figure out whether or not this is a good faith edit, in light of the editor's past history and block record? AnyPerson (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
That edit was from 21:39 (my local time, don't feel like doing UTC math atm), and the report was removed at 22:35. The most recent edit was in good faith, so the administrator must have decided the vandal had moved on. As should we. –xeno (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if you are just jumping on the "rant about admins every chance you get" bandwagon or what, but drop the indignation and just accept that everything won't always go your way and get back to the encyclopedia, this isn't constructive. John Reaves 22:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate[edit]

Resolved: Both blocked 5 years John Reaves 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IPv6Gate uses both User:213.197.27.252/User_Talk:213.197.27.252 and User_Talk:94.75.219.73/User:94.75.219.73 at the moment. Please *PERMANENTLY* block both 213.197.27.252 and 94.75.219.73 from editing anything unless the user has taken the time to login with a real account. Clearly people are too childish to abuse the feature provided by IPv6Gate. Users who are using IPv6Gate and want to contribute meaningful items will register/login and provide their contributions that way. Basically IPv6Gate is an Open Proxy, especially as the Wikimedia software doesn't support XFF for IPv6. See IPv6Gate and IPv6Gate:Talk for other details. Blocking those two IPs avoids work for you and it is just the sane thing to do at the moment. 213.197.27.252 is blocked at the moment already because of this, thus make that one, and the other one permanent please. (/me is jeroen@sixxs.net and responsible for IPv6Gate) Jeroen (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

  • If you're responsible for said Proxy, then why don't you just deny access and leave anyone trying to reach Wikipedia a note telling them this? - Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think only Wikipedia has the ability to distinguish registered users from unregistered ones.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • As Kww mentioned, we can't see who is registered or not. The normal case here would be to use XFF so that admins could see the original IP, but unfortunately XFF doesn't support IPv6 on wikimedia, as such, that is simply not possible. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We don't do indefinite IP blocks, but I think a long block is in order. — Jake Wartenberg 13:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • That is fine, a block for a long time which avoids anonymous users from abusing Wikipedia by using IPv6Gate without having a registered account would be the way to go. Jeroen (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Just noting that we do in fact do indef. IP blocks (rarely). neuro(talk) 17:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I've updated the talk pages to explain this block. Jeroen (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Insulted by user:Jake Wartenberg[edit]

Resolved: Not an AN/I issue at this point. –xeno (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He is continuously blaming me of vandalism, as I cleaned up an article Brahmi script. Doesn't assume good faith. --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing it with him on your or his talk page, instead of immediately running to ANI? Tan | 39 18:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Fine fine --91.130.91.84 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Intelligent design[edit]

Resolved: Protected for three days. neuro(talk) 20:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an edit war currently going on on Intelligent design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the use of book cover images. Some help could be good. --Damiens.rf 19:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggest full protection. I would protect myself, however I'm not sure that I'd be perceived as neutral. PhilKnight (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Done. FP 3 days. Tan | 39 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Historian19: copyright violations, disruptive editing and block evasions[edit]

I've just blocked indefinitely Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for evading his block for the second time in less than 2 days (user:ScottishGunner and user:AlJoseph) —not including a number of IPs he's bragging about using anytime he'd want. Historian19 has created havoc in every article he edited (mainly copyright violations or very disruptive editing) and has bothered many respected editors and admins. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

incivility ... i think[edit]

