Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Need review of page history block[edit]

Block was appropriate. More details have been posted on the article's talk page. Sparkie82 (tc) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: E Ink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

About half of the page history of this article has been blocked and there is little to explain why. There are a couple of edits near the last blocked edit[1] which indicate that there may have been a copyright violation and there is a link to an OTRS page at wikimedia[2], however, the linked page says that the ticket was accidentally deleted. There is nothing on the talk page about it.

The article was recommended for merger around the time of removal/block, and the edit comments indicate that a large amount of material was removed. I'd like an admin to: 1)review what happened; 2)if the page history still needs a block, please add a note to the talk page about the reason for the block and if it was a copyvio, include the source of the copyvio material so that editors can use that source to help expand the article. Thank you. Sparkie82 (tc) 05:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the very earliest blocked revisions (indeed, the first edits to the article after it was merged to E Ink Corporation) and it did read suspiciously like a corporate product description, but I could find no exact text match. I can't view OTRS tickets, so I messaged User:Moonriddengirl who performed the revision-hiding action. Hopefully she can answer your concerns. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 08:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
According to the article's listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 May 26, the copyvio was from http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/electronic-paper-display--epd-.html The complaint was from the site owners. Apparently there have been multiple articles (dozens) with plagiarized material copied from that site into Wikipedia, all of which are listed on that page. Just a few examples: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I suspect there's a lot more copy-paste from this website all over Wikipedia. Those were just the ones that made it to the article talk pages and/or have been discovered. Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore. :) I've added {{cclean}} to the article's talk page; looks like that step was omitted when the content was removed, although I've spot-checked some of the others from that day and find the tag there (1, 2, 3). I assume this one was an oversight. FWIW, not all of the material the IP pasted was from whatis; some of it was from the official site, which we also can't use. The link is on the talk page now along with the official complainant's. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that and thanks MRG for placing the tag. That article was part of one busy day.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
As the handler of the OTRS ticket in question I will just note here that Voceditenore is correct in the interpretation of the situation. – Adrignola talk 12:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sparkie82 (tc) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Abusive and Persistent IP Stalker[edit]

81.156.191.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
81.156.191.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
86.154.7.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Repeatedly posting abuse [8],[9] and[10]. Going through my contribution history and just reverting all my edits [11]. Its stopped being funny, could I request a range block please as he appears to be IP hopping. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the latest, the data set is a little small for a rangeblock at the moment, but if they keep coming from the 81.156.191.x range, it would be eminently feasible. Acroterion (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
81.156.191.208/28 would be a better range block should there be more problems from this range (81.156.191.208-81.156.191.223). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one, very similar style: 86.154.7.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Kahastok talk 19:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, there is no effective rangeblock possible with these ranges. The actual range is actually /10 or /8 and spans multiple /10 or /8 ranges. Elockid (Talk) 21:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Permablock for disruptive IP?[edit]

After returning from a 4 month block, looks like 58.147.235.216 is at it again with the same disruptive anti-semitic edits[12],[13]. Note that 125.193.106.3 appears to be a sock. Is a perma-block for both IPs now in order? --Nug (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect attribution[edit]

Cut and paste move histmerged. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Hi! Apologies in advance if this is the wrong forum for this. While looking at the articles I've created, I noticed the inclusion of Til_da_Sun_Come_Up, an article I did not create. Researching the issue further, I'm pretty sure it resulted from a copy and paste from a redirect created from a move I did, rather than a proper move that preserves attribution. Basically something to do with this article and this one. I have no idea how to fix this (or if an admin is actually necessary to do so), so any help would be appreciated. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the cutpaste move by history-merging both to Til da Sun Come Up. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Does a tool exist...[edit]

