Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Talk:Jay Westerveld

Can some other editors take a look at Talk:Jay Westerveld#profession after snowboarding career (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs).

The article was protected due to a content dispute. I started a talk page discussion and attempted to keep the talk page discussion on track, but it appears to have devolved into a mess of personal attacks, BLP violations, and accusations of sockpuppetry. I would rather not take action myself, as I was involved in the content dispute that lead up to the page protection. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sigh. OK. I laid out some rules of engagement on the talk page. I may have used a conjugation of the verb "dictate". With the article on full protection nothing will change, so I have modified this to Pending changes, and will place a note on WP:BLPN to invite uninvolved editors. Barek, as far as I'm concerned you're not so involved that you can't act; basically, I've threatened anyone who makes another personal attack with a block. I hope I don't have to police that page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Snarky reply from User:Alan Stenberg. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Irony, it seems, is alive and well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Diff of Talk:Jay Westerveld: Good thing this is a wiki; there's some great material here I am gonna save for later use -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as you give proper attribution. Drmies (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hold on. This article is now on Level 2 pending changes protection, which is something the community agreed would not be used. More importantly, it is being used to prevent a single editor from editing the article. When that is the case, the appropriate step is to address the issue with that editor directly, not put the article on protection. This is even more important in the face of BLP violations, which are apparently endemic in this article; even now, half the "facts" about this editor are unsourced, and there continues to be a coatrack about Glenmere mansion in the article, and other references don't even mention the article subject. Here's an alternative: block the BLP-violating account or take the time to actually explain to them why their behaviour is unacceptable, and if recurrent socking is a concern, semi-protect the article. Risker (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Risker, it was not being used to prevent one user from editing the article--maybe I need to read up on the ins and outs, or maybe I should have checked the status of those editors, but I thought that both sides (and their possible socks) would be prevented from editing it. Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am), but pending changes and semi-protection would have the same effect given that neither Semperfly (talk · contribs) nor Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have reviewer status. And I thought (again, I might be wrong) that both sides would be aware of how their edits are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, the first being the use of PC-2, which did not receive community consensus for its use. The second is that neither of the two editors you've pointed out have actually been educated in any way about what they're doing wrong. We're protecting a poor quality BLP instead of educating the editors or removing them from the project. The two editors involved are editing only on this subject and, given the fact that they've both shown up at the same time, are likely to be bringing an external battle to our project. PC is not intended to be the shortcut to dealing with problem editors, or with massive BLP violations or edit wars. It's intended to deal with articles that have frequent vandalism or insertion of nonsense. This article does not meet the criteria. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to change to semi-protection. As for education, I think Barek has left enough material on the talk page, but OK, I'll repeat the salient points there. Another editor with BLP experience has stepped in as well. I'll start an SPI. I was unaware of those PC restrictions, but no longer. I think that covers it. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On a relevant note, edits by Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs) have been remarkably uncivil, ranging from WP:PA to WP:OUTING and good old fashion WP:HARASS. See one user talkpage and earlier series of contribs on another user talkpage in addition to this gem. One of his already-blocked socks, Bog Turtle (talk · contribs) also levied this legal threat; Checkuser hasn't confirmed a connection yet, so SPI results aren't yet in. User talk:Alan Stenberg indicates he was previously blocked for abusive editing, and I've warned him regarding civility and his real-life conflict of interest surrounding Westerveld. Think a longer block is in order? JFHJr (㊟) 22:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As all parties were previously warned[1], I'll be re-blocking him given his current behavior. As this is his second block, I've extended the block to 72 hours this time. My internet access is sporadic at best at the moment, so if others want to change the duration there's no need to discuss with the blocking admin (ie: me). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Jay Westerveld still pending-changes level 2 protected

The article about Jay Westerveld is still pending-changes level 2 protected, despite Risker pointing out on the 23rd that there is no consensus for use of that form of protection. Can a reviewer please remove this protection from the article? Thank you. Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll second that request. (We actually are reviewers, and we need an admin to do it.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

 Erledigt. Does it need to be semiprotected instead or is just the move protection alright? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The troublesome editors have all been asked to play nicely. It should be fine with just the move protection. Yaris678 (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Confusing SPI result

Is the SPI result at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Enverbius really saying that both parties in the dispute are socks of each other? --71.231.75.104 (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found it confusing. Asked DQ for some clarification. I'm under the impression it's two sets of socks. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not what DeltaQuad said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the subsets are groups of confirmed, and they likely among each other. JFHJr (㊟) 01:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems blocked. This can probably close for now. JFHJr (㊟) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It may be continuing ... FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) has made his one and only edit at Talk:Greenwashing (a related merge discussion) - the idea that immediately after all existing socks are blocked, a new user would manage to discover that talk page discussion as their first and only edit and use similar arguments to socks of user:Alan Stenberg suggests some loud quacking is happening. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked FaFaFohi (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock of Alan Stenberg (talk · contribs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Phishing on Silk Road (marketplace)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just removed a phishing link from Silk Road (marketplace). This has happened several times before, and it has gotten to the point where they are gaming autoconfirmed. The subject of the article is site that uses cutting-edge peer-to-peer and cryptographic techniques to openly run a mail-order store for recreational drugs. The link in question allows readers to access Silk Road by means of a technology called Tor. It is not technically feasible to use the SBL, and before we evaluate other technical options, such as the abuse filter, I think we should discuss whether it is appropriate for us to link to the site at all. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 12:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to go with no, per NOT. Wikipedia is not a recreational drug site, nor should we work as advertising for such a site. I can't see any reason for such a link; if used as sourcing, I doubt its reliability; no other use occurs to me to argue for it's inclusion. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 13:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

And the buggers who add the link are persistent, and lie in their edit-summaries. I've upped protection to full, removed a spam link, and blocked a persistent re-adder. Wikipedia's role is not to enable people to obtain black market items (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Technically speaking, it's WP:ELOFFICIAL and isn't in WP:ELNEVER. Sometimes, though, it's better for the project to ignore the rules, and I think this is one of those times. T. Canens (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I thoroughly agree with refusing to include an official website that engages in phishing. We're not out to do things that actively hurt unsuspecting editors. Perhaps it's time to change WP:ELNEVER to include phishing and malware sites, even when they're official. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, the official site doesn't engage in phishing (it's essentially, as Jake put it, "a mail-order store for recreational drugs", although the people running the site is apparently different from the people selling the drugs). The problem here is that the nature of the technology used makes it very hard to distinguish the real site from the phishing site at a glance. There are potential technical solutions to this problem, but the question is whether we should even bother solving it or simply not link to the real site in the first place. It may not be a bad idea to expand ELNEVER to cover sites engaging in illegal activity, but there could be some line-drawing problems there (e.g., Wikileaks). T. Canens (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we would link to a site whose main purpose was providing copyvios, even if we had an article about it; the situation is exactly analogous. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• cf. WP:AVIASTAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have no objection to those who care to do such things, but given the ease by which the address may be ascertained, I do not think we should maintain a link.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've proposed that ELNEVER be expanded; please offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a post there, but for the purposes of the ANI in response to the link, how is this any different from linking to Demonoid or The Pirate Bay? Though I see the Silk Road and its darker cousin the Armory to be one in the same. Knowledge is power and this genie will not go back in the bottle if we take a role in generating more awareness for something that is already public. I'd go to the foundation about this one, as this one is quasi-legal, same as Wikileaks. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If WMF's OK with it, then I am. My concern is more on the legal/publicity side, and that's their responsibility. It is not a objection on moral grounds.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Why can't this be dealt with using the spam blacklist? The SBL uses regular expressions, so couldn't we just add something like:

\bsilkroad.*\.onion\b

which would not allow any url that contains "silkroad" followed by ".onion", with anything else in between. I'm not sure if they use any other domains besides .onion, but if so they could be added to the regex as well. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into all of the socks, and it seems to always be "silkroad" followed by random characters, and then ".onion". So, I've added it to the spam blacklist, which should prevent it from being added in the future. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could we get a little more discussion before we consider this matter closed? The first response makes it appear that the link has been removed more because "we don't like it" than for any encyclopaedic reason, i.e. "nor should we work as advertising for such a site". Do we consider it "advertising" when we link to other commercial sites? Let's not just whip out "Ignore all rules" as a convenient reason for "this is what we want to do." TL;DR:I do not believe that there was sufficient discussion to justify adding this to the blacklist. - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a much better technical reason not to have the link, which is that it's really hard to protect people from the phishing attempts that have been going on. .onion links are uniquely susceptible to this kind of attack, and I feel that it just isn't worth dealing with. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 09:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Then why don't you just put in the correct link, and protect the page from edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.115.121 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not for discussion here. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Boomage

Dear AN/I. I come to you today to raise my concerns about User:Boomage who has been attacking myself, other users and generally being uncivil across different pages. Also seems to be canvassing for a so called petition. I would like to see administrator intervention on this matter.
Examples:
User talk: methecooldude -- Many uncivil and attacking comments.
User talk: Cobi -- As above
User talk:Crispy1989 -- As above
User talk: Yngvadottir -- As above
User talk: ClueBot Commons -- General uncivilly
The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement and relative talk page -- Attack page
Special:Contributions/Boomage -- "I WANT TO BE ABLE TO UPLOAD IMAGES AND HELP YOU LOT OUT BUT YOU LOT ARE HAVING NONE OF IT!!!"

Many thanks

Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 14:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest Boomage is really struggling to understand how things work here, and a strongly worded final warning from an uninvolved administrator might help them see sense. Then again, it might not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I agree this looks like someone who simply doesn't understand the way things work - give me a short time and I'll try to explain things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 14:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a word - feel free to drop me a line on my talk page if the disruptive behaviour continues. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing, that looks perfect. Incidentally, the use of the word "git" as a (mild?) insult suggests that the editor may be British, so I would hope that we extend the same forbearance that is traditional for British editors who make personal attacks. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he's definitely a fellow Brit, and yes it is quite mild. But it's more the attitude than the word itself - in my view, for example, it's entirely possible to say "fuck" in a way that is not a personal attack, but "git" in a way that is, and it is the attack rather than the word that is not acceptable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite - there seems to be a lot of confusion over this, in both directions. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - I understand what you're saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh what fun :-) Thanks, Boing! said Zebedee. I had earlier tried to give him some unsolicited advice and he had indeed not realised he needed references. I've now seconded what you said and pointed to the welcome template with which Bwilkins started his talkpage; I closed the box around it for clarity. For what it's worth, a couple of his edits that triggered Cluebot were false positives ("He is known as a hard worker" or something like that), but he hasn't taken my advice to simply report that and I'm aware of the limits of advice. At least the deleted page shows he is willing to do research. I concur about "git" - hardly worth getting in a tizzy about, but he got himself in a bit of a rut here. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional comments too - I hadn't realised that ClueBot revert had been labeled "vandalism" (though I thought all the reverts were appropriate, for various reasons). I'm hoping that a reading of the riot act might get through - and hopefully help turn Boomage into a productive editor. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot actually says "possible" vandalism, so as to assume good faith. Bots jobs are very thankless :). --Malerooster (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, both Boing! and Demiurge, for your assistance in this matter - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all,

Firstly, I would like to accept full responsibility for my use of language and the tone in which I used the word 'git', and I offer my sincere apologies. Although I will add that 'Methecooldude' is not the saint he makes himself out to be, as I was called 'sad' by him, in an equally as offensive tone. Please don't think I'm being rude - indeed, I am going to take all your advice on board with regards to my future edits, but just bear in mind that 'Methecooldude' was not exactly what one would call 'polite' either.

