Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive173

A groups of students is using a shared account to implement strategies developed off-wiki for intervening in a dispute about the New Way Forward article. [1]. Editors of several popular blogs are aware for the situation, and are watching to see if a new precedent is set. As of late 2005, shared accounts were considered harmful, and have until now have been routinely blocked. So far, no edits have come from the account, but their stated intent is explicit. Umpteenages 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no harm done as of this time. Newcomers are welcome, and we do not prohibit anonymous editting. Is there something specific you are requesting? Johntex\^talk 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I left a note (hey, it's a wiki!) about shared accounts. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• I noticed they have posted the name of the account and the password, but I was not able to log into it. Perhaps they haven't finished the E-mail authorization. Should we block an account before it is created? I suggested that they redo the password as soon as they go into the account, and suggested abandoning it. --
  Samuel Wantman
• I have blocked this account, as role accounts are not permitted without Foundation approval. I disabled autoblocking, so the students should have no problem creating their own accounts if they so desire (I left a note on the account's Talk page to that effect). --Slowking Man 12:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.)

• fxwords.com Wikipedia references(48 links)
• GoCurrency.com Wikipedia references (5 links)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" http://www.gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. --John Nagle 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest a trip to m:Talk:Spam blacklist to request blacklisting. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Trip successful. Please don't give direct links to spammer sites, because every page with them becomes uneditable after blacklisting. I had to unlink 'em in your post, John. MaxSem 23:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed all of the linkspam and banned the account responsible. --Cyde Weys 23:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In the future, it might be a better idea to have something added to Shadowbot's blacklist, rather than using the Meta blacklist. I'm not trying to spam my own bot, but I was under the impression that Meta is for more widespread, i.e cross-project, spam. Shadow1 (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well, one can <nowiki> the links. Geogre 13:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

VoABot II keeps reverting The Neptunes to a vandalized state.--Jonpro 00:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be an isolated incident, as far as I can tell. I've reverted the page.

Chick Bowen

00:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

NO, there is a problem with this bot. I caught it today repeatedly reverting blankings on bios. The blankings were by the subject objecting to libels. (The anti-vandal bot was doing the same thing ont he same article). Can't we stop these bots reverting blankings on bios? --

Doc

^g 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of bios specifically I'd prefer a whitelist of users to be implemented, which the bot would not revert whatsoever. That would still block out vandal blankings of properly-sourced information. – Chacor 06:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, a whitelist is easier for AVB, as (I think) it has all admins automatically whitelisted. I think that VoABotII is a lot more lightweight than AVB, so won't have these lists, and they would perhaps be difficult to implement - and the subjects of libel are unlikely to be on such a whitelist. The simple way to solve this is for an admin to protect a page which needs blanking, blank it and then unprotect it - this should stop VoABotII reverting, without the need for quite bulky lists. Of course, the difficulty is getting an issue of libel to an admin's attention, but then again, most subjects of libel seem to know that they can easily email info-en for help. If there are lots of people who don't know this, then we do need a prominent notice somewhere informing users affected by libel to either contact us or leave a message here (which will probably get quicker attention) - something on the article talk page of all bios, maybe? Perhaps an idea would be to have an IRC bot which will relay large changes to biography articles to a dedicated channel (not vandalism-en-wp), where people can sit and check what's happening and revert the bot (or bring it to an admin's attention) if neccesary.

inp23

12:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC) If such a bot is needed, I've got some code for a similar task which is easily adaptable

The nominator has withdrawn his nomination of this article for deletion, but did so by blanking the page. Is it not better to have the discussion formally closed by an administrator? Sam Blacketer 12:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just closed it as withdrawn by nom. Syrthiss 13:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sam Blacketer 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried and tried to ask

I have left a note on his talk page. -bbatsell ?? 05:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Should I revert the template again or wait a bit longer? -Mets501 (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Slightly conflicting opinion posted there. Sorry. As a general comment, 'it's in the

WP:MOS this way' is weak; we can change the MOS. Opabinia regalis

07:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there is no "format used on Wikipedia" for references. Certainly the relevant style guide,

WP:CITE doesn't mention anything of the sort. Any coherent and standard format within the given discipline is acceptable. And certainly some major style guides, e.g. Chicago, use "first last" as the format for inline citations, which is a common use of the citation templates. Christopher Parham (talk)

