Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZakuSage (talk | contribs) at 20:20, 25 January 2007 (→Zakusage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Professor allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia

    Per this post a professor is allegedly telling students to vandalize wikipedia. They began with Northern Illinois University's article but according to the report they have expanded to other areas. Thanks for the semi-protection to that article and the other volunteers who reverted similar vandalism. I would suggest keeping the semi-protection a bit longer. --Dual Freq 03:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We had this happen at Owens Community College a few months ago (see its talk page, and history) and probably other schools as well. Do we know the IP ranges of NIU? Antandrus (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it can be proven that the professor in question really did ask his students to vandalize Wikipedia, then I suggest that the evidence be posted here, along with contact address for the professor's faculty dean, the president of the university, and the university's office for handling academic misconduct. Concerned Wikipedians can then send an e-mail or letter to the authorities of their choice to complain about the conduct of the professor. As a (former) academic myself, I'm appalled that an educator would encourage or require his students to commit an antisocial and possibly illegal act as coursework, and I expect that this professor's colleagues and superiors would see it the same way. —Psychonaut 03:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, telling your students to go be annoying on the internet and report back on the results is probably not illegal. Inappropriate, yes. Opabinia regalis 06:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Second (as a current academic). See also similar case from Dec'05.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that the assertion and acusation that the instructor (who is not a professor) was behind this are unproven... I'm not going to post the proper contact info here to avoid a flood of abusive complaints, but it's all out there on the web, and I have sent the chair and assistant chair of the department and coordinator for the class series that this instructor is teaching a report and complaint, asking that they investigate and figure out if the instructor really did do that. If he did, then hopefully they can be convinced to take appropriate action. But he should be treated as innocent until there's some credible evidence. For all we know right now, it's a Joe-job, trying to get an innocent uninvolved person in trouble. If you feel the need to add additional complaints, please do so keeping in mind that the evidence is pretty weak (a single pseudonymous acusation). Georgewilliamherbert 09:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point - it may as well be a student prank. We will see what the accused replies; According to posts below, he admitted to this. One way or another I'd expect that the involved teachers should stress to students that 'vandalising Wikipedia is as bad as breaking a window in your local shop' and such.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, right. Now Wikipedia has been proven to be a reliable source, let's also prove that Wikipedia is reliable at filing abuse reports. Yuser31415 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has not been proven to be a reliable source because it is not a reliable source. Any student who relies entirely on a wikipedia article is a fool. Wikipedia is however a great starting place, and as our references continue to improve we will become greater and greater, but as we are a wiki we will never be, and never can be, a reliable source. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP range utilized by Northern Illinois University is 131.156.0.0/16, as seen by this representative IP, 131.156.81.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Cool--thanks. I think we should all examine any edits from these ranges in the next few days. This is where I wish we had a SQL facility, e.g. "select all recent changes from 'time period' where editor IP begins with 131.156"... Antandrus (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We have one. He's called Brion Vibber. Titoxd(?!?) 06:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    SQL access is not necessary. Checkuser can do it. Raul654 19:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I sent an email to the professor (it's spelled Pierce, by the way), who acknowledges that he did indeed make this assignment. I told him I would be forwarding the informaton to the president of the university. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify: he acknowledged this in an email reply to you? OOC, did he apologize or is he arguing he did the right thing? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He acknowledged this and tried to justify his actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have passed Professor's Pierce's reply on to the Northern Illinois University office of public relations, and have asked them to pass it on to the school's President. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's that uncommon task for university profs to set - I've seen it used a couple of times on courses (generally the prof will commit the vandalism and then revert). One use is to show why wikipedia should not be used as a source (Study skills context), the second is to show that wikipedia is to open to abuse (with an INFO-SEC context). --Fredrick day 19:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fredrick, if one wants to prove the violatile nature of Wiki's, that's what sandbox and one's userspace is. I teach, I talk about Wikis, I do use my userpage to demonstrate those issues - but I'd never thought to vandalize a real article even for a few seconds to prove to my students what can be proven as well on my userpage (as messing up real article's history and allowing a reader to find vandalised info during the few seconds it takes one to revert a change is simply bad). That said, I encourage examples of 'good editing' - I prefer to show my studnets how easy it is to add interlinks or copyedit articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great but you are coming from a perspective of domain expertise - many of the people doing this, don't understand wikipedia beyond a) "it's that free-speech website that anyone can edit and add anything about anyone" b) "this is the place that students cut and paste large sections of their assignments from". I'm not excusing anyone but that's just how it is. --Fredrick day 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - so it is our job to educate them. A very good way to to it in the academia is to ask them to read this article from Journal of American History (I do suggest sending it to the professors involved in this incident).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I finished checking the NIU class B.

    The other ranges are too large and dense to check easily. Raul654 19:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just plain undid the questionable edits that you listed (except for the Wheeling one, as you beat me to that). One was a fact changing thing, the MSU one could not be supported, and the Huntley one was not supported by the reference (there are five Pacific Islanders in all of Huntley, Illinois, which has a 0.00 percentage of the population, not 0.02).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    5/16,719 = 0.000299 or approximately 0.03%. That wasn't vandalism. Can an admin unrevert and de-warn the editor? Jd2718 03:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave all of the above {{Test4im}} warnings, and a {{SharedIPEDU}} with the link to Northwestern pointing to this discussion. I say we have an extremely short leash -- A minimum one month IP block (including user registration) on the next obvious case of vandalism. This cannot be allowed, IMO. -- Avi 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Professor Pierce's reply

    This was Professor Pierce's email reply to me:

    They needed to learn a lesson about how easy it is to find information and how open source information is not the best way to go. This was after I was getting a lot of Wikipedia cites last semester where students were citing really dubious information from there. One way for them to realize that using sources, such as Wikipedia, is to get them to see how simple it is to change the information that is there.

    I then replied to him that I would be passing his response on to the University President, and he relied:

    It's not that I'm advocating vandalism as I had them print the original page so that, even if it wasn't caught, I could go back and recreate the correct page. The bigger issue, though, is that anybody can do this and have information that is online on your servers until who knows when until the page is discovered and corrected.

    User:Zoe|(talk) 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What on Earth is he talking about? I tell my students not to trust Wikipedia, and that if they do, they're likely to get things wrong, and get worse results; that's what most of my colleagues do (though most sensible undergraduates don't need to be told). Why does he have to tell them to vandalise Wikipedia in order to get them to work sensibly? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I tell my students Wiki is a great place to start their research - but a very bad place to finish it. We are moving towards a level of quality with every fact properly referenced, but of course we are just an encyclopedia. Undergrads (and grads, and even professors) may find reading a Wiki article on unknown subject useful to get a general gist of relevant info, but then they should have enough knowledge to go to academic databases. Although I think increasingly we will have high quality articles on obscure subjects that may not even be covered well in English academic works (I challenge anyone to find a better English biography of this person then we have :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did my undergraduate in history, and if I had ever used any tertiary source such as an encyclopedia, even Britannica, I would have been dragged through mud. Teke (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is what I do too (good starting point). I also point them to the excellent resource here Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia. i can't imagine endorsing vandalism , they really need to actually do it to know it is possible? David D. (Talk) 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I smell WP:POINT violations. --210physicq (c) 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a suggestion for Mr. Pierce. If you want your students to learn about the dangers of using wikipedia, have them search for five unreferenced figures in this encyclopedia. They can use the random article button on the left side of the screen. Have them verify those figures. Chances are that some of the figures will turn out to be wrong. You will get your message across to your students, they will hopefully learn from it and we will know which information is incorrect. AecisBravado 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have another suggestion. He could get his students to improve an article on Wikipedia, and verify it.

    As an aside, this professor has very little technical knowledge about Wikipedia, especially as we have the revert function and don't have to rely on printouts to restore the article to its previous state. Yuser31415 01:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Geez the same pointless experiment over and over. Don't these people realize they can just look into the history to see how we react to vandalism? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few people who are not editors realize what Wikipedia really is. I am not suprised at that, this is only to be expected. I would however expect an academic to read up on what other academics have done with Wikipedia: WP:SUP and WP:ACST are the two links that Professor Pierce should look through as soon as possible and Rosenzweig's article in JoAH should be obligatory reading for anybody thinking about 'teaching' and 'Wikipedia' in the same sentence.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Page break for readability

    I have no qualms with a prof making a real-time point by inserting erroneous info into an article while the class watches on a screen, and then reverting it right then and there. But asking the whole class apart from oversight of the university's Institutional Review Board (IRB) needlessly takes the point too far.

    Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. This has to be admitted and, yes, possibly expected. That said, this does not appear to be the case here.

    The response letter composed was probably hasty and not done in the most effective manner. All that needed doing was to remind the prof that, for class research projects, he must first get IRB approval - which he would certainly admit to - and if he does the project again, you would report it to the university's IRB. IRB approval of research projects is a time-consuming, tedious task. This would have probably been the end of the matter. If not, if it occurred again, then the letter should go to the IRB, indicating the prof's class is doing research not under their approval. That really would put a stop to it. CyberAnth 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that would assume that the professor was doing it as a research project. Professors and students also have to abide to a code of ethics (I know I have to in my university), and violations usually are taken seriously. Titoxd(?!?) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the description, it certainly appears as though it were a research project - one NOT done under the IRB. The rest of what you said is exactly my point. If asked by several users, I would be happy to write a second letter to this prof along the lines of what I am speaking. CyberAnth 06:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to prove to your students that glass shatters, you buy a sheet of glass and a hammer. You don't ask them to throw rocks at the windscreens in the parking lot. yandman 09:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but that analogy is seriously not correlative. CyberAnth 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Looks like a pretty good analogy to me.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do have qualms with a professor illustrating a point by vandalising and immediately reverting an article. The same demonstration could easily be carried out by editing a sandbox or previewing the article without saving it. —David Levy 20:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like it or not, it is an entirely legitimate research project to study vandalism and reverts on WP by engaging in them. Such a research project could certainly pass IRB approval for a class research project. Not only I don't like it, I am sure vandalism violates research ethics and no IRB would allow such a study. It's as likely as the request to study of gangs by creating a gang and engaging in various illegal activities that gangs do, or a study where the researcher becomes an offender himself (for example go spray's graffiti, breaks windows and then writes about 'my experiences as a city vandal'. Personally I find that such an experiment is much more controversial then such ideas like Stanford prison experiment or Milgram experiment - since Wikipedia users and editors have quite obviously not agreed to participate in this experiment.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had further discussion with Professor Pierce. I asked him if he felt that if a newspaper had false information, his students should steal all of the copies out of the vendor's box, and if he found something wrong in Encyclopaedia Brittanica, would he encourage them to rip the page out of the book, but he doesn't see the analogy. I also mentioned that we have seen an increase in vandalism from NIU IP addresses which, despite his claim, he had not reverted, and he apologized for the extra work entailed in fixing that. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hm, isn't there an essay about this? Something like "Use Wikipedia as your first source, not your last source?" Because it does strike me as a very good topic for one, and something to hand to frustrated professors and the like while at the same time asking them not to vandalize to make a point. Heck, the suggestion of the alternative assignment of properly citing an uncited article and noting inaccuracies (instead of vandalizing) alone sounds like a very worthwhile thing to mention to people. Bitnine 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it is legitimate research regardless of the approving body. Defacement of websites is illegal in the US, not that we ever take legal action, but that fact certainly invalidates the legitimacy of the experiment. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Defacement of websites related to hacking, yes, and that would apply to the WP main page which is closed to editing. A very public website that invites anyone to edit and that claims to be an encyclopedia and that has multiple published reports on its problem of vandalism is a very, very different matter. CyberAnth 09:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Academic use, WP:CW and Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Special:Cite actually links to the last one. —xyzzyn 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand why these "look how bad Wikipedia can be" things are necessary. Are people really stupid enough to not realize that you should not be citing a wiki for scholarly information? -Amark moo! 05:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly enough, just Friday I was talking to a high school professor about Wikipedia, and I indicated to him that I would never cite it in my papers, and the only articles that I would even consider citing are those in which I had personally worked on and could vet on its content and accuracy. He wasn't surprised, even though I had told him that I was a Wikipedia administrator. Also, I told him how it is easy to permanently cite a revision using the "permanent link" link, so all amount of vandalism to "destroy" the information doesn't work, it just hides it and adds work to everyone involved. Titoxd(?!?) 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the professor's defense (at least on this point), the metaphors you suggested to him (stealing newspapers, ripping encyclopedias) were not the best analogies. A better analogy would be a professor trying to teach students about negilgence towards graffiti by having them spraypaint graffiti on neighborhood shops, and then having them wait a few days to see if the shopowners would actually clean it up on their own.--Rsl12 22:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazing how low they apparently set the bar for hiring instructors at Northern Illinois University, that they would retain a man who incites a class to commit acts of intellectual vandalism. Edison 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rumpelstiltskin223

    User:Hkelkar was banned for one year by the ArbCom as part of the Hkelar ArbCom case. I believe that Hkelkar is evading his ban using the account User:Rumpelstiltskin223. As I was party to the case, I will not take unilateral action against the user. I would like other admins to look at the evidence I have collected.

    • If you look at the user creation log, the account was created on 15 November, around the time when the case was going on. The user started to edit on the same day with the first edit being a revert with the edit summary "rv".
    • After some edits here and there, Rumpelstiltskin223 became completely active from 10th December (the day Hkelkar got banned).
    • Since then, Rumpelstiltskin223 has made close to 1400 edits in the mainspace. He has already shown the same pro-hindu and anti-muslim bias that hkelkar had and has already been blocked 4 times for edit-warring. [1]
    • Most of the articles edited by Rumpel were frequented by Hkelkar too.:
      1. 2002 Gujarat violence - This was Hkelkar's 2nd most edited article. Rumpel has 24 edits to it already. [2]
      2. Dalit Buddhist movement - Another article frequented by Hkelkar, and now frequented by Rumpel.
      3. Dalit - [3]
      4. Islam in India - [4]
      5. Hindutva - [5] (This one edited by Hkelkar in both his avatars - Shiva's trident and Hkelkar)
      6. Lashkar-e-Toiba - [6]
    • Though Rumpelstiltskin223 hasn't uploaded many images yet, he shows the same style there too by uploading images from websites having a cc-by-sa license. His last upload is from flickr, from which Hkelkar used to upload a lot of pics. See [7] and [8]
    • Also see [9] where it is said that Rumpelstiltskin223 is pursuing a PhD in physics. Hkelkar/Shiva's trident was also pursuing a PhD in physics.