My second point relates to my campaign against ClueBot NG, a bot I am quite frankly all too familiar with now. I am well within my rights to continue with my petition against ClueBot NG, standing up for what I (and many others) believe in. To block me solely for my Anti-ClueBot NG beliefs would be grossly violating my human rights, and I will be pursuing the campaign. Additionally, I feel I am well within my rights to have documented my petition against ClueBot NG in an objective and factual manner, which I feel I achieved in my Wikipedia page entitled 'The Anti-ClueBot NG Movement', complete with references, as I see user Yngvadottir so observantly notes above. In light of this, I have requested full feedback from user JohnCD, who outright rejected my contest to Speedy Deletion, with no explanation whatsoever, leaving me feeling confused and quite frankly oppressed by the system itself.

Many thanks, Boomage (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage

Hey, Boomage, I think you have a few misunderstandings on a few points. First, you don't have any rights on Wikipedia; it is a website that is privately-owned (by a non-profit, but privately-owned nonetheless), and as such, you have only the rights that are allowed to you but the owners. So, it's better not to talk about things like human rights being violated; it carries no weight, and may in fact be offensive to those people in the world whose real human rights have been, or are being, violated.

JohnCD was correct to delete your page, as it was an article on a non-notable subject. See the notability page, and some others, for more information on this. In a nutshell, though, your "Anti-ClueBot" crusade would need to have been specifically reported on in multiple, independent, reliable sources for it to have a Wikipedia article. Though you cite sources in your article, none talk about your movement, and in fact were all published long before your movement was started. So they don't help to establish notability. You should really drop this issue altogether, as you will get exactly nowhere with it, but if you really want to, it would be acceptable for you to create a page compiling evidence for your complaints within your userspace, like your sandbox, for example. Don't make it in the regular article space. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon Boomage

Just a few comments from a passing admin who reviews ClueBot NG's interface.

Firstly, I have reviewed the edits that the bot warned you for and yes, in a couple of instances the edits were genuine. However, if an edit you feel was not vandalism, then all you need to do is report it here, one of ClueBot NG's reviewers will then review the edit, if it shouldn't have been reverted by the bot we will then train the bot on that edit and hopefully a case like that won't happen again. However we cannot train the bot if you don't report the edit.

Secondly, you were not blocked previously because you don't believe in ClueBot NG, you were blocked because your edits were deemed to be vandalism.

Finally, I would echo what Writ Keeper has said that you should drop this issue with ClueBot because you really won't get anywhere with it. The encyclopedia needs an anti-vandal bot and an anti-vandal bot is always going to be an on-going project because vandalism can happen in so many ways and change so many times. Without ClueBot NG there would be edits like this one (and much worse) happening all the time. Guess who reverted this edit? Yup, you got it--5 albert square (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello albert square

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to reply. Secondly, if you think that I'm not going to get anywhere with my campaign against ClueBot NG then you are wrong because I have got a really strong backing from lots of people and I will keep campaigning. I do not want you to train the bot, I want you to get rid of it. If there were moderators blocking edits it would be much more efficient than this calamity 'bot'. All these legitimate edits are being blocked by ClueBot NG and the complaints will keep mounting up (probably why I have such a strong backing in my campaign to get rid of ClueBot NG).

Finally, I would just like to thank you for the polite way you spoke to me and I have sincere respect for you albert square because methecooldude has spoken to me in a very rude and unprofessional manner and Writ Keeper was also a bit was a bit full-on, so I would like to thank you for the way you have welcomed me, and spoken to me. Thanks again. Boomage (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Boomage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talk • contribs) 23:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Clue Bot is one of the best and most helpful bots we have: I very rarely see a false positive. "Campaigning" against it is not a wise thing to do, and a total waste of your time, as it will inevitably come to nothing. You're better off doing something productive. (Besides, if you get too enthusiastic in your "campaign", it's likely that an admin is going to find it disruptive and block you.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that if you wish to request the stopping of ClueBot and you go via appropriate channels, then you are welcome to try - someone suggested the Village pump, and that sounds like a good place. You would need to get a consensus of Wikipedia editors in support. However, an off-wiki "petition" will not be taken into consideration, and the opinions of individuals canvassed on an external site will carry very little weight. To succeed, you are going to need the support of existing, experienced, Wikipedia editors - and as a number of people are trying to tell you, you are not going to get that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello again Boomage

Us administrators/moderators do block vandalism however we cannot be online 24/7 (much as we'd like to be!)

ClueBot NG makes thousands upon thousands of edits a day, of which a very small percentage are false positives. On top of deleting vandalism the bots also do a lot of behind the scenes work to keep the encyclopedia functioning as it should.

I'm sorry but any idea that you have of admins taking over what ClueBot NG does is not going to work. The editor burnout rate would be much, much higher. You may even find that there is more vandalism on Wikipedia and that more genuine edits are reverted accidentally.

I suggest that you read this article that the BBC did on ClueBot as it may help you to understand ClueBot NG and what it does a little more.--5 albert square (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

About a week ago, Buck Winston (talk · contribs) was blocked after edit warring on several pages to add the category Category:American LGBT-related television programs to articles that aren't really relevant. Several were to seasons of reality shows that happened to have gay cast members/contestants, and he was particularly selective in the application. For example, he added the category to The Amazing Race 4 and The Amazing Race 21, presumably just because the winners of those seasons were gay life partners, while ignoring the fact that pretty much every season has had at least one gay or lesbian contestant (in two separate cases there were 4). Today, after presumably having taken the week off to gather himself, his first article edit was to reinsert this category despite a vast consensus against it. Further removals of this category have been termed by Buck Winston as homophobic as he reinserts it (examples 2 and 3).

It seems that he will not abide by the consensus laid out (at least on one page where the regular editors believe it is unnecessary), that he went to canvass for support and the fact that his first edits upon resuming editing after the Wikibreak were to edit war again and combine that edit warring with vaguely directed attacks means we have a problem a-brewing.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on that SPI report, when you take the articles that Buck Winston has edited and look at the overlap with Otto4711 and his 8 most prolific socks, you come up with 108 articles:

• 2 of those are overlaps between 7 editors
• 1 is between 6 editors
• 7 are between 5 editors
• 17 are between 4 editors.

It is totally beyond the possibility of random happenstance that any editor would have that amount of overlapping without being connected. Since he's back to being disruptive can we please have this person indef blocked on the obvious behavioral evidence?? Why are we rewarding Otto4711 for waiting long enough to create a new sock that his old socks are all stale and can't be connected to him by CU? Anyone who's dealt with one of Otto's socks in the past will tell you that the behavior outlined above is typical for him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, for those wondering if they've ever dealt with an Otto sock before, here's my list, which is probably not complete, in order of number of edits:

• Otto4711
• Are You The Cow Of Pain?
• Harley Hudson
• Buck Winston
• I Want My GayTV
• Iridescentlavender
• Greatsouthbay
• Lafe Smith
• Eddie's Teddy
• Jetblack500
• Calvin Grant
• Brig Anderson
• Screaminsista
• Orrin Knox
• William Bradshaw
• Pranking Member
• A Radish for Boris
• Liihaas
• Jed Stryker
• Sapphire Steel
• Herr Issyvoo
• RFA Guy
• Gaysoul
• War Rocket Ajax
• Lee Haas
• Lihaaas
• Difficult Situations
• Lihaass
• Sousa Blaine
• Derek Tenley
• Seventh Thief
• Heaven hear my heart
• Lea Has
• Archibald Noaccount
• Seab Cooley
• Dalek Trixie
• A-List Arrangement
• Eddie Tenley
• Cosmo Donovan

Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked per WP:DUCK. --Jayron32 20:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by User:Kereći svatovi and Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 at Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja

G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" [2]. I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here [3]. On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit [4] and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here [5], and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here [6]. After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here [7].

I had warned Kereći svatovi here [8] and again here [9]. Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff (WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed this right after you posted it, but dealing with POV pushers is not my strong talent. Since no one else has said anything, though, and I don't want you to feel ignored and unsupported, I'll offer my thoughts. I see why you are concerned about this user and the chance of sockpuppetry is a real one, but I think the actions of this user are just scratching at disruptive behavior. He's participated in discussions, at one point even agreeing with you personally, and has had decent arguments and ideas. He appears willing to compromise on the naming issue, for example. I know you've put a ton of work into this article to get it to the GA review, but I'm just not sure this editor needs to be blocked yet. Certainly they need to stop with the infobox and you were right to come here instead of warring over it. They also need to cut down the nationalist POV language and stick with the purpose of Wikipedia. But I think that can be solved with a mentor. What are your thoughts about my outside perspective?--v/r - TP 16:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. I was thinking about an ARBMAC warning from an admin per {{subst:uw-sanctions|topic=b}}. Which would set the scene for a discretionary block if the behaviour continues? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That's right about the area I was thinking, so I've gone ahead and done it.--v/r - TP 23:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, hopefully that will get the message through. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately their ears must be painted on. Despite the fact that three separate editors have reverted the removal of the infobox from the article [10], [11] and [12], and it is under discussion on talk, we now have a brand new IP 94.127.0.191 Special:Contributions/94.127.0.191 (WP:MEAT)? doing the same thing, with a very similar edit summary [13]. I think some action against all three might be appropriate? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Article „Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja“ speaks about two geographical regions of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which were under occupation of Hungary. Both regions (Bačka and Baranja) were only geographical areas and had no any official administrative status either in Yugoslavia or in Hungary. User:Peacemaker67 wants to include infobox „fomer country“ in this article, and from his infobox, one can conclude that this geographical area was former country with its flag, capital, currency, etc, etc. It is not only that User:Peacemaker67 included this wrong infobox, but when other users told him that infobox is wrong, Peacemaker67 started revert war and continued to move his infobox back to article. It is obvious case of user which knowingly add false info to article trying, for some reason, to make that these two geographical areas look like a former country. Bačka and Baranja had no any kind of official administrative status, were not former country, had no flag, coat of arms, capital, leaders, currency, etc. Infobox that was introduced by Peacemaker67 is simply unacceptable for an encyclopaedia that aims to be accurate. If administrators iam to perform some action here, they should perform it against person that inventing non-existing former country and that tries to create infobox of that non-existing country in Wikipedia. If administrators are not familiar with this period of history of Bačka and Baranja, they should research by themselves what were administrative divisions of Yugoslavia and of Hungary. In Yugoslavia, both regions were part of province Danube Banovina. During Hungarian occupation, Bačka was part of Bacs-Bodrog county and Baranja was part of Baranya county. So, is infobox „former country“ proper infobox for two geographical regions with no administrative status? I think not, and several more users agree with that. User:Peacemaker67 is the only one who thinks that these geographical regions were some fictional former country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.146.192 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

so I leave an ANI message for 94.127.0.191 and another new Serbian IP turns up here to defend the actions of 94.127.0.191 and friends? Classic off-wiki travelling circus and meatpuppeteering. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, would you consider a range block covering IP's 94.127.0.191, 94.127.0.174 and 94.127.0.166 on the basis of these three reverts [14], [15] and [16] and the attendant edit summaries? It is clear that these edits are by WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK and have no intention of discussing the matter, and will just continue to revert war. It is hard enough to get a useful and productive discussion going on the talk page without IP's just reverting anything when they WP:DONTLIKEIT... Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/92.40.254.14, Special:Contributions/86.42.8.86: Edit warring?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I can't make heads or tails of the contributions history here, but this is definitely not productive for the encyclopedia. 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello71 (talk • contribs)