18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User:TSLcrazier continuously adds pictures to the site which do not include copyright status. Numerous users have tried to contact him to ask him to add copyright status to his image but ignores all the message on his talk page. While looking through his contributions i have noticed he has removed warnings on images asking for copyright information, without providing the information (ex: [2] [3] [4].) I have also found a few things where he has removed deleted parts of articles with no reason why. (ex. [5] [6] [7]) It would be nice if an admin would step in and handle this problem. --Malevious Userpage o Talk Page o Contributions 17:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have given the user a final warning / talk about the importance of the fair use policy, as well as rolling back all his image page blankings. If he persists, please drop me a line on my talk page so I can handle this. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 18:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone posted solicitation notices on a page.[8] I removed them and asked them not to do it.[9] However, they apparently were not the poster in question, who is now claiming he did not post them.[10] As this is one of a number of accounts accused of vote stacking sock puppetry[11], maybe someone is using his account to falsely post these notices. I have asked him to stop using his acount until this matter can be settled. It's a holiday for me, so I won't be dealing with it much more, but maybe some administrator with some free time can handle this. I did apologize to the user for falsely accusing him of using his own account.[12] KP Botany 18:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well, false alert, apparently the user did not understand that "Tax-deductible contributions may be made ... by checks made payable to" and "Checks should be made payable to ... and sent to ..."[13] could possibly be construed by others as soliciting donations. Doing charitable solicitation for a living, I may have over-reacted to the use of professional catch-phrases for donations and misinterpreted them as seeking donations. My bad. [14] KP Botany 18:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. New user who doesn't understand the rules here. Be polite, thank him for fessing up, and encourage him to continue edits. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers - jesup 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest - this isn't just any new user; he's part of a group of editors who are trying to use Wikipedia as a PR outlet for this opera company and two related parties. They've all been warned that it's not appropriate, but they just keep switching tactics. I've already filed a checkuser, and I'm monitoring all the relevant articles. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can somone please rollback all of this? [15] I was going to try with VandalProof, but I've just come back after a wikibreak, and it seems to not be working for me anymore. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, you are using VP 1.3, right? Prodego ^talk 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This may not require administrator attention but I think it requires a wiser person than I. I started reverting the edits of User:71.243.102.51, who has been adding entirely misplaced editorial comment on the lines of [16]. But the history of Operation Reinhard (one of the articles) does show a low key edit war between competing domains death-camps.org and deathcamps.org. The sites look very similar, but the editorial comment is making claims of fakery. I have no real idea how to investigate further, but it does seem an area where sensitive attention to external links is required. It may be that someone is using Wikipedia in a very inappropriate way. Over to you good people. Notinasnaid 20:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the link and editorial remark. No one should add their own web sites as references. Ridiculous edit-war.

MartinDK

21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen Please read for the facts:

Please be advised that there are currently several counterfeit and completely bogus versions of the genuine Aktion Reinhard Camps website which can only be found here: deathcamps.org

These counterfeit websites are utilising various twists on the URL: deathcamps.org

In order to fool people they are hyphenating the url and or substituting letters and domain suffixes.

It appears that some of the counterfeit websites are linked to forums and websites sympathetic to Nazi and Supremacist groups.

If you read the following WHOIS listing at this link or from the text below you will note the original registration date of the genuine DeathCamps.org ARC website

WHOIS information for: deathcamps.org:[whois.publicinterestregistry.net] NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator or any ICANN-Accredited Registrar, except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy. Domain ID:D90771355-LROR Domain Name:DEATHCAMPS.ORG Created On:30-Sep-2002 19:44:33 UTC Last Updated On:05-Jan-2007 07:51:51 UTC Expiration Date:30-Sep-2007 19:44:33 UTC Sponsoring Registrar:Schlund+Partner AG (R73-LROR) Status:OK Registrant ID:SPAG-31769436 Registrant Name:Chris Webb Registrant Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Registrant Street2: Registrant Street3: Registrant City:Cranleigh Registrant State/Province: Registrant Postal Code:GU6 8BP Registrant Country:GB Registrant Phone:+44.1483272054 Registrant Phone Ext.: Registrant FAX: Registrant FAX Ext.: Registrant Email:[email protected] Admin ID:SPAG-31769436 Admin Name:Chris Webb Admin Street1:22 Wellwynds Road Admin Street2: Admin Street3: Admin City:Cranleigh Admin State/Province: Admin Postal Code:GU6 8BP Admin Country:GB Admin Phone:+44.1483272054 Admin Phone Ext.: Admin FAX: Admin FAX Ext.: Admin Email:[email protected] Tech ID:SPAG-35545918 Tech Name:Carmelo Lisciotto Tech Organization:Action Reinhard Camps Foundation International Tech Street1:N/A Tech Street2: Tech Street3: Tech City:Boston Tech State/Province:MA Tech Postal Code:10012 Tech Country:US Tech Phone:+1.1111111 Tech Phone Ext.: Tech FAX: Tech FAX Ext.: Tech Email:[email protected] Name Server:NS19.1AND1.CO.UK Name Server:NS20.1AND1.CO.UK

We everyone to avoid counterfeit websites. Thank you ARC

The person above doesn't represent the ARC group, if only because the ARC group doesn't exist since Oct. 2006; the copyright claims are false. See my user page. --Sergey Romanov 13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The copyright claim appears to be legitimate since the ISP shut down the hyphen vesion. Which must now be considered a discredited site. Crackius

The hyphen version is still online. Why does the "genuine ARC team" not try to accuse that "counterfeit website"? Because they then have to explain why their new website (H.E.A.R.T.) is mainly based on copied ARC texts and photos?

