Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717

Joey Eads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just attacked user Ebe123, and I doubt this attacker will stop. I need some help reverting those attacks. I also reinforced the message at AIV, and will watch his page in case of another attacker. StormContent (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked (indefinitely) per above. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Should I watch Ebe123's user page in case of another attack? StormContent (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to spend your time volunteering for Wikipedia by doing that, no one's going to stop you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky question, Fetchcomms. I can't do that. However, I can also revert any personal attack that gets in my way. Trust me; I looking out for vandalism. StormContent (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? StormContent (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you can drop this matter unless the problem occurs again. If it does, you can report it for appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Why has this page been protected. Two or three editors are involved in dispute with everyone and they go about getting the page protected by raising useless issues such as sockpuppetery. Can someone tell me who was the sock they caught. Just because they have suspisions doesn't justify protecting this page.

Anyways user:Qwyrxian is not working as an admin for this page, and has been involved in this page as an editor before he or she became an admin.

Please have a look at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Kurmi_PP

"but since the last IP editor is obviously a sock of someone (don't know if it's a blocked editor or just someone trying to dodge 3RR), I requested semi-protection" based on what evidence was the sock issue raised. This is getting seriously a big headache. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

can't it be someone who forgot to log? Why is someone who has been made an admin fails to understand such a simple thing. Anyways, this issue is not related to reporting an user behavior and I have nothing against User- Qwyrxian, but this report is related to getting the Page protection off. This page protection was not based on any merits. Please remove it. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)--

Because if you (for example) were to revert twice logged in, and then decided to log out and started reverting, that would be avoiding 3RR. If you don't want the page to be protected, don't edit war on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen, thanks for jumping in and declaring that I am edit warring. Was this sock puppet case proved, or was the page protected just on whims? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is an involved admin. I would imagine that is why they did not protect the page themselves. There is something odd going on across several of these caste articles. Whether it is socking or meatpuppetry or just off-wiki canvassing, things are not right somewhere. Semi-protection is not massively onerous & if it causes people to raise the points on the talk page rather than war thens surely that is a good thing? Every time these articles have ended up here at NPOV, DRN etc in recent months the decision has always tended towards the contributions of myself, MatthewVanitas and one or two others. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Qwyrxian was involved before they became an admin & therefore the involvement persists/is inherited. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's not bring in matters that have nothing to do with the discussion here. The page was protected saying that this is a socket puppet case. Was this proved??? Even if you editwar or do 6RR or 7RR no one is going to report you due to obvious reasons. Let's stick to the main point here, how certain group of people are acting to propogate a certain point. Even for no reasons some guys are able to get page protected, etc. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what the "obvious reasons" are to which you refer. The evidence of disruptive editing is clear from the article history. If you want to call it that rather than socking then feel free. It doesn't actually make much difference from the point of view of applying semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. If you wish, I can amend the protection log, so that it reads "disruptive edits by IPs" instead of sockpuppetry, but, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to lift semi-protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

• Given that semi protection would not affect a logged in user, I'm wondering exactly why Nameisnotimportant is getting quite so aerated here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is: for reasons that have no merits someone asks for page protection, and the page is protected. That's what is irritating. What's more frustrating is people ignoring to look into the reasons given for justifying page protection. What was the reason page was protected this time? Sock puppet case was said, but my simple point is: did you catch a sock puppet . Elen, what's your point? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons above sound like: no matter what, if I am an admin, I can do whatever I want and I can justify that action for one reason or the other. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comment If you want the page unprotected, there's always WP:RFPP available to make such a request. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion. There are a few reasons why I came to ANI and not RFPP:

• a user who happens to be an admin makes a bogus claim. Though the user is involved in edit war raises allegations such as sock puppets without merits. A person who is an admin must know better, or can anyone be an admin?
• Someone shows up and blocks the page, taking the statement on face value.

