Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive516#User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda
{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
Legal Threats
{{resolved|1=Blocked indef ACB. — neuro(talk) 00:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Can someone please look at User:Lawyer33 contributions? He seems to be making legal threats in his edit summaries. • \ / (⁂) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:It appears so, but seems to have stopped when asked not to. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::But not to have retracted them. Legal threats don't get any more clear than that. I've indefinitely blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Heavy on the socking, too - I see User:Lawyeruniversal2 and Lawyergeffen doing the same things. The names suggest this person is at least ostensibly representing record labels; I'm going to give the latest iteration a note regarding OTRS and the proper way to report problematic errors. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Investigate before posting, Tony. A sock investigation already got the other two. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I don't think this person represents anyone. Real lawyers use the mail and the phone, they don't create new accounts after being blocked on Wikipedia. At least if they did they should be fired. Chillum 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda
{{User5|Yousaf465}} has been on an Anti-India propoganda for sometime now.He began with complaining of too much India bias for FAs on Mainpage at time when there was 59 Indian FAs and 1 Pakistani FA. He is now on a spree to get all images that decipts Pak as terrorist hub like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AHerald.jpg&diff=271518292&oldid=271289330]. His new interest is to push Anti India POV on State-sponsored terrorism ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&action=history history]) article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=268921265&oldid=268664975 With this edit] he removed everything related to Pakistan and replacing with India and Israel. His edits were repeatedly revereted by many users including YellowMonkey. YM blocked him for edit waring and POV push on the article. User:Seicer who is soft on Yousaf , unblocked him ( saying that YM didnt respond back in time) and blocked User:24.28.83.178 who had been also reverting Yousuf's POV additions. A new user {{User2|Maijinsan}} came up from no-where an adding sock tag to many usernames including the above IP editor... It is evident that he himself is a sock. Seicer semi-protected the article and allowed Yousuf to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=271525947&oldid=271105418 continue] to add Anti-India POV statements referenced to Pak dailies which cannot be considered as reliable . I dont want to "edit war" with him and request for third opinions here. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:First, I suggest that you take the effort to add "istan(i)" to the (likely insulting) diminutive "Pak" if you wish to be taken seriously as desiring a neutral consideration of this problem. I would further suggest that you take this complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for review by sysops who are better able to disregard the nationalistic rhetoric of the differing parties. I trust you will update your notices to the above mentioned editors to reflect the new venue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::"Pak" is a common abbreviation for Pakistan used in English language publications both in India and Pakistan; it is no in way shape or form pejorative or insulting. E.g. [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\02\19\story_19-2-2009_pg1_1 "Pak-Afghan border situation needs urgent attention: US"] The Daily Times, [http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=69048 "Pak serious about fighting extremism: NATO chief"] The News International (both Pakistani publications), [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/specialcoverage/3296778.cms "With Pak alleging links between the Samjhauta..."] The Times of India. 87.112.89.175 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Fair enough, but I would note that the diminitive "Paki" is considered an extremely pejorative insult in British society and, this being the English language Wikipedia, similar terms may strike the readership as antagonistic. Cultural sensitivities should work both ways. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Pak is short term for Pakistan,but "Paki" is not acceptable.User:Yousaf465
:If I see no rationale given for the block, and his contribution history looks fairly legit, and the unblocking administrator makes no comments regarding the block in a reasonable matter (I did notify the blocking administrator), then I will unblock in most instances. Case closed for YM's old block.
:It should be noted that I am not "soft" on anti-Indian propogandists. I frequently get asked to block or review the contributions of specific editors (check my user talk page), and I have done sweeping blocks on this in the past. Perhaps you didn't bother to do a little check of my contribution history??? seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::If someone thanking you is evidence of "being soft" then we are all soft, and that's the way I like it. Theresa Knott | token threats 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Apparently, I'm just confused. seicer | talk | contribs 14:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:will replx in detail.User:Yousaf465
::: I havent used the term 'Paki' anytime above ,instead used only "Pak/Pakistani" terms which are generally considered acceptable. Secier, you have unblocked a good faith block by YM and allowed Yousuf to continue with his disruptive edits like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pakistan_libya.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=271999667][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Herald.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=271995792] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State-sponsored_terrorism&diff=271525947&oldid=271105418] while you blocked an IP editor who has been reverting yousuf's POV push. -- Tinu Cherian - 04:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: 1) Personal commentary in edits/synthesis/OR/POV 2) Engages in IND/PAK battlefield mentality per the main page gripe, also assumes everyone else is campaigning/soapboxing, per his complaint ages ago that DYK people were promoting homosexuality 3) nominating pictures for deletion on bogus criteria (images were US govt -> PD, the other was already marked as FU as a magazine display of Pakistani terrorists but he keeps on saying it isn't needed and replaces it with a another magazine display that doesn't show related at all 4) per battlefield/sectarian mentality, has an Israeli flag on his talk page, with the Star of David replaced with a swastika.... 5) Also BLP violations and personal cynical commentaries [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit&action=history inserted on this page] along with another Pakistani Strider11 with battlefield mentality which Seicer reinserted; although it is a banned Hkelkar IP, the Pakitani edit needs to be excised because of a BLP violation implying a terrorist conspiracy on the part of the subject "it is worth noticeable..." YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
One dynamic to watch out for in admin discussions with multiple issues is that one hot button point dominates the discussion, and if that gets resolved as a nonissue the other outstanding issues may get overlooked. This discussion has determined that 'Pak' does not carry the derogatory connotations of 'Paki'. What it has not resolved is whether this person is edit warring. And it may be arguable that block-worthy edit warring has been going on within the last few hours. Please examine all issues at hand before declaring a determination. DurovaCharge! 05:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked Yousaf for 48h as he continued disruption after his previous unblock. If the block would not help, I think a longer block is warranted Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
here is my reply
:the main page controversy is baseless.I wasn't trying to be natinalist or any such thing.My only point was that it should be diversified.2)If you see the file history it can be seen,that,this file at first had dead links.I tagged it that way.Another editor provided the links to it.I asked him to check with the mentioned lab. whether they provide it for wikipedia.The herald has also been questioned by other non-concerned editors[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Herald.jpg] ,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NFCR#File:Herald.jpg],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Herald.jpg&action=history],so there is no point in blaming me for that.4)Be sensible and Read carefully a)Image description b)Tag description c) talk pages[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State-sponsored_terrorism#disputeed_lines].Before accusing anyone of racial bias.5)I didn't revert this any further because a valid reason was given.I can't see any reinsertion by User:Seicer at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prasad_Shrikant_Purohit&diff=271104962&oldid=271001873] User:Yellowmonkey is going out of his mind.He and other involved editor didn't even took pain to discuss these articles and file on the talk page.Instead have constantly removing content while hiding behind ips as it mentioned here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:State-sponsored_terrorism#India_section_removed].Taquiyya is actually Taqiyya. I myself removed content which was questionable but Instead of making on it they just kept on reverting edits.User:Yousaf465
I don't know about the other issues, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Pakistan_libya.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=271999667 this tagging] (repeated 3 times) is simply disruptive behavior in Yousaf's part. Despite being reminded that the image is work of a US Federal agency, Yousaf retagged the image again with a meaningless comment. He also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AHerald.jpg&diff=271996398&oldid=271996246 tagged] a fair-use magazine cover as "possibly unfree image", despite the presence of a fair use rationale. These actions are all correlated, and not isolated events. --Ragib (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:While PUI is not quite the right venue, the fair use rationale on the Herald image is complete bogus. This is an understandable error. I'll put it up for WP:NFCR.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
New Vandlism account/possiable sockpuppet.
{{resolved}}
{{User5|YLHG IS BACK AGAIN}} Vandalized these pages: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=272043666], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britney&diff=prev&oldid=272044771], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fisherman_Vs._Ghostface&diff=prev&oldid=272045241], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brothejr&diff=prev&oldid=272045755]. Also, the user first redirected thier user page to {{User5|Youlittlehandsomeguy}} a user who was indef blocked [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:YLHG_IS_BACK_AGAIN&diff=prev&oldid=272045119]. Then the user finally simply put this message on their talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:YLHG_IS_BACK_AGAIN&diff=prev&oldid=272045918] saying they were a sockpuppet.
This account needs looking at. Brothejr (talk) 11:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
[[Juris Doctor]] article edits by abusive user
Based on the pattern of edits to the Juris Doctor article, it is apparent that a user has been making disruptive edits. The user has been insisting that the J.D. is now replacing the LL.B., but have not provided any support for the claim, and have ignored discussions. This began on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=220354119&oldid=220352421 19 June 2008], was particularly strong in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=238497422&oldid=238490472 September], occurred again in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=258482464&oldid=258309403 December], and persisted in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=265329362&oldid=265282421 January]. This user has recently begun aggressive editing on this issue again [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=271732910&oldid=271732684 yesterday] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juris_Doctor&diff=271733660&oldid=271733119 today]. An attempt to open a discussion with the user after numerous reverts in September of 2008 was made by initiating a section on the talk page addressing the edits, and reference was made to that discussion every time the change was undone. Posts were also made on the user pages. The user has promised in edit summaries on numerous occasions that she or he will keep correcting the error she or he perceives until it is "right." In fact, it is from the pattern of edits, and the comments in the edit summaries (which say things like "flies in the face of facts," "get it right," "wow! is wiki truth or fiction," and "this is a lie"), that it becomes apparent that all these edits are from the same user. The user does not use an account for the edits, and the IPs include 38.13.201.18235.13.201.182, 68.61.196.89, 68.61.197.65, 24.11.161.213, 71.206.107.220, 76.252.71.24 and 81.208.83.242. Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Zoticogrillo (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:Take it from me: the JD hasn't replaced the LLB, at least in the United Kingdom. I'll head over to the talkpage and chip in. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::The user doesn't seem to be getting the message, and doesn't seem to be interested in talking. I recommend semi-protecting; if he wants to edit it he can create a single account we can track and talk to rather than multiple IPs which indicate a changing IP address, meaning we have no way of telling if he actually got our messages. Ironholds (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The abusive edits have continued. Please intervene asap. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::needs admin action User:Ironholds is helpful but not an administrator. Administrators please take action. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have semi-protected for 3 days - if this is insufficient to persuade our friend that consensus is the only option then drop me a line at my talkpage to have it re-instated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Thank you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Threeafterthree
{{resolved|Talk page debate is going fine, nothing much more to say really. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
What could be controversial in the following sentence from Martin Fleischmann? "He is best known for his controversial work with his colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s." According to User:Threeafterthree it is the word "best", which apparently is a clear violation of WP:PEACOCK and WP:MOSBIO. And of course it needs a source which says specifically that he is "best" known for it, otherwise the word must be removed or replaced with "also" (which, apparently, is perfectly fine here).
