Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553

Hi there, I wanted to notify you of an incident happening on the Philadelphia page. Since I'm not an administrator, I can't do a lot about it, except revert things. I created the new lead image for the article and replaced the old one with it by a majority of votes (see the talk page). One or more users however keep reverting it to the old lead image. Despite several warnings they still refuse to take part in the discussion on the talk page. I'm willing to restore the old lead image only if a majority of users decides so through this discussion. So I'm asking you, to put a lock on the article or something similar. Thanks in advance, Massimo --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected it, to encourage discussion. You should be aware, however, that you're technically violated WP:3RR, as those reverts were not vandalism (consider this your warning), and it'd be best to get the user(s) to discuss on the talk page, perhaps by asking at their talk pages, or perhaps by placing a note on the article's talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll place a note on the article's page to refer to the discussion. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a comment would be much better. Or something inside an {{ambox}}. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. A 1-month range block was placed to stop User:Swamilive in March (seen here). As soon as that expired, he came back to the old things. The block was reset to 3 months in April (seen here. Now, that's expired and he's back at it. See the history of Winnipeg Folk Festival. Also, see these edits to Graham [1] [2] compared to these edits [3] [4] by former sock.

For the more of the history here, see:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Swamilive
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_activity
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive_sockpuppet_rampage
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive168#Yet_another_Swamilive_sockpuppet
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive_-_Sockpuppeteer_and_harasser_wrapped_up_and_ready_to_go

Would someone mind resetting the block? Thanks. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the range for six months. If anyone objects, feel free to remove/modify. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks a lot! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Check my History and see that all of the edits i did make on this page was quickly removed and now im scared to edit again because of getting blocked for a simple reason, how shall i handle it?--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not edited the article Breast since February. When you did edit the article, it appears that you added unsourced original research. I would encourage you to read our info on using reliable sources and verifiability. TNXMan 13:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did make an edit now and got it removed by another user without leaving a note or a reason? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nakon removed your edit, probably for the reasons I stated above. Please do not re-add the material without a reliable source. Wikipedia is based on info that can be verified in independent sources and all of our articles should reflect that. TNXMan 14:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine I will not change the article but eh? everyone knows that African woman are known for having large breasts and by adding this information should be pretty normal--Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. We can't accept material simply because "everyone knows it". It has be cited in an independent source before we can add it to an article here. TNXMan 14:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, someone was scarred by the covers of National Geographic when growing up. I know a great number of African women who do not have "large breasts". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! That stuff was rarely on the covers of National Geographic. I had to actually look through the magazine (oh wait, too much information.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah right, and Jenna Jameson will someday settle down and have kids. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we go through this nonsense back in February or so? Wasn't Wiikiiwriter seriously chastised then? → ROUX ₪ 16:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was February, the same types of edits, and I believe he was blocked at one point for the same edits. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's deja vu all over again regarding that stuff about African women. Regarding NG, I recall one black comedian (can't think of his name - might have been Irwin C. Watson) said, "National Geographic was our Playboy!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I also remember a story from the sixties about a "Native" woman who was shown bare-breasted, be cause it was educational. She was, however, quite pale-skinned, and had to take a trip through PhotoShop under the airbrush before she appeared in the magazine. PhGustaf (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

I have been picked on, today, after I edited the Barbaro family recently, only to find out, by a little research on line, that there has been some long-standing agenda against Barbaro-family information on Wikipedia. False cases of sockpuppetry have been made up against users and tons of legitimate information has also been destroyed in the process. I am asking a professional administrator to keep a look out against the several prolematic editors talked about in this link: [[5]]. I have currently been harrassed by user Deor and Edward 321, who are both talked about in the link as problematic. Thank youPagetools (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Our only agenda is removing hoaxes. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mctrain/Archive, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mctrain, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Societyfinalclubs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive95#Hoaxer, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Barbaro_family, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive370#User:Mctrain. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly recommend that the problematic administators taked about in the link that I posted above be permanently banned from Wikipedia. What they have said is libelous, and was fueled by a jealous agenda against one of the Barbaro family members, who happened to be an American. They are also liars, who blocked unjustly, and then proceeded to write whatever they wanted in their case files, which are completely bogus. Their libelous and bogus accusations have spilled all across the internet- on what can be deemed as nothing more than a childish, jealous agenda. They have made a mockery out of Wikipedia [[6]].