User:Marshal2.0, the new id of User:Marshalbannana (as per the user's page), has accused me of sockpuppetry as retribution for my reporting him in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jacknicholson(2nd). He's now copying comments from the Jacknicholson case, changing the names, and inserting it as "evidence" against me. See his edit and following comments.

He also has tagged my user page to mark a sockpuppet accusation (blanking the content I had there before), but has not added it to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, which means that no one will end up reviewing it, but I have to leave the accusation on my user page.

I'd really appreciate an admin looking into this. - jesup 17:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the Evidence section appears to be a cut and paste job I've requested diffs. I'd say if these are not provided very soon the sockpuppet case should just be closed and an WP:RFCU should be opened. That should settle this in short order. I don't know the background here, but it appears to stem from some sort of content or user dispute.--Isotope23 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This reeks of

MartinDK

18:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty much it's just retribution for my (and others) calling him for repeatedly using anon-IP's and after semi-protect, sockpuppets, to force a youtube link into Katana. We eventually had to fully protect the page. The original account has been permanently banned; Marshalbannana and Marshal2.0 are the same user (self-described as so). jesup 18:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Note An anon-IP user keeps deleting this section in favor of the following one (and occasionally messing up the formatting.) Unsubstantiated guess is that it's Marshal2.0, all his other comments recently are about the Marines in Iraq. - jesup 19:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This section has been removed by various anon-IPs (a few now blocked) around 15 times so far today. FYI. — jesup 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say, I hope we can catch blatant vandalism faster than one year ago which no one found. Is there anyway to search for blatant vandalism other that by random chance of us finding it? semper fi68.211.96.214 18:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This came up before. It was a mistake, not vandalism, and the page was redirected anyway, so no one saw it; hence, not a big deal ;) -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If vandalism or unhelpful edits remain that long, it pretty much means no-one looked at the page for a year until you came along. Who visits talk page redirects regularly?

masterka

22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I came across this user while dealing with some images with invalid copyright tags. The user appears to be a child, and they have their name and full address on their user page. Should this information be removed? --- RockMFR 20:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have taken a first step of dropping her a note and deleting the name and address from her talk page. But I think there is someway of doing this more permanently? --Slp1 21:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Isn't this what Oversight is for?
    MartinDK
    21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Short of totally deleting the whole page and asking the user to start again, not much can be done. The address is in from the start so every single revision would need to be removed. I'm going to do it now, if this user is a child then we should take steps to protect her from harm. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing her a situation that may or may not require administrator assistance, as I don't have either the subject-matter background or the time tonight to determine whether it's a user conduct issue or a pure content dispute. Could someone with a science/technology background please take a look at

1. Inserts Portuguese POV and makes everything have a Portuguese perspective. For example, repeatedly making this type of edit to many articles or adding Portuguese-American, Portuguese-Canadian, etc into biographies, regardless of whether the claims are true or not.
2. WP:POINT edits like this one
   when the edits keep getting reverted
3. Eliminating references to Spanish

Every once in a while he just balatantly vandalizes and article. The IPs are socks of blocked user Uhy, and seem to strike Silva more than any other article. I've already warned several of the IPs, but it seems rather pointless seeing as any attempts to communicate have been completely ignored. The IP is dynamic, but it doesn't seem to change until several hours later usually. So far there haven't been any constructive edits from any of the IPs. --Wafulz 23:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1 (talk · contribs) has been warned against readding Category:Anti-Islam Sentiment to Ann Coulter. He's once again reverted the page against consensus. Could someone please BLP3 him? Thank you. Kyaa the Catlord 15:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you change

WP:NOT? Is Wikipedia a democracy or do arguments count? There have been no arguments voiced other than it could be regarded as defamatory.Raphael1

16:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you read

WP:BLP, Raphael? – Chacor

16:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have and there are plenty of references, which confirm my addition. Raphael1 16:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You've been warned by a neutral party about this already Raphael. I could have placed this request yesterday, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and you continue to try to weasel yourself an excuse for ignoring the BLP warning.... Kyaa the Catlord 16:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have not ignored the BLP warning. Instead I've provided Will with references two days ago[17] but haven't heard from him since then. Raphael1 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard, not a boxing ring, we have noticed you. No need to argue here, keep it on the talk page. Someone will look into it. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the article cites numerous references. There is a whole section on the subject at wikiquote:Ann_Coulter#Islam. The 'Council on American-Islamic Relations' calls her 'islamophobic' and 'bigoted'. If Coulter doesn't qualify for inclusion in an 'Anti <whatever> sentiment' category then nobody does. Either move to get them all deleted (good luck) or give up the ghost. --CBD 17:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The article cites numerous references, but wikipedia itself does not meet WP:RS nor does pinning this category on a living person meet BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 17:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

La la la. Patstuart^talk|edits

17:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to go through Mediation to correct the mistakes that are so bloody blatantly obvious. Kyaa the Catlord 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What about the citations from outside wikipedia? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the citations are from outside Wikipedia. The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, Editor and Publisher, CAIR, her own columns, et cetera. They are shown in Wikipedia, but they don't originate here. --CBD 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Drawing a conclusion is OR. Labelling someone in a defamatory manner is against BLP. These are hard and fast rules, why the debate? Kyaa the Catlord 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

By that logic Category:Anti-Islam sentiment (and 'Anti-semitism', and all the others) simply should not exist. Yet they do... because such 'labels' ARE allowed when they are properly sourced. As in this case. --CBD 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have left a note on Raphael1's Talk. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You certainly could put a sentence into the article which is sourced and says that she has been called anti-Islamic, but there's a difference between putting a sentence in an article and putting an article into a category. In an article, there's room for an opposing view from another source that thinks she isn't anti-Islamic. In a category, there isn't.

Moreover, since there's dispute about the matter, we can't say she *is* anti-Islamic. We can only say she's been *called* anti-Islamic. So your category would have to be something like "accusations of anti-Islam sentiment" to be accurate. Ken Arromdee 03:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notice — This isn't the first time Raphael1 has been disruptive. According to the decisions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Raphael1, "Raphael1 is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by tendentious editing, edit warring, or incivility." and "Raphael1 is placed on general Probation. Any three administrators for good cause may ban him from Wikipedia for an appropriate period of time." I think he can easily be banned from these pages he's being disruptive over; if any three of you guys decide it warrants a block under the probation clause, that can happen too. --Cyde Weys 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna have to disagree here. Guy, you said on Raphael1's page that

WP:BLP requires consensus to include any negative comment about a person. That isn't my reading of the policy at all. Indeed, the word 'consensus' does not even APPEAR in the text of the policy. Our 'living persons' policy requires that negative comments be properly sourced. We DO have general policies against edit warring without consensus, but they'd apply to both 'sides' here and have nothing to do with BLP. So far as I can see... addition of the category IS properly sourced here. --CBD

18:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Per BLP, the subject of the article needs to pretty much state word for word that she is anti-islamic. She has not done so. So labelling her in this manner is subjective, POV and draws a conclusion based on her statements, which equals Original Research. BLP has a higher standard. Kyaa the Catlord 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, everyone else in the talk page has pretty much stated "we'd rather that category deleted than have it applied to this article". How much consensus do you need? Kyaa the Catlord 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the same amount of concensus which would be needed for Category:Terrorists. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up (R)} 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not include trolls and POV pushers. Disputed content should be reviewed by other editors and consensus reached. Cited content of unambiguous significance stated in neutral terms is unlikely to fail to gain consensus, I'd have thought. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Things being accepted just because they are cited, significant, and neutrally worded... you funny man. :] [18] --CBD 01:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Including a statement by the biased offshoot of a terrorist group. Very neutral. Kyaa the Catlord 03:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a description for an organization primarily funded by the ruling families of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (our allies BTW) proves the problem all by itself. --CBD 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin

huh? Viridae^Talk 02:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What are you asking to be done? -Patstuart^talk|edits 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems as though there is both an edit warr-er and a linkspammer on that articel, and it was unprotected.

68.39.174.238

00:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Last night I reverted changes in the pictures at Erection [[19]] and explained why to the user who has made the changes (User:Djy9302). The user has since indicated on my TalkPage that they were photos of himself. I realise now that this may be a slightly more serious problem than the usual vanity postings in this sort of articles as the user identifies himself as being 16 years old on his UserPage. The photos thus constitute child pornograhpy in many jurisdictions. They were originally uploaded to Commons not here however, can an admin with sysop access on Commons delete them to prevent them reappearing in future? The images in question are: Image:100_0441.jpg Image:100_0442.jpg WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 14:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just comeing here to post that, myself. Even if the user is actually above 18, the caption of the photos states that the subject of the photo is a teenager. While the AOC in Europe is 16, in the USA, where Wikipedia is hosted, it is 18. Best to delete the images, in my mind. Jeffpw 15:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Oversight should be consulted for such images. This is just the kind of issue for which oversight was created. Cheers, *