This has been going on since shortly after Guy expressed concern that Fleischmann might fall under WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK (for cold fusion). Note also that when the controversy started, the sentence following the incriminated one cited an article that included the phrase "best known for his role in the 'cold fusion' controversy". Oh, and Threeafterthree "got give a rat's ass about this guy, but if folks want to write that FACT, then back it up". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMartin_Fleischmann&diff=271437573&oldid=271435149] By now the word "best" is sourced immediately in the place where it appears, and I seem to have satisfied Threeafterthree's concern [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMartin_Fleischmann&diff=271577687&oldid=271577214] that I might have a COI or other agenda. Threeafterthree even got an unrelated edit in that nobody objected to so far, even though it's almost equally silly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Fleischmann&diff=271832740&oldid=271797977] (Note the phrase "who replicated the experiment" after the who-tag.) That, of course, doesn't seem to be sufficient success, and 4 1/2 hours later Threeafterthree asked User:Abd and me how many accounts we each use for editing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMartin_Fleischmann&diff=271888247&oldid=271848981]
It looks like he is once again longing for a wikibreak, as in November when he last edit-warred (on Barack Obama). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThreeafterthree&diff=251625951&oldid=251621894][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Threeafterthree&oldid=251621894#Blocked]
Now he has also started censoring other editors' comments (at an unrelated article), a behaviour that ultimately led to his blocks in September and October. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AThreeafterthree]
I suppose some kind of admin action is in order here. E.g. checkusering me to see how many sockpuppets I have, or warning me for calling a spade a spade. Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:The content issue should generally be ignored here and only behavior examined. Behaviorally, Threeafterthree was insisting on a content position and wikilawyering for it, insistently, repeatedly and sometimes uncivilly, plus asserting the position with edits when it was clear that no other editor supported him. (The position unsupported by others is that "best known" is inappropriate, and then a source is demanded for it, when there is a source and it's been asserted and shown. But, please, assume that Threeafterthree is correct on the content and focus on the behavior, i.e., insisting on correct content with repetitive edits, tendentious argument, and without any support from other editors.) .I've been following this and have informally warned Threeafterthree on the article Talk page. If the behavior continues, I would warn him on his Talk, I felt that it was still short of that, though getting close. The behavior could warrant a Talk warning, and, if continued, a block. I can understand why Adler is concerned, though. Adler's behavior has not been spotless, he's been gratuitously uncivil, but also apologized for it, as I recall. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:The user should have been warned before bring this here. I recommend speedy close of this discussion as premature, unless someone has other serious behavior to report that took place after warning. This, and the notice on his talk page, could be considered the warning. On the other hand, I have not investigated this user's history, and if this is a repetition of prior patterns, with previous warnings and a block for such behavior, warning may not be necessary, I'd take back my recommendation. --Abd (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hans, I think Threeafterthree is a reasonable guy, you should try just talking to him, maybe even send email or something. It's certain that we need to be careful saying that Fleischmann is best known for probably the largest and most spectacular cock-up of his entire career, so maybe an alternate form of words can be found. I had a go, see what you think. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize that this has come to this board. There was a content dispute at a biography about using the term "best known for" and I pressed the issue I guess without knowing who all the players are, ect. or that cold fusion is touchy. Anyways, I really do not want to defend my prior history or feel a need to. I do remove comments from talk pages that I feel are harmful or off topic per WP:FORUM. Anyways, again, I think this has been overblown to reach this level but will listen to the community and try to work with the folks on the Martin Fleischmann talk page. Thank you, --Tom 22:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Requesting further input regarding the addition of stock information to [[Warren Buffett]]
{{resolved|1=Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Hi, there is a content dispute at Warren Buffett regarding the addition of stock information, such as in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&diff=271986271&oldid=271982208 this diff]. I removed the content, but User:Iifacts added it back. We discussed the issue on their talk page, but it didn't go anywhere, so I am requesting for further input into the situation. Please see Talk:Warren_Buffett#Stock_Holdings for the latest discussion, in which we are trying to form a consensus. The user reverted the same thing four times in the past 24 hours ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&diff=271787419&oldid=271767378 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&diff=271979365&oldid=271960064 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&diff=271981931&oldid=271980193 3], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&diff=271986271&oldid=271982208 4]) but instead of going to WP:3RR, I'd rather just build a consensus on this as soon as possible so it can be done with. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Gary cut off many good content from the Warren Buffett page, especially the stock holding part and time line just because of his own taste. I try to engage talk with him but he dictated the page has to be in his way only, and reverted the page many times (4 times in 24 hours). Many people have done a lot of work and it's a shame that everything is gone and the page now looks very difficult to read. Thanks! Iifacts (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:: The information in the timeline is still in the article. I merged it into prose form because it was essentially prose line. Regarding my overall changes to the article, here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&oldid=271710568 before], and here is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Buffett&oldid=271767378 after]. For the record, I did not revert four times in the past 24 hours. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::: Also, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warren_Buffett&diff=271998995&oldid=271987734 the user might have a COI] with the website that they are using as a reference. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I tend to feel the chart was too much smack in the middle of the article there, and I don't believe I've ever seen someone's stock holdings in their article before. It seems to me to be rather too detailed, and I've said so on the talk page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I strongly think the stock holdings are important, what Gary did was that he cut off the stock holding info on Warren Buffett page and in the same time, change the stock holding data to his own, which was difficult to read and out-dated, with many data are plainly wrong (% of reported portfolio) on the Berkshire Hathaway page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Berkshire_Hathaway). As an experienced editor, he intentionally violated the 3RR rule and tried to dictate everything.Iifacts (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Guys and gals, what Administrative action are we looking for here, not that I am an admin, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. This looks like a content dispute? Maybe try request for comment or ask some others to look at it which you did at the top of this section, but other than that? If parties are edit warring, take it to the 3RR board and I am sure some admin will be happy to block for a bit to help cool things down. Anyways, good luck. Tom 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
: I'm just looking for further input on how to best proceed. Anyways, the user was reported to WP:UAA by someone else and the information in question has been removed from the article. Gary King (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:*The information pertains to Berhshire Hathaway, and not Buffet, also, WP appears to be against including exhaustive, directory-style information, and I have tried to explain it to {{User|lifacts}} on his talk page, along with the rest of this discussion. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I believe that this has now been resolved. Gary King (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Are you sure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.101 (talk • contribs)
IP threatening assassination?
Check out [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alina_Mungiu-Pippidi&diff=271922544&oldid=262466620 this edit] on the Alina Mungiu-Pippidi page. The article deals with a controversial subjects, and Mrs. Mungiu has ticked off some far right nuts. This may be a very stupid joke, but then again it may be serious hate mail, and perhaps even be read as a serious death threat. I just noticed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cristian_Mungiu&diff=271922643&oldid=271396266 the same] was done to the Cristian Mungiu page. Dahn (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:I've blocked the IP address. Don't know how credible this would really be; moot point for me anyway, since I doubt the Romanian authorities would take an American college student calling at 6-7 AM (their time) too seriously. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::PM, to be exact. But, alas, you do have a point. Dahn (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::If you really feel it's worth pursuing, you can always send an e-mail to their ISP's abuse address, listed [http://samspade.org/whois/79.118.182.124 here]. Then the originating ISP (which will actually know who this customer of theirs is) can make the call on whether they want to take action on this or not. --Dynaflow babble 06:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::@Dahn: That's why I hate time zones. Hersfold (t/a/c) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What will we do about Eugene?
{{resolved|1=User has responded, and there doesn't seem to be anything here requiring immediate intervention. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Earlier i started a section about disruptive editor "Eugene Krabs". Who i've finally realized is a teenager, and therefore won't listen to me. He's been blocked 5 times already and i worry that he might get blocked for a 6th time. He modifies sections on his talk page to the way he likes it, he completeley deletes my comments, adds links to redirects that lead to the same page, threantens to block someone even though he's not an admin, and requests people to be blocked here, instead of WP:AIV. And has so far developed 2 enemies in one day, while most users take months to get an enemy. And last but not least recreates pages that have made into a redirect. Like the section says, what will we do with Eugene? I tried being his mentor but he said no, and he obviously didn't learn from his past blocks. Elbutler (talk) 12:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:{{user5|Eugene Krabs}} seicer | talk | contribs 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::I take issue with the statement that "he is a teenager and therefore won't listen" to you. Also, saying he "made 2 enemies in one day while most users make 1 enemy in several months" doesn't make much sense. I can't take a report seriously that makes such false and generalizing assumptions. Also, since your views are so off the mark, I don't think you would make a good mentor anyway.--Atlan (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree that the statement is inappropriate: I'm a bloody teenager, and I'd like to think I can listen when people tell me action X is wrong (see my squeaky-clean block log, f'rinstance). However the user in question obviously needs something done. I'd support a one-strike system; he toes the line from now on or we block him until he is more inclined to listen. Ironholds (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry, i didn't know. And i admit that i'd probally not make a good mentor, and i didn't mean to hurt any teenage user's feelings. It's just i once knew i teenager who wouldn't listen to any adults. And it took me months before i met my first enemy. Elbutler (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've notified the user of this thread, but I don't really see anything here requiring immediate administrator intervention. –xeno (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- If he continues to not respond, an RFC would seem to be appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Sorry I'm late responding. I just woke up like 15 minutes ago. I also don't have much time to be on here until after school. I only go to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd period, so I'll be back around 11:25am (PT).
:Anyway, Ebutler, when I modify my talk page, I don't delete things. I just add the "equals" signs so I can have it organized. In fact, before my last block, I restored a bunch of stuff for reference. Also, don't worry, Ebutler. I listen to adults well. I got my Learner's Permit January 31st and my mom's been teaching me how to drive (and still is). I listen and everything. At first, I didn't listen as much, but was still careful. We also argue sometimes (not in the car) about things, which is normal. I think I'd rather argue than go out and take drugs like some teenagers my age do, though. I'll talk more later, but right now I have to get ready to go to my high school. - Eugene Krabs (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Disruptive editing by IP User
The Boy or Girl paradox article is having a problem with an IP user demonstrating a clear pattern of disruptive editing, making the same edits repeatedly without discussion when 5 other users have reverted the changes and called the user to reach consensus before making additional changes. These edits were reverted by me (thesoxlost) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269419586&oldid=269368102]), User:Snalwibma ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269732655&oldid=269692452]), User:Rick Block ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=270154738&oldid=269921784]), User:Noe ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=271078104&oldid=271033914)], and User:Versus22 ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=271082653&oldid=271082534]). The IP user has not engaged in any discussion on these topics, and simply reverts changes made by anyone who he disagrees with. These edits are clearly made by the same user: the content of the changes are nearly identical and the IP addresses are all highly similar, from Japan.
