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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Personal attacks by an IP editor

174.97.175.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This anonymous editor is removing templates from various articles with no explanation. The most frequent example is the Luke Cage article. Two days ago, after restoring the templates, I issued a warning to the user. Today, the user responded with a personal attack on my talk page. The user then went the Biohazard (band) article, where I had a dispute and discussion with an editor over something, and made the same exact edits the other editor had removed, as well as some unconstructive deletions. I suspected possible sock puppetry but can't be certain. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• User removes templates for the first time.
• User removes templates for the second time.
• User attacks me on my talk page.
• User removes templates for the third time.
• User makes exact same edits as another user did today and unconstructively deletes part of citation.

Have you notified this person of this thread? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I will not comment on the matter, but you have forgotten to notify the IP editor about this discussion. (No worries, I've already notified him/her.) --Bmusician 01:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my oversight. Thank your for doing so Bmusician. NJZombie (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning. If their disruptive behaviour resumes please report them to WP:AIV where the appropriate action will be taken quickly. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The editor has returned to making the same exact obvious reversions but has taken to using a different IP address (173.226.92.195) as a sock puppet. This now involves vandalism, personal attacks AND sock puppetry. I've reported it on the vandalism board but not sure if I should have reported it as sock puppetry instead. NJZombie (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If necessary we can protect the articles involved. Do you have any idea who the sock might be? EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All I can see is that those two IP addresses (174.97.175.9 and 173.226.92.195) both originate from North Carolina and make the same disruptions. I see no evidence that the user has an actual registered account. As I pointed out earlier, no matter which IP address they use, they're only vandalizing via template deletions and disruption, not to mention making personal attacks against those that warn them that this is not acceptable. So I'm not so sure protecting an article or two is the solution since the user will just use the two IP addresses to anonymously vandalize other articles instead. NJZombie (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because if we have identified socking/block evasion from someone with an existing account, it's something that AIV is quite happy to deal with as long as it's mentioned in the report (it generally bypasses the need for a level 4 warning before action can be taken). If that doesn't apply, and article protection isn't an option, I guess we'll just have to fall back on WP:RBI. The IPs may be dynamic though, so it's a bit late to block the two you've mentioned as they've made no recent edits. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I completely understand where you're coming from. As far as the issue about the IP's being dynamic though, I don't think it's necessarily the case. If you look at the editing history of 174.97.175.9, you will see that the user has been editing sporadically from it since January, and all of the edits involved vandalism. I tend to doubt that the service provider randomly assigned the same dynamic IP address to the same person on three separate occasions over a three month period. I think it's more likely a case of one being a home location and the other a work or school location. NJZombie (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You could well be right. If disruption resumes from either or both of those IPs that would be pretty conclusive evidence that they are static, so I'd be happy to jump on them. Feel free to drop me a note if you don't feel like explaining this lot again at a different venue :) EyeSerene^talk 21:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Tagremover

Resolved

 – User given warning and maybe a block if they persist

--Chip123456 (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tagremover (talk · contribs) has taken a sudden interest in my past edits in the last 6 hours in a type of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, reverting (sometimes some very old) edits of mine[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], digging up other old edits of mine at Nikola Tesla[9] and Head-up display[10] and reverting them three times (Tesla[11][12][13]) (Head-up display[14][15][16]) but stopping short of a technical 3RR each time, probably Gaming trying to get me to bite into a 3RR... and accusing me of it anyway[17][18]. Also uncivil comments[19] and general accusations against me of vandalising articles[20] and vandalising Wikipedia[21][22][23]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if he's stopping short, he is still in danger of breaking the rule himself, so I will post a warning on his user page. He maybe Breaching the harassment of users as well, if he has been only reverting a few of your edits. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An administrator may take further action if needed, so that's all I can do. I also hope you notified the user of this section. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, user was notified[24] and removed the notice 14 hours later[25]. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It is true, i searched in the past edits of Fountains of Bryn Mawr for him deleting large amounts of what he called "commercial" references or links. And i found many, much more than above. Fountains of Bryn Mawr sees especially company announcements and product descriptions as unreliable, whereas i (and others, see his talk page about Fisheye lens and the talk page of the article) think, each ref or link has reliable parts.

And any professional is somehow biased, for example you can´t trust a professor if he states that a research project is necessary. So it needs careful editors to select the parts which can be trusted.

I have an academic education with 3 lectures in Higher Physics and one lecture in Technical Optics, also thats decades ago and i never worked in the field of optics. So i am not really biased, but have limited practical design experience in the optics.

However, the optics articles of Wikipedia are BAD !. Really. There are missing parts, and bad structure, and much work.

Also i am not always the friendliest in my comments (and i know it would be better for me to calm down), i do like references, even commercial, if appropriated, and do like balanced articles, especially introductions. And i done too much, some edits, for example this[26], were probably wrong, and i did not revert it. I simply tried to bring to attention that Fountains of Bryn Mawr deletes large amounts of references and referenced text. If that is done without obvious reason AND repeated on many articles, i called it (now i know: wrongly) vandalizm. And the last part of the introduction of Nikola Tesla is partly unbalanced.