    Thus I feel that Rumpelstiltskin223 is no one but Hkelkar using a new name and probably editing from a different geographical location and I seek an indef-block on Rumpelstiltskin223 and a reset on Hkelkar's ban. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes you think this user is necessarily editing from a new location? Would a checkuser help? Grandmasterka 12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We knew all the IPs that Hkelkar edited from and the college he went too. He is too clever to use an IP from the same town. I have a feeling that a checkuser on Rumpel will not prove (or disprove) anything. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Hkelkar. does that discount the use of proxies? ITAQALLAH 12:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkusers will note the use of proxies if they identify them as such at the time. Also, the checkuser was run over winter break, making it possible that Hkelkar was editing from another location but is now back at uni. Asking for a recheck couldn't hurt. Finally, checkuser can be defeated by a number of technical means both simple and complex, so sockpuppetry is always determined primarily by contributions and behavior. Thatcher131 15:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite unlikely. If the only source you have for "physics" is some hallucination DaGizza experienced then that's hardly proof. Hkelkar's blocks were mainly for incivility not WP:3RR. Since when does a user go from careful on wp:3RR to getting blocked for it frequently? The "facts" dont add up. If you didnt know aksi, there are way more users than rumpel that hold pro-Hindu biases (anti-Muslim is incorrect). Oh no a user of "rv", something every user uses as an edit summary, and anyone that has even viewed a page history on wiki has seen.Bakaman 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this accusation being bandied around on wikipedia before and sockpuppetry accusations abused and misused.I am not anybody's sockpuppet, and please feel free to do any checkuser that is needed. This accusation is largely based on the rants of an anonymous ip, who has been evading blocks using multiple ips from the same domain, making insults and slurs in my user page, and trying to recruit people against me. See [10] [11]Rumpelstiltskin223 23:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been accused of "anti-muslim" bias, an accusation I find highly offensive and insulting, particularly in the light of my edits [12],[13]. I am not against any religion. In addition, if you will notice the 6 articles itemized by aksi_great, you will see that my edits have primarily been of a technical nature and maintainance-type edits. I expanded the article on Dalit considerably with information that was lacking [14] and I consider myself to have done the article a service. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It is quite irrelevant if Rumpelstiltskin223 is or is not a sockpuppet. Also, I advice everybody to ignore his/her complaints about other editors. Fact is, this user is disruptive to Wikipedia and shows absolutely no desire to improve him/herself. When he/she was blocked and asked how to avoid such situations, I sympathized with him/her and took his/her question for real. I offered some advice, but he consistently refused to even look at it. Even his "thank you" was mostly a complaint about other users. When I finally announced that I was giving up AGF on him/her, he/she deleted our last conversation. It seems to me that this user is intent on having problems with other editors. Much as I believe in the good in people, I'm at the end of my wisdom with that user. I am really no fan of punitive measures, but I don't see any use for Wikipedia in further allowing this user to edit. — Sebastian 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, so he's here as well, protesting my protestations of an anonymous user calling me a "Madarchod" (that's Indian slang for "low-caste motherfucker") and declaring that I am "disruptive" and should have "punitive measures" imposed on me, for reverting vandalisms by anon ips to dozens of articles [15][16][17][18][19][20] today itself,starting several articles on Hindi films,

    [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and dispelling the ongoing wikipedia-myth that Indians constitute some sort of "race" (the ignorance here boggles my mind)[26][27][28] Given your indefensible behaviour against the verifiable truth on Decline of Buddhism in India, your consistent support for a User:Iwazaki, who has said that he intends to undo the "rape of his country on wikipedia"[29] together with increasing incivility and ethnic attacks on Tamil people from this guy with no protestations of neutrality and tendentiousness from you, and your sudden declaration of hostility against me, one wonders what your intentions here really are.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is this "sebastian" person? He seems like a sock/meat of someone. Also sebastian's treatment of RaveenS (talk · contribs) and Rajsingam (talk · contribs) leave me to wonder whether he is a sinhala nationalist.Bakaman 03:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unlikely that someone who has been around since January 2003 is someone's sock/meatpuppet. Grandmasterka 08:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rumpey, the evidence that you are Hkelar is pretty strong. What do you have to say to all of Aksi's other points? Coincidence? Khoikhoi 07:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What points? I edit whatever coincides with my interests. I am interested in Indian history, Indian politics, Religion and Politics in South Asia, Hindi Films and Star Trek. My edits show that I am neither pro-Hindu nor anti-Muslim, just interested in unbiased articles, many of which have biases against Hindus, others which have biases against Muslims and Christians that I am working on. If you see my edits to Christianity in India[30], I have edited a very neutral section depicting the Hindu-Christian conflict, and talked about syncretic Indianization of several Christians, like St. Thomas Christians and other sects who have blended Indian culture with Christian theology. I also plan to add that Christians in South India re-enact Biblical parables using Indian dances like Kathakali. Still, I was accused of being an "anti-Christian" by that Bdebbarma user [31] because of my edits to Tripura Baptist Christian Union[32] and their involvement in Christian extremist terrorism in Tripura. I do not take such accusations seriously as they seem to be the product of a narrow mind.
    I am presently engaged in re-writing Mukti Bahini, a predominantly Muslim outfit. I am also getting material on historical attitudes on Islamophobia and anti-Arabism,articles to which I have already added information if you look at the history page. Where is this "pro-Hindu" and "anti-Muslim"/"anti-Christian" bias of which you people speak please answer me?
    Whenever my edits seem to portray other religions in a negative light, well, it is not my fault that (according to Muslim editors) "partisan hacks" like Amnesty International and BBC [33] showcase the Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh at the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists. It is not my fault that scholars and academics have written lengthy articles and books criticizing the Fundamentalist Jamaat-e-Islami[34]. If you don't like it then go contact the academics who wrote those articles. Attacking me on some cooked-up sockpuppetry charge will not be productive to wikipedia thaa.
    I do not know how I can prove to you of my identity, since you do not know who I am and I am under no obligation to give you my personal information. I have edited many articles across many topics, and this aksi_great has conveniently cherry-picked a few that I have edited and then yell "Aha! Sockpuppet". I can do that to any two users. If you give me some time, I can manufacture such a case against other users too. If you want to do a checkuser to settle your doubts, please do so. However, do not keep bothering me with such spurious charges simply because you people want to keep your unacademic biased articles biased forever, since that will not happen, irrespective of what you do to me or anyone else. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    There are many more articles where there is similarity between their edits:
    • Goa Inquisition was one of the last articles edited by Hkelkar [35]. For example, Hkelkar made 10 consecutive edits to the article on 7th December. Rumpel's first block was on 16th December for edit-warring on Goa Inquisition.
    • Rumpel's 2nd block was for edit-warring on History of India with User:Siddiqui. Hkelkar also had a history of editing that article, and reverting Siddiqui using popups. See [36], [37].
    • Rumpel's 4th block was for edit-warring on Anti-Brahmanism. This article was also heavily edited by Hkelkar and Hkelkar's previous avatar - Shiva's Trident. Hkelkar had edit warred with other users like Ikonoblast on the article. Rumpel is currently on a reverting spree on the article.
    I could go and investigate each article that Rumpel has edited. Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, see above. Second of all. I hardly doubt that your statement above has any merit at all, given the articles that I have edited (and only I) and, so far nobody else has (almost). least of all this user of which you speak. I will compile a list for you in a few minutes below: Rumpelstiltskin223 12:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the articles that I have edited that almost nobody else has:

    and, finally,

    Do you want more? How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see. Rumpelstiltskin223 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding History of India, aksi_great says that this other user hkelkar has "also revert-warred against User:Siddiqui on that article using popups". Here is the history page of that article [61]. I see no such popups by this hkelkar so that statement is a falsehood
    I am not on a "reverting spree" on Anti-Brahmanism. I have removed edits that carried racist propaganda, and ,in fact, haven't edited the articele in quite some time.Henceforth, kindly stop making up edits and conjuring up false scenarios, then relying on your colleagues to bolster your bogus arguments by saying "Oh, that is soo convincing".Right, that's subtle! Rumpelstiltskin223 12:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    When did I say that the articles that I have mentioned were the only articles you have edited? Hkelkar has been banned by the ArbCom, and it is my duty to not allow Hkelkar in any form to edit wikipedia for 1 year. I have tracked Hkelkar's edits for a very long time leading up to the ArbCom case. I feel that I have gathered enough proof that you are indeed Hkelkar. The similarities are too close to be co-incidences. If the administrators want I can produce more similarities. If they are not able to decide about ban-evasion, I am prepared to ask the ArbCom for intervention. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you are doing absolutely nothing. O and aksi just above " Almost every article that Rumpel has edited has been previously edited by Hkelkar/Shiva's trident". Your argument is flimsy and self contradictory. Do you not know that the BJP won a majority not too long ago in India? There are over 400 million people that subscribe to the brand of politics I assume rumpel belongs to.Bakaman 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    HKelkar's biggest defender ( and a part of the arbcom on Hkelkar) comes and defends this user ? All this just deepens the suspicion about Rumpelstiltskin223. Of those 400 million supporters only one has so far used 3 sockpuppets to edit only these articles, and has got into repeated civility and revert brawls and blocks. A point to remember is that Hkelkar/Shiva's Trident/Pusyamitra Sunga was known to use technology to dodge checkuser in the past. Being a University student doing a Physics doctorate should enable him to get the resources required to do so Haphar 08:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Still pissed Blnguyen (talk · contribs) got elected to arbcom despite megabytes of troll-speak on his candidacy talk page? Bakaman 21:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Baka Attempts at trolling would not add to Hkelkar's defence. By jumping in you have hurt his case enough, and such "civility" as expressed by you here is not adding to your cause either.Haphar 07:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, a lot of these so-called "incriminating edits" are routine vandalism patrols by me. I have been tracking anonymous edits for a while now, as they seem to be the most vandalistic statistically. It is not my fault that certain articles are troll-attractors and so will be edited contentiously by anons. Rumpelstiltskin223 02:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    These patrols started immediately after claiming that "How about all the articles that were being vandalized by anons that I sniffed out and fixed? Just look at my contributions page and see"and in an insensible way, and obviously removing other comments from his talk page [62] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mustafa Bhai (talk • contribs) 12:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    No. Vandalism reverts have been done by me for many weeks now. See these [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

    [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85] made over the course of long time, just a small sample.

    Here are some more "pro-Hindu anti-Muslim" edits of mine:
    Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia[86]
    Darwaaza Bandh Rakho[87]
    Sto-Vo-Kor [88] - very pro-Hindu anti-Muslim, if Muslims are Klingons, hee.
    [[ ]]
    Want more?Rumpelstiltskin223 13:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, then it would be easier to claim that "I have edited non India, non Hindu-Muslim related articles as well " just by reverting some edits (apparently indiscriminately) assuming that anonymous authors don't have editing rights.Bakasuprman has mastered this art well by creating categories and assigning them to innumerable articles and swelling his edit count 87.74.3.128 07:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Trying to judge consensus

    I have submitted my evidence and I conclude that Rumpel is indeed Hkelkar. I would like to know if there is consensus among admins of the same so that Rumpel can be blocked from wikipedia. Please review the evidence and put your support or oppose below. Please feel free to ask me any questions regarding the evidence that I have provided. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded I would further like to add 1:His first 5 edits were reverts and out of his first 50 over 70% are reverts which [89] which I find strange.I checked over 75 others over and none of them had reverts at the start .This shows that Rumpelstiltskin223 is experienced in using Wikipedia before he started using this user name.new users take time to learn even computer experts.

    2:Being an Indian he choice the name Rumpelstiltskin223 as it would avoid suspician of him being Hkelkar.It is not usual nickname or chat name used anywhere in India or by Indians .First time seeing an Indian use since I started using the net over 10 years ago.If I had not seen his edits I would never guessed he was an Indian,it is totally alien to an Indian.Hence difficult to find he is Hkelkar

    3:His comments are fantical and he cannot stand other views broke the 3RR rule 6 times and 5 times this month and was blocked 5 times and page protected in Vaikom Satyagraha.Look his fantical talk in various talk pages.While I respect his views.

    4:[90] Please check this another user Harper gives some evidence to be being being Hkelkar

    Adyarboy 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Lol the users that perpetuate this myths are generally those that hate Hindus in general. Adyarboy is involved in trying to suppress the racist aims of a fanatical anti-Hindu and has gone to mouthing off to get atttention. Haphar (talk · contribs) is well known as a Hindu hater as well. O and guess what? Bakaman is not an Indian name either. Am I an alien? How about Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington (talk · contribs), Nobleeagle (talk · contribs), Lostintherush (talk · contribs), etc. All of us are Indian (or of Indian dewcent) and none of us use Indian names.Bakaman 21:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply - Name calling is the first sign of someone losing an argument :-). Haphar 07:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Further evidence .The anti semitism claims[91], The smart aleck comments + The Protocol of Zion and Hindu conspiracy theory [92] And user history [93] all point to too much of similiarity. Haphar 12:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frank Lofaro Jr.

    I have issued a test4 warning to Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs) for having created, just a few minutes apart, Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong and Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank. A sudden burst of trolling from what appears to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk)

    User:Bosniak again?

    I have recently blocked User:Legal Provider of Bosnian picture for having an inappropriate username. After checking the contribution history, I realise the views expressed are relatively similar to block User:Bosniak, who was blocked for reasons explained here. I would appreciate a second opinion on whether I should request a checkuser. I reckon User:Bosniak may have used sockpuppets in the past (i.e. User:Bosniakk, with two "k"), but editing while blocked may deemed reason enough to request a community ban as discussed before. Regards, Asteriontalk 18:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, I would say inconclusive, but very possible. The username and timing are interesting. This edit is in line with Bosniak's interests, and these confrontational edit summaries are in character. On the other hand, this edit seems somewhat more grammatical than Bosniak's typical contributions. On balance, I would think a checkuser is justified based on the evidence. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm skeptical. In my opinion, I don't think Bosniak would have been that subtle, and I think he would have headed straight for the Srebrenica article. There's just not enough evidence to make me suspect that it is Bosniak, just some circumstantial bits. -- Merope 19:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this one is borderline; there's some circumstantial evidence, but it's far from clear-cut. I went looking for a policy statement that draws a clear line between circumstantial evidence and outright fishing, but I couldn't find anything on WP:RFCU or m:CheckUser policy. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this account at its first contribution. I think it's unlikely that it's operated by the same person as User:Bosniak. In recent months we've had (and in some cases blocked) a large number of accounts belonging to (distinct) Bosniak nationalist POV-pushers. For some reason they seem to gravitate to Wikipedia. —Psychonaut 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am not completely convinced either. Nor I am very familiar with his edit style and patterns. In any case, I thought it was better to clear this matter. Hence I requested a checkuser: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bosniak. Feel free to add to the report. Asteriontalk 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I was asked to comment. The edits of User:Legal Provider of Bosnian picture and User:Provider of Bosnian picture show familiarity with Wikipedia, so they're probably sockpuppets of somebody. The timing is coincidental: The latter account was created 13 hours after User:Bosniak was blocked. On the other hand, looking at the edits they don't strike me as very similar to those by User:Bosniak, so on balance I think it's probably somebody else. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate blocks

    A checkuser on Bosniak has vindicated him. However, as a result, for some reason the following sockpuppets of an entirely different user (User:Bosna) were blocked:

    There was no reason to have blocked these accounts. WP:SOCK states that sockpuppets are permitted (albeit discouraged), provided they're not used to circumvent other policies. User:Bosna is not and has never been under a block or a ban, so he is perfectly entitled to create and use sockpuppets. —Psychonaut 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: Sleeper accounts are often blocked as a preventative measure. If they are legitimate alternate accounts, the main account can request an unblock of any or all of them, but the onus is placed on the user by WP:BLOCK to provide that the accounts are used for legitimate purposes. On the behalf of Requests for CheckUser, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community feels the blocks I set are inappropriate, I have no issue with lifting them (or allowing someone else to do the same), but I will point out that (a) all of those accounts are apparently the same person, and have edited heavily at Bosniaks, and (b) I didn't block the "main" account. Use of several accounts to edit the same article, especially in a content dispute, constitutes a WP:SOCK violation, in my view. Feel free to disagree. Luna Santin 06:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Psychonaut is misinterpreting what "unrelated" means. It does not mean that there is no sockpuppetry going on; it merely means that checkuser could not confirm that there is. For a hypothetical example, a puppetmaster might have his main account in Nevada, but run his sockpuppets through a friendly ISP in Bolivia. There'd be no way to detect that other than going by the contents of the edits, and that's not checkuser's job, of course. Also, I erred about Bosna, for whom we lack new enough information. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been suggested that in the future I simply use "inconclusive" rather than "unrelated", since it's impossible to prove absence of sockpuppethood. I shall do so, I think. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In that instance, timing of the edits is key. You can't fly from Nevada to Colombia in two minutes, if the edits from those accounts are that close, can you? Grandmasterka 09:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You can fly as fast as you want with ssh and open proxies. —Psychonaut 09:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jeffpw