These edits stem from a content dispute, but the problem is not the disagreement over content, its the disruptive editing without an attempt for consensus building. The edits meet the standards of disruptive editing: they are tendentious, do not satisfy WP:verifiability, not interested in consensus, rejects community input, and if the user has engaged in any discussion through a username, then he is engaged in IP sockpuppetry.
I think the easiest way to solve this problem would be to simply protect the page from IP users, forcing this user to use his own username to make these disruptive edits.
- {{checkip|1=210.196.10.137}}
- {{checkip|1=61.200.132.108}}
- {{checkip|1=61.200.146.52}}
- {{checkip|1=211.5.16.17}}
- {{checkip|1=219.97.88.112}}
- {{checkip|1=61.200.128.160}}
- {{checkip|1=61.200.132.83}}
- {{checkip|1=61.200.138.38}}
- {{checkip|1=133.9.4.12}}
- {{checkip|1=211.5.10.166}}
- {{checkip|1=211.5.17.144}}
- {{checkip|1=133.9.4.11}}
- 1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269451369&oldid=269419586|Revision #1 by IP #1]
- 2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269457297&oldid=269455583|Revision #2 by IP #1]
- 3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269518090&oldid=269496946|Partial Revision #1 by IP #2] Content highly similar to JeffJor's; in places it is identical (e.g., "The reduced sample space is the set {BG, BB}")
- 4. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269518283&oldid=269518090|Partial Revision #2 by IP #2]
- 5. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269518875&oldid=269518283|Partial Revision #3 by IP #2]
- 6. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269519091&oldid=269518875|Partial Revision #4 by IP #2]
- 7. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269692323&oldid=269534747|Partial Revision #1 by IP #3] Content was part of JeffJor's original post (e.g., he deleted question #2 entirely)
- 8. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269692452&oldid=269692323|Partial Revision #2 by IP #3]
- 9. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269921190&oldid=269732655|Partial Revision #1 by IP #4] Content changed was complained about by (only) Jeff in the talk page
- 10. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=269921784&oldid=269921190|Partial Revision #2 by IP #4]
- 11. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=270158870&oldid=270154738|Revision #1 by IP #5] Same content change as IP #4
- 12. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=270585739&oldid=270530253|Revision #1 by IP #6] Same content change again
- 13. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=271033914&oldid=270973914|Revision #1 by IP #7] Same content change, misleading description
- 14. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=271082534&oldid=271078104|Revision #1 by IP #8] Same content change, misleading description
- 15. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&diff=271255927&oldid=271146786|Revision #1 by IP #9]
- 16. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boy_or_Girl_paradox&curid=2686017&diff=271728167&oldid=271579960|Revision #1 by IP #10]
This issue was previously posted here as disruptive editing by JeffJor; CU check indicates JeffJor's IPs do not match these, so I am reposting it as a disruption by an IP user. It remains just as disruptive. Thank you in advance for the help.
--Thesoxlost (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Semiprotected the Boy or Girl paradox. The sock charge against JeffJor was not confirmed by checkuser (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor/Archive). But the IPs, though they are not him, are clearly edit-warring, and do not participate on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Stappsclass
{{Resolved|Blocked}}
{{user|Stappsclass}} seems to be a vandalism-only account. The user seems to have a propensity for editing Today's Featured Article with edits ranging from questionable to blatantly idiotic. Powers T 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:An admin blocked him a minute after you posted. Taunting another admin, like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J.delanoy&diff=prev&oldid=272088470], probably helped expidite the process. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Humboldtbear
{{resolved|Humboldtbear blocked after yet another revert - Erikupoeg needs to stay away from article for a while.}}
{{user|Humboldtbear}} keeps deleting content from Dusty Springfield without any comments, having already violated the three-revert rule twice. The user also has vandalized the Erikupoeg user page twice. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:You have also violated 3RR. Seems to be a content dispute over the more BLP-unfriendly (although admittedly Springfield is dead) bits in the article, but they do seem to be sourced. — neuro(talk) 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
An Admin is needed to block Greg_L
{{archive top}}
Do you really want to have a cat fight on the admin noticeboard, with al those itchy block fingers watching? Thought not. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
----
I cuddlyable3 am a relative newbie and now contribute mainly to mathematical articles. I am experiencing such mounting disruptions to editing from Greg_L that action is needed by an admin to enforce WP:POINT based on defiant incivility and admitted untruths by Greg_L. This archived [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#Incivility_by_Fnagaton_and_Greg_L WQA raised by Thunderbird2] is Closed as Stuck. That is because block sanctions that were discussed cannot be issued from WQA. I do not see that any of the editors who contributed in the WQA (excluding the two users implicated) condoned the behaviour of Greg_L. My involvement has been can be seen in the strikeouts of falsehoods that Greg_L introduced. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=271104453&oldid=271099145 This summary] is my opinion of what needs to be done (by an admin).
;Short history
I have had contact with Greg_L only since 4/5/6 November 2008 when his entries at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=270728559#Animation] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate.
I see that Greg_L is
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Greg_L+prefix%3AWikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&ns0=1&fulltext=Search regularly cited in complaints] including those arising in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive177#Date_linking_RFC this 2-year debate], by Wolfkeeper and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive427#User:Greg_L this] by Omegatron last June.
;Actions already tried:
A WQA from me,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&direction=prev&oldid=251004324#Wikiquette_alert Reaction by Greg_L].
A [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGreg_L&diff=270999625&oldid=270989766 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=270728559 My message wishing for civil collaboration] to which Greg_L replied acceptably on his Talk page but then quoted the message with derision ("Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you..") in the WQA.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=271528896 My offer to go to mediation] has been deleted by Greg_L without comment.
I have notified Greg_L of this request to WP:ANI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:While other admin opinions are needed here besides mine, I think there is insufficient evidence (here and in GregL's contributions) to even warrant a warning, let alone a block. No action necessary here. Tan | 39 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:: I tend to disagree. He happily admits to uncivil sarcastic comments towards others, and happily says he won't ever change. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Well that leaves us in a bind as to a possible resolution, assuming we can't find some amicable (or otherwise) endpoint for this dispute. Have we just tried separating the two parties? Do they share too many common interests for this to be feasible? Does either not wish to disengage from a particular subject? More to the point, is Greg's behavior really all that bad? From those diffs and links I don't see anything too bad. Sure, he's being a jerk in that first post on his talk page about the WQA, but the next post is factual and direct. The rest of the links are him removing material on his talk page (perfectly reasonable) or past AN/I reports. So...I'm with Tan in a lot of ways here. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I admire Tan's speed reading of the whole issue in what looks like 10 minutes. I estimate that would allow a few seconds to consider the bit in the WQA where Greg_L links me to a terrorist shooter. My complaint is that false statements such as Greg_L admits making would be immediately handled under WP:BLP if I were not an editor.. FYI I am a "LP", just not yet old enough to be a notable one.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, spending ten minutes of time on this was pretty good. Most admins will agree. What did you want, an hour? Your sarcasm is noted, and further justifies my belief that you two need to just stay the hell away from each other. Tan | 39 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Talking shit about people who comment on your request is a sure way to get it ignored. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::While I don't agree with the eviscerated nature of Protonk's and Tan's replies, I DO agree with the principle behind them. You asked for some assist here, and if anyone can speed read, Tan can. (Sorry Tan, I couldn't resist.) Picking apart someone's handling of your request is not a great way to engraciate yourself here. That being said, I'll hop back over to WQA now, take it away guys. Edit Centric (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Proton, quoting you: {{xt|Have we just tried separating the two parties?}}, we are separated unless he seeks me out. I have had nothing to do with Cuddlyable3 since he filed a WQA against me last November and was told that he was responsible for precipitating the behavior about which he complained.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=251029394#Greg_L_incivil] He has apparently harbored resentment over that ever since.
When another editor recently filed a WQA against me, Cuddlyable3, who is no stranger to the WQA process since 2.6% of his last 1000 edits are Wikiquette alerts, weighed in for a dig. When he pointed out a factual error in my rebuttal where I said he had deleted an animation, I apologized for that error publicly—in several places. He holds onto grievances and is here—again—seeking his pound of flesh. All he needs to do is stop obsessing about Greg{{nbsp}}L and get on with editing. Problem solved. I don’t specialize in math-related articles and have zero interest involving myself with anything at all do do with Cuddly, except for when he leaves yet another post on my talk page announcing that he has found yet another forum to seek revenge. Is this surprising? Note his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ACuddlyable3 block log], where there is this explanation for a block: “Attempting to harass other users: Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators.” Then they had to block him again when, fresh off that block, he picked right back up with his harassment. I’m seeing a pattern here with his inability to “let go”.
