Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive94

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

Noticeboard archives


Organized campain to remove Thiruvananthapuram from India related sites[edit]

Please note the political maps of india related sites. Some group of users(Ravikiran r , SwiftRakesh etc) selectively remove Thiruvananthapuram and add Kochi in the region even after the repeated corrections.This is to create a false impression that Kochi is the capital or prominent city in the state.

Thiruvananthapuram is the capial(also largest) city of Kerala and is the Educational & RD center of the state. It houses VSSC,ISRO like space organisations and also head quarters of southern aircommand.It will be the headquarters of newly forming aerospace command.

All the official maps give prominance to Thiruvananthapuram look at some of the most popular official sites I take example of Railways & Airport sites.

see what railways say 'FACILITIES OF TOP CITIES' at, they consider only Thiruvananthapuram from the state.CHENNAI ,MUMBAI ,PUNE ,NEW NELHI ,HYDERABAD ,KOLKATA ,BANGLORE ,TRIVANDRUM are included .

Also please like many ones

Please do some thing to stop this venegance against thiruvananthapuram by a group(looks like they are promoted by a Kochi based lobby)

Also please look at India talk page--Sathyalal 17:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of changes? Link us diffs, please. --Golbez 21:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Line 115: Line 116:

==Politics==  ==Politics==

- [[image:IndiaMapUpdated.GIF|thumb|270px|Map of India.

and [[image:IndiaMap2.PNG|thumb|270px --Sathyalal 06:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As an observer, I just want to comment that the image IndiaMap2.png was the existing image which Sathyalal (talk · contribs) replaced with his version IndiaMapUpdated.GIF against consensus, as seen in Talk:India. He then went on revert-warring with others and was blocked for 3RR. This is a content dispute, and a current discussion thread is there in Talk:India which relates to this. Thanks. --Ragib 07:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I admit that being a new user I tried to change the ambiguous information in the map without knowing the 3rr rule. Sorry for the same. But that is not an excuse to keep a wrong data there. The specified map with ambiguous information was created by the same people who maligned information in Thiruvananthapuram and Kerala sites. Finally the admin has corrected the information in those sites. Talk:Kerala
So I would like to request the admin to give justice after verifying the facts. --Sathyalal 10:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Can I make a suggestion? This has popped up here a few times now, and it's not really the appropriate place, it's a dispute over facts rather than something requiring admin intervention. You should sort out a request for comment on the subject, to get some outside views. If, once you've had some neutral parties look at the subject, certain individuals persist in changing things contrary to consensus, bring it back here. --ajn (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Andrew, That is where exact the problems is. If no consensus is reached the ambiguous information will be there for ever and that is what one set of people need. So if some body is in a compromise mood, then they should be willing to put both the cities in the map or remove both. That is why we need admin intervention --Sathyalal 11:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's why you need an RFC as a first step. Get some people who don't live in southern India to look at the situation, and see what they think (I'll have a look myself). Or try for formal mediation, but I'd go for an RFC first. If it's clear that partisans of one city are being unreasonable, outsiders with no axe to grind will be able to see that, and the situation can then be resolved, by admin action if necessary. --ajn (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew , Thanks for the help --Sathyalal 16:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A troublemaker from Serbian Broadband (SBB)[edit]

I noticed yesterday that an anon from IP had removed a number of tags from List of legendary kings of Britain, Table of Chinese monarchs, History of Oman, List of Vietnamese dynasties, and Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia with no explanation. I cleaned up, & did a reverse lookup of the IP number: it appears to be a dialup in Belgrade served by Serbian Broadband (SBB). I thought about a 24-hour ban, but since the addressing was dynamic & there was reasonable doubt that said user was a vandal (could just be some young kid discovering that, yes, he could edit Wikipedia), I let this slide.

Took another look today, & another SBB dialup IP ( reverted all of these changes. Moreover, Francis Schonken left a 3RR warning on this user's talk page. A bit of study of Rulers and heads of state of Ethiopia shows similar edits from IP (both also resolving to dialups in Belgrade). Obviously banning IP numbers won't work here, but we need to educate this person somehow. -- llywrch 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From my talk:
Hi -- I noticed that you blocked this anon editor for 8 hours. Would you consider reducing this block to half an hour or an hour? For reasons that I explain at WP:AN/I, I suspect that a ban of more than half an hour will be counterproductive: it won't stop this person, but will likely block good-faith editors in Belgrade, Serbia. Thanks, llywrch 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems better to answer here. Answer: I don't know. So I'm not going to do anything myself, other than release this block into the care of anyone who wants it, with freedom to reduce it if you think its appropriate William M. Connolley 21:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... no-one took me up on that. And now he anon has a 24h block for the same behaviour. William M. Connolley 15:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't act on your offer because (1) I knew I would be away from my computer for several hours, & would be unable to monitor the situation if I reduced the period of this ban; & (2) you had stated here that you had no problem if another admin removed the block if it affected another contributor. So far, all this guy appears to be interested in is removing templates on 3 of these 5 articles -- & not communicating. I expect him to pop up at another SBB IP address soon, though. -- llywrch 15:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:RabinicLawyer and Something Awful related articles[edit]

This user, RabinicLawyer (talk · contribs) seems to have registered an account to AfD everything in Category:Something Awful. [1] --waffle iron talk 23:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

TrollHistorian (talk · contribs) seems to be working in concert or a sockpuppet. He is registered a couple days before Rabinic and has only made edits related to his AfDs. --waffle iron talk 23:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Mmm. I was about to point out that nominating articles for deletion requires an account, and therefore creating an account to nominate articles for deletion is perfectly logical. But the possible sock changes things. That said, the few nominations I looked at (it's late) look as if they could go either way even if there isn't WP:POINT or sockpuppetry going on. I think the AfDs should be left to run their course, bearing in mind that as new users TrollHistorian and RabinicLawyer could both be discounted by closing admins as new users. I've left a {{newvoter}} message on TrollHistorian's page. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
RabinicLawyer (April 23) has an even younger account than TrollHistorian (April 17). --waffle iron talk 23:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Curval (talk · contribs) seems to be another sockpuppet or friend. Registered less than an hour ago. --waffle iron talk 23:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Might I point out that waffle iron is a member of the SomethingAwful forums, as such is biased towards these articles. Historically SomethingAwful forums members are virtually militant in leaving their "mark" on the internet, such as Wikipedia articles, forum vandalism and others. All of the articles I nominated for deletion are articles that could be easily merged into the Something Awful or Something Awful Forums articles, thereby reducing the amount of unnecessary cruft. RabinicLawyer 00:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call us militant at leaving our mark on anything. I'd say you are strongly misguided. Are you a permabanned user, perhaps, who thinks SA has misled you in some way? --Liface 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If you thing something should be merged, use the merge process described in WP:MERGE, and not AfD. AfD is for things you want deleted, not merged. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Being a member of a group doesn't invalidate all the work I've done on Wikipedia or reduce my objectivity. --waffle iron talk 00:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your objectivity. I'm questioning whether or not the articles are encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the SAclopedia or whatever they call it. Wikipedia is supposed to be a valid source of information about topics that are encyclopedic. Would Encylopaedia Brittanica print an article on Richard Kyanka or Jeff K.? Also, might I note that you left a snipy message on my talk page about how my name is supposedly spelled wrong... doesn't that suggest you have malicious intent? RabinicLawyer 00:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it does not. Read WP:AGF please. --Golbez 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And my keep votes are resulting in IM harassment from socks, at least one admitting to be RabinicLawyer. All the messages are the same: "STOP BEING SO GOONY GOON GOON LOL HY," and came from at least two dozen screennames. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 23:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
RabinicLawyer is my friend. I don't see why this is a problem. My opinions and votes are my own. Badlydrawnjeff and William Graham before you go tattling sockpuppets on people maybe you should confront them first. --TrollHistorian 00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
This is typical behaviour of members of Something Awful whenever they feel their "mark" on the internet is threatened. They go off and cry to an administrator because people aren't being fair. RabinicLawyer 00:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Your attitude is not helping things whatsoever. I direct you to read WP:AGF, and take note that meatpuppetry is almost as discouraged as sockpuppetry, and this may be considered when counting votes. --Golbez 00:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Golbez) Thank you for confirming that you are operating with a vendetta against Something Awful. Also, mind WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Even if the two of you are telling the truth, your identical voting patterns makes you meatpuppets, which about as bad. JoshuaZ 00:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, let's talk about all the Goons who are voting for the same thing... doesn't that make them meatpuppets since they area all voting based on groupthink? RabinicLawyer 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Attacking people for legitimately voting their opinions here and on the AfD pages is abusive. Please be civil. Meatpuppets are friends or family members or coworkers you drag in to participating in a WP debate despite not having been active before. It's clear that your friends/family members/coworkers are getting involved; whether they were dragged in or not, and whether they were previously active in WP or not, are not obviously concludable. People who aren't connected in real life agreeing with something does not, by definition, become meatpuppetry.
It is generally contentious whenever anyone starts nominating many like articles for AfD. You should know that if y ou're already AfDing things. Georgewilliamherbert 03:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For others to note, it appears User:Incognito and User:TrollHistorian are voting on all the articles User:RabinicLawyer has nominated for AfD, and are not just interested in removing SA-cruft. This is evidenced by all parties voting in the Silpelit AfD, Incognito was idle for ten days before reappearing to vote in the RabinicLawyer suite of AfDs. Every edit of Curval save one has thus far to agree with all of RabinicLawyer's AfDs. In other words, these are friends of RL who he asked to come on here and support his votes. This is called meatpuppetry, and it is frowned upon. --Golbez 00:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So does that mean we can accuse all goons of meatpuppetry, including yourself? You voted before in articles related to WDMA as well as other SomethingAwful related articles. --TrollHistorian 01:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you might notice I even closed one, the first Kevin Bowen AfD. However, I also had an edit history outside of those AfDs - something you and your cohorts, except Incognito, cannot say. However, I will assume good faith, something you have thus far failed to do, and assume that it's just chums who decided to rally to your call. However, you should note that that is, in fact, the definition of a meatpuppet: "A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in (or influence) one particular vote or area of discussion. ... When used to add force to the arguments of one side in a debate or article, such users and accounts are often described as 'meatpuppets'..."--Golbez 03:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So, when SomethingAwful Goons decide to post on their forums to "hey, vote agains this AfD" or something equivalent, or a group of them mobilize to protect their poorly written, cruft-filled articles, that isn't meat puppetry? Because it certainly sounds like it to me RabinicLawyer 03:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
We already had accounts. You and your friends didn't. Don't conveniently ignore the first sentence of the definition. We are Wikipedia citizens already, we have nothing to prove. --Golbez 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Golbez, me being idle for 10 days has nothing to do with anything. It simply proves I have a life outside of wikipedia, simply checking my edit history would prove I am not a meat puppet. I just agree that these articles are worthless. incog 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Golbez 03:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Many articles have had AfD headings removed, as well my talk page has been filled with rude and obscene commentaries. This suggests bad intent to me. RabinicLawyer 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I warned the person who did it. --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have been informed that a thread on the Something Awful general forums was posted about the AfDs. This suggests more bad faith to me, since they attempted to use meatpuppetry to ensure these wikipedia articles were not deleted. I have PDFs of the thread, kindly provided to me by a friend, but I lack anywhere to upload them at present. But the thread was full of people encouraging eachother to vote against deletion of the articles. And again, one the user FlameHead has continued to remove AfD and the category CfD headers. RabinicLawyer 05:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All meatpuppets will be dealt with equally. --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you list which articles
  • you AfD'ed
  • had the AfD notice removed?
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 05:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (not an admin, but interested)
The wikipedia AFD process is fairly resistant to meatpupets.Geni 05:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC) <-- had the CFD header removed <-- had the AfD header removed
I had AFD'd P-P-P-Powerbook, Kevin Bowen, GBStv, Greenlighting hoax, The Laziest Men on Mars, Richard Kyanka, Jeff K. and Cliff Yablonski, most on the basis that they were covered in the Something Awful or Something Awful Forums articles, or referenced obscure fictional characters or referenced obscure personnel of Something Awful.
While my registration date is recent, I have been around wikipedia for quite some time and am aware of how such proceedings work. However, whenever someone "crosses" SomethingAwful users, they tend to get abused and often harassed. So while I am aware of the controversy of AfDing several articles in a shot, I had not expected such militant behaviour from followers of SA RabinicLawyer 05:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You said people who cross SA tend to get abused and harassed... then you say you did not expect such behavior? --Golbez 06:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Found another puppet. (talk · contribs) has only made edits to Rabinic's VfDs. --waffle iron talk 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

