Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive276

History: A week ago, on 16 July, JoshuaZ filed a proposal to ban Iantresman. Five hours later admin Tom harrison blocked Iantresman indefinitely. He did not give his reasons at the time and in fact has not participated in the discussion before or since. On the contrary, he says he does "not plan to spend any more time on it".

My complaint: As expressed in my first and later contributions to the discussion, I consider the blocking of Iantresman after just five hours to be unnecessarily prompt, unfair to him, and detrimental to a reasoned discussion, but my primary complaint is Tom harrison's refusal to explain and justify his action. If he has spent the requisite diligence to ban a user, then he owes it to that user and the community to explain his reasoning. Anything else smacks of abuse of administrative privileges.

Requested action: I would like an admin to (1) unblock Iantresman until such time that cogent arguments for the necessity of a ban are put forward, and (2) take a wooden ruler and rap Tom harrison firmly on the knuckles.

--Art Carlson 08:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the arguments there in support of blocking Iantresman were accurate and Tom Harrison did the block and had community support for doing so.--MONGO 08:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it up Art. Iantresman wore out the community's patience. Shell ^babelfish 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

If Iantresman wants to appeal his block on the grounds of wrongful or overprompt action then he should use the facility in the block notice. There is no need for third party intervention. Perhaps Tom Harrison was not acting in strictest accordance with WP:CIVIL, but that is no reason to overturn the block in question. Please can we end this here, now? LessHeard vanU 12:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

indeed: WP:CS was created so that such discussions are conducted there, not here. What is the point if we're still duplicating them on AN/I? dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee by emailing one or more members using Wikipedia's email this user function or at the email addresses shown at WP:AC. Thatcher131 14:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that the admins do not hold themselves to higher standards of transparency (not to mention courtesy). I guess I'll get over it. --Art Carlson 07:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A determined editor who does not like the category about a moth ago de populated the entire category but was reverted by admin User:Pascal.Tesson and warned to take it to XFD, if he disliked the category. He has done it agin and this time after depoplating it has gotten it speedily removed without and XFD. I have recreated the category with the edit summary saying that it was deleted without an XFD. I have informed the admin who speedily deleted it that it should be put up for XFD insted. I am more than willing to go by true consensus not by personal dislikes and likes of a subject matter. I have reverted many edits of the above mention user User:SqueakBox. I think I dont want to do more as it may violate WP:Stalk. I want quick admin action over it as he has shown that he will revert his way to his desired outcome. Thanks Taprobanus 16:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The best course of action would be to take it to Deletion review. Simply recreating it something usually results in delete/undelete wars, which is defenitely not desireable. --Edokter (Talk) 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put it up on WP:CFD instead; I doubt this will end up in a wheel war. As far as I know, Zscout370 is a perfectly reasonable person :-) ugen64 16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't implying anything... :) --Edokter (Talk) 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks lioke trolling to me, DRV yes this is almost wheeklwarring and I would have thought a short block on Taprobanus (talk · contribs) would be entirely appro[priate. After all the cat is used in many u8nosurced articles and outs living rape victims. Is this what we want, the encyclopedia that trolls innocent people? SqueakBox 19:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So that I cannot make my arguments in the CFD. Pretty smart move. Thanks Taprobanus 19:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I said a short block, that wouldnt prevent such a thing. Well done for making it clear that living people should not be in the cat and hope you well help me police it over the coming years (assuming the deletion fails), SqueakBox 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes ofcourse, will you then change your vote ? thanks Taprobanus 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm really disappointed in SqueakBox's attitude here. A month ago, I asked him nicely to stop depopulating the cat and submit the whole thing to CfD. No answer. Then after laying low for a while he goes at it again hoping no one notices. This is not the wiki way. Pascal.Tesson 09:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