    Jeffpw (talk • contribs) had a large photo of Hillary Clinton on his User page, with the caption "Hillary for President". I have removed it, and he reverted. I have reverted again. This is inappropriate content for a User page, and would request review of my actions. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zoe has either (WP:AGF here) acted a bit too hastily, or (not WP:AGF) is on some sort of power trip, because while it did have Hillary for President (paraphrasing) the first time, the second time she reverted, it was just a picture with her name underneath. The picture is from commons, so is not a violation of WP:FU. If Zoe doesn't like Mrs. Clinton, that'sa her business. I don't appreciate her making it mine. The first reversion I can understand, the second (and who knows? maybe the third, as I haven't checked it again) I don't. I am puzzled, confused, and more than a little irritated atwhat I see as an abuse of administrative power
    Well, according to WP:USER we're not supposed to campaign on our userpages...but did you ask Jeffpw to remove it before removing it yourself? Syrthiss 19:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no I didn't, and that was a failing on my part. But I did explain immediately afterwards why I felt it should not be there, and got nasty comments made against me when I made none against anyone else. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One photograph hardly seems to amount to extensive personal opinions on matters outside of Wikipedia - the reason for Zoe claims for deletion on Jeffpw's talkpage. No violation of WP:USER is obvious here. In any event by convention editor's userpages should not be edited unilaterally and the correct thing for Zoe to do was surely to raise her concerns on Jeffpw's talkpage. To do otherwise is extremely heavy handed and disrespectful to an established contributor. I am sure Jeffpw would have removed the image himself if it had been shown to him to be in violation of policy. WJBscribe 19:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering that he has reverted the picture back after I pointed out the policy to him, it seems unlikely. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe, you seem to have missed the fact that Jeffpw's reversions and reaction to you are a consequence of the manner in which you set about deleting content from his userpage twice. Had you started a discussion with him on his TalkPage, as common courtesy required, you would have found him more helpful! WJBscribe 19:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The image now has no caption except "Hillary Clinton", which seems pretty accurate, and indeed had no caption when Zoe deleted it the second time.[94] [95] — coelacan talk — 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If you check the diffs, I removed the caption after Zoe reverted me. She reverted again after it was just a simple picture (and I also reinstated a post I made that got lost during an edit conflict above) Jeffpw 19:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflictx6)There is nothing in the policy that says Jeff cannot have a large picture of Hilary Clinton on his userpage with a small caption underneath saying vote for her - it is not polemical, nor is it excessive personal opinion. There's no justification here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTSOAPBOX says articles may not include advocacy, self-promotion, or advertising. The issue is about Jeff's userpage, not any articles to which he has contributed, and thus that policy does not apply, WP:USER does, and Jeff's picture and caption does not violate it! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Policies apply all the time, not just when agree with them. The image was clearly advocating a political position. This is not neccessary on Wikipedia, leads to assumptions, divisiveness, and generally creates Bad ThingsTM. In a more general context, it is unwiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Userpages themselves are not necessary on Wikipedia, but we give good users more leeway. Jeff is a good user, and it's not like he's going around inserting POV into political articles. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is obvious promoting. A picture of Thomas Jefferson doesn't have any political implications. Yes, Zoe was too quick, but WP:USERPAGE clearly states that if someone asks you to remove something, you should. The large scale image is pretty obvious promotion. From the page, one cannot have:
    Polemical statements:

    I'm quite close to removing it myself, or asking him to do so. In fact, I'm asking right now, please remove the image, Jeff. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

              • I would like somebody to point me to my incivility here. The first message I sent Zoe was perfectly polite. After she reverted my page again, when there was no caption on it at all, except the name, I left a blunt message. check her page and see for yourself. If any apology is owed, it is her to me. Jeffpw 19:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a quick note, it is without a doubt not a polemical statement. Go look up polemical in the dictionary (or here, for that matter). The only portion it could possibly violate is the quote from Jimbo, which, in my opinion, is overly broad and does not reflect policy. Jimbo != consensus. Zoe quoted another section of WP:USER after a couple reverts and after being asked a couple times to cite policy, but I don't see how it applies at all (it was the "extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia" bit). —bbatsell ¿? 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, and just for the record, I think it was slightly misguided, and if still kept, should be very much reduced in size and prominence. I think Zoe behaved incredibly badly in not simply explaining her concern first and asking Jeff to modify it (not to mention using administrative rollback on non-vandalism and all that jazz). To my knowledge, Jeff is a solid editor and that courtesy should have been given (as outlined in WP:USER). —bbatsell ¿? 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, the page specifically says, comments from Jimbo aside, that polemical statements can not be on the userpage. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as I said, it was not polemical. I don't think the word means what you think it means. —bbatsell ¿? 19:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is a giant picture of Hillary Clinton, with the words "Hillary for President" (simply toned down to "Hillary") anything but polemic? Polemic: Polemic is the art or practice of disputation or controversy, as in religious, philosophical, or political matters. Polemic. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that picture "disputing or controverting religious, philosophical, or political matters" or "written specifically to dispute or refute a topic that is widely viewed to be a 'sacred cow' or beyond reproach"? My opinion on something is not a polemical statement unless my opinion is extraordinarily divisive. My $0.02. —bbatsell ¿? 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is starting to turn into a semantic discussion. The picture probably is a bit on the border of the spirit of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and it could probably stand to be sized down a bit; but unless someone is so utterly and completely offended by it I would probably just let it go. Really it's not all that much different than that political/religious userboxes (of which I'm not a huge fan either but they seem to have garnered some general level of acceptance). Any further discussion really needs to be about WP:USER and if this sort of thing is acceptable or if WP:USER needs to be modified; but that is another whole can of worms...--Isotope23 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Images of politicians

    Two separate issues here, images and civility. Let's keep them separate and talk about the former. I am currently displaying a large scale image of a radical political extremist on my user page. Should I be reverted? — coelacan talk — 19:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And I certainly beg to differ that "A picture of Thomas Jefferson doesn't have any political implications." He was a radical extremist by his own and today's standards, and he founded the Democratic Party. I think there's a pretty clear message behind my image. — coelacan talk — 19:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone believes it's polemic, absolutely. This is silly, Coelacan. You're not campainging to put Jefferson for the presidency. There's a difference, and I think you understand that. Now, back to my quote: what about the fact that, per WP:USER, and per Jimbo, polemic statements can not be on the userpage? I cannot think of a single example of how this could violate that principal any more. Saying, "but we allow this other example" is non-sequitur. Please address this argument. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, isn't this all a bit WP:POINT?--Isotope23 19:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Patstuart, the tag on your userpage that says you are a Christian looks pretty polemic. Will you be removing it? Edison 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, except your request was clearly a WP:POINT request. Now, would you address my arguments instead of making statements about me? Patstuarttalk|edits 19:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not POINT, because I am not disrupting anything. I just put up one picture on my user page to talk about it. We can hardly talk about it without a specific example. Now then, Jeffpw has removed the polemical statement. All he is doing is displaying an image. It doesn't say anything, and it's her Senate photograph, not even a campaign photograph. — coelacan talk — 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And how is displaying an image of one Democrat not allowed and yet the photo of the party's founder is? I understand the difference of living people, but there is a modern political statement behind my image. I'm not advocating for Jefferson for President. I'm advocating for any and all Jeffersonian politicians for any and all offices, and Jeffersonian policies implemented worldwide. — coelacan talk — 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say you were disrupting anything... but it does seem to go against "state your point; don't prove it experimentally". It's just an observation though... personally I think you are comparing apples to oranges here with posting a picture of a dead politician who is widely considered a "founding father" of the U.S. and trying to compare it to posting a picture of a current politician who has just declared her presidential candidacy. It's just not a good comparison... and I think your "Jeffersonian adovcacy" rings a bit hollow here since you seem to have embraced it after this issue with Jeff's page arose.--Isotope23 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care if you think it's hollow and I think you really ought to consider the implications of my actions on their face. If you don't think Jefferson's politics are controversial today, you don't follow politics. The man is almost single-handedly responsible for church/state separation, and thousands of pages of pages of analysis are written every year on his opinions of precisely what that separation should entail. As for polemic, well, I'm not quoting him on my user page at this time, but in Notes on the State of Virginia, he wrote, "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites". Father of the United States or not, he's not merely an uncontroversial footnote, and to openly support his politics was considered treasonous in America in the 1950s, and today is a guarantee of unelectability. A recent Supreme Court case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance hinged on his (and others') opinions. You can't box him away safely in the past. — coelacan talk — 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm familiar with Jefferson and his writings, but again, comparing Jefferson to Clinton is a bad comparison. Comparing these actions "on their face" completely ignores the context; no matter how controversial Jefferson was in his day or how controversial his writings still are he simply is not a controversial figure in this day and age any more so than Voltaire or Dante. Besides, what you have on your userpage really has no bearing on this discussion; nobody has complained about it or tried to remove the picture have they?--Isotope23 20:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Patstuart has just told me that I should take it down if anyone asks me to. And are you seriously saying that "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" is no longer a controversial statement? — coelacan talk — 20:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And if someone comes along and asks you to remove that picture because they disagree with Jeffersonian politics, you ought to do it. And, yet once again, I will say, the argument "because we allow A, we should allow B" doesn't work, if policy clearly shows that "B" is illegal. And you have openly admitted that the picture is polemic, so it should be removed. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I ought to do it if asked? You are absolutely and unequivocably wrong. Wikipedia runs on consensus, and there never was consensus for this, as you can see by the overflow of Category:Anti T2 Wikipedians. This policy was forced down users' throats, and while I never recreated my political userboxes, with blatantly worded statements, an image alone is way too borderline for you to assert any established consensus. — coelacan talk — 20:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, WP:USER says that we need to have consensus to put somethere there at all, not vice versa. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORLY? Where does it say that? — coelacan talk — 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:USER#Removal: If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus was established years ago by default, and last spring when political statements started being deleted, that ground to a halt because an alternative consensus was never formed. The userbox migration resulted as a compromise, and that was as far as it went. So as far as I'm concerned, consensus has always been that non-abusive political statements were allowed, with the caveat that political user categories were to be deleted because they were used for votestacking. In any case, "the community" is rather a lot more people than the one hypothetical "someone" you speak of. If someone asked me to take down Jefferson, I would come here and ask for a larger discussion before I made any move. — coelacan talk — 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous

    WP:USER clearly states that something should be removed if someone objects to it (in good faith, as was done here by Zoe). It also specifically says polemic statements are not allowed, and a giant picture of Hillary with "Hillary for president", slightly toned down to "Hillary": how can it be anything but polemic? I am incredulous that anyone is opposing this. The policy states it directly, and even Jimbo Wales had given his opinion on this matter. While I'm constrained to assume good faith, I will admit this stretches my ability when it comes to people's political affiliations and reasons for opposing. Patstuarttalk|edits 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It's worth pointing out that "if the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so" isn't quite the same thing as "remove anything somebody finds objectionable". ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe did not merely object; she reverted it without any discussion, and left quite a rude message oin my page. Had she discussed the situation with me before hand, we wouldn't be in the sad situation where we now find ourselves:-( Jeffpw 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, you're correct. She shouldn't have done that. So, I ask you, in good faith, so that we can avoid any more silliness, could you please remove the image as it appears to be campaign material? Patstuarttalk|edits 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I admitted above that my deletion without discussing it with you first was wrong, but please explain how I have deleted the campaign poster you had on your User page. Please don't campaign for candidates on Wikipedia's dime. This is not a political point from me, as I have not made up my mind yet as to whom I will support, it might be Hillary, but that has no bearing on my deletion is rude? User:Zoe|(talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be happy to remove the image, just as soon as the Wiki vigilante squad pores over the tens of thousands of userpages here and removes each and every image I find offensive. That would include (but not be limited to) images of Mohammad, Jesus, Angelina Jolie and Kermit the Frog (who, I have it on good authority, is about to announce his own candidacy for president). When this is done, I will hapily remove Mrs. Clinton's picture. Until such time, you will have to content yourself with a reduction in size. Jeffpw 20:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now let's not get WP:POINTy, Jeff. I myself would greatly appreciate a reduction in size and prominence and would take that as an expression of good faith. —bbatsell ¿? 20:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, since you asked politely. Jeffpw 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir, I was trying to be polite, if you see my statement above: So, I ask you, in good faith... could you please remove the image. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were trying to be polite, Pat, it certainly didn't scan that way to me. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really understand how supporting a presidential candidate is "polemic". The American Heritage Dictionary defines "polemic" as "a controversy or argument, esp. one that is a refutation of or an attack upon a specified opinion or doctrine." Implying support for Sen. Clinton doesn't seem to be a controversy or an argument, or any worse than many of the things Wikipedians express through userboxes. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. For some Userboxes designating one as a Christian or an Atheist could be polemic. Heck, even the users boxes about American English vs British English could cause strife. The targeting of political images and allowing these other even more polemic sentiments to stay, seems a bit off kilter. Agne 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the length of this thread and the speed at which it's growing shows the matter clearly is controversial. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Which demonstrates that there is no consensus for such implementation of the policy. — coelacan talk — 20:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the removal was far more controversial than the image could ever be. the wub "?!" 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It does show controversy but it is over a span of topics. For some, the singular image itself is controversial. For others, the actual deletion process and admin conduct was controversial. For others, (like myself) it is the concept of even mundane political images being considered polemic while other obviously more polemic images and userboxes are left untouched. Agne 20:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We've already agreed the removal was done badly. But we should not allow an injustice or violation of policy simply because arguing about it is lengthy and controversial. The image should not be there as it is now. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (struck slightly over the top language, Patstuarttalk|edits 22:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    But many other users, including other admins, have already argued that it is not "polemic" so you have no clearcut case that this is any violation of policy. And the "injustice"? What on earth? — coelacan talk — 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I see stirring controversy is an administrator abusing her power to make a user conform to her beliefs about how Wikipedia should be run. I was asked politely to reduce the size of the image, and have complied immediately. All I ever wanted was discussion with Zoe before she crossed the line from WP:BOLD to WP:VAND. Jeffpw 20:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    But now that she's admitted she did it wrong, will you discuss it? If someone says "oops", and the action is undone, that doesn't mean all conversation has to end. And please WP:AGF and don't accuse people of vandalism just because you're in a content dispute. I also see you've made the image smaller, but not by much. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it just images of Hillary Clinton that are not allowed? How about a userpage with a picture of John McCain and the statement "This user thinks John McCain should run for POTUS?" at User:Jesus Geek? How about User:BigGuy219 who just has a picture of John McCain with his name under it? Are those OK, or should we ask the users to remove them? How about the 18 user pages with the image Rudy-Giuliana-face.jpg? Is it ok because some ot them are userboxes that say they do not approve of vandalism? What about the hundreds of userpages with dozens of little boxes saying they support this and oppose that? Aren't there better ways for admins to spend their time than selective deleting images of politicians from userpages? Can't we just all get along? Edison 20:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see a small, innocuous picture of the man on the page. If jeff would do that, I wouldn't have a problem with it. And, yes, if there was a huge picture of McCain on someone's page that looked exactly the same, my reaction would be equivalent. This reaction has nothing to do with politics: it's about what I see as a violation of policy. Patstuarttalk|edits 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    At this point it is probably best just to let this go, as there clearly is no consensus on how to proceed here, and continue a relevant discussion of what is acceptable on userpages at WP:USER talk.--Isotope23 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Step two of dispute resolution. I think it's time we took it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Play nice, please!

    And here we go again...

    If there's anything the various incidents over the course of the last year have taught us, it's that selective attempts at enforcing userpage rules simply don't work as intended, and usually result in little beyond getting many people quite upset. This goes double for attempts that dispense with the usual discussion and move straight to the ham-fisted removal.

    There is very, very little that an established, good-faith contributor could place on their userpage which would truly need to be removed right now. Everything else doesn't warrant immediate, undiscussed removal; and most likely doesn't really need to be removed at all, unless we're going to make a habit of actually patrolling userpages for "inappropriate" content. A picture of Hillary isn't particularly important, in the grand scheme of things; it's rather unlikely to be worth provoking the sort of big, nasty, utterly pointless fight that is certain to result when you try to remove it by force. Kirill Lokshin 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. I whole-heartedly support Barack Obama, but I certainly don't object to Jeff's picture of Hilary: when he first put it up I thought nothing more than "Thank God he's taken down that dreadful joke message bar". Personally, I am FAR more offended by users who have "His user believes marriage is between a man and a woman only" userboxes on their page. I suggest you start a discussion to remove them, rather than harrass a hard-working user whose only crime is to be an enthusiastic Democrat. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest no such action be pursued against "onemanandonewoman" users. I still oppose T2, and everything that smells like its rancid ghost. — coelacan talk — 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, personally, I think if someone's userpage has to be targeted, it would be better if it were a chap's like Boris Johnson VC rather than Jeff's. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That's some userpage, Dev! And people tried to claim displaying Hillary was polemical?!? Jeffpw 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally concur with the above. Political advocacy is inappropriate here, but this was a case for asking nicely, not forcing the issue. Friday (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Like many things on Wikipedia, political advocacy on a user page isn't expressly forbidden. So, unless the advocacy is racist, vulgar, commercial advertising, or advocating criminal behavior, (insert any other expressly forbidden items here that I may have forgotten) there isn't much of a case for removing it, especially as Kirill points out, by force. Please spend your energies fighting vandals, incivility, disruptive editors/sockpuppets, and spamming. Cla68 01:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Lord, this has gotten to a point in which we parody ourselves. Honestly, I think I might start make jokes about Wikipedians screwing in light bulbs. We are here to make a better encyclopedia, not bicker and fight over trivial things like what our "god given" policy instructs us to do. Granted, we have some rules to follow, but it's not as if this in the article space. We are being far too anal about something that shouldn't be an issue. Yanksox 01:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any image of a politician is likely to be used under fair use guidelines here. Fair use specifically disallows use outside the relevant encyclopedic article(s). This is no question of what people want, it's a copyright violation. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair use is not required for public domain photos, and that one's a federal photo. Seraphimblade 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. As a work of the US government, it's public domain. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the plus side, I do kinda like my new userpage. So I guess there's that, anyway. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Not polemic, but polarizing, perhaps? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been stated more than once in this discussion, Zoe, your actions in this matter seem to have been more polarizing than the picture on my page. I doubt many would have even noticed it had you not made such a big issue out of it. Jeffpw 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, you do keep saying that, don't you? Repeated accusations do not make them true the more times you say them. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone please explain to me why people have to wander around policing people's user pages? Seriously. You are wasting time on this issue. The people that seem more concerned about what Jeffpw has on his user page are basically saying "it's against policy!!!" (yawn) I can sit here and find lots of things on people's user pages that are against policy. The whole thing is basically WP:POINT , whether it was intended that way or not. The more heated this gets, the more I begin to wonder if there is any sanity here left at all. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 18:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're only beginning to wonder ....? :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Elaragirl. So, in other words, we should pick and choose which policies we follow, so long as you get to choose which ones they are? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think she's suggesting that you could find better things to do than start fights with other users, Zoe. Maybe not better for you but better on the whole. This whole thing is nonsense, as are most fights over userpages. There's going to be an election in the States. It gets quite heated. Lots of people will campaign on their userpages. yawn. We could have a fascinating brawl over whether policy permits it, with some fantastic wheelwarring and lots of bad blood, or we could simply accept that it's sometimes worse to piss on playgrounds than to just let people play. Grace Note 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe, let it go. You made your point. My image is non-captioned and reduced in size. No need to prolong it anymore. Jeffpw 23:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I HAD dropped it, but you and others above won't stop attacking me. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry you feel attacked. That was certainly not my intention. You seem to be letting this get to you. Some of your edit summaries here are bordering on violations of WP:CIV, as does accusing me of attacking you. Jeffpw 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I just don't understand why no one was policing Jeffpw's user page when he had that annoying joke message bar up there. It took me a number of clicks to figure it out (and it took me the same number to figure out that with pop-ups I can use rollover to go directly to the user's talk page, instead of the user page first, then the talk page). Wow, American politics doesn't get more divisive. Still, I thought it was another practical joke. When I couldn't find the punch line, I assumed Jeff had taken a serious bent and was now working on a FA on Hillary Clinton's declaration of her campaign for Wikipedia. Now I find he's just campaigning. Will it never end?

    The fact is Jeffpw's campaign would have recieved almost no attention but for this series of unfortunate events. IMO, it behooves administrators to act polite first, rather than retroactively--Jeffpw is an agreeable Wikipedian, who takes the fall even when he's not at fault. Now look at the other editors who have added Hillary's image to their user pages as a result of this series of incidents, "IF YOU HATE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, POST IT ON MY USER TALK; I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR VIEWS Otherwise, if you need any help, just post on my user talkpage Thanks, Monbro 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)," 8X10s of Hillary, a Hillary support user box. But Jeffpw's support of Hillary is the issue?

    Jeffpw is an excellent, hard-working editor, who goes out of his way to be the gracious party during times of conflict. I think he is a poor choice of editor to make a stand on disliking political advocacy on user pages, particularly when there are so many more egregious choices on user pages made by editors who are not so polite, helpful, hardworking, and dedicated. In the end though, I predict that Jeffpw will back down and be as gracious as he usually is, the sterling example of someone who really does know how to contribute to Wikipedia's quality and sense of community. And, in advance of that, thanks, Jeffpw for getting rid of that idiot joke message bar, which I felt was rather hostile to new and uncomputer savvy editors. KP Botany 01:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:GoldDragon and Joe Volpe

    User:GoldDragon has been revert-warring to restore his preferred version of the Joe Volpe page.

    Background: I've had several dealings with GoldDragon in the last year or so, all on pages having to do with Canadian politics. These encounters have tried my patience to the limit, and beyond. GoldDragon's general approach to Wikipedia is to make the same edits over and over again, even if several other posters have expressed opposition. He has also violated the 3RR several times, and I've frequently had to tell him to revert himself if he wants to avoid being blocked. I've tried arguing, making friendly outreaches, seeking outside opinions -- none of it seems to make any difference on his behaviour for long. There have also been times when I've completely lost patience with him, and participated in open edit-wars. I recognize that this was improper behaviour, and I've taken steps to avoid getting caught in such situations again. He has not reciprocated.

    Concerning the present dispute: GoldDragon and I disagreed on the content of the Joe Volpe page in December. Two outside contributors weighed in, private negotiations took place, and GoldDragon stopped reverting the page for a while. Unfortunately, he soon began to restore his preferred version in small increments. I summarized the current situation on the talk page yesterday, and restored the previously accepted wording. GoldDragon declined to accept my changes, posted this, and blanket-reverted my changes. My response on the talk page can be found here, here, and here. In an effort to avoid an edit war, I posted an NPOV notice on the article page. GoldDragon removed it a few hours later. An outside contributor made his views known here, in a statement that leaves very little room for ambiguity. Based on this statement, I concluded that I would be justified in restoring my version again (I apologize for the grammatical error). GoldDragon's response can be found here and here.

    Apparently, I'm not the only editor who's had these problems with GoldDragon: [96], [97], [98]. I hope that readers will recognize how frustrating this situation has been. CJCurrie 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't figure out heads or tails in this one - is SlimVirgin part of this debate? Are you sure it's not just an edit war? Patstuarttalk|edits 00:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This controversy has nothing to do with SlimVirgin, and I'm not certain why you'd mention her in this context.
    For readers who want the short version, GoldDragon is acting unreasonably: [99], [100]. CJCurrie 00:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moderated disputes between CJCurrie and GoldDragon twice before, both times, both parties had made reasonable contributions and had legit arguments, though both times CJ ended up being more in line with policy. This time, GD seems to want nothing more than to make a point and push his PoV. His edits are totally not constructive and he refuses to listen to reason -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 01:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Isn't the procedure for a content dispute supposed to follow the dispute resolution chain: talk, RfC, RfA? If you are past the "talk" stage on this matter, then wouldn't RfC be the next step? Cla68 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have been involved in content disputes with CJCurrie before. He is quick to revert submissions, even when they are properly cited. We are currently at a truce over a content dispute awaiting input from other editors. However, CJCurrie would receive much less friction if he wasn't so diligent about reverting other people's contributions and compromises. Alan.ca 14:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone curious as to the specifics of Alan.ca's charge should click here. Basically, he's trying to include trivial information in an article about on Ontario backbench MPP. The only other contributor who has taken his side is GoldDragon. CJCurrie 00:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Maleabroad

    User:Maleabroad has recently been pov-pushing at many Hindu related articles and has been reverted by several editors. Despite several warnings Maleabroad continues to revert to the information which he has added and is in danger of violating the 3RR rule (see the Hindu edit history). The edit summaries he leaves are breaching WP:CIVIL by accusing editors of reverting his edits as racists. His actions are somewhat of a concern at this point.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: According to this the user has violated the 3RR rule and is being reported at WP:AN/3RR.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked for one week, in light of 3RR violations across several pages, the rather harsh language being used, and the prior blocks for similar behavior this user seems to have accrued. Anticipating that we may need to deal with some IPs. Luna Santin 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the IPs have been dealt with already, from the previous edit warring. A few were missed though, and occasionally he wins the DHCP lottery and gets to edit a page. I suspect that the previous blocks and the sprotect on Hindu were the reason for him using his account after several weeks of editing anonymously. Orpheus 07:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    which makes this effectively a vandal account, and we should consider an indefblock if we don't want to come back to blocking it every week. dab (𒁳) 12:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    back as 136.159.32.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). this guy is a riot, even the allcaps-shouted mantra in his edit-summaries is misspelled. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly what I would have expected from Maleabroad, basing myself on my previous experience of him. I had noted that after having completed his block, he had restarted editing, this time anonymously. As his ways have in no way bettered, and refuses to be civil or abstain from editing till the week passes, I propose to follow dab and give him an indef. block. Also, I advise to keep an eye on his favourite articles, and be ready to semi-protect them if necessary. Personally, this is what I had to do to contain his flood of block evasions after my first 31h block.--Aldux 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's back again now as 136.159.32.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 136.159.32.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Imc 18:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semiprotected a few articles, to put an end to the continous reverts. The question now poses itself more strongly still: shall we ban Maleabroad? At the very least, we should lengthen his block for his block evasions.--Aldux 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Loop Quantum Gravity article vandalism report

    You may want to compare loop quantum gravity article revised on 15:34 Sept 27 2006 [101] and 17:35 Sept 27 2006 [102] You can compare them here. [103] User Sdedeo deleted half of the article. If you carefully look at the discussion, you will see that many people saying that the old article was much better. And if you know some loop quantum gravity, you will know that the deleted part was a very important content. Without it, one doesn't get a complete picture of what loop quantum gravity is all about. What can you do about Sdedeo? or Can you undelete the half of the deleted article? I can't do it, because I don't know how to upload pictures. 124.54.118.8 16:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell (it's been awhile), the material I deleted was a confused original presentation. I'm no longer deeply involved in editing the article, and I think 124.54.118.8 is a bit hasty to call good faith edits vandalism. In any case, I'll take a look again and see what I think. Sdedeo (tips) 19:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a wee look and I found no reason to doubt that Sdedeo deleted the section to satisfy the no-original-research policy. The section has some references, but there is no reference for the central point it is making (that loop quantum gravity is invariant under diffeomorphisms). Furthermore, I didn't find many people saying in the discussion that the old article was much better.
    I suggest the original poster explains why the deleted part should be brought back on Talk:Loop quantum gravity, possibly asking for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. And please drop the suggestion of vandalism; use this word only if you are sure to be talking about "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (see Wikipedia:Vandalism). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Group of vandals

    I need to step away for a bit, but there was a rash of vandalism to Centerville, Utah from 5 accounts all created at nearly the same time:

    They also took turns messing with User:Jakemarshall (which was created in articlespace before being userfied). If anyone wants to check in on the contribs from these accounts for a bit to see if they start back up again, please feel free. Thanks. ju66l3r 17:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like they may all be at school together right now. As soon as the school's single IP: 163.6.121.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked for 48 hours, it got suddenly quiet. ju66l3r 17:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like Jakemarshall and The_alba101 have continued to vandalize a bit from home.. —Mr. Strong Bad/talk 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added another level of warnings to each. If they continue, I'll submit their accounts to WP:AIV as vandalism-only accounts. ju66l3r 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PassianCappucino, Shaericell

    PassianCappucino (talk · contribs) claims to be the sister of Shaericell (talk · contribs). This user uploaded Image:BrendaT.jpg and Image:BrendaT1.jpg claiming these were images of her. This was clearly false and the user has been notified of this and warned not to do it again. Does anyone recognise the image, Image:Shaericell.jpg, uploaded by Shaericell? What about Image:Momispregnant.jpg? I suspect these, too, may also be a fraudulent image. If so, I'm tempted to block both accounts. Comments? --Yamla 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Why not just delete the images and give them a final warning first?--Rudjek 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably a better option, yes. I'm frustrated by all the fraudulent profiles but I agree, an instablock is probably not appropriate here. --Yamla 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the Image:Momispregnant.jpg should certainly be deleted (I think that WP:CSD#Images/Media would cover all of this). We don't know that "mom" consents to having her picture all over the internet.--Rudjek 18:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fanboys II: Electric Boogaloo

    I just deleted a nice troll from User:StealthTomato about how we deleted their page and are evil or something, including a gigantic image. Be on the lookout for more pages of the type. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And after more looking, apparantly the comic's creator has given the OK to post that image everywhere? Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If by 'ok', you mean 'encouragement'. You'd hope these people had better things to do with their time. --InShaneee 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute over List of anime conventions and Anime South with Animesouth

    Animesouth (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a content dispute over List of anime conventions and Anime South for almost a month. He has been relentless in not acknowledging consensus nor is willing to properly communicating, citing that people should go to the convention's websites for more information. He recently submitted the list for an AfD to which it was kept. What I am asking is for some suggestions on what to do with this individual. I feel that there is a lack of good faith in this contributor and a possible WP:COI violation. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Add WP:3RR to the list of violations as well. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Animesouth has also been engaged in persistently libeling Muhammad Ali, and I suspect this user has using an IP address to do this as well. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On the Muhammad Ali page, user:Uucp has engaged in the same content additions as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The users user:Animesouth, user:Uucp and Special:Contributions/143.88.201.123 have all committed the same edits, violating WP:SOCK to evade the three-revert rule. The users have also violated biographies of living persons, introducing libel without citations or without verifiability. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now there is an edit pinwheel. The proposed changes need to be taken to discussion first, as stated on their respective talk pages, to prevent further messes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Animesouth (talk · contribs) may have also contributed before as Marcyu (talk · contribs), who is the chairman of Anime South. --Farix (Talk) 22:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he is back to contributing as 68.105.60.48 (talk · contribs). If he/she is the chairperson of Anime South, they're not doing their job. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add User:Miss Away to the sock drawer, too: [104] Seraphimblade 05:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, just because I have friends who agree with me, I'm automatically accused of using a sock puppet? Incredible..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Animesouth (talk • contribs) 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Do not play us as stupid. I am filing a report on your user account as we speak. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please file at WP:SSP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like he wants to file a 3RR report on me. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He gave me a 3RR warning[105] even though I last edited the list on the 20th. <rolls eyes> --Farix (Talk)

    Suspected accounts of the user

    The following are suspected sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts:

    I am requesting an administrator reviews these accounts. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Filed at WP:SSP. See the case here. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    These sock puppetry accusations are absolutely untrue for this case and based on nothing but pure speculation. Just because you are unhappy that others agree with my line of reasoning does not condone accusations without solid evidence. - Animesouth 09:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Marc, I'm not buying this crap. You tried a similar tactic before with the list using anonymous accounts. That's why both the list and it's talk page had to be sprotected. You've don't nothing but complain because your convention doesn't meet the list's criteria and you couldn't convince any other editors to agree with you to change the criteria. Then when you couldn't get your way with the criteria or bypass it, you put it up for AfD. Now that you failed to delete the list through AfD, you are trying to change it by fiat using socks. This is discriminable behavior for any editor to engage in, and especially coming from the convention's chairman in question. --Farix (Talk) 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Marc, you admitted to me via Private Topic on the AnimeCons.com Forums that you were the user "Anime South". That account also had the exact same IP as some of the anonymous edits here at the time. This, to me, is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. --PatrickD 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User removing 3RR warning

    LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) received a 3RR warning for edit warring on the article Patrecia Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He had, between December 29 and January 6 made six reverts to remove the same single sentence (most of them in one day), which has since been returned and sourced in the article. Clearly a tendentious editor on Ayn Rand/Objectivism-related articles, he has now deleted the warning multiple times, as well as the explanation for why warnings are intended to improve Wikipedia editing -- claiming, among other things it was given in"bad faith". I would prefer not to deal with such determined incivility, and would ask for an admin to review this matter. Thanks, --LeflymanTalk 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see you have also restored the warning multiple times. Please read the "User space harassment" section of Wikipedia:Harassment and desist immediately. The user can remove what he likes from his page. All you have to do is please be sure to use an informative edit summary when you place a warning, and admins will easily be able to find it from the History. Note that his removal of the warning shows he has read it. What more do you want? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    For reasons I cannot fathom, it is not against the rules for users to remove legitimate warnings. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, you might all care to calm down your tone? You can all make your points without arguing who's been here longest. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one's arguing; I pointed out that it's rather condescending to aggressively quote policy after I clearly said I was not going to deal with it further. Thanks for your input. Additionally, the particular section being pointed to "User space harassment" appears to have been added by a single user without discussion or consensus rather recently; I would consider it invalid to this situation.--LeflymanTalk 21:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting block

    Apparently administrator intervention against vandalism only deals with simple vandalism, so I'll report this here (I was never told where to report it). DCarltonsm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (earlier 71.247.255.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continues to add unsourced but possibly-true material and pure speculation (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive180#What to do about repeated addition of unsourced and speculative information? for details). Can someone take care of this? Thank you. --NE2 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just thought I'd point out that Mr. Darcy has warned the user here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already warned him several times on User talk:71.247.255.190, including once with the "approved warning template". --NE2 13:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He did it again (on R68 (New York City Subway car)). What am I to do? --NE2 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I moved this down since no one seems to have seen my recent posts. --NE2 15:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have issued a final warning so that he cannot deny knowing that it will result in a block. Next instance will result in a block. I think we should assume good faith here, so it should be a 24h-ish block. —bbatsell ¿? 16:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He did it again this morning with the same edit. --NE2 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked him for 24 hours and left him a warning not to do it again. I also gave him links to WP:V and WP:RS so hopefully he gets the message.--Isotope23 20:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --NE2 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zakusage

    Despite wikipedia having policy to the contrary, ZakuSage seems to think he owns PSP-related articles.

    He defaced my user page yesterday as well as removing someone else's comments regarding his behavior from the page Talk:PlayStation_Portable.

    I think this is wrong behavior and am serving him formal warning to stop it. This note on the admin noticeboard is my following up to serve public notice as well. RunedChozo 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I also request deletion of my user page as well. I intended not to have one and I wish that to be respected.

    I had a quick glance at User:ZakuSage's recent contributions but don't see any evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behaviour. Can you be more specific as to what you are complaining about, and provide diffs? —Psychonaut 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychonaut, I'll try. It appears worse than I thought, he has maliciously claimed that another user is me with no evidence and had them banned for no good reason.

    The other use in question is User:NotAWeasel.

    Diffs emblematic of his behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102729058&oldid=102686610 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101828003&oldid=101825050 http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101618470&oldid=101618369

    He seems obsessed with removing any mention of the different Playstation Portable firmware editions from the page, as well as generally being disrespectful. He is also obsessed with misspelling the word "Color." RunedChozo 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am updating, he has just vandalized my user page again. RunedChozo 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102987910&oldid=102981599 He has now after re-vandalizing my user page gone on to revert yet again to remove perfectly valid content as he is obsessed with doing. This is wrong behavior. RunedChozo 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits to PlayStation Portable seem fine to me; he seems to be calmly arguing that dwelling on firmware-related minutiae clutters the article. If this is "emblematic" of his behaviour, then he has probably done nothing wrong. With regards to "colour", it is the proper spelling of the word in British English; WP:MOS states that either British or American spelling is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently within an article.
    The accusations of sockpuppetry are a different matter entirely. I agree that he should present his evidence that you also operate the User:NotAWeasel, or else withdraw the claim. However, perhaps he has already done so somewhere I haven't looked yet. —Psychonaut 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll create an evidence page in a moment. - ZakuSage 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is ridiculous. I have for a long period been working to keep the article PlayStation Portable not as my own personal plaything, but to the upmost quality of wikipedia standards. This user simply has a grudge against me for a past dispute. He's also been actively engaging the the act of sockpuppetry (currently with the recently blocked indefinitely User:NotAWeasel, created the day of one of RunedChozo's blockings) not only on the PSP article but also on his other grudge match the article for the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, as well as using his sockpuppet to vandalise my userpage. He has removed the template I placed on his user-page to let other users know of his activity as a sock-puppeteer. - ZakuSage 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He has done nothing of the sort, and his "complaint" - that it makes the article harder to read - is groundless. He has even refused to allow descriptions of changes made to the firmware over time in the firmware SECTION. He is deliberately trying to make it a less informative article than it could be, for reasons unknown, except that he seems to feel some ownership of the article as it currently sits; he never makes improvements, just sits around reverting. His accusations that I used a sockpuppet are base lies and I demand an apology.RunedChozo 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of you need to stop making accusations/demands. Zaku, without Checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry, such insistent accusations can be considered personal attacks. Runed, stop accusing Zaku of attempting to damage the wiki and take this through the normal disupte resolution channels rather than continue to edit war. --InShaneee 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser request has already been done a few months ago: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo - just to let you know. x42bn6 Talk 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Regardless, new requests need to be taken there, and you cannot take unilateral action based on your assumptions. --InShaneee 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I've made an evidence page in any case, as seen here

    Yes, convenient that you deface space attached to my user page for your lies. RunedChozo 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Sorry, but the issue of whether to include certain facts about the firmware is a content dispute and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the administrators. For this matter you should pursue dispute resolution such as mediation or RFC. With respect to the sockpuppet accusations, if it can be shown that User:ZakuSage has made them negligently or in bad faith, then this may be a violation of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks or civility. (On the other hand, if he is correct and you have been using a sockpuppet to evade a block, to engage in edit warring, to attack a user, or to otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, then you will be blocked.) Let's wait for him to present his evidence so that it can be judged by a disinterested party. —Psychonaut 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychonaut, another user has already been blocked - indefinitely or so the page says - based on Zakusage's lies. And I have already been cleared in another bad-faith case when POV pushers were trying to accuse everyone and their brother who disagreed with them of being sockpuppets, and the claim that I was "Wheelygood" was meaningless, they were merely another person at my school.

    Zakusage is using these accusations to harass me and nothing more. RunedChozo 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:NotAWeasel was blocked for abuse of edit privileges and being uncivil. - ZakuSage 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Zakusage has returned to vandalizing my user page. RunedChozo 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding a just sockpuppeteer notice is not vandalism. Blanking and removing it could be considered as such. - ZakuSage 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop harassing me. You are doing that just to harass and annoy me, administrators have removed your vandalism of my user page, STOP it.

    I have filed RFC on the topic of PSP firmware on that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMaths%2C_science%2C_and_technology&diff=102996533&oldid=102739299 RunedChozo 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not harassing you. Please stop this.
    I'd also like to point out that after creating a sockpuppet evidence page, RunedChozo has blanked it. This is getting out of hand. - ZakuSage 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of you need to back off a little. Zaku, let him blank it for now if he wants -- it's in the page's history, so admins can see it, and you've raised the issue here. Continuing to edit-war to add it only reflects badly on you. Chozo, this isn't the place to handle a content dispute. Shimeru 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I'm going out for a bit. I'm tired of this users continued attacks against me. This isn't the first time he's tried to come after me. - ZakuSage 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, your lying campaign to harass me is very much out of hand, and I'm getting tired of it, because I'd rather make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, as opposed to you who just wants to keep a page static. RunedChozo 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am against putting evidence in another user's userspace because it is fairly harassing - the best place (and should be filled in) is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. x42bn6 Talk 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry if the placement of the evidence page is inappropriate, but I've never had to file a sockpuppet report before because no other user has acted in such an uncivil manner and dickish manner as this one has, including the use of his sockpuppet against me in some sort of grudge. - ZakuSage 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the page to NotAWeasel's talk space. Hopefully this will be a better place for it, even rather than moving it to the already over-crowded Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. It can now be found here: User talk:NotAWeasel/Sockpuppets. The old one will redirect to this. - ZakuSage 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You were specifically instructed where to put it, and yet you insist on using it to harass another user instead. You're a problem user. RunedChozo 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not being productive and bordering on uncivil. ZakuSage, if you feel that there's a sock here, file a RFCU - throwing around unsupported sock acusations like this is hostile and uncalled for. RunedChozo, please back off; we're aware that there's a problem, nobody else will act against you based just on what he says. Both of you should probably take a break for a day and calm down. Georgewilliamherbert 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I already made an evidence page, but I have now filed a formal notice on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. - ZakuSage 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, you keep sticking harassing "evidence pages" in other users' name spaces. What a riot you are. Stop with the harassment. RunedChozo 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ZakuSage has now started an organized campaign to keep sticking his harassment pages back into my user space over and over again. This is beyond ridiculous. RunedChozo 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The sockpuppet report is in the proper place, and is nowhere near your userspace. Please stop vandalising the sockpuppet report. Your actions are highly childish. - ZakuSage 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Usage of "color" over "colour"

    Speaking as a native speaker of UK English, the usage of "color" is correct for WP:EN as the articles should be written in US English. As much as I groan over this, it is set fact, and I would personally not get so upset over someone correcting the used language. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatever gave you this idea? Our Manual of Style makes it quite clear that articles can be written in either American or British English (or any other dialect, for that matter) provided that the dialect is used consistently throughout the article. —Psychonaut 21:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it was something that Jimbo stated, but I'll admit to being incorrect here if that is what the guideline stated. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 21:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the topic is closely related to either UK or USA, you can use the relating english variation. However, if an article has been written with one variation, and you change it all to another without a good cause (in example, "This is a British topic and thus British English should be used as most users checking this article are more likely to be from UK" or alike) can be punished, as already stated by a previous arbitration. -- ReyBrujo 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) However, it also makes clear that American dialect should be used for articles on America-oriented topics, British for articles on Britain-oriented topics, and (most relevant) whichever dialect was originally used in the article for topics not directly related to either, such as this one. It appears that "color" was the spelling first used [106], so the article should be in American English, if I understand correctly. Shimeru 21:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    More information here. For a handy precedent, check Talk:Nintendo DS Lite#Colour vs. Color. -- ReyBrujo 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, another opinion that some will disagree with but most agree with implicitly, is that the majority of readers of English Wikipedia are American, not British or Australian, and thus articles will generally tend to default to American English unless there is a compelling reason otherwise (like, say, it's an article about a cricket team). --Cyde Weys 22:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Other compelling reasons include: I wrote it. That's a very compelling reason, that. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was under the impression that that argument was only supposed to be used when no other reason for having a specific style was in place. In it's current form the PlayStation Portable has a greater usage of international english, and it is an international product. - ZakuSage
      • Actually, given that most of the world has English as a second language. I seriously doubt Cyde's assertion that the "majority of readers" are American. --Docg 23:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would suspect that most of the trafic to en.wikipedia.com is from the U.S. of A.. I'm only guessing, so no need to quote me on that. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE)

    Why is this discussion being held here and not on WP:MOS? Is there any requirement for admin action? --Jumbo

    None. :p ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a subsection of the previous section... not really sure why it because it's own section. - ZakuSage 00:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User removing copyvio warnings

    what should be done in the case of a user who persistenly removes the "copyvio" tag from a page, then goes on to remove the listing from the copyvio investigation page? the edit summaries refer to "template not needed" and "rm troll" rather than giving any explanation. certainly nothing to justify the identical swathes of text between the article and the webpage.User:Ibaranoff24 is the user in question - his edits, in particular his response to the last incident filed against him, have an aggressive WP:OWN quality to them. should he be warned? User:Patstuart was the admin who warned him previously. thx.

    Doing such is immediately blockable; copyvio is a serious legal problem. On which page was the tag removed, however? Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be List of short films by Ralph Bakshi. --Calton | Talk 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the notice AND the copyrighted material. The copied material was added by an anonymous IP. If the person who filed the complaint actually had a problem, he could have gone to me and I could have easily resolved it, instead of trying to have my articles deleted. This guy is just a little putz trying to stir up trouble. He's never contributed anything. The last revision of the article - that ended up being deleted without warrent - contained NO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. Any time the deletion of an article I created is involved, please contact me so I can possibly solve any problems that might warrent a deletion, if, indeed, these problems still exist in the article, which, in this case, they did not. (Ibaranoff24 00:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Possible (probable?) socks, bad username, abuse and 3RR

    I wasn't sure where to post when I posted this ([107]) earlier today. Since then, the users (one of whom has a bad username) have continued their nonsense postings, 3RR infringements at Stuart Clark and also been abusive on my talk page. Help would be gratefully received. --Dweller 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved admin required

    User:Rfwoolf is still bitching about the deletion of anal stretching. I deleted a rant on his user page as soapboxing, there was some argy-bargy, a compromise was reached with another admin over unprotecting the page, but it's now back substantially the same with the small change that it says it's "constructive criticism", which is a bit like like saying "no offence" after calling someone a pikey.

    Here is my major problem with it: it identifies me by name as having "unilaterally" salted the article. This is complete bollocks. Woolf kept reposting it in substantially identical form, and what I did was actually to restore the history for deletion review because I was trying to help him (I don't think I'll make that mistake again). Deletion and salting was then endorsed by deletion review, with numerous admins participating, and the history was deleted by someone else entirely. So this is a baseless personal attack, the falseness of which has been pointed out many times, and which he still insists on repeating.

    Of course, calling us "trigger-happy deletionists" for deleting it after only five days instead of keeping this uncited how-to peerless article also does not help. Needless to say we should always expend our efforts to save those articles whose authors can't be arsed to write them properly, because that is what we are here for, especially when the article is on such a worthy subject. Woolf's rewrite seems to be based on sources as compelling as Goatse, so clearly we've gone badly wrong here. Oh, wait, maybe I lapsed into sarcasm for a moment there.

    Anyway, if an uninvolved admin wouldn't mind popping over there to get him to remove his attacks on me, I'd appreciate it. You might want to take this trout with you. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    stop Stop. Guy has never complained about personal attacks.
    Note: In Edit Summary, User:Guy has called me a Toss blanket. <-- Personal attack?
    First of all, you complain that my userpage is "back substantially the same" but you have only ever complained about SOAPboxing which the user User:Jossi saw was unjust, and so unprotected the page
    Reason: (WP:USER protects constructive criticism about wikipedia on userpages. Personal attacks however, are another matter).
    But now in this post of yours, is the first time you are complaining to me about personal attacks on my userpage. You must stop and point out the personal attacks and ask me to remove them and I promise to do so so long as they count as personal attacks.
    Rfwoolf 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: Concurrent to this post in Incidents, Guy left the following post on my Talkpage, which does point out a specific problem that he wants fixed. I will remove the claim that he WP:SALTed unilaterally. It must be stressed though that constructive criticism about wikipedia is allowed by WP:USER. You cannot make a general claim of soapboxing and expect me to just delete the whole criticism. Rfwoolf 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    " Woolf, you have restored the soapboxing pretty much intact and you are still making the baseless claim of unilateral salting when actually I undeleted the history for review, and salting was endorsed by that review (it was Trialsanderrors who then re-deleted the history). Mistakes are forgivable, but wilfully perpetuating a falsehood after its been pointed out to you numerous times looks a great deal like trolling. Fix it, please. Now. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) "

    [And] secondly, show me where my rewrite is based on Goatse as a source? Yes, I added it as a second prize reference, meaning it's a reference all the same but it's not ideal. The rewrite is only in a collection of sources stage. Relax, I may only mention Goatse as a references in popular culture, nothing more.Rfwoolf 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    I removed the parts that looked like personal attacks... but the rest I'm fine with. If he has a problem with how a particular process works then it's not really a big deal to have some commentary about it on his userpage. I did make a request that he tone it down on his talkpage. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank-you for your ability to comply with WP:USER which protects constructive criticism on a userpage ("personal attacks however, are a different matter). I disagree a lot about Guy's above post. But suffice to say I don't exactly object to what you did censor, but I must say I don't find that what you censored was specifically a personal attack because it doesn't mention anyone personal? and the reference to User:dfrg.msc was not an attack and he/she doesn't mind the reference! So perhaps you can explain that a bit better. I will see if I can tone things down a bit, but if you want something specific done you should direct me to it. Rfwoolf 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you didn't mention an exact person dosn't mean it's ok to attack someone. We all knew who you ment. Don't try to invent a loophole in the No Personal Attack policy... I won't alow it.
    Rfwoolf, can you write that article using only reliable secondary sources? No personal websites, no goatse, no blogs... can you do it? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I find that latest comment very biased, have you seen my attempt to rebuild the article? It is clearly in a source-gathering stage, so all critiques remain premature at this stage. Rfwoolf 06:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not bias because I'm asking the question seriously. If "Anal stretching" is a legitiment concept with enough actual coverage to back it up then it should have an article. Have you been able to find any books on the subject? Any journal articles? What about newspaper articles? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    May I just begin by saying that on the whole I really do appreciate your input, especially as an uninvolved admin because on some level it has been helpful. But on another level you are dabbling in something beyond the scope of this post by Guy. The issue at hand is the content of my userpage. You are now making judgments about the Anal stretching debacle which has its own "mediator" (User:dfrg.msc), and I'm afraid your latest comments about that here (and on my userpage) are unfortunately rather inapt. You haven't (for example) seen my rewrite project here, or have you? You will see my complete proposal to rewrite the article as well as my sources policy, which separates sources into two classes, i) First-prize sources and ii) Second-prize sources. Just because a source sucks doesn't mean I'm not going to provisionally add it to my notes as second-prize source.
    If you are going to continue to comment about the Anal stretching debacle (which is now rather complex), I suggest you at very least refer to my rewrite attempt which is in a very young stage! Thanks Rfwoolf 07:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I pointed out, most of your "first prize sources" were not sources for this term at all. You have managed to cause a truly staggering amount of disruption without actually producing anything of any merit thus far, and it appears that your response to being told something is a problem is - repeatably - to keep re-creating it and asserting it's not a problem. And then troll about it. The depth of your obsession with this utterly trivial subject appears to be matched only by your stubbornness in refusing to accept advice or correction. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On a totally unrelated note

    I love your Pommy use of the english language Guy! ViridaeTalk 07:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Halo 2 and Giano

    Heavy vandalism here: I've reverted 8 times in the last hour, but I'm packing it in for now, someone with rollback and block tools might like to keep an eye on this and maybe semi-protect. This has nothing to do with Giano, IRC or related wikidramas whatsoever, I just put that in to get everyone's attention. Wouldn't it be wonderful if everyone stopped running around like headless chickens at AN and started writing articles or clearing the backlogs...ah well. Cheers, Moreschi Deletion! 22:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... Okay. That's probably good advice. It certainly got my attention. Grandmasterka 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be so sure! Giano 13:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would be helpful to extend the "don't talk about Giano" rule to Wikpedia: space too. It's been months since I've seen a productive thing said regarding the subject. --Interiot 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Only meant to be a joke. My own opinion was to nuke most of our IRC channels, but nobody listened. Moreschi Deletion! 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've never visited IRC, and I'm not sure I ever want to, more than once perhaps. Maybe this isn't the forum for this, but what specific constructive uses does it have? It seems to promote vitriol and cabalistic discussions at least as much as it might promote "community" or a faster response to problems. Grandmasterka 13:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    God, that almost gave me a heart attack. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please just don't go there! More importantly can some one spring the unfortunate McGinnly from prison as he is stll blocked inspite of being unblocked ages ago [108] Giano 13:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cleared the autoblock. Kusma (討論) 13:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Marvelous - thank you. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    25% of the admins, devs, toolserver folks, etc wouldn't hang out there if it wasn't useful. You just won't see the pro-IRC folks repeatedly posting hyperbole on WP:AN about how good it is... --Interiot 15:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nateland

    The user Nateland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been making disruptive edits, acting aggressively, and generally being very disruptive. He has been provided with absolutely more than a fair number of warnings (and deleted some of them) based on various violations of copyright and civility policy, as well as participation in an edit/revert war. I have attempted to work with Nateland in the presumption that he has been attempting to do things on good faith, to no avail.

    Here is a list of diffs; there are surely more that can probably be reviewed from the past week:

    Selected diffs from User talk:Fd0man

    Selected diffs from User talk:Nateland

    Selected diffs from Adolescent sexuality

    Selected diffs from User talk:Illuminato

    Other relevant information

    My apologies for the length of this post; it is just some of the more blatant mistreatment and evidence. All of it would take far too much space here. Mike Trausch (fd0man, Talk Page) 23:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Read over the situation briefly. Nothing more than an edit dispute where the editors don't know how to communicate without threatening each other. Anyway, the problem, Fd0man, is twofold here: first, it's a really bad idea to template people you're in a dispute with. It just makes them madder. Second, you and Illuminato did all the stuff you accused him of doing: being curt, deleting warnings, templating each other, etc. But finally, you were correct; this thread was too long, and unfortunately, it was passed over by mos admins. If you have a specific complaint about a copyright, you will need to specifically show it here; otherwise, mediation is the only way to go here. Patstuarttalk|edits 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet block of Mcginnly

    User:Mcginnly has been playing silly buggers with socks - at least Joopercoopers and Antischmitz spotted so far. The edits were way too similar, the checkuser was the confirming bit of evidence and the silly games with manufacturing content disputes are really not suitable conduct. I've blocked the socks indefinitely and Mcginnly 31 hours to get out of whatever mood made him (an otherwise very active contributor) think this was a good idea - David Gerard 00:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, David Gerard. Note that Mcginnly was using Joopercoopers for content disputes on Taj Mahal, which is currently at WP:RFC. Nishkid64 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblocked. There was no evidence presented anywhere that the Jooperscoopers was used for "content disputes." All the edits were simple maintenance. Additionally, while Mcginnly decided to use that account for that article, of course, on the day of the decision, there will be edits from two accounts near each other in time. That's not a violation by itself. Thirdly, since this is a very hot topic, where, had David Gerrard investigated he would have seen, there is the ugly and unextinguishable flames of nationalism and religious intolerance at stake, any complaint deserves at least as much investigation as anyone complained about. However, none of that was the reason for the unblock.
    • The reason for the unblock is simply that David Gerrard was faced with a long time and trusted community member with a clean record and unquestioned contributions and never spoke to him. I.e. he didn't investigate. He used bot-like analysis and did the block instead of using the human intelligence that we need to talk to and listen to the contributor. This is the same bad approach that generated the last "Giano affair." Blocking is a serious matter: we owe it to the people who give us their time and expertise to listen to them and consider matters. Geogre 11:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sockpuppetry is also a serious matter. I'm conducting my own investigation and I'll keep an open mind but I can't fathom why anyone would think this is a good idea. There are several parts of WP:SOCK that may have been violated. I welcome an explanation from Mcginnly--and David. Mackensen (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Having reviewed the evidence, I doubt that I would have blocked under the circumstances. At the same time, I would have sent a sharp note to Mcginnly asking him what he was up to, and suggesting that he pick one account for Taj Mahal and stick with it. Users are allowed to have multiple accounts, but such practice is discouraged, and the cardinal rule is never to "cross the streams." How strictly this gets interpreted varies from checkuser to checkuser. I don't like what I see, but I wouldn't have blocked right away. Mackensen (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • That's great news Mackensen - seriously - but the problem is that now McGinnly a long time serving editor of very high standard articles now for eternity is branded by David Gerard on his block log with " abusive sockpuppetry". I see nothing abusive in these edits [109], [110], [111], can someone explain to be where is the "abuse". It is quite apparent that McGinnly was editing as a sock for what he felt were the right reason. There was obviously no malice or evil intent. He is a highly respected editor of architectural pages, that he should edit, and help protect Taj mahal fom vandals etc is exactly what I would expect him to be doing. So what exactly was the problem, and why did it have to result in a 30 hour block with no warning. I don't raise this point only because McGinnly is one of my close wiki-friends but because I think admins should thing about the stigma their hasty actions may cause when they blot some-one's hitherto immaculately clean log. I don't want to become in another major row, and McGinnly is big enough and ugly enough to defend himself, but as people (somwhere above) now use my name (even when I'm not connected) as crowd puller I might as well pitch in and use my (albeit temporary) celebrity status to give, what I see as a serious problem, some publicity! How about David Gerard admiting that was not abusive and having McGinnly's log wiped clean? Giano 16:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This call for wiping of block logs is a slippery slope. I realise it eventually happened to Giano's first account's block log, but I would much prefer that notes be added retrospectively to clarify possibly inaccurate block logs. Wiping them is confusing and can obscure what has happened. At the moment, the workaround is a 1-second block to add an explanatory note to the block log. On a more general note, can we please ask for block logs (indeed any logs) to be written in calm, neutral, language. Just make it vague and link to where the discussion took place. If no discussion (eg. IRC or action taken unilaterally without consultation), then say this as well. This careful writing of a block log, and careful discussion, is paramount for established users. Otherwise the whole merry-go-round of hurt feelings and wild accusations can start up again. Carcharoth 16:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I don't want to start another great interminable debate over my block log. Can someone then just put an explanation on McGinnly's block log saying he was not abusive. Giano 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection in principle, although it would be better if another checkuser, or David himself, was willing to do so. I'd like to hear from David before moving forward. I see no reason for undue haste; let's not add anything more to the log until we're sure. Mackensen (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I may agree w/ David's indef block of Joopercoopers but i don't see any reason why Antischmitz's account should be blocked especially that it is set for maintenence tasks. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The principle here is that administrators should interact with good-faith users, where they believe the user has violated policy, before instinctively reaching for the block button. In this instance, a talkpage inquiry or e-mail would have elicited an explanation for Mcginnly's activities and, if the explanation were not acceptable, a request could have been made that Mcginnly handle things differently. There was no reason to believe that this user would not have responded in good faith to such an inquiry and either justified or discontinued the allegedly problematic activity. It was not a situation where blocking was needed either to prevent imminent danger to the project or to gain the editor's attention.
    Having myself been equipped with a block button for all of four days now, and having recently had to make the decision about whether to press it for the first time for something other than obvious repeated vandalism, reinforces to me that while it is easy to second-guess any administrative decision, at the same time we need to bear in mind how serious a thing it is to block an established contributor. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. A block means that we are saying to an editor "this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit today—except you." It really sought to be a last resort. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really not a problem - We've exchanged emails and kissed and made up - DG's was a genuine mistake, mine was not informing anyone of my socks. I'd really rather the matter was dropped, not least because the whole purpose of the sock was to cushion myself against the potential problems over at the taj mahal talk page and P.N. Oak, I believe the socks will be unblocked and I can get back to work. Naturally if the POV shitstorm does hit the mcginnly account I hope I can rely on admin backup? I don't ever envision runnning for president so the block logs is neither here nor there. regards. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I unblocked, though. I had been asked to contribute help with the Taj article, when the time came to improve it, so I knew the background. Anyone could have by simply communicating with the user. I don't mean to jump on David Gerrard's head too much here, but it's very, very, very important with established users to ask them. Honestly, if it takes too much time to converse with people, then you probably don't have time to be a blocking administrator. With hit and run IP's, it's one thing, but with long timers, with fellow admins, it's simply nuts. Blocking without warning is absolutely in violation of blocking policy. Blocking based on complaint not recorded on Wikipedia, running check users without written requests, these are also not kosher. We shouldn't have situations like this in the name of vandal hunting. Geogre 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia and PakHub

    There is a slightly complicated issue regarding Nadirali, Unre4L, Szhaider (who seems to be a subject for discussion) and perhaps some other Wikipedia editors (ostensibly of Pakistani descent). These editors have been discussing their activities on Wikipedia, with derogatory and insulting remarks about Indian editors/admins and yours truly at PakHub - a discussion forum on Pakistani history, that is committed to "reclaiming Pakistan's history." These editors have expressed the notion that "corrupt administrators" Indian editors are "banning" Pakistani users and dominate content on Pakistan-topics. While all matters outside Wikipedia are beyond our purview, there is a possibility of this behavior represents some a cabalist-style desire to "infiltrate" Wikipedia (especially in order to propagate their point of view) and potentially to stalk and harass users. With no desire to be alarmist, I'm posting the relevant links here and requesting the advice of all - as I seem to be involved in this, I could consider desisting from acting myself. Rama's arrow (3:16) 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Relevant links to PakHub discussion on Wikipedia
    [112], [113], [114], [115]
    It would be helpful to know the (explicit) Wikipedia rules are these editors violating as a result of their posts on PakHub. The comments of Nadirali and Unre4L on the website don't sound like they intend to stalk and harass. (I didn't see Szhaider there, BTW.) Unre4L and Nadirali were arguing with other members, who seemed more extreme. Here are a few quotes from the discussion:



    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My point of concern is why are they discussing Wikipedia affairs, individual and groups of editors and administrators and insulting me and some others there. I don't care about that website and what they do there, but only what they're doing in pertinence to Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Rama's arrow (3:16) 01:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point still stands that its a meatpuppetry cabal.Bakaman 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at some of this and at some of the links they used. Nasty stuff, but I think we need, in this case, to focus on Wikipedia behavior. This is not active wrecking, but expression of feelings that they can't get their story told. Fred Bauder 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you remember Hkelkar (talk · contribs) was stalked by BhaiSaab (talk · contribs)? He was looked up on facebook and called. You know BhaiSaab was Pakistani? I am not assuming good faith on a site where I am probably named "Dushman-y-Jumhuriya" or something. I dont want Islamofascists calling my phone either. Some editors on PakHub look downright creepy.Bakaman 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I fear that the collective beliefs of these members of PakHub is entirely shaping the work of those who are editing Wikipedia - by which I mean the various edit wars, disruption and insulting commentaries that have resulted in Nadirali, Unre4L, Szhaider and Siddiqui being blocked from editing. I'm specifically concerned with Nadirali's comments, insults and insinuations. I'll be happy to take your advice (Fred) - I just wanted to make sure through this report that the activities of these guys are known to admins and other users as well as kept a close eye on. I was a little alarmed about the fact that these guys are so intensely discussing Wikipedia business there, insulting me and others and importing the agenda of PakHub into Wikipedia. Rama's arrow (3:16) 02:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Fred that they are expressing frustration. There was no mention in their posts of plotting anything, no mention of intentions to tag-team or edit war anywhere on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see how the "shaping" takes form - how many people are posting there? 12. It appears that maybe 5 or 6 people are active and at least 2 of those seem quite reasonable So you've got maybe 3 editors who could be a problem. - big wow. A storm in a teacup when you consider how gaming sites and the like have mobilised in the past to promote their games or point of view. --Fredrick day 11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for the record I'd like to leave a few quotes about what exactly concerns me:







    There is a fellow calling himself "Nishan-e-Haider" who ostensibly has a dormant account here.

    Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care what their views are or what they use PakHub for. My point is, these comments are not acceptable especially as this hitherto-unknown "Nishan-e-Haider" promises to make trouble while Nadirali and Unre4L go about making accusations against me and others as being corrupt, extremists, etc. They may obviously discuss anything they like, including Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but it is clear to me that these users are committed to "reclaiming Pakistani history" on Wikipedia and making insulting accusations against me and other users. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping that other Wikipedians (whom they may respect, despite their impression of "neutral" admins being "cowards") may send a strong message about this kind of thing to them when they return from their respective blocks. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not-quite-3RR edit warring

    I recently provided a third opinion (Talk:Rocky Marciano#Third_opinion) for two feuding editors, only to find that the page (Rocky Marciano) has been subject to edit warring for almost a week. I went to WP:AN3 and attempted to gather evidence, but I couldn't find any "true" violations of 3RR. However, the edit warring on this page is clearly disrupting the article. What can be done here? PTO 01:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On Rocky page I gave answer, pulltoopen gave his third opinion before I was able to reply, I was NOT even aware there was a poll. Again, i simply tried to fix things!-Boxingwear

    It wasn't a poll. I was asking for opinions so I could draw my conclusion, but you left a note on my talk page that gave me enough information. PTO 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully reject that reply, you posted a question for second party on marciano page, you did not give me a chance and i thought you were administrators, brush up on rules, allow people at least 48 hours to reply, you did not give me half an hour. Boxingwear

    I corrected the baker dilemma, the mkil repetition, replied to questions and on talk page, i hope somebody will watch over rocky page, again, somebody informed me on my talk page in december and in january to watch over it, somebody really wanted that, after a long conversation, i decided i will watch over it, no doubt there was a good reason, i explained all there is to know, just check my contributions!Boxingwear

    1. This is not the place for dispute resolution, please argue elsewhere.
    2. The article is fully protected for 3 days, the protection will be automatically removed after that point. If however it returns to its previous state of edit war after the protection is lifted (its on my watchlist) there may be blocks handed out/protection reinstated. ViridaeTalk 02:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Siddiqui

    User:Siddiqui has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, 3RR violations, disruptive editing, meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry through multiple accounts and IPs - this pattern of behavior and misconduct has continued for over a year, mainly on articles related to Pakistan. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Siddiqui, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Siddiqui (the latter details both his disruptive editing and sockpuppetry) I request permission for a permanent ban on Siddiqui for having exhausted the patience of the community. Rama's arrow (3:16) 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse the ban per Rama. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would be more constructive to give him a absolutely last warning no sockpuppetry/3RR/POV-pushing. I'd hate to see him banned. But, then again, I never knew his history that well. Patstuarttalk|edits 02:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He's currently blocked for a month. Now that he knows checkuser can catch his sockpuppets, and that he won't be able to get away with edit warring anymore (because of the scrutiny this banning proposal will bring), I endorse Patstuart's last warning suggestion, and oppose a ban. He has made productive contributions, so lets hope that when he returns, he'll make them again and put this behind him. Picaroon 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the reason I asked for a ban is because this type of behavior has continued for over a year, with numerous blocks, an RfC and the nabbing of his socks. I have also personally interacted with this guy and I've seen the pleas, warnings and requests for improvement of others and mine own fall on deaf ears repeatedly. About yet another warning, yet another good-faith opportunity - yeah sure, we can try. I was grossly disappointed in this fellow when I learnt of his sockpuppetry, as I had thought he had improved a bit. My thinking is that this fellow has exhausted the patience of his peers, failed Wikipedia's standards and refused to edit by its policies, for over a year. I hope that I never give away to vindictive instincts, but its clear that we are not an agency to change hearts and minds, and we really don't have any obligation to this guy left anymore - especially not after one year of trying. Rama's arrow (3:16) 15:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He is blocked for a month anyway. Let's wait until he comes back ob Feb. 11th and see. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My user page history

    Hi. May I ask to have my user page history deleted? Frankly I'd welcome the side effect of my edit count dropping, and I'm sure I don't need anything from the past. It also has nothing to do with disputes, etc., as you can check the history. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 04:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tried ... for some reason it doesn't work. I checked only the most recent version and it restored everything. I have no idea why. --BigDT 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It works to me. --210physicq (c) 04:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I just realized that ... it worked the very first time ... there's just a lag on page history updating ... or my browser cache needs to be cleared. --BigDT 04:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you y'all -- I think my edit count just went down by over 100. Woohoo! Xiner (talk, email) 15:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, it could go down by another 100 if the history for User:Xiner/sandbox is chopped, too. Can someone please do the honor? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Gon4z

    User:Gon4z has been introducing false information, removing citations, and outright changing correct information to false unsourced information over the past couple of hours. It appears that the user does not write/speak English as a first language, however a good portion of the previous 50 or so edits that the user has made are pretty obvious vandalism, most notably to articles related to Serbia and Albania. If it were a few edits, I could correct them myself, however this "spree" is over 50 edits and I alone cannot revert all of them. I also have no idea on how to contact the user in a case like this. Spot87 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Without looking too deeply, the user is clearly a spa with the purpose of promoting a pro-Albanian POV. The first paragraph on List of Albanian Genocides should tell it all. User has 0 edits outside mainspace (i.e., talk page), and has been warned. Something's definitely amiss. Patstuarttalk|edits 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    159.105.80.219 (talk · contribs): this IP seems to be used almost entirely for Holocaust-related trolling on talk pages, some of it uncivil, occasionally to the point of personal attacks. Someone may want to look closely at this user's edits (but there are no edits at all in the last two weeks, so maybe it's not worth it). Anyway, might be worth keeping an eye on. - Jmabel | Talk 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe s/he is back as 159.105.80.63 (talk · contribs) -- Avi 05:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both IP's are registered to the VT Dept. of Libraries. They have the entire range: 159.105.0.0 - 159.105.255.255 The .83 has been tagged as a shared IP. -- Avi 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Pneumonia vandalized

    I was reading about the diagnosis of pneumonia and came across this:

    "To diagnose pneumonia, u simply trade pokemon cards ontil professer oak find out that you have been playing with his cards."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia

    I figured I should tell someone, so here I am.

    75.34.73.232 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for removing that phrase from the article, I've removed some further vandalism on the article. In the future, simple vandalism doesn't need to be reported to the Administator's Noticeboard. You can simply warn the vandal involved with a User Warning, and report them to Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism if they continue. Thanks for helping out. Cheers. Canadian-Bacon 05:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:CyberAnth using WP:BLP to impose POV blanking of Jimmy Swaggart

    User:CyberAnth is invoking WP:BLP as a rational for blanking large sections of Jimmy Swaggart (see Talk), including commonly known and easily verifiable facts about Jimmy Swaggart's history. WP:BLP is pretty strict, but this seems to be taking it way too far and I beleive that it's being misused in an attempt at censorship. Artw 06:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I endorse CyberAnth's actions. The only thing ey did wrong was to comment out the offending material. Our biographies too often slide into long unsourced slagfests. Here's what I suggest: write an article that both Swaggart himself and his direst enemy would agree was fair. Tough to do but that should be the aim. Grace Note 06:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The blanking seems to be appropriate. Allegations such as the ones levelled in the article CANNOT be left with a {{fact}} tag, as they are potentially libelous. Unless someone can introduce some citations or provide any other reasoning otherwise, than I endorse. Canadian-Bacon 06:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and I loathe Swaggart. But you have to source these things BEFORE you put them in the article. --BenBurch 06:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    excellent call by User:CyberAnth - unsourced material needs to be wiped from any BLP article. --Fredrick day 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Lame edit war on KhoiKhoi's talk page

    See [117]. People seem to be edit warring on Khoikhoi's talk page, with about 11RR each. Anybody know what the heck is going on? Patstuarttalk|edits 08:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe protect it until he gets back online, leaving a little message telling him not to forget to unprotect it? yandman 08:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did that. These people have alternated edits (they're not all straight reverts) at least 25 times each. I have no idea what this is all about. Grandmasterka 08:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This involves block evasion by Ararat arev at Military history of Armenia. NoSeptember 08:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikihate banner

    Wow, who thought someone would actually use it... [118] Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Whats the name of the template? I can't seem to find it. I was going to go Rouge and delete it. ViridaeTalk 08:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TechCrunch

    There's a bit of a revert war going on at TechCrunch. It has received attention in the blogosphere. Administrator intervention would be appreciated; semi-protection would be a bonus. See [119] and [120].

    This is all linked with the Microsoft paying for edits incident. Computerjoe's talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Michael Cherney and Tal Aviation

    It looks to me like a whole host of new sockpuppets have recently been created for the purpose of defending Michael Cherney on Wikipedia (see also: Michael Cherney Foundation) and/or adding negative information about Tal Aviation:

    I arrived at these articles by tracking the activities of two sockpuppets of banned user:Israelbeach, who have also been editing the Cherney article:

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Israelbeach's PR firm is somehow involved with Cherney, but that's just my suspicion based on his past editing patterns, no firm proof (tag team sockpuppet editing, Israeli current affairs, Wikilawyering from the getgo). I'm not particularly interested in tangling swords with this unpleasant user again, but perhaps someone with knowledge of Cherney should look into these articles and check to see they are not too wildly biased. And keep an eye on the puppets, liable to revert to blockable behaviour. --Ylggow 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zoe - Complaint over administrators recent actions

    Firstly, perhaps this may be useful.

    I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

    I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

    I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

    — Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

    I first ran in to User:Zoe over a discussion regarding a delete (that we both favoured). Her curt reply of no personal attacks (when there had been no attack, or at the very best the attack was aimed at me anyway) led to the comment "I have been here a lot longer than you". See here. Hardly following don't bite the newcomer.. She then cropped up in this war, where she actually removed user page content without discussing with the user. In addition very recent apologies due to her mistakes include this and this. These were as a result of her hasty actions. Further examples of her uncivility include this and also this.

    I do not want a war, and have done my best to open a debate with Zoe, but to no avail. Her last comment to me was the curt "This conversation is at an end". She has not bothered to reply to my subsequent messages.

    In short I feel this administrator is overstepping from being bold to a state of agression. She never seems to assume good faith but will revert first and then baack track later. These actions make her a poor administrator in my opinion. I do not expect her to have her admin "status" revoked, but would ask she calms down and takes a more relaxed attitude. Her brutal reverts and comments that come very close to personal attacks can only damage this project, by putting off potential editors. I would invite a discussion on how others feel about her actions, or indeed wether I am just being over touchy about her actions. Pedro1999a |  Talk  09:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like she tried to communicate with you but you decided to not listen. You then decided to simply cross out her comments to you. My guess is that she said she had been around a lot longer than you as a manner in which to demonstrate that maybe she knows what she is talking about. I don't see any personal attacks.--MONGO 10:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - please see the edit history. I struck her comments out long after the conversation. I assume that as I have only been editing for 8 months you feel I don't know what I'm talking about. Thank you for your comments.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I think she explained herself and tried to end the conversaation since there was nothing more to discuss on the matter. When you start out a thread as here with quotes that indicate a possible objective you may be leaning towards, this looks more like a witch hunt than anything else. I have no doubt your contributions are generally all excellent, so I encourage you to resume those efforts.--MONGO 10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your kind comments. I do not feel she explained herself. Her first post directed me to WP:NPA and her second was the "I've been here a lot longer than you". Her third, after I had stated I agreed with her was the curt "This conversation is at an end". There is no witch hunt, but I re-iterate that these actions are blunt and will deter editors. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Zoe is very strong-willed, but she's also a very good admin. Always has been. Before jumping to ANI, try to work with users you disagree with. This page is not designed to be a first resort. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Reply - please see her user page and the three attempts I have made to open a dialogue that have been ignored. This is not a first resort. Thank you for your comments Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh WOWOW! Zoe is a she? I, obviously didn't know that, or I would have tried to be polite with her XD. In any case, this is not Wikipedia's complaint department. You might want to use dispute resolution as a means. Cheers! — Nearly Headless Nick 10:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was an assumption of gender. I don't need dispute resolution as I have no dispute regarding edits. I am not a major contributor, prefering to vandal fight instead. I just feel that this particular admin oversteps the mark and can make newbies feel uncomfortable. As I said initially maybe I am being too touchy. Nevertheless I do feel I have tried to open a dialogue to no avail and that other members of the community have the righ to discuss, civiliy, this admins edits and more importantly others perception of the actions taken. thank you for your comments. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As per below and your comment "this is not the complaint department" can someone (not me!) remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." at the top of the page then. Ta!Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see from her userpage that you did try to contact her multiple times, and she did not reply to your messages. You even told her yesterday that you would take it here if she did not reply. So I do think you tried to discuss, per Wikipedia policy, before coming here.Jeffpw 10:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Thank you Jeffpw. For transparancy other community members may note that myself and this user have discussed this post on my user page prior to me bringing it here.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I am still trying unsuccessfully to work out what the serious business is. This is over, right? Sorry, but we really don't need a report on the end of every single minor spat that takes place around here: ANI is clogged up enough as it is. While it would seem to me that Zoe has not been wilfully offensive, the complaining user is being wilfully offended, which is probably worse. But what incident are we meant to be discussing? There doesn't seem to be one. If you really think Zoe is an outstanding danger to Wikipedia then WP:RFC is just down the hall, second to the left. But why is this on ANI? Moreschi Deletion! 10:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Because everything ends up on ANI. Offended? Run to teacher. Cheers, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. Right at the top of this page it says "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." There is no specific incident, but this page states that I can make my informal complaint here. If I am just being too touchy please feel free to archive this away. I personally would like Zoe to review this however, and consider some restraint in the future. Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have a look, see what I can see. Don't get your hopes up. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No complaints about Zoe's behaviour. However, I did notice this. Opinions may differ, but in my book, that's a PA on your part. Sorry. Ben Aveling 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that was unacceptable by me and done in the heat of the moment, hence it's subsequent removal. My apologies to the community on that. Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, various people seem to have approached this with a staggering lack of tact. Suggesting that someone either take a prolonged wikibreak or give up their bit is always going to escalate the situation and is never going to help, no matter how right you are, which you aren't. Quotes like "the lunatic who runs the asylum" are not really going to help either, for obvious reasons. Moreover, continuing posts on talk page when it would seem to me like the matter is dead and buried smells to me like harassment in minor form. Moreschi Deletion! 10:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. You will note from the edit history I did not post the "Lunatic who runs the assylum" header, and would respectfully sugest you check this fact. I did however make the other comments. As I am trying to point out, although I am offended I feel the more important issue is the offence taken by oher editors who may well contribute more usefully than me. I did not realise that my continuing posts in reponse was Harrasment. I thought it was civility.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Argh, Pedro... If you're going to go to the trouble of bolding and colouring "to touchy" each time can you maybe also go to the trouble of spelling it right? Ta/wangi 10:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Guess that's why I vandal fight and don't write articles !! Thanks !!Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, looks like consensus is too touchy. (extra o!). As this is the opinion of those interested enough to discuss my post then I will have to be happy with it. I'll just toddle back to Recent Changes and wish everyone happy editing. But as per above lets remove the "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here." line at the top, as most contributors here felt this was the wrong place to bring up just that. Happy editing to all. Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any evidence that Zoe did something wrong here. That's why people are directing you elsewhere - the idea of making an "open informal complaint" about an admin implies that the admin in question did something worthy attention on this board. Being curt doesn't cut it, at least not to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comments. The thrust of my argument was with regards to the initial snub at being a newbie (despite 800+ edits) and the action Zoe was involved in with regard to removing content from another users page without asking (where in the debate she was generally condemed - a debate I was not inolved in initially). After that further investigation highlighted a higher than one would expect proportion of instances were her reversions have caused deep upset, and were subsequently often undone. Althought I agree that "Being curt doesn't cut it" at all times, and that admins are busy people often with little time to supply fuller posts, my thrust here has been some remarkably fast deletions / removals that Zoe has then climed down on. A measured approach with more checking before arbitry deletion / removal saves everyone time in the end and makes Wikipedia a better place for people to work. Over excessive use of admin powers will make new, potentially excellent, editors either give up or go down the Cabal thought process.Pedro1999a |  Talk  15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    NB - As per my comments above, I have no issue that the community has discussed this post and found it wanting. Whilst I do not withdraw any of my comments, they have been judged as in the wrong, and I am happy to accede to the consensus of those that have placed their views.Pedro1999a |  Talk  15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks to those who supported me. I would like to point out that it has been pointed out to me that the deletions that I made of the photographs mentioned in the complaint above appear to have been valid all along. I am still pursuing this problem. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Animesouth - request for review