3 month block of[edit]

I've just blocked (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) for 3 months for persistent vandalism. The IP doesn't reverse-resolve, but according to whois it belongs to the Perkiomen valley school district. I went through the IP's edit history for this year, and the only remotely useful contribution was a one-line addition to List of fictional airborne castles. I was almost tempted to block them until next year, but decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. A three-month block will last until the end of the school year, and maybe the vandals have grown up or moved on by then.

Of course, if any legitimate editors are affected by the block, it should be shortened. But no-one seems to have complained during the previous two-week block. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still feeling uneasy about a blanket block on an IP that may include hundreds of schools. Typically there were several days between the usual batches of school vandalism (Mar 1, 9, 24, 27, Apr 5, 20, 21, 24, 25), not what I'd call persistent. Are you sure this couldn't be handled with rigorous short-term blocks instead? Femto 11:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes we could. For that matter, we could just revert the edits as they appear and not bother with a block at all. The point of blocking (in general) is that it saves us from having to do that.
According to, the Perkiomen valley school district includes seven schools (4 elementary, 2 middle, 1 high school). The blocked IP is one in a block of 32 addresses allocated to the district. My guess is that it probably serves as a proxy for the student workstations of one school. There's probably a small group of students at that school who have discovered a fun new game they can play between classes on this site called wikipedia dot org. Hopefully they'll grow bored of it over summer. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult. The school where i work shares proxies with many other schools. I regulaly find myself blocked at work, and have to unblock the IP before I can edit. Now these proxies work much like AOL in that I can never be sure which proxy I will be going through at any time. This means that blocking the IP can inconvenience legitimate logged in users (who you cannot know about) and still fail to curb the vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In this case, judging by the histories of the vandalized articles, the IP seems to be static enough. Collateral damage is of course always a risk, but the fact that Hall Monitor's two-week block last months seems to have caused no complaints makes me consider it unlikely. I'll unblock if I'm proven wrong about this, of course. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Linux_User_1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)[edit]

I blocked indef, would someone else take a look at the contribs? Claims to be a bot run by Gastrich, does not smell like Gastrich to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Blanning blocked virtually at the same time I did. Still would appreciate a look at the contribs; does not smell like Gastrich to me. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's not the first. Jolli3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Joey80[edit]

This user moved a large number succession boxes to below the links despite being asked not to by many users. The user then removed all the requests to stop on their talk page and carried on moving them. Arniep 12:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User mikka (t) is blocking innocent registered users from editing the Kven page[edit]

It appears that innocent registered users have been unfairly blocked of editing the Kven page, due to actions by mikka (t).

I ask myself to be immediately unblocked of editing Wikipedia articles and for the above mentioned administrator's rights to block or unblock users to be revoked, please, for the following reasons:

Despite of many pleas for them to do so (on theKven discussion page), the above mentioned user mikka (t) and user Fred-Chess have not provided sources for their claims, which are not - to my knowledge - supported by any known historians and/or other scientists.

Furthermore, users opposing the views of mikka (t) and

Fred-Chess have provided their distinguished sources on the Kven discussion page, and particularly in the Kven text version itself, which Fred chessplayer (now also mikka (t)) keeps reverting into their own text version, which includes their unfounded claims (the given sources do not agree with his views).

Below are just a couple examples of the serious shortcomings of the Kven text version compailed in part by Fred chessplayer, which the user mikka (t) has recently kept reverting to, and which he has now blocked several other users of correcting. While mikka (t) has kept reverting the Kven page to this no-good version by Fred-Chess, he has now blocked other registered users with good records also of reverting to the better text version, where the offered information was correct and where the information kept being backed up my more and more respected and known sources. The following exact quotes given first are from the currently standing Fred chessplayer's Kven text version. Fred chessplayer's claims are followed by correct information which is backed by known historians (the sources offered in Fred chessplayer's text version agree with this correct information, but not with the claims of Fred chessplayer):

1. "Kvens (alternate spellings: Cwen, Kven, Kvæn, Kveeni, Quen) were a historical group of people that lived in the coastal areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, part of today's Finland."

There is a wide concensus among historians, that large areas of today's Northern Sweden, particularly the areas around the Gulf of Bothnia, were also part of the historical Kvenland.
Thus, the historic Kvenland areas are not only "part of today's Finland", but also part of today's Sweden (and - according to many historians - perhaps also part of today's Norway, even parts of today's extreme Northwestern Russia according to some evidence, including historic maps).

2. "Possibly, Kvens referred to all Finnish people. (Suomen historia (History of Finland), page 27, Jouko Vahtola, Professor of Finnish and Scandinavian history. )."

On the above mentioned page, Professor Vahtola does not claim such a thing. He only says that in 870 AD the "Kven" reference made by the Norwegian explorer was - perhaps - ment to refer to Finns in general. He is not discussing there any of the numerous other references to Kvens.
Professor Vahtola himself indeed has - in his various books - made it clear that Kvens are a separate group within the Finnish/Finnic people, and that the term "Kven" - used in various historic texsts - has not referred to the Finnish people in general, but to a historic group/tribe of people. There is a wide concensus about this matter among historians.

3."In literature, the first known occurance of the Kven in the Account of the Viking Othere, a chronicle in the time of King Alfred the Great in the 9th century AD."

According to the distinguished Kven expert, the Professor Emeritus Kyösti Julku, the first reference to the Kven people in literature was made by the Roman historian Gornelius Julius Tacitus in 98 AD.

4."Before the 8th century there are scarsely any remains of the Kvens."