Neutrality Project

) 16:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how oversight is especially important here. A Commons administrator should simple speedily delete the images. -- tariqabjotu 16:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've zapped the images on Commons. Oversight is not needed here; there is no personal information in the deleted edits (which is what oversight is about).--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of consent is immaterial to the law in the UK where it is unlawful to posess a naked and sexually explicit picture of a person under 18 years of age unless one is formally partnered with them. This included images downloaded from the internet. This is paraphrasing UK law. The images would be very much better deleted quickly even if they appear to be 18+ precisely because of the caption associated with them. One can argue that these pictures are not erotic wth some justification, but safety dictates that they should go. Fiddle Faddle 16:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact the images are illegal in the UK if they even appear to be of someone under 18. This also includes pseudo-photographs and cartoons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I possess an ad brochure for a kind of diapers, and it contains photos of babies' inflamed genitals from using bad diapers. Is this ad brochure considered illicit child pornography in the UK? --tyomitch 01:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Completely. In Canada there is the Protection of Minors Act, in other countries, including USA, UK, and much if not all of the EU, there are similar protections. Cheers, ✎

Neutrality Project

) 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the subject here. You can use each other's user talk pages to discuss photos in diapers brochures and the like. This thread, however, is about another picture. Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Age of Consent is 16 in most places in the U.S., but AOC is not the issue here. Explicit images of teenagers under the age of 18 are considered child pornpgraphy in the U.K and in the U.S. No special oversight is required, the usual process of speedy delete is sufficient. Atom 16:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are there still images in need of deletion on Commons? Which ones? Or uploaded by which Commons user? (Please give a link to the commons user by prefixing if you can). As a Commons admin I would be happy to work to do the right thing once it is clear what that is (seems pretty clear to me already.) However I note that Nilfanion has already perhaps taken care of this? ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Lar I had sorted all that needed doing on Commons. As the user (same username as on en) seems to have been warned and still contributing on en, I did not block on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Had to block the range to prevent vandalism here. 24 hour block, anon only, account creation disabled. Hopefully this won't affect too many people. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Now had to block 68.219.0.0/16 too. --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 20:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't provide any evidence here, I can't imagine what anyone would object to. Why not just block 0.0.0.0/0 --206.165.70.2 01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) indefinitely. This user has been given several warnings and blocks, but he persists to believe he thinks he can game the system. A fifth request for checkuser was made regarding this user last week, but it appears the people with checkuser have not been as active. So, after I was informed of some editing oddities at Vladimir Lenin, I decided to some sleuthing of my own...

• FBabeuf (talk · contribs) signs his comments in a unique manner, a manner I have only seen from one other user: Jacob Peters. They both sign with three tidles instead of four, and their signatures are both on their own lines (see FB and JP).
• FBabeuf (talk · contribs)'s account was just created today and appeared merely to continue 69.105.31.69 (talk · contribs)'s edits.
• 69.105.31.69 (talk · contribs)'s are a continuation of 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs)'s edits.
• Moving onto another article, one can see that
  Collectivisation in the USSR
  article.
• Oddly enough Iskra1 (talk · contribs) did the same thing on December 27.
• And low and behold, Iskra1 (talk · contribs) has been declared a likely sockpuppet of JP (see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jacob_Peters#Jacob_Peters_4).

So, in conclusion, pending the conclusion of the

• Blocked Jacob Peters (talk · contribs) indefinitely, for extensive sockpuppety.
• Blocked FBabeuf (talk · contribs) indefinitely, as a sockpuppet of Jacob Peters.
• Blocked 69.105.31.69 (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours, as a sockpuppet, with account creation blocked (avoiding some collateral damage).
• Unblocked then re-blocked 207.151.38.178 (talk · contribs) for forty-eight hours, as a sockpuppet, with account creation blocked (avoiding some collateral damage).
• Semi-protected User:69.105.31.69, to help prevent removal of the sockpuppet notice.
• Semi-protected User:207.151.38.178, to help prevent removal of the sockpuppet notice.