Resolved

on the article Glock's talk page, after mentioning to User:Nukes4Tots that he need not have a meltdown [[1]] and to chill with the (what i believe to be) borderline personal attacks, his response (with an edit summary of 'I WANNA KILL') was "Jeez, would you please use the shift key. Meltdown, my ass. Throw a fucking cuss word out once or twice and people who can't use a fucking keyboard freak out. So, two fucking sources and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. See how cool that was? You say I'm having a meltdown and I say you're freaking out. Toss a few explictives and you're convinced. Problem is, none of this is really happening. I'm here at my easy chair typing on a laptop watching a show on Anartic core sampling, sipping a cup of cold water. Just 1's and 0's dude, not enough to get my dander up. Here you are fantasizing about some Arlo Guthrie song that I'll quote for you to ponder: "And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me, sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy." [[2]]. obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. since he told me 'i can't use a fucking keyboard,' i'm probably not the one to talk to him about this. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Formally warned on his talk page. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
...although I'm wondering if a warning is enough? I'll defer... Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I judge that User:Nukes4Tots is calm and that perhaps Theserialcomma is missing his point. Perhaps one needs to know Alice's Restaurant. Sure, User:Nukes4Tots is forceful, but the tone of this exchange appears to have been set by Theserialcomma's it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. As she/he says, "obviously this response of his is not relevant to an article, and is not an efficient use of an article's talk page. but it also borderlines on personal attacks and incivility, i think. i don't think sarcasm is really an excuse to be uncivil. " --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's from Alice's Restaurant as quoted by User:Nukes4Tots. He does that. It's for the children, you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He was warned for quoting Guthrie? KillerChihuahua?!? 13:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh sheesh, and told in no uncertain terms he'd be blocked if he did it again? Xavexgoem, I must disagree here, and concur with Tagishsimon above. This is humor. You know, ha-ha? Not personal attacks. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, it was Arlo. No one minds if you quote Woody, but quoting Arlo is a punishable offense in some states.—Kww(talk) 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Woody was a socialist, he's not popular in some regions either. This land is your land, this land is my land.. replace "land" with, oh, Motersickle. This pickle is my pickle, this pickle is your pickle... see? Socialism. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Woody had a guitar bearing the words, "This machine kills fascists." Would that it had said Socialism = fascism + late trains. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

some context: i first tried to add to the lede that glock also makes an automatic pistol, the glock 18. the consensus was that this is not worth mentioning in the lede, since it's a specialized weapon not representative of their products - and the glock 18 is already mentioned in the article. i did not argue further once consensus was against me, i was just arguing against the reasons provided until consensus was formed. for example, nukes4tots said that 4 heavy hitters disagreed with me, and that he was a personal expert on the topic and knew i was wrong about the glock 18 being different internally than the glock 17. i told him it's irrelevant whether someone's a 'heavy hitter' on an article or a newbie unicorn - there is no policy stating that 'heavy hitters' are more correctly following WP policy than a newbie. but consensus was against my change to the lede, so i didnt bother arguing or editing against consensus at that point. people didn't want it in the lede, i read their arguments, and i conceded thta i wouldnt edit against consensus. the thing that set nukes4tots off was a referenced change further in the article that the major parts of the glock 18 are different from the glock 17. he disagreed [[3]], disregarded my source, with the edit summary "Reference it or not, the main components of the Glock 18 ARE interchangeable with the model 17. Frame, barrel, slide. Only the selector, disconnector, and a few other non-major parts don't." so he reverted a reliable source to no source at all, because he is an expert. i tried to explain that you don't remove something that's sourced to revert to something that is not sourced, just because you think you know the truth. his next edit summary was [[4]] "Please, back off unless you know what you're talking about. Here's the reference, you put it in--> [5]" that is the 'borderline' personal attack i was referring to - he told me i dont know what i'm talking about when i was accurately quoting from a reliable source. he was attacking the editor, not the content. then he wrote all the other stuff above, which i believe is more uncivil than a personal attack. e.g. " nukes4tots: "(two unreliable sources) and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. " . i saw it as a passive aggressive way to try to hide a personal attack in sarcasm. he said basically "hey, i never called you a fucking moron, because that would surely be a valid example of a personal attack, which i did not do. i specifically said you WEREN'T a fucking moron! see, it's negated! humor! now i am going to quote from a song that mentions murder, for reasons unspecified. more humor for you!" maybe i should just thank him for bringing needed humor to the gun article. sometimes my ideas are best expressed in a song too. mixtapes for everyone. Theserialcomma (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you two don't agree on how to say the models are very, very much the same, but a 17 can't be quickly made into an 18 by swapping in the key bits. Why does this bring my thoughts back to Arlo and Woody? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I dunno but all this talk about guns and Guthries has got Ludlow Massacre running through my head. The song, not the event. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I once heard a Cuban comedian quote Alice's Restaurant in his act. Of course, with his accent it went something like, "Jews can get anything Jews want at Aleece's Restaurante." Can't help, to this day, imagining the Kosher menu they'd serve there. Do they serve Gentiles too? I'm afraid nothing I can say towards the matter at hand would suffice. Never much cared for Woody either, on that subject. Theserialcomma, Arlo didn't really want to kill anybody either. His entire performance was tongue-in-cheek, much as mine was. Hope your dander settles down some. I'm sure Alice's Restaurant would have something to help you in that respect as well, brother. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparent GFDL violation[edit]