A user is constantly reverting some highly pov, ORish, and socially exclusive articles like Unnithan, Valiathan, Malayala Kshatriyas etc. in order to remove tags and reinsert stupid caps for what he calls proper names. Some of the articles are merely family history (eg. Kiriyathil Nair The user is an SPA here merely to push his narrow minded pov related to his caste. When unreferenced template is added he gives false reference like some random "State Manual" etc. which actually is no Reliable Source and which in all probability doesn't refer to the subject. His shying away from quoting relevant parts is suspicious. The fact that he is not able to cite a single RS or web resource for these fringe things speaks enough for him. 17:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He is refering to me above..Well he states that there is no web source for my Manuals...for one, they were published in 1906 and 1940 respectively and there is no real web source for these old books. have a google search for "Travancore State Manual" and you will find plenty of references...besides if ur still doubtful u may check out www.keralahistory.ac.in and its publication page for the books. I ordered my copies from that very source. Also it is said that the Kiriyathil Nair article is family history. I oppose this contention because while the Eleven original families belonging to that caste are indeed mentioned, today there are thousands of families under that class. Those are the original families mentioned in a collection of legends known as "Keralolpathi"...the article also clearly mentions that it is based on legends. The fact that such a group or caste exists also needs to be taken into consideration. He also says that Malayala Kshatriyas is OR...kindly check out the page number references given at the bottom of the article which will prove they come from a book. You also say that Unnithan, Valiathan etc dont need to be in capitals. Well they are titles of nobility and need to be in capitals. you also keep changing the title of Maharajah to maharajah etc. These are wrong. You state the Manuals to be an unreliable source. They are certainly far more reliable that your contentions because the first was authored by the Deputy Prime Minister of Travancore state and i would say he, being in his position, was certainly more qualified and in position to verify facts than you. It appears you havent heard of these books but search and you will find them. So what i want to say is that just because u dont find the references good enough, it doesnt mean they arent suitable references. Manu

you have been dealing with the banned User:Kuntan. you can ignore him. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey Blnguyen, Why don't you revert the banned user's edits? Check dysentery for example. You need to oblige him on that count, my boy.16:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

O! ok thanks for letting me know...Manu

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I'm User:Sprigot and a WP:SOCK has been raised against User:TharkunColl, and I've been nominated as his Sock.

Obviously I'm refruting the claim - which you can read here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/TharkunColl

The claim has been raised by User:Giggy on behalf of his 'adoptee' User:XAndreWx.

Giggy has just said (on the above suspect sock puppet page) that he raised the WP:SOCK against TharkunColl and I so that (in his words) we would "leave him alone" (meaning his adoptee, XAndreWx).

My only 'crime' against XAndreWx was to report him for WP:3RR - which was proven and he was blocked (not hard as he had been blocked once before, been unblocked and went on to be blocked again just two days later) - and to report him for being a suspected sock puppeteer - related to the consistant 3RR behaviour.

The relevant quote by Giggy (right at the end of this page) is:

"the purpose of this was to remind Tharkie and Sprig that their campaign against Andrew should stop. Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone"

Can someone direct me in the right direction for the reporting of mis-use of WP Procedure (specifically WP:SOCK) so that I can raise this issue with the appropriate authorities ?

I presume that waste of admin time by raising false WP:SOCK accusations is at least one of the issues - as is the libellous nature of the false WP:SOCK itself.

Otherwise admin intervention in this case would be very welcome. Sprigot 22:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While not commenting on the dispute itself, I think what you're talking about is WP:POINT. Confusing Manifestation 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi I'm here because I agree with User:Sprigot. That's right, it is WP:POINT it's also an extreme case of WP:BITE too, as Sprigot had only done a few edits before a formal accusation of being a sock puppet was aimed at him. To reiterate, this is how User:Giggy described his motivation for filing a sockpuppet accusation, complete with his own use of bold type:-

"Sure, it wasn't the best way to go about it...but that isn't the point. The point is leave him alone! "

The bold caps seemed somewhat threatening. All this, even entry of a sockpuppet page, was directed against a newcomer too. I feel some sort of admin action upon User:Giggy is in order.Merkinsmum 01:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell, Giggy has withdrawn his checkuser request and dropped the matter. It would be helpful if you were to do the same rather than seek punishment (which admins do not do). Neil ╦ 12:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Neil I don't want to seek punishment - but I do want to be vindicated (as not being a sock) - saying 'assmume' innocence is a bit much - isn't it supposed to be disproved ? I don't want the allegation of being a sock hanging over my head - perhaps if an admin could rule that I wasn't a sock it would bring some 'closure' to the matter. Sprigot 14:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't this send out the message to Giggy (and others) that it's OK to accuse people of Sock Puppeteering, via a formal route, because nothing happens if they do ? No warning of Disruptive (WP:POINT and WP:BITE) behaviour, no clam down don't be silly - no 'anything' ? Sprigot 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser is not allowed to be used to clear someone - this would be a violation of privacy. It is only used to confirm sockpuppet abuse when clear evidence of such exists. As such evidence does not exist in this instance, we assume you are not a sockpuppet. I am sure that if Giggy persists in making unfounded accusations he will be asked to stop. I would imagine he will read this, and will realise he shouldn't make accusations of sockery without compelling evidence in the future. Nothing is going to happen unless he carries on - admins are not the Punishment Committee. Neil ╦ 15:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Neil - I feel better now that you have put this into context for me - I appriciate the time you've taken to help here. Sprigot 15:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is currently edit warring over whether citations in the lead should be:

• a) mentioned with both interpretation given
• b) decouraged for stuff given in the article
• c) encouraged at all cost
• d) mentioned at all

I'm all in favor of it being covered (and I have reverted the removal of the section twice), but User:SlimVirgin and Jayjg are steadfastly removing the section. How the mention of the "summary" interpretation "encourages policy violation", I fail to see, but in any case, more people need to step in and watch the page if this is ever to solve. Circeus 23:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been going on for a year. Other editors have given up, left the project, and stopped editing policy pages altogether. Same story, different article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it funny how admins who really should know better - on both sides - each manage exactly 3 reverts before an ally steps in and takes up the revert button. This is known as "gaming" 3RR. Neil ╦ 15:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that article is a poster child for the Dmcdevit solution (1RR) once it's unprotected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jpgordon added info about Oprah Winfrey performing fellatio on a donkey, etc. [2]

Rillio 03:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't add them; he reverted your removal of other people's comments. Arguably some may be tasteless, but tampering or removing other people's comments is of utmost rudeness (unless they consist of blatant vandalism). —Kurykh 04:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i removed racist attacks on oprah, jpgordon added these back in. this is inexcusable. can someone in charge of this place do something? Rillio 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

What racist comments? —Kurykh 04:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And in case you didn't know, the person was saying that the comment about Oprah doing whatever with the donkey should be removed from the article. So I don't know what you're getting at. —Kurykh 04:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

that person was being sarcastic, obviously. swap "oprah" for "your mom" and i think you'll see that it is an attack on oprah Rillio 04:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Quit your bellyaching. Jpgordan didn't do anything wrong, move along. — Moe ε 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

)(ec) Actually, the comment was placed by an anonymous IP and was unsigned. At that time (July 14, 2007), the Oprah Winfrey page contained vandalism, which the anon obviously did not know how to fix. The vandalism was reverted about an hour after the above comment was left. I have added a header to the Oprah Winfrey talk page and context for the above note.[3] Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

so its ok for jpgordon to insert "oprah is a lesbian and a whore and sucks donkey dick"? i think this is really rude to oprah. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rillio (talk • contribs) 05:05, July 24, 2007 (UTC)

No one said that, so stop misinterpreting the comment. No one called Oprah that, let along Jpgordon. Let me modify the comment to make it clear:

Who ever wrote that "Oprah was a lesbian and a whore that could suck a donkeys dick" should change that, Oprah is a beautiful woman that helps all the neddy children. [Italics and quotes are mine]

I didn't have to do this, but it seems like I have to in order to stop this farcical complaint. —Kurykh 05:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Rillio seems to have some misconceptions about what is and what isn't appropriate here, and what may be done about it. Vide his edits to User talk:Deeceevoice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

Someone may want to take a look at this gem. I removed the fair use images, but someone may want to deal with the ridiculous soapboxing in that edit. I'm not feeling particularly forgiving right now, so I'd appreciate someone else having a look.--Isotope23 ^talk 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's just classic trolling. --Haemo 04:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• While I think he should be able to say what he likes, and it certainly isn't offensive, just a little incorrect. By the time WW2 rolled around we hadn't been allowed to own Negroes in 74 years. So it was hardly a case of maintaining the right to negro slaves. History is always bent though to support an opinion --Hayden5650 05:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• • You would say that Jews would be workers, not talk-show hosts like Jerry Springer is today, raking in big money for doing nothing but cracking jokes. isn't offensive? IrishGuy ^talk 10:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Not offensive? Please... That post was offensive on so many levels and I'm not even part of the ethnic groups he was disparaging. He's lucky I've the sense to post a notice here rather than just carry through with my first inclination.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with Irishguy and I have removed that post. BLP can be violated outside article namespaces and should be treated seriously, and that comment about Springer, was BLP, liable and any other thing we could toss at it Regardless, it wasn't for the benefit of this encyclopedia, and comments like that need to stay in the peanut gallery. — Moe ε 11:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

  Resolved

Admin intervention is requested in regards to the edit war currently in progress in the editing of the Pro-pedophile activism article. Three editors have repeatedly deleted almost the entire article without providing any legitimate reason for such a drastic action on the appropriate Talk Page. All attempts to encourage meaningful discussion have failed. The only reasons provided for the deletion of so much material were that the topic is not liked by these editors and that they think the entire article should be deleted. Since WP:IDONTLIKEIT clearly explains that personal opinions on a subject should carry no weight in the discussion of the topic's place in Wikipedia, and without legitimate justification of why an article should be deleted a deletion cannot go through, the repeated deletion of the majority of the text of this article is definitely unjustified. I would like to also point out that one of the editors engaged in this behavior has previously nominated this article for deletion. The resulting vote was "no consensus," with 18 votes for Keep (or 19 if counting one that read "Neutral, leaning keep") and 5 votes for Delete. Seeing as these editors have yet to provide sufficient basis for the drastic edit they would like to see occur to this article, and continue to engage in an edit war with editors who wish to discuss the proposed change on the Talk Page, admin intervention seems necessary. Could an admin please take a look into this issue and do something about this edit war? Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 06:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Standard remedy: full protection on the Wrong Version^TM. Hash it out at the relevant talk page at your (plural case intended) leisure. —Kurykh 06:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't look closely enough to see which side they're on, but it quite appears that Sdhrfr (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet, since they're spontaneously registering and leaping into the middle of a heated dispute right as people are hitting 3RR. Watch for autoblocks, or if anybody feels this was a bad move, feel free to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my $0.02 from my encounter at Lolicon, but SqueakBox has a history of engaging in POV edit waring. His particular statement that "NPOV condemns child pornography"[4] is particularly worrisome and makes me wonder if he can edit any related article in a neutral manner. --Farix (Talk) 15:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 8 outstanding 3rr reports on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. It would be great if someone could respond to these, thanks! Perspicacite 08:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me, I posted this first on another admin. board before realizing my mistake!

A sockpuppet of User:Mayor Quimby, one User:207.6.12.137, is back. This user's activities clearly indicate that the user is antithetical to the ideals of Wikipedia and its editors. The user's anon. IP sockpuppets were blocked for making legal threats, vandalism and being very disruptive. All editors are cautioned that this user is full of beans and is looking for confrontation, and so please be careful not to poke.

Here's the info on 207.6.12.137:

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

I would ask for one of two things:

• 1) Please block the IP 207.6.12.137.
• 2) and/or protect the following pages that the sockpuppets regularly target so that anon IPs cannot edit:

• Regina neighbourhoods
• Regina, Saskatchewan
• Pat Fiacco

It would be better to block the IP again, I think, because this user is bound and determined to use our encyclopædia project alternatively as a personal soapbox and vandalism playground. I also append a record of this user's history: [[5]] Thank you.Mumun 無文 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

IP has been blocked again, this time for two weeks. CitiCat ^♫ 13:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, CitiCat ^♫!! ^^ Mumun 無文 13:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is getting worrisome. Several IPs are making edits to the talk page that have little to do with the article itself but are ramblings and rants. This has persisted for some time and I think requires the attention of an admin. Examples

• diff 68.110.8.21
• diff 68.110.8.21
• [6] 71.235.81.32
• same rant User:76.28.91.54
• rant User:196.38.218.24
• rant User:71.235.88.168

These are just a few examples, overall the talk page is looking more like a forum or a blog. There is a similar pattern by some of the same editors on the Talk:White Latin American page.Muntuwandi 12:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You're free to remove any posts that are not in compliance with WP:TALK's general ideals about what is to be discussed there. You can remove these without admin assistance, correct? — Moe ε 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution: I've moved all talk page discussions to Talk:White Hispanic/Archive 1 and semi-protected the talkarchive. If you encounter anymore off-topic ranting, move it there. This will provide a disincentive for others to use the talk page as a forum and, hopefully, by the time semi-protection elapses, such antics will cease. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, i'll continue to observe the situation. Muntuwandi 13:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please deal with this user? I'm sick and tired of these personal attacks and continuous reverts ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). I made him note Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written like sports magazines' reports, with interviews, quotes, redundant statements and lots of external links. But all his answers are things like these. All I realize about the guy is that he is not interested at all to collaborate in the Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 14:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning. If he makes more personal attacks then report it here and someone will deal with it. ugen64 14:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Somali people article, 86.149.253.205 (talk · contribs) was repeatedly removing the "Prophet" honorific from Muhammad's name and changing "Somali diaspora" to "Somali infection" ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]). The former is actually a legitimate edit as per WP:MOSISLAM. The latter edit is vandalism and the IP (based in the UK) has since been blocked for 24 hours. Subsequently, 140.112.29.207 (talk · contribs) (based in Taiwan) made the same edit with a vengefully-worded edit summary ([18]). I blocked the new IP address, but I am planning on protecting the article if this continues. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. One admin suspects this anon. editor is banned user DavidYork71. -- Gyrofrog (talk)

Based in Taiwan? Hardly. I'm taking it to WP:OP. In any case, can I ask why you have brought this here? I don't see much to comment on. The Evil Spartan 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant the IP address is based in Taiwan. I'd already changed the block to indefinite based on Wikipedia:Open proxy detection. This was more of an alert than a request, I apologize if it is misplaced. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• 124.99.205.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) repeated editing of Fallujah with unsourced, personal commentary, not keeping with NPOV regarding "white phosphorous, nerve gas, mustard gas". Similar changes were already reverted at a previous time and there removal was agreed by consensus on Talk:Fallujah. User was warned repeatedly and is active and continues to edit after fifth and last warning given. heresthecasey | talk 15:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that this is vandalism. While the user might be having trouble with the syntax, he or she is citing references. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see it either. Just taking a quick glance, I don't see unsourced personal commentary. I see statements which have moved from borderline pov in the earlier edits to fairly neutral in the last edits which were backed by a BBC article and an Independent.co.uk article. Is there more discussion in one of the archives? I don't see where any strong consensus was formed on the talk page that the information couldn't be added if there was a reliable source with it. I only see where people were saying that it didn't belong because earlier mentions were based on "eyewitness accounts". Either way, I'd say this is more of a content dispute than a case of vandalism. --OnoremDil 15:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I have declined to issue a block on the same report at AIV. I see it as a good faith entry (and thus not vandalism) of a well sourced comment. I don't see personal commentary in the most recent version. - Philippe | Talk 15:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

82.33.32.160 (talk · contribs) is a static IP address that has only been used by Saintrotter (talk · contribs) aka Rastishka (talk · contribs), who was blocked indefinitely for persistent POV pushing, trolling and soapboxing on his userpage. Beginning this month, the static IP (which was not blocked along with the two usernames) has resumed editing and based on edit history is pretty clearly the same editor. IP makes tendentious edits centered around race [19], and is even signing his IP edits using his old BANNED username [20], [21], [22]. The IP has been blocked twice in the past. I think it's time for a permablock for this IP, as it is a static IP assigned only to this particular indefblocked user and leaving it open can result in nothing but more block avoidance. The Parsnip! 15:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a Checkuser case. [23]. The Parsnip! 17:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Several newly created, and seemingly single purpose accounts are active in the article History of India.

• Truthfulnesswins (talk · contribs)
• Truthalwaysprevails (talk · contribs)
• Doergood (talk · contribs)

--Ragib 18:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help with this problem, users Lahiru_k (talk · contribs) and snowolfd4 (talk · contribs) are have been repeatedly blanking my well intentioned comments on Wikipedia:Peer review on this page [24]. They have been constantly blanking my comments in tandem [[25]. They have also called me edits vandalism and trolling. The contents they had removed on this page LTTE had valid citations from reliable sources. Also I have added the totaly disputed tag, which they keep removing claiming its trolling and vandalism. I have provided ample reasoning for addition of the tags. Both users are unwilling to discuss or come with reason for their actions, apart unilateraly imposing it on everybody. Please help Sinhala freedom 19:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Said users have also been accused of violating WP:STALK. Snowulf4d has also removed warning from his talk page. Watchdogb 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Having a problem with a sockpuppet on a AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pitcavage. The sock nominated the article for deletion while bouncing between two IP's, one that traces back to Shaw, the other with no RDNS. They admitted both IP's were theirs, however claimed they were due to having a dynamic IP, which is false since Shaw's IP's would always resolve to Shaw.[26]

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

The puppet then attempted to insinuate after much arguing that he was the person in question Mark Pitcavage.[27] I think its pretty clear from the fact that Pitcavage is an adult, would have plenty of information on himself, and has not posted as himself so their would be no COI issue, that this is in fact not Pitcavage. Can these IP's be blocked for menacing and possibly close the AfD since it was nominated by a sock, if that is policy. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TrevASLer is the IP user; clearly a username just created to file the AFD. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

And all of them are socks of a long-established user. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If that is known for a fact, then perhaps a block is in order. I would just like the AfD to no longer be the victim of the sock puppets attacks and now, impersonations, which is probably the item that bothers me most. Luckily it was far from a convincing impersonation. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user in question was User:Michael Dorosh, whose last edit to his userpage is "I find it much more satisfying to make anonymous edits these days." I don't think creating a new user to nominate articles for deletion is an acceptable use of alternate accounts, nor is editing things as both that user and the IP (in addition to using his former username up until about a month ago). The attempt to pretend that he was Mark Pitcavage is also not really all that cool. I have blocked the sock. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The user Whenclaim made the following edits, in which s/he created introduction content that was copied and pasted directly from Encyclopedia Britannica:

• Scilla→Diff→Squill @ Encyclopedia Britannica
• Dextromethorphan→Diff→Dextromethorphan @ Britannica
• Neural tube defects→Diff→Neural tube defect @ Britannica

And these are just the contributions I took the time to check. I'm sure there's more. Also, for a new user, this person has been extremely active, like s/he is trying to make as many contributions as possible to gain a reputation, and seems very knowledgeable in using Wikipedia. I've seen behavior like this before in sock puppets, which is what I suspect here.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there some other way I should be reporting plagiarism? Should I not be reporting it at all?

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found the wp:plagiarism page. Sorry, I'll list there.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

23:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone want to swing by Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_23#Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Dramatica and close it--a sock of the blocked nominator now wants it closed and there's rather overwhelming support for the endorsed closure. It's peppered by ED trolls and sock play. — Scientizzle 23:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, ED is Good (talk · contribs) has gone ahead and closed it...that'll work, I guess. — Scientizzle 23:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...closure has been reverted... — Scientizzle 23:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for five days won't kill... —Kurykh 23:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Very slow and tedious edit war going on in which, every day or so, User:Omulazimoglu adds unsourced original research to Tobacco smoking#Islam without comment or explanation, and I revert it. This has happened several times (at least four, I think), but not often enough to trigger a 3RR violation.

I have left a warning on the editor's talk page explaining why I keep reverting him. The editor's only responses were to re-add the unsourced material back to the article without comment, and to leave a snarky comment on my talk page.

This editor seems to be a good-faith contributor to other articles (with minor exceptions) so I am hesitant to leave a level-4 "final warning" on this editor's talk page. He doesn't seem inclined to explain his edits, however, so the third opinion way of resolving disputes won't work. And he edits Wikipedia infrequently, so a short-term block will likely go unnoticed. -Amatulic 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he did it again, re-added his unsourced original research about Islam to tobacco smoking. without explaining why. I have left him a final warning. -Amatulic 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a low level revert war going on here, and the page has already been subject to protection in the recent past. Now I've already blocked one of the participants, Asgardian (talk · contribs), a couple of times for what I perceive as disruption, so I don't want to step into this dispute in case my judgement is clouded. I'd appreciate a more neutral admin than I may be to have a look and take what they feel is the appropriate action. Cheers, Hiding Talk 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll sort it out. Neil ╦ 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Hiding Talk 07:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The userpage of Strich3d contains the passage Articles I started:(but were vandalised by bulgarian and greek nationalists), which is in violation if Wikipedia:User page. It contains an attack against Bulgarian and Greek users and it clearly not facilitating to collaboration. The user has been notified about this but continues to revert back to the version in question. I request administrator assistance. Mr. Neutron 22:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note it was not Strich3d, but a third party. Mr. Neutron 00:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And what comes off with User:Strich3d and the user that supports him by adding this back a number of times? --Laveol ^T 13:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the history of the page, I count more than 20 reverts stretching back two months. Mr. Neutron 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ryulong has indefinitely blocked the whole /20 class -- i.e. 4096 IP addressess without proof or evidence that open-proxy operates on each of this address. I think this is blatant violation of blocking policy. He also abusively reverts others' comments here and on Talk:Mozilla Firefox (check histories). 62.75.248.183 22:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, I've been removing this thread for the past hour or so because the IP above is a TOR proxy, as have been all other IPs that posted this message.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ryulong's range block looks sound for now; an ARIN lookup confirms that the entire range is in fact allocated to a hosting company, indicating that few to no legitimate users will be editing from there, while proxies will likely be scattered throughout. Should any legitmate users encounter a problem, the block can certainly be revisited. Krimpet 22:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here are the four other TOR nodes that had posted this message:

• 88.84.149.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 88.72.117.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 124.92.74.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.221.247.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, fine, but why start by reverting the edits (denying other users a chance to judge for themselves), instead of just responding to them in the way that you have in the first place? Gerry Lynch 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's someone very likely banned and using TOR proxies to edit (editting from open proxies is forbidden)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The intended target of a block is not the editor, but rather the proxy itself. Absent editing patterns, admissions, abuse itself, and etc that can confirm that the editor editing from the proxy is a banned user, then we can not reasonably assume that an editor using a proxy is a bad editor, for they are permitted to freely use the proxy until it is blocked. Navou ^banter 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so block and not rollback even though it allowed me to block five TOR nodes...—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just block, no rollback if they are legitimate edits, for they are allowed to edit articles, discuss, post reports here, etc. Navou ^banter 12:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Navou hit the key concept here, but I feel I can articulate it better, or at least differently. That the edits came through an open proxy is in and of itself insufficent reason to rollback or treat them as the contribution of a banned editor. If enough have been reviewed to show a pattern of vandalism (for a particular proxy or proxy set and a particular time period), they can be rolled back or speedily undone in other fashion as vandalism. GRBerry 17:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This biography is a coat rack at the center of a (as far as I can tell) politically sensitive PoV war. I honestly can't make heads or tails of it and protected until they can do something more constructive than argue in edit summaries. Circeus 01:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring and protection of this article is unfortunate, all of the concerns raised by warring editors could have been easily fixed without any edit warring. I just did not see it yesterday also we have a life outside of Wikipedia too. About Circueus concern that this is not a biography is only partially correct. He becomes notable by him being forced disappeared, that too he being a vice chancellor of a major university in Sri Lanka makes it even more notable. See Reda Helal and Boris Weisfeiler. I would like to get a chance to work on this article section by section. I also disagree taht this is coatrack. If he thinks that this is is coat rack, why not put it up for XFD ? ThanksTaprobanus 13:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi; I want to ask you if you could ask the user amatulic why he always ondoes my contribution on tobacco smoking...Best regards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Omulazimoglu (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 July 2007

See my edit summaries; I have explained each time, but you have failed to explain your edits, or otherwise engage in any discussion about your rationale for violating WP:V and WP:NOR policies. -Amatulic 17:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please be more constructive. Respond to my edits there. HG | Talk 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Injecting original research into articles is frowned upon. There is already an incident filed here regarding edit reversions to the tobacco smoking article.

There is a good chance both parties will end up at 3RR if this keeps up... --Aarktica 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the report I filed in the section above: #Mildly disruptive editor User:Omulazimoglu on Tobacco smoking. The problem is, User:Omulazimoglu repeatedly re-adds unsourced, unverified, POV original research — without one word of explanation — to a section of an article I spent some time cleaning up. His reverts wouldn't trigger a 3RR as they happen once a day, rather than 4 times in 1 day, so I have not reported him there. His edits (repeatedly adding unsourced original research) constitute vandalism. After reverting a couple times, I finally left him a warning, but his only response was to complain rather than explain. In order to stop his disruptive edits, I left an escalating series of warnings on his talk page and reported him here.

Fortunately, User:HG came in and vastly improved the disputed section, so I believe the issue is resolved unless Omulazimoglu chooses to continue his disruptive edits. -Amatulic 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)