Any comments? -- tariqabjotu 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The new socks look like a slam-dunk, especially FBabeuf. Good work. - Merzbow 20:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support, I agree - "enough is enough". Khoikhoi 01:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He has been disruptive in his edits. Edit-warring with multiple users across multiple articles. There is a post involving him on this board [20]. He has engaged in personal attack in his edit summary against User:Fowler&fowler (whose revert preceded his)[21] and I warned him [22]. He then made attack on me in my talk page [23].Rumpelstiltskin223 23:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add to this report - Szhaider has posted a comment on his userpage, which carries an offensive insinuation towards a religion and community - [24]. This is in addition to revert-warring on

Abrar ul Haq. Compound into this his avowal of "Pakistani nationalism" and strong religious and political POVs, I see a big-time POV pusher. I am involved in handling a dispute with this fellow, so I will not take any action. However, I recommend that this editor be blocked for at least 1 week, as he has had many prior requests and warnings for resolving these issues. Rama's arrow

00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As the named complaints were recently aggravated, I have blocked Szhaider for a duration of 1 week for revert-warring,

WP:3RR violation on Iqbal, disruption and personal attacks. If I jumped the gun, I can accept that criticism but I do feel there is sufficient cause. Rama's arrow

00:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As all they've done is remove a thread from AN/I...--Isotope23 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

...and

boldly close it but I'm not sure what the closure protocol is.--Isotope23

01:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

More instances of such behaviour:[44][45][46]Rumpelstiltskin223 01:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What an accusation ! The Indian contributors have been tag-teaminig on these Pakistani articles for many months before I got 3RR and the History of Pakistan was "protected" for more than three months. Now that I have some Pakistani contributors involved to represent the Pakistani perspective they have started this accusation. One can simply look at the history of these articles to see tag-teaming by Indian contributors before Pakistani contributors. I have invited many of my friends to wikipedia that does not mean that this "puppetry". One can accuse the Indians of the same regarding these Pakistan related articles.

Siddiqui 02:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially when I live thousands of miles from every other Indian user.Bakaman 03:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Bakasuprman is a Hindu nationalist who is constantly adding Devangari texts to Pakistan related articles and tagging their talk pages with Indian banners claiming them for India. He was quick to welcome[47] a user who abused me on my user page[48]. And look at his choice of words. Welcoming my abuser is a clear indication of his own behavior. I personally do not (->)accept any consensus which is developed by a bunch of like-minded Hindu-biased users (->)who are always aggressively scaring away whoever tries to interfere their propaganda (->)based intentions. Most of their citations are from those websites which promote (->)Hindutwa. They never accept any input from any user who does not agree with them. They insist on adding Indian script to Pakistan and Islam related articles and have been indianizing all such articles with twisted words and dubious citations. They force other users into accepting their citations no matter how questionable they are. Just look at their talk pages and you'll clearly see their unity in promoting Hinduism in Pakistan and Islam related articles, and Indianizing all such articles. They have literally occupied Pakistan related articles and won't let anybody other than members of their lobby make any major changes. If someone resists their propaganda agendas they persecute that user with full force and unity. Szhaider 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Several pages got protected due to the edits of this group (History of Pakistan and Pakistani nationalism to name 2). In retaliation, Siddiqui has been editing tendentiously, using inflammatory section titles and other acts of disruption across wikipedia articles, such as [49] & [50]. User User:HamzaOmar most definitely the same user as Siddiqui is helping him revert-warRumpelstiltskin223 06:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Szhaider and Siddiqui are absolutely right.Bakman and other Indian users play edit wars by editing in groups,therefor being careful not to break the 3RR.Nothing but a clear form of meatpuppetry.Bakaman and his fellow imperialists have made racist remarks towards Pakistani users as seen on the history of Pakistan talk page. If Bakaman and his fellow indian imperialists can't get have their own way around,they then go running to Indian administrators to assist them in their crusade against Pakistani wikipedians. Right now Bakaman and fellow imperialist user:deeptrivia plan on writing an article on "Pakistani textbooks"(to be specific textbooks used by a small group of religious fanatics in Pakistan) to stereotype us and brand us as extremists.This can be seen [here].They had done this before when they created an unsourced article on Christians in Pakistan which had been deleted yesterday upon my request. Unfortunately they clearly outnumber Pakistani wikipedians and are able to edit war in groups to keep all Pakistani items categorized as "Indian" despite my efforts to make it "SOuth Asian" to keep it neutral. I tried to revert the article on [Panani],but they keep changing it to "Indian" and keeping all refferences to Pakistan out including consistantly vandalizing the Pakistani tag I place on the talkpage. And due to the lack of diversity among administrators,they have a clear advantage over us. The alligations Bakaman states are false.Bakaman is racist towards Pakistanis(particularly Muslim). His fellow imperialists(and possibly him)are part of a racist site called [hindu unity].They make disruptive edits to Pakistani articles such as Pakistani nationalism by sticking their POV into them.They consistantly edit war on Pakistani history articles and try to keep out all refferences to Pakistan,again in large numbers to keep from violating the 3RR.And for your information,Pakhub is not Islamaist.This is another part of Bakaman's propaganda.Any attempts to revive Pakistani history is automatically claimed as "Islamist" by Bakaman and his fellow imperialists.Please read the articles on Pakhub to decide for yourself. They have also unleashed nationalistic bots and tagged Pakistani and Iranian related articles to Indian categories.Their consistant efforts to keep all consensus out(with the assistance of biased admnistrators) is a clear violation of wikipedia's neutral and no propaganda policies.