Resolved: GFDL attribution to be appropriately dealt with during the requested move process. –xeno (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arcayne wishes to move Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise). So and good. However, the editor pasted in text from the former to the latter without stating where it has come from, which seems to me a violation of the GFDL, indicating that he was going to nominate Serenity (franchise) for deletion (which would have vanished the originating page's history). I reverted the paste and notified him of Wikipedia:Move#Page_histories (which says not to cut and paste) and WP:Requested moves, the place to deal with this.

While User:Arcayne appears to be willing to follow the procedures at WP:Requested moves, he has insisted on pasting in the text from Serenity (franchise) into Firefly (franchise) twice more, before any page move goes ahead. I'd rather not go to three reverts on this thing if, instead, anyone can possibly get through to the editor over his actions.

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but there doesn't seem to be a noticeboard specific to this. – The Parting Glass 21:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne appears to have initiated a discussion at WP:RM, and I've restored the redirect pending the resolution of the discussion. Assuming there are no further reverts, I don't think there's anything ANI-worthy left here. --barneca (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So I shouldn't have banhammered Arcayne? Oops... Tan | 39 21:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I cut and pasted (and thereafter copyedited) the text from Serenity (franchise) to Firefly (franchise) after I discovered that the Serenity article could not be renamed (the Firefly article was being used, incorrectly, as a redirect). Even though deleting an AfD tends to cock up matters by orphaning the subsequently generated discussion page at AfD, I did not revert the AfD removal and held off finishing the AfD discussion page (I discovered the note from PG while previewing the discussion page at AfD). After PG offered the advice about requested page move instead, I agreed, and pursued that. Shortly thereafter, PG withdrew from the discussion, apparently bruised at being told how to actually address an AfD nomination, and subsequent commentary.
I had been planning on self-reverting when I received notification of this discussion by PG. I can see it has been reverted by Barneca pending the outcome of the requested move discussion. Sorry for any dramaz. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahhh, Tan - what would Wikipedia be without your edgy comic relief? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A more serious encyclopedia, probably. Tan | 39 22:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we can go with that. ;) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Would someone care to review the complaint of an unhappy customer?[edit]

Resolved: copyvio deleted at Commons and user blocked there by User:Mike.lifeguard; unblock request denied here by OhNoitsJamie; reblocked with inability to edit own talkpage by User:TravisTX. I think that should cover it. BencherliteTalk 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See Doctorinth3tardis (talk · contribs) and this novel attempt to win friends and influence people. Oh, and a Commons admin may be interested in File:IHAVEEVERYRIGHTTOUPLOADTHISPHOTO.jpg. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 01:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute. I think I'll upload a photo showing a dog with a gun pointing at its head, and title it "IFYOUDELETETHISPHOTOWE'LLSHOOTTHISDOG.jpg". Although I have a nagging suspicion that's been done already. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

historian19[edit]