• 86.42.8.86 has been blocked by Kuru following a report at WP:ARV. Perhaps sanctions against 92.40.254.14 for edit warring are also in order, although I haven't analyzed the history enough to see if there was also a clear 3RR violation; although in theory WP:ANEW might be a better venue. Salvidrim! 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• This issue is down to the user 86.42.8.86 removing information of wikipedia pages. To be more precise, they were removing timestamps o last update on professional footballers wiki pages and in some circumstances removing the date of last update entirely. I have noticed that there have been a few other members that have also reverted this edits made by this member, not just 92.40.254.14. I hope this will help you with this issue. Regards Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• For information, please note that the above user Pippin0490 self-identified HERE as the IP 92.40.254.14. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Ah, yes, thank you. I knew I had forgotten to add something to my previous post! I meant to add "who is actually myself" to the end of "not just 92.40.254.14." :) Regards Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) ] comment added 17:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• 86.42.8.86 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has no respect at all for consensus or discussion, they only seek to do what the feel is correct, even if this means introducing technically false information to Wikipedia, or edit-warring. They will evade the block by changing IP, whether deliberately or not. GiantSnowman 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The blocked anon has found themselves 88.151.81.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another IP address. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Match played 26 December" means match played 26 December. I have no idea how this could confuse people, unless they are just frustrated little men that have no power in real life, so they bully people anonymously on Wikipedia. There are thousands of pages without timestamps on Wikipedia, why pick on the ones I edit? I update footballer's pages every single weekend, including goals scored. I have also included external links for Soccerbase.com to corroborate this. I have made thousands of edits to Wikipedia, without looking for any credit, yet every week, there are sad little men reverting them out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Example of an average Wikipedia contribution from me. Reading defender Ian Harte had incorrect number of appearances (listed as 79) as of time of Man City game. I corrected this to 76, his correct number of appearances as of Man City game. I edited his page since, to acknowledge his 77th League appearance against Swansea midweek. Playoffs don't count, right? This is all corroborated on Soccerbase. Another Reading player Noel Hunt and MK Dons player Shaun Williams are other footballers whose appearance stats are constantly being incorrectly changed by other people to include Cup and Playoff appearances. But why acknowledge the good contributions I make? This is about a reputation I have undeservedly built up amongst nerds like you. Keep blocking my IP. Ever heard of civil rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.151.81.197 (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• You have already been blocked, bypassing a block will only get you in further trouble. You're removing timestamps of players, timestamps are there for a reason and this has been outlined here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_72#PC.26NT_updates_in_infobox) You're also changing dates for no reason and completely removing other dates. The fact that numerous other members have reverted your edits, you have had warning posted all over your talk pages and have been blocked should tell you that you're in the wrong and causing problems for wikipedia. Please STOP!Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully people will see, I have provided this person with the link to the discussion regarding datestamps and timestamps, they ignored it, so I even went so far as to copy & paste it to there talk page, so that they have the proof right in front of them that what they're doing is wrong. Yet this hasn't worked, the person continues to remove timestamps and cause problems relentlassly. I am just about out of ideas, clearlt the person has no interest in contributing or coming to a compromise or talking about it as they either ignore it or blank their page. What else is there to do?Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have notified the blocking admin of the block evasion. Salvidrim! 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  88.151.81.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blocked for a week for block evasion. Please notify User:Kuru, the blocking admin, if the user shows up again, at his request. Salvidrim! 22:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for sorting this out, hopefully this will be the end of this matter. Pippin0490 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RightGot

RightGot (talk · contribs) has a history of problematic AfD proposals, see now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 phenomenon which he thinks should be deleted because the world didn't end. Time for an indefinite block? Dougweller (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is the first edit for them in 4.5 years. Maybe a good talking to would suffice for now? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Just ban them from AFD's Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I closed the AfD, but since it's been so long since the last edits, someone should definitely talk to them before blocking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a chat would work, but it didn't work before. Still... thanks to the editor who notified them, I got a phone call and forgot. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• • I left them a message and gave them a notice of this ANI, as that must have slipped Doug's mind when filing here. I don't have much hope looking at his archives, but we should still try to solve the problem on the talk page first, if only for ourselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Where was the attempt to discuss it with the editor before escalating to ANI? GiantSnowman 16:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It might be interesting to see what he says, if anything, but as I've said, it didn't work before and I don't see why it would work now. I clearly shouldn't have let myself be distracted from notifying him and I apologise for that. On the other hand, if the editor doesn't respond, do we just ignore it? Dougweller (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Since it's none of my business, I'll put in my two cents. If he hasn't edited in 4.5 years, cut him a break. When I got back from my enforced absence, it took me awhile to get back into the right way of doing things. But, if the problematic AfDs continue, it should be brought back here for resolution. Maybe someone could mentor him? GregJackP Boomer! 22:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

DouglasTheMovieGuy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am totally not happy to have to report DouglasTheMovieGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but my requests, advice begging and warning falls to deaf ears. Mr. DouglasTheMovieGuy is adding excessive detailed plots on the articles of the movies The Stalking of Laurie Show and Sweet Temptation (film). Bigger problem then that is that the inclusion of the cast is copyvio from IMDb (Duplication Detector Sweet Temptation and Laurie Show). I have advized him, warned him, warned him again and begged him to stop. But as result I got this and this. An other edit made very clear that he is aware of the copyvio and tries to disguise it. As non-administrator, I can't do any more. The Banner _talk 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, the guy needs a block for this [17] personal attack Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One week of edit warring on Socionics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Socionics&action=history --Th4n3r (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like some socking going on as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I filed an SPI, three of those editors are certainly the same user. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted to the last stable version in the meantime. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hounding

Following a disagreement with Nableezy in which he opined that a source that published content stating that it is a historical fact that Jews across the world are shunned, cowards, a nation of agitators, are slaves worthy of punishment and are worse than feeding vampires was nevertheless a reliable source, he proceeded to summarily nominate my sandbox for speedy deletion. I find this unnecessarily combative.

Nor is this the first time of such practise. Nableezy had never edited Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants created by Darkness Shines in March, yet he felt compelled to request a speedy nomination in December after a disagreement with Darkness Shines. Ankh.Morpork 22:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I, uh, actually think he's right. Attribution isn't enough; we can't have non-free text on Wikipedia unless it's in the form of a brief quote, and while it wasn't super long, I can't reasonably call that page brief. If other admins disagree, they're free to restore, as always. You had good intentions, of course, and I'm not saying he was right in going through your sandboxes to find a "gotcha", but that kind of stuff shouldn't be held on-wiki, even if attributed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He may be right; I certainly do not fully understand the copyright rules. But I resent his habit of seeking to antagonise editors with whom he is involved in a dispute. Ankh.Morpork 22:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork already took this to EdJohnston's talk page, but Ill respond here as well. The above user copied, word for word, a lengthy op-ed from a copyrighted source. The "sandbox" has since been deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. The user repeatedly questioned the use of a news article published by the Palestinian wire agency that also published the op-ed on the basis of this op-ed having been published. I did a google search on the author's name. Lo and behold a Wikipedia "sandbox" shows in the results. I clicked that link and found it to be a copyright violation of the original, and I nominated the "sandbox" for speedy deletion for that reason. AM, despite the big red box explicitly saying that if you are the creator of the page you may not remove the nomination, proceeds to remove the nomination. So, in total, a user violated the copyright of another person, violated our policies on copyright and then violated our policy on speedy deletion. At least he has dropped the personal attack that I maliciously hounded him this time around, so kudos for that. nableezy - 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I find his ideas in that discussion deeply troubling. I can't read Arabic, but he does seem to be first avoiding the question, then acknowledging that (a) the source is outspokenly racist, and (b) he still considers the source reliable. On the other hand, I don't think we're allowed to reproduce the text of a news article into our sandboxes, because copyright rules would apply. And 'hounding' would generally be more than once, and with less cause. Is it possible that you were wrong about the sandbox and he was wrong about the source? Does he have a pattern of anti-semitic edits that the problematic discussion is part of, or is there something else happening that caused him to want to use that source? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

FisherQueen, I never once said that op-ed was reliable, in fact I explicitly said that it was not and that it should not be used. That an op-ed contains such material does not however render a well-established wire agency as a whole unreliable. The "source" that AM is bringing here has never, as far as I know, been cited in any article by any user anywhere on Wikipedia. What AM brought was not a news article, but an op-ed so that he could attempt to disqualify actual news articles reporting on things that he would rather keep out of an article (that Israel killed a Palestinian fisherman). Is the Washington Post suddenly as a whole unreliable because they publish the rantings of Jennifer Rubin? Because that is the argument AM is making, and it is that argument that I objected to. nableezy - 22:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Well-established"? It was created in ...2005. Compare how the left wing Haaretz reported an incident regarding a man suspected of attempting to place an explosive device" and how this was distorted by Maan who described an innocent farmer. It is an inaccurate and antisemitic news agency and anything but reliable. Ankh.Morpork 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont know whay you repeatedly bring up things that undercut your argument. Ma'an specifically says that [a]n Israeli military spokeswoman said forces fired on "a suspect apparently placing an explosive device." That Ma'an does not accept as Gospel what the IDF says doesnt make it unreliable, despite your imagination. And finally, this isnt RS/N. This is AN/I. The only incident that I can see here is that a user violated both the law and out policy on copyrighted work, then violated the policy on deletion by removing a speedy deletion tag from an article he created. nableezy - 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Compare how Reuters reported this death, noting how militant gunmen had opened fire on Israeli forces which they then responded to, and how Maan failed to mention any of the clashes that were taking place. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

They seem to report it much how the Guardian does. Or CNN. Both of which, like Ma'an, say that it took place during an incursion. And oh by the way, that wasnt the article Ma'an had about this specific child being killed. That would be this article that says the following:

Medics said the boy was hit by machine gun fire, either from Israeli helicopters or tanks that took part in the incident.

Israeli military vehicles briefly penetrated the southern Gaza Strip earlier Thursday morning, leading to clashes with Palestinian militants.

The Popular Resistance Committees said its gunmen had confronted an Israeli force of four tanks and a bulldozer involved in a short-range incursion beyond Israel's border fence with the Gaza Strip.

So Ma'an did in fact include what you falsely accuse them of not including, and your charge of it being an inaccurate and antisemitic news organization displays your partisanship more acutely than it does theirs. Having once again provided me with an assist, do you want to stop here? nableezy - 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? I'm only familiar with English-language wire agencies, but I'm having trouble imagining Reuters or AP sharing an editorial that was openly racist in this way. Is the Ma'an News Agency reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel? The information I'm seeing indicates that its editorial position sides firmly with Palestine; wouldn't it be better to look for a source that everyone could agree was fairly reporting on the facts of the conflict? If this is a significant incident, surely it was covered on the Israeli side as well, so the accounts could at least be compared for facts that everyone agrees are accurate? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not aware of any source being reliably neutral in matters associated with the conflict between Palestine and Israel, including Israeli and Palestinian news agencies. However, we use Israeli news sources on a regular basis, they are probably the most cited sources on most articles in the topic area. There are any number of op-eds published by sources as Haaretz of the Jerusalem Post that I personally find repugnant. That doesnt mean that I can summarily dismiss their actual news reports. nableezy - 23:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This astoundingly ridiculous argument is unfortunately what editors in the A-I conflict have to put up with. If the obviously Israel-leaning Arutz Sheva can be utilized in articles then pro-Arab sources should also be utilized. Never mind that the latter regularly publish antisemitic crap of the highest order, as linked above. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentar Unless Jennifer Rubin is dead I believe it is a BLP violation to have that she "rants" in this thread, could someone remove it please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Having taken a look at the Jennifer Rubin (journalist) article, if the article is essentially true then "rant" is rather mild. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

"Fisherqueen" asks: Do wire agencies ordinarily print opinion pieces of this sort? Expert (me) answers: Yes. Poor little Wiki lambs, you must deal with outlets that run both news and opinion. Godspeed!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please show an instance of Reuters or AP running a similar opinion piece. Ankh.Morpork 00:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

...just like I said above... and from an "expert" to boot. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern ignoramuses can start here [18]. All wire services move opinion pieces, some in large numbers, and have for decades. This place is pathetic that it gives equal voice to experts and propagandists (yes, I'm talking about "ankhmorpork" and "brewcrewer" when I write that). If they suggest that wire services don't move opinion pieces they're either lying or ignorant. One or the other.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You know what, here's the massive opinion section at Reuters for the propagandists (anonymous ones, notice) who claim that Reuters has no such section. [19].Dan Murphy (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't so much asking whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces, but whether most wire agencies run opinion pieces which are openly racist. I don't recall having seen anything of this sort from AP or Reuters. In fact, even deeply spurious, biased 'news agencies' like WorldNetDaily wouldn't, I think, publish something quite this racist. I didn't realize that I was both a dear little lamb and an ignorant liar. Can I be both? And is it okay for the three of you to call me names just for not realizing that all wire agencies publish material that I, in my ignorance, have only seen coming from actual hate groups? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I really dont see how it is at all relevant what an op-ed contributor to Ma'an wrote to the question of if Ma'an's news reports are reliable. Above AnkhMorpork makes the false allegation that Ma'an distorted the events surrounding the killing a Palestinian youth by Israeli forces by leaving out "context" when Ma'an said exactly what he claimed they did not. Why would it matter what some op-ed in the middle of a rather rough time to be living in Gaza said? Does it matter that an Israeli paper repeatedly cited in that article and used extensively throughout articles on the topic hosted an op-ed during this same period that said We need to flatten entire neighborhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn't stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren't surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.? No, it doesnt. Nobody has cited the source that AnkhMorpork is objecting to, and if anybody were to cite it they should be blocked. But he is waving around a single person's opinion that was printed as an opinion of a single person as a means to disqualify an entire news organization and to discredit them (speaking of BLP Darkness Shines, if you want to be technical about it) as inaccurate and antisemitic. You dont see a problem with that? nableezy - 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If the translation is correct, and if the alleged "news organization" allows such garbage to be presented, then the alleged news organization has no credibility and cannot be used as a source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Says you, not our policy on verifiability or the guideline on reliable sources. The BBC apparently feels they can be cited^[20][21] as does the Guardian^[22][23][24] as does al-Jazeera.^[25][26] They are not disqualified as a source on your say so, sorry. We have guidelines here that say that this news organization is a reliable source. That they published an op-ed, regardless of what it says, is a red-herring. nableezy - 02:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel comfortable throwing your support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, then you're beyond hope on this issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that they're a reliable source for vile commentary about Jews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quality of commentary expected of you. Your reputation precedes you, and you surely do not disappoint. Did the BBC throw [their] support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism? Did the Guardian? Did the New York Times?^[27][28][29] Does somebody calling for an entire area to be wiped out like Hiroshima on the opinion pages of the Jerusalem Post make the Jerusalem Post unreliable for its news reports? nableezy - 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, there aint a point in debating something on a board like this, if AnkhMorpork, or you, would like to challenge a source routinely cited by other reliable sources on the basis that they allowed an op-ed to be published you can do that somewhere else, and Ill be more than happy to bat away any other line that you think is clever there. nableezy - 04:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Has the alleged "reliable source" in question ever allowed an op-ed condemning the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years? Was that obscene anti-Jewish editorial accompanied by a disclaimer disavowing it? I'll wait for your reliably-sourced confirmation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Youll be waiting for a while, I generally dont answer stupid questions. You can choose to either argue against the points that I made or you can try look, and yes just look, smart by asking asinine questions. Maan is cited by numerous other reliable sources, it meets all the criteria set in WP:RS. What an op-ed says doesnt change that. Just like an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post that appears to call for genocide against those dastardly Palestinians and their reign of terror doesnt change that their news reports meet the standards set in WP:RS. nableezy - 14:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comments here, though lacking in fact and reflection, are sufficiently revealing of your true character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lacking in fact and reflection? What are you smoking? Im the only person who has brought any facts here. AM says the source didnt include context, I show that it did. You say alleged "reliable source", I say here are links to top-rate news sources using the source. You say I am throwing [my] support behind an organization that tolerates Nazi-style anti-Jewish racism, I say no, I am using news sources that other news sources are perfectly willing to cite. You say the reign of terror that Palestinian extremists have waged against Israel for the last 40-plus years and I giggle. So whose comments again are lacking in fact and reflection? nableezy - 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Keep digging. The bottom is down there somewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

One last question for you to ignore. If a newspaper were to run an op-ed that said You can put a mask on the Palestinian wild beast, such as a speaker who speaks fluent English. You can put it in a three-piece suit and a silk tie. But once in a while – when the moon is born, when a raven defecates on the head of a howling jackal, or when the pita-bread with za’atar has gone wrong, the beast feels this is its night, and out of a primal instinct it goes ambushing its prey., would that newspaper actual news reports no longer be considered "reliable"? nableezy - 05:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, time out. This is not the incident, time, or place to re-fight the whole I-P conflict again. The deletion due to copyright violation appears proper on first inspection, arguing over the source's bias / reliability is not useful here and now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought this discussion was about hounding and not the deletion due due copyright. Easy to see why it got twisted based on the nonstop rebuttals and poor attitude shown all around in the discussion, though. Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy to see that the two factors are not easily separated, Captain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In general - If X was appropriate (judgement, within policy, improving or un-damaging the encyclopedia), and user A does thing X (originally by user C) then that's OK. If X requires admin tools and A was in conflict with C over other issues, that's one example where it's not ok. If A is actively hounding C that's another not-OK example. Best practice in those cases is for A to notify others and let them review and do it. X not actually being appropriate is another not ok, of course.

That said, the actions here did not use admin tools, there might have been conflict but I don't see any well-stated evidence of going beyond that into actual hounding, and there seems no articulated argument that X was not appropriate. The situation is not described in terms that rise to the level of an actual problem, though some perceived there might be one. Hounding is not conflict, it requires a much more active, deep harassment.

AnkhMorpark perceived he was abused, but has not provided evidence that he was in fact hounded (or even harassed in the actionable sense, or sustained sense).

If there is evidence of actual harassment or hounding, or a good case that under policy the deletion was a problem, those are valid things to pursue. What has been presented was a dispute, but not (based on evidence I see) abuse, harassment, or hounding. There is no good evidence the deletion was wong. Ankh feeling wronged explains the report, but that does not mean the actual events rise to the level that any policy violations or abusive conduct happened.

I recommend another admin archive this, as it's generating much heat and little light now, and there seems to be no actionable incident for admins to respond to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page error

Prompt attention to [[Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#"today is the birthday of Dattatreya"]] is required, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page errors is becoming an embarrassment. The main page is the most visible page in Wikipedia, and one of the most visited, and most important, pages on the entire web. The process that produces its content needs to approach perfection; angsty pleas for urgent updates, which is a daily phenomenon, is indicative that the process is abjectly broken. If this process can't produce solid reliable content that meets all our standards with at least 99% first-time certainty then DYK, ITN, and OTD need to be removed from the main page, leaving only FA and FP which do. Complaints that MP/E isn't watched by enough admins misses the point - there need to be no errors in the main page in the first place. 176.250.45.76 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but while Tomorrow's Main Page is linked on Talk:Main Page, few people actually go to visit it. Unfortunately, no set of people tasked with reading the next day's Main Page will catch everything. Rather basic grammatical errors are unacceptable, as they should be noticeable to almost anyone reading the content, but issues of fact are not unless someone takes the time to thoroughly read the article or, more likely, someone knows the subject matter.

In this case, the "error" fits in neither category, and I'm not sure there was an error at all. I'll admit it'd be preferable for phrases like "today" to not appear on the Main Page, especially as DYK items are up for twelve hours (when did it change from eight?), but it's hardly the kind of error that results in embarrassment. And it's most certainly not the kind of error that requires complaining here after just half an hour of waiting. -- tariqabjotu 00:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:DYK#Reduce_queues_into_two_per_day.3F. -- KTC (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As the description of the problem has been removed from the error-report page, and as says "I'm not sure there was an error at all", I'll explain here. the DYK item said "today is the birthday of..."; but was displayed, around the world, during parts of two days, the 27th and 28th December. I proposed more suitable wording. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, in part, but I've also seen errors and omissions, including failures to make articles properly accessible in accordance with the MoS. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

For example, removal of fan art from today's FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty (returned from archive)

The article Patricia Cloherty has been the subject of constant bad-faith edits by User:Happy225 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) who seems determined to turn it into an WP:ATTACKPAGE. The article was sent to AFD and was fixed (by me and others) to remove the WP:UNDUE weight given to some references and other attacks and accusations. A few days ago, Happy225 copy-pasted an entire old version of the article back into place including the old attacks, undue weight and old AFD tag.

Happy225 is basically an WP:SPA almost solely focussed on this article. He has been blocked in the past for edit-warring at this article and has received warnings going back 3 years - all related to this one article. Not sure what the obsession is but some form of WP:COI is obviously at play.

The latest obsession seems to be related to the subject's age which Happy225 seems desperate to include. This was specifically noted at the AFD by the closing admin because no WP:RS exists for this "fact", only social media, and I think there was a suggestion that the original DOB was wrong.

Either way, the article was the subject of an OTRS ticket from the subject, seemingly because Happy225's previous edits inserted a bunch of unsourced attacks and accusations and the subject asked for the article to be deleted. Thus the AFD nom.

Happy225 has again be warned, twice, and I asked an admin to keep an eye out, but the quasi-vandalism continues. On the matter of the subject's age, I'm probably at 2RR myself, though the timing is spaced beyond 24 hours. Either way, I would appreciate some assistance. Stalwart111 22:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

If you receive no remedy on this notice board, for the immediate problem (edit-warring), try WP:EWN; for the longer-term content dispute, try WP:BLPN. Hope this helps. Rgrds. --64.85.215.128 (talk) 16:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, but I really think this now needs a block to prevent further vandalism and/or bad-faith edits. Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I have manually de-archived this thread to try to get some admin attention before it closes. The vandalism continues - this time the "facts" were reinserted with a bad direct link as a "reference". Fixing the link produces a Forbes profile which does not support the claimed facts anyway - here. This seems to be a clearly bad-faith attempt to reinsert the same dubious "facts" using fake/bad references, again, to create an attack page. Can someone please block the vandal in question? Stalwart111 23:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

He's made a single edit in the past three days, the above edit, which doesn't appear to be an attack. Could you elaborate what edits have been made in the past three days besides this one that constitute an attack? --Jayron32 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The above is simply the latest in a three-year campaign to insert unreferenced, negative and POV material into this one article - a campaign I don't profess to fully understand. Eventually it got so bad, it was nominated at AFD. The "problem" sections were removed (including the unsourced DOB) and the article was rewritten. The editor in question seems to be determined to revert the article back to its pre-OTRS, pre-AFD state. I can continue to revert, every three days or so, the same vandalism and will continue to do so. But Happy225 is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build WP and has contributed nothing but the same quasi-attacks since he/she registered. I don't, as I said, profess to understand why someone would be hell-bent in inserting the wrong DOB into a BLP but I think its just what he is stuck on since everyone keeps reverting the more obvious stuff. Does there need to have been something in the last 3 days for action to be taken? Stalwart111 05:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Full protection for 2 weeks to give time for any other necessary action to take place. I note that Happy225 is persistently trying to insert her age but wavers between her being 70 and 72. Dougweller (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, and the suggested "source" says 69. Without an WP:RS to verify the age/DOB, the AFD closing admin suggested it should be left out. That has been upheld since for continued lack of an RS. But previous bad-faith edits included an unsourced/undue claim that the subject was responsible for commercial loses overseas (extrapolated from a single off-hand line in a multi-page profile and inserted in the article lede) and the unexplained removal of easily-sourced information about an major honour the subject received. Very strange. Stalwart111 11:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So, dispute over content and page protection have been somewhat dealt with ... even though neither should be on this board. Why this was pulled out of archives instead of being taken to the right places is beyond me. Your next step on the user is WP:RFC/U as nothing that requires immediate blocking has been proven (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection is obviously helpful but not what I asked for and this is not, in my humble opinion, a content dispute. We don't disagree on what should be in the article - consensus determined that previous "facts" were unsourced and inappropriate and a single editor is vandalising the page to have particular attacks reinserted. If it's being done so slowly that it doesn't constitute blockable vandalism, that's fine. I'll continue to prevent vandalism once the block runs out - I can guarantee it will continue (the editor in question removed my explaination on his talk page then asked why his edits were being reverted). Sigh!

It was restored from archive because no-one had responded (except to suggest a solution for the edit-warring). These were serious enough issues to prompt an OTRS ticket from the subject, an AFD and delete votes there until it was cleaned up (it was so bad, people chose to delete rather than fix) and all bad-faith content was from one SPA who nows wants his/her old version of the article to be returned. I've seen blocks for far less serious vandalism, especially in BLPs, but if admins think this doesn't even constitute a topic-ban, I'll respect their judgement. Stalwart111 22:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Maconchy

User:Novaseminary has an attitude problem, being extremely patronising to other users who are trying to be reasonable WP:OWN while insisting on removing valid information from the article including (but not limited to) links to her husband and daughter while claiming this information is "unsourced" when in reality he just can't be arsed to check the sources and has a major attitude problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm quite confused. Not a single edit you reverted here was substantive. That is, Novaseminary made some cosmetic changes to the article, fixing some grammar and the format of some references, but made no substantive changes to the article's content, and it appears you just reverted them wholesale with no actual reason. Can you explain that? --Jayron32 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confused? Yeah me too. Sorry I thought he was continuing to be an ass but not yet at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.242.193 (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Look further back in the edit history and see Talk:Elizabeth Maconchy#Novaseminary unnecessary removal of material, Jayron32. We're clearly looking at things like this edit, where Novaseminary removes Maconchy's daughters from the article, and this edit where Novaseminary removes all mention of the daughters, studying under Wood and Vaughan Williams, OBE and DBE, Bartók, marriage, tuberculosis, string quartet, and choral and vocal works.

    Not only is it the case that the LeFanu information is supported by the source that was cross-linked to the prose, which I've just read page 348 of and seen in the supporting source, but additional sources confirming this and all of the other information can be found in about 10 seconds with almost no effort at all. I found several without breathing hard. Maconchy has full length biographies in several encyclopaedias and dictionaries of biography, as indeed does LeFanu. Their mother-daughter relationship is amply verifiable. Maconchy's first daughter is in her encyclopaedia entry in the Encyclopedia of World Biography, which also has an entire section headed "Suffered from Tuberculosis", confirming the information about contracting tuberculosis that Novaseminary removed for being supposedly completely unverifiable. The marriage, husband, compositions, OBE, DBE, choral work, and other information is verifiable from places ranging from a composer profile at the BBC by Andrew Burn to the several page biography in Pendle's Women & Music.

    Yet these 10 seconds are effort that Novaseminary has not expended in eight months, preferring instead to grossly misapply the verifiability policy and remove encyclopaedic content (which is in encyclopaedias) that xe clearly hasn't bothered to check. It is understandable that 86.129.242.193 is peeved at eight months of such destructive and lazy "work" by Novaseminary. It is understandable that not reading what is right in front of xem leads one person to consider Novaseminary's "work" incompetent. This is not how one writes and behaves when there are biographies of and encyclopaedia articles on the subject coming out the ears that one can collaboratively check and cite in order to improve the article, and where the information repeatedly excised for supposedly being unverifiable was right there in the cited sources cross-linked to the prose.

    The venue for this, however, is, as was pointed out at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive732#User Novaseminary reported for obsessive battling and disruptive behavior by Blackmane, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This isn't an incident requiring administrator intervention. This is a months-long pattern of destruction of patently encyclopaedic content, unhelpfulness, lack of collaboration, and blatant mirepresentation and misapplication of content policy that obviously requires stronger negative feedback from the editor/writer community at large to the person exhibiting it. Content writers know that this is not how one writes collaboratively.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe North8000 will need to be taken up on their offer to spend the time to gather the evidence for a RFC/U. Blackmane (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember an offer like that but I'm the Wikipedian most familiar with the editor. The 30,000 foot view is that some guidance for them in problematic areas is in order, (although they might have already have improved.) And that this will not be apparent to someone at first glance /not fully familiar. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summary.

[30] Dunno what ought to be done here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh. --Jayron32 00:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably nothing: it's really un-classy and a bit trollish, but it is idiomatic, so I wouldn't take it at its offensive face value. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but he seems terribly disruptive to me, look at this edit[31] hardly neutral and he was up to around 9 reverts on Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September 2012 - December 2012) today. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Other behavior may be a problem, but that wasn't what you asked people to look at. If you've got editwarring problems, collect the reverts as diffs and post a request at WP:ANEW. If you've got other concerns about tendentious editing, please collect those diffs with an explanation about what makes them tendentious. However, when you posted this thread, you only asked people to look at the edit summary, so that's what we did. If there are other more pressing problems, please give us evidence of those. --Jayron32 00:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

'Terribly disruptive'? I'm really making a gold star effort here - and as it's had to be, all on my own - to keep propaganda filth out a timeline article. No actually, strike that: out of -all- of them. Yeah, I'm saying that's better. Even if the compromise has been to corral it into the new article I've had to create. Would be a good thing if you would think more and have the class to withhold from announcing judgments like that on these sorts of forums in the future.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You are really not helping your case right now... Jeancey (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon? Who else has done the work? I've done the homework which show's up to 7 others having the same conclusion as me on the basic issue, and moreover that the other party making it a 'war' was told to knock it off by other editors with his/her same campaign in the early part of this year. Other discussions of the same topic have only added more voices against said campaign than joining in with it.MalesAlwaysBest (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

From the recent discussion I count only you debating me. And from past discussion I count I7laseral, Jeancey, me opposing Djang andres shipfan and you Sopher99 (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Specifically, referring to it as "propaganda filth" is inappropriate and inflammatory, and telling someone to mind their own business in that manner is inappropriate. Wikipedia is a community project, and the community pretty much always has the right to ask or inquire as to the reasons for particular edits or behavior.

It's not evident that the cleanup was wrong per policy or reasonable best end result for the articles (might be a problem, but didn't see that on first look). But poking and insulting people in the process of doing good work is a bad thing. Please tone it down some.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That is what I was referring to when I said you weren't helping your case. Thanks for being more eloquent than me, George. :) Jeancey (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat

The editor User:William S. Horn has made a legal threat on my talk page [32] and on the talk page of the Jennifer Horn article. [33] He has a self-confessed conflict of interest (spouse of the article's subject), and is demanding that the article be deleted or he will take legal action. --Drm310 (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Clear legal threat, but the article also has serious BLP issues. All of the specific complaints from William S. Horn are of unsourced negative BLP content, and I will be removing them from the article per WP:BLP policy shortly. I will leave it to someone else to decide what action is warranted regarding the legal threat itself. Monty₈₄₅ 04:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See WP:DOLT. His specific complaints about article content should not be ignored. The legal threat aside, the article needs serious clean up as it is full of WP:BLP problems. Of course, the legal threat needs to be adressed, but the BLP issues cannot be summarily ignored merely because the person who brought them to our attention also made a legal threat. --Jayron32 04:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have warned the user for legal threats, which hasn't been done before coming to ANI. If he continues, additional action should be taken. I agree with Monty about the BLP issues. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the most egregious BLP issues in a first edit, and then stubbed the article in a 2nd, as after the BLP violations were removed, it seemed overly promotion, and none of it was cited. I'm done with it for now if anyone else wants to edit it further. (The 2nd may have been overkill) Monty₈₄₅ 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin User:Good Olfactory aiding and abetting sockpuppet of User:Otto4711

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Otto4711 has been a rather abusive editor, which led to his block back in 2006. Since then, he has had these seven sockpuppets detected and blocked, usually because he has been drawn back to the same set of articles and to WP:CFD, a rather small world in which patterns of editing became rather obvious. As noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711, his latest incarnation, User:Buck Winston, walked like a very Otto-like duck. Yet he managed to squeeze out nearly 1,000 edits before being blocked yesterday. But while the sockpuppet report was filed on December 17, at least one editor seemed to have been onto the sockpuppet at least two weeks earlier, if not longer. User:Good Olfactory, an admin with a long history of interactions with Otto4711 and the world of categories, was rather clear in his suspicions. At this edit, he does everything but out BW as a sock of Otto4711:

Otto4711, is that you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, who is that? Buck Winston (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't say anything. Mum's the word. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

BW removed this exchange in his next edit and then takes a few days off to lie low. User:Good Olfactory doesn't do a thing, and with a wink and a nod allows BW/Otto4711 to simply walk away scot free. As Sergeant Schultz would say on Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing - NOTHING", despite the clearest possible evidence of sockpuppetry at work. BW would go on to squeeze out almost 200 more edits before being blocked more than three weeks later, including many at CfD. Not only did Good Olfactory ignore this blatant sockpuppetry, he actively aided and abetted the block evasion, knowing clearly that he was dealing with a banned user. Good Olfactory closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_14#Category:British_transgender-related_television_programmes on December 5 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_11#Category:American_gay-related_television_programs on December 19, two of BW's many nominations, in a subject where Otto4711's handiwork was blatantly obvious. I would have hoped that an admin would try to actively deal with abusive sockpuppeteers and immediately block editors like Buck Winston / Otto4711, and his willingness to turn a blind eye is more than disturbing. But aiding and abetting a sockpuppet by closing CfDs that the sock had initiated clearly goes beyond the pale. User:Good Olfactory's abuse of process and administrative powers and responsibilities goes way too far here. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is .... interesting. (1) I was never sure if User:Buck Winston was User:Otto4711, though I had my suspicions. (2) My comment on the user's talk page was intended on tipping off those who were investigating the issue of "who is User:Buck Winston?" that I too had such suspicions. (My final comment on that talk page was somewhat tongue in cheek and given my past interactions with Otto4711, I wouldn't expect anyone to take it in its literal sense, though I can understand the confusion if Alansohn did.) (3) My comment had the desired effect: shortly after my comment, this was posted on my talk page, to which I responded here. I was aware it was being looked in to by other users, and I had some contact via email with other users about the issue. (4) I don't think any of the CFDs I closed resulted in consequences that were particularly controversial or troubling, regardless of who started the nomination. We could go back and void the results, but they would likely be nominated again by other users to accomplish the same effects. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Alansohn: If a claim should be made, "abuse of process and administrative powers" is not a correct one, in my opinion, because Good Ol’factory didn't perform any administrative action. Additionally, I guess that factory gets the summary of his actions very well above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps Good Olfactory's simply lacking enough evidence to block the sock as such. Why not just open a WP:SSI investigation to confirm whether this is actually a sock first, before assuming bad faith about Good Olfactory's actions? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 06:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

An admin calls actively working together with a known sockpuppet "interesting"? This is ..... extremely disturbing. Whatever the excuses, the appropriate action was to start a WP:SPI or initiate a block, not to work together on imposing Otto4711's abusive actions on the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Otto4711 was opened on December 17 and closed as confirmed on December 27. Good Olfactory had no issue with using administrative authority to close CfDs initiated by someone he at least suspected to be a sockpuppet. Unfortunately, the consequences will need to be severe for both Otto4711 and Good Olfactory before this abuse finally stops, as they seem to work a bit too well together. Alansohn (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend that this is assumed with good faith. If an admin is not sure if a user is or isn't a sock, the best course of action is to stay calm and wait until further evidence is provided, not to go ahead and block. Also, Good Ol'factory wasn't bound to open an SPI case, and he cannot be blamed for it. Anyone opened it, the result was positive, and the case is over. The fact that you suspect someone to be a sockpuppet isn't ground enough to perform any action you'd perform if it was a confirmed sockpuppet. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence presented by Alansohn is clear, compelling, convincing, and not ridiculous at all - Good Olfactory is in cahoots with Otto4711. I would not be surprised if Good Olfactory is just another of Otto4711's many sockpuppets. The safest thing to do is block them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Delicious, I disagree that the evidence is clear and compelling. Alansohn seems to completely miss the humor when Good Olfactory says with a wink "Mum's the word", tongue in cheek, and this diff (presented earlier by GO) shows that GO probably wasn't quite confident enough to block or open an SPI (which can be very bitey if you're wrong). Also, I think it is extremely unlikely that GO is a sock of Otto4711. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lol—if I wanted to keep User:Otto4711 under cover as he sockpuppetted, why would I have commented on User:Buck Winston's talk page at all? Think, people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@Alansohn: Just a little question though. Why is this brought up after the sockpuppetry case is closed and solved and not before?

@Delicious: Be careful, remember that accusing someone without evidence is disruptive... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Good Olfactory is my sock. Sorry for confusing everyone. (Please, no one take that seriously and open another thread). It looks to me like GO was somewhat, but not fully, certain that the account was a sock, and asked flat out to gauge the reaction. I do not see any reason to believe that GO is in any way attempting to help Otto, nor do I think he would be monumentally stupid enough to make it so obvious if for whatever reason he were. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait—I'm your sock? I thought I was socking you? To date, I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of half a dozen banned editors of ill repute, but being accused of being a sock of Otto4711 is somehow more satisfying for me given how Otto and I used to clash occasionally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to criticize DC for shooting from the hip in making his absurd claim, but was taken aback by the Stalker evidence of the overlaps between GO and Otto & Co. Then I remembered that the last time I was looking into Otto and came up with pretty good Stalker evidence of a connection between Otto and an admin (it might well have been GO, I really can't recall), a second look showed that the admin had such significant overlapping because he was policing Otto, not because he was Otto.

There's also the question of why Otto would need to keep creating socks if one of them was made an admin, or why GO doesn't exhibit any of the kind of behavior that got Otto indef blocked in the first place. I'm inclined to think that the person behind Otto & Company isn't just acting like a "bad hand" account, he really is combative and intolerant of others, as shown by his editing behavior. I don't see that person as being able to carry out the kind of long-term acting that would be required to be an admin.

I suggest that DC withdraw his suggestion, or else put his money where his mouth is and file an SPI. After all, we now have Buck Winston to run a CU against, so things can be cleared up rather quickly - that is, if DC can convince an SPI Clerk that the evidence is compelling enough to warrant a CU. However, if DC were to file an SPI on GO, I would be presenting evidence against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that people on WP have a hard time recognizing sarcasm... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 07:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw my demand that you think. You were convincing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

@DC: It's not just on Wikipedia, sarcasm is extremely difficult to convey in any text-only medium, and probably accounts for a good deal of flame warring everywhere on the Web. It's especially difficult to recognize with a throwaway one-liner, which is why people tend to label it explicitly to make sure they're understood. In any case, I'm glad to know that you weren't serious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested that people write sarcasm in Times Ironic font, to prevent any misunderstandings. RolandR (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the phrase "not ridiculous at all" might have been a clue that I wasn't serious. And that I thought the whole topic was ridiculous. I will be more careful in the future to avoid such remarks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: Just as otto has clashed with GO (and others) in the past, so too has alansohn (note block log). This isn't quite boomerang worthy (mostly just unfortunate ABF, as we've seen in the past), but I think it has the potential to be if the equine continues to be flagellated... - jc37 08:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We've identified the problem, now lets work on a solution

Please, all, concentrate on resolving the problem, not escalating it.

This is my own opinion on the problem and its solution, and I think its pretty well already resolved.

• Problem: Good Ol’factory suspected Buck Winston was a sock of Otto4711, and then conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen. But then a shit-storm happened, with accusations of aiding and abetting, admin socking and more.
• Solution: The sock has already been blocked. Good Ol’factory, I think the wording of the message quoted above and not acting on your suspicions earlier were not the best course of action. I think we are done here. Everyone else (including me), go back to improving the encyclopedia.
  

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is absolutely no requirement that an admin take action upon seeing any particular incidence or situation.

I also disagree with your assessment of the above discussion. Other than a misread of sarcasm, I don't see any sort of "storm".

And I also don't see any endorsement of the initial posting. So I'm not sure what your proposal is intended to 'resolve". - jc37 11:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I "conveyed that suspicion to Buck Winston in words that could have been better chosen"? What I wrote was, "Otto4711, is that you?" I'm not sure how my question could have been misunderstood if the person behind User:Buck Winston was the same person that was behind User:Otto4711.

Like User:jc37, I'm not seeing much of a storm, except for the outrage of one user who has had a tendency in the past to be outraged if I sneeze. In the past, I've been accused by this user of such things as trivialization of the Holocaust and pedophilia, so being accused by him of WP administrative malfeasance is small potatoes.

Anyway, after a 4–5 month hiatus away from WP, I was not about to block a user on my first week back based on a vague suspicion of familiarity registering in my brain. So, User:Shirt58, I do not agree that me failing to block at that time was a mistake. I feel that the issue was handled carefully and responsibly, and I was involved in pursuing it after my initial inquiry on Buck's talk page. (You have made a commendable attempt to at least get users back to doing something productive, however, so thanks.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the Wikibreak didn't help any. By the time that Good Olfactory demonstrated that he thought that BW was a sockpuppet, his only words of explanation were part of a side conversation regarding which one of two likely puppetmasters was behind the sock. In the ensuing weeks, BW kept at it and the pattern was blindingly obvious to anyone who was uninvolved who looked at the matter. But Good Olfactory allowed Buck Winston / Otto4711 to continue his abuse for weeks right under his nose at CfD. Good Olfactory saw no reason to get involved when he suspected that BW was a sockpuppet, but saw no reason to be uninvolved when it came to using administrative authority to close multiple CfDs, even after the community as a whole recognized that this was Otto4711. Good Olfactory could have asked uninvolved admins to investigate the suspected sockpuppet in early December and he should have asked uninvolved admins to take action in mid-December when he was closing the CfDs for his buddy Otto4711, but Good Olfactory did neither. Sure, blocking Buck Winston will sweep the problem under the rug for a short while. But given Wikipedia's sieve-like justice system, Otto4711 will be back with more of his socks, especially if there are administrators who are willing to look the other way. Otto4711 will be back, just as he has been dozens of times before, several of which have been caught. The problem is that Good Olfactory seems to lack the judgment of when to act and when not act, even in a case like this where we are dealing with one of Wikipedia's most abusive sockpuppeteers. Otto4711 is only half of the problem and a virtual co-conspirator who uses his administrative privileges to assist Otto4711 by closing CfDs well after it was clear who was involved simply has no legitimacy as a Wikipedia administrator. Alansohn (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Good Ol’factory merely voiced suspicion about puppetry. No action from GOF was required, and in hindsight needed. The system worked. I suggest a close and trout for submitter.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  15:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Continual linkvios

By User:Aminul802 I have told him three times on his talk page he cannot link to hacked or leaked content as it is a linkvio, he continues to do so, and has just now done it again. Could someone tell him this is not allowed as he refuses to listen to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this Darkness Shines (DS). The relevant discussion on my talk page is: [34]. I am awaiting arbitration on this issue from DS's suggested arbitrator. May I note that I have advised DS regarding WP:CIV, as I find his language offensive here [35] on 28th Dec 2012, at 13:32 and 14:53. Aminul802 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see why 17 USC §105 wouldn't apply to the leaked embassy document, seems to pretty clearly be a work of the US Government, and if so, is in the public domain, leaked or not. Monty₈₄₅ 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And what of his links to hacked skype phone calls on youtube? Which are between a layer in Belgium and a judge in Bangladesh. Also are you sure of that 17 USC Cornell says does America not have a set time before stuff becomes PD? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Where? And why did you remove a link to foreignpolicy.com that contained the exact quote from the leaked document? And why have you made 6 reverts in the past day on that page? nableezy - 16:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Cos the FP source did not mention the fucking ambassador so it was a BLP vio. Take a hike. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but it links to the actual cable here. So again, why did you remove that link and why did you make 6 reverts in a day? nableezy - 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines has made it clear he thinks this is a copyright violation which is an exemption to WP:EW. As long as he believes that in good faith that is what he is doing, then the reverts are justified. However, now that Monty845 has pointed out that this potentially isn't a copyright violation, Darkness Shines should cease the reverts. However, we should all play it on the safe side and not use the source until it is determined.--v/r - TP 16:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Im sorry, but I dont think that is true. Given this and this, what I see is a user with an at best curious understanding of what is acceptable use of copyrighted material using any excuse he can come up with to further his editing goals. But maybe Im just a tad cynical. nableezy - 17:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe cynicism is playing into it ;). But DS's actions, on the surface, display a concern that copyrighted material is being used. As that exempts him from warring, the only thing left is an unprovable curiosity into whether he misled us on his intentions or not. And I just can't see an admin blocking on those grounds.--v/r - TP 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You reported Aminul802 for re-adding a linkvio, stating he had just done so again. So thats the link I looked at, and my analysis for that link is above. It appears you reverted another potential linkvio, but that that link was not re-added. Could you provide diffs of any additional linkvios that were re-added after you objected on linkvio grounds? Monty₈₄₅ 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[36][37] After he had two warnings over this very link twice on his talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And of course the copyvio image he claimed as his own work, I had the speedied.[38] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And here[39] In a BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The links to the youtube videos do appear to be impermissible under current linkvio policy. At this point, I think we should make it clear to Aminul802 that the youtube links must not be re-added unless the copyright issue surrounding them can be addressed and a consensus formed that they are permissible. The reason that cannot be included is that they are copyrighted and that the place they are published did not have the copyright permission to publish them, not that they are leaked. Copyright is automatic in most expression, included recorded conversation, and absent an exception, such as for works of the US Government, we must assume the leaked material remains copyrighted. I think the communication to Aminul802 regarding the various issues could have been clearer regarding what was wrong with the youtube links, copyright policy is extremely complex and confuses many editors, even experienced ones. As far as I can tell, Aminul802 is making a good faith effort to navigate those policies, even if they have made some errors in that regard. (I would also mention that links to reliable sources that quote small excerpts of the leaked material are also probably permissible, its only links directly to the copyrighted conversation that would be effected by linkvio.) Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(ecxalot)Cool, also let him know it is a BLP violation to use the leaked documents for information on a BLP as there is no way to know it they have been altered. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox women

Could some involved editors please take a look at the template Template:Infobox women and impose a decision on its content, either way it goes? It has been the theatre of a slow-motion edit war between me and another editor for three months now. A previous ANI failed to put an end to this. I would like to achive any kind of consensus on this dispute (described in the previous ANI) so that this can finally end.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this infobox really needed? I'm not convinced by its title either. In fact, I'd go the whole hog and question the purpose of 95% of that category! Most of the articles could easily fit into the main country/people articles, and some of the ones that actually may have a case for an article, don't have one! (Women in Afghanistan, anyone?). Lukeno94 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We have that as a redirect to Women's rights in Afghanistan. Which should really be named to Women have no rights in Afghanistan but there ya go. Any others? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not really an ANI thing -- I'd suggest WP:3RD or WP:DRN. NE Ent 20:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

lough neagh

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi admins, Fearing a potential edit war at lough neagh so raising the issue. User:Mo aimn is refusing to acknowledge the outcome of the discussion here Talk:Lough Neagh on topic "Basin Countries". I have corrected the vandalism but as this page is under 1RR I expect Mo to be back in 24hrs. Please can someone look into this....Factocop (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• You can't be serious with this... request. Doc talk 18:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've looked into it. Looking at this diff, which spans a period of six and half years, it appears that the only content writers are this person and this person (who was also a vandal and whose content has already been partly challenged as suspect), with this person adding section headings and listifying prose and this person adding the infobox. These four people are pretty much responsible for every significant change to the article in six and a half years.

  In the meanwhile, you, Factocop, alongside GoodDay and a whole load of others, are collectively responsible for almost 500 edits of edit warring and 440KiB of talk page discussion all over one frelling detail. And not a one of you has written anything about, say, the petrified wood that is one of the things that Lough Neagh is most famous for, and that forms a significant part of its entry in several other encyclopaedias, or the inflows and outflows, or the historical differences in water levels, or the geology.

  So, having looked into it, I now have some questions: What use are you and they to the writing of this article, or indeed to Wikipedia? You've collectively and individually contributed a sum total of nothing on the topic in six and a half years. Moreover, you edited exactly one article during your three-month Troubles topic ban, and even that was Ireland-related, but the day it ended you're back at Troubles topics, and indeed at the very same article that got you topic banned for three months, with the same one-note melody. Are you simply incapable of substantive writing about anything else, so when banned from your one note you have nothing of worth to offer the encyclopaedia at all?

  I note, almost in passing, that this edit is a revert of this edit that in turn was reverting you, in contravention of your restriction at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee#User:Factocop unblock conditions.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies Doc, but I thought this was the administrator's notice board...I must be lost. I have encountered Mo on a number of occasions and expected him on this occasion to respect the discussion outcome but sadly not.Factocop (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That revert is a clear violation of the unblock conditions. I shall impose a 24 hour block. Please refer any future violations to AE for discussion and sanction. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iamthemuffinman

Iamthemuffinman (talk · contribs)

Folks, just to let you know I have indef blocked Iamthemuffinman with talk page access revoked, for a series of events that should be clear from his talk page - essentially, personal attacks at User talk:MisterShiney, and escalating threats (including a threat to sock) on his talk page. Anyone who knows him will remember his past battlefield approach and personal attacks, his vandalism spree, his global account lock, and the goodwill a number of us extended to him to allow him back. In the circumstances, I think my actions are justified. I'm bringing this here to ask people to be on the lookout for any socking from him - it's late where I am, and I'm off to bed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the appropriateness of your actions, since I've not taken a look and I'll AGF, but in WP:UTRS ticket #3075, User:MBisanz said that anymore disruption will result in a restore of the lock.--v/r - TP 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

He has apparently also abused the email system, so I have removed his access to that too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And I've let MBisanz know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Note also a statement of intent to evade the block [40]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, thanks - I meant to link to that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Editor was given a slap on the wrist for very offensive behavior, then continued the rampage and made it clear they will just abandon the account and start socking, thus forcing stronger action. I see nothing controversial in the admin actions taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given statements made at User talk:MisterShiney and Editors past and subsequent behavior, this seems needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note. I'll do the lock when I get home (it's very hard to use CentralAuth over my phone). MBisanz ^talk
•  Erledigt MBisanz ^talk 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, can you please look into User:Sepsis II‎ recent editing practice, on the Operation Pillar of Defense‎ article.

Sepsis keep making cumulative reverts of unrelated edits/users, with uninformative outraged edit summaries(like "undoing shamelessly blatant propagandizing"). I have contact the user (#Revert) explaining that he reverted several unrelated edits(creating collateral damage), asking him to make separate edit that address each issue with informative edit summaries. To which he responded with blanking my post and making the same revert. This time his edit summary stated "undoing acknowledged collateral damage", I contacted him again(#ARBPIA_notice)(maybe this not a duck, but some kind of miscommunication) stating that the same issues still stand and that I find his cumulative reverts disruptive, asking him to self-revert and if wish reintroduce each issue with appropriate edit summary or discuss this. To which he responded with blanking my post again.

So I'll appreciate if someone can look into this. Because honestly, I am really sick and tiered with the edit warring and general incivility on this article and I find Sepsis unexplained cumulative reverts, disregard to other users and refusal to engage only to prompt edit warring, cause tension and make collaboration even more difficult. Thanks Mor. --Mor2 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit: It seem that Sepsis just(3 min ago) got posted on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring as well. I am not certain if it take precedence or effect this process. personally, my issue is not with the content, but with his behavior, it either one address it I am fine with it.--Mor2 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The proper location to report violations of Arbitration Remedies is at Arbitration Enforcement. Please attend to the issue there and do not open threads elsewhere as it projects the aura of Forum shopping for your prefered response. Hasteur (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not reporting a violations of Arbitration, but bringing what I consider a behavioral issue. I am not part or party to the AE submission, which I discovered only when I came to post the required ANI notice on the user page. Thus my additional edit, which serve as due diligence for you, since I am not familiar with this process and what it meant for it, not some an attempt to "Forum shop".--Mor2 (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Xerographica

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reason: Repeated WP:NPA despite repeated messages and warnings:

• [41] User talk page taunts on the number of warnings posted. Also, talk page has recent messages about AFG, which display a lack of respect for AFG guidance.
• [42] Posted after user attempted to re-do a redirect after consensus had determined to re-direct to another article.
• [43] Repeats "VDE" acronym (Value Destroying Editor) which s/he has created as a slur.
• [44] Another use of "VDE".
• [45] Another use of "VDE"

(PS: I do not recall that I've ever posted an ANI before.) --S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Just because they made up their own acronym as a personal attack, it's still a personal attack - and they were indeed asked/warned to stop. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page vandalism and harassment after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi

After closing the above AFD as "delete", my talk page and the talk page of Explicit (talk · contribs) who had previously deleted it because of a prod have been spammed and vandalized repeatedly by multiple IPs (we are the only admins showing up in the deletion log for this title). The vandalism has all been reverted and the first IP was blocked, but successive IPs were merely given warnings by editors who I think weren't admins and probably also didn't realize that these were continuing harassment, and the vandalism in turn just spread to not only those editors' talk pages but also to other editor's pages and project pages (all since reverted). I've blocked the other two IPs and I'm thinking about semi-protecting my talk page for awhile. Below are the three IPs so far; the post-AFD vandalism is the only contribution history for all of them. Perhaps a range block can prevent future whack-a-mole? Beyond my technical know-how. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• 118.103.228.136 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.231.226 (talk · contribs)
• 118.103.230.12 (talk · contribs)

Note also another IP in the same range 118.103.224.4 (talk · contribs) had only made edits related to the AFD, none yet postdating its close. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:72.228.190.243

I probably should have just blocked them for the portion I had to hat, but I tried to assume a little extra good faith. At this point it is easy to see they are unfamiliar, thinking they are, and are just trolling. I'm kind of busy right now so will just leave this in the capable hands of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Some sterling examples of this editor's prose, directed at Dennis Brown:

• Reading your home page you strike me as a crushing mediocrity, a dabbler and a piddler. Is that a personal attack? Only pushing stuff as main space content as your confrere did could cause me to speak as I did above though.
• I'm resisting an urge to be nice to you because I think it's important in times like this not to.
• Sounds like you'll be talking to yourself unless there's a cabal of petty administrators that trade favors in their hissy fits.

Anybody in the Hissy Fit Cabal of Petty Admins feel like blocking this person? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care about what he said to me (I get called worse on the highway, and sometimes on my own talk page, meh...), but I did mind him telling another editor "Oh shut the fuck up, I only know you as the idiot you apparently are by virtue of your degradation of this site/project with your asshole activity in defending your stupidity" which is why I gave the warning. His response is what shows he is trolling. Since he aimed it (ineffectively) at me, I just figured someone else should take action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken you're both editors I've had run ins with before. You're not an unbiased set in this case. But if you do ban me please do this account, the IP will only satisfy your bitch ass Wut. This is the only account I've ever used and it's perfectly within established policy for me to use IP accounts in non-admin editing. I waste far too much time on this site and a Schelling constraint inhibiting same would be welcome. All the more so if it pits me against the wee folk.Lycurgus (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One thing is for sure, you are very likely 72.228.190.243, and yes, I would support an indef for the reg'ed account and 4 weeks for the IP (long hold dynamic IP) until we can figure out why you think you have "admin" editing, and the other oddities that aren't consistent with an established editor. I'm not sure if this is compromised account, or an editor having "issues", but something is up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh get a fucking grip. I insist you make it indef which I take to mean indefinite. I will definitely cease to edit this site if you can do that, though there may be a lag between my IP use and recognition that the account has been blocked. I don't want to contribute any further labor to a community that can be run by individuals like you, just need a little help in that. because up to this point I think it's better than that. Lycurgus (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You are acting pretty weird at the moment, Lycurgus. And on top of that, you're flinging abusive insults against a bunch of people around on pages that get you probably regrettable attention.

You've made some good points over the last few months, in contributions, but also done some very strange things, and started making a lot of insults. The term "trolling" is rather pejorative but you are creating or finding yourself in the center of an unusual amount of inter-editor conflict, for no evident good reason.

What are your objectives in editing the encyclopedia now?

I disagree with the sockpuppetry / IP stuff; you are clearly admitting owernship of the IP, no attempt to hide it evident. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum and Cornellier

This report concerns a recent interaction between User:Malleus Fatuorum and User:Cornellier. Cornellier started a Good Article Review of the article on ferret legging, to which Malleus Fatuorum is the primary author (by edits). In response, Malleus made several personal attacks against Cornellier. After making it clear what he thought of Cornellier on both a related article page (an ignorant idiot who can't tell his arse from his elbow) and on someone else's talk page ("now I've got some fucking idiot basically claiming that I've invented the sport of ferret legging"), he proceeded to state on the review page that Cornellier "appears to be calling me a liar and of having invented this article and its sources", and of the review that ("maybe it's just payback time for something or other"). Reading the review it's clear the insults, disparaging remarks and accusations were unwarranted and a distortion of Cornellier's posts. To his credit Cornellier seems to have ignored them - the next person might not be able to resist such provocation. Chromium Oxide (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting second edit. --Rschen7754 23:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)This is your second edit, ever. Your first was to WP:WER. It looks like this has already died down, but surely you understand how unusual it looks for a "new" user to bring Malleus to ANI? Since they have hashed it out, I see no point in laboring it here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I've indefblocked the account. Seems like an obvious sock and SPA to me. --Rschen7754 01:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's no reason to block a user simply for being new, but doing things a more experienced user may do. Perhaps Chromium Oxide is a longtime IP editor just creating an account? In any case, remember not to bite the newbies! RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I doubt this guy is new. Anyway, a SPI was already filed. --Rschen7754 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is this SPI? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chromium Oxide. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather skeptical of a new account that immediately complains at ANI about a personal attack directed at another user. That and the wikilawyering request to be unblocked and subsequent rants on his talk page[46] make me think Chromium Oxide was just here to cause drama. postdlf (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

...and this is rather beyond the pale. postdlf (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

CrO₂ appears to believe that there's a conspiracy of sorts to do him in. He's posted a list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've declined the unblock request, this is an obvious and disruptive sock of somebody not wanting to edit from their regular account. Dreadstar ☥ 05:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've modified the block to revoke their talk page privileges; no point in giving them a forum for their screeds. postdlf (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Careful, CrO₂ will add you to their list of bad admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reopening thread

Granted, CrO₂ does seem to pass the duck test, however I think a discussion on the merits of his original complaint (without regard for who the complainant is) is warranted. I'm just trying to figure out if we've suddenly decided that calling someone a "fucking idiot" and/or "ignorant idiot" is ok, particularly for someone with a mile-long block log for personal attacks and incivility. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 07:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Tom Rice and also possible threat on my talk page

I have worked hard on the Tom Rice article, but yet Moriori deleted most of the information I made on 00:56, December 23, 2012‎ [Dif] that I felt was need to create a good article and the reason Moriori deleted the information according to a message left on my (talk) page that improve it from a bloggy, pov, poorly written mishmash to a reasonably encyclopedic article (an ongoing task). I took it from this abomination to this. I was trying to make the Tom Rice article to the Tim Scott article. Also to me the following left on my (talk) page sounds like a threat to me: "I have reverted you and suggest you don't revert me again. Instead, if you believe I am wrong you can report me elsewhere or ask for comment elsewhere." and this is because I accused Moriori of vandalism which I have felt she has committed on the said article. Sk8terguy27_Talk 00:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC) User Moriori has been notified that he/she is subject of a discussion here.

• Content/sourcing dispute. NOT vandalism.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• 8-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, 10-paragraph word-for-word copyright violation, and 9-paragraph word-for-word double copyright violation that also presents campaign literature as fact. This is "reasonably encyclopaedic"? It's not in any way encyclopaedic. Read our Wikipedia:copyright policy and do not edit in this way again. Every edit page that you've ever seen here has told you not to do this. If you are not able to write original, free content, prose of your own, do not write. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• If I was informed of the copyright issue I would have re-written it, but no someone decided to delete all my hard work instead of letting me know there was a issue or fixing the article themselves. How can it be campaign literature as I don't have any campaign literature in frobt of me? Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• It is not "hard work" to copy and paste multiple paragraphs en bloc from someone else's writing. It's the opposite of hard work, in fact. And of course you had campaign literature in front of you. You even named it. And, I repeat, you were informed of the requirement not to violate copyright with every edit page that you have ever seen at Wikipedia. The fix for copyright violation is to revert to the last prior non-infringing version, not the creation of derivative works. Taking your misappropriation of writing that wasn't written by you entirely out of the article is quite the right thing to do. Violate copyright no more. Otherwise I or another administrator will simply revoke your editing privileges for the protection of the project. Wikipedia is damaged by "writing" that is actually the filching of other people's non-free-content writing. Uncle G (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'll rewrite the article at some point in the future and write it in my own words and not violate anyone's copyright. I have re-wrote articles before that didn't violate anyone copyright and what proof do you have I violated copyright? I try as hard as I can to re-write articles, but sometimes parts of an article have to be copy and pasted as it is hard for me to rewrite somethings. Sk8terguy27_Talk 01:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Sadly you do actually need to be able to rewrite all things (unless you both quote AND attribute very SHORT sections, like half a sentence). So although I would love it if Uncle G were to mellow his tone a bit (what is hard work for some may not be hard work for others), unfortunately he is right that if the only way you can create or substantially expand an article is to copy and paste things, then you would be better advised not to get involved in article expansion at all. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you think it best for me to retire from editing I will. Sk8terguy27_Talk 02:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, nobody said you should retire from editing. They just said that you should stop copying and pasting directly. Think of it this way: By having you copy and paste something, Wikipedia could be sued for copyright violations. Then Wikipedia gets shut down. That's kind of extreme, but it could happen. You are free to edit, but take the information and use it to formulate good neutral paragraphs of your own words before putting it in an article. Copyright means just the opposite, you do not have the right to copy it. You can't copy it into an article and then change a few words, we have tools that catch that too. The editors aren't saying retire, they're just saying stop copying things. Sorry, saw this and had to go all editor retention. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on reading this and a look through your edits, a copyright investigation is looking likely, as it seems the majority of your "work" violates copyright. Already cleaned up one article and am finding more. Wizardman 04:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More copyvios/plagiarism found at David Bennett (American football); nearly all of the material has been ripped directly from [47] and [48]. --MuZemike 04:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I've given a final warning, which I think is quite generous. --Rschen7754 04:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: [[49]] and here: [[50]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: [[51]] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unable to move an article

Resolved

Just wondering if an admin could have a look at whether Givton Hanoch could be moved to Hanoch Givton. I note that three articles have been deleted at the latter title due to the identity of the author. Hack (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hanoch Givton was deleted thrice this year because it was created by a WMF-banned user, User:Nnimrodd (presumably socking since that account is also indef-blocked)... this raises concerns as to whether User:PellRubin is the same person trying to circumvent the WP:SALTing of the previous title. Salvidrim! 05:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The article has been deleted by User:Spartaz in accordance to our banning policy. If you believe the topic to be notable, you are free to request of a copy of the deleted article to perhaps recreate it yourself, or write it from scratch as it wasn't extremely fleshed out. Salvidrim! 05:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From scratch please, as the author has been banned by the foundation. The subject does appear notable but I'd be concerned the recreated page would be a magnet for the banned user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:XLR8TION and User:Yerevanci

Recently, the mentioned user have being aggressive toward me:

• First, he mockingly questioned my ability to understand English
• justified that stating It's apparent English is not your first
• called me stubborn and refuses to discuss

Also, notice how he uses bold and capitals letters to justify his moves and refusal to discuss. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. consider Wikipedia:No personal attacks as basis for my claims.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

One more thing. The user seems to get nervous for writing on his talk page and calls it "vandalism" ([52], [53]. Even when I notified him of this discussion, which is a rule clearly stated in a red box at the top of this page. An admin should also consider teaching him the basic rules of Wiki.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 05:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• User vandalizes page by reverting my constructive edits.
• Continues to remain stubborn and not comprehend that justices, military, and law enforcement are not politicians.
• Reverts pages within one minute if he doesn't hear from me.
• I have provided points in Talk Page on article List of Armenian American politicians about steps to follow when posting entries on list since August 2012. He refuses to even read or comply with these simple requests. Please see talk page discussion to see my posts.
• Has vandalized my Talk Page after I have warned him not to write on it.

Please provide guidance on how to deal with an unstable, uncooperative rogue editor who doesn't comprehend the U.S. political system, Wikipedia article formatting, or English grammar.--XLR8TION (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

From WP:VANDALISM:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. (emphasis added)

Inserting "Penis" or "I love Mary" into an article is vandalism. Disagreeing with you isn't, necessarily.

Have you tried discussing your disagreements with Yerevanci?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sir, I would like to hear a statement about his aggressive behavior.--Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content dispute, which is outside my sphere of knowledge although Gtwfan52 has made a point on the talk page. Please avoid calling edits "vandalism" if they are not blatant vandalism. Yerevanci's notification post on your talk page is required per the instructions when posting an ANI about another user. These are not vandalism and calling them such is a personal attack and continued use of this term is blockable. You can ask Yerevanci not to post on your talk page in future and by common courtesy Yerevanci should cease doing so. And Yerevanci, for your information, when XLR8TION removed the notices from their talk page it is considered that they have read acknowledged the notice so further posting isn't necessary.

There has been general combatativeness from both of you and really it's time to calm the hell down. XLR8TION please refrain from using caps, particularly bold caps, as it usually means you're shouting at the other party. If you're intending to emphasise a point without shouting, italics or bold italics would be preferable and is less inflammatory. Also, in [54] edit your comment overwrote Gtwfan52's hence their comment that you reverted their talk page comment. Yerevanci has posted a compromise on the talk page so here are a couple of trouts for making such a mountain out of a mole hill and back to the talk page you go. Blackmane (talk) 06:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been general combatativeness from both of you isn't quite accurate if you think about it. What languages I speak and what languages I don't speak isn't a discussion topic, at least, it wasn't last time I checked Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Calling names, SHOUTING through the computer screen isn't acceptable also. --Երևանցի _{ասելիք կա՞} 06:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This is undoubtedly a content dispute, and I have suggested to them that they go to WP:DRN. But one side of the dispute has a serious case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. I am not a mediator, so I give up.Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Dalit by User:Smith012

User:Smith012 is an old but infrequently used account (started editing under this name on July 3, 2009) that seems to have degenerated to an activist WP:SPA on South Asian Caste related articles. These articles fall under wikipedia discretionary sanctions (discussion here), which can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Over the course of a lengthy period of time, his edits have repeatedly failed to conform to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:SYN. His edit summaries are hostile and combative, and include threats to ban editors [55], and bad faith sccusations of "vandalism" over content disputes [56]. He has been continuously POV-pushing on Mazhabi and Dalit articles (both covered by WP:GS)[57][58]. Here, he even revert-warred with a bot [59]. I warned him once on his talk page [60], and tried to engage in dispute resolution on the article talk page [61], but he has ignored my requests [62] and continues to edit in a disruptive manner. Some kind of preventative measure, up to and including discretionary sanctions, may be necessary.Handyunits (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User:SnrRailways

In re Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways; he clearly did run an unauthorized bot, but changing [[A|B]] to [[B]], where B redirects to A, is something done automatically by authorized bots. Just because "A" is something he hates, doesn't mean that that that particular edit was wrong. If he changed [[A|C]] to [[B|C]], that would be different.

I'm not necessarily saying that the block should be overturned, but the bot performed a legitimate, approved, function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It's SOP to block unauthorized bots due to the security risk. --Rschen7754 06:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)