BTW, the “A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite” is… uhm… ‘misrepresentation’ as it had absolutely nothing to do with this, and his “My message wishing for civil collaboration” that he left on my talk page was self-serving posturing and/or baiting—perhaps hoping for an uncivil response from me—since he was at that very moment busy making new calls for sanctions against me on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=271766731#Incivility_by_Fnagaton_and_Greg_L T{{nbhyph}}bird WQA], which I had forgotten about and had assumed had been archived. The phrase “civil collaboration” didn’t even make any sense because he and I hadn’t edited on the same thing (just that one single article) since back in November when he was admonished for egging me on. As I stated on the T{{nbhyph}}bird WQA, I just wish he would leave me alone. I really wish he would leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. There is one more bit of misinformation, above, that I find particularly galling and which I would like to point out: Examine the first sentence in Short history, above. What impression did he clearly try to imply? He would have you believe that …{{xt|[Greg L] brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate.}} In other words, me (the uncivilized outsider) comes to a venue frequented by peaceful mathematicians and acts like a barbarian. What posts are actually there from November on Talk:Mandelbrot set? Why, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mandelbrot_set&oldid=270801969#Animation this thread], the one over which he was admonished [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&oldid=251029394#Greg_L_incivil] for egging me on and that I had done nothing against policy. What did he actually link to in order to “support” his allegation? Why [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Greg_L&diff=prev&oldid=270728559#Animation this], which is a post he recently put on my talk page complaining about my false recollection on the recent T{{nbhyph}}bird WQA. There seems be a pattern of misinformation in his above allegations, and that seems very wrong to me. Greg L (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
{{xt|filibuster, is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body. An attempt is made to infinitely extend debate upon a proposal in order to delay the progress or completely prevent a vote on the proposal taking place.}} Kilde: Wikipedia. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:: But, since we don't vote around here, filibustering does not apply, neither does your growing wikilawyering. All that to say, Cuddlyable3, you are not helping your "case" at this moment. You provided your "evidence", you trashed the first neutral admin who commented, and because of that, I see things going downhill from here ... your next step: WP:RFC ... although I recommend trying to avoid Greg L for awhile instead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, what administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 12:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:{{Not Done}} Original post was asking for a block. I wish that Greg L was a bit less annoying, but I've never doubted that he's working hard to improve Wikipedia, and before issuing a block to a good-faith contributor I'd like to see at minimum a user conduct RfC establishing consensus that his conduct is problematic or disruptive - and failing to establish any alternative remedy. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::Whether action is taken or not, it may be illuminating for people to read this user conduct RFC on Greg L from June 2008, and this, this and this, all part of an ongoing arbitration involving dealing with Greg L's incivility. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I think the task of weighing up the evidence presented at ArbCom pages and taking appropriate action is best left to the arbitration committee. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Comment having read through the above, it looks like an angry person rehashing past events, going back a long time, and misrepresenting some events to make his case seem stronger. What exactly has Greg done in the last 3 months? 2 weeks? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I am only providing the above as context, in the inevitable event of this issue being raised again some time in the future and a link made back here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::If nothing else he proved to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work in Talk:g-force less than a month ago. There's a strong case for a new RFC on him, there's plenty of ammunition. It's amazing to me he hasn't been blocked more than he has been, I think it's just because people haven't been joining up the dots enough.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I would agree that above is context only. A view of the WQA (link provided above) is probably key to recent (ie last 2 or 3 weeks) activity. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::BMW you know my feelings about this, I think you are plain wrong. By the way, Wolfkeeper above is the one case I know of where Greg L's behavior was not right, and I understand Wolfkeeper's gripe. All the others who have been recipients of Greg L's sarcasm had it coming.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::How entirely incivil: nobody on Wikipedia "has it coming". The entire reason we're at arbitration over date delinking is because of the attitudes this kind of behavior inspires. It's poisonous, and so long as it's allowed to continue unstopped it only inspires those on the same side of an argument as Greg to ratchet up their behavior to his level. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::The above comment from one of Wikipedia's most vicious street fighters, one who just falsely called me a flat out liar on another WP page. You'll excuse me Locke Cole if I LOL at your self-righteous charade.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::See what I mean? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::* Goodmorningworld’s reaction is understandable. See what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ALocke_Cole we mean]? Greg L (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::* As per usual my block log doesn't make me wrong Greg, no matter how much you wish it did. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
fake "wikipedia"
{{resolved|1=Wrong venue. — neuro(talk) 01:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
I just followed a link to a "Takarazuka Wikipedia" ([http://www.takarazuka-revue.info/tiki-index.php link]), thinking it was some obscure language of WP. I get there and see that it's some not-the-real-thing using the word "Wikipedia" in its name. Should something be done about this? Like emailing them and saying "Don't use that name"? flaminglawyer 01:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:(if this is posted in the wrong place, I'm terribly sorry, but it's the place that I though it fit best) flaminglawyer 01:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::There's nothing an administrator here could do. Your best bet would be to notify Foundation counsel, lest I'm mistaken. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::: I have notified Cary and Mike at the WMF. For future reference, apparent fake wikipedia things should go to the foundation. English wikipedia folks aren't the foundation and can't start proper legal review etc... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:It's a trademark violation, but a fairly harmless one, since they're visually distinct from Wikipedia. I think some people have just started using Wikipedia as a synonym for any kind of topical wiki encyclopedia. A friendly e-mail wouldn't hurt, I don't think it's worth the Foundation's trouble. Dcoetzee 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::IANAL, but IIRC, if you don't pursue claims against people using your trademark you lose it (Couldn't fit more bizarre acronyms in there). Protonk (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::IAAL and that is generally correct. – ukexpat (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I really think there is no malicious intent there. It's possible that some people (especially with limited knowledge of English) genuinely take "Wikipedia" to be a generic term for an encyclopedia, or any online encyclopedia. (After all, we frequently see "wiki" as an abbreviation for "Wikipedia", so why not the other way round?) In any case, this definitely makes more sense than [http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005189.html Stir-fried wikipedia] (or "Steam eggs with wikipedia" and other similar delicacies). -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Deletion of cobaab 2.gif
{{resolved|1=No issue. — neuro(talk) 18:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}}
I would like to know why this file was removed and how i can get it back up on wikipedia. The file is an image of the crest of my alma-mater Calabar High School, and I contributed it so that it could be used on my school's wiki page. However I recently visted the page and noticed that the file seems to have been deleted. If wikipedia is to be a creditable educational resource, you need to be more diplomatic in the deletion of information from the site.
Please inform me of how I can get the image back up on wikipedia as soon as possible. Thank You.
--Neo returns2006 (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Uh, it's still there. — neuro(talk) 17:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
LOL, Sorry bro, I see it. Thanks.--Neo returns2006 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Born2cycle]] - disruption at [[WP:NC (flora)]]
{{user|Born2cycle}} has been given the opportuntiy of the last three months,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Archive_2 archived discussions],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora) more discussion],[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Draft even more], to express his opinion on the way in which plant articles are named. After 3 months of discussion B2c has again gone forumn shopping[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions&diff=267472057&oldid=265242524],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_(common_names)&diff=265750353&oldid=264576352]. At this point in time B2C appears to no longer be acting in good faith with editors but deliberately ignoring consensus.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_(flora)&diff=271949283&oldid=271948772] He has also been cautioned about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, some of the many warnings about WP:POINT, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_(flora)&diff=271558522&oldid=271558199],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABorn2cycle&diff=269054234&oldid=268605104],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_(common_names)&diff=266941338&oldid=266699342]. It has now reached the point that temporary sanctions need to be enacted. Gnangarra 01:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Ironically, Hesperian and I are covering new ground today, and that link above is part of it. What consensus am I ignoring? I certainly would not want to do that. The only "warnings" I've received are from people who disagree with the view that the current flora guideline is in conflict with general naming policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Furthermore, all I'm doing is engaging in discussion, with those who choose to discuss with me, on the talk page. How this disrupts the editing of any actual articles -- as is constantly claimed it does -- is beyond me. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Discussion_statistics Gnangarra 01:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::There is nothing new in that discussion, I didnt say your disrupting editing of article I said that your forumn shopping and ignoring consensus for the convention is disrupting Wikipedia. Gnangarra 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Why fault Don Quixote for Tilting at windmills? Much like The Scorpion and the Frog, we all do what is in our nature. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::What's new in that discussion is the principle angle, and whether we're talking about "my" principle, or a principle explicitly stated, or implied, in the WP:NC policy.
:::Announcing what I believe to be a conflict with a given policy, and asking for help, on the talk page of that policy, is "forum shopping"? Or are you referring to something else? If so, what?
:::What am I doing that causes you to believe I'm ignoring consensus? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::When such actions infringes on the ability of community to work co-operatively, we assume good faith, when its no longer possible for the assumption of good faith in an individuals action we seek WP:BLOCK // WP:BAN, as I'm involved with issues, along with many others I'm bringing the issue here to seek independent action. Gnangarra 02:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::How do my actions -- engaging in discussion on a talk page -- "infringe on the ability of community to work co-operatively"? Why is it no longer possible for you to assume good faith? You don't think that I, along with about half of the non-plant editors who have weighed in on this issue per Hesperian's statistics, honestly believe that the flora guideline is in conflict with WP:NC in a way that no other guideline is? All I'm doing is essentially explaining why I believe that, and trying to understand why those who disagree with me, disagree with me. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes (he hasn't edited in the mainspace for over a fortnight). This naming dispute has now been going for 77 days, and it is Born2cycle who continues to sustain it, because such disputes sustain him. Every argument he has put forward has been responded to at length and in good faith, and numerous times, but nothing can dent his conviction that he alone bears The Truth. Everybody but Born2cycle is sick to death of this dispute, but Born2cycle will not let it go, continuing to badger us with the same long-refuted claims, insisting that the matter remains under dispute, and that further discussion is warranted, and that those who refuse to discuss it further are guillotining debate. 100% of editors who actually contribute in the field are against him, but he declares that a sign of bias, and fights on, forum shopping for "unbiased" participants, and seeking to deny a voice to the editors who actually have a stake in the decision. This has long since moved into the realms of arguing for the sake of arguing, or perhaps arguing for the sake of refusing to admit defeat. Hesperian 01:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::It is simply not true that my "only purpose for being on Wikipedia is to participate in naming disputes". That's ridiculous. However, naming consistency within Wikipedia is a particular interest of mine (we all have our roles), and that interest causes me to get involved in many naming disputes. Because of this interest, I watch and frequent WP:RM and the talk pages of several naming guidelines, and get involved when something piques me interest. It just so happens that I've never seen a guideline so out of line with the rest of Wikipedia as is the current flora guideline, and that's why I'm particularly interested in it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Gnangarra. Born2cycle's intransigence is made manifest by his/her response to my suggestion to table the matter for now: a link to a 3 week old post, much commented upon, itself little more than a rehash of even older arguments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28flora%29&diff=271923544&oldid=271911698][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ANaming_conventions_%28flora%29&diff=271929612&oldid=271923544] Such an inability or unwillingness to accept that the current discussion has run its course suggests that some involuntary means must be employed to achieve that end. Walter Siegmund (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::It takes two to tango, folks... You are free to ignore my arguments. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Serge, having experienced your technique for at least 3 years on WP:NC:CITY, ignoring your arguments tend to result in you assuming that consensus has been reached in your favor and you proceeding to the guideline and modify it to your liking.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't know what specifically you're talking about, but there is a difference between completely ignoring a discussion and stating clearly that you disagree and then disengaging. But these guys choose to engage over and over, and even bring up new points and ask me questions, and then complain about me taking up too much of their time. For example, Hesperian has used some caustic language here, but he's the one who started [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Principle this discussion with me] just yesterday. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Tomnyfuller]]
I don't know what the deal is with {{user|Tomnyfuller}}. They tagged at least 10 or 15 oil company articles with {{tl|afd}} tags (but didn't finish the process), each time with a summary of "reads like a press release... and this article, like most if not all articles in this category, does not meet Notability/objectivity/sourcing standards)". In addition, they have created at least two hoax articles that blatantly misrepresent their sources, Aeorads and Malpaso Company. Their edits have almost entirely been blatant abuse of editing privileges. I'm not sure what to do here, although I did warn them for hoaxing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:I have warned him for vexatious tagging of articles; it appears clear he is doing this as some sort of revenge for his article being deleted. Lets hope that this final warning encourages him to stop this disruption. If it does, there is no need to block. If he does continue, we can block him for being disruptive. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::It should also be noted that blocking now would probably not be justified, as he has not edited in 10 days, and does not appear to be active; since blocking is only preventative, we should not block him until he has had a chance to read and respond to warnings... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::That was what I was implying. They're clearly not quite up for being blocked yet, but it would be nice to let admins know in case he starts up again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Ah... Thanks for clarifying. His talk page is on my watchlist, so if he gets started with this again, he can be blocked. Just let me or someone else here at ANI know, and he will be dealt with. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Geber
In the talk page of Geber, a user named Xashaiar [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeber&diff=269921104&oldid=269895094 said this]:
"As a matter of fact, on Iranian world related articles, Enc. Britannica should not be used"
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeber&diff=272064468&oldid=272037978 And this]:
"These are unacceptable. No matter how well-sourced they are"
Dy yol (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:This seems like a content dispute, and not a very urgent one; not really something for ANI to handle. Encyclopedia Britannica has (in the past) been rather biased in its coverage of many areas of the world, although I don't know whether this problem is found in the most recent editions. Ironholds (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with Ironholds; this is an all-around content dispute, not a problem with one user. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Commemorative Coin Controversy
A clash of opposing views has developed into an important discourse re:images and copyright ideology. As a side bar, a valuable and completely wholesome editor User:Miguel.mateo is being discredited and treated as if he was a vandal. Bigger minds than mine need to involve themselves in this matter and resolve it for the betterment of Wikipedia. Please see:Talk:Theater am Kärntnertor#Revert_fighting and Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images. Also, of course, Editor:Miguel.mateo's talk page. If, as he claims, more than 20 articles were effected by another editors POV regarding the validity of his edits, it certainly warrants the attention of a dispassionate and impartial Administrator (maybe more than one). The lack of common courtesy that was displayed, contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, is only one of the factors that is uncomfortable and frustrating. Some form of communication should have occured prior to such a widespread revert over a broad spectrum of articles. I have assisted Editor:Mateo by copy editing some of his Euro Coin articles and found him to always be a gentleman to the extreme...and I found his images to be an extreme benefit to the encyclopedia. It is transparent that he and his edits are being castigated by an obvious POV cabal because they feel ownership of "their" articles. Please look into this matter. Editor:Mateo edits deserve to be seen by our readers. He has gone thru the hurdles of copyright verification. --Buster7 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks Buster7 for bringing this up to the admins. The basics of the recent fight:
:#There were a content dispute discussed in Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting, consensus was to keep the image and the text.