Resolved: See newer report below. EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to copyright violations and editing nonsense, User:historian19 was blocked. Today, I see that a subsequent account of his/her User:ScottishGunner was blocked. While checking and reverting the stuff added/changed by this account, I also see that he/she used IP address 41.249.57.101 after historian19 was blocked and prior to taking up the account ScottishGunner (from Jan 20 to Jan 23). I know this from the nature of the edits and language used along with further copyright violations. Can you check on this and consider a block on this IP address. You may also want to see if some type of permanent basic block can be done as this is an editor who is very persistent and prolific in adding nonsense and copyright material to articles. Hmains (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There is not much that can be done with that IP, as the last edits were 3 days ago and the IP has likely been reallocated to another person. Have you seen any more recent IP edits? Kevin (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
no, Historian19 then went on to use ScottishGunner from the Jan 23 to today. Hmains (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Rick Warren[edit]

The Rick Warren article was recently unprotected after being under full protection for a couple weeks. A new contributor to the article, User:Phoenix of9, who from his contribution history and user page appears to be an activist similar to User:Teledildonix314 (who caused the article to be protected), immediately began making wholesale changes to the article without any consensus on the discussion board and started edit-warring with another editor. Clearly, with an article that was just under full protection as a result of a very similar situation, User:Phoenix of9 should have at the very least discussed his ideas on the discussion page before he made changes - he didn't. I politely asked him to follow User:Teledildonix314's lead and walk away from an article he is clearly very biased against, but he rudely refused. Please keep an eye on him and the article - hopefully it won't need to be protected again. Thanks. Manutdglory (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone please comment on Manutdglory's behaviour?
Manutdglory "As someone who clearly has a similar bias (noted from your user page), I would encourage you to follow his lead and abstain from editing this article before you start another edit-war."[6]
It seems he was already warned by two users (including an admin, User:ZimZalaBim ) about civility and edit warring issues: [7] [8] [9] Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Correction: he was warned by 3 people, besides me [10]. He deletes warnings at once so it's hard to go over his talk page. And he seems that he likes saying he can bring in an administrator [11][12], so any admin opinion would be appreciated.Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Past comments by other users have nothing to do with this situation. Your actions however, do. Manutdglory (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Both of you need to cease the personal attacks and the petty "stop or I'll call mom" rhetoric. Use the article's talk page to work through the content differences, and if necessary, seek the appropriate dispute resolution. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I didnt make any personal attacks against Manutdglory. Feel free to go over post histories. His actions are unwarrented. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I took your advice and went through dispute resolution, creating an entry for Manutdglory in Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
And you were told by administrators that you had no case there either. Manutdglory (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have added a comment in the RfC on this talkpage but do notice some rather contentious editing and comments. I feel uncomfortable warning other users, as a now-involved editor, but would appreciate more eyes on this situation. Whatever has gone on in the past here seems like its boiling up some which likely isn't helping the article. -- Banjeboi 01:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh, and if you don't mind Benji, what exactly are your interests and intentions for the Rick Warren article? A glance over your user page and edit history seems suspicious, based on the profiles of users who have previously caused the article to be fully protected. Manutdglory (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, please wp:Assume good faith. -- Banjeboi 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I have warned Manutdglory regarding continued incivility and failure to assume good faith, especially wrt this edit. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Gerardw made him a suggestion too [13] but he isnt listening: [14] Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it humorous that Phoenix of9 is yet to directly respond to my complaint against him. All his rebuttals seem to have one thing in common - ignoring the issue at hand and attacking me. Yet I am accused of being the one who is uncivil. Interesting. Manutdglory (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks except to say they are irrelevant and that you should comment on content and not on editors. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I suggest you both disengage for a while. Perhaps spend a day improving articles about puppies or lollipops. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
That was the previous suggestion regarding Manutdglory and other editors. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#User:Manutdglory_-_another_issue_of__bad_editor_behavior_connected_with_the_Rick_Warren_article Wikipedia seems quite inefficient. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Please, really, just leave it alone. All of you. Here, this is how easy it is to find other articles to improve. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh btw, theres a RFC in article's talk page in case u wanna discuss the actual content of the article instead of all this drama. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
@Manutdglory: No, it's not interesting, and it's not as you describe. It's a repeat of the sort of situation in which i found myself involved with you a few weeks ago, and although i changed my behavior after going down in flames, you have yet to swerve at all from your choice of behavior. The History pages of the Rick Warren article and of your UserTalk page make this quite painfully obvious. If you don't believe the Rick Warren article is being handled appropriately, i would suggest you consider the course of action which i already recommended on the Discussion Page for that article: let an editor with a Neutral POV write a good draft, and then let other editors discuss whether they are at a concensus with such a draft. Until then, your edits are not helping, your edit-warring on the Discussion page is not helping, and it would seem that you are going to only encourage other novice editors to repeat the same pathway i followed along with you. Perhaps it's time for *YOU* to step away from the article. Teledildonix314 talk 02:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Teledildo, I'm not even going to respond - I'm over it. ZimZalaBim, I'm completely willing to disengage from the article for awhile. Actually, I didn't even participate in the vigorous dialogue on the article's discussion page while the article was fully protected. It was only when Phoenix of9 came out of nowhere last week and began making wholesale changes to the article with absolutely no consensus that I re-engaged with the article to protect it and maintain its neutrality. We'll see if Phoenix of9 is also willing to abide by your request. Manutdglory (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As I reading through old discussions I noticed that you state you're a member of the church,[15], if this is true it may present a conflict of interest. If other editors are causing problems it's likely better to calmly state what you see the issue as and then contact an admin if the problem persists. You're welcome to edit and so are other editors regardless of backgrounds and beliefs. The article neither should be a slam peice nor read like an advertisement and everything is subject to editing so through it all it's better to remain calm and if it's getting heated, take a break. The goal is to improve the article. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a massive difference between having an inconsequential "conflict of interest" (ex. an alum who edits his alma mater's article) yet being able to edit in an unbiased manner by only making reliably-sourced edits (which is what I do) and being an extremely-biased, radical activist who goes around editing articles of people one hates by adding non-NPOV, highly-biased and unreliably-sourced salacious material, which is a gross abuse of Wikipedia policy. Manutdglory (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Manutdglory for 24 hours for repeated incivility towards his fellow editors. He has been repeatedly warned as to this type of behaviour and today alone I count at least three breaches against that warning. I am not sure if that resolves this matter and thus closes the thread - but I note for the record that I am prepared to block as required in regards to this situation (as I have detailed at previous ANI's) if that is the only way to gain and maintain peace at this part/s of the project.--VS talk 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've archived some of the stale and more heated talkpage discussions and have pushed for an editor who added the POV tag to produce actionable items. There does seem to be a bit of tension there but it has slowed down. Let's hope dialog stays constructive. -- Banjeboi 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at the page of Cher[edit]