I have no reason to ask for page protection, but the above reasons are serious enough and need to be looked into. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, maybe that person just forgot to log in. I doubt it, but I'm willing to extend that good faith. But if that's the case, then the page protection solves the problem--the person who forgot will simply get a message saying they can't edit the page, and thus will log in. Is there any harm here? Semi-protecting keeps everyone honest and helps them avoid a mistake. It's not like the page has had a lot of constructive IP editing anyway. Note that I have no intention of pursuing any sort of SPI (since CU can't connect IPs and named accounts anyway), because I don't have any desire to punish anyone--all I care is that the edit warring stops, and that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, gets to have "extra" reverts by editing while logged out. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots' point was that you can request unprotection at RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, going by your logic, each and every page needs the same level of protection on Wikipedia. This is not a valid reason to protect the page till November, isn't it? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So take it to WP:RFPP. That is the appropriate forum, surely? Or is your point here to query the competence of Salvio? - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston has declined the unprotection request at WP:RFPP; as I pointed out, and EdJohnston agreed, all edits by IP editors since at least April on that page have been reverted as being not in accord with either policy, consensus, or both. As always, IP editors are more than welcome to suggest changes on talk, using the "edit semi-protected template", all suggested edits will be evaluated per our policies and guidelines, and any issues resolved unsatisfactorily may be taken through the dispute resolution process . Given the unprotection decline, I believe that an uninvolved user is justified in marking this discussion as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User Msu2006 has spent several hours removing the wikilinks to years for the Miss USA pages (had done so for every state). I have spent the last half hour or so reverting these edits and have warned the user 3 times on their talk page, but they dont seem to understand. Msu2006 is now doing the same thing to the Miss Teen USA pages. I am requesting an admin block this user as they have been warned and continue to make these unexplained edits. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• I've left Msu2006 a note that their editing has been mentioned here. I've also explained how their edits appear disruptive and attempted to open a dialog. They have not edited in a couple of hours, so a block would not be preventitive at this point. Tiderolls 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Update: After spending a couple of hours with Msu2006 I've formed the opinion that this individual is not serious with regard to editing here. Nothing blockable, but if they contiue in their current mode it shouldn't be long in coming. Tiderolls 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I bring this here because I think I've gotten too close on this one and would like an oversight review. The editor User:John6547 has been editing articles related to the band Crubeen (also Crubeen (band), The Longkesh Ramblers and Eagle's Whistle.) Some were created by the user. The articles themselves are fine, and the user has come into the creation and editing well. There is just one small problem which is why I'm bringing the issue here. The articles all originally said the bands were from Newry, County Down, Ireland. On my searches I recently changed them to correct the country of the bands from Ireland to Northern Ireland and this is where the problems have arisen. John6547 originally changed the edits back to read Ireland instead of Northern Ireland, and when reinstated has now taken to completely removing the origin completely. There does seem to be a slight ownership issue here with claims of "details corrected by original author" 1 (also removing referenced information) and "origin neutral" 2 or "origin unknown" 3when this isn't the case. I'm now too close, so I bring it here to ask for another opinion. I also admit I may have come on a bit strong, but that's from years of combating Irish nationalist vandalism dealing with the attempted removal of Northern Ireland from the project. I shall inform the editor of this discussion. I look for any response, no matter the side it ends up on. Canterbury Tail talk 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Does either WP:TROUBLES or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names or other cases apply here? Do we have discretionary sanctions over these sorts of disputes? --Jayron32 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible, it could be construed a nationalist editing, but the rules around the sanction are not well understood to be honest. Could be a bit heavy handed in this case anyway. In my opinion this isn't a user that deserves to be blocked for this as to be honest they're editing in good faith and maybe don't realise the results of their actions in this area, and maybe I could have been clearer in that respect. This is why I brought it here. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not directly as they currently stand. One could try to come up with a very broad interpretation of one of them, or propose a request for amendment or clarification that would pick it up ... but it is possible that the issue can be addressed on its own, and if so, that would likely be preferable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like another user has weighed in and they're continuing massive edit warring link seems like a block may be required here after all. I don't think I should be the one to do it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It took some time, but I think he finally got the message. See: User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2011/August#Crubeen updates Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

An editor has, since September 2010, insisted that an {{update}} tag go at the top of a section of an article. He states that there are sources that have been missed in the section, and has even specified which sources he thinks should be used. He has, however, refused to actually update the article himself, or state what specific material he thinks should be added. I've tried to remove the tag, but he insists that it must stay, despite the fact that he refuses to fix the problem which apparently only he sees. At this point I'm at a loss as to what to do, and the issue is behavioral, so I've brought it here. The article page discussion is here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other editors (including at least one previously-uninvolved admin) have joined the conversation on the article Talk page. I don't think there's anything for an admin to do right now, other than maybe keep a weather eye on the discussion.. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest closing this ANI case. It is clear that the user who wants the tag there is a good-faith editor who engages in discussion. Therefore, no outside action is required, although more comments are welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was a "good-faith editor", he would have actually put in whatever he insists belongs there, rather than tagging the article for 10 months, while refusing to both remove the tag or add the material. This needs to be resolved one way or the other; or should we just leave the tag there for another 10 months? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say remove the tags - the article looks well-developed. If we had tags on an equivalent level elsewhere we'd be drowning in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about cleanup tags IMO. The issue is that ליאור apparently thinks that the section is light on opposing viewpoints. However, that's more of a dispute than a simple cleanup job, and dispute tags are only supposed to be kept in place while there's ongoing discussion. The onus is on ליאור to make his case for adding opposing viewpoints. If that doesn't happen, or there's no consensus to do so, then the tag should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of one or two disruptive editors who have no intention of actually attempting to fix the alleged problem with the article. Their stated goal in using the tag is that of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." That has never been what we use temporary cleanup tags for, and continuing to edit war over it violates WP:POINT and WP:TE. I can’t take any action now because I’m “involved”, but other administrators need to take a look at the tagteam editing behavior of accounts ליאור (talk · contribs) and אדעולם (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's strange to be summoned to ANI merely two weeks after volunteering at Wikimania... As explained in the relevant talk page, the very existence of this section has been disputed by at least seven different editors since 2005, with Jayjg insisting on keeping it as is. We all agree that tags are temporary, but so is the incorrect content that they are meant to flag. Composing faulty sections and then enforcing others to clean up after you is an excellent way to keep Wikipedia with obsolete content, and grumpy editors.

Anyways, constructive suggestions on how to deal with this section have been made in the talk page, so I suggest we direct our efforts there. Shabbat Shalom, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you're hardly a newbie: You've been editing here since April, 2010. And I understand you would prefer to have this issue characterized as a content dispute that does not require admin attention, but your "constructive suggestions" are to either delete the section entirely or keep a permanent tag "warning our readers of its incorrect content." Neither of those two options are "constructive", nor are they "suggestions" since you keep edit warring over the latter. Much of the existing grumpiness here at English Wikipedia is caused by editors such as yourself who refuse to follow our guidelines and edit collaboratively. — Satori Son 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Lior may have a point that the section is contrary to WP:MEDRS. He's objecting to some genetic studies that failed to be replicated, according to him. I suggest posting at WT:MED about this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

When are genetic studies ever "replicated"? These are genetic studies, not medical studies. Meanwhile, he's reverted in the tag again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how Satori reached the strange conclusion that I'm an editor since April 2010. If it makes any difference, and I believe it shouldn't, I'm a registered editor since 2003 and my first contribution dates back to November 2004, a year and a half before his. Over the past 4.5 years, most of my contributions to Wikipedia revolved around Beta Israel Wikiproject, especially in Hebrew. I've made thousands of related edits, contributed hundreds of related images, and coordinated a successful writing competition that lead to the collaborative composition of eighty new articles on Beta Israeli Heritage and Ethiopian Culture. Moreover, I've detailed in the talk page how the genetic section could be rewritten to conform with our articles about other Jewish ethnic groups. I agree with FuFoFuEd that a professional eye on the subject could be helpful. I suggust either Jayjg or I leave a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics and let the issue be settled down more calmly. ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's great. So you won't have any objection to removing the tag, now that the issue you see (whatever it is) is getting attention? I'll assume you agree with removing it now, unless you state otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll certainly support the removal of the tag once the section is improved, and I suppose the same holds for the other participants in the discussion who opposed the removal of the tag while the section is faulty. As I suggested at your talk page, I'll put aside other pressing assignments I took upon myself, to get this section fixed within the next couple of weeks, under the supervision of you and others. So in two weeks time there will be no tags over the Beta Israel article, and the concern about permanent tagging could be directed elsewhere. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_MarinaccioLots of keep recommendations with like-formatting from new user IDs. Suspect individual with multiple IDs and IP addresses.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "not a ballot" template, marked several of the !voters as SPA, and even struck the !vote of someone who !voted twice (and commented a third time). The AfD's on my watchlist now; if it gets really disruptive, further action can be taken, but the closing admin will eventually evaluate the discussion not by the number of people that vote one way or the other, but by the quality of the arguments and how they relate to our policies/guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks Qwyrxian.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello,The user User talk:94.65.56.95 is continuing to add spam links to articles.I can no longer revert, as this would violate the 3RR (unless spam is vandalism, could someone tell me if this is so).Thank you--Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, user has been blocked now. --Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• WP:VANDTYPES, under heading of "Spam external linking", defines adding external spam links as vandalism. You are exempt from 3RR in such situations and need not worry of even a warning, much less a block. Peace. --64.85.217.39 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no call for what's this editor been doing. It's mendacious fighting, edit-warring, POV, bias, and false accusations. And he just violated 3RR. I'm writing here because I see that he won't be reasoned with or talked to. He has a history, from what I can see, of POV-pushing, false accusations, projection, bias, bullying, hostility, and blatant edit-warring.

I know that he already has a pro-"Yahweh" bias. He reverted three times now the edit on erroneous grounds. (On the "Crossing the Red Sea" article) In his one of his edit comments he said "weirdest possible transliteration" when that is blatant POV, and simply not true. "Jehovah" is not a weird transliteration, and saying that it is is just a matter of opinion. It's an established rendering, and in major Bible translations. And is already in many WP articles. It's true that most WP articles have "Yahweh", but not all. He seems to accuse others of what he himself more guilty of. The POV and bias here is all his. And it's obvious. His bias against the rendering "Jehovah" is clear. And is on faulty and just POV grounds, nothing more. There are scholars on both sides of that rendering. There's no valid reason to remove that simply because of "WP:I Don't Like It". (And there was no "vandalism" on my part, so that's a false accusation.) I told him to please stop edit warring...or take it to this article talk. Instead he just reverted again, and wrongly accused me of "vandalism".

I only reverted twice, not three times. There was one "edit" there I did that was NOT an actual "edit". If you click here here you'll see that it was just a non-edit, simply to make an edit comment in the revision history. There was no "reversion" (or anything) in that specific one. So I only reverted twice, not three times...like he did.

Cush reverted clearly three times in a 24 hour period.
here...
22:33, 21 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,504 bytes) (there was no need to change the deity's name to the weirdest of all possible transliterations.)
here...
09:27, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446121644 by Hashem sfarim there is no need for the renaming. please do not unnecessarily change the article to promote some POV. if you want a change please discuss it first.)
and here...
09:42, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446124503 by Hashem sfarim you changed the article without discussion. stop your vandalism!)

So you see there. That's three reverts in less than a day. That's a bright line, and he's in violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Bwilkins. I'm not used to doing this. I really wasn't sure where to go. Thanks for the app. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that not only did Cush not breach 3RR (although he's at it), it was Hashem who first made the change to Jehovah. He was then reverted by RossNixon who has an entirely different pov to Cush. Hashem reverted to his version, then Cush reverted to what I think was the original (Yahweh). There's been no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, which I think is Hashem's responsibility as he wants the change and has been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ttwtchr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has emailed me, How surprising to read that you are jewish. Constantly moaning that everyone is out to get you, completely unaware of your belittling of others. And how surprising that your user name contains a monetary refernce whilst we're on the subject, what a nasty little shit!

Please could someone block and revoke email + talkpage access? Ta. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 13:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, but you should probably forward someone the e-mail as proof ... I don't mind taking your word for it right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how forwarding the email would prove anything (it could be easily fabricated) but if a Checkuser emails me, I'm happy to forward it in reply. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

TTWatcher? Sounds like a SPA, specifically one meant for hounding TreasuryTag. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this the fourth or the fifth one now? Has anyone done a checkuser? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there's not much to see at the moment. TNXMan 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Bwilkins is asking for an email copy so you don't give these TT watchers ammunition like "he made that up". Knowing the history of TT watchers - as they are now categorized! - you don't want to give them ammo. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating the call for an admin to step up as a private contact for these in future. TT, it seems unlikely this is going to stop if you proceed to repeat the contents of every such mail at ANI, where the sender presumably gets his jollies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone imagines this is doing "TT watchers" (which I will take to mean people involved in the MfD) a favour they must be nuts. I also cannot believe that it would be made up - at least not by Treasury Tag. No doubt there are some users who would make that sort of thing up. I will admit at first I thought the emails may be being exaggerated but now that we've been given the content of two of them (and I agree that any more shouldn't be posted as well - it's very much up to TT but doing so is highly likely to feed trolls, which this probably is rather than a lunatic, although that can't be ruled out) that's enough to know they're completely unacceptable.

No one should have to put up with this.Egg Centric 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't like community sanctions be raised in this respect? Seems like every time I look at ANI there is some drama around TT... I have no idea why this is happening, but this stuff needs wider attention. --Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can confirm that Ttwtchr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) sent an e-mail through wikipedia, but as recipients are listed as hashes in the checkuser results, I cannot confirm to whom it was sent. There are no obvious socks, either. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ten bucks says that the accounts are in... England. Just a stab in the dark. Doc talk 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)