Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/01 (2)

• Moved to Media attention list. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Article protected due to reversion war, see the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 17:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• The range 142.150.0.0 - 142.150.255.255 is owned by the University of Toronto; due to the large range and potential for good edits on some IPs, a range block isn't feasible. The page has been watchlisted, please relist if the level of vandalism becomes more intense. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Vandal is now using 64.231.244.230 to make exact same vandalism. No point in reporting them, they'll just use a new IP. Scottanon 15:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • After a several-day holiday break, it's been vandalized again, now from 64.231.246.93. --TreyHarris 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No recent heavy vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am not. All I've done is remove the inappropriate notice as two previous users have done. Check the edit history. I have not vandalized the article, only removed the notice. Master and Commander 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No recent heavy vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• No recent heavy vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• It has happened again (multiple times?), and on the page Ayman Nour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) the image has been removed so that the vandalism doesn't show up; maybe some protection of the image is in order and the picture can be returned to the article. Also, it may help if reverting images was a little bit more difficult for non-admins. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No recent vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• User alert concerns a user or content dispute; please see the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Featured articles should no longer be added to this list per the new guidelines. // Pathoschild 06:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• All recent edits appear to be in good faith; no need for administrator intervention. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• No recent edits, no need for administrator intervention. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• User already dealt with. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 07:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• No further vandalism, should have been reported at Administrator intervention against vandalism. // Pathoschild 06:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Shared IP address, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. // Pathoschild 17:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's the letter 'o' that the asterisks replaced. However, he has not entered anything in his/her user page; the talk page is where you need to go. He/she is still using this user ID. Arno 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Is "poof" a slang term that I'm not aware of? I don't see anything wrong with this username. Mo0[talk] 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a swear word, for goodness sakes!! A derogatory word for homosexual, to be precise.Arno 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Really? Being gay myself, you'd figure I would've known about that one already. I think it's meant more in the sense of a pillow being poofed up to look more... poofy. I don't think this is really a username that presents a problem, and the user is not vandalising at all, so I'm moving this to the archives. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't vandalised anything. Wikipedia does not have a swear filter, and it has been widely said that the censoring of content deemed bad by some ages is not part of the agenda. That said, I can swear if I feel like it, as long as I'm making my point.

If you don't like it, then I'm sorry, I'll try not to swear as much, but calling it vandalism when I'm clearly making valid points is incorrect. I also am not a clone, if that's what I assume you mean by "sockpuppet". Thank you. Roger Danger Field 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Refer to this user's edits at Jordan. User:Roger Danger Field vandalized it three times today, including once after I left a note on his/her userpage and filed this notice. This user violated WP:3RR in order to claim that the country of Jordan exists as an excuse for Michael Jordan. With one of those edits (the second ever on this username), this editor requests discussion on the talk page. A genuinely new user wouldn't know Wikipedia that well. Durova 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You are incorrect sir. I reverted twice, not 3 times. The first edit was adding a quote, which got some coverage when it was said. It was also a prominent quote on Jordan, which did have some coverage at the time it was made. So I'd like to make clear this is not vandalism, but a content dispute. Clearly, some of you have not read the "biting the newcomer" thing, which may I add is a cracking read. You have not once asked me or gave a reason why the line needed to be removed, and I think there is a certain amount of bad faith in that. Some of the honourable gentlemen here need to realize that some of us are learners, and that if content shouldn't be where it is, you should help not continually go on a defaming exercise. Content Disputes are not vandalism. Roger Danger Field 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No action taken. The content the user added to the page in question was valid trivia; whether it belongs in the article or not is a matter for discussion. There was no violation of the three-revert rule, and the user responded to warnings with reasonable civility. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• All indef blocked. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Indef blocked as vandalism only account. Ian¹³_ID:540053 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Untrue. I didn't write all of those articles. When a person nominates only 10 Christian biographies in the same day (some of which you voted to keep), it's vandalism. --Jason Gastrich 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I sit corrected. Indeed, not all were originally written by Gastrich. However, there is no definition of vandalism that I know of that says that an editor (and a Christian) nominating articles for deletion that he/she feels should be deleted constitutes "vandalism." By the way, I only voted to keep one. It's still not vandalism. - WarriorScribe 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm trying to correct the fact that there are a bunch of unencyclopedic stubs (mostly started by you) about people in your little corner of fundamentalism. A.J.A. 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Cleaning up an encyclopedia is certainly a noble goal. I'm still waiting for how it is that the fact that they happen to be "Christian" biographies, most of which Gastrich either wrote or edited (and many of which are, hey, surprise, affiliated with LBU) is "vandalism" or constitutes "bad faith" editing. - WarriorScribe 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• I'm mostly agnostic (literally and figuratively in this debate) but as an outsider, this certainly looks like a vendetta, A.J.A. Could be coincidence, as some of your AFD noms look legit, but others are hard to construe as good faith, try as I might. Not really vandalism by my definition, but especailly in light of the personal attacks I have to wonder about your motivations. - Jaysus Chris 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I had a look and if I thought it wasn't notable, I nominated it. There were some I didn't nominate. A.J.A. 06:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but it might serve you to review Wikipedia:Notability. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." I don't have time to go through all of your AFD nominations, every one I have looked at more than satisfies this criterea. - Jaysus Chris 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Given Mr Gastrich's dubious conduct in relation to these AfDs, including vote recruiting based on some perceived vendetta, I'm surprised he's drawing attention to them. I haven't seen a policy forbidding vote recruiting, but going on about this persecution is at least skirting WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Given his experience on this website he should understand our deletion policy by now, and why nominating 10 or indeed 100 articles in good faith does not constitute vandalism. --Malthusian (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's make one thing clear.I'm looking up each person individually on the internet and forming an independent opinion of each before I vote.Because of this I won't even have time to look at some of the names until tomorrow.If I were just rubber stamping each right in a row you would have a right to complain, otherwise it's ridiculous. No where on that talk page do I promise how I'll vote.I said I would check out.I don't know how I will vote until I look at each one. Are you trying to obstruct freedom of speech between other wikians ? This is getting to feel more like some sort of vendetta by the moment. California12 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Assuming you're talking to me (please use indenting so people can follow the thread structure (fixed since post)), I haven't ever suggested, neither here nor in the AfDs, that you shouldn't vote just Gastrich notified you of the discussions, or that your votes were rubber stamping. All I'm saying is that a) nominating several similar articles is not vandalism (true), that going onto talk pages to ask people to vote a certain way is generally bad form (true) and that nailing oneself to a cross directly violates WP:AGF, skirts WP:NPA and is generally not a constructive way to develop this encyclopaedia (true). --Malthusian (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Jason notified me because I've been discussing with him several cases where possibly biased actions were taken against articles or users that were Christian.I am the one who originally initiated these discussions.He asked me to vote and voice an opinion, but he did not ask me to vote a certain way.California12 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I can't help feeling that's a rather academic distinction when he begins his request with bemoaning the atheist cabal and attacking a good editor as a troll. --Malthusian (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• No action taken. As this is either a content or a user dispute, depending on the way you choose to look at it, please see the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Moved alert from "Pages" to "Registered users". // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• No action taken. This user does not seem to have made any edits that are clearly bad faith, and there has been no attempt that I can see to discuss the issue with the user. Uploading images of semi-dressed or undressed woman in not in itself an indication of bad faith, nor is their inclusion into articles. Please see Assume Good Faith and the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)