Wildhartlivie reinserts unreferenced sales-figures to the article of Cher [16],[17] claiming (in edit summary) that "dead links" simply need to be replaced; in fact, the very statement which he seems to be quite protective of has been there with the same dead link for eight months at the least. It's quite difficult to keep pages clean when there are such editors who believe reinserting a material without a source is not against the Wikipedia policy. I'd appreciate if someone could enforce the policy, I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't any discussion about this; the last talk page comment was Dec 9th by an anon. Maybe you should bring it on talk? Or bring it up with the editor on their talk page? :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Wellllllll, I was unaware that reinserting improperly removed material was being disruptive. I was also unaware thata sales figure which has a reference, albeit a dead one, qualified as contentious material or unsourced. In fact, keeping the sales figure, with the dead link note, is exactly what is indicated by WP:DEADREF, which says Deactivate the dead link, and keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions. The statement is not unsourced and it is improper to flatly remove a statement and the supporting, albeit dead, reference. I'm well aware of when the dead link tag was placed at the ref, I was the one who did it, and it wasn't 8 months ago at least. Although a fresh source needs to be found, the content isn't contentious or disputed, unless of course, Harout72 is disputing it.
As an aside, the other statements Harout72 makes are a bit of bad faith: "I have a feeling that he might start edit warring with me if I tried to remove it again." Bad faith. I spend a great deal of time policing this, and other, articles to maintain "cleanliness", thank you very much. My edits are 4th on the contributor list for the article at 151 while the person complaining here has made 7 edits, all in the last 9 days. I'm not sure how that equates to attempts to keep the article clean. In any case, retention of this statement is well in keeping with Wikipedia policy as were my edits regarding it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Talk to them first. Don't assume people are aware of the larger context, debates, whatever. You know, generally just assume good faith? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to keep a dead link since July 2008? If a replacement hasn't been located yet, perhaps, it's because no reliable source ever wished to get engaged in publishing such an illogical figure for Cher's single "Believe". Wildhartlivie seems to have covered everything that WP:DEADREF speaks of except for the three final key-lines which clearly explain what needs to be done in case a substitute source is not found: If a dead link cannot be repaired or replaced, consider reworking the article section so that it no longer relies on the dead link. Whether a dead link can or cannot be repaired or replaced, remember that Wikipedia policy (including policy on sources and biographies of living persons) still applies. Consider doing further edits of the citation and cited material, if appropriate, to improve the article. In addition, the original article which supposedly came from this web site cannot even be regarded as reliable as alike sources are known for inflating record-sales to draw the attention of readers.--Harout72 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thom Hatch[edit]