• In one case file above, they try to discredit the family's ancient Roman links, yet that point was absolutely accurate and sourced within the original article that they have sought to destroy. Here is a link of the original fully sourced article, and if you back track on Wikipedia, you will find the most excellent sourcing available was used for the topic, such as the Encylcopedia of Italian Nobility by Spretti and works by Zorzi, the finest historain of Venetian subject matter. Here is alink of just some of the information that has since been destroyed by their outrageous actions: [[7]]. Pagetools (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• But this is only the tip of the iceberg, these users went and destroyed anything and everything related to the Albergo branch of the Barbaro family, including an article about a well-known French abstract experssionist by the name of Lucien Ruolle [[8]], Baroness Capace, Countless noble Barbaro family members throughout history, and their nonstop attacks on the Current Head of the Albergo branch, a well known aerospace engineer who has worked on the development of Vision Industries K2, which if you back track you will see the appropriate page- fully sourced and even with links to images.Pagetools (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• You tell me, is honest and good hard work, that is done for free and which allows Wikipedia to keep on existing, deserving of this treatment by individuals like Deor and Edward 321, who appear to be clearly on a power trip to support their jealous agenda. Is good sourced work a hoax? And are individuals with seperate accounts on a public-used terminal sockpuppets? Of course not- this outrageous agenda needs to end- and I strongly recommend that users like Deor and Edward 321 be permanently banned- their 'power-trip' antics have gone on long enough: with unjust blocking, destroying good information, and outrageous hoax and sockpuppet accusations. There unwillingness to listen to reason, is mighty immature- to say the leastPagetools (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The abuse to users intersted in Barbaro-family subject matter has gone on for years now- at least since 2007- to the point where individuals like Deor and Edward 321 have almost completely removed any information about the Albergo branch of the noble Barbaro family from Wikipedia- and they have completely succeeded in removing any mention of both acting heads from both branches of the noble Barbaro family right out of Wikipedia. They have fully established a strong history of libelous accusations that both members don't exist, or are hoaxes- right up to abuse that even went to freebase encyclopedia. You can not google Barbaro subject matter today without coming accross countless accusations of "hoaxes" from these users. I am livid at my treatment today, and I strongly recommend that these problematic individuals get banned- they are unchecked with their blocking privledges and they are liars and coverup artists who change their case file pages to suit any agenda they are after.Pagetools (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide WP:RS reliable sources about this family and about the "Sacred Order of Skull and Crescent". Never mind, I read in one of the links provided by Edward312 above and I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pugilist Club and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Sacred_Order_of_Skull_and_Crescent which were closed as obvious hoaxes and as the creator making up sources. I notice that he has not provided any source here apart from old copies of his own hoaxes. I suggest archiving this thread as trolling and blocking this account as another sock of Mctrain. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an open SPI, so just archive the thread. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Pagetools as a disruptive account and high probability sockpuppet of Mctrain. Jehochman ^Talk 04:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There has been funny business going on here for years, I started once to write about the Barbaro palazzi in Italy, and gave up because of constant rubbish (and dubious unreferenced material) being added - it became virtually impossible to keep even a stub stable if it had any mention of the Barbaro. From what I remember when I looked into it, this trouble seems to come from an "American branch" of the family headed by a "Prince Vitus" - I keep meaning to look them up in the Libro d'oro when I am at home, but always forget, anyway an American citizen cannot be an Italian prince so he would not be there anyway. Giano (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 has broken the 3-revert rule on the page The Fame Ball Tour. Please have him blocked. Alex (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You should report 3-revert issues at WP:AN3. You'll need to list the reverts, and show where the user was warned. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Legolas didn't even come close to breaking 3RR on that page. Tan | 39 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

True (hadn't spotted that, thanks). Hadn't been warned, either. I figured a link to AN3 and the requirements would be informative to the OP, though. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

AlexHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), here, is a fairly blatant sockpuppet of indef-blocked Alexander.hugh.george (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggest blockage. McJeff (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefblocked. Tan | 39 19:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) A very problematic IP is continually removing a quote from Earth Song, mainly because he doesn't like it and apparently can't understand it, although it seems quite clear what the quote means to me. Not once has he used the talk page, continuing on after his final warning. The quote has been removed six times this month: [9][10][11][12][13][14] Pyrrhus16 19:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Left 3RR warning. Stifle (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 19:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – — Aitias // discussion 22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I made the editing in Turkish Van cat article, but mixed the signs of references, and I am not able to solve it. Please, help to correct the reference marks. Thanks in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Please see my edit to see where you went wrong. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm not sure that this is the best place to ask for help with editing. Try placing the {{helpme}} tag on your user talk page instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Stopthenonsense blocked for edit warring--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is Kalarimaster (talk · contribs) who has a long block log YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – No admin intervention required (especially as subject has not edited since final warning), suggest WP:WQA or WP:DR. Black Kite 09:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dopplegangerr (talk · contribs) has made repeated racially motivated POV edits to Serial killer, ignoring notifications on their user page and the article talk page. momoricks 08:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WADR to Black Kite, I have reviewed Dopplegangerr's edits and he does seem to be a disruptive SPA. His name implies that he is a sock. WP:SOCK explicitly forbids "Good hand, bad hand" accounts and says it "is never acceptable to keep one account "clean", while using another account to engage in disruptive behavior". --B (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This user's disruptive edits have continued after the final warning and now include Carl Eugene Watts. momoricks 22:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Does seem to have an unfortunate preoccupation with race... seems most every edit deals with it in some way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have changed the resolved template to unresolved. --B (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP 86.136.34.91 is repeatedly rearranging band members without explanation at 21st Century Breakdown and The Network and has received a final warning. See [30], [31], [32], [33] for their edits. Also personal attack here. Has made these edits after being warned as another IP, under which he made the exact same edits to the same articles. Even before that, he had been doing the same edits under numerous other IPs for weeks. The only edits this person has made under his multiple IPs are to rearrange the band members on Green Day articles regardless of edit notes and attempts to discuss the matter with him. Timmeh 18:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

An area-block seems needed. GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP is a BT Broadband dynamic and as such is far too large a range to block; if they start again, I suggest nominating the articles for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. Black Kite 21:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Timmeh 00:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Posted on OfficerJackBoot's talk page(an idef banned user. Could an admin look in to it? Possible sockfarm.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: several of these are socks of User:ClaimJumperPete.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Would a checkuser or IP block do any good? This guy is getting annoying.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to file a sockpuppet report? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm on it as I speak.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 23:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkusered all. Those not stale are all  Confirmed, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from mentioning more on the wiki at this time. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have other things I need to do, and 68.185.89.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is making tendentious edits like this which is a highly inappropriate link. They are also rambling on about "liberals" amongst other things, and their previous edits are also highly dubious. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think O fenian needs some watching too. We don't remove people's attempts to discuss content disputes from talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, do you have a clue? It isn't a content dispute, look at where the link goes and the sentence it was put in. Then look at what was written on the talk page, it was bigoted soapboxing which you have added back. If the "watchers" are all like you, we're doomed. In case you cannot work it out, that link is similar to pipe linking to Criticism of Christianity with a visible link to Jesus. It was vandalism, it even says as much in the vandalism policy under "Link vandalism". The IPs edit summaries make their intentions clear, that was not a good faith attempt at discussion, it was bigoted soapboxing and should have been removed. And it was removed, until you came along.. O Fenian (talk) 01:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

O Fenian does have a point. The link, [[Religious arguments about same-sex marriage#Religious opposition|same]] links to an opposition page not to a support page. This should be removed immediately and the anon user warned. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying I agree with the IP either. However, we don't remove people's attempts to discuss their edits from article talk pages unless they're offensive. My point is that both editors appear to be wrong in this conflict. Toddst1 (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What the IP wrote was offensive, do you not understand that? O Fenian (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, it is OK for the IP to add an intentionally misleading wikilink on the page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You guys are missing the points. There are two issues here: There was nothing offensive in this comment. It removing the comment from the talk page is highly inappropriate. I agree that the link in the article was misleading. However, discussing things on talk pages is how we solve issues here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying anything about the comment, just the link that was placed by the anon. That is the only think that should be removed. Comment should stay, link should go. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I said something about the comment. And I discussed it on O Fenian's talk page as well. Toddst1 (talk)

Then my main concern is the link, which with your revert, still remains and should be removed. Correction: the link has been removed (by O Fenian) and that is my main concern, that the link stays gone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not missing any point. My initial revert of the inappropriate link was reverted with an edit summary of "Reverted bad-faith extreme POV reversion". That instantly tells me, and 99% of other people, that the IP isn't acting in good faith. Then for the IP to claim it is "extremely biased of Wikipedia to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate", based on the previous edits I, and 99% of other people, would correctly identify that as bigoted soapboxing against even the inclusion of a mention of same-sex unions. If that the first comment from an editor it could be interpreted differently, but from that editor with that history it is not a good faith attempt at discussion, and nothing meaningful could possibly come from that discussion. And Toddst1, you didn't discuss anything on my talk page. You came along with a pointless templated warning, and still don't understand that the discussion is pointless, offensive, and should be removed. O Fenian (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)