Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive7

2-October-2006

User:81.100.63.46 is vandallizing pages, and is only one of the few people to vandalize the Surrealism page...

His edit was quickly reverted. Next time with obvious vandalism, revert the vandalism and warn the user with the appropriate template found through the edit toolbox, click on (templates) and then on Usertalk namespace. --Inahet 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:Raymond arritt is constantly reverting my edits, I think this is harrasment, I have monitored his contribs and he seems to be telling others that I am a sock puppet. This is very distressing please help --KFA UK 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits generally try to impose a specific point of view on articles, and it does look very likely that you are a sock puppet of User:Frogsprog, User:The big moose, User:NoJoyInMudville, User:Frogbaby, etc. So if User:Raymond arritt did what you say, then... good work Raymond arritt! --Reuben 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:139.142.96.245 is vandalising the Spurge and Succulent plant page and by placing the same link again and again to a poor quality cactus cam page. Can someone please stop that? The owner of the linked page (who I think is our vandal) neither knows to differ a spurge from a cactus nor knows to spell the name of the only plant shown. This is absolutely poor quality and not worth any link. 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of the web site and have removed the link from both articles. I think it is safe to remove it everytime he adds it back in, though I wouldn't call it vandalism, I think the appropiate term at this point is spamming. --Inahet 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:Storyteller15 is beginning to get nasty. After vandalizing Ann Coulter, he made a quick "I was just testing!", and deleted the warning that was posted by the person catching him on it. However, after I caught him vandalizing George Steinbrenner, I restored the warning and left http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storyteller15&diff=79414577&oldid=79414533] talk box. He then turned around and slapped the warning template on my own Talk Box and claimed he informed the admins of my "juvenile behavior". 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry even if he did report to an admin, an admin would be on your side anyway. Next time use warning templates, which can be found through (templates) which you will see whenever you edit the page in the edit toolbox below. Feel free to ask for clarification if you're not quite sure. --Inahet 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

5-October-2006

User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery contains a large collection of pornographic pictures which the person seems very proud off. There is no evidence the Gallary is work related. The individual seems to be taking one line in Wikipedia's philosophy ("Wikipedia is not censored"), and obnoxious over-doing it to show off, despite breaking guildlines on Wikipedia:User page.

I'm not sure about this since I didn't take a look at the gallery, I don't want to, porn makes me sick. Anyway I think it requires administrator intervention so I think you should take it up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is just a suggestion, any other opinions by others are encouraged. -- Inahet 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

6-October-2006

Safe to start at this section, Talk:Green Tortoise#NPOV tag removed, but it goes on above. Dispute over now outdated address, first hand accounts, and npov template inclusion. Anon using various IPs vs. two users accused of being sockpuppets. Larger issues with article should probably be addressed, but can't get beyond the basics. Any comments much appreciated! 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone look at User:Abilitynet contributions, and maybe give suggestions to him/her on how to contribute? Abilitynet has been making many edits promoting a company and could use more guidance. 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm split on this. I take a hardline against spammers, but his/her web site doesn't seem to be commercial (as the web site claims), nor is it private. However, Wikipedia is not vehicle to promote one's web site. I really don't know, so I hope others can chip in with their view. --Inahet 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:64.251.48.82, User:66.31.240.235, User:142.22.16.57, User:195.93.21.104 have a huge list of "contributions" of vandalisms. Is it possible to block these users?

Are you asking for a permanent block? If that is case, may I refer you to one admin's reply when I asked him the same thing a few months back: "Wikipedia policy is not to permanently block IP adresses, they may be used by multiple people or reassigned by the service provider, so I can't block permanently. I put in a two week block, because there is no need to warn an IP address that has been repeatedly blocked, like this one. Thanks for the alert. Unfortunately I was away from my computer at the time. A good way of getting the attention of administrators is on WP:AIV, most admins keep that page on their watchlist." [1] --Inahet 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

7-October-2006

There seems to be a tight closed shop operating on Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University where only a highly critical view of the organisation is allowed to prevail. Most recently comments of other users on the talk page are being heavily re-written and even deleted mainly by User:195.82.106.244, who seems to be pretty-much running the show, on the basis that they are a personal attack, although there is at least one case of a factual post by User:84.13.205.142 being deleted (now re-instated). Check out the Talk history. There is a total lack of cilivity on the talk page with some clear personal attacks taking place and along with much political ranting. 08:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC) There is now an edit war taking place over the NPOV box. 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

7-October-2006

User:203.214.50.225 has made multiple reversions to edits I have made to the Johnny Newman article. I initiated dispute resolution by questioning him/her about this on his/her talk page, User talk:203.214.50.225. I have requested that the user explain his/her reversions on the article's talk page. Thus far, I have received no response on the talk page. The user has responded by making repeated unsigned comments on my user talk page User talk:Sugar Daddy, and vandalizing my user page User:Sugar Daddy. After I pointed out to the user that this behavior was against WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG, the conduct has been repeated. Also, based on pattern of edits, I believe this unsigned user may be a sockpuppet of User:Downwards. Please advise! Sugar Daddy 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