An editor who may be the subject of the Thom Hatch article has used 5 IPs and one new named account to revert to a spammy version of the article 8 times in the past 24 hours (against 5 6 other editors). They will not discuss or use edit summaries, and even filed a fake report on a user[18] and then vandalized that user's page.[19] Could someone semi-protect the page and try to talk some sence into this person? NJGW (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
It says something about my watchlist if I can't even keep my own pages from being vandalized... time to clean :) Thanks for the revert. - Jameson L. Tai talkguestbookcontribs 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock puppetry at SPLC; actual evidence rather than supposition[edit]

There was no admin response to my initial vague query, so I did a little more digging with regard to what's been going on:

  • Dooteyr's very first six edits were to jump into SPLC Talk with a long commentary on why a source critical of SPLC is inappropriate. I partially agree with him, and change it so that it's attributed it as opinion and not fact. He later removes the source entirely. I revert and explain on Talk.
  • Spotfixer's first edit at SPLC or SPLC Talk is to restore Dooteyr's Mainspace edit and say in the edit summary that he agrees. I revert and explain on Talk.
  • Tom/North_Shoreman jumps in right after and reverts again, claiming "see discussion page where it appears to be one editor versus everybody else". It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while, but It's entirely plausible this was opportunistic rather than coordinated.
  • BBiiis08 adds edits primarily to agree with the others or join in removing criticism; one being to simply echo Tom/NS's wording on the abovesaid source.