"On the contrary: The archaeological evidence of agricultural settlement on the Finnish side of the Bothnian Gulf is strong before the 9th century, and it gets weaker during the Viking period."

Despite of requests, neither one of the avove mentioned users have provided sources for their claims in this article in question, nor have they answered to the questions about the above mentioned and other shortcomings, misrepresentations and distortions of facts.

Some of the less important peaces of information in the current Kven text is correct, thanks to the contributions by users other than Fred chessplayer or Mikkalai. Much of the current text, however, is not reflecting the opinions of the utmost experts of the Scandinavian and Finnish history, nor does the current information match the views of the sources and references offered on the current Kven page.

On the other hand, the text version of "16:20, 18 April 2006 Ppt" provides valid information with maching distinguished sources and references, including a couple of exact quotes of the wordings by known Kven experts, etc.

Administrators, I the under-signer need to be unblocked immediately, please. I am not an anonomous user, but a proper registered user, and I must not be mixed up with any other users, regardless of what computers they might have used. I ask user mikka (t) to please now proceed and provide ecidence of any wrong doing by me, or otherwise for him to unblock me immediately.

I also ask on the behalf of other Wikipedia users, where in the Wikipedia rules is it prohibited from the users of using two user accounts in Wikipedia. That appears to be the reasoning behind Mikka's blocking strategy in this particular case - - Art Dominique, April 26, 2006 15:38 - -

Note that the post above was made by Digi Wiki (talk · contribs). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Next chapter in the Robsteadman saga[edit]

RobSteadman (talk · contribs) --Clearly an impersonator account. I think it should be indefinately blocked as an impersonator/sockpuppet of Robsteadman (talk · contribs)and the "Very very very strong Support" vote on my RfA should be removed. As far as I'm concerned it's a violation of WP:POINT. The account is also commenting on places that Robsteadman used to: Talk:Jesus, Talk:Jesus-Myth etc. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll jump off a cliff if this turns into the next Willy on wheels. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
He's indefblocked by me, and sockpuppet notice has been placed on the userpage. --Syrthiss 13:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
If someone more versed in wikisyntax than I would strike that vote I'd appreciate it. I burned through like 10 preview screeens trying to get the syntax right. I have full confidence that the closing bcrat would discount the vote, but it throws the valid vote count off. Thanks! Syrthiss 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
#::<s>You can strike it out like this</s>  
I'd do it myself but I think it's inappropriate. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm very grateful. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


(Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I think it requires an Administator's attention. Apologies if this is not the right place.)

User:Donnog has earlier today made a large number of edits to pages about the British Royal Family and Concentration Camps, as apparent from his User Contribution list. From the few I have looked at (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, plus various category additions and changes) these all involve adding references about their distant German family links.

His changes to Concentration camp have been questioned in that talk page as regards their NPOV.

I have questioned the veracity and relevancy of some of the changes to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom at its talk page. I have also raised a query at Talk:Saxe-Coburg and Gotha#United Kingdom

He appears to have added the new Category:German-British people.

I do not wish to appear racist, but it appears that this user may be making (relatively minor, and perhaps seemingly innocent) changes to a large number of pages to promote a specific Polish and/or German POV. I regret I do not have time to investigate all the recent changes, but I feel that this may require further investigation. TrevorD 14:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Artifex99 (talk · contribs) possibly evading 3RR block[edit]

Artifex99 seems to have created two sockpuppets, Cesaer (talk · contribs) and Lafayette05 (talk · contribs) in order to evade a 3RR on Regular Grand Lodge of England. MSJapan 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Block evasion?[edit]

TuzsuzDeliBekir (talk · contribs) was blocked for 3RR yesterday, for continuing to insert this at the Adana page. Today, it appears that he is evading his block as (talk · contribs) - see this edit. What do others think? —Khoikhoi 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Password request from: ""[edit]

Someone at Keeps requesting a new password for my account. How do I pursue this? Dominick (TALK) 17:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That ip resolves to (at least in the US). You could probably forward the email and complain about spam to :Abuse OrgAbusePhone: +1-703-345-3416 OrgAbuseEmail: Thats what I've done in the past when an IP was spamming me with password requests and they stopped soon after, though I don't know if my action had any impact on how fast they stopped. --Syrthiss 18:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
You could also remove your email address from your account for a little while, and replace it after a few days once whomever it is gets bored with their stupidity. Guettarda 18:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

I wish to have a block initiated for the IP address The person using this address has been instigating an edit war on the Nikola Tesla page, and it is becoming very frustrating. This problem has been going back and forth for several weeks now. Erzahler 17:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, mostly carried on via edit warring with increasingly hostile edit summaries. Have you tried posting on article talk? I see no-one has tried posting on the anon's talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article's talk page, yes I have. Most of the editors are in agreement with me. The problem boils down to a few editors who constantly change nationality sentences in the article without any supporting evidence to back it up. A few of the comments have become heated. I will try posting to the anon's talk page as you suggested. Erzahler 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Instantnood banned from several articles[edit]

Belated notice: Tony Sidaway and myself have banned User:Instantnood from a number articles related to Macao and Hong Kong, per terms of his probation, because he's continuously revert warring on them. Please leave comments here.

For the... nobody in particular, Ashibaka tock 02:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) Ashibaka tock 19:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Overzealous deletion[edit]

I would like to report Vegaswikian for his/her overzealous use of deletion privileges. This has continued dispite many requests from other users to take more care in his/her actions. I copy below the various comments from myself and other users on Vegaswikian's talk page:

You deleted an article titled "Sam Ross." You felt that I was writing about myself. This however, is not true. I have read about Sam Ross in newspaper and magazine articles. From these sources, I was able to compile enough information to write a breif bio of him. Please do not delete valid articles. It is qualified because of "A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following"

I see you deleted the Julius Lester article while I was creating it. I've put it back now -- with content! -- but just so you know, WikiProject Biography's instructions for creating a new biography are explicitly to Add {{subst:Biography}} into your article page and save, and edit from there. So if you see a new template and don't give it an hour or two, that's probably what's happening. Now, admittedly that initial work could happen in a user space sandbox, but I was following the instructions of the Wikiproject in charge of the name space. If you find the method confusing, perhaps you should take it up with them and persuade them to change their doc? Thanks. Deborah-jl Talk 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

why did you delete my Pee Tanks Entry?

So it was a stub about a ghost story... That isn't necessarily a reason to speedy it, is it? You categorised it as "nonsense" but I'm not sure I agree with that categorisation being friendly or accurate. If the story is sourced enough (and I do find some other hits for it via Google: [2]) it's (possibly) notable as a story (just like this user's other contribution might be), regardless of the existance of ghosts. There is a Category:Weird NJ as you may or may not know. (note I do NOT believe in ghosts and have little interest in them myself but can see why notorious enough legends are notable enough for inclusion here...) So I think maybe this one should go through WP:PROD or even WP:AfD ++Lar: t/c 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't write enough about Bob Olson to make it into a good article. I saw that the page had been requested for over a year, and I attempted to begin fulfilling that request by writing what I could find. Please note that, according to the deletion log page and request page, my stub was the closest to the request's notes. I would also like to make it known that I am not a newcomer to Wikipedia. I have been around Wikipedia longer than my account has been, and I have much more experience than the average user. I am also fully aware of user pages and their function, and if the information under "Bob Olson" was about me, I would have put it on my user page. Sorry again for writing about this apparently non-notable subject. Paradoxsociety 03:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove articles being written until checking with the author --Larsie 17:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I beleive you were too hasty in your deletion of the article, it was too "speedy". I was able to get the picture right and before i was finished adding text it was gone. I wouldn't even have had time to add hangon. You just as easily could have made the article a stub for the maentime and then come back. I mean look at my user page I'm certainly not in the habit of creating an article as just a picture. --Larsie 17:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • please explain which criteria the article clearly fell under. --Larsie 17:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • that is completely false - there was a picture there, not to mention if you did the proper research (or just clicked what links here) you would see that hea is very notable and the article for a disease named after him is actually a featured article. don't be rediculous. and yes i made similar pages and was in the middle of doing a redirect. speedy deletion is meant to be an efficient way of monitering new article production and not hindering of the production of new articles.
  • I am sure you are familiar with this phrase "Administrators, remember to check if anything links here, the page history (last edit) and any revisions of CSD before deletion." as it is plastered to the speedy deletion announcement. The article is finished so if you would be so kind as to remove the template... thank you. --Larsie 18:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, what made you decide to delete the article for Nicolas Metoyer? I know it was just a stub, but I don't think it merited deletion. I'm only a little curious as to why you didn't feel it was necessary to at least tag the article or initiate a discussion about it. Metoyer may be non-notable to you, but he was a prominent figure in the developement of a self-sufficient colored community in Louisiana. I will admit that Louisiana history is a bit of a specific interest, but simply because you are not familiar with it does not give you the right to remove it from an encyclopedia. You may want to look at Marie Thérèse Metoyer, his mother, as well, but would you be kind enough not to delete that article (if you, as i suspect, believe it to be lacking in merit) until you have given those of us who care an opportunity to argue our case?Dlayiga 22:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok but did you take time to actually read what I said in the discussion before arbitrarily deleting the article? Wikipedia:Notability (people) states that the notability standards are not official wikipedai policy. If you also took a quick glance at my user page you might have realized that I have edited/started many viable articles and I am contrary to your belief not a bumbling newcomer.--Ian 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And finally my note:

I have noticed that you deleted the page J. H. Brennan, as soon as I created it, even though I noted in my edit summery that there was more to come. I find this kind of over zealous deletion hinders Wikipedia and simply wastes time. If you had taken a moment to view my user page you would have found that I am a long time member of the community here and would not add something without consideration. Beyond this a simple search for JH Brennan on Google reveals that he has written more than fifty books including both fiction and non-fiction, which have been translated into as many languages and have been very influential. This is clearly notable. I am simply in a position now where I will have to start the page again, but I now have a deletion against my history. Please try to discuss before acting in this way in future. Thank you. Solar 08:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This should show that this user is being overzealous and in my opinion is abusing his/her admin privileges, deleting pages before a user has finished working on them with no consensus just seems disruptive and unhelpful all around. - Solar 18:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I am cited above, here's the whole thread. (and I'd suggest that citing entire threads may be better than just interspersing comments) I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that there's an issue here although I certainly would wish Vegaswikian had been more responsive to my queries. The article referred to (The White Lady) was one of two that a brand new user created. I beefed the other one (Annie's Road...) up with some research. I think it's marginally acceptable now, but unfortunately, that new user is gone now, near as I can tell last time I checked. I asked a different admin to undelete and userify the article Vegaswikian deleted and I have it in my userspace, I will rearticleify it when I finish sprucing it up. I do think there's merit in ALL admins working WP:RCP giving article stubs the benefit of the doubt and not biting the newcomers. But ANI may not be the right place to discuss this. ++Lar: t/c 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Squeakbox's disruption of IFD[edit]

I have nominated some of the images on User:Squeakbox's userpage for Ifd (pictures of himself and his dog, not encyclopedic). He responded by doing the following:

  • Removing the IFD notices from all of the images
  • Reverting the IFD image
  • Accusing me of being a troll and a vandal, and threatning to take me to Arbcom

Could an admin do something about this? Cynical 14:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Untrue. These images are legitimate. His first target was Image:Nap006b.jpg on the main space so he is lying and he has vandalised my user page and has offered no explanation of his trolling behaviour. Talk about one user trying to harrass aonther user off the site, SqueakBox 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) SqueakBox 14:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The unencylopedia criteria doesn't apply to images on userpages, why would you nominate these for deletion? You might also want to take a gander at the user page policy; its generally considered rather impolite to go mucking about on someone's user page. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 14:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually Jareth, your right and wrong, most of the criteria don't except for criteria on copyright and fairuse, though I think those are the fairly obvious ones that are assumed to apply everywhere. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that these images are entirely appropriate for use on a userpage, but Squeakbox, wouldn't it have been better to simply add a "keep" vote to the IFD debate? When you take it upon yourself to remove IFD tags from your own images, it gives the appearance of the immatures who keep removing AFD tags from their own articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't 'mucking about on someone's userpage'. I was adding notice of the IFD to the image's caption as I am required to do by WP:IFD when nominating an image: '(If the image is in use, also add {{ifdc|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{subst:CURRENTDAY}}}} or {{ifdc|Image name.ext}} to the caption))'. However I wasn't aware that 'unencyclopedic' doesn't apply to userpages (I also missed the mainspace article in that image's list), my mistake. Cynical 14:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear that, Sjakkalle. I felt attacked especially as this pic is on the main space and was his first target, then he started vandalsing my user page so I honestly felt he was just trolling and had no legitimaste purpose in either touching my user page removing legally licenced and undeleted images and also in his targetting of one of the main pics in Diog, a main article but I accept his explanation now that he wasn't trolling but mistaken. I had come here to work this morning, this user put paid to that, SqueakBox 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I did not remove any images from SqueakBox's userpage'. I simply added the 'this image is under discussion at IFD' template to the caption, which as I will restate WP:IFD requires the nominator to do. Cynical 14:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You edited the page in a way you knew I didn't want and without any pol;icy foundations in that. please be careful editing people's user space, and simply dont edit anything in my user space, Cynical. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This was clearly a misunderstanding. Forgive and forget. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block[edit]

Indefinitely blocked (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is evading his block as (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (evidence: [3]). Can an admin block this IP please? Demiurge 19:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Userpage vandalism[edit]

User:Benlegrand has vandalized my user page and some pictures. I heavily suspect he was the vandal who did so anonymously as well before my page was protected. Please take care of him. Edward Grefenstette 20:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked by Zoe. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
For a week. If they reform, then we can welcome them back. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Lulu's conduct in an RFC[edit]

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) has been making all sorts of questionable edits to the RfC he filed against me. Evilphoenix (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) originally wrote the text of the RfC but he felt that we were making sufficient progress that it shouldn't be filed at this time, and he left a note and blanked the RfC accordingly. Then Lulu unilaterally moved the RfC from Evilphoenix's userspace to the live RfC page and reverted Evilphoenix, using the old text that Evilphoenix had written but no longer wished to go live with at this time.

Evilphoenix briefly returned from his Wikibreak to cross out his statement of the dispute because he had not been intending to file this RFC yet, and Lulu went ahead with it anyway without his permission:

I'd like to comment(without having yet read what anyone else has had to say) that this RfC was moved from my User space, where I was not yet intending to file it, to the RfC space, without my permission and against my wishes, while I have been (and still am on) Wikibreak.

And then Lulu comes along and reverts Evilphoenix's edit, even though it was Evilphoenix who originally wrote that initial statement of the dispute and he has every right to cross it out as well as be very offended that it was used against his wishes and without his permission.

Then I revert Lulu's reversion saying he doesn't have a right to take total ownership of the RFC like that against the wishes of the one who initially wrote it.

Then Lulu reverts me and posts some irrelevant Wikilawyering on my talk page saying, This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Guess what Lulu, I was only editing it because you improperly reverted an edit by a user who initially wrote this RfC and who has every right to edit it!

Is anyone else disturbed by Lulu's behavior in this matter? This is an RfC, a request for comment from the community (not just Lulu). It was originally written by Evilphoenix, yet Lulu is taking advantage of the fact that Evilphoenix is away on vacation and attempting to take total ownership of the RfC by reverting any edits Evilphoenix makes to properly reflect the fact that he, the original author of the RfC, did not want to go through with it at this time.

Lulu has also been making some other questionable edits to the RfC, like blanking another user's comment (rather than simply moving it to the appropriate section).

I am obviously not going to be taking admin actions against Lulu at this time because I am (obviously) involved in a dispute with him, so I am following the traditional route and bringing it up here on ANI for comment. You may also want to read my statement on the earlier actions by Lulu that initially led to this RfC. --Cyde Weys 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Actual events: subject of RfC modifies statement of dispute[edit]

User:Cyde is subject of a user conduct RfC. I am one of several certifiers of this RfC (and admittedly, its most vocal proponent). Evilphoenix was one of several authors of a draft of the "Statement of Dispute" for the RfC before it was filed. Other co-authors of the RfC statement of dispute include myself, other certifiers, and outside participants on the RfC. Evilphoenix has not, at this time, joined as certifier of the RfC, nor has anyone claimed or implied he has (he may or may not choose to do so when his wikibreak is over). Indeed, Cyde is correct in stating that Evilphoenix believed (and may still believe, I do not know), that an RfC is not the best means to resolve the underlying problem (at least at the time Evilphoenix went on Wikibreak).

As subject of the RfC, it is inappropriate for Cyde to modify the statement of dispute to better fit his wishes about what the subject of the RfC should be: when he did so, I reverted it. Cyde, of course, is more than welcome (as he has done), to state a response or make an additional statement within the RfC.