9-October-2006

Another user is monitoring my edits on several pages, adding spurious or incorrect information and failing to reply to my rationales for adding or altering content. The user also frequently makes comments which I find irritating, and deliberately provocative. I am so frustrated by this I am having trouble not including profanity in my responses. Also uses wikipedia proceedures improperly and punitively - peer reviews and request for deletion specifically. Examples are found on the Barbara Hambly biography page, and Cat's Claw. See talk pages as well as diffs over the past couple days. There is an unpleasant history going back several months. My own conduct in previous interactions was far less than perfect, I have been trying to improve it over the past couple weeks after a warning regarding personal attacks. I would appreciate comments on my own behaviour as well. 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For your request, I asked for help on what to do about Wikistalking, and one admin said to report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Inahet 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

9-October-2006

Stevewk's comments (some of them are unsigned) are highly offensive, in my opinion. Thank you.

10-October-2006

[[2]]Unregistered user is repeatedly adding negative criticsms to a BLP article, many of which are not referenced, poorly referenced, or derivative of online articles that do not even talk about the subject. I have attempted to reach out to this person to come to some sort of consensus, but they have labeled me a "Dave Ramsey Lover" and simply re-add their edits. According to the Wikipedia:BLP policy page, negative material that is poorly sourced must be deleted immediately. I have brought this issue to that board, and they agreed with my position. However, this person continues adding these points. Can I get a little help here I guess? I'm not sure what to do at this point.--Arkcana 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

10-October-2006

I'm not the good guy here and I'll take my lumps with everyone else, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Gallon is getting way out of hand. - Richfife 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

11-October-2006

I am adding statements which I believe to be true and of common knowledge. HeBhagawan sees they are removed under one or other pretext, one of them being asking for citations whereas he ignores my pointing out other similar un-sourced statements. Apandey jumps in with incivil comments against me. I am also subjected to incivil intimidations by HeBhagawan and Dab. Dab being admin, has commented that my edits were "worse than worthless" to add fuel to the fire. He has asserted that he has no knowledge of the subject "Hinduism" and commented incivil as HeBhagawan and others were against me. The attempt of HeBhagawan appears to monopolise the article. Apandey has no contribution to the article. Apandey's only contribution is incivil comments against me on discussion page. I request to check my edits by a person of knowledge of Hinduism so far as statements falling under true and common knowledge, the incivility issue can be checked by any. I suspect sock puppeteering.Swadhyayee 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu. I wish that you would have commented on certain issues to prevent bitterness rising since there were lot of allegations against me that my English is poor and full of grammatical errors, it changes the sense in opposite direction, I am not listening to others and so on. Further, the incivility issue raised by me. I wish that as you already have responded to my request, you as well give your frank opinions in moderate language.Swadhyayee 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

11-October-2006

User:216.184.26.77 is on a vandalism tear through Reconstruction. Please stop him. L0b0t 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Next time report him/her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, make sure to read the instructions first. --Inahet 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

13-October-2006

User:66.158.68.101 is consistently vandalising pages; see Orhan Pamuk. Could this ip be banned?

It depends, has he been vandalizing after being warned? Also IPs are usually temporary blocked as a penalty, I believe that they are never permanently blocked. Anyway it looks as though he has not been vandalizing lately, so no worries as of now. --Inahet

User:Ernham has been blocked for incivility and personal attacks, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. Despite repeated requests this has continued including labelling users with which he disagrees as "vandals" and calling for other users to be blocked in edit summaries. 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If he has been warned with {{npa2}} and {{npa3}} templates but did not cease from making personal attacks, then report him or her at WP:PAIN, an admin will look into it. --Inahet 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

14-October-2006

User:FunkyFly is constantly avoiding various Wikipedia rules (poor sourcing or no sourcing at all, no explanations for the changes, using unlicenced or poorly licenced images, support of certain political agendas, mistreating several articles as his/her own private personal web pages, incl. biographies of living persons etc..). Particulary he/she is abusing the following articles: Kiro Gligorov, ASNOM, Ilinden uprising and many other articles mostly related to Balkan issues (meanwhile that list of abused articles is growing bigger). All the attempts for a serious discussion and a peaceful concensus have failed. A suggestion from my side for seeking "third opinion" and sort of arbitration by an invited informal mediator (experienced and relevant Wikipedia user from a third country) was disregarded by the user in question in a very arrogant manner below every standard of civility (link:HERE). The user in question adds highly questionable statements (to the articles) which are not supported by any reliable source, except in some cases, with sources such as: websites of certain radical political parties and document scans issued by a certain state which was an ally of the Third Reich during the Second world war etc. Also the user mentioned above offten attempts to defocus discussions from their main topic by using cynical statements, irrelevant informations, out-of-context quotes, mild personal attacks etc. NOTE: My behaviour may have been also questionable in certain cases and Im ready to be sanctioned accordingly if needed. But, rules should not be imposed in a selective way. --Vbb-sk-mk 22:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide more specific examples where I have been uncivil? And also prove that you are not simply attempting to scare off other editors so that you can push you nationalistic agenda unchecked?   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