  • Dooteyr, created last week, demonstrates advanced knowledge of policies and tools almost immediately. After 21 edits on SPLC and on a creationist's page over two days, he disappears.
  • Spotfixer, created not quite three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily in creation/evolution, gay rights, and abortion.
  • BBiiis08, created a little over three months ago, demonstrated advanced knowledge of tools with his first edit. He edits heavily on creation/evolution and creationists, SPLC / Morris Dees, and televangelists.
  • Tom/North_Shoreman dates back to 2006, almost all of it in the Civil War and none in religious issues that I found, though the huge number of edits he's made may have obscured it. To me that makes it seem much less likely he's directly tied in, but I'm not sure.
  • My actual guess as to the original sock farmer would be Ramdrake, who didn't weigh in until later (with the Westboro Baptist Church edit referenced in my original query here). He was editing heavily in creation/evolution near his start in 2006 and has spent some time on religious issues, but of late spends almost all his time on race. He got dinged twice in late 2006 for 3RR; my nastily cynical mind speculates that he "learned" how to get around it. In an equally nastily-cynical vein, he's made several tweaks to WP:Tag team. As examples, this one and this one changed wording to soften criticism of tag-teamers and make it harder to assert that tag-teaming has occurred. arimareiji (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji, please by all means request an RFCU on me. But when it turns out that all these users are actually different users, I will expect you to back down and admit that this is just you battling consensus and common sense interpretation of policy to push your POV.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This is pure harassment and an attempt to intimidate. Two of the alleged sockpuppets (each of whom has over six times as many edits as Arimareiji) have here [20] and here [21] have invited Arimareiji to pursue an RFC on the underlying issue (Arimareiji’s attempt to have a Talk Radio host treated as a reliable source). Instead, we get this second attempt after his first one was ignored by administrators.
His claim about my January 21 edit (“It was his first edit at SPLC in quite a while”) is false -- I actually made an edit on January 15 here [22] when I noted that sourced material I had added had disappeared. Unlike Arimareiji, I actually have conducted research and added sourced material to the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
My mistake with regard to timing; I didn't see you appear on the talk page and I missed that one while scrolling through the thousands of edits you've made (I looked and that one was something like #250ish-most recent). The first one I saw was over six months ago, but it obviously was not the next most recent. I've struck through my errant assertion. But I fully stand by my other assertions. Your ad hominem aspersions don't change the edit histories of those accounts, which contain severalfold more examples than the few links I made.
Ramdrake - if that's the appropriate forum, I will. I believed that the guidelines given at SPI indicated that this should be brought here first for review. arimareiji (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Addendum, though I won't further discuss it (it's tangential) - whether or not Smith is a talk radio host, the source being struck was a newspaper opinion editorial. arimareiji (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

(Tangent: anyone interested in jumping in, "SPLC" is now a dab page; the dispute is over content at Southern Poverty Law Center. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't see the sockpuppetry links here; just because a group of people who work on similar articles - while working on others as well - are engaged in a debate over a certain article with another group of people doesn't mean that they're socks of one another. I'd be stunned if Ramdrake were socking, considering how long he's been around and his extensive editing interests; it wouldn't make sense. If you really feel that you have the evidence to back up a sock investigation, have at it. As for the opinion piece that seems to be the source of the concern, it's definitely a partisan affair, and thus I'd be hesitant to consider it a reasonable source, myself. All in all, I think this is better dealt with through an RFC at this point - not much here for admins to get involved with. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say about this. I don't know if he's malicious or just clueless. Maybe clueless, because the link given as my first edit isn't even my edit. In fact, I don't think I've ever edited that article. Oh, and he thinks I'm a guy, which should be proof enough that he doesn't own a clue. I think I'm just going to laugh this off. Spotfixer (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
You're correct, my mistake in mixing up your two edit histories. I've struck it through. arimareiji (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Arimareiji, it's better to make a case based on policy if you want items added or removed. The accusation is that I'm a puppet is for agreeing with North Shoreman (I didn't even edit the article in this dispute)? Please. An editorial of a non-expert calling a civil rights organization a "sham" does not belong in the aricle. Your grasping at straws.
Also Spotfixer's first ever edit was not on the SPLC. Look it up. The editors first edit was on Talk:Abortion in November. I suggest you get your facts right before accusing people of puppets. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
PS When we get done with Arimareiji's accusations can we talk about Arimareiji's motives in the the SPLC article? He wants to add an editorial by a conservative talk radio host (who calls the group and hate laws a "scam") to a group he considers "commies" and Arimareiji "will tenaciously defend the honor of his Confederate ancestors," presumably on the SPLC article who is critical of the neo-Confederates. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, your account edit histories aren't changed by ad hominem attacks on me, much less flatly-false ones. Your accusations of "neo-Confederacy" are based on Spotfixer's accusations wrt L0b0t - not me. And I'm not going to address your mischaracterization of Smith to try to prove your "neo-Confederate" accusation; that would belong on SPLC Talk. Finally, I never said Spotfixer's first-ever edit was on SPLC (though I did refer to the first edit he made at SPLC).
I've struck through the two errors Tom and Spot pointed out, but nothing you've said points out an error. arimareiji (talk) 05:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
At this point, your accusations are not merely implausible but increasingly irrelevant. You're claiming that everyone who disagrees with you must be a single diabolical person, when the reality is that you want to do something that is so obviously wrong that it's uniformly unpopular. I think you'd do well to stop spinning conspiracy theories and empty accusations, instead focusing on why it is that nobody wants to let you make those changes. All you're doing now is undermining your own credibility. How is that going to help you? Spotfixer (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, your edit histories aren't changed by repeated ad hominem attacks on me. If you're objecting above to the use of the word "your," please note that in English there's no alternate plural I could use - "your" serves as both singular and plural. Whether the same is true for French, I can't say. arimareiji (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
As in English, vous in French is used as singular or plural. In English, once upon a time, you was plural and thou was singular but that was 400 years ago. When I have informal need for a second-person plural-possessive in English, I say/write y'all's :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for anon-only range block to stop long-running vandalism[edit]

