Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive55

There is a continuing edit war going on on the Romanians page considering the numbers of Romanians in each country in the world. I have no idea which numbers are correct, but I'm about to start banning people if they don't start discussing it on the Talk page instead of repeatedly reverting and calling names. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Antidote uses several other accounts there. Someone block him or page.-- Bonaparte talk 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have doubts about that charge. If it's true, he keeps them all pretty busy on various topics, which is to say that if they are socks, he is quite a puppeteer. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Instantnood is on WP:Probation from inappropriate editing on Chinese topics [1]. He has been engaging in slow revert wars. Slow revert wars are "inappropriate editing".

• on Hong Kong-style western cuisine. 6 reverts betwen 28 Nov and 2 Dec, when it was quiet, then out of the blue he reverted again today [2] with the same edit summary he's used twice before and no talk page discussion.

• On Transportation in Beijing, 17 edits since 15 Nov, half of which are reverts. No talk page discussion.

• Another half dozen pages where he is reverting on a daily basis over pronunciation guide differences: Grass jelly, Chinese herb tea, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Yucca de Lac, Hong Kong Stadium, Discovery Bay, Radio Television Hong Kong, Cha chaan teng.

Regardless of whether these edits are "right"; since he is under probation, the onus is on Instantnood to not engage in these behaviors. SchmuckyTheCat 21:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a request to ban Instantnood from these articles per the terms of Wikipedia Probation put on us by the ArbCom. SchmuckyTheCat 19:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the meaning of "any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing" in the ArbCom decision extended beyond to what is not even marginally relevant to the disputed issues that led to the ArbCom case? In that case thousands of articles can be "relates to China". — Instantnood 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly. SchmuckyTheCat 20:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  I guess neither you nor I can truly interpret the intention of the decision by members of the Arbitration Committee. — Instantnood 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The remedy does not come into effect at all if you do not edit disruptively. If in doubt, play nicely. -Splash^talk 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Since the case was finalized, I've refrained from playing his revert games. He has not, and has continued to do one revert a day on a dozen or so articles against a handful of editors (mostly NOT me). That's why I came here. I'm reporting that he IS editing disruptively and asking for the remedy ArbCom spelled out: probation and banning from the disrupted articles. SchmuckyTheCat 20:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  If I were editing disruptively then there can be action against me (and/or the other party/ies) no matter the topics are related or not to those that led to the ArbCom case. Therefore the key issue here is whether the proposed banning of the ArbCom decision is extended to any China-related topics that are not even marginally related to the case itself. As for " Since the case was finalized ", the matter around those articles SchmuckyTheCat mentioned above has surfaced before the case was closed. — Instantnood 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly. "any article which relates to China". SchmuckyTheCat 20:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

  This should better be clarified by an ArbCom member who was responsible for our case, not by you nor I. — Instantnood 21:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

So clarified: [3]. So again, I ask, for an administrator to review the items referred to above. At least a wet noodle? SchmuckyTheCat 06:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha...so are edits in Template:Asia, Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Pier, List of railways in China and List of seaports, considered disruptive enough? And these are only the few uncovered in the space of a few hours. I wonder what happens when I go back to review all his edits for the past weeks and months?--Huaiwei 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

" And these are only the few uncovered in the space of a few hours. " My last edit to the list of seaports was on December 5 [4]. It was not me who started the contentious edits to Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Pier [5], list of railways in China [6] and template:Asia [7] in the past few days. — Instantnood 14:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am pretty sure you cant deny the fact that I kept away from China-related articles for quite some time now, until the conclusion of the arbcom. All these while, anyone can see how you continued your little compaigns all over wikipedia, betraying the trust of those who kept their promises. "Undercovered in a few hours", of coz, dosent mean they originated in a matter of hours:

• List of seaports became an issue when you somehow single-handedly think some innocent commas play a part in "acknowledging both sovereignty and political status" in a December 1 edit [8], which sparked 5 days worth of edit warring. Interesting why you seem to deny that anything "disruptive" has happened just by saying no editing occured post December 5? Taking us as idiots once again?
• Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Pier became an issue when you removed Alanmak's edit with no apparant reason [9] other than under the guise of "expanded".
• List of railways in China was the subject of long standing disputes until it halted with my last edit dated 7 October 2005 [10]. A series of mysterious anon edits in October somehow switched the page to the version you prefer for no dime of a reason. I diligently switched it back a few hours ago, and quite naturally, an edit war breaks out, with or without an arbcom Probation going on. The show of contempt towards the arbcom is astounding.
• template:Asia was a random discovery, when I found out it was, well, the same old suspect who added HK and Macau to a template which once comprised only of independent territories back in 28 July 2005 [11]. I reverted the move on 8 December [12], and the rest is history.

Not you who started the contentious edits, you say? I dont care if its a second ago or ten million years ago. A misdeed is a misdeed, and face the music like a man.--Huaiwei 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For the list of seaports, I made those edits [13] because I noticed the disparity among how non-sovereign territories are presented, and some subnational entities are not presented with the corresponding sovereign states. For Hong Kong-Macau Ferry Terminal, I removed the words special administrative region because their political status is not immediately related, and is mentioned in the articles on them. For template:Asia, it's because non-sovereign territories are included in all other templates for continents and regions, and the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were already included [14]. For the list of railways in China, I did not noticed the previous edits. I only noticed it when I was watching the new round of contentious edits by you. — Instantnood 16:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Equating Hong Kong and Macau as independent/equal to the PRC, rather than as subdivisions:

1. [15]
2. [16] Also, this is continuation of a slow revert war.
3. [17] Also, this is continuation of a slow revert war. Also, this is blatantly against the consensus of multiple editors on the talk page who've said that it is appropriate for HK to be listed as a sub-division of China for this article.
4. [18] Just slow revert warring.

Request administrator action according to Instantnoods probation. SchmuckyTheCat 06:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For the first list, Hong Kong and Macau had their own sections for months before Huaiwei's edit, and had been the only territories listed with subsections after that [19] [20] (earlier edits: [21] [22] [23] [24], subsequent edits: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]), while all other non-sovereign territories, including French DOMs/TOMs have their own sections (see also the talk page).

For the second and the third lists, Hong Kong (and Macau) originally appear(s) on the lists with its/their own section(s), until Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat insisted to modify them according to their preference ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]; [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]), despite the case was ongoing, and contrary to what was agreed at a mediation.

As for the last list, Huaiwei was the only person who disputed with the entries, without providing any solid proof (see edit history [50] and talk page). — Instantnood 08:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no mediation. For all the talk on that mediation page you insisted on entrance criteria of reverting pages back to your version before you'd get into mediation. Any appeal to agreement we had under mediation is moot by your own action.

Second, all your diffs from other users under probation are BEFORE we were under probation. That's the line in the sand, 'Nood, and you're the one crossing it. The line in the sand is to STOP the inappropriate editing. You can't justify continue to revert war because "I'm only continuing an edit war that started before the probation." SchmuckyTheCat 17:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not my version. It's what things were like before you, Huaiwei and I started to edit it. If you're not seeing everything from your own angle, we could have said the efforts were moot as a result of your insistence not to have a step back, after I've a step back myself. No one wants any edit war, and you should not take the advantage to turn everything into your preference by shifting all the responsibilities. Disagreements began before or during the probation make no difference. — Instantnood 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

IT IS YOUR VERSION. It's not just me you revert war with. It's Wangi [51]. It's AlanMak [52]. It's Joestynes [53]. And of course Huaiwei. And that is just in the last day.

It's not about my taking advantage, I have mostly stopped reverting you. The consensus is that YOUR placement of Hong Kong in lists is pushing a POV and over the last year I have seen DOZENS of wikipedia editors ask you to stop. And you don't. You JUST. [54] KEEP. [55] REVERTING. [56] SchmuckyTheCat 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This was what you said: " There was no mediation. For all the talk on that mediation page you insisted on entrance criteria of reverting pages back to your version before you'd get into mediation. " [57], and now you're talking about something else not related to the mediation, effectively trying to create an illusion that I was saying something untrue. If one has a quick glance of the edit historys, e.g. list of companies in the PRC, list of IMAX venues and list of airports in the PRC, she/he can tell who's actually paused reverting.

The trouble with user:Alanmak is something quite different and irrelevant here. I've suggested at his talk page on how we can let readers to choose themselves which pronunciation guide to be displayed, but he's not responding and keeps getting around removing things he doesn't like. Meanwhile, in what way is this link [58] (Joestynes) relevant? — Instantnood 06:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting when you specifically said "she/he can tell who's actually paused reverting". In other words, you consciously and intentionally "paused the reverts" to score points later on, such as right now when your behavior is being reported?--Huaiwei 14:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No. Just that I am conscious of my behaviour and I know disruption must be avoided. I won't insist to display a version that is in line with my preference, as some people may do. — Instantnood 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Which then once again confirms the long-held suspicion that you consciously game the system particularly with regards to the 3RR rule. Why do you need to do three reverts before realising it is being distruptive? Even one revert made to counter a content dispute is already undesirable and disruptive. How do you explain your consistant habits in reverting reverts with or without the arbcom ruling?--Huaiwei 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The reverts were results of your persistance in making contentious edits to turn articles into what you prefer. You don't stop until the articles fulfil your preference, but I do. I stop and I request for comment from the community, or try to sort them out through discussions on talk pages, including user talk pages. — Instantnood 16:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Hong Kong and Macau had their own sections for months before Huaiwei's edit". It has been said before, that time is of no consequence here. Just because you sneaked in a contentious edit, and no one noticed it till 100 years later does not render it any less contentious. "Huaiwei was the only person who disputed with the entries". If I was indeed the only one disapproving of any edit, why whould they appear in this page then? I would think admin action is needed here as well, and applicable to all parties involved.--Huaiwei 12:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Most vandalism to Wikipedia is reverted within 5 minutes ([59] [60] [61]). I'd doubt if any contentious or POV-pushing edit could be noticed by nobody and remain for a long time. My comment "Huaiwei was the only person who disputed with the entries" was made specifically to the national dish article. — Instantnood 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That vandalism s are reverted in 5 minutes does not give you any justification in saying others must similarly respond in 5 minutes to all of your contentious disputes. Vandalisms are relatively easy to detect, and anyone with any POV can notice and remove them. Can you say the same for content disputes? And I am astonished that you cannot seem to decipher the difference between vandalism and content disputes. Do you consider all those who edit against your agenda as inherently vandals, come to think of it? Meanwhile if I was the only person who "disputes entries" in national dish, why is it being brought up in this page? You have not explained this interesting phenomena.--Huaiwei 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing and contentious edits may not be easily noticed within five minutes as vandalism does, but definitely they won't stay long before being found, not to mention 100 years. I have no comment on why SchmuckyTheCat brought national dish up on this page. — Instantnood 16:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

We fight off link spammers all the time. What about users who link to their site in their signatures? See: Stirling Newberry (talk · contribs). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 04:26

It would be a really, really bad idea to allow links to external sites in sig files. They're just abusing the system... it's nothing but spam through and through. Link on their user page, meh, link on every talk page they add to = free advertising. Our existing rules should be enough to forbid this outright. DreamGuy 07:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See his hostile comment on User talk:Zocky after Zocky explained what the problem was and asked him to remove the link

"On the day that there is policy against it, I will change it. You can read up on my talk page about the kind of people who have complained about it in the past, and why I have zero respect for the suggestion, however offered."

It is generally understood that even though something may not be written in policy, it doesn't mean that it is acceptable. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 14:08

Too right. I don't see anything on his talk page about the matter; has it been archived? android79 14:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This one needs to die, quickly. Stirling is an excellent contributor, but using Wikipedia to linkspam Google is just not on. He's been asked politely, and he's been really quite rude about it. I think an RfC wouldn't go astray right now. Ambi 14:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite the several complaints on his talk page, he is still using it in his signature. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-9 17:51

I agree with your concerns; has anyone but Sterling ever defended the practice? Let me know if there's any way I can contribute to resolving the issue. Postdlf 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked users for spamming before and on first glance I see no difference here. If I were an interested administrator, I would probably warn him that continuing to post sigs with his link would result in a block, work my way through the equivalent of the {{spam1}} through {{spam4}} templates, and then finally block 24 hours (and have blocks of increasing duration after that). I would imagine the community of admins would ratify this approach if it's really as serious as stated.

Anyway, count me as a vote for "warn, threaten to block, and then block" if he's spamming. It's been done before, and I don't think it has to go all the way to the Arbcom to get permission. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If there is no written policy against such links in signatures, there should be. No one wants instruction creep but this seems to me to be an easy rule to state in black and white (or whatever other color we want it in): No links to outside URLs in signatures. -- DS1953 19:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, though I think internal external links should be allowed - I've had one for ages and no-one's complained yet... -- Francs2000   20:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen a number of editors use external links to Wikipedia for reasons similar to yours, which is why I specified links to outside URLs rather than all external links. -- DS1953 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I echo Jdavidb: Warn, threaten to block, and then block. No need for spam. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be ignoring the efforts of Zocky and others, so I fully endorse Jdavidb and LV's solution. Ambi 06:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold. Please see Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer (#7). If I erred, take it to the talk page. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

No external links is now a part of the Sign your posts on talk pages guideline. Please do not use this as an excuse to escalate the conflict or even block the valuable contributor: he will obviously give up once he realises that all links in his signatures are going to be removed.

As an important aside, we need to stop the recent practice of bringing site-wide policy issues to the Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages to discuss. Use the Village pump instead. That's what it's there for. Zocky 02:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

He's still using the link in his signature. I've temporarily blocked for 12 hours. If he replies on his talk page, stating that he has removed the link from his signature, please unblock immediately. --BRIAN0918 15:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 15:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Chaosfeary (talk · contribs) has been moving large numbers of pages, including switches from one regional spelling to another. See [62]. I at least consider this pretty darn inappropriate, and told him so. -- SCZenz 22:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since this behavior started almost immediately after his previous disruption block expired, I have blocked him again, this time for a week. I admit that the previous block of 24 hours was probably far too short. In addition to the large number of inappropriate page moves (including at least one cut-and-paste), he also changed other users' signed comments [63]. Carbonite | Talk 22:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) He's taken is spelling-change war other pages, mass-changing other user's comments (movies -> films) in this edit. I've blocked him for a week, as he made no attempt to discuss the changes SCZenz mentioned, despite being asked by several users. There's plenty of evidence he's bent on disruption (in addition to yesterday's serious vandalism). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just more in a long line of disruption from this user. Might be time for an RfC, if one so wishes.--Sean|Black 22:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If there's any more trouble, I think we should just block the account indefinitely. I see no point in wasting our time with dispute resolution because there seems to be no good faith on his part. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, because my interaction has been limited (I just got an email, though. Those who commented on his talk page should check), but if you feel that's necessary I wouldn't object. I probably would have done so myself after the Nazi/Christianity thing had it been a newer account.--Sean|Black 22:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I finished off the reversion of his fiber optic → fibre optic moves. I'm not sure whether or not to revert the moves of 'movie' to 'film' categories, since I'm not sure whether this was discussed anywhere beforehand (haven't gone back that far in the user's history). Probably not, but ... —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:21, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, the charming little fella finished up with this lovely edit. If this isn't a reincarnation of user:Irate, they must have gone to the same finishing school in the Swiss alps. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone earlier on my talk page accused him of being USer:Enviroknot, who has been banned already. At the time I didn't think so, as my only interaction with him was on Poison ivy, where he had a weird idea but was trying to follow move policy and didn;t launch into a profanity-fueled falmefest when I disagreed with him, so I figured it couldn;t be. But I do see that he did make a lot of edits to Islamofascist, which is prime Enviroknot territory. If he is Enviroknot then that'd end any debate on whether to red tape was needed to block him, as he is already supposed to be blocked. DreamGuy 12:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, CheckUser showed that he was not Enviroknot.--Sean|Black 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I believe it established that he was working from an open proxy. Please check with an admin on this, though, as I don't have the cite. I have been subjected to abuse by both names, and am not exactly an unbiased party. 21:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• PS: If it were up to me, I would move to have him blocked indefinitely post haste. Please check the extremely suspicious edit history at User:FluffyPinkKittensOfDoom, which instantly followed his being barred for 3RR.BYT 21:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that a past edit of Donny & Marie may need to be deleted from the history due to potentially libelous content. The particular edit I am referring to is [64]. The same accusation was apparently not noticed by other editors and was retained in succeeding edits [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Note that only the first cited edit made the offensive claim; the other edits left that claim in, but did not amplify or change it. This was previously mentioned on WP:AN but received no response there. --Metropolitan90 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any policy which allows for the deletion of edits based on their being potentially libelous. A precident seems to have been set for the deletion of edits which contain nonpublic personal information, such as addresses and phone numbers, but I don't think that's been extended to libel. I do note that John Seigenthaler Sr. was entirely deleted and restarted on the grounds of libel, at the express fiat of Jimbo; I don't think that sets a precident by itself, as there remain thousands of articles (not least George W. Bush) whose histories contain all kinds of silly scandalous whatnot. I expect that, in order for the deletions to suggest to be actioned, someone would need to cite such an exisitng policy or precident (that I'm not aware of), undertake the process of establishing such a policy, or appeal to Jimbo. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I watched John Seigenthaler Sr.'s appearance on C-Span's Washington Journal this morning. He places a great deal of emphasis on defamatory information which remains in page history, even emphasizing a complaint that deleted pages are still available to a large number of anonymous administrators. He feels this a fundamental flaw in our system which needs to be fixed. Deleting the article puts the page history beyond public view, but not beyond the view of our administrators. Of course to save the content of the current article it is used to populate the new article after deletion. I guess the question is whether any person who is the subject of defamation in a Wikipedia article is entitled to at least as much deletion of page history as was done in the case of John Seigenthaler Sr.? Is John Seigenthaler Sr. entitled to yet another purging of page history? Would anyone in similar circumstances be? John Seigenthaler Sr. rightly points out that not everyone maligned on Wikipedia has access to the editorial page of USA Today. It is hard to argue that we should ignore the complaints of others on the basis that they don't have the power to make an effective complaint in the media. Fred Bauder 02:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course not every article subject has access to the editorial page of USA Today - but that's irrelevent. Siegenthaler's editorial wasn't what got the error fixed - his pointing it out was. Phil Sandifer 05:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If some living person comes to Wikipedia with the request that any libel contained in an articles history should be removed, where is the harm? Even without such a request, could we not just scroll through an articles history and pick out the blatent edits for deletion? As we are normally removing nonsense and vandalism as a matter of course, it is only sensible that valid, topical and useful articles also be afforded some "housekeeping" on a periodic basis. Particularly the articles that have caught the brunt of "bad editing". Perhaps only certain editors designated by the community could finalize the decision and process on which articles are to be afforded this "restarting". I would submit that if such articles were submitted to a two or three part "peer review", the offending edits would be relatively easy to identify and eliminate from the page history. On the other hand (and I don't know this for a fact), the possibility of a total absence of legal liability concerning Wikipedia (you and me), the Foundation, or Jimbo Hisself may negate any concern I have concerning libelous content. Then article/page history deletion becomes a matter of performing singular acts of kindness toward particular individuals (read:Siegenthaler).Hamster Sandwich 02:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, have you thought about how much of a literally Wiki-stopping pain the rear it would be if GWB asked us to do this for his biography? -Splash^talk 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Not til just now, and I concede that it would be huge PIA. Now as per Findley, I agree with a change of venue. Just point. Hamster Sandwich 11:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectfully, discussions about whether there should or should not be a policy for selective deletions of libelous revisions (and the logical, legal, and practical ramifications thereof) shouldn't take place on this page, where its audience is limited, but rather on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), where the whole community can participate. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I admit to bafflement about the importance of this, particularly in terms of Siegenthaler's argument. He says that the marketplace of ideas will take care of Wikipedia, but seems oddly concerned that it will not take care of a discarded edit in the history of his article saying that "He has long been considered a suspect in the thievery of various forms of pottery in Iraq. He is an outspoken opponent of everything good and a proponent of evil." Because, what, children can go and meticulously read his article history to find libelous statements? Surely anyone committed enough to finding absurd things said about public figuers can invent far better libel than that anyway.

I recognize that the Siegenthaler issue and the sudden public spotlight requires us to rethink some things. But surely we can think intelligently about them. Phil Sandifer 05:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And maybe we should purge the minds of all who have seen the libelous versions? No, no, no, a hundred times no to newspeak. For what it's worth I am strongly opposed to any deletion of history, for the reasons I stated here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough of this crap. We've kissed Siegenthaler's ass far too much already. Firebug 02:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's words should clear up any confusion on the matter:

"It has always been our policy to delete libellous revisions and there is nothing about this case which is any different. The idea that we have to keep every single version of everything, whether legal or not, is simply preposterous. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of it, but specific versions of articles are routinely removed by admins when they contain libel, personal information, etc."

So, it is easy to see that libellous edits should be deleted. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 02:31

Although I agree with Phil Sandifer's common-sense approach, unfortunately we have a legal question here, and that means that no matter how much we may disagree with it, we must conform to the law. That means storing libelous edits in the edit history have to be removed. When the legal interpretation is this clear, there is no room for discussion or philosophizing about what to do. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Can a neutral admin take a look at Zen-master (talk · contribs)'s behavior at Talk:Conspiracy theory? I'm starting to lose my patience with him. Thanks.--Sean|Black 02:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your concern exactly? When an article is disputed, the {npov} template is generally added to it. zen master T 02:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not that. You're editing of the article has been mostly fine, but the way we're running in circles on the talk page is what I have a problem with.--Sean|Black 07:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this more of a Mediation/RfC request?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

He's already been the subject of an RFAr for disruptive editing of Race and intelligence and as I understand it, the Arbcom is in the process of extending his disruptive editing probation to all articles. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Pinchofhope (talk · contribs) has performed a couple of page moves, I am not sure they are being done correctly or appropriately.

• Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
• Spike (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
• Drusilla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
• Darla (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
• a bunch of Potential Slayers

oh man... looking at her contribs, the list goes on. Anyway I can't see any discussion of this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buffy, she's not using edit summaries and is changing the names to things that are less specific and thus less informative. I've left a note on her Talk page, but I just want to post a heads-up now in case a ton of work needs to be undone. Thanks pfctdayelise 03:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

User has made no page moves [72]. Cut and paste moves? Jkelly 03:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Regardless of whether the new names are appropriate or not, these all have to be reverted. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, I've caught them all but we now have duplicate information in the articles she cut and pasted all of the data into. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've dropped a redirect on Faith Lehane pointing to Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ionn-Korr is editing several greek-myth article talk pages, espousing what are generously describable as "fringe theories", and appear to be original research. While this wouldn't be a concern in a popular subject area (e.g. modern politics, or George Bush, Tony Blair, etc.), so any odd fringe theories are easily qualified, rather than becoming presented as the truth, very few people edit the greek-myth articles, and they do so irregularly. My concern is that Ionn-Korr will, if there is insufficient response to each of his suggestions, attempt to add his extremely dubious opinions into the articles as if they were fact, which would result in this area of wikipedia becoming a laughing stock. Any suggestions of what should be done? --Victim of signature fascism 19:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds related to this guy. One has to wonder how many others are out there who do similar things but aren't caught. Sortan 19:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've spotted him on a few article talk pages but basically just ignored them because it didn't seem like he was actually going to edit any articles. Talk pages are usually filled with weirdness anyway. If he does change article content in objectionable ways, undo it and warn him about WP:NOR and WP:V and whatever is appropriate. If you spot him editing a page you can then check his history again. If he ever does start making a bunch of changes and you need another person to help, flag me down, or someone else with a background in the field. For example, I've had my conflicts with User:Wetman and User:elvenscout742 (as well as yourself, ~Ril~), but despite our differences we can all work together if one of us spots something big that needs fixing, and those are just two who spring to mind. DreamGuy 10:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to look up info on Sapiosexual, which was not found on Wikipedia, so I created an account and added it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiosexual but it seems to have been deleted.

The reason is "vandalism; personal attack", but not sure how that is, since the guy who came up with the term has requested it be used whenever possible (as seen on the external link to his own page about it).

Of course I'm new here, and if I didn't do something correctly please let me know how it should have been done.

thanks, David

It would be best take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, but it probably won't be undeleted. Having said that, it doesn't seem to meet the criteria for speedy deletion that it was deleted under, but it probably wouldn't survive if it were listed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.--Sean|Black 21:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So, I'm not sure what to do about it then. We have Metrosexual in Wikipedia, so why not Sapiosexual ? If listing it here is not what is meant by "deletion review" then I have no idea how to actually DO that even though I've read that page 3 times now :) There doesn't seem to be an intuitive textbox for "add stuff for review here". *shrug* Rock808 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied at User's talk page.--Sean|Black 21:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

... and he remade the previously deleted Wikifiddler. -- Perfecto 03:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have been corresponding with User:Gaddy1975 on the Wikimedia Help Desk. Lucky 6.9 placed an indefinite ban on him on 5 December for being a sock puppet posting a copyvio of information on the fish species Cichlasoma urophthalmus under that user name after previously being warned as an anonymous user. Gaddy1975 claims that the information is from his masters paper but has offered to rework the paper.

It strikes me as a case of a clueless newby doing the wrong thing at the wrong time rather than a person aiming to disrupt the system deliberately. I am therefore thinking of unblocking this user. I have placed a message on Lucky 6.9's talk page to seek his views but would be grateful for the views of other admins. I intend to reply to him saying that we would be grateful if he could rework the article providing verifiable references and would appreciate the views of other admins. Capitalistroadster 04:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have heard from Lucky 6.9 that he has no problems with it. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I don't see a problem with this. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. --HappyCamper 16:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Something fishy happening at John Fullerton and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Fullerton. The guy may be mildly notable, but it feels like a bunch of students trying to rig an afd and hype their PE teacher as an influential sporting and political figure. Tearlach 20:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On mumps I've run into a particularly unpleasant editor (81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs)) who has decided it would be nice to try verify my professional registration with the General Medical Council and to publish the fact that this registration cannot be verified[73]. A previous attempt is documented at this RFC. I think this amounts to harrasment and I would like to see this user banned indefinitely. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 3 hours while I evaluate the situation. Other admins are, of course, welcome to investigate or take action. Nandesuka 21:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Nandesuka. The RFC incident was a few weeks ago. This user has reacted most violently to the mildest opposition, has been engaging in name-calling and aggressive personal attacks. I forgot to mention that he also queried the Dutch medical register. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked User:81.111.172.198 for 4 days for disruption and stalking, and left a detailed note on their talk page explaining the relevant standards. I personally am not comfortable imposing an indefinite block at this time, although if the level of hostility continues to escalate, I might change my mind. Other admins are free to examine my rationale on their talk page, and/or revise the length of the block, of course. Nandesuka 21:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing - 81.111.172.198 (talk · contribs) is apparently blocked, yet is... er... editing here, per comments below. I'm not quite sure what's going on there, since the original 3-hour block shouldn't have expired yet; someone more au fait with the system might want to have a look at that. Shimgray | talk | 23:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dutch register too? Well, they're enthusiastic at least. On the other hand, if we're going to have cranks stalking people through the GMC database, it's probably best that they're cranks who don't know how to actually find someone in it... ;-) Shimgray | talk | 22:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a bit bizarre, and frankly a bit frightening. As a matter of fact, doctors who are under investigation are not shown on the GMC page. It's only a matter of minutes before 81.111.172.198 suggests I am under investigation for malpractice :-). JFW | T@lk 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The following is the text placed on the Nandesuka User Talk page. I also note further allegations are made on this page for which no evidence of any kind is presented and which allegations are fallacious.

"Totally Inappropriate 4 Day Block"

"Your actions in imposing a 4 day block is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Firstly you make a number of allegations which are simply not borne out by the facts. Secondly, you made absolutely no effort whatsoever to investigate the matter either properly or at all. And thirdly, you did not seek my comments at any point. You acted unilaterally and make allegations that no one has ever made and which are simply fallacious."

"The main reason you give for imposing a 4 day block is wholly wrong. You claim I do not identify what it is that is POV. However, I have identified that material and made strenuous polite and civil efforts to make sure it is crystal clear."

"You in fact admit you know absolutely nothing about the topic concerned so you are in no position to judge."

"In relation to the allegations you make, you provide no evidence whatsoever nor any examples."

"I therefore ask you, as an administrator which is the appropriate mechanism for taking this matter to a resolution."

"Further, as you impose a 4 day block that allows me no opportunity to make any representations as all effort at editing will be blocked."

Additionally, it is a serious matter that someone editing medical material and claiming on Wikipedia to be a medical doctor registered to practice in the UK and from the Netherlands is on neither register. It is incorrect to claim the User concerned has never used that to justify her edits. It is further a simple matter to demonstrate by internet searches. The User concerned has never denied she is on neither register but maintains such a claim nonetheless.

I look forward to hearing from you.

81.111.172.198 23:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Nandesuka? You sure you worked the block button right? User is consistently assuming bad faith and calling names on Talk:Mumps. Block is needed to enforce cooling-down period. Hermione1980 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You know that part of the block page that says "Hey, stupid, don't type "User:"?" I always ignore that part, apparently because I am terminally stupid. Anyway, I re-applied the block, as 3 days + 16 hours from now.Nandesuka 23:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[1] A blocked user is not supposed to be editing anything other than their own talk page. (In fact, they're not supposed to be able to, if blocked!)

[2] blocked users may appeal their blocks on their own talk page, or on the mailing list

[3] you're not entitled to personal information regarding any particular Wikipedia contributor. Your inability to find that information is reassuring, for those who care about privacy, but your inability to find that information doesn't mean it doesn't exist. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

DrBat was blocked for 3RR on Zatanna, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:DrBat

Less than an hour after the ban for 3RR got made User:DrBat started editing with User:200.162.245.104 again!

• 2005-12-10 18:21:12 DrBat (why?) - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=30840103
• 2005-12-10 19:13:44 200.162.245.104 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zatanna&oldid=30845

For proof that he is 200.162.245.104 see here:

• He edits as DrBat, is reverted and accused of vandalism then
• he as the anon IP reverts to his verson again saying "I have never vandalised, look at my contributions" etc -

By saying this he is saying he is also DrBat, because he is saying he as DrBat, is not a vandal

I read his talk page and there's a link to this there too: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling where it describes stuff like he habitually hacks the blocks so yeah

(as an aside, one admin has recommended I change my name due to length, I would like to know is there any problem with it other than aesthetic reasons? I mean, sure, it doesn't look as "tidy" as a smaller one maybe but no problems other than that, right?)

New to wikipedia but it rocks so far. just really pity the ban system obviously doesn't work as well as it should do if people can hack it so easily.

He's unbanned now but perhaps he should be banned again since he hacked his way past the ban and ignored it anyway carrying on to breach 3RR (and so no real effect..)? Voice Of All (MTG) blocked him for 72 hours then unblocked him, see my talk page - he got confused thinking the anon edit was AFTER the ban wore off but if you look at the edit history that's clearly not the case, so I think maybe that ban should be put back? I dunno.

--Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You're just making a lot of assumptions. I don't have the proper technology to change my IP address. You're really assuming a lot.

Creating other usernames isnt the same as hacking or changing your IP address (as mentioned in ArbCom. And concerning Catwoman; the mentioned user who you think I am was changing the cover of Catwoman #1 (which I uploaded) to #46 (which I didn't want, and reverted). Check out the edit history for yourself.--DrBat 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you ask: your username does require a lot of bytes, and thus strikes me as having a low S/N ratio. A higher S/N ratio, however, than a great number of shorter usernames once these are prettified (?) in signatures via clunky markup. (The worst are sigs that include graphics.) -- Hoary 02:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you ask as well, I highly recommend that you create a new account with a less offensive user name. Having a long user name doesn't really matter; however, your user name can be percieved as offensive by some people. Thus, I strongly urge you to switch names by creating a new account. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree: your name is long, awkward, and may rub people the wrong way. While technially not "illegal", it can benefit form some serious shortening. Oh, an dregarding the blocks: it's not so much that the block system is broken: they are limited by the "physical laws" of the Internet. We can only block a particular name and/or IP address, and one need only to change his IP address to evade it. Simply put, there's nothing anybody can do about it. – ClockworkSoul 02:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: my name: Please discussion to my talk page!! From now on (just so it doesn't clutter this more important at the moment issue) (my message to be replied to at my talk page, please please is: Who exactly could it offend? I'm interested.. I am obviously using the b-tch in an empowering sense rather than well, insulting myself (lol) - think people that go around calling themselves "queers" and "dykes" when it used to be thought of as an insult. shrug. Would this also mean it would be unsuitable for a gay wikipedian to proclaim themselves a "queer" in their username or user page? also what is a S/N ratio sorry, I have no idea. maybe you should ban people with pictures in their signatures instead if my name is LESS of a problem than theirs computerwise)

regarding ban evading: [74]

Hope he doesn't escape out of this, it's mentioned that he knows how to change his ip/make fake accounts in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:_DrBat_--_continuing_breaches_of_previous_ArbCom_ruling so yeah

--Red-skinned femme-fatale black-latex-clad b-tch from Hell 02:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating other usernames isnt the same as creating another IP addresses. Neither of the usernames' edits were in anyway related to the edits made in my DrBat account.

The mentioned user (who you think I am) once changed the cover of Catwoman #1 (which I uploaded) to #46 (a hughes picture which I didn't want, and reverted). You can also check out the Catwoman article and talk page to see how I was adamant in not having Hughes images, and having the first issue of the new volume. Then why would I make an edit removing the #1 image and replace it with one of the Hughes images? Do I suffer from multiple personality disorder or something? And why would I even try evading the ban in the first place if it was for only 24 hours? That's like a guy being in jail for a week, escaping, and being put back for a year. Common sense. [75] --DrBat 02:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the other user saying 'Im not a vandal' was due to his edits being referred to as vandalism, not mine. --DrBat 03:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What (if any) rules govern what content is acceptable on user pages? User:Cognition has a lengthy, illustrated screed branding numerous political, religious, and philosophical figures as "beast-men", Nazis, and satanists. In my opinion, this is in very poor taste and highly unencyclopedic. I know that we do not hold user pages to the same standard as articles, but this should fail to clear any hurdle for acceptability. Crotalus horridus 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen worse. All of the "beast-men" are long dead or are public figures, and AFAIK none are Wikipedia editors, so he doesn't run afoul of WP:NPA or libel problems. Look at it this way: it gives you a very good idea of his POV on many different topics. android79 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, calling the ruling Queen of England a whore isnt exactly WP:CIVIL either... Frankly this user has me quite concerned. Statements like "The Beatles, a product shaped according to British Psychological Warfare Division to ruin the youth" shows this user to be a potentially mentally unstable conspiracy theorist (we've had enough of them already) as such I would personally question (and certainly be afraid to rely upon) all of this users contributions to the project.  ALKIVAR™  06:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Terrible judgment. The Rolling Stones have a much greater capacity to ruin youth. ;) · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, H.G. Wells is "Satanic"? Weird. In any case, see LaRouche Movement (to which Cognition belongs) for more of this stuff.--Sean|Black 06:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I wanted to point out that this is not a new issue: Its been mentioned, discussed, and/or warned against on his user page many times before. (I personally have no opinion on this matter, but just wanted to make sure this was seen by people reviewing it). -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Lanoitarus is correct. To User:Android79 I'd note that he has posted editor's pictures with negative comments in the captions a couple of times previously, which he's addressed only reluctantly. Note also that many of the images are being used improperly, with some marked "fair use" though that is not considered proper for user-page images and with others improperly labelled as PD or GFDL. However those are the only policies that I know of which have been violated. I suppose Android is right, there is a certain benefit when editors demonstrate their POV openly so that other editors can be aware of them. (here's another classic bit: "the Beatles, generals of a literal 'British Invasion,' doped-up zombie devils whose atrocious personal lives matched the Satanic musical presentation of their pop songs."). Cheers, -Willmcw 08:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to get nit-picky, you could say the whole thing violates Wikipedia:User Pages: "Generally, you should avoid substantial content on your user page that is unrelated to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a general hosting service, so your user page is not a personal homepage.". However since this rule seems to be loosely applied (at best) to other pages, I know I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it. The copyrighted images definitely need to be removed from his page, fair use does not apply to user pages. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 09:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

PoetryForEveryone has added links to http://www.bryantmcgill.com/World_Poetry/ from dozens of poetry articles in the last few hours. I've just rolled them back, but this needs watching by others too (see my and his talk page). --ajn (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

_{The following was floating in the above section and appears to be unrelated, so I've given its own section. - Lanotiarus}

Please undelete my entry "ready lube" as it was deleted by "Brookie" because they thought it was "wierd". I have no idea what would be wierd about a natural personal lubricant, but thats what was said. If you can please undelete it that would be great! Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readylube (talk • contribs)

• It appears the material on Ready lube was a copy of the stuff you had on your userpage. So far, all your edits pertain this product, so you appear to be using Wikipedia to promote your product which is explicitly forbidden by policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently violated his 1/7RR on Longbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)–

• Original: 02:54, December 12, 2005
• 1st revert: 03:15, December 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:20, December 12, 2005

I warned him in the edit summary of my previous revert of his 1/7RR, and he was informed that the ArbCom had reached their final decision in his case with them. His response indicates he has no intention of changing his ways. —Locke Cole 11:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Quite true. However, the fact that Locke Cole has no prior editing history at that page (OR the Jeremy Clarkson page he complains about below) strongly suggests that his reversion of Pigsonthewing's edits were made SOLELY with the purpose of goading Pigsonthewing into violating this restriction. That is the WORST sort of WP:POINT violation and symptomatic of the ongoing egregious harassment against Pigsonthewing. Yes, it's bad that Pigsonthewing will not abide by rulings against him. But given the fact that others have REPEATEDLY made numerous violations against him without any sort of repercussions his behaviour is understandable, if unfortunate. --CBD ☎ ^✉ 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

He left me a message on my talk page which made me aware of the fact that his last block had expired. As I was aware that the ArbCom had informed him of their decision, I was curious if he was trying to change his ways. As I soon realized, he wasn't: his first edits were to revert to his preferred version of articles. In the case of Longbridge, that included removing a photo from an article that, in my opinion, seems fine given the subject discussed. I reverted the article back to include the photo, and he immediately reverted my revert of his edit, not even attempting to discuss the matter at the article talk page. I was not, as you suggest, trying to goad him into violating his restriction. —Locke Cole 12:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And another violation on Jeremy Clarkson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)–

• Original: 02:12, December 12, 2005
• 1st revert: 03:15, December 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:23, December 12, 2005

I had hoped the ArbCom decision might make him more willing to use the talk page to discuss disputes rather than revert warring... —Locke Cole 11:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That would be the arbcom decision which found that this user is not here, discounting all the evidence to the contrary? What this says about their ability or fitness to conduct their business I will leave for the reader to decide. Andy Mabbett 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it's unfortunate really that you chose to totally ignore the Arbcom and not contribute evidence of your own. Perhaps you could have changed the outcome by showing that you respected Wikipedias dispute resolution processes. Pity. —Locke Cole 11:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours. Possibly should have been longer. David | Talk 11:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)