everything is being kept by the system, all the discussions, all of the edits/ reverts etc. What is needed now is a good unbiased third-party observer or a group of observers who are willing to investigate everything in detail and to draw conclusions accordingly. Offtopic (not related specificaly to the user reported above): Meanwhile the previously mentioned systematical abuse of articles specificaly related to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM) and its history continues in the same pattern (just for an example: a fair-use image of a historical flag that I've added to the Ilinden uprising (incl. proper describtion, proper sourcing, fair use rationale for each use separately and incl. a proper type of licencing) has been removed just a while ago)--Vbb-sk-mk 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Throwing terms around like "systematic abuse" can do nothing but reduce your own credibility.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Patchouli is on a vandalism spree on Iran-related articles to advance his/her political agenda. He/She has been asked to invlove in ongiong discussions before further edits, yet he/she continues to ignores discussions, and his/her edit discriptions includes only personal attacks of others being on mullah's payroll. For example, although there is an ongoing discussion as to whether include mideast monarchs and Khamenei in the list of dictators, and general consensus is negative, the discussion is ignored by him/her, and the user includes questionable sources with certain political agendas as his/her sources. Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dictators&action=history --Gerash77 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

16-October-2006

User:67.94.205.21 has been vandalizing seemingly random sites, as well as frequently maliciously editing the websites of Seattle-area high schools. Acts include rascist slurs, personal adverts, intentional garbling/misspelling of words, and malicious fact changing. Please look to his or her user contributions for a guide to said violations of etiquette, as in my search I found almost all recent edits were vandalism attempts. In light of the many recent vandalisms on the part of this user, I placed a vandalism warning on their user discussion page, but there are many others like it. I do not think that will deter the user. Please see [3] 09:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grover_Cleveland has been a source of mild to moderate harrassment. Besides his constant sarcasm, he has followed me around, editing pages right after I edit them, pages that previously he never went near. I edit so much as a sentence -- there he is, right after. Articles that he previously never showed one iota of interest in. "Stalking" is probably too strong a word; for my part I will just ignore him. But I thought you should know that one of your active editors is behaving this way. Thank you for your time.

16-October-2006

This (ab)user deserves to be banished, don't you think?--Barbatus 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

17-October-2006

Personal attacks on editor at Talk:Previsualization. Can something be done?

Ergonomics appears to contain a large amount of copyrighted material. Can someone advise/help? 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This and that one are sure candidates for blocking.--Barbatus 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

... and this one, too.--Barbatus 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Umeshghosh has introduced large sections of copyrighted material to Ergonomics, Human factors, and Celebrity 100. His contributions to Digestion, Physiology, and G protein look suspicious as well. 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP should be banished again, perhaps.--Barbatus 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another offender. Multiple offender!--Barbatus 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Found that User:Laurencegast has been inserting what I believe to be his real identity into various articles(every contribution he/she has made thus far). Most of them have been removed since they do not belong here or enhance the articles. List of these contributions are here:Special:Contributions/Laurencegast Not sure how this should be handled with the user. 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more candidate for banishment.--Barbatus 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

18-October-2006

One more multiple offender.--Barbatus 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another hooligan.--Barbatus 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope some administrator is watching this page and taking appropriate measures.

IP addresses cannot be permanently banned because they may be used by many people and may be reassigned by the ISP to other people. Anyway, this is the wrong place to report vandalism, report at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Inahet 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, Inahet.--Barbatus 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Inahet 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

19-October-2006

• User:Sarner was blocked from editing the Bowlby page in the past. He is engaged in the same behavior again: not accepting the consensus among several editors on the talk page, reverting the article to his view alone. Refusing to follow Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution: he has not accepted suggestions to take a poll or consider mediation. 00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• User:TheGreenFaerae has resorted to personal name calling several times over the contested "Possible spoofs" section of Chloe Sullivan#Possible spoofs, and appears unwilling to address policy concerns over his edit (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV) or possible legal concerns, since his edit accuses one corporation of violating the copyright of another.