:#Not two days has pass and user Kleinzach challenged exactly the same additions, this time in other article, proof here: Talk:Maria_Callas#Non-free_coin_image.
:#Immediately after user DavidRF started to removed all contributions from all articles, claiming that the use is illegal. Note that he removed the images and the text that comes with each image. Apparently these two users team up to go against all contributions I have done, as can be seen here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers#Commemorative_coins_in_classical_music_articles. Obviously revert fight started and since there were three users teaming against me I may have broken the 3RR more than once. I have asked them to stop severla times but they continued until recently.
:#Aparently they brought the topic the the use of the images is illegal here Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Commemorative_coin_images, thinking that they have a strong case to remove all my contributions; but they decided to start to remove texts and images even before this topic is concluded, which is not concluded yet.
:#Notice that neither of these two users had the decency of telling me what they were plannign to do in my talk page. Instead a blant team up to remove all my contributions was made.
:#I clearly asked to stop, I said that the legal ussage is clear and if by any reason is not as I think it is I will be removing the images myself. I have asked to talk, to remove the image but leave the prose ... but nothing, the only thing I have got is blind removal of all my contributions even in articles that are not related to music at all.
:Basically this is nothing that these two users attacking my contributions just because they do not like what they add to "their articles". I have been very collaborative in the past, and more than once I have been asked to removed the image or the texts associated to the coin, in more than one article. After the initial discussion, I have agreed in more than one article to not to include them based on the arguments of the discussion; but this time, no discussion, teaming up to blindly remove everything I have created.
:I am not looking for a content dispute here, I just want the users Kleinzach and DavidRF to recognize that what they did is not ethically correct. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::Here upon request - looks like content dispute spanning multiple articles, and some copyvio claims. I'll have to do some research, get some other work done, and will be glad to offer an opinion in a bit (if it hasn't been resolved by then). Any particular diffs of note would be helpful. — Ched (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Thank you — Ched. It did start as content dispute, but quickly escalated to personal attacks against me and my contributions by the two editors mentioned. I have already included the vast mayority of the conversations. There were more conversations in all of our talk pages (some of them already removed by one of them). I have no issues going the ethically correct way to reach an agreement of when can the images and/or the prose can be added, but teaming up to push me at the point to go to 3RR violation, and pushing the WP:POV that the images are illegal and that the content is SPAM is definitely not correct. I have clearly asked them to stop and to talk, but instead they keep reverting my contributions even after I have explained several times. At the end one of them even went to an article that he has never touched before, just to remove my contribution too. This is for me unacceptable. Apologies to you for the time you will spend looking into this issue. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Coin images are non-free and should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves (e.g. the coin articles, or perhaps an article about the mint). Doing so is clear fair-use overuse, and edit-warring over it is likely to lead to a block. I have warned User:Miguel.mateo to stop doing so. Black Kite 14:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Black Kite, when and where have you warned me? Also, "should not be added to any articles that are not directly about the coins themselves" is not true. Where it says so in the policy? Can you take a look at the classical sample in Billy Ripken, a copy right image of a baseball card is used in this article, but it does meet the fair use rationale. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: On your talk page - have a look. The relevant policy is WP:NFCC - please read it, especially WP:NFCC#3a (minimal use of non-free images) and WP:NFCC#8 - significance. Since a picture of a coin can never significantly increase the reader's understanding of the person or place depicted - it is merely a picture - they will always fail this policy. If the images were in the article about the coin itself, then they are directly relevant and that is reasonable. The only exception might be if the person was deceased and the non-free image was the only image that could be used, or if the image itself was particularly notable - hence Billy Ripken. In all the articles relevant here, there are free images available. Black Kite 14:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: I have a long discussion with user ElCobolla about this topic, and I have the archives. While we did not interpret "understand" similarly, it did give me a completely wide view of the copyright issues.
:::::# WP:NFCC#3a does not apply, I added just one image in each article, that is minimum ussage. If you are trying to interpret this as "in all of Wikipedia", then why do we need more than one fair use rationale? WP:NFCC#3a is per article.
:::::# WP:NFCC#8, please read it carefully. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" the topic in thsi case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins. Removing the image of the coin because it does not help to understand the subject is a wrong interpretation of the policy. Regardless, this is maybe the weakest point, and I do agree that in some cases the image can be removed by enhancing the prose of the coin. But this is exactly what the other two editors are against, they are against the fact of adding information of the coin on the articles of the subject of the coin. Even if the article is a stub, they are against of adding such information.
:::::# Where in the policy this exception is explained?
:::::But again, I am not here to talk about the content dispute, is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all. The proper way of doign this IMO is bringing this issue to a talk page and later decide the course of action. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Why can't we talk about the content dispute? You've added these images to hundreds of pages. We have to have a talk page discussion on each one for them to be removed? Where was the talk page discussion when they were added in the first place? You watch these pages like a hawk because you know people's first instinct upon seeing the images is to remove them. It sounds like you are trying to create a barrier for removal so high that people just give up and let you keep the images on every page in wikipedia. We have had monthly discussions where we re-hash the same points:
::::::*Talk:Schloss_Esterházy
::::::*Talk:Joseph_Haydn#Joseph_Haydn_Gold_Coin
::::::*Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Composers/Archive_14#Gold_Coin_Images_in_Composer_.26_Related_Articles
::::::*Talk:Symphony_No._3_(Beethoven)#Symphony_No_3_in_a_commemorative_coin
::::::*Talk:Theater_am_Kärntnertor#Austrian_coin_issue:_Revert_fighting
::::::My worry is that you'll be back next month with another coin and you will completely forget we had this dispute, claim its personal (its only "personal" because you are the only editor spreading these images across non-coin articles) and we'll rehash the whole thing will happen again. What is most frustrating, actually, is that you have no interest whatsoever in the quality of these articles other than they should contain a link and a picture to an uncirculated twenty-first century commemorative coin. How is this constructive editing? Can we get a ruling on this dispute once and for all so that we can return our energies to the actually content of the articles and not some tangential see-also, pop-culture link at the bottom of each article. Thanks. DavidRF (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::* I added just one image in each article, that is minimum ussage.. No. Minimal use is zero, and non-free images should only be used where they pass all criteria in WP:NFCC. The coin images do not do that, as I explained above.
::::::* the topic in this case are the coins being described, not the subject of the coins.. No. If you add a picture of a coin to an article about a person, then the subject of the article is the person, not the coins. Hence why there is far more latitude in an article which is actually about the coins.
::::::* is the way that lots of my contributions were removed, now by Black Kite too, without having a full understanding of the copyright issues, and without listening that in more than one occasion I have asked to leave the prose which is not illegal at all.. The copyright issue is irrelevant; it is only the Wikipedia fair use policy which is important. Also, the prose is fine to leave in, if it is important and relevant to the subject (you'll notice that I did so on one of the articles) but that's a content issue. Black Kite 16:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::The same issue takes place with postage stamps and there are several biographical articles where stamps are used and these need to go, but that's another story. Perhaps there is a need for WP:NFC#Images to spell out more clearly than it does now that stamps and currency includes coins and that their use may only be in articles about the coin or stamp itself. IMHO, there should also be more clarity in the exceptions listing so editors can see more plainly what is allowed and what is. The current statements get twisted by editors who want to include non-free images where they are not permitted to their own advantage unless challenged like this coin-in-music-articles situation. ww2censor (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
←I support a paragraph about the coin in the article (with WP:V/RS), and even a link to the article about the individual coin that describes the "who, what, when, where, why and how", the coin was made. My very limited knowledge of copyright and fair use policy, leads me to believe there may be a way to include the picture in that specific article. Sorry, I got nothing else. — Ched (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:Unindent...What a funny co-incidence. Check out todays op-ed section of the Chicago Sun Times: "The Opera is a place where people can get irked if you unwrap a stick of gum". Neil Steinberg, Chgo Sun Times< Feb 20,2009 (pg.18) That seems to sum up what is more at play here than any self-appointed protection of Wikipedia's legal status or a lawsuit over Editor:mateo's coin entries.
:No one questions the protective nature of the Opera enthusists. It is a natural trait after working long and hard to create a quality article. But the same holds true for Editor:Mateo. He has also worked long and hard to facilitate good faith coin edits to a variety of articles that only add to the Wikipedia concept of the sum total of knowledge.
:The claim that these edits do not comply w/ copyright violations or non-free policy, and that that is why his edits were deleted from Maria Callas (for instance among dozens of others) is pure Baloney...Opera Style.
:The request (or is it a demand?) for written permission is also a bit out of whack with what is possible. As a private citizen, Editor:Mateo has done all he could (and more) to contact representatives and officials of the various mints to guarantee that he has his ducks in a row. The hint that he is somehow under-handedly trying to edit to his own advantage is akin to putting handcuffs on the good guys. What should be happening is assisting each other in the endeavor to implement these minor additions to quality articles. Instead they are being treated as though they were graffitti on the Opera Halls front doors.--Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
We are moving off topic, let's say for a second that you are all right about the images and this should not be included, which IMO, based on the current policy and license of the coins, is still questionable. But let's assume you are all right and all those images need to go ... does that give right to DavidRF and Kleimzach to team out and remove all images and all proses even from articles that they have never participated before? How about all the proof that I have asked to clear the case first, I have asked why the prose ... their only answer was to continuing removing my contributions. Can we focus on this please which is what I brought this topic for? As I have said, I have no problems putting some good faith discussion in deciding what is good and what is not (DavidRF just started to develop a guideline for adding this type of information in music articles, I applause that!) but I can simply not believe that two good editors team up to fight against another "no so good editor" (that is me). I can not believe that admins are not seeing what the problem is here, and they have taken their side already continuing removing contributions when this discussion is not finished.
And for the records, I have said several times already, the current policy DOES allow me to add those images in other articles not coin related. If by any chance that changes, I will be the one writting the bot to remove all the images I have added all over wikipedia (we are talkign about 100's of those). Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
New sockpuppet, not sure what to do about it
{{resolved|Indef blocked Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Sorry for posting this here, but I'm not sure exactly where to go with it: User:Ziggymaster and User:Manmohit2002 have been blocked indefinitely as socks (Ziggymaster is the sock puppeteer; the case is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster), and I think the investigation is closed. A new user has just popped up who I think is probably a new sock of this same person: {{user|Mayamore}} is repeatedly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=272174227 reverting] to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=268869188 same version] of the article that was last edited by Manmohit2002 (not only that, but in the first diff I gave above, he actually quoted one of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Korea&diff=270002999&oldid=269966767 my own edit summaries] from weeks before User:Mayamore was created). What's the best way to get this dealt with quickly? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Reviewing now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Agree with your conclusion that this is Ziggymaster returning. I have indefblocked the new User:Mayamore account. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=272196166 This] confession connects him to User:AndyCrogonka, who is indef blocked. • \ / (⁂) 03:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Ok, that was already blocked by another admin. Is there any other connected activity which anyone's seeing?
::::Does anyone have the time to file a checkuser?. I'm kinda busy tonight. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::User:Pickbothmanlol and User:A1a2s per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AndyCrogonka&diff=270804616&oldid=267666988 this]. • \ / (⁂) 09:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
need a hand
{{resolved|1=— neuro(talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Any oversighters online? yandman 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:They usually respond to their email list fairly quickly - Special:Emailuser/Oversight. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. yandman 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry at AFD
{{resolved|1=I strongly doubt the closing administrator is going to be fooled. — neuro(talk) 15:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
Can some admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-Wing Fascism in India, which is getting attention of several SPA and sock/meat accounts, namely, {{User3|Mahanteshwar}}, {{User3|Michonuri}}, {{User3|Minten}} and {{User3|Gabriel_N}} ? Abecedare (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Darkicebot
Could someone block this bot please, as it's messing things up? I had to look at some interwiki links on my talk page due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Archives&diff=272220537&oldid=270535031 this edit], only to fix it and see there are *4* simple English links on the said template right now. It's my understanding that we put interwiki links on /doc pages normally anyway for templates. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Moved cats to /doc. — neuro(talk) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Ordulin
{{resolved}}
Is this Willy-clone shut down yet? just asking... Franamax (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:No, maybe that's the wrong one. n-e-way! Franamax (talk) 11:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Ah yes, the G-word. Block was 24 hrs when I saw it last, can it be indef? Franamax (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::: Yes, it can be. Black Kite 11:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
And User:Doubleplusungood person, so it seems. Checkuser anyone? Franamax (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::OK, you all are a minute or two ahead of me. I go sleepy now :) Hey, I'm tryin' to keep watch! Franamax (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Daron240475, too, methink ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worcester_wheels&action=history 4 minute gap]). Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
: and Talk:’AG GER. needs deleting still. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Un-resolved and yes, Daron needs attention by a CU or admin. Maybe an opportunistic grab of a newpage - but I don't think so. The next sleeper awaits... Franamax (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::: Deleted the article as A7, but AGF on Daron240475, suspect it was a newpage grab. Marked resolved again. Black Kite 13:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::User:Ordulin needs talk page and probably e-mail blocking. —Snigbrook 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Yup, you're right. Done. Black Kite 13:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
10,000 Reverts
{{resolved|1=— neuro(talk) 15:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
{{User|10,000 Reverts}} appears to be a sock of some banned user. Even the name shows why he is here, and contribs are quite in line with the name. Admin attention is required. Thanks. Grandmaster 11:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, the name was probably a bad choice. I have picked it because of the extreme amount of IP vandalism (almost all my reverts deal with obvious vandalism or unexplained deletions of sourced material). If Grandmaster accuses me of anything, he should present proofs. If my username is too offensive, I will have it changed.--10,000 Reverts (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::My problem with you is that you just go around and revert articles without any prior discussion, especially in controversial topics that became a subject to a number of arbitration cases (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, for example). Here's an example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirovabad_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=272105831] If your account is a good faith one, I would appreciate if you discussed your reverts of edits of established users. And the choice of the name indeed is not a good one, it kind of does not suggest willingness to discuss potential problems. Of course, a user name is a matter of personal choice, and it is up to you which one to use. Grandmaster 12:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirovabad_pogrom&diff=prev&oldid=272105831 This] was the only case where I've reverted an edit made by an established user (if you don't count Likeminas' accidental restoring of IP vandalism) and in this particular case I have provided an explanation. However, you are right that I should have used the talk page and that my username causes mistrust. I definitely do NOT seek edit wars with established users.--10,000 Reverts (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Ok, the problem resolved. I hope you will discuss any such reverts in the future. Thanks. Grandmaster 13:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:217.8.64.196]]
This user keeps adding unsourced commentary into Operation Opera. I'm pretty sure it's original (and probably false) research, but was reluctant to call it plain vandalism. I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.8.64.196&diff=272241165&oldid=269734345 left an OR template on his page], and he has already been given two vandalism warnings this month. I have already reverted him twice today, and I'd hate to be dragged into an edit war. Can someone help? Thanks, Nudve (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
IP Edits from a specific range growing increasingly disruptive to a series of articles
Is there anything we can do about this situation:
An anon editor from the 87.217.6?.xxx range comes in every few days, and adds then re-adds unsourced or improperly understood from that source information to a growing range of articles, including Trinidad and Tobago, Aruba, Caribbean Community and North American Free Trade Agreement. They generally involve adding improper "official language" information to these articles. Each edit series lasts from 6 to 11 separate edits long (rather than using preview) which means valid edits by other editors are often interspersed. They sometimes have come back the same day to re-add their changes.
Can we semi-protect these articles, or otherwise deal with this range of IP addresses, or both?
(Yes, I know RFPP exists, but I wonder if there's something we need to do at the IP level).
A few recent examples:
Thanks in advance (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Note: (Non-Admin)
:I have information on those IP addresses, all of which come under a company called Jazz Telecom, based in Alcobendas, Madrid. All of these IP addresses are dynamic - this is noted by [http://www.samspade.org/whois Samspade WHOIS]. This is the complete list from the 4 requests:
:Abuse Information: (Jazz Telecom, Madrid) - abuse@jazztel.com
:87.217.62.63 = 63.62.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
:87.217.63.210 = 210.63.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
:87.217.62.237 = 237.62.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
:87.217.63.22 = 22.63.217.87.dynamic.jazztel.es
:It may be worth keeping this information handy in case of a network abuse report. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Thanks Thor ... I had contemplated a quick WHOIS, but based on the hispano-centric nature of the edits (who knew we had new Spanish Imperialism in the works!) and previous knowledge that the 87 range was European, I had guessed Spain... thanks for confirming! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Mysticshade
{{resolved|Indefinitely blocked}}
- {{userlinks|Mysticshade}} Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Mysticshade
This user has returned from his recent block and is still being disruptive. He is currently blocked from Commons for uploading copyright violations, but is evading that block using a sockpuppet which uploaded, among other images, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dublin_Sunset7.jpg this image] which is watermarked [http://www.debbiedunne.com/ Debbie Dunne Photography]. After this was pointed out to him, he has uploaded :File:Dublin Sunset9.jpg which is the same image without the watermark, and he is claiming to be the copyright holder. Recommend blocking this editor and deleting any image he has uploaded, as they are all likely to be copyright violations. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dublin&diff=prev&oldid=272236034 This diff] gives the connection between Mysticshade and the uploader of the images mentioned above. Given the lack of response other than adversarial edit summaries it is my view that this individual is a net deficit to the encyclopedia,LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Actually I think Mysticshade and the other account are probably the rather blocked {{Userlinks|Historian19}}. Apart from the copyvio uploads similarity, Mystics's user page was edited by someone in the right IP range and Historian was active on the Largest urban areas of the European Union, doing much the same as Mystic was doing. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 16:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Brittany
{{resolved|1=Deacon fixed it. //roux 16:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
The above named article has been moved without any discussion on the talk page or prior notice. I have attempted to reverse it but I either (i) do not have the authority or (ii) do not understand how. Would someone please restore the prior position? --Snowded (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:As a note, it has not been moved to the disambiguation, but to Brittany (historical province). — neuro(talk) 16:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
: Just to confuse things, I would have thought that what is now at Brittany (administrative region) should be at Brittany - surely the article that most people are looking for? Black Kite 16:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:: Agreed, until today it was Brittany, it was moved to the administrative region article without any consultation. It should be back at Brittany --Snowded (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I've deleted (and restored) the edited redirect that was getting in the way of the WP:BRD cycle. You should be able to move it back now. For future reference, all you need to do is tag such an edited redirect with
:::: Apologies, but that didn't work, if I try and move it back it says the article already exists. --Snowded (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Strange. Anyways, moved it back for you, though I have no opinion on the matter. It was either that or risk leaving such a busy link red for an extended period. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::: Much appreciated, hopefully the editor who made the move will now discuss it if they feel strongly --Snowded (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Damage to microformats