Btw. The claim that I "blanked" a user statement is wholly fabricated. I did, however, move Evilphoenix's non-certifying statement below the "statement of dispute" section (I may have done so as a cut-then-paste, in two edits, but within a minute or two of each other). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This use of a user conduct RfC for a dispute over citation tools is completely wrongheaded, and pretty close to disruptive. It should not be done. Jonathunder 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As stated within the RfC, such is not the subject of the RfC; unfortunately, a number of signatories to outside statements are misreading the RfC as a "referendum on m:Cite.php", which has nothing to do with the stated purpose. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Other opinions[edit]

I think Lulu's actions constitute disruption and serious WP:POINT violations especially since he's doing this due to a grudge he has against AWB users. He has also commited what could reasonably considered vandalism by modifying someone else's content that they placed on their userspace even if he moved it first it was without their consent and it was their (presumably) signed comments and even if they weren't expliclity signed RFC's are assumed the creation of whoever wrote up the original summary. I'm not trying to wikilawyer this either, I'm just stating all this as common sense though unfortunately the line in this case is fairly blurry but I still think Lulu crossed it. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I find it disturbing (and I'm not even an admin (so why am I posting on the admin noticeboard?).) From the initial history of the RfA, it looks like you and Evilphoenix were discussing the issue harmoniously before he went on vacation. Then, Lulu decided to take a draft and make it go live, without Evilphoenix's desires (and indeed, against his wishes). I don't think it's fair at all to get Evilphoenix involved while he's on vacation -- if it were me, I'd be pretty upset if someone got me involved in Wikidrama while I was on vacation away from a computer. Lulu's user page states, "This editor suffers fools poorly, and just is not able to assume good faith when it is self-evidently absent." Well, under that definition, anyone could be a "fool" if he/she disagrees with Lulu's assessment. That's not a good attitude for this project. --Elkman - (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
HEY, you don't have to be an admin to post here, I'm not an admin... despite trying (twice) and I still post here on occasion, though hopefully if nothing else an admin will take notice and close the RFC early. Having his userpage usurped while he's on vacation no less makes us obligated to at least do that for Evilphoenix if nobody else. It's a simple matter of respect towards him and what he wrote. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I did nothing whatsoever in regard to Evilphoenix' user page. I may politely disagree with Evilphoenix about the best timing of the RfC, but simply because Evilphoenix is one co-editor of the draft does not mean that any decision to file an RfC is his alone. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just informed Lulu that this conversation is happening. Snoutwood (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's already well aware, having responded multiple times to the post on the talk page of the RfC where I said I was taking this to ANI. --Cyde Weys 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I didn't know that. Snoutwood (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No need to apologize, better safe (about letting people involved know) than sorry. --Cyde Weys 23:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cyde and I had a strong disagreement over his alteration of the Harvard style referencing in the article Retreat of glaciers since 1850, an article that was featured and on the main page at the time that Cyde determined it was important to change the Harvard referencing (that had been discussed exhaustively on the article discussion page by the major contributors to the article). I reverted his changes and then he reverted me...the links are on the Rfc. I was not happy about this at all, especially with his admonishments that I was acting as if I owned the article and his belief that that all other reference styles had been deprecated (which was false). Evilphoenix contacted me and asked to post diffs about the incident on the rfc, and then Evilphoenix decided not to participate, and even later claimed that he was not happy about Lulu moving the Rfc from is userspace to a live version, without consent. Regardless, the information originally posted by Evilphoenix and myself were incorporated into the live Rfc version, which I and three others were in general agreement with, though only a total of 3 persons signed on officially. I see nothing wrong with what Lulu did and I am surprised that Cyde is trying to play this off and reframe it as some gross misconduct issue on Lulu's part. No one has been grossly in misconduct..all myself and Lulu want is a small fraction of patience when altering citation styles, and a recognition that even Wikipedia accepts various different styles for Featured level articles. This has been well detailed on the Rfc.--MONGO 01:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Executor-usa blocked for legal threats[edit]

I have blocked Executor-usa (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely for legal threats relating to the article OITC fraud. Please review, etc, although I think this is as block-worthy as they come.

The article in question is far from a perfect encyclopaedia article in its current state, though its claims appear mainly sourced. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No comment on the article, the threat is clearly bannable. 23:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rgulerdem block review[edit]

I'd normally discuss a request for unblock on the blocking admin's page, but since thas falls under the auspice of "community patience exhausted" I'm posting it here. I've corresponded with this user regarding their request for me to look at the application of an idefinate block. I gave the conditions in which I'd support having this block lifted. I have permission from Rgulerdem to reprint this portion of an e-mail where he agrees to them all:

As you suggested, I will limit myself to:
1. Zero reverts - no wikilawyering either!
2. No spam - internal or external
3. No comments on the past outside appropriate venues - to be determined by you what's appropriate/when it ends.

Johntex has further indicated he is willing to mentor him. I've notified Cyde and NSLE of this thread, and I've also notified NSLE that I've unprotected the talk page. (I had asked him if he would do so but received no reply.) While this user has had a troubled history, he's communicative and has indicated that he's willing to moderate his behavior.
brenneman{L} 00:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I would agree to letting him back in if he abides by those terms, but only on the condition that the first violation he commits he's back on his indef block without a warning. He should have been warned enough to know what not to do. I will not reprotect his user talk unless he, again, starts trolling or being incivil - at which point my opinion on this chance for him will go down the drain and I will reject this. NSLE (T+C) at 01:39 UTC (2006-04-26)
  • I support unblocking Rgulerdem under the conditions quoted by brenneman above. However, I think he shuold first serve out a 30 day block, counting from when he was blocked indefinitely. When he comes back, I think a "zero warning" policy is just a little too strict. I would support something that gives a little room for human error and/or reasonable differences in interpretation as to what constitutes a violation. I think this is very important. While I agree he has done blockable things in the past, I don't believe some of his more recent comments which were said to be a violation of WP:CIVIL were truly policy violations. They may have been arugmentative and unwise perhaps, but most users would not have been blocked for them IMO. Johntex\talk 02:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to note that 30 days from start of indef block would be May 10. NSLE (T+C) at 02:36 UTC (2006-04-26)
  • This seems like a responsible proposal. I don't agree that he should serve out a block; if he's willing to abide by the conditions then there is no reason to keep him blocked. --Tony Sidaway 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What's the normal process with regards to appearing impartial? That is to say, we'd like to avoid any Admin A: "That was out of line, blocked", Admin B: "Not really, unblocked" back and forth. So I'd propose that anyone involved ask here for consensus before making any admin actions, perhaps with the exception that Johntex (if he does continue a squasi-mentor) be allowed to smack down as he sees fit. - brenneman{L} 03:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Tony - if he abides by his words, there's no need for a longer block. I think in this particular case a back and forth is unlikely, but if you're more comfortable designating a reliable admin as being "authoritative" (by agreement, not fiat), that's fine too. Nandesuka 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Statement by Outside Party - Netpari I'm glad that everyone has decided to unblock Rgulerdem. If he agrees to all the demands placed by the admins, there is no reason for him to stay blocked for 30 days. His articles, especially on the subject of interfaith dialogue, are much needed. In order for Wikipedia to continue growing, it's contributors should be given a chance to redeem themselves when they err. Netpari 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I do still agree to mentor Rgulerdem. If the community supports it, I do like the idea of my being "allowed to smack down as [I] see fit" (within policy limits of course). If I am agressive at working with him on any small mistakes that he may make, then hopefully others in the community will not experience any problem. I still like the idea of serving out a 30 day block to demonstrate that we are really serious about the need for good behaviour - but I'm not stuck on that idea. If the consensus is to unblock sooner, that is fine with me. Johntex\talk 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Statement by Outside Party - Johntex, please have mercy. I'd like to welcome Rgulerdem back rather sooner than later. Raphael1 00:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


Taking the pulse here I've unlbocked. Having brokered this deal, I'd prefer to let it leave my patch and have someone else worry about it. That being said, since the "don't comment on the past" term may be hard to abide by, I've offered (and volunteered JT as well) to serve as a filter for anything that he simply feels must be said. This must be done via e-mail to keep it off-wiki. - brenneman{L} 01:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of rgulerdem evading the block(s)[edit]

I don't know how much we want to make of this, but there is some evidence that rgulerdem has been evading one or more blocks. It appears that rgulerdem has been editing as User: That IP address made two edits on April 25th, before the block was lifted.[6][7] That IP address has also, before this last block, made numerous edits to the Wikiethics and Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy articles[8], providing further evidence that this was, indeed, rgulerdem. I have not checked, but since rgulerdem has been blocked on many previous occasions, it is not inconceivable that some of the other edits by this IP were also block evasions by rgulerdem. -- noosphere 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Palladium Books[edit]

Over the last few days, various IPs and new users, whom I strongly suspect are the same person, have made highly questionable edits including repeated section blanking in the article Palladium Books. All of these edits concern that particular company's current financial difficulties (which the company itself has openly admitted exist). There has been no discussion on the talk page despite a request for such (sorry that isn't a proper diff, but it is the only edit to that talk page at this time), and in no case was an edit summary used.

In addition, one of the new users in question, User:NMI, blanked my user page, a clear-cut act of vandalism that I assume was in retaliation for my restoring the section twice and/or leaving the above message. I will note that at this writing, the vandalism of my user page and one of the section blankings are this user's ONLY edits to Wikipedia under that name.

I request the following:

  • A check to determine whether any two or more of the following are the same person:
    • User:NMI
    • User: (who the above-linked talk page belongs to, and who has no edits that do not consist of removing information about Palladium's financial troubles)
    • User: (has only two edits, both to Palladium Books, one of them another blanking of the relevant section)
    • User:Godcheese (Another user with only two edits, both to this article. These are also related to the same financial difficulties; in one case this user put the heading "Palladium needs its fans more than ever" at the very top of the page, in violation of more Wikipedia policies and guidelines than I care to name at the moment; the only other edit was to move this to a more reasonable spot in the article.)
  • For someone to keep an eye on this person or these individuals (and anything that might emerge from their sock drawers) and block them if this sort of behaviour continues.
  • If the problems continue over a long period or get worse, semi-protection may be warranted. However, I doubt the page sees enough traffic for that to prove necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. PurplePlatypus 06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been about a day since I posted the above and this situation is continuing unabated, and I can't help but notice this item has recieved no response, though all the ones above it and several below it have. The person in question has now made one talk page comment, but it was essentially a threat to continue violating multiple Wikipedia policies, not an attempt to open any real dialogue. PurplePlatypus 02:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theories presented as fact[edit]

The Alex Jones (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article is basically just an explanation of a group of conspiracy theories all presented as fact. I haven't had the stomach to really NPOV the entire article, especially since I don't particulary know much about this Alex Jones, or these types of theories and beliefs in general. However I do know that almost the entire article depends upon highly dubious sources and original research. When I tried to delete the following paragraph,[9], (because its only source was a strange mp3 of what I guess is a radio station dedicated to conspiracy theories, [10]) I was quickly reverted and soon found a strange message on my talk page written by User:Wikipediareader.