Your paranoia amazes me... hope you understand accusing admins is not the best way to present your case here. They were made admins precisely becasue they HAVE made productive contributions to the project unlike you who seems to be interested in removing project tags from talk pages. As for Panini call him a Pakistani before any non-Indian historian and see how they'll laugh at you. ************ *************** DaBrood^© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This after Siddiqui spammed talk pages [51][52][53][54], [55][56][57] [58]proving Bakaman's point totally. Rumpelstiltskin223 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I am getting Pakistani editors to protect the Pakistan related pages being filled with Indian propaganda. I am also urging my friends to join wikipedia and contribute to Pakistan related pages. The Indians have been team-tagging and reverting any changes to Pakistan related articles. The new Pakistani contributors will soon be able to give balanced view of Pakistan-India disputes. Indian have the right to give thier side of opinion so Pakistanis also have the same right. The Indians have filled Pakistani articles with Indias propaganda. Any change to reflect Pakistan view point is reverted and the Indian contributors team tag to defeat smaller number of Pakistani contributors. Hopefully this will change as I have been trying hard to convince many Pakistanis to join wikipedia and contributue to the articles that interests them.

Siddiqui 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battle ground. You by your own admitance are guilty of meatuppetry. ************ *************** DaBrood^© 08:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog, where you can put down any information, and because you have a few admins on your side, nobody can question your actions. The Pak tag belongs anywhere, where there are Pakistani ancestors involved. The fact is, Panini had nothing to do with modern Indians. If it hadnt been for some users here, the article would still have a ROI flag. (check history). So maybe you guys should pull yourselves together and stop defending biased information, backed up my some Indian written sources. If you dont want to call people of Pakistan, Pakistanis, what else do you want to call them? Indians. I see...makes no sense, but since you have admins on your side, who are we to question? Unre4L 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

P.s I provided 5 .edu sources of Ancient Pakistan being a valid term. Even then you question this. This obviously shows you have no regard for correct information being put on Wikipedia, but only information where you can cram the word "India" in as many places as you can. Unre4L 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course the fact tha google uses Ancient India 880 times to one compared to the fictitious "ancient Pakistan" seems to be lost on you, as well as nadirali's hallucinations of me being female, when I am obviously male. You're right WP isnt a blog where one can discuss fairy-tales like the "ancient history of Pakistan".Bakaman 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

First I thought Google was the only argument you could come up with. Now I know it. Ok...let me make it very simple. Why do you think we are arguing about this? Because people are misinformed, and since they are misinformed, they use it more often. If Ancient Pakistan came up with as many Google results, then this argument wouldnt be taking place, now would it? And your Google argument is not going to cancel out any official educational sources. Unre4L 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually here is one for you.
Islam gives 94 million google results.
Hinduism gives 8.7 million results.
Wait a minute. That must mean...
Unre4L 23:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. christian gives 318 million, muslim gets 58 million. Official educational sources? Pul-leez. I have 800 "official educational sources" to each geocities site and university of oregon blog you have.While were at it, do look at misinformed.Bakaman 01:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May be google is not the right place. We need papers :)

[59]

[60]

Now make an informed decision.--aen-vthaeussP:-t/--c- 13:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Or [61] and [62].Bakaman 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, thats better. Still, the results are far too aligned for Ancient India (or "Ancient India") than s/India/Pakistan/g--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 06:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This is also a candidate: [63] and so on... Truly speaking, I don't see a point of all this discussion... so much talk to stop the trolls... Democracy sucks.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢ 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Might have something to do with, Christian being a name, and the search for Christian and Christianity is integrated. But you failed to see my point. Google cannot be used to prove anything. I provided .edu sources for Ancient Pakistan being valid, unless you can provide .edu sources quoting Ancient Pakistan is Not valid, till then, please dont mention google again. Unre4LITY 13:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Islam is a name as well. see Islam Karimov.Bakaman 16:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Of interest to this discussion would be the edits[64] at