J JMesserly is making a number of edits which are damaging the microformats emitted by Wikipedia, often making them emit broken and/ or bogus metadata (and is doing the same on Commons, but [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Bogus_metadata I've raised the matter, separately, there]). I've tried to reason with him on his and my talk pages, the microformat project page, various other projects, and many template- & article talk pages. I've offered to assist him (he's clearly new to microformats; I've been implementing them here and elsewhere, and contributing to the designs of microformats and microformat parsers, since 2006). I've got nowhere (I'm sure he feels the same way about me). His behaviour includes repeatedly threatening me with Arbcom if I won't I submit to binding mediation, repeatedly asking the same questions, accusing me of vandalism (after having to apologise for doing so on Commons); making ad hominem attacks, edit warring without discussion (I've also reverted often, but have always given reasons). I've asked him to hold fire while we discuss matters, but he's continued; making so many edits to implement his preferred way of doing things that it looks like a bot run. I can see no evidence that he is interested in building or working towards consensus. I'm tired of this (and currently ill); I really don't want to devote my time to compiling a catalogue of evidential diffs (most of my editing for the last week or two has been to argue these matters with him, to revert his damage and to point him at WP:BRD, to the point where I'm always fire-fighting instead of making more constructive edits); but some neutral party who understands metadata and especially microformats needs to look into this. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- You give such a strong impression of WP:OWNing everything to do with microsformats, and dragging everybody with whom you have a unilateral dispute to ANI claiming mass damage and destruction (which is often not evident to anyone else) that I don't hold out much hope of this being anything other than shunted elsehwere. Take it to the Wikiproject or RFC is my advice. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:Andy Mabbett has an extensive history of making assertions about the correctness of his positions regarding microformats [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2/Evidence#The_infobox_war][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pigsonthewing_2/Evidence#Disruption_within_the_Sheffield_Wikiproject][. I was not aware of any of these prior events until recently, and I appear to be only the latest recipient of Mr. Mabbett's oversight of my contributions at Wikipedia. While I maintain a positive outlook towards Andy, I am having a difficult time differentiating his past behavior from his current behavior. Regardless, I have not responded to his frequent personal attacks and hope that memories of this friction will fade with time as we work together regarding our common passion for microformat capability at Wikipedia. I have made repeated attempts at reaching common ground with Pigsonthewing. Although he asserts authority regarding microformats, he quite often makes demonstrably incorrect statements (lamian war)[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Reversion_of_large_numbers_of_my_edits_by_User:Pigsonthewing] (ISO date for JFK:November 22, 1963 (-07:00))[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Free_form_way_of_specifying_dates] causing me to regard his frequent unsupported assertions with skepticism, and requests for support for his allegations. These are declined, with the remark that he has already responded. My proposal to him as that microformats.org community be the arbiters on the technical points he raises. My repeated inquiry to him is whether he prefers to continue to try to work this out, to agree to binding mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation, or to go to arbcom. So far, I am unclear what his preference is, but I do not see that the incidents board can do much with this, as was the observation in a prior incident (see Fabrictramp recommendation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive513#Reversion_of_large_numbers_of_my_edits_by_User:Pigsonthewing]). -J JMesserly (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::I have made no personal attacks. You are, of course at liberty to try to demonstrate otherwise. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I concur with Guy above, especially because this is not the first time I remember Pigsonthewing making very, very serious-sounding statements about how everyone else but he is the problem in this obscure formatting dispute. Sandstein 14:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, if you and guy wish to make ad hominem dismissals of my concerns that is your perogative, but I'd be interested to know why you think emitting a metadata location of "
" is acceptable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Actually what happened is that we noted your past history of complaints, every one of which turned out on investigation to be a case of you asserting something and other people not agreeing (and, yes, a goodly dose of ad-hominem argument from you as well). The admin noticeboards are for fixing obvious and/or pressing problems. Since the problems you raise are often obvious only to you and disputed by others, and the damage also appears not to be evident to many others, then you are wasting your time keep coming here. We should probably include in the hat notice a comment that this is not the place to come if you are simply not getting your way, which is what seems to be the case here. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Your unsubstantiated claim of ad hominem argument from me is a blatant lie; the rest of your comments may be true, but do not negate the issues I have raised. I note that you make no comment about the above example of bogus metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:ThomasJeffersonsBane|ThomasJeffersonsBane]]
{{resolved|No further admin input required--John (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)}}
I have indefinitely blocked {{user|ThomasJeffersonsBane}}. This user claims to be a ninth grade teacher at Middletown High School North. He registered a new account yesterday, and tried to hijack the school's article to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middletown_High_School_North&diff=271990997&oldid=269878990 show an example] on why WP is not a good resource for term papers. I reverted them and left a templated warning. He [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middletown_High_School_North&diff=272070038&oldid=271997657 restored the example] this morning, which I then re-reverted. I left a clearly-worded, untemplated warning on his talk page. He then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Middletown_High_School_North&diff=next&oldid=272085087 restored the example again], this time leaving a note on the article's talk page. At this point I indef blocked him, and left a sharply-worded response on the article talk page.
I just wanted a sanity check. I felt an indef block was necessary, as not only did this user register an account for purposes other than building an encyclopedia, but that he essentially gave a tutorial for future vandals in his class. caknuck ° is a silly pudding 19:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- There's no real likelihood that we'll get anything productive out of him until he starts engaging with us, so indef-as-in-no-expiry looks reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::I hope he teaches the class what he learned from his experiment. dougweller (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Correct. If he wants to act like a high school student, vandalizing for his own reasons, treat him like one. Though I do notice he put his real name on the talk page. We're not out to screw the guy or undermine his authority, suggest we remove his name and modify the edit history--Wehwalt (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: Why? He came to vandalize, behaved childishly, then chided the editor who undid the vandalism. Then he identified himself (maybe -- it's possible this is a hoax by one of his students). No one made him put his foot in it. If there are repercussions, he'll have to wear it. A good learning experience.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: Why? Because we are not evil and we do not immortalise people's bad judgement. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, but neither need we devote energy to preventing someone from himself immortalizing his bad judgment (cf., our creating an article to memorialize an IRL bad act, which is active, not passive). The issue is, I know, a trivial one, and I can't imagine that anyone should quarrel with one's removing the guy's name (particularly because don't know whether the user was the person whom he purported to be or simply a student looking to have fun at a teacher's expense and because the putative disruption was innocuous), but I've never understood why we are sometimes eager to assist those who would interfere with our enterprise; if someone of the age of majority who plainly acts in bad faith (by which term I would not characterize the user at bar) makes a public disclosure with which he is later uncomfortable, he is welcome to e-mail OTRS to seek removal, but I simply can't understand why one would seek to help proactively (unless, I guess, out of fealty to some provincial moral scheme to which none of our number, I hope and trust, clings). Joe 22:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Because it does us no harm to be nice, and because by the time the guy would come to us with a problem, it would be too late and the cat would be comprehensively out of the bag. The guy obviously doesn't have a clue and probably has no idea how Web savvy kids are.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::: You state that it might not be him but may instead be a hoax by his student, then say he has to wear the albatross around his neck anyway? That doesn't make any sense at all. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::When I first became aware of schoolblocks I did wonder what process was available for the teacher/lecturer/hall monitor responsible for the students to ensure that we might co-operatively ensure appropriate use of Wikipedia's resources in building encyclopedic content.
::::::As the years pass, I begin to wonder if any such process would ever be needed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:I certainly hope that The purpose of this experiment encourage students to find the validity of a website for themselves. was not written by a teacher. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Nice work guys. Every so often someone makes me proud to be a member of this fine project. The way this was handled was exemplary. Well done. --John (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
DrKiernan moving articles against consensus
This is yet another case that makes me feel that we should have a process, perhaps similar to WP:DRV, for reviewing inappropriate closures of requested moves. Admin {{user|DrKiernan}} closed the following requested moves clearly against consensus, for which I would appreciate feedback:
- Mahilyow to Mogilev: DrKiernan closes the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mogilev&diff=271310262&oldid=271310068 using his own arguments and research], disregarding participants who provided a different feedback. If he had a personal position, he should have participated in the discussion and excused himself from closing it. The result was a move war with one one of the participants, which led to move protection. After complaints, DrKiernan reopened this discussion.
- Marko Đoković to Marko Djokovic: Disregarding the arguments provided by half of the participants, DrKiernan goes ahead and moves this article to its diacritic-less version (making it one of the few exceptions amongst thousands of articles on Wikipedia where we use diacritics for articles on people whose names do contain diacritics in their original language). According to DrKiernan's closing rationale, the "opposers did not provide evidence". I explained on his talk page that this is false, but DrKiernan rebuffs and claims that the source provided is "dubious", and doesn't comment on the fact that usage of diacritics on Wikipedia is not affected by the predominance of sources that prefer not to use them. This discussion has not been reopened, nor its resulting move reverted yet.
:From these cases, it appears to me that DrKiernan seems to be unaware that, just like other poll-like discussions, personal opinions don't bid well upon closing requested moves, especially if they are used to enforce what's against consensus (or lack of). A review of these cases could prove most useful. Húsönd 20:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::Husond, closing admins on anything even vaguely contentious should be explaining how they understood and evaluated the consensus. That kind of behaviour should be lauded, discussion closures shouldn't be black boxes. WilyD 21:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Both of these closures seem to be both in line with specific consensus at the article talk pages, and with the more important consensus-established naming convention guidelines. I see no violation here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree as well. I do not see any concerns here. Consensus is always evaluating strengths of arguments, not numbers and if he repeats one argument in his closing statement, even with a new source, it's still not a personal bias. The first example has also, unrelated, an ugly case of wheel-warring as one of the admins ({{user|Mzajac}}) involved in the discussion reverted the move.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Mogilev] SoWhy 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I was supposed to be either worried or surprised by this kind of feedback, but I'm frankly not. Your message in the end is that next time, instead of wasting my time participating in move discussions, I'll just close them according to the so-called "strength of arguments" and naming convention guidelines that do not exist. After all, there seems to be a clear consensus here for such kind of closures. Which I must say is sadly in line with Wikipedia's growing tendency to move decision making away from the community, and closer to the bureaucracy we were never supposed to be. Húsönd 23:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::*Well, you are an admin, you should be able to close discussions based on strength of arguments - that is what judging consensus is about. I don't see your problem that an admin, who has not expressed any opinion about the matter, did just that and I see no change in consensus about that. SoWhy 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Incredible.
WP:RM clearly specifies that the admin's job is to gauge consensus: “If there is a clear consensus after this time, the request will be closed and acted upon. If not, the administrator may choose to re-list the request to allow time for consensus to develop, or close it as "no consensus".” DrKiernan wilfully ignored the lack of consensus (he stated “the vote is evenly split”, but that was false), and made his own decision about the content. I started the “ugly wheel war” because I honestly thought from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mogilev&diff=271310262&oldid=271310068 his comment about the content] that he was a participant who decided to unilaterally move the article—I knew that the majority was against the move, and so I was quite surprised to learn that he considered himself to be closing the request in good faith.
So “Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved” is now out the window? Why bother with move discussions at all? Just pick your favourite “closing admin” and present your opinion to him. Screw the majority, he'll you just have to convince a single judge and jury. If someone protests, then he'll wash his hands of it by “relisting” the article improperly for a few hours until someone else cleans it up, as Dr Kiernan did.
If this is how it works, then there should be a clear explanation at WP:RM of what editors are to expect. What I see is one thing at WP:RM, and completely contrary behaviour being rewarded. This looks like a big crock to me. From now on I'll stick to making my own consensus by closing move requests, rather than participating in them. —Michael Z. 2009-02-21 00:58 z
:Consenus is not about counting votes, and admins may weigh votes based upon the strength of their arguements especially, vis-a-vis established policies and/or guidelines. It is not enough for a whole bunch of people to simply vote; the admin may choose to disregard or weight votes less where such votes do not indicate a compelling rationale or do not cite established policies and/or guidelines. Policies and guidelines are established by consensus, so votes which cite relevent policies and guidelines tend to have more weight than those that do not. I see no evidence here that DrKiernan acted inappropriately in this matter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::There's a very big difference between all that and closing a discussion based on your own arguments and views. Again you mention policies and guidelines that have neither been met nor transgressed by arguments presented at the discussion. I find it hard to understand why is it being so difficult to see that these discussions are simple cases when an admin drops by, sides with one of the parties, and closes against the natural outcome. In fact, for the Mogilev discussion, I could've closed it myself when I joined in. In fact, it was already on the backlog at WP:RM, and there was no consensus to move. But because I had an opinion, I presented it instead of closing, something that DrKiernan should have done as well. Next time, I'll just close, because it is obvious that ANI won't really care if the closing admin acted unilaterally as long as he provided arguments for going against consensus. It's insane and makes me agree more with Haukur who used to say that we should start having votes and not discussions, because there is no point in having a discussion if one single person is going to decide for everybody. Húsönd 12:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Advice required
I'm more of an on-off editor to Wikipedia and usually whenever I return to Wikipedia, I adopt a new username (weirdly, it gives a new motivation to start afresh) and I link these usernames too. My edits done under the usernames User:RajatKansal, User:Lokanth, User:AI009, User:Emperor Genius and User:Enigma Blues stand proof that I have mostly done edits under these usernames in different time-frames and linked them whenever a newer one was created. And never have I used multiple accounts to add weight to my viewpoint or edits. Couple of months back, I started making edits only under an ip, which was shared account. Anyways, I ran into a dispute while making edits under that ip with User:Lalit Jagannath. I raised the issue with some other Wikipedians who advised me to seek Request for Comment. So I created another account (I know, I love creating new accounts) and linked my previous ip with that new account and started a RfC. Obviously, and rightly so, others thought that I was a sock and blocked me. I was blocked before I could link it to my other accounts. However, I never used my previous accounts to back my case. Nonetheless, I realized my mistake and served my block term. I also realized that to make your voice heard in Wikipedia, it is very important to stick to one account so that your reputation is gradually built and your name is not associated with some other unknown blokes (in this case, User:Signswork).
Anyways, fact remains, and as I have mentioned before, I have never used two or more accounts to back my case. I can probably recall one small instance on Talk:Delhi but that was short-lived and totally unrelated to this dispute. As far as this dispute with User:Lalit Jagannath is concerned, the problem arises because of this user's massive, biased and sometimes unsourced edits to India-related articles which are made without being discussed. Concerns about his edits have been raised by several users and this is evident by going through his talkpage.
For those who might be interested, seems that User:Lalit has got excessive time to kill. So, he devoted a nice little page to me. I didn't link my blocked account (User:Enigma Machine) to my current one for obvious reasons. Regarding me and my multiple accounts, if fellow Wikipedians think that this does not abide by Wikipedia rules and was unethical, I'm willing to quit Wikipedia for good. I can't assure that I won't return in future since my love for this project is too great, but yes, it would be a lesson hard learned. --Incidious (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:My opinion is that you have not broken any rules, but attacking me from multiple accounts in a short period of time is not exactly the most ethical thing to do.Lalit Jagannath (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Lalit, have I at any point used multiple accounts at the same time to "attack" you? If you would go through your talkpage, I have requested you to discuss your edits multiple times. If requesting is "attacking", then what else can I say? --Incidious (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- What administrator attention is required here? I'm not an admin, but you shouldn't really use multiple accounts, as repeatedly doing so can look like you are evading scrutiny. See WP:SOCK for thoughts on the matter. //roux 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Well, if I have not specifically made it clear, I wanted to mention my grievance about the edits being made by User:Lalit Jagannath and seek administrators' opinion on this entire matter. --Incidious (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Jacob
[[User:Wilson Delgado]] on article [[Humanism]]
Please look at Talk:Humanism and recent edits to the article itself by User:Wilson Delgado. A few of us seem to be having difficulty with getting him to respect consensus established on the talk page; when he attempted to establish consensus in favor of his own opinion, it was roundly rejected (see Talk:Humanism#Requested_move). His opinion is based on one of five definitions for "humanism" listed in the unabridged OED, that is not listed in the abridged version of the OED, and has been demonstrated to be a tiny minority viewpoint in modern use of the term. Consequently, he falls afoul of the WP:UNDUE policy, but will not accept this position and insists on revert-warring to get his own way (see User_talk:Wilson_Delgado#3RR_Warning). His edits to bring greater prominence to his own viewpoint are agenda-driven, vague, unencyclopedic, and do not cite verifiable sources, as in the following examples:
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=272281768&oldid=271981356 "...many leading reference works... does not always... is often linked... are often simply... seems to be..."]
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=271833936 Inappropriate emplacement of an NPOV template; as consensus has already been established... just, not the one he was hoping for.]
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=270446103 "...often give a richer range of meanings... ...they usually including... often refers... often called... can often suggest..."]
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=270447835 "Humanism often (though not exclusively) refers..."]
- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Humanism&diff=prev&oldid=270449145 Emplacing tiny-minority viewpoint links in prominence within the article], defying WP:UNDUE.
Two editors have posted over 60 examples of common, modern usage, gleaned in verifiable ways, and Wilson Delgado has attempted to refute (unsuccessfully, in my opinion) perhaps only two or three of them. Furthermore, his own citations to support his minority viewpoint—the OED, which he admitted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism&diff=270911588&oldid=270903605 here] does not quantify frequency of use, and the Encyclopædia Britannica, which he actually quoted as disagreeing with his tiny-minority viewpoint, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism&diff=271403624&oldid=271401225 here]!—do not address the issue of contention, but he won't cite any additional sources.
His behavior reeks of bad faith, and I'm concerned that he is an agenda-driven editor with no respect for Wikipedia policies and in fact, a lot of disdain for Wikipedia itself, as evidenced by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism&diff=270911588&oldid=270903605 this quote]:
Dictionaries do not quantify frequency of use, as that is a Sisyphean task, but they have to make general estimates of relevant usage. So I think it would be better just to go to the gold-standard dictionaries, like the OED (unabridged), and see what they do not mark as archaic, rare, or obsolete, for a general sense of the active range of meanings. That is their job and it is futile to try to reproduce in an amateurish way what they dedicate many professional hours to doing.
May we have some help minimizing his damage to Wikipedia, his disregard for verifiable sources, and his agenda to break WP:UNDUE recklessly? Thanks. OldMan (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Manhattan Samurai|MS flareup]]
Most have a lot of time on his hands today. {{userlinks|JonJericoe}} {{userlinks|Claude La Badarian}} and {{userlinks|Ep1997}}
all look likely to be him based on editing interests, style of edit summaries, etc... I'm sure this will get dealt with in due course, but sometimes sooner is better. {{userlinks|ToddDurgin}} was another of his socks editing in the same style earlier today and was blocked. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
:Just came to report {{user|JonJericoe}} as well; seems fairly obvious. Skomorokh 18:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::Gwen Gale has blocked all but Ep1997 - presumably because the link is not obvious (it isn't to me). Can someone provide the rationale for this account being a MS sock? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
::: Mostly because of timing and his first edits were to restore content to an article that has been edited by a procession of MS socks (if you scroll through the history, the vast majority of those redlink usernames are his - Deathdestroyer, the most recent editor, has been blocked. He built this article and has been fiddling with it with 7-8 socks ever since.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
...sigh...(Another "suicide")
Just putting this here for reference: I've apparently inspired a "small child" to want to kill herself. (Background: I found an edit on an IP talkpage from an editor with whom I've had much trouble, mainly in the "competence is required" vein, and warned her for the edit. The IP then showed up on my talk page disputing something I'd said...and signed as the name user. I blocked the IP for 6 months, the name account indefinitely, and explained on both talkpages why that was so. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMayme08&diff=272366468&oldid=272298962 This] is the reply.) If ever I was inclined to ignore such a threat, now would be that time--reading this user's contribution history and talk-page comments, there is no earthly reason this individual should be editing here. (She says she's a kid, but also says she's the IP's "boss at work". My utter lack of patience and credulity--let me show you it.) I'd prefer that no one unblock, but if you feel you absolutely must, I'll bite the bullet and deal with it. GJC 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:These things are hardly ever serious, just ignore it.
:P.S. i'm becoming more and more convinced that Mayme08 is another sockpuppet of you-know-who. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::Anytime an editor threatens suicide, just say you'll get back to him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Plaut
{{resolved|Indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)}}
For some reason, our new SSP page is locked out. To cut a long story short, Special:Contributions/Clownsfield is Plaut, who is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AJojoplaut toast]. Terminal block please.AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
:Indef blocked. Let us know if more surface. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Random tiny "d" on welcome page
{{Resolved|Fixed. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)}}
On the Wikipedia main welcome page ([http://wikipedia.org]) there is a very tiny, lowercase letter "d" in the upper left corner. It's not highly noticeable since it is very small, but it is annoying to know it's there once it's spotted. I have not kept up to date on recent changes to Wikipedia so I am not aware if it is supposed to be there for any reason. I glanced through the html code of the page and I didn't see anything related to it, although I didn't scour through it. I've also made sure it's not simply my computer or browser, as my friends can see it too. It's a slight blemish if it shouldn't be there, and so should be fixed by someone who has the rights to edit that page.
If this was not the proper place to report this issue, my apologies. I wasn't entirely sure as to where I should post it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Plantboy1 (talk • contribs)
:It's the very last character in the source code after the