22-October-2006

User:Canaen has on his user page a rant with the following:

"Just because Racist Amerikka says I look like y'all cracker asses,

There was some discussion of this in his discussion page where someone sugested this is inappropriate because it links directly to the wiki article about Whites.05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Durova 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

23-October-2006

• I found Corporal Tunnel's comment here lacking maturity and respect for the process. Though WP:CIVIL never mentions sarcasm, I think comments like this aren't constructive to the process. Granted, the AfD is a pretty obvious delete vote, but that doesn't mean the discussion can show disrespect towards the people who created it. 01:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This user's edit history shows a lot of constructive vandal fighting and a little bit of (probably youthful) sarcasm. I don't see a need to intervene here, but someone might want to leave a polite note on the user's talk page. Durova 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• RE: List of music arrangers By looking at the history, it seems that user:81.64.111.159 and probably one and the same user:81.64.121.113 thinks they own this list because every time someone adds a name to the list, this person removes it, with no explanation whatsoever, and only leaves their contributions intact. This has been going on since Oct 05. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but not sure what to do about it. Any suggestions? 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected. Durova 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

26-October-2006

I would like to issue a complaint against administrator Lucky 6.9. He refuses to offer a satisfactory explanation for why he's deleting my additions to Wikipedia. In addition, he's issuing threats to me.

I tried to add an entry on Sides the movie on the 24th, and he deleted it within 2 minutes, claiming that because I did not have other people contributing to the page, it was not a sufficient addition. This, of course, is a ludicrous claim, given the fact that the entry had been up for less than two minutes. It obviously takes time for other people to contribute to a new page. I asked Lucky why he twice deleted my new entries, and he simply responded with a threat to suspend my editing privileges. If you go to his page, you'll see that I'm not the only person who has complained about his editing. I would appreciate a response from an administrator who is civil and mature enough to actually address my question. Thank you.

28-October-2006

I would like to issue a complaint against User:Kafziel. He continues to delete my additions to Wikipedia. (Social Investing, Fanniue Mae and Business Ethics) In addition, he has threatened to have me banned from Wiki.

He seems to believe my additions are spam, and as he called them once, sneaky spam. I simply don't think they are. In addition to posting links to my websites, I have posted links of relevance to the topics to Congressional testimony on the US Congress and SEC websites. I don't think these can be considered spam. Please advise. Thank you.

I didn't threaten to have you banned. That's a standard spam warning template, and I only used it after spending a lot of time trying to explain the situation to you. I wasn't even the first one to warn you about it. But I welcome a third opinion, since edits like this and this and this are so obviously spam. On the bright side, your contributions today have been better. You've been adding content instead of links, as I suggested. Still a bit POV in places, but much better than spam. Kafziel ^Talk 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

29-October 2006

There is an ongoing edit war on "Ascended Masters" and a couple of related pages. See: [[4]] --Vindheim 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aburesz consistently shapes the articles Sanat Kumara, Ascended Master andGreat White Brotherhood with secterian viewpoints, deleting NPOV tags, references to critical sources and even links to competing sects in the same territory. Several editors have posted questions and comments on his talkpage as well as the relevant article talkpages, to no avail. In my opinion he should be blocked.--Vindheim 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

30-October 2006

Some editors who have voted on WoWWiki's third AFD nomination seem to be out of control, as far as WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and possibly WP:NPA goes. On one side there are WoWWiki admins who argue that their own site is notable enough for it to merit its own article on the English Wikipedia, and on the other side is everyone else. 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

31-October 2006

I am concerned at the tone used in edit summaries and messages left on talk pages by User:Wandalstouring. I admit I got a little hot and a bit of a mastodon myself before backing off, checking some sources and trying to correct the material, and am now trying to calm down, but will do that best when neutral, outside, others stick their noses in. See edit history and talk page of War horse in particular, both edit summaries and the tone of the edits themselves, as well as tone of edits to cavalry tactics. This individual also left a couple nasty comments on my user talk page that bordered on threatening in tone. I may have stirred the pot at first, I am now going to back off an just calm down now. 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing minor edit war on the Nadia Comaneci page. User:Mai Loon and two IP addresses, which seem to be so close as to be the same user, are continually deleting sourced, referenced information from the article. I, and other users, continue to revert back, but the material just gets changed again the next day. It's not major, but it does give the article a weasel-worded slant by removing one side of a controversy involving Comaneci and failing to tell the reader what the conclusion was. The user refuses to even discuss his/her edits; s/he just keeps silently reverting.

I'm not even sure if this is the right place to add this, but I'm not sure how this should be handled. Thus far, I have tried: 1) asking for comments on article's Talk Page; 2) trying to ask the user to justify his/her deletions in the edit summaries; 3) leaving notes on the user/IP address Talk Pages; 4) Taking a break from the article; 5) remmoving material about BOTH sides of the controversy to try to make the user go away. Any thoughts on how to deal with this would be appreciated! DanielEng 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)