Anyways I know we supposed to be neutral with regards to these kinds of beliefs but I think the article as it currently stands needs some serious work. Does anybody else have any thoughts on the matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, Moshe. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Moshe...that is one of many poor sourced articles, all spin offs of the articles that relate to the September 11, 2001 attacks article...the only thing notable about Alex Jones is he is one of the biggest loudmouths of misinformation regarding conspiracy theories of the events on 9/11/2001. A lot of linked articles from Alex Jones were POV forks as a concensus of editors in the main articles of the events of 9/11 refused to allow much detail to be there, so POV fork articles were created...many, many of which went through Afd, some were kept and some were doubt the article is probably watched over by adherents to his "cause".--MONGO 07:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yea I guessed they bought into this stuff by the nature of the message that the guy sent me. Look at the history of my talk page for some of the stuff I had to delete, It gets pretty odd.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the worst of it, and have asked for citations for the rest. If no third-party citations are forthcoming, we should think about an AfD. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Slim, and your right, we do already have way too many of these articles.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, the article in question is, in reality, Alex Jones (radio). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was recently changed and quite reasonably I might add.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC logs deletion and wheel waring[edit]

User:Avillia posted IRC logs without permision from those involved. These were then delted:

  • 05:51, 25 April 2006 Tawker deleted "User:Avillia/CVU Politics" (copyvio, IRC logs are not licensed for use on Wikipedia)

They were then inexplicably restored, technically a wheel war (reversal without explanation.

  • 21:01, 26 April 2006 Luigi30 restored "User:Avillia/CVU Politics"

I have now redeleted the page.

  • 23:42, 26 April 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "User:Avillia/CVU Politics" (we do NOT do IRC logs without permission - privacy violation)

I post here, because I would not normally reverse an admin's action without discussion. But given the privacy violation, I wished to act fast. I will reverse my action if consensus here is that I have acted wrongly. --Doc ask? 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

IRC log posting is banned, as far as the IRC channels care (that is, I am very likely to permanently ban any users doing such things from all Wikimedia-related channels, forever). As for Wikimedia wikis, ignoring the legal consequences w.r.t. invasion of privacy (which, AIUI, aren't as stringent in the US as almost everywhere else), I have considered their posting banned by consensus for a very long time. Certainly, I don't think that the page in question should ever be undeleted (and invite someone who isn't Doc to make sure that it stays deleted; given that I'm first responder, however, I think I should leave that to someone else).
James F. (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Gah, I've screwed up now. I did it on the advice of another user, reactionarily, before looking at all the facts. Now that I see there was lengthy discussion on it (he did not tell me this) I feel like a total douche. :( Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
No worries, we live and learn. --Doc ask? 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's okay, it's just a good thing to remember in general that there are many unscrupulous people who want to use admins for their abilities (and will thus feed them a warped description of events). You should always fully research the situation before taking any admin actions. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well I know that now. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course the fun bit comes when you try to balance that knowage against WP:AGF.Geni 23:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as I don't have to balance it against WP:RFAr! Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 23:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
So the two-part take-home lesson for all of us admins is, in a nutshell:
  • Don't undo another admin's actions until you've made a good-faith effort to contact the admin in question. We have Special:Log for a reason—it lets you identify the admin involved, and it may shed light on his reasoning.
  • If discussion with the admin fails to clear things up, or the admin is unavailable and the matter is urgent – note that very few situations clear the latter bar – Seek comment on AN/I on your proposed course of action.
This ends the educational portion of the noticeboard; we now return to your regularly scheduled programming. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You mean the encyclopedia isn't educational? :-) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that the user later recreated the page, which was soon deleted again under criteria for speedy deletion G4 ("Recreation of deleted material") by Tawker. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The page has been re-created with the logs removed, I have no problems with that and specifically request that it not be re-deleted -- Tawker 07:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Revisions to Word of Wisdom[edit]

If an admin gets a chance, please check out the revisions being made by User:Enormousdude at Word of Wisdom, an article on a health code in Mormonism. He's made several edits that are either strongly POV or easily proved as wrong (such as misspellings). I've reverted three times, but since I'm not sure if it'd exactly qualify as "vandalism" so much as a user not paying attention to reason, I don't want to fall into 3RR. Please note that Enormousdude has a history of odd or incorrect edits. I'm not sure if an sprotect is necessary; perhaps some additional comments to his talk page would help (although he doesn't heed them very often). Thanks. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 03:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

GO WHARTON (talk · contribs) and MBAguy (talk · contribs)[edit]

The above two users have been revert warring here and elsewhere, with what appears to be a central discussion at Talk:Ivy League business schools. The exchange has been quite heated, with many accusations and vandalism and no assumptions of good faith. Though this is a content dispute, I am wondering if the filing of an RfC is in order, as no progress appears to have been made. Isopropyl 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Updated: RfC has now been filed: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GO WHARTON. MBAguy 08:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should I be subjected to insults from admins on WP:AN3?[edit]

After their favourite propaganda weapon, User:Molobo, was blocked for a month on account of incessant revert-warring and multiple violations of 3RR, his chief defenders and mentors - User:Piotrus and User:Balcer - took to revert warring themselves and broke 3RR on several occasions. User:Piotrus was reported by User:Number 6 and got blocked for three hours, as it was his first violation. After User:Balcer made five reverts in three hours on Talk:Nicolaus Copernicus, I reported him on WP:AN3 too. Anon's comments which he reverted were rather harmless and should have stayed on the talk page. It is not vandalism to be exempt from 3RR.

While there was no denial that 3RR was broken, I was subjected to a stream of insults. Piotrus (an admin, by the way) called my notice a "libel" and a "personal attack", motivated by the desire to "smear" Balcer's name and calling other admins to issue a stern "warning" to myself. In fact, Molobo's mentors turned WP:AN3 into an offensive discussion of my presumed motivations, which they always do when their aim is to downplay the importance of 3RR and to encourage revert-warring on Poland-related subjects. I would like to know why Balcer's behaviour was ignored by admins and nobody even cared to discuss the issue at hand.

Back in December, when I reverted a disruptive anonymous sock of User:Bonaparte, now permabanned, I was blocked for 24 h - although I had never broken 3RR before and voicefully pointed out that my opponent was a sock - and nobody ever apologised for that. Why should User:Balcer be exempt from responsibility for a much graver offense? --Ghirla -трёп- 08:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The full text of the discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Balcer. Note that none of the editors besides Ghirlandajo saw anything wrong with my actions. Also note the personal attack against me with which Ghirlandajo justifies his posting ("The guy is so much given to revert warring ... "etc). Anyway, the comments I reverted were obviously trollish. Another administrator, User:Kusma, agreed with me and reverted the anon twice (example). Even the anon himself, who attempted to reinsert the comment 6 times, eventually agreed with me that the comments were inappropriate and stopped posting them (diff).
As for the rest of Ghirlandajo's allegations, I will not even bother to answer them in detail. My differences with Molobo were plentiful, and I always deplored the style of his edits and frequently asked him to compromise, instead of fighting revert wars to insert his POV. Since when is it Ghirlandajo's job to determine which user is which user's tool on Wikipedia?
Anyway, in my opinion Ghirlandajo's latest campaign against me is a reaction by him to the recent discussions on Talk:Russophobia and his rather embarassing behaviour there. I think it is essential for users interested in the matter to check out that page. Balcer 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams and User:GODDESSY[edit]

The user, who has identified themselves as the PR person for Adams' personal company, keeps on removing information that I have added to the article about the company's website offering e-mailed tarot card and "love" readings for credit card payments. I have worded this a couple different ways,[11],[12] and the user has attempted to attack my claims as somehow "false," apparently not liking the word "solicit" despite its clear meaning in a commercial context.[13] I think selling e-mailed tarot readings is a clearly relevant feature of the website, and I can only interpret the user's removals as a POV attempt to keep the site's commercial activities from being so nakedly described. I'd appreciate another set of eyes to review this issue (and take a look at the edit history of the user's talk page, as they keep on deleting old messages I have left), as I'd rather not create the appearance that I have used my admin powers to enforce my side in an edit dispute. Cheers, Postdlf 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SockPuppet Alert

User User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.

She left a message on Jim Wale's Talk Page

Seen here:

This person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry that she left on his Talk Page, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history on Jim Wale's Talk Page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry

JuliannaRoseMauriello 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Attacks and More from GODDESSY Please read this, you told me once to ASK for help and so I am, don't let me down please.