I recently closed this CFD where there was clear consensus to mark the categories as hidden, as well as rename them. I was about to start doing this, but I wondered, is there a bot that could take care of this so I don't have to spend a couple hours manually hiding and moving several hundred categories? Thanks. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You're probably looking for WP:CFDW, where Cydebot (talk · contribs) would create the new categories, populating them while emptying out the old ones, and delete them once emptied. — ξxplicit 23:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess that does make it a little easier...I still have to go in and add each category manually to the bot page, then manually edit each category to include {{Wikipedia category}}. Oh well, I guess that's why we have humans here on Wikipedia! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article[edit]

See [14] with the edit summary "Adding real content about actions which troll who govern this page would prefer not to allow. Removing ongoing POV vandalism". The editor User:Reinventor098, who's only contributions have been in relation to TZM, or related articles, has been repeatedly [15][16] told (see also Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and of course Special:Contributions/Reinventor098 - particularly the edit summaries) that such false accusations of 'vandalism' [17] are uncalled for, and must stop. The fundamental problem is that TZM supporters are trying to spin the article their way, and adding questionable material sourced solely to their own organisation. Given the fairly obvious sock/meatpuppetry that has been going on in relation to the article, I doubt that a simple block or topic ban is going to solve the problem. Administrator action is clearly necessary regarding Reinventor098's actions, but I think we will also have to consider wider measures concerning the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking anyone would help as I expect socks to appear in fairly short order. From their actions, I don't think they really care too much about our policies, just getting their POV in the article. Semi protection won't help as several of the SPA's are confirmed. Maybe a month of full protection to force the use of the talk page? If they get used to using the talk page, maybe they'd continue after the protection. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, they seem to consider the talk page as an ideal place to make accusations of 'vandalism' - so I'm not sure that would help much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, but I'd rather there than deal with the continual reverts. Full protection + some polite but direct warnings from someone totally uninvolved might get the point across to them and if not, short blocks for civility as needed. More than anything, it's the reverting of their POV and minutia that's tiring to me. As long as they don't get too personal on their comments, calling anything they don't like vandalism is something I consider annoying but expected. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I must be one of those "trolls who govern this page". There is certainly a problem with single-purpose POV editing here. Users Reinventor098 (talk · contribs) and Voiceofreason467 (talk · contribs) have concrtrated almost exclusively on this topic and have very similar styles and points of view, although VOR has disclaimed any connection [18] . Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out here Cusop that I have not in large actually claimed false forms of accusations whenever their would be edits that are not what I would like to be done. [For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Joseph#Is_this_a_worthy_source_to_say_he_is_P.J._Merola.3F]. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are obvious that I tend to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#WP:Manual_of_Style.2FBiographies.23First_mention [my comment is at bottom]. For those wondering about my bias in editing, you should see my comment I made here:

" * Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Joseph_%282nd_nomination%29

So my bias and my accusations are not baseless and I do have good reasons for them being such. I just did not realize that Wikipedia had such an internal method to use and I will use that from now on. It was pointed out to me so as such I was simply in mistake. Oh and for the record, my contributions have been relied upon since 2008 for those wondering.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article was just reverted with the only explanation provided being: Removing Anti-TZM Troll reversion. Editor still reluctant to engage the troll hordes on the talk page
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would concur with you Ankh, calling what was edited as a troll edit is completely uncalled for. I mean I think the edit of inserting the word cult into the article would be trollish, but that is obvious, the edit that AndyTheGrump did was not trollish and I have no course other than to say the person is engaging in a false accusation, probably based on a personal grudge.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that the edit-warring is continuing, with both Reinventor098 and an IP making yet further massive reverts: [19][20]. As for my comment about cults, that was made on the talk page, in response to a personal attack - I have at no time suggested that the article should describe TZM as a cult (we'd need a third-party reliable source, for a start). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good grief - it's getting worse with IP's and new SPA's coming out. At this point, I think protecting the article in a non-POV version and going from there is about the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's protected now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally registered[edit]

Alas, no can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So I finally registered a username. I edited extensively as an IP and am wondering if there is any way to salvage my history. Old IPs were:

  • 76.18.43.253
  • 98.203.99.251

Thanks --Sinophobe (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can view the edits made by those IPs via 76.18.43.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.203.99.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), however it is not possible to merge accounts and their editing histories. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Verification of a source[edit]

I'd like a neutral party to verify a Romanian source used in the article about Iosif Constantin Drăgan. I opened a discussion on the matter, thinking that I might remove the paragraph myself, but user:dahn--who suspects me of being a permabanned user (he didn't elaborate)--claimed that I was stalking him. I haven't touched the article, fearing it could lead to an edit war. Maybe you guys could ask a Romanian speaker to take a quick look on the article and see if the paragraph in question corresponds to its source. Thanks in advance! --Defetistul (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally recommend user:Biruitorul to review the source, since his judgment can be trusted. I don't know how he would feel about that, though. --Defetistul (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Have no idea of the history here. I had a look at the source article, it appears to correspond to the edit. However this new user's first edit summary was User:Defetistul ‎ (←Created page with 'In Dahn We Trust.') ... Draw your own conclusions.... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that I like Dahn and I appreciate his work. As for the source, are you certain you have read the article? Do you speak Romanian? Where in that article does it state anything about protochronism? --Defetistul (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Defetistul as an obvious, more or less self-admitted ([21]) sock of somebody. I don't really know who the sockmaster is, but I trust Dahn when he says it's obvious for people who know the backstory here. Perhaps Dahn could confirm who it is. Fut.Perf. 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeated false accusations of 'vandalism' etc at The Zeitgeist Movement article[edit]

See [22] with the edit summary "Adding real content about actions which troll who govern this page would prefer not to allow. Removing ongoing POV vandalism". The editor User:Reinventor098, who's only contributions have been in relation to TZM, or related articles, has been repeatedly [23][24] told (see also Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement, and of course Special:Contributions/Reinventor098 - particularly the edit summaries) that such false accusations of 'vandalism' [25] are uncalled for, and must stop. The fundamental problem is that TZM supporters are trying to spin the article their way, and adding questionable material sourced solely to their own organisation. Given the fairly obvious sock/meatpuppetry that has been going on in relation to the article, I doubt that a simple block or topic ban is going to solve the problem. Administrator action is clearly necessary regarding Reinventor098's actions, but I think we will also have to consider wider measures concerning the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure blocking anyone would help as I expect socks to appear in fairly short order. From their actions, I don't think they really care too much about our policies, just getting their POV in the article. Semi protection won't help as several of the SPA's are confirmed. Maybe a month of full protection to force the use of the talk page? If they get used to using the talk page, maybe they'd continue after the protection. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, they seem to consider the talk page as an ideal place to make accusations of 'vandalism' - so I'm not sure that would help much. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup, but I'd rather there than deal with the continual reverts. Full protection + some polite but direct warnings from someone totally uninvolved might get the point across to them and if not, short blocks for civility as needed. More than anything, it's the reverting of their POV and minutia that's tiring to me. As long as they don't get too personal on their comments, calling anything they don't like vandalism is something I consider annoying but expected. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I must be one of those "trolls who govern this page". There is certainly a problem with single-purpose POV editing here. Users Reinventor098 (talk · contribs) and Voiceofreason467 (talk · contribs) have concrtrated almost exclusively on this topic and have very similar styles and points of view, although VOR has disclaimed any connection [26] . Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out here Cusop that I have not in large actually claimed false forms of accusations whenever their would be edits that are not what I would like to be done. [For example see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Joseph#Is_this_a_worthy_source_to_say_he_is_P.J._Merola.3F]. Accusations of vandalism and trolling are obvious that I tend to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Acharya_S#WP:Manual_of_Style.2FBiographies.23First_mention [my comment is at bottom]. For those wondering about my bias in editing, you should see my comment I made here:

" * Weak Keep - Considering that another article titled The Zeitgeist Movement has been suggested to be merged with this one I would imagine that it would be best to keep it. Especially considering that this might even be a method of trying to get both articles removed. I myself am not opposed to the issue of merging that article with this one, but if we are to do so... it might be a good idea to keep this one. To be honest though, the notability is a bit lacking at any rate about the person in question (even though I would disagree, but my disagreement is based on personal opinion, and thus has no place for dispute).Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Joseph_%282nd_nomination%29

So my bias and my accusations are not baseless and I do have good reasons for them being such. I just did not realize that Wikipedia had such an internal method to use and I will use that from now on. It was pointed out to me so as such I was simply in mistake. Oh and for the record, my contributions have been relied upon since 2008 for those wondering.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Article was just reverted with the only explanation provided being: Removing Anti-TZM Troll reversion. Editor still reluctant to engage the troll hordes on the talk page
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I would concur with you Ankh, calling what was edited as a troll edit is completely uncalled for. I mean I think the edit of inserting the word cult into the article would be trollish, but that is obvious, the edit that AndyTheGrump did was not trollish and I have no course other than to say the person is engaging in a false accusation, probably based on a personal grudge.Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note that the edit-warring is continuing, with both Reinventor098 and an IP making yet further massive reverts: [27][28]. As for my comment about cults, that was made on the talk page, in response to a personal attack - I have at no time suggested that the article should describe TZM as a cult (we'd need a third-party reliable source, for a start). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Good grief - it's getting worse with IP's and new SPA's coming out. At this point, I think protecting the article in a non-POV version and going from there is about the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's protected now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally registered[edit]

Alas, no can do. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So I finally registered a username. I edited extensively as an IP and am wondering if there is any way to salvage my history. Old IPs were:

  • 76.18.43.253
  • 98.203.99.251

Thanks --Sinophobe (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

You can view the edits made by those IPs via 76.18.43.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 98.203.99.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), however it is not possible to merge accounts and their editing histories. WilliamH (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Verification of a source[edit]

I'd like a neutral party to verify a Romanian source used in the article about Iosif Constantin Drăgan. I opened a discussion on the matter, thinking that I might remove the paragraph myself, but user:dahn--who suspects me of being a permabanned user (he didn't elaborate)--claimed that I was stalking him. I haven't touched the article, fearing it could lead to an edit war. Maybe you guys could ask a Romanian speaker to take a quick look on the article and see if the paragraph in question corresponds to its source. Thanks in advance! --Defetistul (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would personally recommend user:Biruitorul to review the source, since his judgment can be trusted. I don't know how he would feel about that, though. --Defetistul (talk) 01:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Have no idea of the history here. I had a look at the source article, it appears to correspond to the edit. However this new user's first edit summary was User:Defetistul ‎ (←Created page with 'In Dahn We Trust.') ... Draw your own conclusions.... In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that I like Dahn and I appreciate his work. As for the source, are you certain you have read the article? Do you speak Romanian? Where in that article does it state anything about protochronism? --Defetistul (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Defetistul as an obvious, more or less self-admitted ([29]) sock of somebody. I don't really know who the sockmaster is, but I trust Dahn when he says it's obvious for people who know the backstory here. Perhaps Dahn could confirm who it is. Fut.Perf. 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandlisim and slander being repeated[edit]

BLP-offending material has been hidden, anon user warned.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 10:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Slander about a third party is being posted on the American Digger page. It has been removed twice in three days by those who monitor it, but was reposted. Here is one view of the coments, calling a former employee a fraud and fake. It was not posted by anyone with any knowledge of such things nor connected with the magazine, but purely as a revenge tactic against the person slandered, Ric Savage. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Digger_(magazine)&diff=485402608&oldid=485279098 Even though we are 99% dertain who it is, we can not prove it. If it is the person we suspect, we have warned them before about slander and such abuse. Can this action be stopped and the poster either warned again or blocked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.124.165 (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke[edit]

Topic-ban enacted: banned from all edits on the subjects of colonialism and Indian history. Fut.Perf. 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)