Resolved

An IP editor using a dynamic address starting with 202.37.68.x has been adding large numbers of false claims to articles on Philippino foreign relations and military history since last April. The editor's vandalism typically involves adding lists of weapons which they falsely claim that the Philippine military uses (eg, [23] - one of dozens of examples), adding imaginary battles involving US and Australian forces in the Philippines in the last few years (eg, [24] and [25] - this is a mild example), adding imaginary Philippino embassies and false claims of alliances between the Phillipines and various nations (eg, [26]). The editor has also added similar material to articles on other South East Asian countries (eg, [27]). The vandal also occasionally edits from addresses starting with 118.92.x, but these vary too much to be range blockable. I have been blocking this vandal everytime they appear and lodged an abuse report in November (Wikipedia:Abuse reports/202.37.68.x and 118.92.x) but this has not been actioned and the vandal is continuing their activities most days using a different IP address each time. 202.37.68.x IP addresses used for this vandalism since last November and the date I blocked them for this include:

I notified the relevant Wikiproject of this vandalism in September and was informed that this vandal is also active on the Tagalog Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Archive18#persistent IP vandal)). The IP addresses were traced to New Zealand.

As this is an ongoing and serious problem and the abuse request has gone nowhere, I would like to request that anonymous editing from IP addresses starting with 202.37.68.x be blocked for at least a few weeks to stop this vandal. I have not seen any legitimate IP edits from these addresses, so there's no real likelihood of legitimate editors being blocked. I am an admin, and would do this myself if I knew how. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A list of all anon editors active on 202.37.68.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) in the past several months follows:
202.37.68.0/24

  1. 202.37.68.20 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  2. 202.37.68.29 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  3. 202.37.68.126 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  4. 202.37.68.96 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  5. 202.37.68.78 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  6. 202.37.68.50 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  7. 202.37.68.23 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  8. 202.37.68.41 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  9. 202.37.68.82 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  10. 202.37.68.37 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  11. 202.37.68.119 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  12. 202.37.68.83 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  13. 202.37.68.87 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  14. 202.37.68.109 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  15. 202.37.68.14 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  16. 202.37.68.94 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  17. 202.37.68.76 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  18. 202.37.68.40 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  19. 202.37.68.1 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  20. 202.37.68.85 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  21. 202.37.68.92 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  22. 202.37.68.36 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  23. 202.37.68.107 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  24. 202.37.68.74 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  25. 202.37.68.30 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  26. 202.37.68.118 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  27. 202.37.68.68 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  28. 202.37.68.123 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  29. 202.37.68.59 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  30. 202.37.68.115 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  31. 202.37.68.55 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  32. 202.37.68.33 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  33. 202.37.68.91 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  34. 202.37.68.66 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  35. 202.37.68.111 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  36. 202.37.68.101 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  37. 202.37.68.18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log))
  38. 202.37.68.117 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs ·