Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410

Attempted outing of editor's identity?

Can someone please take a look at this and take action? Thanks. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you further explain the problem? That's just a username.Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. That is not outing, as opposed to the myriad sockpuppets who are using more than just the username with an interspersed space. -- Avi (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Nwwaew might have meant a different diff that was a few diffs back from that one, maybe this one. I searched the user's userpage (Roland's) and can't find anywhere where he has given a surname. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 13:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Set of diffs deleted; user warned. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 14:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:72.10.117.195 - consistently vandaliziing Gargoyles (TV series)

IP 72.10.117.195 has insistently inserted unsourced original research [1][2] on Gargoyles (TV series) - claiming they are a Disney Executive with inside information. I have attempted to communicate with them on their talk page, and they are currently at level 4 warning, and after today's re-insertion I'm taking it to ANI. IP is from University of Connecticut and I've tagged that on the talk page. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you post a notice at WP:AIV? Looks like simple vandalism to me. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrm. Did I mix this up again? This is systematic long term editing over a month, and the editor is not active currently, as of this morning. Should it be there instead? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If they aren't active then no it shouldn't go there obviously. I'd keep an eye out to see if they keep making the same edit. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, I posted level 4 warning last week - they've made the edits again since then, which is why I'm posting here. I'm sure they'll be back again though. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Darwin Article

Resolved.

I'm sure its not the first, as there is a semi lock on the page I only read a little but came across a "no" in front of evidence in the first sentence. Second I saw "father of modern homosexualness" a few sentences later (father of evolutionary biology?"

anyway there might be some more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.240.173 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was just random vandalism (it's been removed).For future reference, the right place to put this is Talk:Charles Darwin.-Wafulz (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Nilges user Spinoza1111

Blocked user spinoza1111 is currently filling up the Ayn Rand talk page with insults and POV comments. He is posting from three IP addresses, though mostly his home one. He is not hiding his identity and traceroute confirm the IPs are in Hong Kong as is his primary account. Not sure what you can do about it as it's an IP address, but he's continuing to be very insulting as we was in the past, which got him blocked. Currentlky he's posting wild threats about exposing fraud on wikipedia and personally naming me in his insults. It's tiresome. I created a sockpuppet page with his three IP accounts on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Spinoza1111 Ethan a dawe (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

One of those IP's is definitely not him and you missed his home IP, which is 202.82.33.202. That is the only non-public, static IP address he edits from.--Atlan (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the last one is not him, but I don't think I added him to the list. I'll remove it and add the other one. !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan a dawe (talk • contribs) 15:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added his home account. Thanks! Ethan a dawe (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the last ANI discussion opened on 21 April, there was a suggestion we wait and see if the editor would stop. Since he has resumed, it is now reasonable to issue a long-term block to Nilges' static home IP. His use of that IP constitutes evasion of the indef block on User:Spinoza1111. Shell Kinney said when blocking the named acccount in October 2006, User claims to have left Wikipedia but continues to harass and attack other users via talk pages, a diagnosis which still seems correct. I have blocked 202.82.33.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for six months. Others are welcome to review or modify this block. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this block, although this might lead him to edit through public IP's more. I was always in favor of not blocking him just to be able to easily keep track of him, but it's gotten out of hand now.--Atlan (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringe pusher block evasion

Resolved

 – YURI2000 indefinitely blocked, AfD closed as WP:SNOW delete. Sandstein (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

YURI2000 (talk · contribs) is an obvious sockpuppet of blocked user YURI2008 (talk · contribs), both highly probably sockpuppets of banned user W.GUGLINSKI (talk · contribs). Specifically now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heisenberg's paradoxical criterion along with assorted IP socks on that page, this user is essentially copying Guglinski's MO. And that would be to create articles (and add to existing articles) about Guglinski and friends' utterly non-notable fringe theories, which all rest on the basic premise that quantum mechanics is somehow completely wrong. Beyond simply the MO, YURI is copying Guglinski's unusually bizarre formatting (compare to this AFD). I think it's safe for an admin to go duck hunting here. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• User:YURI2000 openly admits to being User:YURI2008 or vice versa at the AfD. Not sure how checkuser works but, I'm thinking this is definitely a good time to use it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking?

Two anon IPs (perhaps used by the same user) have recently been engaing in edits which are entirely reversions of my edits (see Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 and Special:Contributions/58.8.18.130). Is it possible this constitues Wikistalking? Normally I would lean toward WP:AGF and raising this issue on the user's talk page, but given the anon nature of the edits and the multiple IPs involved, I don't think this will work. Advice please? UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am conflicted on this. Most of their edits seem like good edits (such as restoring links to articles that exist, which you had removed) yet, one cannot deny that they are only undoing your edits and little else. I don't see anything so disruptive as to merit a rangeblock yet (given the drifting nature of the IP it would be all that would be effective). Other than specifically reverting only PRODs and deletions you have done (which in itself is somewhat onerous and creepy), have you seen any other reverts done by someone in this range which is unambiguously bad? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the revert done by Special:Contributions/58.8.10.227 of my good faith addition to Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, without talk page discussion, qualifies as unambiguously bad - I did this in an attempt to clarify the PROD situation. In my defence, at the time I removed the links, the article was deleted; it was recreated after I removed them (and the anon's edit summaries, saying "article not deleted as claimed," smacks of a big lack of WP:AGF). If I am going to be Wikistalked, I am outta here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't get all panicy now. There's no need to assume that I am dismissing the problem. However, rangeblocks aren't to be taken lightly. Looking at the two addresses you provided, it looks like we can catch them both with 58.8.10.0/20 rangeblocks, which is a fairly small range (4096 addresses), but I am not that experienced with such blocks. Perhaps another admin with more experience with rangeblocks could weigh in here as to if this is either necessary or feasible to do? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey now. Some of your edits followed a pattern fit for "correction", as the IP(s) saw it. There's nothing really wrong with that, is there? wp:brd isn't unambiguously bad. Certainly "as claimed" should not have been used. 86.44.17.45 (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the partial support. I am a big fan of WP:BRD, but the "d" stands for discuss, and the anon IP makes this impossible (and has not initiated any discussions - edit summaries don't qualify). UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to topic-ban an IP?

You will recall the interesting editing of 24.82.152.201 on the Stanley Theatre (Vancouver) article some days ago that got the article semi-protected. The protection has worn off, and the IP (yes, the same one) is back in business deleting content.

Perhasp flat-out blocking this IP for a month would be useful, but a topic ban would really be the thing, if possible. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean Stanley Theatre (Vancouver), right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. Corrected my original link above. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that the IP address is coming from Winnipeg, quite a ways from Vancouver. Curiouser and curiouser. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed it was Shaw Cable, which is a Vancouver ISP, and I thought it was a peripatetic address. I may not have looked closely enough. Importantly though it is still the same IP address as from last week. Loren.wilton (talk) 08:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see if it keeps up? Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban requested

Resolved

 – User blocked for 72 hours. seicer | talk | contribs 15:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Floyd Davidson (talk · contribs) has continually edit-warred on the Barrow, Alaska article. His issues are related to adding "Sports" and "Popular culture" sections, as well as re-adding external links including a hotel website and his personal website. Last night I removed the trivia tag he had placed on the popular culture section. A look at the edit history and Talk:Barrow, Alaska#Sports shows he has ignored consensus on the talk page and reverted several editors in regards to this tag. I also removed several external links that were not directly related to improving the article. On the talk page, I pointed to WP policy and guidelines and mentioned why each link was unnecessary. He chooses to ignore this and reverts my edit twice. It's just a continuation of his feeling of ownership. He has been blocked in the past for edit warring and is very close to violating 3RR again. (2RR may be appropriate in this latest case because it's a trend) A checkuser was performed that showed one of the suspected editors was not him. The other two (Okpik2008 (talk · contribs) & Tundra4 (talk · contribs)) were stale. I don't know what that means in regard to CU, but their edit history shows the only edits they've made is to simply agree with Floyd on the talk page. He has been warned several times about OWN & 3RR, but chooses to edit war and add information that is agains consensus. I'm asking that he be banned from editing the Barrow article. Thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support article ban - I regrettably concur wholeheartedly with APK. If you look on my Talk page, User:Reezy, who also tusseled with Floyd, made a remark about him and I said that Floyd is valued, but that he has major ownership issues. The fact is, Floyd has turned the Barrow article into his own private vision of his hometown. Unfortunately his COI and OWNership issues make him an edit warrior who has been blocked for inappropriately deleting content and fighting with anyone who doesn't do what he wants. He Puts his own links to his private sites up on the article, and then edit wars to keep them in, against WP:EL. --David Shankbone 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have given him another warning. If he continues to edit tenditiously on this article, he will be blocked again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats at Goal! 2: Living the Dream...

Resolved

 – Legal threats are legal threats. Indef. blocked per this edit summary. seicer | talk | contribs 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Must say at the outset I haven't seen this movie and it's not really my cup of tea, however somehow it wound up on my watchlist. User:Goalproducer as his name suggests, claims to be the producer of this movie and is using it's wikipedia page to drum up commercial support for the film- in particular, he continuously reverts what I presume to be an accurate plot summary because whilst the film has been realeased in Europe, it has not yet been in the United States (see e.g. [3]).

More importantly, this situation has now escalated to the point where fairly blatant legal threats have been issued [4] and User:Goalproducer's behaviour has generally taken a slightly incivil turn (e.g. [5], this edit in response to this one from me).

Would be good to get some admin input I think, I have only recently come in to this but it seems to have been going on for some time. Badgerpatrol (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-Admin Opinion: Sounds like a pretty clear violation of WP:LEGAL, as well as a WP:COI. Block indefintely, until he retracts the legal threat. Edit: I see he's now been blocked indef. D.M.N. (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war NOW

Could someone please deal with this request urgently; Matthew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has decided that if his change is not accepted, rather than following the procedure in the flow-chart here, he will continue reverting and claim that the other side is in the wrong. It makes me fu**ing mad, to be honest; the fact of the debate is immaterial, his attitude needs some serious dealing with. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see you're both on the edge of 3rr in a content dispute. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth Fully-Protecting the article, and in the process take the discussion to the talkpage to seek a resolution? D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggested that four times and Matt reverted each time. He was then blocked and immediately unblocked. He went over 3RR, I didn't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's as may be, which is unhelpful, but the fact is Moreschei has no business unblocking someone seconds after they were blocked on the grounds that a contested issue was "clear", actually. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aah, Moreschei has now formally decided that I get no say in NFCC issues. That is a disgusting abuse of adminship. Who the HELL does he think he is? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple as this. TreasuryTag has very poor judgment as to what constitutes an NFCC violation, as has been proven long before. Therefore, if he contests removal of an image this does not mean the image does not fail NFCC. On this occasion it most emphatically did fail NFCC. Matthew should not have been blocked. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would it not have simply been courteous of him to wait for a further opinion before warring? And who gave you the authority to rule without discussion that I can no longer voice my opinions on the topic? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether right or wrong, we can at least agree both were edit warring, I think. Wizardman 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Indeed. And one made 4 edit-war reverts in 24h; one didn't. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably. In which case I think a brief protection might have been better than one-sided blocking (with all respect), particularly since the blocked one was most likely right. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Since Matthew did 4 rv's and treasury three, the one block probably ended up being too process-wonky and holding to 3rr too literally. Wizardman 16:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a huge deal either way. Storm in a teacup, if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"if TreasuryTag stops throwing personal attacks in my direction and calms down" - if you continue in that vain I'll get started. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Threats are probably unhelpful here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The larger problem here is that both Matthew and TreasuryTag are well-intentioned users who make good clean-up edits to Doctor Who articles, but who are prone to becoming overly... programmatic in their views of policy interpretation, and are prone to dogmatically enforcing their policies. Both are also prone to... not displaying good judgment on whether or not something is worth pursuing.

In this case, I think that the numeric revert counting is unhelpful in evaluating who is in the wrong. This was an edit war between two equally culpable editors, and while one hit four reverts and the other didn't, I think that parity between the sanctions is important. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think its your attitude that appear to be the problem, not Matthew. Just because you don't get your own way doesn't mean to say you should come running. Matthew is upholding the non-free content criteria, and I full support him. I myself have had my rollback removed (now reinstated) for upholding the criteria. I think, as Moreschi said, you need to calm down. Qst (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, from my vantage point you are being rather incivil, Treasury. Defuse and calm down. Wizardman 16:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I consider it incivil to revert-war rather than politely discuss, whether or not friendly admins accept the warring. It's just basic courtesy, which if other users won't show me, I won't show other users. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Qst (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Good.

So what? Rather than casting dark aspersions over my behaviour, take it up with my ex-mentor or just block me; what's the point of just "muttering" if such a thing can be done online? —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that concerns about your editing could be taken up with you directly instead of your mentor. Do you understand why people find your conduct here frustrating? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, lets all take a step back to calm down here. TreasuryTag, I couldn't block you because (1) I'm not an admin and (2) You haven't violated the blocking policy, but nonetheless, your attitude throughout has not been exemplary. Qst (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, particularly now you're haranguing Qst on his talk page for no good reason. Deep breath, please. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• 3RR does not apply (or obviously should not apply) to users enforcing Foundation policy, which Matthew was. The image clearly fails WP:NFCC, because apart from failing NFCC#8, it isn't even a screenshot from the episode that it was placed in. Matthew should not have been blocked, and Treasury Tag urgently needs to go and read WP:NFCC before he starts anything like that again. Black Kite 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Treasury's take on NFCC has not been what I'd call heedful. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Enforcing the 3RR policy does not mean we check our brains at the door. Thatcher 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism/sockpuppetry at board game articles

There seem to be a number of similarly named vandals making nonsense edits (links to ordinary English words like "is") to board game articles (Backgammon, Jacquet (game), Uno (game), Draughts, Go (board game)) and vandalizing user pages. The trouble seems to have started when the puppet master was reverted on some categories s/he added.

Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (suspected puppet master)

Billy Costa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked)

Roger Parslow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked)

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have encountered the same problem on many band articles. Mr. Green^chat 17:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize those last two users were already blocked when I posted this. I informed them of this thread anyway. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we confron the puppet master and have him/her prove to us that he is not a puppet master.If he is, we block him. Mr. Green^chat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No need for confrontation, per the WP:DUCK test it is really obvious sockpuppetry. The two socks listed (plus at least one IP not listed) have been indef blocked. I'll go block the sockmaster; duration to depend on previous contributions. --barneca (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good Mr. Green^chat 17:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think that User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja was created after User: Dakota Blue Richards was blocked for violating WP:USERNAME (as that is the name of an actress being used as an account username). As you can see, the contributions are essentially the same from these two accounts. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I was one of the editors who reverted on the category additions and other things. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nastasija account has been blocked for 3 days, since edit history prior to this doesn't seem to show bad faith (whether the edits were useful or not is another matter). However, if sockpuppetry continues, it should be noted here, and the block length can be increased. --barneca (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia point?

Resolved

 – Page deleted as a G5.

Wikipedia:Deletionpedia Patrol seems to me to be a WP:POINT violation. It basically advocates trawling through the list of deleted articles and recreating them. While I'm sure the intentions are good, the concept of recreating prods soon after they're deleted, just to do so seems quite a bit disruptive to me, especially since it basically duplicates WP:DRV. Any thoughts? ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

I agree with you, SJ. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I've speedied it as a G5. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have requested the pages' content here. I would like to recreate it, but in a way that is not a violation of WP:POINT. Basketball110 ^{My story}/_{Tell me yours} 23:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the main problems is that while Deletionpedia probably does contain a few articles that could be resurrected with a bit of work and research, it also contains articles that shouldn't be restored under any circumstances - BLP deletions and pedophilia-related articles spring to mind straight away. There's nothing to stop people trawling it themselves, but I don't think we need it advertised on Wikipedia itself. After all, as Swatjester says, that's what DRV is for anyway. Black Kite 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest while I see the political issues this project raises, I don't think this page duplicates DRV, because DRV is primarily for authors of a page and/or administrators to request re-creation of a deleted page, whereas this is a project organized for locating pages that should be submitted to DRV; for example, a page abandoned by its original author that got illegimately PRODed or CSDed. There's no clear POINT violation, since the project seems targeted at addressing a legitimate problem, rather than as an attack on current deletion practices. Ideally users would be able to do this type of deleted article review on Wikipedia itself, at least for articles that don't pose legal issues, but this isn't currently possible. Dcoetzee 00:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is no more a policy violation than a list of pages deleted at afd would be, and there are various such lists around, including people keeping lists of the pages they are proud for having gotten deleted.. People restoring pages do so at their own risk. DGG (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Including this page. If people want to restore it they should go to DRV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just process wonkery really, though, because the page was deleted as G5 (created by a banned user) so re-creation by anyone else avoids the deletion reason. Black Kite 00:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Deletionpedia page does what DRV doesn't do, i.e. it allows non-admins to see the deleted page under discussion and if anything will be a tremendous asset for DRV discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that it's useful for DRV discussions, the question is whether a project that advocates trawling DP for articles to resurrect is necessary a good use of projectspace. Black Kite 00:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that making bunches of articles go through DRV for insufficient reasons or making them go through AfD twice is an extraordinarily poor excuse for a "project." Deor (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec, unindent) I see utterly no harm in this project. It merely points out that there is a stash of deleted articles that routinely archives them, so that one can see deleted articles. Articles are deleted for many reasons; often they are legitimately deleted, but sometimes not, and pointing to Deletionpedia as this project did, and possibly coordinating editor efforts so that work is not duplicated, could very much help this project by identifying improperly deleted articles, as well as by providing what can be sometimes useful: deleted content, which may be of use for merge, etc. Deletionpedia merely provides to any user what is already available to any administrator. The project page was very careful about not encouraging rash restoration of articles that have been deleted. So I'll be proceeding to Deletion Review, I think.

The suggestion that this project duplicates Wikipedia:Deletion review is preposterous. It is a project to examine deleted articles, using a readily accessible cache of them, to determine if there is usable content. Deletion review is a process to discuss and find consensus on restoration of deletions, it does nothing to identify such content for discussion. The deleted project page would feed Deletion Review. (In some cases, with some speedy deletions, it could bypass deletion review, as, for example, it has been suggested here that any user could restore this project page since the deletion reason was creation by a sock puppet -- something which I haven't verified yet.)--Abd (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh please - this is just taking the piss something which I haven't verified yet. - Abd and Sarprillia are in constant contact, the standard tactic is that one proposes something and the other supports it, it's a clear pattern, such as here. It insults everyone's intelligence to pretend that's not the game here. Yes, I know I'm blocked but look into the edit pattern of Abd and his meatpuppet it speaks for itself. --87.112.64.32 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this one. I'm in regular contact with the Sarsaparilla, yes, but he does not tell me everything he is doing, I often learn about stuff quite a while later, and, in any case, I had not looked at the deletion reason when I wrote the above. Sarsaparilla is interested in Wikipedia governance, and so am I. Yes, he mentioned the governance discussion to me, in email, but we did not coordinate in any way and, in fact, we disagree about quite a bit. I looked at it and made my own comments. He may have done the same, from what Fredrick day charges. It was a huge discussion, and I have not read all of it.

As to the topic here, Wikipedia:Deletionpedia patrol, please see [6]. The creator of that project suggested I join it. So I did. I think it's a good idea, whether the creator was Sarsaparilla or not. I had not researched the fact. I see that in edit warring with Fredrick day on my Talk page, what is apparently Sarsaparilla, editing IP, suggests to me that I recreate the article instead of going to Deletion Review. As often happens, I disagree with Sarsaparilla. It was well-written, so why should I take the time to rewrite it?

Fredrick day knows that people read the diffs, and he knows that some of his wild charges will stick in people's minds, because he knows how to feed people's mistrust of each other. That he was so effective at doing this is one reason why I put so much attention into dealing with him as a blocked editor and vandal. He essentially bragged that he could do what he does even if blocked. --Abd (talk) 01:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I see no reason not to provide User:Basketball110 with a copy, but I'm a little unsure of myself with regard to the undeletion policy and the GFDL with regard to a banned user's posts. Is there any reason I can't restore and move it to Basketball110's user space, and delete the redirect? That seems better, GFDL-wise, than just provide him/her with the text. But then technically I'd be recreating banned user's edits, without taking "responsibility" for it myself. Seems completely harmless to me, but I'm about to leave for the night and don't want to come back in the morning labeled a meatpuppet of a banned user or something. --barneca (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There's always email. Muskratatouille (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was my first thought, but they don't have email. --barneca (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the user was saying that copies of deleted articles can be provided by email (as opposed to getting entangled with all these GFDL and G5 concerns). 129.174.90.124 (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above user is the blocked user Sarprilla, starting to make sense what I sat about abd's meatpuppet showing up to support him, no? --87.113.76.198 (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Muskratatouille, a tasty Muskrat soup created a few hours ago. No relation to "Eat Mor Rodents," I hope?-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Sarsaparilla to stop it, even though I see that almost everything he does is aimed at project improvement. He's blocked, in my opinion unjustly, but he doesn't make things better by editing here. He disagrees, apparently. He's not my meat puppet. Fredrick day used to claim he was simply my sock or I his. Too bad about checkuser, eh?

As to the issue, I had signed onto that page, having been asked to join by the creator and agreeing with the page content. It really should be restored, simply, because it was, in that sense, not only Sarsaparilla's contribution. The license issue is cleaner if it's simply restored. But in an edit to my user page -- which at that point was unprotected, hopefully it's been protected, what must have been Sarsaparilla suggested that I simply recreate the content. But I don't have a copy.... Because I'd signed it, it should not have been speedied, so proper form would be to restore it. I'll ask for that, and then if someone still thinks it should be deleted, it would go to MfD properly. Speedies, if not for legal reasons, I understand, should routinely be restored on request. This one is obviously controversial and thus not a speedy candidate. (This is not claiming that the deletion was improper, per se, though I'd have thought that the fact I'd edited it should have been enough to prevent speedy. It's also possible that edits crossed, it was only a little while ago that I signed it. I wasn't aware of this discussion at that time, I was merely responding to the suggestion on my Talk page. Which was later removed by Sarcasticidealist. This is getting ridiculous.) --Abd (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The page has been restored at User:Basketball110/Deletion Patrol, per Basketball110's reasonable request. The speedy per WP:CSD#G5 was completely valid (all other edits didn't significantly alter Sarsparilla's original text), but I see no reason Basketball110 can't take responsibility for the page and repost it if that's what he wants. Of course, seeing the conversation on this thread, I see an MfD in the page's future, but if Basketball110 wants to repost it, I don't think it's speedy material anymore. --barneca (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was User:Sarsparilla's User page redirected to Abd's User page, if they are not the same person? Corvus cornix_talk 20:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins should follow the rules.

I would respectfully ask that more senior admins take new admin user:Sarcasticidealist under a gentle but firm wing and remind him that admins are supposed to set the example of good behavior. Anytime a single admin fails to follow the rules it jepordizes the community's ability to have confidence in all admins' professionalism. Based on this diff[7] it is evident that this admin violated WP:TALK in both spirit and letter, and based on his contribs list[8] he did the same to many other users' talk pages plus deleted at least one whole article. This behaviour is especially disturbing considering his answer to Q#3 at his RFA, to wit...

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: Easily my most stressful conflict was prompted by a Wikiquette complaint about an administrator deleting text from a talk page ...

I went looking for a reason why this edit to my talk page might have been done and I am now fully aware of the current puppet issues related to user:Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents but there is no policy/guideline I know of that supports his comments being deleted from another user's talk page. Removing comments addressed to me represents a parochial attitude that insults my intelligence and independence as a Wikipedia editor. The decision to ignore him or to be sucked-in by support him was my decision to make. An admin electing to make that decision for me was offensive.

There are two more related issues of rules being (not?) followed that need to be raised at this point.

(1) I see this user described as "banned" but so far I have found no WP:ArbReq to support that. How was this decision made - it would be nice to know that the rules were not broken by an admin on something as serious as banning.

(2) The whole articles deleted by the admin, was there any other edits added by anyone other than the "banned" user? If so the deletion would be inappropriate per several WP rules.

Thank you for your time. -- Low Sea (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Users can also be be banned by community consensus. And banned users cannot edit, and if they do, their edits may be reverted by anyone. I don't think anything wrong was done here. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasticidealist is cleaning up after a longtime troll and sockpuppeteer. It has been some time since I was involved in the Sarsparilla case, but if this is Sarsparilla, then Sarcasticidealistr is only cleaning up the latest mess he has created. Quite within the normal purview of admins, and not abusive at all. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sarcasticidealist was only cleaning up crap from Chin, such as this spam. Well within his bounds. seicer | talk | contribs 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts too. I've also informed Sarcasticidealist of this thread, per common courtesy. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's advisable to discuss an issue with an admin with that admin before starting a post on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally support Sarcasticidealist's actions. It was essentially spam. 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the misfortune of being from Edmonton, SarcasticIdealist is a good administrator. I recommend you take another look at what happened. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, Chinchilla is not banned. He's blocked with an expiry time of indefinite, which any admin can do under the appropriate circumstances, and requires no arbitration or community consensus. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If there has been no ban imposed, then the block can also be lifted at any time by any admin. In the words of Dr. Strangelove, "It requires only the will to do so." 129.174.91.115 (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The underlying user, known as Sarsaparilla, is considered banned only because no admin has been willing to unblock. —This is part of a comment by Abd (of 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

FYI: According to this edit[9], the user Sarsaparilla was tagged as officially Banned at 09:51, March 25, 2008 by user Equazcion. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll fix that. He was tagged banned, yes. By Equazcion, an opponent of Sarsaparilla, who is not an administrator. No ban discussion has taken place, to my knowledge. He is considered banned for the reason I stated, by default. But when the same was said about Fredrick day, some administrators objected, though they weren't willing to unblock. (It was SWATjester, actually, who closed the discussion, if I'm correct, citing three admins not willing to accept a banned description, but, in fact, there were only two or maybe only one; one had expressed conflicting opinions. By the way, it's considered a bit rude to intersperse in Talk like this. Small thing, though.

He wasn't blocked for any offense that would normally result in an indef block, however. A lot is routinely said about this case that is pure crap. The recent contributions deleted by Sarcasticidealist were all clearly intended to benefit the project; SI is within his rights, in my view, to remove contributions; however, in the other direction, when I've done the same with the contributions of Fredrick day -- which often interlace with those of Sarsaparilla, and which are typically vandalism, personal attack, and general attempts to stir people up, the very definition of trolling, I've been warned and told that Fredrick day isn't banned, merely blocked, and that his "useful" contributions should not be reverted. And removing stuff that, all by itself, could get him blocked was considered, apparently, removal of "useful" edits.

Fredrick day was blocked for vandalism, plus the vandalism was consistently personal attack (against Sarsaparilla, myself, and another user). Sarsaparilla was blocked for .... what? "Trolling?" All indef blocks, a short block has never been used with this user, and warnings have been, apparently, considered unnecessary. The user has never repeated behavior that he was warned about, except for the very vague, "Don't express ideas like that around here, it's disruptive."

When he was indef blocked for creating a hoax article, he was actually offered the opportunity to return, provided that he refrain from editing WP space, i.e., from making proposals or working on policy. I.e., solution to article space hoax: please, user, only edit article space. It couldn't be more obvious. This user is blocked for making unpopular proposals, dangerous ideas.

I have no serious complaint about Sarcasticidealist, he is doing, generally, what is within his rights; though, I will repeat, when I did quite the same with Fredrick day contributions, I was severely warned. I was told that I should not remove Talk page edits unless the user was banned, that being merely blocked wasn't enough. There is a double standard, rather clearly. I think SI is at least technically correct to remove the contributions; but any other editor should be able to bring them back if they choose (and are willing to take responsibility for them). That's what I've done in the past with some of Sarsaparilla's contributions, and there have been no warnings or other sanctions as a result.

And I suggested the same with Fredrick day contributions, that if anyone is willing to take responsibility for them, bringing them back after I reverted them out wasn't edit warring, I'd treat those as original edits (and, indeed, when that happened, I left them alone). But that wasn't enough for Fredrick day, and there is some fear around here that bringing back Sarsaparilla content (which is almost always positive, helpful, and his problematic contributions would be less than 0.1 percent of his edits) is going to bring charges of "meat puppetry." It is, indeed, but mostly from Fredrick day, who repeats "meat puppet" over and over, knowing that it does affect how some people think. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response - I've been moving the last few days (still in Edmonton though, Wanderer) so my time online has been sporadic. I think my actions have been pretty clearly explained above (thanks all), but if there are any lingering questions or concerns I'd be happy to address them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible need for oversight to delete an edit from the history

Um, I dunno if this is a hoax or not, but apparently purports to give a valid debit card number an expiration date. If accurate, this should be oversighted right out of the edit history, right? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably better safe than sorry. I suggest just emailing <oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org> rather than making the problematic edit more public. I have emailed them about this instance. WjBscribe 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't really know where to go, and I wanted to get it oversighted ASAP. I guess I should have just checked WP:OVERSIGHT for instructions, eh? Ah well, I'll think of that next time. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit, but it should still be oversighted. --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My friend is back

The saga continues. The talk page protection just ended today and the person is back to vandalizing my page 5 times already.(1, 2) If the offer still stands, can someone do a short range block and semi-protect my page again? Here is a list of the IPs used. I think that's most of them. He's now up to 42 vandalizations of my user and talk pages. Thanks. APK ^{yada yada} 19:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the semi protect of your talk page. --Kbdank71 19:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. APK ^{yada yada} 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back with another IP. He is vandalizing a user that undid his vandalism to my talk page. He also left Durova this message. APK ^{yada yada} 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Er, maybe it's not the same person. The IPs are similar but the recent IP location is Ottawa. APK ^{yada yada} 21:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, it's the same person. Can someone range block? APK ^{yada yada} 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, that ip adress has one hell of a tongue on him, nasty! Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

IP impersonates me

Someone impersonated me at Talk:Randall Munroe to apparently damage the reputation of the subject of the article under the smokescreen of a credible inquirer. --Jedravent (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That was the only edit by that ip. Unless it happens again I suggest that you WP:IGNORE the matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, how do I deal with this?

Resolved

 – User blocked, inappropriate tags removed.

On my talk page, I've just accused (with the template) of being a sockpuppet of indefinitely banned Pwok. The template was added by User:Rushdittobot, who I think is a sockpuppet of Brianlandeche, who was indefinitely banned for proxy editing for banned user Bluemarine. Aleta ^Sing 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You find an admin to block and revert ;). John Reaves 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI ? Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John, I guess I could have done that myself, but since I'm in the middle of it, I thought I should get someone else involved! Aleta ^Sing 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's also running amok on Matt Sanchez and Talk:Matt Sanchez. I've reverted him on the article page and added to his case at WP:AE#Bluemarine. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a username issue with having 'bot' in the name on an account that does not and is not intended to operate a bot? Avruch ^T 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked anyway, but yeah. Horologium (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fake radio/television stations?

Cans someone that knows how, check Special:Contributions/Word67 and see if the stations he is creating articles about actually exist? John Reaves 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

K15AE is fake only the Wikipedia article appears and a ton of Japanese or Chinese websites (some one could do a better job I did google). KJTV-CA appears to be channel 32 [10] out side source. I will check the others shortly. Rgoodermote  17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of reals and possible fakes

• K15AE-appears to be fake.
• KJTV-CA backed up by outside source [11]
• K68AR-appears to be real but not in Texas [12]
• K41CZ-appears to be fake
• W49CB-appears to be real, backed by outside source [13]
• W44BF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [14]
• K32GF-appears to be real, backed by outside source [15]
• W66DC-appears to be real, backed by outside source [16]

There are a lot more but this should be enough till I get done with the rest. Rgoodermote  17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued List of reals and possible fakes (should say possible real)

• KDAX-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [17]
• K16ER-appears to be real, backed by outside source [18]
• K34FH-appears to be real, backed by outside source [19]
• K26DL-appears to be real, backed by outside source [20]
• KAMT-LP-appears to be real, backed by outside source [21]

It took me a while but I think I got them all. Rgoodermote  17:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking those up. Apparently ([User_talk:Word67]]) he is a sock of banne duser Dingbat2007. Is anyone familair with his MO? Does he create real article so he can slip in fake ones? John Reaves 17:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I took a look at his contributions and I see that the user does indeed have several real radio stations. So I believe like you said his MO is to make real Radio/TV article and then he slips them in. Probably in an attempt to prove some kind of point. Take a look at his contributions [22] and you are welcome. Rgoodermote  18:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked the admin who blocked him about his MO. Rgoodermote  18:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dingbat2007 had no deleted contributions - i.e., I don't see where he created any bogus articles. All the edits I saw scanning just now were insertion of bogus information into articles: false cities and networks. Not to say that his tactics couldn't have changed over time; that block was issued 9 months ago. —C.Fred (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For US broadcast station checking purposes, the FCC Broadcast Station Database is the definitive source. --John Nagle (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Fake" entries may be errors or premature. K41CZ says "K41CZ is a low-power television station in Lubbock, Texas affiliated with FSN, the station is owned by Una Vez Mas Holdings, LLC". In fact, from the FCC database, Una Vez Mas has two low-power licenses in Lubbock, TX, "KDFL-LP", and a pending license application with no call sign assigned yet. [23]. The facility number doesn't match, though. (More to the point, are UHF broadcast repeater and translator stations even notable? They're just relay stations. It's like listing power substations or cell sites.) --John Nagle (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that broadcaast repeaters/translators/STL links and the like are not only non-notable, they are something that probably should not be made available to people that wouldn't normally know about them. Along the lines of WP:BEANS. Loren.wilton (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

K41CZ is definitely fake; I have gone ahead and speedied it. There is no way FSN airs on broadcast television, period. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I will bookmark that site. I was just doing a simple lookup for the call numbers. I was unsure of the information in the articles myself just didn't know where to look. Rgoodermote  00:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I can comment on Dingbat (sorry about taking so long; if it deals with TV stations you can usually leave a message on WP:TVS and we can get back to you quicker than we can here).

Dingbat/Word's usual MO is to create fake TV station articles where the station is inexplicably affiliated with a cable network, or modifies an existing station to be so (for a good example, see WSB-TV, which he converted to Nick Jr. 2 Action News several times). Usually if it has FSN, The Disney Channel, a redlinked non-existent channel or any cable network that would never air over a broadcast station as an affiliation, better safe than sorry to revert him and report to AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fury of Five Disruption

Not sure where else to bring this, but I've worked through dispute resolutions steps and this is getting serious quickly. Fury of Five is apparently a defunct hardcore band; I noticed this article as a NewPage. It appears to meet standards for notability, but I was concerned about a subsection describing the lead singer's academic credentials. The most outrageous is that he co-authored a book on "Phaethon" with James Diggle (author of Odysseus Unbound. I tagged the article as a hoax and started a discussion thread seeking sources. In the 12 hours, five IPs and one named user (James Diggle (talk · contribs)) commented indicating that they had personal contact with the singer and that the assertions were correct. None of these editors have edits to other articles. I filed an SSP case here (which has not yet been responded to. I also filed an RFC to seek further comment.

Now the article's creator, FOVD (talk · contribs) (note similarity to the band name) says that the lead singer is actually Dr. John Underhill of the University of Edinburgh. While that appears to be patently ridiculous, I'm afraid it might raise BLP concerns. In addition, 79.70.35.199 (talk · contribs) in the past few minutes has been adding these edits. Help please. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made a request that the page be protected at WP:RFPP and it looks like the editors making the nonsense/vandals edits have been blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the comments on the article's Talk page should be removed as BLP violations. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism continues. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how so many different IPs, which WHOIS traces to different ISPs, are making coordinated edits. Is this one user with Tor proxies? // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could be from a message board somewhere. If a proxy check reveals nothing that would be my guess. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Incivility of a User

Resolved

I believe that this discussion may have alerted Charmed36 to a pattern that he may or may not have previously realized. As I believe that he and I are on the same page - at least in our general goals for WP and our edits - I am closing this discussion as a "withdrawn complaint." However, I reserve the right to bring it back up in the future, if the pattern of incivility continues. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The user Charmed36 has made a history of making incivil comments, both on talk pages and in edit summaries, not only toward me - which is what brings me here today - but to other editors, particularly newbie and IP users. I have brought up WP:CIVIL numerous times, but the user apparently believes that it does not apply to him. I am unsure how to proceed at this point and would like to see this practice resolved. The edit in question that brings me here today is here. I have been called many things, both on WP and in RL, but a "liar" is not one that I will willingly tolerate. Respectfully submitted for comment, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I am going to directly warn the user. Personal warning. Rgoodermote  22:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that InDeBiz1 (would that be the music biz?) is in the habit of edit warring to include unourced material in the biography of a living person. They are also getting a warning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah charmed mentioned that. If you have not issued biz a warning I will get to that. Rgoodermote  22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for a warning for edit warring. I practice common sense when editing, particularly when it comes to artists that have established nicknames among their fans, such as is the case in the article that has prompted this discussion. I am not going to allow a user who apparently believes that a certain nickname is "tacky" (see the edit history that prompted this discussion) to remove commonly-known information. I would also warn that a dangerous precedent is in the works here, if it becomes a requirement to cite each and every nickname for musical artists. Do we realize how many articles in the encyclopedia could immediately be challenged, in regard to that information? Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter edit warring is edit warring. Right now I am seeing that both of you are at fault and you both need to log off and get some Tea and Biscuits then come back later and when you do stay away from the articles you regularly edit and each other. Rgoodermote  22:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, while not an "attack" on anyone, edits like this are pretty indicative of Charmed36's attitude around WP. For the record, I'm not asking for a blocking... yet. I would just like to see this particular user held to the same standard that I and many thousands of others follow everyday. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

InDeBiz1 said he would not comment on my discussion talk page anymore and he did. I was through with the issue, but he reverts me all the time even on the articles I worked hard on creating. If we share similar taste in music then we do, but don't revert me on the articles I manage. Charmed36 (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want both of you to get some tea right now. Also per WP:Userpage I have to let the user remove comments. But I do consider both of you being uncivil in your removing of my warnings. So this goes with my both of your at fault theory. Log Off, Get some tea and biscuits and then stay away from articles that could make you two conflict. Rgoodermote  22:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have contributed in creating all Ciara's articles. Charmed36 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So? What's your point? Are you now trying to say that I am not allowed to edit those articles? Yeah, okay... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No I am saying you both stop for a while and get some Tea and Biscuits. That is the only way you two are going to still be able to edit on Wiki. I highly recommend mediation WP:Mediation. As this is a dispute not some thing and admin needs to deal with. Rgoodermote  22:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comment, actually. But your intentions are noted and agreed with. HOWEVER, I find it extremely disappointing that the issue at hand of this thread has been totally ignored thus far, that being Charmed36's incvility in his edit summaries, not just toward myself but countless other editors, as well. (By the way, I don't drink tea, nor eat biscuits. I'm an ice water and celery person, myself.) Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now it is a dispute between you two. If you have proof of the others then provide diffs. Until then it remains that both of you are being very uncivil towards each other and other users. This being so you are both at fault. Until you provide diffs this is over and you both need to go to WP:Mediation. Rgoodermote  23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go... Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10, Example 11, and Example 12. Those are just in the past month. Now, compare my edits over the same time period and you tell me who apparently has a problem adhering to WP:CIVIL... Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me a moment to find some one who can do a little bit more than me. But I read the summaries on each of those and I do see a lot of incivility. Number 11 though seems semi-fine as he was being legit in removing what is just purely dumb vandalism. But pointing it out was a little harsh. Rgoodermote  23:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Left some one a note. They should be here eventually. I am going step out of this entire thing as I am near the breaking point. Need to go find my Earl Gray and Biscuit mix. Rgoodermote  23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to let this issue go because we probably will never get along. Charmed36 (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Mediation and I am marking this resolved. As Dispute and users are going to Mediation.Rgoodermote  23:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the issue at hand is not resolved and I have removed that tag, as such. The issue here is not necessarily between Charmed36 and myself, although that certainly is an element. The issue here is his incivility, not just toward me, but others. That element makes this a still-unresolved issue. Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I am permanently removing myself from this. I have informed an admin. This is a dispute between you two. I understand there is incivility towards others other than you. But right now that is not the problem. If you two can not get together things are not going to get done and you are just extending the issue. The user is not at a level of incivility that he is a really big problem. I will leave final note telling him of his actions. Other than that your dispute is the most disruptive activity. I need to go my Earl Gray is cold and the Biscuits are being salted. Rgoodermote  00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this issue is resolved. Charmed36 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think that the complainee can really make that decision, when the complainer still says that there is an issue. Personally I hope that the two of you can resolve this before it does require use of any admin tools. I am quite sure that you are both dedicated to improving wikipedia's coverage of modern music. This means that, like it or not, you're on the same side. If you can each make a small effort to be more civil to one another, and to discuss changes without reverting one another, there is a potential big reward in terms of reductions in your stress levels (and those of bystanders) - not to mention a more productive use of editing time, which again makes for a better Wikipedia. Something to think about. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for resolving the issue and working with Charmed36 to better Wikipedia's modern music sections. In fact, as I've already stated on somebody's talk page (don't remember whose, at the moment), I'm much less concerned about his attitude toward me than I am his attitude toward IP users and newbies who may be chased off by some of his edit summaries against them. That was the whole point of opening this thread, moreso than the fact that he upsset me by calling me a "liar." Best regards, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm finish with this issue. Charmed36 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'd welcome any input from uninvolved editors. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC) >(struck out following InDeBiz1's "resolved" tagging) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User adding thousands of many improper possibly incorrect year of birth cats

I take exception to this title. I highly doubt I have added thousands of year of birth categories period. Most of these have been added based on information that previously was in the article. Another large chunk are based on information from project vote smart. Others come from Who's Who in America.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I did an analysis of my last 2000 edits. This takes us back to March 28th. Several of these are repetitions of editing the same article. Many involve issues such as placing people in religion categories, placing people in from Sterling Heights or other location categories or placing people in a category based on what university they are an alumni from.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We've got a problem with User:Johnpacklambert, who has been, for at least 2-3 weeks, at an edit count of up to 100 or more per day, adding birth year cats to biographical articles formerly in the category "Year of birth unknown." While this ordinarly would be the type of thankless, tedious work we're always glad to have editors do, in this case what flagged my attention a week or so ago was that this editor is, about 25-30 percent of the time, adding dates of birth that are unknown; he is apparently guessing by their date of graduation, or the age they were in a given year (without taking into account that most people are not the same age for all 365 days of a given year. About a week ago, I reverted 80+ articles yet the editor continued to do the same thing. Today I noticed that he was still going strong so I made several comments to his talk page, letting him know that adding cats for estimated birth years is highly improper and unencyclopedic--one of the things that undermines Wikipedia's credibility. After three notes, he refuses to stop, saying that putting in a discrete birth year cat based on an estimated birth year is better than "cluttering" the "Year of birth unknown" category. Perhaps an admin could ask him not to continue to add unsourced birth year cats, or at least to use cats such as "1950s births" where the decade of birth is known (though this proves difficult if someone may have been born late in one decade or early in the next). Thank you for your time. Badagnani (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. I'll keep watch. This is concerning as there are serious WP:BLP considerations with putting private information about people, especially based on guesses. If there are no sources as to the birth years, I would suggest reverting per WP:V. -- 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year. If the information can be specified to a given month, the percentage can be proven to be higher than 50%. If the age is based on the year of high school graduation, this is even a more likely thing. I think you people do not properly appreciate people's editing at all. These are based on well reasoned estimates. You have also severally under estimated how much of a behomoth the year of birth missing category is. you also continue to ignore the fact that it is perfectly acceptable to base year of death on estimates, and have provided no convincing argument against doing the same for year of birth.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia here. We deal in verifiable facts, not educated guesses. --Carnildo (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You did not address the question. If your statement was true, than deaths would have to be absolte years, however death years allow estimates, which contradicts your statement. The question is why is the standard for deaths and births different, not why either standard exists.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert: please put your points at the bottom of the section. This usually results in a discussion that is in a more logical order, and makes more sense. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone was a given age in a given year, than they are 50% going to be born in any year - So you're saying that there's a 50% chance of your information being WRONG? That's not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And either way, it is still WP:OR, violating the core principle of WP:V. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the policy as it stands, I don't agree with adding death year categories for discrete death years if they are unknown, whatever the categories say (I checked, and they do each say "for people born in approximately X year). I recommend removing that qualification in each death year cat. The top-level death year cat page and its discussion page don't have any information about the policy regarding this, but I think it's clear we shouldn't be adding cats for discrete death or birth years unless those are sourced. That's what cats such as "1850s births" or "19th century births" are for. Badagnani (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I still hold that this section is listed under a false title.Johnpacklambert (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you rather it just be called User:Johnpacklambert editing? Might as well be NPOV in titles as well. =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There, I've changed the title to make it NPOV. Or something like that. Perhaps more accurate.

On the charge of OR, a lot of this may not be. If a source said someone was born at 12 minutes after noon, would it be OR to say that they were born during the daytime? I think not. It is a well-known fact that "noon" and times near it occur during the daytime, it should require no OR to derive that. Likewise if it says that someone was 18 in 1988, it should not be OR to be able to do first year college math and subtract 18 from 1988 and get a specific year.

Now, as noted, the specific year may be wrong by +-1 year or so. Encyclopedias (at least the EB, to my knowledge) have a way of handling unknown but estimated dates. They put a little "c" in front of the estimated year. I suspect, but of course cannot prove, that a lot of "c1281" birthdates in the EB were computed by EB staffers when they were unable to find a reliable source stating year of birth, and only had age at a particular date.

Sticking in dates is a thankless task, as someone mentioned. It would be ill-advised to supply estimated death years for living people. But if the person has reliable sources asserting they are (or were once) living, then it should require no OR to conclude that they were born, and only simple math to determine a close year if other reliable dates are available. If the final date is shown as "estimated", and can be trivially shown to be no worse that +-1 year, then the estimated date is probably far better than a completely worthless but completely accurate "unknown". After all, one could simply replace the entire article wiht a name and "Facts not reliably known." for the entire article body.

Just my opinion. I think his work is good, as long as verifiable corrleations of years and age can be found, and if the birth dates are shown as estimates. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think the work is probably in good faith even if slightly misdirected. If the user has reliable 3rd party sources for the dates (Who's Who I think would probably count) than let him add them (as it is sourced information that can be verified). If however he is guessing (even an educated guess) than a broader guess is better so sourcing to decade is reasonable (especially for mid-decade births). The problem with the high school or other graduation thing though is not everyone graduates at 17,18,19. Some people graduate earlier and some later for a variety of reasons. I think OR in cases like this is probably okay as long as it can be sourced. As long as the user doesn't state his "estimate"/best guess as fact than a born approx with an inclusion in the decade category should be fine. And yes whatever the decision of consensus is it should work both ways for births and deaths.Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Two things. My point was that claiming there were thousands of edits involving year of birth issues was misleading and inaccurate.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Point two, if someone is in the category 1950s births, should this exclude them from the category year of birth missing. I have found people who are in both so I am wondering.Johnpacklambert (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a year of birth unknown (as opposed to missing) category? If so it would be reasonable (IMO) to have people with estimated birth years in that category as well as the decade category. Just my opinion here, I suppose others may differ. If we have an estimated (from fairly reliable numbers) birth year I don't think it can be stated as 'missing' anymore. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm assuming that "year of birth missing" means that there isn't a year of birth listed in the article. I'd say that putting in the decade would remove the "year of birth missing" cat but, a "year of birth unknown" cat if it doesn't exist should probably be created and the subject listed both in the decade and in "year of birth unknown" cat. Saying that discussions of what categories exist and/or should exist probably belongs somewhere else. Perhaps User:Johnpacklambert would be willing to put this particular type of editing on hold for now and we can work on reaching consensus at the new discussion. And perhaps User:Badagnani and he could shake hands and apologise to each other for any misunderstanding as I'm sure they both have very good intentions and no ill will was intended from either side (I hope)Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Birth dates estimated by an editor are WP:OR and not in any way acceptable. Birth dates estimated in and cited to a reliable source are ok if characterized as such. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree with this if reliable dates are present in the article to use to compute a birth date, and if the birth date is clearly marked as estimated or approximate. As I mentioned before, this is no different than asserting that Noon occurs "during the day". To give an exact birth date not supported by available facts would be OR.

(addemdum) Note that we have Template:Birth year and age that computes an approximate age given a birth year. Since the age is a computation and not a quote from a citation, and it is only an approximation of the correct age, it must be OR and not allowed by policy? Then why is this template allowed to exist and be used? I think that it is fairly clear that computations from available facts to establish other useful date approximations do not violate OR, or else IAR must have been applied to the creation and use of these templates. If so, I suport the use of IAR in the specific case under discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Year of birth unknow exists but it is supposed to be used for those born in the distant past whose year of birth is unknown. Year of birth missing and year of birth missing (living people) are supposed to be used for those in the recent past or present whose year of birth could be determined with more searching of information. The line between year of birth missing and year of birth unknown has not been followed well, and living people are in all three categories. There were also until recently, and probably are still, people in the year of birth missing (living people) for whom a death date is given and others who were head coaches of football teams in the 1920s for whom no information is given since who probably should be moved to possibly living in not year of death missing categories. We could make a category "exact year of birth missing", which might be a good thing, however I will let someone else do that.Johnpacklambert (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A Pat on the Back

It seems that it is almost every day that there is some blowback about admins stepping out of line - either for outright questionable use of the buttons, or for simple incivility. Some of these complaints are entirely infounded, unfortunately, some of them have a basis in reality. That said, this afd is an excellent example of what works here at wikipedia. Kudos to Sandstein and Lar, who ec'd with opposite closes, and chose to relist it rather than create more drama over the close. Pastordavid (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Just gave them each a half barnstar. I saw that earlier today, but was in too short on time to say anything about it then. Well done for avoiding more wikidrama, something we already have far too much of. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Range block needed?

Resolved

 – Anon blocked 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255.

Sorry if this doesn't really belong here, but as three of these are already blocked, the helperbot deleted them from WP:AIV when I put them there. These IPs have identical edits, all vandalism. I've blocked three of them but each time I do this, another pops up with the same edits, the same articles. Looks like a block on a range may be needed? - eo (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• 189.192.60.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.153.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.56.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 189.192.159.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Looking into it. -- Avi (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am really loath to block the full 65,536 IPs, but I cannot find where MegaCable of Mexico subdivides the 189.192/16 section any further. Let's start with the range from 189.192.56.0–189.192.159.255, which is only 26,624 IPs, for now. -- Avi (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material on high school article

A new editor, Monkeyking123 is continually replacing a pretty inflammatory section on controversy on the Mountain Pointe High School‎. When I reverted and explained it was unsourced, they responded that it didn't need a source [24]. He has since reverted again, and I don't want to edit war over this one so I brought it here. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits were reverted (quite properly) by someone else. Of the three edits, two of them are very clearly vandalism, which in my mind makes the third edit equally suspicious. Some digging on the web seems to show that in fact the incident quoted is in fact a complete fabrication. However there was an actual cheating incident at this school that made national news a few years ago, and if someone wanted to add it they could, as there are decent citations available. I've left a comment on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald

Resolved

 – User:Dank55 has contacted Ed. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this is sort of a strange request, but I'm requesting an intervention with Ed Fitzgerald. I feel that he is trying to get himself deliberately blocked by continuing to engage in disruptive editing behavior during his RFC. Would an admin who is friends with him have a talk with him? The last thing I want to see is Ed blocked. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disurptive edits by User:98.203.11.142

This IP has been making disruptive edits to pages relating to Arab Christians. First he was simply changing references to "Arab Christian" to "Arab Muslim", as in this edit and this edit, so I warned him on his talk page. But he ignored me, and soon was making edits like this, adding "faget" to pages about Arab Christians. I warned him again, but again to no avail, and now he's making these sorts of edits. I don't know what to do; he isn't responding to my warnings, and he hasn't made a single edit summary.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism. If he does it again, let me know and I'll block him for longer. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:SunCreator‎

Since this report against me was first filed on April 19th, User:SunCreator has not been able to let go of the issue, and is still pursuing it on WikiProject Notability, in effect ignoring all the editors and admins who have given him advice. Unfortunately, SunCreator has also become obsessed with me and is now stalking my contributions. Today, SunCreator showed up at Talk:History of Hawaii to restore off-topic attacks and trolling made by User:67.169.127.166 against User:Hokulani78. Article talk pages aren't used to attack editors, criticize their spelling, and rant about political beliefs. I removed the comments as off-topic per WP:TALK ("Deleting material not relevant to improving the article") and SunCreator reverted them each time.[25], [26] Now, SunCreator has become obsessed with my talk page, adding no less than six messages [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], while I have asked him three times to avoid using my talk page. [33], [34], [35]. Could someone ask SunCreator to stop wikistalking me and to avoid harassing users on their talk page when they have asked him to stop? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented on his talk page. --MPerel 07:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ban

Ban this user User:Chocho123 with Immediate effect. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 10:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. WP:AIV is probably a better venue for this in the future however. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Digital Audio Broadcasting

The Digital Audio Broadcasting article has been in a terrible state for a long time. Multiple users are doing extreme POV pushing, both on that article, and anywhere else DAB is mentioned (such as HD Radio). You can see the DAB talk page for a good long history of the POV pushing, ownership issues, edit wars, etc. For reference, my changes, which corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted. [36] It is without question the most horrendously biased article I've seen on WP. User:Digitalradiotech even goes so far as to support his anti-DAB statements by citing articles that he has written, published on his own website. The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors, and left the article to stagnate. I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law, such as it is. I'm certainly not going to keep spitting into the wind, having my cited changes reverted, and risk getting blocked for 3RR myself, trying to hold off a gang of rabid POV-pushers (at least I assume it's a gang, and not just sock puppeting, even though the timing is suspicious). Rcooley (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely what are you asking administrators to do?

A few minutes of poking around seems to indicate that (a) you have only edited the article and its Talk page a handful of times and (b) this appears to be a content dispute. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try dispute resolution. Admins don't have any ability to decide who is "right" in a content dispute, so even if an admin did get involved, they would have no more say over it than any other editor. If there are behavioral problems, we can intervene there, but it does take two sides to make an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not refer only to my edits. The page has had problems for a long time before I became involved. I've seen just how time consuming and useless dispute resolution is... I'll pass. If no-one will intervene, it will remain in it's current, sorry state. (ie. Not my problem.) Rcooley (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

After one quick scan I tagged the page with {{advert}} since it pretty clearly is at the moment. There is a basic problem here in that the article is describing Digital Audio Broadcasting as some copyrighted specific broadcast technology, and not in fact "digital" "audio broadcasting" in the general form as one might expect. Having just returned from the NAB conference I can state with some authority that there is more than one way to broadcast audio digitally. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's how I view what's gone on (which hasn't been a major issue, because there's only been a couple of exchanges between us so far [37]): RCooley suggested the following issues that need to be addressed on 31st March: [38] Admittedly, I didn't see his suggestions on the Talk page. Then on 23rd April, he removed a large chunk of the intro: [39]. Since then I have edited the intro to rectify all of the issues he had with it, and now I see that he's even reported the "issue" on here. As ElKevbo rightly points out, RCooley has hardly edited the DAB page at all (I'm unaware of him editing it before 23rd April), and yet RCooley said that the DAB page has "been in a terrible state for a long time". He also claims that the changes he made "corrected innumerable factual errors, and included several citations, have been repeatedly reverted". I don't see where he gets the "several citations" from, because there is only one reference in his preferred version of the intro [40], which was already present, and his edit removed five citations. He has not "corrected inumerable factual errors", because all he has done is to simply delete a large chunk of text.

His usage of language above is highly questionable as well, such as "extreme POV pushing", "most horrendously biased article", "The furiousness of the ownership, edit warring, POV-pushing, etc., seems to have scared off most editors", "a gang of rabid POV-pushers". The intro has been the subject of a large amount of discussion on the Talk pages for a long time, and we had finally reached a consensus view that both sides were happy with, and it's been stable for a few months now. And he has simply come along and deleted a large chunk of it. He also says "I don't believe it can be improved into a useful state without long-term work by an involved, impartial Admin laying down the law". That is clearly an attempt to get me banned without me having done anything wrong here.

And on the Talk page he accuses me of "ownership" and then in the next sentence says "So far, you're the only one who has shown a tendency to ownership and edit waring. I must decline your ultimatum. Here's a better one... BEFORE you revert ALL my changes (fully supported by citations) you'd better have a very good reason to do so." [41]. I don't know if it's possible for you to see this, but I have written most of the text in the sections describing the technological aspects on the DAB page, so at least I have contributed a lot to the page, whereas all RCooley has done is to come along and delete a big chunk of it.

I've edited the intro just before I started writing this entry, and I've described the changes I've made here [42]. Personally, I think the intro is fine as it is now. Digitalradiotech (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, the heading and first sentence of the next to last section (currently) on the talk page definitely shows proprietorship issues at the article.

That's referring to a separate issue to the current one about DAB, because it's referring to RCooley's deletion of a large chunk of the into of the HD Radio page, see [43] - he's deleted large chunks of text on both articles! I can't comment on whether RCooley was or wasn't justified in deleting so much text, though, because I haven't read the HD Radio article. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But perhaps we are past that now, and it can be ignored. The recent editing I see there has been good, and has improved the article. Note: my opinion is completely seprate from RCooley's, and in fact I know nothing about him, and have not read what it was he was complaining about. But my reading of the article itself (not the talk page) showed some issues, and I believe they are being corrected, and the article is benefitting from it. Loren.wilton (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, great. I see you've added some comments on the DAB Talk page - I'll try and do some editing tonight for that. Digitalradiotech (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Son of Daniel Case

Resolved

Blocked by FisherQueen (talk · contribs). Tony Fox (arf!) 22:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please block this vandal indefinitely for WP:User name violation (User:Daniel Case). --David Shankbone 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The ironic thing is, I am a homosexual. But if I wanted that to be the only information on my user page, repeated over and over again, I'd have formatted it that way myself. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also blocked User:Daniel Case 2 Nakon 22:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

He used a bunch of IPs earlier today (and for the record, I'm straight, but he's attacking Wikipedia editors of all sexual orientations apparently). Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

At least the ex-user did not discriminate. An equal opportunity slanderer.

In the spirit of the above statements, I am copying here a statement previously displayed on my user page.

"Rumours that I am bi are greatly exaggerated. I am a bit near-sighted." - Anonymous

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that it matters, but I see the user page says they are a sock of JJonz, but their talk page says they are a sock of Seancarlin84. Can they be both at once? Loren.wilton (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The talk page sock id was added by the blocked user, so I took the liberty of removing it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Civility Issues with User:CSHunt68 & User:Jéské Couriano

I'm getting a tad frustrated at CSHunt68 (talk · contribs), who's crying foul aver what's been happening at Yuan-ti. After I reverted to a version with Primary-source and Notability tags two days ago, I asked for full-protection to head off the impending edit-war. It was granted, and when he brought up that there were third-party sources (which I had initially overlooked due to the lack of citing), I removed the Primary-sources tag. However, that's not what he's complaining about: He's complaining about what I wrote in my edit summary immediately prior to the prot ("Did you even read the page?"). He's now accusing me of making personal attacks due to that, and is crying administrative abuse because I reverted before going and asking for protection. Please advise; I fear this situation may deteriorate further. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 03:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to send him a message on his talk page to let him know about this thread. I have seen your work around here tons before, and I know you often Assume Good Faith and have never made a personal attack, to my knowledge. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 03:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

He knows - I linked to here on my talk page (just not the specific thread), where he and I are discussing things. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I objected to your personal attack on the edit. "I have to ask, CS, do you even read the article?" There's no need for such statements in Wikipedia. I also object to the fact that you reverted to your version before requesting the page protection, but that's a minor issue. I will ask you to refrain from such inflammatory, baiting statements in the future. Thank you for your attention to this matter. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

You were making as large an issue of the reversion before the WP:RPP request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

That's not a personal attack. Why are you needlessly escalating the issue? seicer | talk | contribs 04:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly baiting, by any reasonable interpretation of Internet protocol. I have taken no action, except to indicate to JC that he should not do so again. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Talk:Yuan-ti seems to indicate otherwise; you were making mountains from molehills. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it does, and I maintain that your comment was both factually incorrect, as you later admitted, and totally uncalled-for - a clear violation of WP:CIV. You could apologize even for your admitted "incivillity", but I notice you haven't. CSHunt68 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Don't you feel like you should both apologize for incivil remarks and just move on? Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the history (briefly) and so far I don't see a problem that couldn't be solved by both parties taking a break to calm down. Seriously. Jeske, you know the edit summary was slightly over the top and you didn't need to phrase it that way. CSHunt, you know there really no reasonable way to characterize that as a personal attack...it was a very mild insult meade in the heat of obvious frustration. Time to let go of this and move on, both of you. Doc Tropics 04:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully concur with the above. Apologise, shake hands, and come out editing constructively. Edit summaries are supposed to summarise the edits. We shouldn't be using them to address other users in a non-constructive manner. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If Jeske admits that his behaviour was bad ... it hasn't happened yet. CSHunt68 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

Genre Changing

Resolved

 – socks blocked

Right. I am getting fed up with this user Special:Contributions/82.38.65.47. They are persistently changing genres on hundreds of articles without any discussion. As we all know, this is highly disruptive and can lead to edit wars. The user has been repeatedly warned, asked to engage in discussion and blocked in the past. They have not changed their ways, may I suggest a longer term block? This user also operates Special:Contributions/Thrice34. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you believe they're violating WP:SOCK (multiple accounts), you can raise this at WP:SSP or WP:RFCU as appropriate. For straightforward vandalism, WP:AIV. Otherwise, an admin looking here may take action. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I went ahead and hard blocked the ip for a month. The same kind of vandalism dates to at least September 2007 and the ip has been the subject of many blocks previously. No comment on the named account. I suggest Nouse4aname file a sockpuppet complaint or checkuser request for that. -JodyB _talk 11:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's plain that the IP is the non-logged in identity of User:Thrice34 (who is now blocked indef), who in turn is a sockpuppet of the indef-blocked User:Matt 14. In the circumstances I consider a one-month block lenient as this is a static IP address, and was about to block it for three months. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out. I don't think this user is violating WP:SOCK as they aren't trying to form a consensus or change opinion anywhere. Also I wasn't sure as to whether to post here or AIV as the vandalism isn't persistent, but rather sporadic, so not requiring immediate attention as I thought AIV was for. Anyway, it seems sorted now, though I doubt the block will bring about any change in their actions when it expires. Cheers all. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This user actually was violating WP:SOCK#Circumventing_policy, as they were evading an indefinite block. However, account is being watched and any resumption will result in a longer block. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A blatant vandal claiming to be an administrator

Resolved

Spherea (talk · contribs) returned from a 24 hour block for vandalism and decided to dub him/herself as an administrator and added an {admin} template to their userpage. Edit history show this account made a few postitive edits at first but then turned to adding false information to articles as well as userpage vandalism. It may be a compromised account that someone accidently left logged in at an internet cafe? Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The addition was reverted by someone else and I left a note on the talk page. -JodyB _talk 11:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of the serial vandal Komodo Lover

Resolved

 – indef blocked

The new user user: Total Ignorent boy is the latest sockpuppet of Komodo Lover (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Komodo_lover#Suspected_usernames). This new puppet is making the same edits as the blocked sockpuppet Mr Loner (now indefiniately blocked), see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walking_with_Beasts&oldid=209209725. The picture on his front page is the same one he had with the Puncharoo puppet. He has also deleted mentions of him people's talk page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston&oldid=209198133). Mark t young (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Egyptzo copyright violations

This user has created a number of new articles and edited others, and in almost every case is copying text from other websites into these articles. I've found copyvio in Chan Chak K'ak'nal Ajaw, Battle of Carchemish, Epulon, Battle of Grobnik field, Battle of Tikal and Battle of Kadesh and there are a number I haven't even looked at. Is there anything that can be done? Thanks.Doug Weller (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, he was warned about this before. It really looks like he copy & pastes everything from other websites. Even just 3 sentences in a row from some forum. Garion96 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I keep finding more and more.Doug Weller (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet account continuing to edit war

Can somebody please look at this checkuser report: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Amoruso? Robertert (talk · contribs) has been confirmed as a sockpuppet account and he continues to engage in multiple article edit-warring at Gilo, Ramot, Neve Yaakov and Pisgat Ze'ev. As the disruption is ongoing, the need for admin intervention seems obvious. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation. The supposed 'confirmed sockpuppets' edited entirely different entries and never violated any policy. At the same time, the editor above supports a specific content version which happens to introduce original synthesis against the consensus expressed by the majority of the editors (Noon, Amoruso, Gilabrand, myself, and others previously such as Slimvirgin). Rather than replying to my discussion or presenting sources Tiamut is improperly attempting to force a change in content and support an editor who has disruptively been reverting the four others. --Robertert (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing "improper" about trying to change content. At Wikipedia, everyone who abides by the community's guidelines and policies is welcome to edit. The checkuser report said it was "likely" that User:Amoruso and you were the same account. You reverted to Amoruso's version of the text on what would have been his fourth revert. Using sockpuppets to edit-war and avoid breaking 3RR is not allowed. That is the primary issue here. The content issue is one that will eventually be worked out by good faith editors at the pages in question. Tiamut^talk 12:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I might also point out that your claim that your other confirmed accounts (i.e. Arzkibar (talk · contribs) and Onthedunes (talk · contribs)) edit other articles is false. Arzkibar has indeed been involved in the edit wars affecting Pisgat Ze'ev. Tiamut^talk 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked all the socks indef, and the main account (Amoruso) for two months. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

User:David Tombe and User:FyzixFighter

User:David Tombe has been trying to insert a specific viewpoint in centrifugal force (fictitious) and related articles (Coriolis effect, reactive centrifugal force). Several users, including myself, have reverted him since his edits do not agree with modern physics textbooks. This has led to a continuous stream of reverts and counter reverts, bordering on, in my opinion, tendentious editing on David's part. However David has recently gone beyond this, and is now wikistalking those editors who disagree with him, reverting minor, non-controversial edits:

• reverting a vandalism correction
• reverting a removal of self-linking
• reverting a removal of linkspam
• reverting again a vandalism correction
• reverting removal of a non-sequitur

--FyzixFighter (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: David Tombe was warned that this behavior is considered vandalism [44]. He responded to the warning on an article talk page [45], and then went on to state that he will continue, unless we "stop deleting his edits", and that he'd like to see an administrator brought in. [46]. (I agree with him on that last point.) The last three of the above edits are from a after he received the warning. --PeR (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The facts are that PeR and FyzixFighter are the wikistalkers. If you check the facts , you will see that they are engaged in a systematic team effort to delete every single edit of mine.

FyzixFighter has misrepresented the situtaion above. The issue in question at the moment is that the description of centrifugal force as it currently appears in the article is limited to circular motion involving centripetal forces that arise from pressure from a contact object.

I have been trying to generalize the description to "When an object moves in a curved path, it experiences a centrifugal force directed outwards from the radius of curvature".

FyzixFighter and PeR systematically replace this every time which a much less accurate clause which talks about centrifugal force as being a reaction to centripetal force.

FyzixFighter's claim that he is advocating a textbook based position is false.

The true reason for the edit war is because there is a team which includes these two and extends to Henning Makholm, RRacecarr and Wolfkeeper. This team have actively decided to ensure that they are the only ones to be allowed to edit the centrifugal force page. And clearly their knowledge of the subject is very limited. David Tombe (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that it is very rich irony that PeR in particular should decide to report me for wikistalking. If you check on PeR's recent contributions to wikipedia you will notice that a large percentage of them have been reversions of my edits and the rest have been to argue with me on the talk pages, usually totally illogically. Often the arguments and the reversions are not even directly connected. He is systematically deleting everything that I put in and now he has accused me of wikistalking him. There was another case again today. It's very hard for me to wikistalk PeR considering that most of his contributions are aimed negatively at mine. David Tombe (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The nature of the content dispute is irrelevant, and will be resolved through the proper dispute resolution process. That's not why I made this report. David Tombe's edits that I listed above appear to be simply an attempt to get back at those editors that revert his edits. David's own comments on the talk page mentioned above by PeR seem to corroborate this. If that was not the intent, then I invite David to share his reasoning for those edits here. I would also request an administrator quickly look into this, and even PeR's and my edit histories too, to determine if there is any wikistalking/vandalism going on and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And now we have some personal attacks: [47]. Would an administrator please step in and take the appropriate actions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack. Please stop whining and do something constructive. John Reaves 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cross accusations of disruptive editing

While checking out who exactly is wikistalking who and who started it, could you please have a look at user:Rracecarr. It would be interesting to see how many of his recent edits have been reversions of my edits. I would guess quite a high percentage.David Tombe (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"You started, no you started it!" Shutup already... John Reaves 21:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful with your accusations of wikistalking. I have been editing every page where I've reverted you since far before your account existed, whereas you clearly followed me to volleyball. Rracecarr (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good grief

The things people will get in a huff about... I'm tempted to enter this in WP:LAME. The Coriolis force is an apparent force, as a check with standard references will show. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly the place to discuss this, but since you brought the subject up, how can we see the cyclones from outer space if the Coriolis force is only an apparent force?David Tombe (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, the word "apparent" means that you can "see" it. Yes, hardly the place. --Abd (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The proverbial "uninvolved admin" speaks

I hate these he-said/she-said bickerfests, but in the interests of seeing this thread shut down and archived, I've overcome my natural tendency to let someone else sort it out, and looked at the dispute. Here's what I think:

1. The content dispute should be resolved thru WP:DR, not thru name calling and edit warring on ANI threads.
2. FyzixFighter's complaint about wikistalking by David Tombe seems valid. David Tombe, stop reverting people's unrelated, valid edits because there is a consensus going against you at a particular article. Restoring vandalism to make a point is vandalism, and you can be blocked for it if it happens again. I assume this happened because you were frustrated, but now understand that it isn't acceptable.
3. Accusations of wikistalking by David Tombe against Rracecarr do not appear to be valid; he is not following you to previously unedited articles to revert you. He (evidently) disagrees with you about the content of your edits. Please follow WP:DR.
4. Complaining by everyone that everyone else is being uncivil, and airing your dirty laundry with long conversations between yourselves on ANI is annoying, makes everyone's eyes glaze over, and makes everyone not care about your actual, legitimate problems.
5. I mentioned dispute resolution already, right?

I'm going back to be productive in the real world now, so do what you see fit. But you all wanted an uninvolved admin opinion, and now you have one. --barneca (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Famous player sections

Copied from WP:AN:

User: Fasach Nua began tagging the notable/famous player section of every national football team article as OR. As he began doing so, many editors, including myself, asked him to bring the issue to WT:FOOTY before an edit war spread across 50 articles. The discussion is ongoing as we attempt to develop a criteria for inclusion in these sections. In the mean time since these sections have existed uncontested on WP for several years, it is my position that they should remain untagged until the discussion at the project talk page has run its course and a consensus is reached. Rather than start an edit war over this I would appreciate a neutral 3rd party weighing in at either my or Fasach's talk page. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If he believes the sections are OR in good faith, and has in any case stopped tagging them as such hours ago, and you have reverted everything he's done, and there is currently discussion going on at WP:FOOTY, what more exactly do you want? There is the matter of you edit warring on his talk page, but that seems to have resolved itself as well. I don't see any need for admin attention here. --barneca (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that most of this has worked itself out in the last few minutes. All I want is for him to acknowledge that the process has to run its course. I've tried to make a peace offering, but it went "unread." Maybe just a message from a third party to try to get him to see that I've actually made a peace offering, rather than have him ignoring my attempts to bury the hatchet. I wasn't trolling his talk page, just trying to get him to recognize the process. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if someone doesn't want to talk, it's hard to force them. If he was still adding tags now, and refusing to discuss, that would be one thing. But I think trying to force him to bury the hatchet with you, or even suggesting he do so, might have the opposite effect right now. Let's see how the discussion turns out; I have to admit, I've often sort of wondered how those sections meet WP:V myself. Tagging 50 articles was disruptive, but it's over, and reverted, so I'd call it water under the bridge, and move on with the discussion. --barneca (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for your attention. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment you left on his page. That was exactly what I was hoping for. Hopefully he will take a look at my comments and realize I wasn't trying to be a troll or a dick and was just a concerned editor. Again, thanks for your attention and have a good one. -- Grant.Alpaugh 15:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I notified Fasach Nua of this thread, but they seem to be on a brief wikibreak, and hopefully their participation in this thread is no longer needed. I'm marking it (optimistically) as resolved. --barneca (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem has started again as Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) has begun mass tagging again. Please help keep this from getting out of hand again. -- Grant.Alpaugh 12:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: leave them tagged for now and try for discussion. Whether he is correct or not I suspect it is an area where discussion could be useful. What exactly makes a particular player notable and another not? I'm sure there isn't a hard cutoff, but perhaps a somewhat open-ended enumeration of things that might count as notability could be useful. OR seems like strange tag to me rather than Notability, but it can't hurt to leave the tags there for a few days while talking about it. Loren.wilton (talk) 15:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, our normal policy is to leave things at the status quo while contentious discussion is being conducted. There is currently a dicussion at WT:FOOTY about developing a criteria for these sections, and most there are of the opinion that FN has conducted this campaign in such a way as to violate WP:POINT (i.e. he selected a list of 50 articles mostly comprised of the most prominant teams like England, Italy, Spain, United States, Mexico, etc.) and has repeatedly rejected an attempt at dialogue (with me specifically even though I was one of a group of editors) on the issue at his talk page. I think that engaging in disruptive behavior and ignoring attempts to discuss this issue in a productive way is grounds for a block, and would like such action to take place to prevent an edit war over 50 articles while discussion is ongoing. I fear FN will not acknowledge the importance of process and policy without some time to think about it. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(copy of my response from earlier today, on WP:AN, after it was moved here. i just closed the thread on AN to prevent a forked conversation)

I tried to help (a tiny bit) yesterday, but it evidently didn't take. I can't deal with this until the evening, so if any admin wants to take a look, feel free to jump in. I just left some advice for Grant on his user talk page; if anyone thinks they can add to that, or alter it, feel free. --barneca (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent only because I can't count the colons right) I agree with Loren. It doesn't matter whether the tags are there while the discussion in going on or not. Try not to let FN's admittedly semi-disruptive way of going about this blind you to the fact that he may actually have a point. I don't think blocking FN at this point makes sense. I'll leave another message on his talk page. Please, both sides, don't edit war over the tags. Wait for consensus. If you're still unhappy, go to WP:DR. --barneca (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that he might have a point, otherwise I wouldn't be attempting to come up with criteria at WT:FOOTY. The problem is that this isn't like tagging something that has a verifiable source someone just hasn't found yet. In that case leaving the tags up makes some passerby aware that this information needs a cite so take it with a grain of salt or if you have it please provide it. In this case everyone is aware that there is no source that is going to pop up from the FA or US Soccer or wherever saying "here are the former players we deem notable or famous," so given the nature of section (which I think is inherently subjective to the point of not needing to be enumerated) and the fact that we literally have to create from scratch a criteria, it would be better for these sections to remain as is until the discussion is allowed to run its course. Either way, the repeated adding of tags despite at least three users (other than me) making it clear on his talk page or the relevant discussions pointing out to him that he is being disruptive, coupled with the unwillingness to communicate in order to resolve the situation and build consensus deserves at least a warning. I agree that a block would leave him unable to contribute to the discussion at the project talk page, but something has to be done to get the point across. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying whether it would be better to have the tag or not while discussion is going on. I'm saying that the incremental benefit to either temporarily having them or not having them (depending on your point of view), pending resolution, is very small compared to the cost of continued arguing and edit warring and admin action. Don't sweat the samll stuff. --barneca (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Block request for personal attacker.

Resolved

James265 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making personal attacks against multiple editors. He also claims to have not used Twinkle, even though no mention was made (I smell sockpuppet). User has gone past a level 4 warning, but I don't know where this should go. Soxred93 (u t) 16:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think he saw 'using twinkle' in an edit summary, and he's almost certainly a sock (checkuser?)...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 16:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From the contributions, looks like it's a sock of Dan689. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 20:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked @ 16:42, 30 April 2008 By User:Nick. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please unblock User:Pamlico 140?

I would suggest that this block is inappropriate. The editor appears to be a kayaking enthusiast who, on Wikipedia and elsewhere, takes his/her username from a favorite model of kayak. This may not be the best choice, but there are any number of other editors who take their usernames from favored books, movies, albums, songs, etc without complaint. The user who quite aggressively proposed the block also falsely accused the editor of spamming after he/she wrote an article about the kayak model; it is quite a stretch, to say the least, to characterize an article which describes a product as "obsolete" and "discontinued" as promotional spam. I asked the original blocking admin to reverse the action more than 24 hours ago, without any reply yet. Thank you. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It was username violation. There is a notice on the page of exactly what they need to do. Unblocking would still leave the username violation. If the user really wanted to be unblocked, they are free to do so. I don't see an issue here; if someone cannot help get themselves umblocked, there is nothing more to do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is not a violation of the username policy as written. It is not the name of a company or group. It is not being used promotionally -- the item it supposedly promotes is a discontinued model of a kayak that the editor enjoys using. If this username is to be banned, why not User:RattleandHum, a name taken from a still for sale commercial item? User:AppleII? User:Han Solo54, promoting a cinematic franchise? User:Spider-Man 8888? User:Metallica is cool? User:RonPaul1234? User:Conan the Barbarian? There seem to be hordes of users whose names relate in some way to commercial products/services. Do you mean to block all of them? Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

On careful review of WP:UN I have to agree with Minos here. UN explicitly refuses to prohibit the use of corporate names, though it does discourage them. However, nowhere in WP:UN is there any mention of product names, either current or retired. If I wanted to register as PepsiCola I can see nothing in UN that would prohibit that, and UN would only tangentially suggest that it might not be a good idea. Thus, I think the username violation charge against Pamlico 140 should be withdrawn, and they should be unblocked, possibly with an apology. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Unblock with definite apology. Making the user aware of possible problems is one thing but, automatically blocking seems a bit extreme. Yes some user names are inappropriate but, people should be judged on merit not simply on what they chose to call themselves when they register. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to concur, an unblock is probably warranted in this case. I will note, though, that product names - while permissible under the username policy - might telegraph conflicts of interest, if the user edits exclusively to promote a particular product. I'm thinking particularly of software, where I see quite a few developers take the name of their software and then write about that software. In this case, even if the user writes about this specific kayak, there is no conflict of interest as there is nothing to promote - though they should still remain in NPOV mode. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

← While it may not fall afoul of the letter of the guideline, I believe it violates the spirit of it. Given as an example above, a username of "PepsiCola" is pretty much guaranteed a block as either promotional or an abuse of a product/corporate name. The only difference in this case is that it's a lesser-known product. That said, in the spirit of WP:BITE, we should probably unblock but encourage the user to change their name, then work on the Talk page of WP:UN to find a consensus on the matter. -- Kesh (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this will help clarify things or not, but the user Pamlico 140 may have made two requests here and here to unblock on the Pamlico 140 article page. I removed both edits, as they were requests to unblock the article rather than the user, even if they had been requests for the user they were in the wrong location, and I wasn't aware that the requests came from the user concerned until I noticed this comment in their edit history. I did leave a comment in the IP's talk page to let them know why I had removed the edits, but at that point I didn't suspect they were the same person. At any rate, it occurs to me that there may have been no request to unblock the account simply because the user isn't aware of how to go about it. - Bilby (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistant Spam Accounts

Resolved

Both users blocked by admin. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The following accounts have been warned, and also previously briefly blocked, for inserting external link spam into articles about Rihanna:

• 76.16.61.141
• Skymurphyski

It's becoming rather tedious to have to revert the same material - specifically, information along the line of "...the new video can be seen at her official website, www.rihannaupdate.com - multiple times each day. Also, the website in question is not the artist's official website, as the information claims, it is a fan blog.

Can we investigate a blocking for these disruptive users? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• The IP appears to be static, so after its previous week-long block, I have blocked it for a month. The registered account is currently on a 72-hour block. Black Kite 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Magicmusicfan

Appears to be at best a single purpose account, created only to create Durwin Dean (which is currently the subject of an AFD), at worst WP:SOCK.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't see a problem with it. Probably 50% of all the users here started out by creating a poor-quality article on their favourite celebrity (I know I did). — iridescent 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say the problem is more with you, Rtphokie. I notice you havn't even asked this user about anything on their talk page, and came straight here. Jtrainor (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Neither welcomed nor notified of the AfD. The first article I created got speedily deleted. I prefer to nurture new editors if I can. You can't expect anyone's first article to be a shining example of how to create an article. Nor can you expect new user's to be familiar with the intricacies of AFD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, I've been looking at poor quality articles on non-notable DJs for weeks (I didn't nominate this one for the record). Sock puppets are not uncommon with the radio station articles. I'd just finished commenting on an AFD on an article created by a sock puppet that was blocked indefinately because of it. This one smelled like that as well. DJs seem to have moved from promoting themselves and their shows via MySpace to promotion via Wikipedia. Conflict of interest, POV, unreferenced, peacock and also sock puppet problems are becoming more and more common. I was looking for some comment on the user and his/her activity not an attack.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The intention of this noticeboard is to highlight a currently active incident that requires immediate administrator attention. If you're having trouble working with another editor, or have some problems with their conduct, you should discuss it with them first, then seek dispute resolution. As stated in the header above, this isn't the complaints department, and there are plenty of other venues that should be sought out before coming here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:ChrisP2K5 and Personal Attacks, 3RR, etc.

Personal Attacks: [48] [49] [50] [51] 3RR: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56]

I found this user after he responded to a dispute on User talk:Scorpion0422. I found out about the dispute by going to User talk:ChrisP2K5 and wrote a note pointing out some of the things he is saying could be personal attacks, and trying to help him understand the Verifability Policy. However after then reviewing his talk page some more, he has made several personal attacks. I also found a 3RR Warning that he deleted. [57] I feel that his personal attacks are unhelpful and are making matters worse. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like some space for a rebuttal here. First of all, I don't believe that anything that I edited was wrong. I also believe the user in question was lying in wait for me to post, just so he could revert without taking the time to check himself if he was doing it hastily, thus exercising good faith. His edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking, so I went ahead and denied recognition. I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary. I also believe the "attacks", as they were, were justified due to the out-and-out stalking and trolling by this member, as well as the fact that his response to my calling him out for his trolling enabled a notorious Internet troll to spread garbage on my page. If user in question would have assumed good faith, then nothing would have been said or done. Instead, the user chose to be spiteful and trollish. That's my story. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The first edit of his I reverted was here. The part I was concerned about was the second part, which didn't have a source and because the page is an FL, I figured stuff should be sourced before it's added, before it's removed. At the same time, I partially reverted this edit because while he was correct about part of it, the second part of the sentence was accurate. About an hour later, the user reverted me with the message "You're kidding, right? Check here, stupid!" He was completely ignoring the WP:V and WP:RS policies, so I reverted him again. I figured it was the first part he cared about, which was partially sourced, so I fixed it. After that, he decided to add two references to TV.com which I reverted because TV.com is not useable on FLs. At this point, he accused me of trolling, and was then reverted by another user. He reverted the other user once, then gave up. A day later, he added a big section of unsourced stuff to Treehouse of Horror III, which is a GA. I reverted him and explained why. He did not like that, and again took to calling me a troll.

While I admit that I have been a tad uncivil in this dispute, I have not been stalking the user, he just happens to have edited some Simpsons pages, which I keep an eye on. His claim of "edits crossed the line to trolling, possibly even cyberstalking" is untrue because all I have been doing is following policy. "I may not have been able to cite my sources at the time, but everything I said could be cross-checked if necessary" The three articles in question were either GAs or FLs, so stuff should be sourced as its added, not added in hopes that someone may eventually add a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of whether ChrisP2K5 was correct, his use of language like "You're a scumbag, plain and simple", "watch the episode, troll" and "Click here, stupid" is highly inappropriate. I would suggest a change in tone immediately or you will find yourself blocked. The policy just says you are expected to be civil, not you are expected to be civil, unless you are correct. I'll also add that in all this Chris, I don't see a single edit to the article talk page from you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Both the edit warring and the personal attacks are serious, but a bit stale at this point, so I don't know that there's much to do now. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a bit uncouth in what I said, but it doesn't take away that he failed to assume good faith in my edits. Everything I edited could have been crossreferenced. The fact that he didn't assume good faith, combined with the fact that he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post (which is what it looked like to me), says to me that he was bordering on stalking. All this started over an edit that noted that two shows were airing at the same time on the same network, where one of the characters from one appeared on the other.

In addition, in the case of the "Treehouse of Horror" edits, the information I cited was factual, and the removal of factual information from a page is trolling. All he had to do was watch the episode in questio, which is easily accessible. Instead of doing that, he chose to edit blindly. The fact that he has done this suggests to me a pattern of unnecessary edits and an egregious violation of the assumption of good faith. The fact that I resorted to a personal attack, while regrettable, should be trumped by his continued violation of the 3RR. I have never had a ridiculous amount of trouble and have been civil to most users. However, I will not tolerate spiteful reverts, and that's exactly what's been done here. I don't believe it's fair that I am the only one who's bearing the brunt of any punishment here. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, Scorpion did not violate the 3RR. WP:3RR states "An editor must not perform more than 3 reverts within a 24 hour period. And I don't see anything that says he failed to assume good faith. He left you a polite warning on your talk page. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Scorpion0422, he edits mostly Simpsons articles, and often reverts vandalism and unneeded info on all of them. He always has a valid reason for a revert. The removal of what you added to Treehouse of Horror III may have been factual, but how is one supposed to know without a reference? Another minor note is that the information you added can seem a little trivial. The way I look at it is, if one were to make an AGF edit [58], and a user makes an AGF revert [59], then don't take it personal and possibly learn from it [60]. That is the best way I can put it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

While Treehouse of Horror III does mention Cullen, Rayburn, Narz and Trebek", does it say that they are all game show hosts? I'll answer for you: no. Which is why verification is needed and since the page is a GA, sources should be added first. Editting blindly? No, I am aware of the reference, and I am also aware that none of the sources we use mention it and I did cite the relevant policies when I reverted you. "continued violation of the 3RR", actually, neither of us violated it. "he failed to assume good faith in my edits" Assuming good faith does not mean leaving unsourced edits. Of course I assumed good faith, but your edits still went against policy. "he appeared to be laying in wait for me to make a post" I have reverted your edits on three pages, all of which I had on which before you editted them. This is hardly "laying in wait". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²²

Chris is a long standing problem on this site, check out User talk:TPIRFanSteve. Somebody with an arrest warrant has nothing to do with Wikipedia! That user is certainly not a celebrity, and it was unsourced anyhow. I removed it. I think Chris is very uncivil and assumes bad faith, just look at his edit history! Is there really anything constructive from him? I think not. 70.210.82.149 (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you User:Hdayejr2008/User:Hdayejr, who is the troll I discussed earlier. He harasses me every time I post something that he doesn't agree with and takes extreme offense to my posting here. If you look at the user talk page that he cites and its history, as well as his own posting history, you'll realize that his discussion has no merit here.

As for you, Scorpion, being aware of the reference means that IT IS VERIFIABLE, and that gave you no reason to revert it. Just because YOU don't like where it's coming from doesn't mean anything (a violation of WP:OWN). As for what I said about 3RR, anyone who looks at your block history- which I did before I came here- will see what I'm talking about. You did NOT assume good faith, your edits crossed the line of trolling, and I don't see how you weren't bordering on stalking with the edits. Anyone with common sense knows who Bill Cullen, Gene Rayburn, Jack Narz, and Alex Trebek are (or what they are), and if not they can just click on the links to their pages...where the info would be in big bold print.

You were wrong, you didn't want to admit it, and as a result of your unwillingness to admit it you are an accessory to Hdayejr's trolling of my talk page. I will continue to deny you recognition until you admit you were wrong. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that not everyone is going to know who they are (I only know Trebek) and not everyone is has easy access to the episode in question. If you feel that it is that important to the article, find a source for it. It may get reverted again even with a source. In the case of it getting reverted, take it to the article's talk page to get other's opinions on it. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 18:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Denying recognition is for obvious vandals and for banned users, not for people with whom you disagree. If your form of denying recognition is to repeatedly revert non-vandal edits, you're likely to get blocked for edit warring, regardless of how right you are. That's just the way things work at Wikipedia. (And yes, it appears to me that both sides were guilty of at least some degree of edit warring. But as I've already said, that incident is stale.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The concern about original research is that it violates the idea of not using primary sources, like an eyewitness account (yes, I'm aware of how much possibly violates that). Anybody else remember the Netflix distribution centers discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting another administrator's opinion over WP:RFP

I requested semi protection for Egyptian pyramids, which was soon turned down by User:Ryan Postlethwaite, with him noting "there's not much vandalism considering how high profile the topic is"

I am requesting another administrator, with WP:PROT and WP:ROUGH in mind, take a look. As I pointed out on Ryan's talk page, the article went on to be vandalized more than a dozen times, from six seperate IP's, just since last night after he turned down the request.

The page history shows hundreds of incidents of vandalism, almost all of them from anonymous IP's, and indeed there is so much vandalism and reverting that you have to hunt to find a constructive edit buried in the history list. You have to go back three pages just to get to the first of the month, and its all vandalism. I don't know what he means by "not much vandalism" but if another administrator could weigh-in with an opinion, I would appreciate it. I will be content to take "no" for an answer, but my view is that the article meets all the requirements for semi-protection and then some, and offering the page that protection would decrease the number of edits to the article at least five-fold, as well as haulting almost all of the vandalism. Brando130 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a week; more than two dozen or so IP vandal edits in the last day is outside my definition of "not much." We'll see what happens after the protection wears off. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you even bother to check the diffs? This protection is just blocking IPs out of an editing dispute. I declined because most of the IP edits weren't vandalism. Semi-protection is not the way to deal with contect disputes with IPs. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It does appear to be borderline, because like Ryan stated some of the edits look more like a content dispute while others appear to be vandalism. I guess what I would have liked to have seen here would have been Tony leaving a note on Ryan's talk inquiring as to why he did not protect before he just went ahead and prot'd it. Tiptoety ^talk 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time going through the diffs, yes. [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] - most of these in about half a day, and more in the previous day. I don't see the content dispute turning up in the past couple days' worth of diffs, and if there is one that I don't see amidst the vandalism, then isn't the talk page a better place for that to be dealt with anyhow? I protected because of what I felt was a fairly heavy level of vandalism; my apologies for not asking about it first. I still feel it's the correct thing to do, looking at the history, but if you feel it's better unprotected, then have at it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:TPIRFanSteve

Resolved

 – Indef. blocked Dennyg2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as sock of Hdayejr. Trolling at Dayton Daily News and etc. gave this one away easy. seicer | talk | contribs 04:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think his edit history speaks for itself. Continually reverting and, in some cases, trolling different pages, but namely the One Bid page for The Price Is Right, along with the "Retired Pricing Games" page. He seems to revert almost any edit made by anybody else. [73] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, some background here. I warned the user above, Dennyg2007, about respecting the user page of TPIRFanSteve after he re-removed content that had been taken down by an anon IP editor here [74] [75]. This IP editor, as well as the others that have been attacking TPIRFanSteve's page today, could very well be this same user, as he also commented on at least one of their pages here [76]. All of these attacks on TPIRFanSteve have led to his page being protected. From an outsider's perspective, TPIRFanSteve seems to be convinced this user (and the anon IP editors) are all socks of banned user User:Hdayejr, who he has quite a history with. Based on the contributions, I'd say that theory is worth discussing.

Following my request he not delete other editor's comments from someone else's talk page, he left these messages on my page [77] [78], which I took as vaguely threatening (especially since we're discussing socks of a banned user who apparently has a history of being legally prohibited from certain websites). After I commented, I was attacked by one of the anon IP's here [79].

I guess, based on the fact that I'm also being attacked, that I'm involved here. I would suggest a CheckUser to sort out what's going on. Redrocket (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: After another editor tagged one of the anon IPs as a probable sock of Hdayejr here [80], he responded with a deletion notice on their homepage here [81]. Redrocket (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Redrocket, you must be a friend of this user? You sure have taken interest in defending a person that has a long standing history of problems as far as civility and assuming good faith editing. TPIR's contribs above should speak volumes. I don't see any recent edits that would assume good faith, furthermore, any page associated with The Price Is Right appears to be his property, and not Wikipedia's. Check his edits first before you make half cocked assumptions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyg2007 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Never met this user, I only found his page reverting vandalism from hdayejr once upon a time, I'm sure you remember. I found it again reverting vandalism from you.

And I appreciate your concern (and the vague threats on my talk page), but I think you'll find my assumptions come fully cocked. Redrocket (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Threats? Explain where I threatened you.....????? I merely suggested you not get into a situation that you didn't have a whole knowledge about. And you still don't. Let me know when you are finished reviewing his edit history, and then we'll talk. Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done above. And I checked his history, he's never had a block, even in the face of overwhelming harassment from a banned user that still continues right now. You however, seem compelled to once again remove content from a user page, as you've done here yet again [82]. Please stop. Redrocket (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, do you realize that could be a liability for this site? Do you even care? Of course not, you don't have a dog in this race and it's all gravy to you. That revert is valid and has nothing to do with any article on this site. If he wants a message board, there are other sites, not this one. Oh, and here's some more history for your enjoyment(since I know you won't dig that far back) [83]Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you're so intent on maligning my image, you might want to find something that actually paints me in a negative light. -TPIRFanSteve (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You've done that well enough, yourself. Who do you have the connection with at Wikipedia? Dennyg2007 (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good Lord, that edit is two years old and there's not a single ounce of context behind it. You've only been here for six weeks, explain how you have a "dog in that race" with this comment?

This board isn't for arguments, it's for discussion. If you have a problem with me, take it to the talk page so as not to clutter this board please. Redrocket (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Bermudatriangle

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana%2C_Princess_of_Wales article, there was a minor dispute regarding the inclusion of a section refering to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%28Sri_Lanka%29_Princess_Diana_Institute_of_Peace princess diana institute of peace.

I and other editors were of the opinion that it was not notable. It was removed/reverted a few times.

In an attempt to stop an edit war, I created a dedicated article devoted to the princess diana institute of peace. This was actually suggested in the talk page, by one of the editors who opposed its removal

I think we should create an article for it, and see if it stands on its own merits, although I believe that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the question of what it is that makes this institute notable for inclusion in this biography...besides their simply having attached her name to it? --Onorem♠Dil 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ja, I concur. Cut and paste it into a new article. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So consensus seemed to be obvious, create the new article, cut/paste from the old section, remove the old section.

I did the above, I explained the removal in my edit summary, I also explained and linked to the new article in the original article's talk page. I requested that someone go to the new article, add some citations and try to improve it.

Problem solved? well that would be nice, but I wouldnt be here if the problem was solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bermudatriangle has constantly reverted on the princess diana article, in the past they reverted me with the summary "‎ (→Marriage: Normally women are virgins since their birth until they consumate. So provide she consumated with someone before her marriage, if you want to challenge with her virginity.)" which I found laughable.

It seems to be a single purpose account, and despite only having made 12 edits since registering, they are very familiar with wikipedia terms and protocol. draw your own conclusions.

In short I followed consensus, I made a dedicated article, and removed the original statement, fully complying with consensus and common sense. This editor is not respecting consensus, has a dubious single purpose account and their edits are disruptive. I dont think protection of the article is required, however someone informing this user that their actions are not acceptable, might be a good idea. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your intention to create a new article for the Institute is only politically motivated on your part. Neither you are interested on Diana or the Institute or even the wikipedia.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, what can I say, do I need to say anything or does the above comment say it all? I have been editing wikipedia for 8 months, I have over 1000 edits, and I have no political interests relating to the Princess Diana Insitute of Peace, neither do I have any interests in Sri Lanka. I find the above comment to be not only absurd, but also to display a blatant lack of good faith.

I think I should also post the last statement by the above editor, that was place on the talk page of the Princess Diana article.

You should have left someone else to create the article. If you are really interested on Diana, Princess of Wales, your contribution on her page might have shown that. But you have edited only petty things on her page and want to remove the sub section. I too believe with Gareth E Kegg that the current campaign to delete it is politically motivated."Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I want nothing more than the disruption on that article to cease, I have already left a message on the above editors talk page, stating that if they revert the edit, then I will consider this finished, I am not looking for blocks or protection, just a little good faith and common sense. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need beautiful words to attract others, but the sequences to make others belive wether we are right or not. Not you 1000 edits that matters, then anyone with editcount can be here as administrators.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I have made over 1000 edits, was mentioned in order to respond to your claim that I was not interested in wikipedia. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Then do you think those who are with more than 1000 edits and indefinitely blocked are not interested on wikipedia?Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hardly relevant, but I will entertain your question. I think some users with more than 1000 edits are still highly interested in wikipedia, because they ask to be unblocked and come back with new accounts. But as I said, that is not relevant, please deal with the current situation. Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, add to the above, blatant disregard for 3RR. I made an edit on the princess diana artlce, that did not remove anything, infact I added a link to the article that I created, the above user not only reverted my edit, but made his 4th revert within 24 hours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

My last revert is nothing to do with my previous edits. "See also" link to where? To your uncited article? Bermudatriangle (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I made you fully aware that different reverts are just as unacceptable as identical reverts, there is a 3RR report against you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Bermudatriangle_reported_by_User:Sennen_goroshi_.28Result:_.29

Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have discussed on the talk page of Diana, Princess of Wales before you bring here the whole issue. Now you are adding citations to your newly created Institute. I think your too keen interest to remove the Institute sub section from the article Diana that quickly is clearly very "political". Can you elaborate your other edits on Diana's page other than your tad virginity issue.Bermudatriangle (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? I did put this on the Diana talk page, before bringing it here. This report was made 6:17 You reverted me at 6:01 (and again at 7:16 after I made this report) I stated on the talk page that I had made a new article at 5:51, you replied to me on the talk page at 5:59. The talk page was first, your reverts were second, my ANI report was third.

My edits are not political, as far as I am aware the only political interest would be to someone from Sri Lanka or of Sri Lankan origin, I am a white Englishman, who lives in Japan and has no knowledge of Sri Lanka, neither do I have an edit history relating to Sri Lanka, so please take your bad faith accusations elsewhere. Sennen goroshi (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got no idea what is going on here. I resent having my name bandied about by either side, and still have queries over the article's notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reverts have started after User:Lahiru k reverts here. User:Lahiru k contributions and the article 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers indicate WP:COI and WP:POV. So how we believe you are a white Englishman. Your initial edit on Diana's page about her virginity doesn't substantiate your claim that you are white Englishman as well. You should remember Diana is third popular among British people and the interest of the "White English" will very much differ on their first edit on her page. Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the article (Sri Lanka) Princess Diana Institute of Peace is very much differ from the name Princess Diana Institute of Peace and raise serious doubt over the name alteration.Bermudatriangle (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rename the article. Why would my edits about Diana's virginity say anything about if I was or was not English? I don't display bias in my edits, I edit with a NPOV, if you don't think I am English then you are displaying bad faith, and without being too rude, that is your problem not mine.

Gareth, I apologise for you being brought into this mess, I tried to solve a minor problem, in a manner that would reflect the interests of all parties, I thought it would not be a problem, until one editor starts making disruptive edits, this was a simple problem, with a simple solution. One editor has stood in the way of the simple solution, with his bad faith claims and absurd assumptions regarding what edits an Englishman should and should not make. Sennen goroshi (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

People use often bad faith for their escape on others. Here you are the one misleading others. You displayed you live in Japan and you hav't edited on issues related to Japan(and was critisised by another editor) and claiming yourself now you are a "White Englishman" live in Japan. I think you have created this account to mislead others.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As this issue turns into a new direction, I have refered at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation for their comments.Bermudatriangle (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So now you are canvassing ? how many wikipedia guidelines are you going to ignore? And if you don't think I am actually living in Japan, born in England or whatever, that is your problem not mine. And once more, assume good faith. Sennen goroshi (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please to both User:Sennen goroshi and User:Bermudatriangle. I ask that you both take some time away from making further comment on this page. Give the rest of us a chance to read the articles and the associated talk pages on their own merits. If the article shouldn't have been created than taking it to AfD is the proper place for that. AN/I is not the place for some of the comments above and I ask both of you again to please step away for a little bit. Cool off. Then come back and discuss things in a civil manner in the appropriate places. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Further comment now that I've read everything. I'm of the opinion that the information doesn't belong in the Princess Diana article and that the creation of a separate article was reasonable. If User:Bermudatriangle wishes to contribute constructively to wikipedia on this issue I'd suggest helping to expand the article on the Institute instead of going against the consensus that seems to exist about the information not belonging in the main article. I'd also suggest that renaming the separate article to Princess Diana Institute of Peace (Sri Lanka) may be appropriate (in case future Princess Diana Institutes of Peace are created). Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is very possible User:Iwazaki, See this Edit Summary[84] and this diff[85], in both places "...care to explain" and "...care to answer" is there. After a few (...) care to phrase is there in both cases. They both claim they live in Japan. User:Iwazaki is vanished after rejection from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation.

I think Rajkumar Kanagasingam whose bio was deleted a year ago [86][87] is a Tamil and User:Iwazaki is a Buddist Sinhalese. What is taking place is Sri Lanka Conflict on Diana's page.

I think the motive to separate the institute's details from the Diana's page is at one point to delete it from wikipedia.

When lookig at 2007 murder of Red Cross workers in Sri Lanka, 2006 Trincomalee massacre of NGO workers and 2006 Murder of TRO workers in Sri Lanka, I think it is better Princess Diana Institute of Peace is deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible.Dhirrosses (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what any of the last statement(s) has/have to do with the current discussion or if they area all input from the same user. The Princess Diana Institute of Peace information was removed from the Princess Diana article through concensus. If the resulting article should be "deleted from wikipedia at its earliest possible" than someone should nominate it at AfD. 83.100.221.38 (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above claim by User:Dhirrosses has no connection to reality, as far as WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation is concerned. User:Iwazaki has never been rejected. In fact, at the time of his last Wikipedia edit, people were trying to convince Iwazaki to join the Sri Lanka Dispute Resolution Agreement, which is closely connected with our project[88]. The section link "Wikipedia:SLR#:_rejection rejection", which User:Dhirrosses cites to back up their accusation, never existed. Moreover, this accusation of sockpuppetry is irrelevant: The two accounts have not been used together, so no harm has been done. And WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has even less problems with sockpuppets since it is specifically set up such that creating sockpuppets doesn't give you the same benefits they may give you in other areas of Wikipedia: See WT:SLR#Why we can do without trickery. --— Sebastian 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Colin4C

Colin dedicates all his time on the anti-Americanism article to obstructing editors who disagree with him. He’s demonstrating ownership issues, as well as obstruction of any attempt to reach consensus.

This user was previously warned for personal attacks regarding me and this article by User:VirtualSteve. [89] .

After the warning, he mostly just changed tactics, from attacks to word games. This is a typical example of an exchange between us on the Talk page, which I think shows more interest in word games than consensus:

Here's more specific policy that addresses my concern. I would only add that 1) if it is likely many people dispute that the Beatles are the greatest band, the opposite view needs to be present, and 2) anti-Americanism, as a potential pejorative about living people, requires a very high standard of neutrality.

"When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the UK Singles Chart," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources." Life.temp (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to say that what is classed as a 'fact' is only through someone's opinion. 'Facts' do not impinge on our consciousness with the blinding force of revelation and even if they did we would have to convince someone else that what was revealed to us is the TRUTH. Nobody knows what the true facts are about reality. Descartes, Kant and Hegel couldn't find out and even Einstein didn't know. All we can do is say e.g. "According to Einstein E = mc squared" or "According to George Bush the weapons of mass destruction are in Saddam's garden shed" and leave it to others to figure out what credit they are prepared to give to Mr Einstein or Mr Bush or whoever. Colin4C (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy of Wikipedia is that some things are classed as fact and some are not, and the policy is given in the link I provided above. If you want to start a nihilistic encyclopedia which recognizes nothing as fact, I will be very interested to see how it works out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Life.temp (talk) 12:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not nihilism. Science progresses. Newton's theory of physics was replaced by Einstein's which was replaced by quantum theory which itself is not the definitive answer. There are new discoveries being made every day in science and new philosophical theories and new definitions and new ways of analysis and new historical discoveries. If you want to start a medieval encyclopedia based on the immutable thoughts of Aristotle I would be interested to see how it turns out. Wikipedia is not such a project. Colin4C (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Colin, make an effort. Wikipedia's policy is given in the link I provided. This is the fourth time in 2 days I've referred you to an actual page that explains the policy on classifying fact/opinion and how to write about them. Life.temp (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a fact or an opinion? Colin4C (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Lately, he’s resumed more dismissive, attacking comments. Here he sums up my ideas as “playing politically correct word games. This is an encyclopedia not a spin doctor's operating room.” [90]

Here he dismisses my comments as “bar-room pronuncimentios” [91]

Here he characterizes my concerns & edits as “butcherings…personal POV original research agenda…off the cuff lubrications.” This comment of his also goes on at great length about his important credentials, and demonstrates an attitude of ownership. [92]

Here he calls me a “person who breaks all the windows and then tosses a hand-grenade inside” for the way I want to shorten the article. [93]

Here he says the article is "being butchered by one highly persistent individual" (that would be me). [94] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Life.temp (talk • contribs) 09:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I could go on. The main other aspect of this is his sarcastic caricatures of everything I say. Every rebuttal is a strawman argument. I won't document that here, but anyone perusing the Talk page will, I believe, see it.

This attitude has been going on for weeks. Even before he was warned, he made edits like “Restored the good version of this article - from before the uninformed axe-grinders and vandals ruined it” [95]

I don't really want to use this board as a dumping ground for every problem, but I don't know what else to do. I've made every effort to use the tools of dispute resolution. I proposed a policy for cases like this at the Village Pump [96]. I requested an opinion at the NPOV Noticeboard [97]. I requested informal mediation (completely disrupted by Colin) [98]. I requested Editor Assistance [99]. I requested a Third Opinion [100] (in my opinion, that editor is now being sucked into Colin's whirlwind of aggression). Nothing is going to work as long as Colin doesn't care about dispute resolution. Life.temp (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should both spend some time away from Anti-Americanism. That's what I did (I was involved in this article for a time). Everyone who spends an extended period of time there seems to have a slanted agenda over which they get exceedingly emotional. I don't see any actual civility violations (at least not by these particular two users) -- just people getting huffy over a difference of opinion. Give it up and go edit one of the other 2-point-something-million articles on Wikipedia where you won't run into your arch-nemesis. Let others worry about this particular article for a while. Chances are the article will benefit from that. No offense. Equazcion •✗/C • 08:52, 29 Apr 2008 (UTC)

You may be right, but I don't actually see myself as contributing to a problem here. I've been very conscientious in following the steps of dispute resolution, and only been cross a few times. Colin isn't going to do this to just me; he is going to do it to everyone he disgarees with. This was his attitude when you were editing; it is the attitude he's starting to bring to User:HelloAnnyong (the Third Opinion editor). He needs some (sharp) feedback about his behavior. Life.temp (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this when Colin4c was being given some good advice, by another admin, to cool it in the mediation process. Equazcion also gives good advice to the two of you to avoid each other and let it lie. A brief look at your edit history shows a great preoccupation both with this one subject and the disputes that have circled round it. You'd both benefit from a holiday from each other. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

If I take a break, and after the break the same issues continue, what should I do? Cut and paste this back into a new complaint on the same board? Why not address the problems now? I appreciate different perspectives. I don't agree that this is a case of mutual antognists needing a mutual break. Colin is acting like he owns the article. It's a problem for anyone who thinks the article has a lot of neutrality problems--which it obviously does. Life.temp (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[Outdent] See Are you in the right place? and What these pages are not (above). If you post a problem here, people are happy to take a look at it, but generally this is not the place for content or dispute resolution. As these are complex and lengthy disputes involving a number of editors - who also don't necessarily agree with either of you, the advice (above) is to present a case at a forum where the matter can be examined in depth and all parties can comment at length. My opinion is that Colin4c was given advice to calm down a short time ago in one of those forums and it seems to me his later posts have reflected that advice.

While I understand that these matters can get heated, the best advice we can ever give is to allow things to cool down and for the editors concerned to deal with each other civilly. The best way to achieve that is for both of you to take a break and reflect on what it is you can agree on. I hope you don't find that frustrating, but we can't manage your relationships. If behaviour ever becomes unacceptable, then there will be an intervention - and I believe that that was what happened when circumstances warranted it.

Both yourself and Colin4c need to develop consensus for changes to the article and avoid disputes with each other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your advice doesn't address my concerns. It only takes one person to refuse dispute resolution, to refuse to work toward consensus, to disrupt editing. Suggesting that both parties "cool down" and "deal with each other civilly" is good advice when both parties are heated and uncivil. Why do you think that's the case here? I wonder if you've read through the Talk page and seen Colin's behavior in context, or if you're assuming a middle-of-the-road approach is best. I've tried almost every item in Wikipedia's list of dispute resolution steps, from 3rd opinions to mediation. I agree, this is not the place for dispute resolution. Is it the place for dealing with someone who refuses to participate in dispute resolution? Life.temp (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most dispute resolution processes on wiki rely on voluntary participation. There's no compulsion, as the dispute is only resolved when both parties freely accept the outcome. Non-participation will only be considered material when there's subsequent action - say at ArbCom. As far as I understand, previous mediation was actually between yourself and a third party, and Colin4c presented evidence there - some, as to your own behaviour was (quite properly) rejected.

Article content is developed through consensus and the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article. This forum doesn't make determinations on either content or behaviour - unless it blatantly requires intervention. My feeling is that there are enough admins watching Anti-Americanism to ensure that incivility doesn't go unremarked - and if necessary dealt with.

Maybe someone else has a better suggestion for you on how to proceed, but my personal advice to both of you is take your time and don't edit precipitately. Discuss the changes on the talk page and obtain consensus from others. Leave space for others to be involved. Kbthompson (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Last comment on this particular exchange, just in case I wasn't clear. I made this complaint because I think Colin is disrupting the process. I think admins deal with that. I didn't request content and dispute resolution. I don't know what to do with "the best way for Life.temp and Colin4c to proceed with the content disputes is to explain their respective positions to third parties on the talk page of the article." I've been doing that for a month, with the results I excerpted above. (P.S. Thank you for the volunteer time you put in on this; I appreciate it even though I don't agree with you.) Life.temp (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Finally, you might want to read WP:What is a troll?. I'm not saying either party is a troll - but that essay does provide good advice on avoiding disputes - particularly behavioural ones. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/129.89.193.249

I seem to be unaouthorized to create this user's talkpage to give the IP a warninig. This IP vandalized as shown in the IP's contribs. Someone please warn the IP. Thanks you.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 06:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by Gonzo fan2007. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Jordanian businesspeople

I seem unable to create the this category: Category:Jordanian businesspeople, which, I believe should be legitimate. It matches an automated regex pattern block. Jaraalbe (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue should be cleared by now. There was an error in adding something to the blacklisting regex. You should be able to make the page now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Category created; issue resolved. Jaraalbe (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fritzl incest case

As many of you know, this is a huge current case in the news. I've been editing it in the past few days, fixing references and doing other minor stuff. However, I have noticed today, that the article is now fully protected for vandalism! I wouldn't mind seeing the article semi'd but fully-protecting it is a little too much IMO. Besides, most of the vandalism was coming from IP's, and if any other vandalism would to come, it would be doubt with very quickly I'm sure. I just think in this case it should be semi-protected, not fully-protected. Opinions? D.M.N. (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Patrick (talk · contribs) changed it back to semi, and correctly so, I think. Sandstein (talk) 08:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by sockpuppet of banned user, User:SirIsaacBrock

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chessy999 has been making constant references to vandalism regarding my edits.

We had a content dispute, which I think has come close to being resolved.

However when the above user reverted me, he used RVV or vandalism in the edit summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monkey-baiting&action=history

Despite "dont template the regulars" he placed a vandalism template on my talk page, when I explained to him that it was just a content dispute, he replied with "you are a vandal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chessy999#civility

I have tried to deal with this content dispute in a civil and adult fashion, however these comments are trying my patience a little.

I find the vandalism and vandal comments to be rude, and a deliberate act of provocation. The editor has been here long enough to know what is, and what is not vandalism.

This is a minor issue, I won't lose sleep over being called a vandal, however I think there are three issues here.

1. The attitude of an editor who wishes to label anything that disagrees with them as vandalism, even when consensus is against them. 2. The attitude of an editor who is abusing the templates and edit summaries to make a series of minor personal attacks 3. The attitude of an editor who is continuing to make personal attacks, after requests not to, even when the actual dispute is over.

thanks.

Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I advised this editor to discontinue deleting cited information from the monkey-baiting article. He continued, I advised him to stop vandalizing the article. I stand by my statement. Please advise this editor to stop posting nonsense on my talk page, including profanity. Thank you. Chessy999 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying "I don't mean to be an asshole" [101] might be profanity, but it shouldn't be considered to be a provoking statement either. You were engaged in a content dispute with Sennen goroshi. As I said on the VP (assistance) thread, in a perfect world you should have both taken it to the talk page earlier. But that doesn't make SG's contributions vandalism. Darkspots (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If I wish to say "nice fucking edit" then that is fine. If I direct profanity towards you, in a negative manner then feel free to complain. The profanity was directed towards myself, and it seems rather strange that you only picked up on that profanity once there is an ANI report with your name on it.

I removed and changed your edits, due to general consensus - that is not vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Cited information is removed on a daily basis, it can be removed for all manner of reasons, yet again - it is not vandalism.

I think that you might be best to rethink your attitude towards editing, comments that you don't agree with are not automatically vandalism, neither are they automatically nonsense. Perhaps a slightly more open mind and a slightly less aggressive attitude would be more suited to a wikipedia editor.

Final note, please don't call me a vandal unless you catch me putting goatse on your talk page or something similar that is actually vandalism. Sennen goroshi (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chessy999, you might want to read what vandalism is not, paying special attention to sections on NPOV violations and Stubbornness and you will see that you are incorrect in labelling Sennen goroshi's edits as vandalism. According to the official vandalism policy, his edits cannot be considered vandalism unless the information in question was introduced in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which is clearly not the case. At the same time, I would like to caution the editors in this dispute that both of you are well over your 3 revert limit within the past 24 hours so please come to some sort of consensus before making any further changes to the article and stop revert warring. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have accused Chessy999 of being the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. The case: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SirIsaacBrock (3rd). I think it's pretty conclusive evidence. Chessy999 should get indef blocked--the user is the sockpuppet of a banned user and, looking at his talk page, has a history of civility complaints and tendentious editing. Darkspots (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the history of this editor nor the alleged sockpupeteer but WP:CheckUser might be appropriate for this case. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

To me, recommending an RFCU is an indication that, while there's something there, the evidence isn't obvious. In this case, I feel like it's pretty obvious. Darkspots (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Darkspots, I agree with you. Until I edited the monkey-baiting article, I was unaware of SirIsaac and Chessy - however a brief check of the edit histories of the page and the editors made me feel that they were one and the same. I am not very familiar with WP:CheckUser so maybe it would be best for you to make a request, damn I have problems just making a 3RR report. Either way, it would be nice to rid wikipedia of its more disruptive editors. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also had problems with incivility and disruptive editing by Chessy999. In one instance, he deleted 2 sections from and article (the material in both cited sources) with no explanation, then accused me of vandalism when I reverted him. In another, he created a stub about a book, but changed the capitalization of the book's title. I corrected this and, in doing so, moved the article. I also did some significant edits and added some material. He reverted everything I did; I re-reverted and explained the correct capitalization issue in more detail on the stub's talk page (although my original edit comment should have been sufficient). I raised both these issues on this talk page, under the headings Luca Pacioli and De ludo schaccorum; he never responded. From the look of his Talk page, other Wikipedians have had similar problems with Chessy999. Perhaps an admin's guidance would help this editor conform his behavior to the standards of the Wikipedia community. Finell (Talk) 08:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Finell, this user is the sockpuppet of a banned user, SirIsaacBrock. Take a quick look at User talk:SirIsaacBrock/Archive 5 and his block log. The user had plenty of guidance already. The fact that, two years later, he's still editing the same way means that I'm recommending that he be indef blocked right away. Like Sennen goroshi said on the SSP report, I would have no problem with this individual editing in good faith--but this is too much disruption, and the community's patience was exhausted long ago. Darkspots (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

Resolved

I'm becoming very concerned about this user's contributions. Since he was blocked a week ago (for reasons I fully stand behind), he's been going on a crusade of borderline harassment against me. In particular, he's been posting annoying and condescending posts on my talk page and demanding an apology ([102] [103] [104] [105]). This behaviour has mutated into accusations that I am being more disruptive than he is within the fiction scope, citing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2's "inflaming the dispute" ruling (the irony is ninety!). Despite being asked to disengage from the situation by Seraphim Whipp (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (who intervened because she has my talk page on watchlist), he's ignored her request (because me and SW both like the same band and talk to each other regularly) and is still being disruptive, bringing up his block (which was endorsed by at least three admins) as an excuse for his disruption, including removing a legitimate (and appropriate) comment from WT:NOT. I really want something to be done about this, because it's seriously disenchanting me from productive editing. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And apologies if my post is really badly worded - it is 2:10am and I'm staying up to make sure I write an article before its DYK closes (which I've put behind because of said disenchantment). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn’t you be in bed, young man? :P Anyway, I just blocked him for another 24 hours. —Travis^talk 02:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Pixelface#May 2008:

You know the no personal attacks policy says "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." Is there some diff you're referring to? --Pixelface (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Several diffs here. —Travis^talk 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I see now this is in response to an ANI thread by Sceptre. Anyone is free to move this comment to the ANI thread if they'd like. I believe that I am the one that has been harassed by Sceptre. He filed a false vandalism report on me to AIV. And yes, he was an involved party with me in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case. When I said I was leaving, he told TTN, another involved party in the Episodes and characters 2 arbitration case, that it was "good news." He also called me a "troll". I did ask Sceptre three questions on his talk page[106][107][108], and he removed each of them without an answer. And yes, I asked him about false claims he made about me at the Administrator's noticeboard and he refused to reply, so I left my rebuttal on my talk page.

Seraphim Whipp apparently took issue with a talkback template I left on Sceptre's talk page. That was my fifth message to Sceptre. (Although I did leave a message on Sceptre's talk page in January, asking him to please stop archiving an ANI thread against me where several people made false claims about me. Sceptre then removed my message asking him to please stop without an answer. I don't believe Sceptre has ever replied to me on his talk page and I don't know why that is exactly.) I was "asked to disengage" by his apparent friend Seraphim Whipp. Calling Seraphim Whipp Sceptre's "BFF" was uncivil of me. But from looking at Sceptre's talk page it appears to me they're both here for social networking, and Wikipedia is not MySpace. Sceptre appears to acknowledge that some people would see Seraphim Whipp contacting me as a conflict of interest. I haven't contacted Sceptre since Seraphim Whipp asked me to disengage. However, Seraphim Whipp has continued to post again and again and again on my talk page, and didn't seem to appear to want to disengage herself. I have disengaged from Sceptre. He posted a message on my talk page saying if I mentioned his false vandalism report to WP:AE that I would be "laughed at." I did not reply. And yes, I did remove a comment by Sceptre at WT:NOT, where he said "Yeah, this is really getting to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now... but Pixel has a history for this... recent too." which I felt had nothing whatsoever to do with the WP:NOT policy. J Greb restored the comment saying I should ask an admin to look into it, so I asked J Greb for his opinion on his talk page. J Greb replied on my talk page, and I replied to J Greb, saying I feel I have been harassed by Sceptre. If Sceptre thinks posting 4 messages and 1 talkback on his talk page is "harassment" I apologize. I don't want to harass him and I'd appreciate it if he didn't harass me. TTN is currently blocked for a week and to me it looks like Sceptre wants to do anything to get me blocked as well. On April 9, 2008, Sceptre reported a user to AIV after they made one edit to User talk:TTN and without giving that user a warning first. I feel Sceptre has been abusing AIV. Sceptre has said he has "several contacts who can do some blocking" if he wants, and I find such a statement by a former admin alarming. I don't know if AGK and Sceptre are good friends. But I don't believe either of them understand the vandalism policy. --Pixelface (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You want to accuse an editor of social networking? Don't accuse one who got a stub to FA in two weeks. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Review

Would another admin please review and comment on my action? (No prejudice against unblocking if deemed appropriate.) Thank you and good night —Travis^talk 03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While one could say the block was well deserved, at the same time it probably won't do much to help the situation. I think a far better solution would to be a temp ban (say a week) of "no responding/ talking to Sceptre", perhaps? I don't even know if that is a good idea, but I'm 90% sure that blocking is going to make this situation worse. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that, the only thing he did recently (in the last day) was remove a comment that he felt was a personal attack. That might be a bad judgement call for Pixelface, but that's certainly not blockable. If he was doing it a bunch of times, then yeah, but not for a single comment removal. Blocks are not a form of punishment, and I'd strongly favor an unblock. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps bringing it up to explain away his disruption and using it as a defence to say "I'm automatically right". He stops it now or I keep brining it to ANI, because it's really pissing me off. Sceptre ^(talk) 07:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not going to review this, because I'm not uninvolved; but while I probably wouldn't have blocked for this, I would agree that Pixelface does have a habit of being unable to let things go, believing that if he says things enough times they become true. He has already "proved" that his previous block was incorrect, which it wasn't (probably Sceptre should've reported to ANI rather than AIV, and the block log should probably say "Edit-warring" or "disruption" rather than vandalism, but the block to prevent further disruption was reasonable - even on his talkpage now he is characterising the wholesale blanking of sections of policy pages as "a content dispute") and the hounding of Sceptre for an apology was not a good idea; he was also asked on his talkpage to disengage by "friendly" editors such as FatherGoose. He really needs to let go of this issue now and concentrate on the good sides to his editing. Black Kite 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• And he's using my edit to George W Bush which will, in 20 days time, be three years old - a) it's textbook tu quoque, and b) if 40 people didn't see anything wrong with it to promote me to an admin in January 2006, he shouldn't either. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. I'm actually going to agree with Ned Scott on this one (gasp!). This whole Sceptre/Pixelface thing looks like a personality conflict. They get under each other's skin, and I'm seeing problematic behavior from both sides, for months. This isn't a case of Pixelface harassing an innocent Sceptre, since Sceptre has done his own harassment here, filing a vandalism report on Pixelface,[109] removing Pixelface's comment with an edit summary of "troll",[110] telling Pixelface that he would be "laughed at",[111] or as he did just now, posting at Pixelface's talkpage while Pixelface was blocked, and telling him to "shut up".[112] It's one thing to react to what someone says out in Wikipedia article space, and it's another to be reacting to something that someone is saying on their own talkpage, especially while they're blocked. Yes, Pixelface deleted Sceptre's comment from the WP:NOT talkpage the other day,[113] but then again, Sceptre's comment was a bit of a personal attack. He was definitely discussing the "contributor and not the content". If Pixelface is genuinely willing to promise to disengage, meaning to try and stop reacting to everything Sceptre says, I would say unblock. But Sceptre has to disengage as well. He shouldn't be personally trying to point out Pixelface's "problems". Sceptre has done his piece, he has raised awareness of what he thinks is a problem, and now he needs to step back and let others deal with it. If the two want to continue participating at talkpages (such as about WP:NOT), they should be allowed to do so, but only in a strictly "Discuss the content, not the contributors" way. If either one of them starts pointing the finger at the other again, I'd say block for disruption. --Elonka 10:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Well put Elonka - I would support an unblock here too. Viridae^Talk 10:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• I did intervene in this situation because I felt Pixelface's behaviour was inappropriate. I stepped in, not as a friend, but as an admin seeing inappropriate behaviour and I cannot stress enough that I would have stepped in regardless of who was on the other end of it. I did tell Pixelface that his behaviour was looking like the onset of harassment and that he should disengage. Father Goose said much along the same lines. In the context of Pixelface already being warned how his behaviour was looking, and then him making an action that was likely going to irritate Sceptre or contribute to a feeling of harassment (by removing his comment, which someone else said could be described as trying to "silence" Sceptre), I can see how the block was justified. Perhaps it would have been better for me to pass the diffs on (the ones I discussed with Pixelface initially), to an uninvolved admin. I did seek feedback on how I handled the situation and I hope that regardless of what I would do differently in the future, that I handled this situation in an acceptable manner. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 11:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and unblocked Pixelface, who has given his (her?) word to behave from now on.[114] I'd also like to thank the other admins for their participation here, and I don't think that anyone acted in bad faith. There definitely was problematic behavior on the part of a couple editors which was disrupting the normal flow of things, and as such, a block was appropriate to prevent further damage. However, in this case, I don't think that the damage was being caused just by Pixelface, so I don't think that justice was entirely served here. Now that Pixelface is unblocked, and has promised to let things go, hopefully we can mark this situation as resolved and all move on. :) --Elonka 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts put forward by everyone, particularly Elonka, to resolve the situation and I agree with the unblocking. Thank you —Travis^talk 11:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomorebigots

Hmmm. Nomorebigots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), clearly here to advance an agenda, but is this a username violation? Guy (Help!) 07:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at his edits he seems to be very polite, but unfortunately he seems to be one of these people that has mere facts and knowledge on his side, rather than popular opinion, and thus will not last long around here before being blocked for some form or another of violating protocols. The choice of username would seem to be a borderline case in point.

I can see absolutely nothing he has done wrong so far other than pick an inauspicious username, and from the tone of his edits, unless he is a sock, I think he will tire of editing soon and go away by himself, if he doesn't get blocked for some trivial infraction first. I'm willing to AGF and let him weave his rope, and not complain of the choice of name. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Those who have facts and knowledge are fine, it's the ones bringing WP:TRUTH who are the problem. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Claims there's a reason for the username. Edits don't look amazingly horribly bad, yet. Let's AGF and see what happens. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Page-move vandal - lend a hand?

Resolved

 – Everything back where it should be. Bencherlite^Talk 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone else could help sort out the works of Remus John Lupin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that'd be appreciated. Bencherlite^Talk 06:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why am I getting redirects from El Salvador to El Salvador? FCYTravis (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The page move seems to have added funny characters to the page name- look at the URL. I restored the redirect in case anyone searched for El Salvador. The same thing's happened to Mathematics. Hut 8.5 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed. Hut 8.5 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I had to move a couple of the pages to "Pagename (temp)" and then back to "Pagename" (without the special characters) as the move function thought that I was trying to move the page onto itself. That worked for, e.g. Ecuador but (ironically) I couldn't work out Mathematics despite two attempts and somebody else had to do it for me! Bencherlite^Talk 06:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is this a Grawp sock again? It seems to be moving everything to a unicoded version of HAGGAR with junk on the end of the name. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was a Grawp sock. Acalamari 17:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; and this time it's Harry Potter characters (see my WP:RFCU/IP report). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 17:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible abuse of Delete tag

Resolved

 – was sent to WP:AFD

User:Harjk‎ may be abusing the delete tag in Jagadguru Kripalu Ji Maharaj... placed a delete tag without explanation. Could an administrator check? If the article violates certain wikipedia guidlines, tag it as such or delete it, otherwise remove the tag and warn User:Harjk‎. 205.240.11.90 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The article has been tagged and sent to WP:AFD. The template will remain until the discussion completes. -JodyB _talk 15:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thankyou. Can you advice me how to resolve it, or who will resolve it? I may be able to help out on this topic. Is there a limit on how much time an article can be tagged for deletion if there is no discussion about it? The original tagger's complaints have been addressed but he has not posted a followup 205.240.11.90 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Without discussion, articles will tend to remain tagged as such forever. Discussions typically last ~5 days, and this may be extended if there's inadequate discussion. WilyD 15:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Roger Chapin article

See prior incident report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User:FactsAreFacts

An anon has begun making edits to this article which have effectively restored a POV version that had originally been created by user:FactsAreFacts. The version that this user is creating has multiple issues: POV, use of cut-and-paste of external marketing material from charities, peacock terms, etc. The anon also blanked the article's talk page, removing comments that provided references to negative information about the subject from the talk page.

The prior incident resulted in the named user being temporarilly blocked. I've already reverted the anon's edits to the article once and posted warnings to his/her talk page. The anon then restored his/her edits and blanked the article talk page. I will revert one last time after posting this; but I request an admin to monitor this article as I suspect the anon will likely return and continue to press their POV within the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find the version you have reverted to is highly POV as well, and lacks inline citations for all the negative facts; my own inclination, in keeping with WP:BLP would be to blank the article and insist that it be carefully rebuilt with every sentence properly sourced. Perhaps an administrator with WP:BLP experience should review. Risker (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the inline issue, so added the tag prior to your commenting here. The two main negative comments do have sources (the Forbes and ABC reports), but not inline. I could likely move those inline now; but I have no major objection to someone restarting the article, as it does need rework. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've located the refs, and added them inline. Most were already listed in the article as ELs and in a non-inline refs section. I agree that the article could use some balancing in the POV, but the negative comments can be sourced. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Toddst1

Resolved

This user keeps stalking me and another user and repetaly critisizes or deletes anything he doesn't deem constructive.He gives me the feeling that he doesn't like me and I decided I would react in a mature manner and take it here. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Diffs? D.M.N. (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacob Green696/Naked Chicks
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacob Green696/Naked Chicks and he always does this sort of thing.I'm not experienced enough to put the other incidents. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that page does nothing to enhance the encyclopedia and should be deleted. But how does that show he is stalking you? D.M.N. (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Since it is possible to edit without a user account, every single User Page does not contribute to the encyclopedia. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Toddst1 has been notified. Rudget (Help?) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is nominating one article for deletion "stalking you". I've deleted (not just nominated) 10 pages so far today, does that mean I'm stalking the authors? — iridescent 16:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Stalking? Absolutely not. As far as I can see, Toddst1 has done well in nominating an unnecessary page for deletion and you seem to have got the hump. Rudget (Help?) 16:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if my talk page and user not been Oversighted I could show you the other parts that would prove my case. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On a skim through the history this seems to be the only previous interaction between the two I can see - hardly "stalking". Toddst has no power to oversight your talkpage, and if someone with oversight powers did, it would be because you were either publishing gross libels or releasing someone's personal details. — iridescent 16:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was Oversighted because I put my birthdate on my page and it was with my permission.But before it was oversighted you could've seen that he went to my page frequently. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 16:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and he also deleted "Metal up your ass" from your userpage - is that the deleted edit you mean? — iridescent 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me help Mr. Green out here: 1 2 3. There are a few others, but I think this shows the pattern. There's a difference between stalking and keeping someone on their watchlist. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have about 30+ user talk pages on my watchlist, not because I'm nosy, but because I've had close conversation with them in the past. D.M.N. (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest SNOW-closure of the MfD as delete. Enigma ^message 16:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

O.K I win.Toddst, sorry for bringing this up. Mr. Green^{Hit Me Up} 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

At the MfD, Green requested deletion. Enigma ^message 17:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia processes aren't contests.-Wafulz (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit (after creation of this thread) points to the source of the problem - a pattern of thinking (including this thread) that constructive feedback is in some way persecution of this user. Toddst1 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

expansion of range block

Resolved

 – Anon blocked 189.192.160.0/19.

Yesterday I requested a block on an IP range as several of them were repeatedly making identical vandalism edits. I blocked a few of them individually and a small range block was put in place after I reported them on WP:ANI. Unfortunately another new one popped up today so I'm afraid the block may need to be expanded a bit. Can someone check this out?

My report from yesterday is located here. The newest IP is below.

• 189.192.189.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Thank you. - eo (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it, again :) -- Avi (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not call a 26,624 IP range block "small." I'll add the 8,192 IPs in 189.192.160.0/19 for now. Please realize that range blocking like this does affect tens of thousands of people, and if we can live with 34,816 instead of 65,536 that is a 47% improvement. -- Avi (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)