Also see her sockpuppet's talk page here:

I left a comment under the Let's Clarify Something here title

She then came in and edited it and used all caps to show what she was editing.

This person really, I mean, SHE might be notable, but her company is NOT.

She's already been blocked several times and banned once and the ban was lifted I would believe only because of personal feelings towards her.

Keep reading all the comments down the page.

Wikkipedia is about what is verifiable and not what the person the articles is about WANTS it to say.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 17:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The Daz Sampson Page[edit]

The page of Daz Sampson, the UK entry for the Eurovision Song Contest this year, is constantly being vandalised by anonymous users to draw connections from him to convicted child killer Ian Huntley and to make storng allegations that Daz is a paedophile. These vandalisms are constantly being reverted by legitimate users but the anonymous editors keep coming back and putting it back in. This has been going on for quite a while now. Is it possible to get semi-protection for the article in question? Thanks. --Stenun 20:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I sprotected it for now. JDoorjam Talk 20:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. --Stenun 20:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* And now registered users are getting in on the "fun" by making allusions to Ian Huntley. Can anything else be done or should we just ignore them until they go away? *g* --Stenun 16:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I will watch the page for vandalism. Are you familiar with reverting to a previous version of a page? --Darth Deskana (talk page) 16:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't but I am now. Thanks. --Stenun 16:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 17:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ham and jelly butter[edit]

This user nominated the George W. Bush article for deletion. I removed the AfD tag from the article but the user is now advertising the AfD on usertalk pages. I have told the user his/her alternatives and asked them to stop but they haven't. I could do with some help, please. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Additionally I think the AfD should be closed with a speedy keep. LambiamTalk 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Ummm... a non-admin closed the AfD. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
And...? I've closed AfDs before - ones on stupid articles like that that would NEVER be deleted. Werdna648T/C\@ 00:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I blocked indefinitely (as I wasn't sure what time length to choose), saying in the block log that I'd unblock if s/he agreed to stop. Before I got round to leaving a message on his/her talk page (I was rolling back the spamming of talk pages) s/he posted "I'll stop." I have now unblocked, and will keep an eye on the account. AnnH 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is a pretty clear case for a speedy keep. Kotepho 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a pretty clear case of stupidity :-/ Cyde Weys 00:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Comedy right here: [14] (read the previous edit summary) Ashibaka tock 01:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI, our policy does allow for non-admins to close AFDs when they are unambiguous in their outcome and no admin powers are required to carry out the result (keep, merge, redirect, etc). (ESkog)(Talk) 14:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:MSTCrow and got rather annoyed about having the spam removed. [15] and [16]. Jkelly 01:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone always will. Assuming good faith of User:Ham and jelly butter, it's still misguided and not a very sensible action to propose George W. Bush for deletion. Nor is advertising it. I think removing the notices was the right thing to do. Plus I think sometimes editors will jump at the chance to get to {{test2a}} an admin! :-P --Darth Deskana (talk page) 07:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

obscured links to banned sites?[edit]

Is it legal for a user to link from their user page to a site on Wikipedia's Spam Blacklist using a ... well, the user himself calls it "A roundabout link to a website that has been blacklisted by Wikipedia". I'm presuming this is not kosher, but I'm sure what administrators think should be done about it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What user? --InShaneee 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is, uh, kinda vague . . . --Heah? 02:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
If this is a WP:BEANS issue, email one of us and we'll look into it. JDoorjam Talk 02:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm taking the user's word for it that it's a site blacklisted by Wikipedia. Not that I actually think he'd lie about it, but I wouldn't know how to check myself and see if it's a blacklisted site; I also don't know exactly what's done when a user tries to sneak past the spam blacklist like this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wikitruth is blacklisted, and that is where the link goes. The edit summary for the blacklist addition says " #per recommendation of B. Patrick, the Foundation's attorney." so that may complicate this. Prodego talk 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd say just remove it and warn the guy that the blacklist exists for a reason. Seems like a clear cut case of linkspam to me. --InShaneee 02:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. I left a note explaining the situation, too. JDoorjam Talk 02:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not linkspam, but the spam blacklist is being used to prevent links to Wikitruth for the time being. See Talk:Wikitruth. Pcb21 Pete 08:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Surprised that someone at least figured that inserting a grand total of two pertinent links is not spam. Other than that, I'm glad to find that Wikicabalia is working so well (kudos to Feldspar to monitor all my edits so efficiently), but, fact is, that WP has links to Wikitruth in the name space as well and apparently there, there is no "legal concern" about that. If you want to be consistent with the censorship policies, you will have to delete my link here, too. Fossa 09:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
kudos to Feldspar to monitor all my edits so efficiently I don't really see there's any need for sarcasm. I had never heard of Wikitruth, at least by that name, so it was only because you openly volunteered the information that you were using the resources of Wikipedia to do an end-run around the acting policies of Wikipedia that I knew something was up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Since someone diligently removed my link to Wikitruth on M. Sabina's talk page too, note that by clicking through to my German user page you can still reach Wikitruth from Wikipedia by n number of clicks. (Or you just type in "wikitruth" on the English Wikipedia and you will get several direct links in the name space), and you will find even more roundabouts to W-Truth. Looking forward to more deletions, which I won't revert. Fossa 00:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet theatre from[edit]

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Werdna648 and other harassment of Werdna. There's been some nasty sockpuppetry in the 'oppose' section already. The following are all the same user (one dorm IP): Fdhfkhkfh, I Hate Colleges, PoopinaBucket, QueensuStudent08, Werdan44747, Werdan548, Mcphysical and Zipperfly. Note the impersonation usernames as well for clear evidence of actual malice. Presumably one is the 'real' user, but I really don't care at this stage and have left a note for a sysadmin to contact me before I unblock the IP, hence the indef on the IP. (Though presumably the indef could be turned into "until the students go home this year", whenever that is.) - David Gerard 17:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

SockPuppets, 3RR Rule, Personal attacks and more[edit]

User User Goddessy

Same person, I am new to this part of it all, but they are clearly the same person making comments one right after another and doing very bad slip ups.

See here:

All comments within seconds of each other and you'll notice that quite often, User signs her comments with GODDESSY

I don't know if this is just user accidentaly forgetting to sign in, but it is starting to look like it is just to circumvent the 3RR rule.

Both and GODDESSY had been banned from Wikki as a troll, yet reinstated by a different moderator. I believe ALOT of the "moderator and admin fighting" are due to personal feelings of GODDESSY ( who is in reality Stephanie Adams )

Let's not forget the Wikipedia rules.

She left a message on Jim Wale's Talk Page

Seen here:

This person wants you to believe that they have spoken to Jim Wales personally on the telephone, and that he has commented the above inquiry that she left on his Talk Page, yet no signature from Jim Wales is present, therefore looking at the history on Jim Wale's Talk Page it is very easy to see that this person made the comments by themselves to make it LOOK like Jim Wales had commented on her Inquiry

Also see her sockpuppet's talk page here:

I left a comment under the Let's Clarify Something here title

She then came in and edited it and used all caps to show what she was editing.

This person really, I mean, SHE might be notable, but her company is NOT.

She's already been blocked several times and banned once and the ban was lifted I would believe only because of personal feelings towards her.

Keep reading all the comments down the page.

Wikkipedia is about what is verifiable and not what the person the articles is about WANTS it to say.

JuliannaRoseMauriello 18:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is already posted above, near the top of the page. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 18:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Marine 69-71[edit]

I didn't want to post here but now I feel there is no other option as I have been threatened with a block for adding verifiable information to two articles. I have been trying to update the articles Sammy Davis, Jr. and Elvera Sanchez with information from a 2003 biography that showed that Sanchez who was in fact a New Yorker of Cuban descent, not a Puerto Rican as Davis had claimed in his lifetime. I was blocked for 3 hours by User:Marine 69-71 aka Tony the Marine after I reverted the edits of another Puerto Rican editor User:XLR8TION on Elvera Sanchez who had posted a message on Tony's page:

"Tony some nutcase is saying that Elvera Sanchez (Sammy Davis Jr's mother ) is Cuban. He cant show any proof from the family. He claims a new book on Sammy says she was Cuban. This is hearsay as the book is not authorized by Sammy's estate. Can you put this loco out of commission and revert the article back to it's original state?"

I then tried to be more neutral by removing the Cuban stub from Elvera Sanchez (which is appropriate as she wasn't actually Cuban) but was then threatened with a block for "continuous vandalism" by Tony the Marine and my edits were reverted by User:XLR8TION. Arniep 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this really something that cannot be worked out on the Talk page? Jkelly 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to reason with them but all my changes and attempts at neutrality are removed. I feel Tony and the other user have acted in an inappropriate manner in threatening me for adding verifiable information to articles. Arniep 00:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have tried to reason with User:Arniep in regard to his continous reverts in the Sammy Davis Jr. and Elvera Sanchez articles, see:[17]. Arniep insists on posting his version and his version only. Arniep cites as proof the following transcript from an unathoritized bio, a book written without the permission of the Davis Estate by Wil Haygood. The transcript can be found here:[18]. For some unknown reason Arniep refuses to accept the overwhelming fact that every reference to Sammy Davis Jr., and his mother point to the fact that Elvera Sanchez was of Puerto Rican descent and "not" Cuban. Nor Arniep or the author of the book cite official documnets to back up these claims.