    There is an issue with User:Animesouth. There has been edit warring over List of anime conventions which AS reported; however there was signs of sockpuppets. I ended up blocking AS for this; and the other side more lightly. See [121]. I'd be grateful if someone could review this. See-also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Animesouth William M. Connolley 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow-pace edit-war at Giulio Clovio

    The article Giulio Clovio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is experiencing a slow-pace edit-war (since last year :-), with GiorgioOrsini (talk · contribs) constantly reverting against consensus to push his strong POV. - Regards, Evv 12:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've seen the same type of thing regarding the Andrea Meldolla article. I talked to him [122], and received a pretty curt response. [123]. Seraphimblade 12:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked user reverting tag on his user talk

    I don't know whether banned users are allowed to edit their own user talk pages, but here's one who's insisting on having {{ProtectBU}} on his. [124] Flyingtoaster1337 12:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have protected his page for good. (Expiry: 1 month). — Nearly Headless Nick 12:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Firdaus 76 (talk · contribs) has spent the last days editing Kosovo-related articles from a strong Albanian POV, removing mentions of Serbia and translating all place-name into Albanian.
    I already warned him in his talk page, and made him aware that all Kosovo-related articles are currently under article probation (as a result of the Kosovo arbitration case), but he persists... - Best regards, Evv 12:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Password requests for User:Mattise

    Mattisse (talk · contribs) has emailed me to say that she is getting a lot of emails with requests for changes in email address and password. Can anything be done to stop this. --Salix alba (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please leave the IP address that requests password changes here. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember if they put in a spam flood blocker. If it helps, you can tell the user that as annoying as the emails are they don't do anything to your password unless you go log in with the new temporary password. I've typically reported the ip address requesting the changes to the abuse listing given on their whois, which is what I think Nick is going for above here. Syrthiss 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Difficult situation developing

    There's a difficult situation on Neil Clark (journalist), a WP:BLP article about a British journalist. The subject of the article has blogged about the issue here. In essence, Clark is claiming that negative material was added by either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Oliver Kamm, a journalist and blogger with whom he has had a disagreement (which has involved the attempted instigation of legal proceedings). At the moment, the Neil Clark article includes a note accusing two editors of vandalising it and stating that they are aliases of Oliver Kamm. Meanwhile the talk page is a mess of claim and counter-claim.

    I think this could all do with a thorough check, and possibly an WP:OFFICE-style stubbifying and rebuilt. As this issue crosses a large number of Wikipedia policies, I've posted it here. Sam Blacketer 14:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    An anon's death threat on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

    [125] by 201.80.28.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 'Nuff Said. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another vandalism act by 129.194.8.73

    This user has vandalized the page entitled Sitrida Geagea. I checked his talk page and I found that he has already received a final warning. Please note that this IP address is the property of the University of Geneva. Fadib83 15:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Another vandalism act by 200.207.49.196

    This user has vandalized the page entitled Sitrida Geagea. I left him a warning on his talk page. Fadib83 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppets of Woomoobs57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Three pretty obvious socks of this indefblocked user.Last two are vandalism-only accounts and Yaymoobs57 is an impersonater (usermane).

    Please review history of vandalism (contributions) by these accounts and block. TheQuandry 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Malicious editing of Neil Clark's biography

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neil_Clark_%28journalist%29

    The above entry has been vandalised and maliciously edited on several occasions by 'philip cross' and 'elena zamm'. Neil Clark had an acrimonious dispute with the writer Oliver Kamm after Clark published a critical review of a book by Kamm in the Daily Telegraph. Both 'Philip Cross' and 'elena zamm' have also edited, but this time favourably, the pages of Oliver Kamm and Kamm's mother, Anthea Bell. There is very strong circumstantial evidence that Cross and Zamm are Oliver Kamm. Libels have been posted on Clark's page, including that he 'defends mass murderers'. The account of Clark's legal dispute with Kamm has only sought to put Kamm's side of things. Both 'philip cross' and 'elena zamm' should be barred from editing Clark's page as they are not interested in a factual biography, but only in repeating libels and editing maliciously. citylightsgirlCitylightsgirl

    Please refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for better and prompt actions. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor using several accounts to edit The Human League, Philip Oakey, Susanne Sulley and Joanne Catherall. Edits (and there are many) are filled with excessive fancruft and POV and many, many grammatical, formatting, wikilink and punctuation mistakes. In addition, user has uploaded many images with no source or questionable source. Some User Talk Pages have unsourced image warnings, and some of these warnings have been blanked by the user. Attempts to clean up some of these articles prompts the user to log in with a different account and revert to his/her preferred version. Attempts to communicate seem to be ignored. Not sure where else to report this, its obvious to me that all of these accounts are the same person but realize this needs to be checked out by an admin. Accounts listed below, don't know if there are more. Thanks! - eo 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left a message on your talkpage... this looks like a case for Checkuser.--Isotope23 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much, I'll copy this info over there. - eo 18:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And all I did over there was glance at the contribs and say "duck test". There may be one, there may be two different humans here; it doesn't really matter whether they're the same person, they're both being annoying so we really don't need to poke any deeper. Checkuser is for when there's ambiguity, not for the obvious. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Isotope/Jpgordon. I appreciate someone looking into it. - eo 18:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef block of IP 151.100.107.63

    I've blocked IP 151.100.107.63 indefinitely because it appear that the majority of edits coming from this IP are vandalism and it is listed as a "Likely Trojaned Machine, host running trojan" when I ran an IP check for an open proxy. There did appear to be 1 or 2 actual good faith edits though so if someone disagrees with my indef feel free to argue against it.--Isotope23 17:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    TOR... that was the other one. Thanks. I ran it through some other checkers though I didn't know if I should be posting them up here (WP:BEANS).--Isotope23 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I've just made a list of all tor open proxies at User:Thatcher131/Torlist. If you want to knock off a few, go ahead. Just remove them from the list after you've blocked them. Thatcher131 18:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Massive Former Featured Article Discussion Deletion

    User:Edition4 (talk, contribs) has, for some odd reason, been going around to former featured articles, mostly really old ones, and removing the {{formerFA}} template (random diff for an example). He then goes to the Featured article candidates subpage associated with the article and blanks it (another random diff as an example). He also removes the discussion from the log (yep, example diff here). User:Dial991 (talk, contribs) then nominates them for deletion with {{db|nonsense???}} here's another diff. Several of these have been deleted [126], [127], [128], [129]. Shouldn't these be restored to their un-blank states? I've reverted everything I can and asked one of the deleting admins about it, but I thought it should be brought to the attention of the community at large, especially the admin section of the community. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What an odd pasttime. I noticed they have not responded to your question "why?" yet. I think if they do it again without a response it might be a good idea to block the user temporarily while this is sorted out.--Isotope23 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored all of those deleted pages back to their pre-blanked statuses. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Zoe. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd activity for a new user. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor should it (cough). How does Endgame1 (talk) grab people as sockmaster? Mackensen (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked and tagged. Thatcher131 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you as well. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    3RR when it comes to sock puppets

    Last night, I received a three-hour block due to a dispute over List of anime conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with someone who was manipulating the page using sock puppets to force his edits over the page and claim that I am violating WP:3RR. The user, Animesouth (talk · contribs) had reported me for a 3RR violation while a sock puppet report was being filed. All of this relates to this other dispute.

    Now, this is not a questioning over the administrator's actions, as he was just following the policy, but the policy makes clear that vandalism edits are legitimate in reverting against 3RR. If there is consensus from other edits that his edits have been disruptive (as indicated in the talk page and the ANI page), would then his edits count as vandalism and 3RR become a moot point except for the offending party?

    My edits have been largely benign for the almost past year that I have been editing, and I have tackled on a lot of vandalism and have improved a decent amount of articles. However, I cannot help but feel sore that I was subjected to being blocked and considered disruptive, something that I have fought against in many, many other articles.

    What I'd like is to just see what others contributors think about all of this, and whether or not that maybe WP:3RR needs to be revisited in the case of potential sock puppets. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 18:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, you can always revert the page back, once the sock-check has been done, I guess. Though it is somewhat frustrating to watch the three revert rule being gamed, I agree. Some of the younger admins enforcing 3rr think that it is an absolute rule, and apply it mechanically. Note that we DO have an ignore all rules policy for situations like this, and all admin actions should be taken with your brain turned on.
    If your version of the story is correct, then the blocking admin was not applying the guidelines to improve wikipedia. OMG! IARvio! My proposed punishment for IARvios is to beat the person in question with a cluebat until they agree to apply their cerebral cortex on wikipedia at all times.
    Of course, all the above only holds if what you say is exactly right. We haven't heard from the blocking admin yet. Perhaps we could take it to their talk page and see what they have to say? --Kim Bruning 19:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am he. Am I young? I suppose I can hope so. CK got 3h; the sock (presumed; not proved) got 48h (in fact I reported that above (Animesouth) : I'd be grateful if someone could check it, since the sock evidence was by no means conclusive and may have been meat anyway...) but is CK grateful... for course not. CK asks the policy makes clear that vandalism edits are legitimate in reverting against 3RR. If there is consensus from other edits that his edits have been disruptive (as indicated in the talk page and the ANI page), would then his edits count as vandalism to which I would answer *no*: the 3RR exception is for blatant vandalism, allowing that to extend to "edits which other editors dislike" then thats a very slippery slope William M. Connolley 19:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this particular case, I would argue that the edits were disruptive. The user failed to participate in discussion, and in retaliation had used suspected socks to be further disruptive. The reverts I made were in accordance to other editors who commonly edit the page, so if anything, the Animesouth and either his socks or cabal would be the ones at fault, not I. I have a huge problem with his because the 3RR was filed in such horrible faith. I am not targeting you personally, but I do feel that something is broken in this particular case. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk note: As I understand the blocking policy, and the policy on sockpuppets, a user is only actionable for violating the 3RR using socks if the socks are clearly obvious, or if the socks have been established using CheckUser, a tool for identifying users using sockpuppets. On the behalf of RFCU, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ayyavazhi

    Ayyavazhi is an autonomous religion in India. Though it was not officially recognised, it's factual existence (as a seperate religion) as well as the presence of thousands of (8000) worship centers across India is cited seperately from different university papers. Please see here where a seperate discussion is opened for Ayyavazhi discussions. See there all the different questions were answered by me, placing appropriate citations. Mind that the citations are from the University papers, which are the least affected agents get affected to POVs. Apart from all these, the LMS reports, the first and the largest protestant missionary also witness the factual existence of the independent nature of Ayyavazhi. These too is cited.

    After all thease citations, people there in India article are removing Ayyavazhi merely because of the reason that Ayyavazhi is not officially recognised. I told them several times that, "If something is not officially recognised, then it couldn't be aurged that that thing does not exists factually." Also on the other hand I give a series of proofs from Indian Universities (different) for the presence of Ayyavazhi people accross the nation and the proof for the presence of thousands of Ayyavazhi worship centers in India. Also, three districts are declared as a holiday for an Ayyavazhi festival. Even 20% of the collective population of these areas covers over a million population. Still they don't understand. Even in my discussion I've said several times the main reasons for the lack of official recognition of Ayyavazhi in India.

    Also see also the discussion here here here here here about the same issue. See how many times I repeat almost the same thing. Also many discussions on the talk page of several users.

    Also for the same reason, Iwas also blocked two times for violating 3RR. I discuss for all edits and I ask other users to discuss befor reverting. They revert without discussing. If two people decided they can force me to revert more than 3 times, since they two peopl ecollectively have 6 reverting chances. Finally I may be complained for violating 3rr. See here I once complained this. They are indirectly telling that even citations from University papers, which are the least affected agents to POVs, are not valid in Wikipedia.

    Now they are planning to block me. For all these reasons, Please help - Д|Ж|Д 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    At a cursory read, it appears that there is strong consensus that your sources are not reliable, and that including the religion on those articles is not appropriate. There's no admin action required here, though. I should add that if you violate 3RR, you will be blocked. The exceptions to that policy are quite slim. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BenBurch and FAAFA

    A consensus has been reached in a meatpuppet investigation here. The consensus is that the two users in question have formed a meatpuppet relationship that is abusive to other Wikipedia editors. It was successfully used to bait another Wikipedia editor into violating policy to the extent that he was permablocked. They should receive the same.

    In the alternative, in his previous "NBGPWS" incarnation, FAAFA received a one-month block; this block should be longer. BenBurch's previous block was one day; this block should be longer.

    Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter. In response to anyone who has even the slightest suspicion that I might be a sockpuppet, I will cordially direct your attention to this notice. Dino 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Jimbo's comment on libel on userpages
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=103214516"