There Is No Cabal! Partition of India has been in my watchlist for over two years. I didnt revert your stuff, i was building upon D-Boy's version. Whats more dont game ANI, this is not the forum really to discuss this... ************ *************** DaBrood^© 17:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. Look at your reverts plus challenge [66] to my edits. Three people (all appearing above) reverting the same reference in three days is no conincidence, but perfect example of tag-team if not meatpuppetry.--IsleScape^Talk 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Its called reverting vandalism.Bakaman 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the fourth editor[67]--IsleScape^Talk 19:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh no a

cabal.Bakaman

21:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction, four

trolls in three days!--IsleScape^Talk

00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited the page much before three days ago, and added quite a bit in the way of references. Calling me a troll lol. Looks like noone but banned users, "restrorers of Pakistan's ancient heritage" and their SIMI friends agree with that.Bakaman 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is certanly a case of (anti)Pakistani and/or (anti)Islamic phobia and memory loss for which I don't no cure but to hope for improvement.--IsleScape^Talk 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did so many articles all of the sudden get protected by the same admin?--D-Boy 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhm Islescape, POV links. Do tell us about unicorns and East Dakota while you're at it. Zora is no mediator, she's the one calling for the article to become "Pakistani POV" and whining about "Indian Imperialist bots" and "Hindutva kooks".Bakaman 18:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the kind of Admins I have to put up with, who are on a clear mission to ruin just about everything I post.
User:DaGizza This is what he posted at first (about my PakHub article):
"Has 36 Google hits! AFD or Prod it and it will be deleted very soon. Might even get away if you put a speedy notice"
"Regarding Pakhub, I don't understand your "evil glee" comment, but I can assure you if you place a speedy tag, someone will delete it without hesitation. And thanks for your christmas greeting. I wish you likewise and a happy new year."
"As you see, I've deleted it. If they complain, I may revive and send it to AfD. Then everyone (not just Indians) will vote speedy delete and they'll realise that it doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Have a good day."

Even his buddy admitted this (Dboy) "why do i sense an small little evil glee from your words?"
And just to inform everyone. He deleted my article without telling me a word. The article was deleted twice, and I still had no idea who deleted it and why it was being deleted.

Unre4LITY 19:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You article was a freaking ad! It was nothing but shameless promotion.--D-Boy 14:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is Bakaman and his army of meatpuppets are loosing control of the articles due to Siddiqui's good efforts.As pointed out,they won't allow anyone but members of their (ultra-right wing) lobby to edit the articles. That seems to be changing and now Bakaman's freaked out.

Lol, freaked out. I am quite used to dealing with national mystics and religious fundamentalists now. Do you fancy

reliable sources do the speaking. Also unlike you, my time on wiki is not limited to "reclaiming the hijacked history" of my country.Bakaman

16:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mhm especially because i was commenting on the content. O and btw, no one is going to believe you unless you use diffs because you seem to be editing my text anyways, in a poor attempt to malign me.Bakaman 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprmnan was instrumental in supporting HKelkar and succeeded in having two editors who brought into focus misuse of Wikipedia space by him by having them banned along with HKelkar even even though they were hardly uncivil

I received a checkuser request in private, as well as the evidence of sockpuppetry above, so I ran a check.

t

06:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This user and I got into a dispute over my nomination of Val42 to be an admin. This dispute was originally being discussed on Val42's user page, then Trodel decided to switch it to our personal user pages. I believed, today, that our dispute was finished, but then he left me a comment tonight that was a threat against both myself and Val42. Apparantly Trodel got so angry with me that he has threatened to block me for alleged trolling and he has threatened to oppose Val42's nomination for adminship simply because I was talking with him over this dispute. I do not believe my remarks were rude, but if they were I would apologize, but he would block me for trolling, which i quite simply am not doing. He has not actually done it yet, but This is the channel that the wp page about threats directed me to, so i am posting it here. If any other admin reads this, please help me out here, because I do not want to be blocked because of the power tripping of Trodel. Thank you.

TheGreenFaerae 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that he removed an addition to an article that was disputed and resolved some time ago. I believe this is a covert personal attack, as it was his first edit after threatening me, and he had no previous history on the page. the page in question is Chloe Sullivan. TheGreenFaerae 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the arguments, I don't think you were trolling. However I do believe you turned friendly advice into a percieved personal attack and then beccame quite beligerant about it. It would do you both good to calm down. Incidentally, what Trodel was saying about the nominator needing to be of good standing IS a common requirement for people !voting on RfAs. That is not a reflwection on you, but on your experience of wikipedia and therefore how well you can judge a candidate. (havent looked at the second issue yet) Viridae^Talk 09:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I did concede that point. I suppose it appeared as if I took it personal, although that was not the case, but that is not what this issue is about. He is threatening em at this point, after I conceded the dispute. After I said that he was right, he then threatened both myself and him. I'm worried that he is going to block me for something I did not do. I woudl even apologize for this misunderstanding but he would block me if I did. TheGreenFaerae 09:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I am going to contact Trodel and ask for his take on the situation. Viridae^Talk 09:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

::I have reviewed the article. The section that was removed was unsourced, speculation and smelled like