These are only three sites of the many which state that Davis' mother was Puerto Rican: Bio of Elvira Sanchez in IMDB, Sammy Davis Jr. and Tribute to Sammy Davis Jr.. In every other biography of Sammy Davis Jr., it is stated that his ancesters were Afro-American and Puerto Rican. In his own autobiography "Sammy : The Autobiography of Sammy Davis, Jr. by Sammy Davis, Burt Boyar, Jane Boyar", Sammy Davis claims that his mother was Puerto Rican. How could we doubt his own words?

Another thing, tghe author claims that Davis denied his "Cuban" ancestry because of the "Anti-Castro" sentiment. This does not make any sense since it would be almost impossible to keep his whole family and his friends quiet for so many years. If that was the case then way didn't Desi Arnaz of "I Love Lucy" fame, Cesar Romero and Celia Cruz do the same?

I have tried to reach a "middle ground" with User Arniep by offering these new versions: Elvera Sanchez and Sammy Davis Jr. as a solution but, Arniep refuses to cooperate and instead of having an open dialogue about the issue, continues to revert.

I have no personal interest in either article. My main concern is that commonly accepted facts and not "hearsay" be posted in Wikipedia articles. To quote Sammy Davis himself: "I'm colored, Jewish and Puerto Rican. When I move into a neighborhood, I wipe it out!" Tony the Marine 01:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. A note to Arniep, Your temp block was due to the violation of the 3 revert rule. Nothing personal.)

Legal Threat?[edit]

What should be done, if anything, about this edit, it looks to me like a legal threat, but I am not sure what to do about it. WP:NLT only specifies threats against other users, is this not applicable? Suggestions?

Prodego talk 00:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Don't block me or I'll sue Wikipedia" is that different from "Don't edit the article or I'll sue you". It may not derail consensus-forming, but it's a threat to derail our project protection efforts. Their counsel would surely insist that they cease communicating with us until the issue is resolved, so indef-blocking them until the legal matter is worked out wouldn't even be an inconvenience. Jkelly 00:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly is correct. This is within the realm of legal threats by any reasonable defintion. And in any case, canvassing for help in a lawsuit against Wikipedia constitutes disruption which is blockable itself. JoshuaZ 00:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That user has now been blocked indefinitely for posting such threats. FearÉIREANNMap of Ireland's capitals.png\(caint) 01:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The text in question was in fact one threat (singular, as opposed to plural) by Avillia (talk · contribs), and was intended as a joke as evidenced by the deliberately poor grammar and overexaggerated tone - as this user has explained via IRC. I've thus amended Jtdirl's block to 24hrs versus indefinite as it is clearly unwise to be posting text of this nature, but nonetheless an indefinite block is far too heavy-handed. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Demonte Morton[edit]

I got a "fuck u" message from the user above. I'd like to tell him he can go fuck himself too, but he's quite obviously a child. I'd appreciate it if someone could block him. Thanks. Brian G. Crawford 00:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've warned him and will keep an eye on it. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 01:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Users: Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael[edit]

I suspect Nancetlv (talk · contribs) and Bonnieisrael (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) of Israelbeach (talk · contribs), against whom I have recently filed an RfC - but an IP check proved inconclusive. Nancetlv and Bonnieisrael are now edit warring on a new article[19], attacking me on my talk page[20], harassing another admin who blocked Israelbeach for making threats[[21]], and in short, engaging in the same kind of behavior that lead me to file an RfC against Israelbeach. The new edit war is on Joel Leyden, who is user:Israelbeach. Do I have to file a new RfCs against each sockpuppet, or can I somehow fold my complaints into the current Israelbeach RfC? If the latter, how do I do this, without having IP proof that they are sockpuppets? Also, I believe Joel Leyden should be unprotected and reverted to reflect better Wikipedia style, but in light of the current RfC I won't do it myself, see my comment here[22]. Thanks. --Woggly 07:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to note that I have been actively dealing with the case, though I've yet to actually investigate the underlying editorial dispute comprehensively. I invite and welcome any further opinion and help. Especially from those who are familiar with this particular dispute. El_C 23:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center dispute[edit]

MONGO has expressed a desire for this to be brought up on this page, so I will oblige. The issue is this: there is a notable point of view that 7 World Trade center was demolished by the use of explosives. WP:EL states that, on pages with multiple points of view, external links should exist that represent each point of view. In accordance with that policy, I linked the page to and included a Popular Mechanics article that gave the opposing POV.

MONGO reverted the article numerous times, simply calling "junk" and "nonsense". Finally, a user pointed out that offers a DVD for sale and that websites whose primary purpose is to sell merchandise are not generally acceptable as external links.

MONGO is now continuing to revert any mention of, calling it "advertising" (and even implying that I am somehow involved with the site, saying things like "sorry if this cuts into your pockets") It is crystal clear to me that is a political site that happens to sell a DVD, and not a site that exists to sell merchandise. There is nothing in WP:EL that prohibits it, and everything that encourages it.

Obviously, we're having trouble resolving this edit war. MONGO has taken a tone indicating that he and he alone will determine the content of the article, and I will honestly say that I am concerned he intends to use his administrator powers to block those who disagree with him, as I have seen him make similar blocks in the past, pouncing on those who do not share his POV at their first arguable infraction (for example, Striver. --Hyperbole 09:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be stretching the facts a bit to call this a "notable point of view". There is a link to the site from 9/11 conspiracy theories, which is in turn linked from 7 World Trade Center. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
"Small minority view" would cover it, I think. If a link is necessary (a judgment call), how about this one? [23] it is not advertising, and the author is an actual faculty member at an accredited institution of higher learning.Robert A.West (Talk) 12:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
How many hundreds of thousands of people have to hold a point of view for it to be considered "notable"? I concede that the idea that 7 WTC was demolished by explosives is a minority view, but it is certainly far, far more notable than the subjects of thousands of Wikipedia articles. Searching for "7 world trade center" + explosives returns 23,300 Ghits, and that's a fairly restrictive search that certainly doesn't catch them all. I still don't feel I've received a satisfactory answer to why the site shouldn't be linked to both 7 World Trade Center and 9/11 conspiracy theories - it is a POV relevant to both of them, and WP:EL seems to suggest that that means it should be there. --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
You could also consider using a source as a reference, rather than an external link. That provides the opportunity for critical discussion in the body of the article, which can often be better than a link without context. --bainer (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions, but don't you think is more specific to 7 World Trade Center than the byu article (which prominently discusses the collapse of the Twin Towers)? Also, we've found in talk that using as a source is probably even more problematic than presenting it as an external link. One question I'd like to settle here is this: does the presence of a single DVD on a website qualify it as "spam"? Or does a site's primary purpose have to be to sell merchandise in order to disqualify it as an external link? --Hyperbole 18:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
A question I would ask is how many people have added to how many different pages on wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Why would you ask that? --Hyperbole 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Case in point...I haven't blocked Hyperbole, nor have I threatened to do so. The link Hyperbole wishes to have is this one which clearly has the banner that links to a DVD that is for sale. This violates WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Hyperbole is also incorrect in assuming that I am the only editor that is opposed to this link being in the article.--MONGO 00:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It's fairly hard to find serious conspiracy theorists who aren't also vanity press authors or videographers or some such. The example here isn't unusual, nor is the DVD the sole focus of the site. Many conspiracy theorist websites would have to get blocked from being referenced if we make "having something for sale" an exclusion from being a reference link in articles.
We could link to instead, which states their position without including the DVD ads, if that's the problem point. Georgewilliamherbert 00:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As the discussion page clearly shows, regardless of the obvious violation of WP:SPAM, the site is based on original research that is not collaborated by any major recognized impartial news media, university, trade journal or scientific journal. Regardless, the same effect exists...the site is self promoting and certainly does exist to profit, not only from sales to their DVD but also at the expense of all those that died that day. Pretty sick. Furthermore, the inclusion of the site violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV [24] and I quote from there "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. In particular, to elaborate on the last comment above, if you are able to prove something that nobody currently believes, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced." Complete non scientists as the website has provide nothing but their opinions, nothing more. There are other reasons why we don't violate policies to present nonsense.--MONGO 01:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would say it is a notable point of view. I watched a 2 hour academic lecture on the issue via google and the conclusion was that the only scientifically possible explaination was that building # 7 was demolished via explosives, and that even the official report on the building collapse admitted their best explanation of the collapse was flawed. I never considered myself a consipracy theorist prior to watching the lecture, now I certainly have questions. This lecture made the front page of Fark and the resulting discussion had nearly 1000 comments from what I recall. VegaDark 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories should be added to Fark, with links to and Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I find you use of sarcasm unfounded. I was simply trying to contribute to the discussion civily. VegaDark 04:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I apologize; I spoke out of annoyance with these systematic attempts to spam wikipedia under cover of citation about conspiracy theories. I was wrong to vent that annoyance at you.