And i am feeling somehow harassed by Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Tagremover (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And I'm about to block you if you don't stop. You are edit warring, you are accusing an editor of vandalism when they are not vandalising, you are being incivil and you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You can discuss calmly whether a particular reference is suitable or not - and there is certainly no general rule about never using a manufacturer's website as a source - but you must stop this campaign now. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have stopped. Tagremover (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And i was not aware that you have a different definition of vandalism. Now, i know. Tagremover (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair about who seems to be on a "campaign", though Tagremover has been inappropriate in calling it vandalism, Fountains' widespread bulk ref removals are majorly annoying, and he has been fighting the attempts to restore them. He is the one who should be challenging the refs one at a time, not removing them in blocks and reverting those who put them back. Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It may not be a good idea to bring your "axe" against another editor to an ANI? If you think cleaning up OR and other material in Wikipedia articles "annoying" then so be it. If you look at Tagremover's bulk reverts you will see "Fisheye lens‎" was simply the first of 6 done in 45 minutes so it does not look like the editor was thinking about the quality of any one edit.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your bulk deletions of references and referenced text is IMHO not helpful. See also talk of Fisheye lens and give answers about the questioned quality of YOUR deletions. Its not only me questioning your bulk removals. Tagremover (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Removing refimprove tags without any attempt at improving the article's references?[27][28] Tagging an article as a news release, then removing the tag that you added for the very next edit, when no one else had edited it anyway? Weird. Some would consider that borderline disruptive. Especially with a name like "Tag Remover". Yeesh... Doc talk 08:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tag from 2007 is not related to the actual article, article was improved. New reasons have to be given. And the tag from 2010: Is not related to the actual article, article was improved. And where challenged by other users and seem not reasonable with an article containing nearly 300 refs! Tagremover (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

See also: Template:Refimprove. And i am agreeing with User:Amatulic : 2+2=4 needs no reference. This tag suggests FOR THE READER that the article is wrong. And Wikipedia is MADE FOR READERs, not for some editors who want to gain attention or do not want to invest the time to explain their reasons or understand the article. So there have to be a GIVEN, obvious or minimum recognizable reason for presenting this tag for weeks or even months, in order not to be disruptive to readers. Again: i do like references, even commercial, if appropriated. Have someone checked this [29] ? Replacing reliable refs by "citation needed" is not fine. Tagremover (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And i do not like this annoying discussions. When do they end ? We can start a NEW discussion about the edits of User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr, if wanted. Tagremover (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Dolphin drive hunting

Resolved

 – No admin-intervention needed

Could someone more experienced with policy matters than me (preferably an administrator) look over the past 24 hours or so of edits at this article and let me know if I've done anything against policy or otherwise improper? I'd also like some input on dealing with the recent edits and exactly what should be done when things like this come up. I've read a lot of policy on related matters but I'm not sure this is as clear-cut as some of the situations outlined there. Thanks very much. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also appreciate knowing how to deal with all this; I'm trying to do the right thing Wiki-wise but it is becoming very difficult. Everything I try to do gets removed. I am totally confused. Aravis195 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aravis, you're dealing with a Good Article--all the more reason to keep in mind Wikipedia's normal rules of operation: write it well, with reference to reliable sources. And leave YouTube out of it. Evanh, thank you. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It continued, so this happened. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 07:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Drmies - I am just about giving up on pleasing Evanh, who seems to have appointed himself to remove every single edit I make, even some which I know, from checking rules, are legitimate and correctly cited. In fact, he has simply reverted the article to its original state without explanation to me. I am a writer and know how to write articles; I was learning how to write in Wikipedia, but Evanh has made further attempts impossible. This is not a good advertisement for Wikipedia. I am in a group which has deep and wide knowledge of our subject and it would have benefited thw efforts of conservationists of stature round the world. But thanks to one user, it has proved impossible to get past the second paragraph and our time would probably be better spent in a forum where quality and knowledge are actually respected.Aravis195 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's say it once again: leave youtube video links out of your edits; period. You restored that link (as well as a bunch of other non-neutral point of view and items that provide undue weight), so it HAS to be removed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You might be a good writer, but Wikipedia has specific rules as to what qualifies as a valid source for citation. YouTube almost never qualifies for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not good writing, let alone good encyclopedic writing. But it's clear to almost everybody, I think, that this is not (yet) a matter that requires admin intervention. The article is locked now because of this content dispute, and a block for edit warring for Aravis is thus prevented, I reckon; one hopes that Aravis will see that their edits are not according to consensus and not according to our guidelines. Any "deep and wide knowledge" is nixed by the lack of references to reliable source, and further attempts to turn the article into an activist forum are likely to be prevented by editorial consensus. Aravis, continuing down this path will ensure that the article will remain locked and that you yourself might be blocked. Please edit according to our guidelines, not according to what you think is right. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree this doesn't really require admin intervention; I did comment at User talk:Aravis195 this morning with some details. There wasn't a need to clutter this board. Whether or not Aravis appreciates the help and acts on it remains to be seen; his penultimate edit (as of now) does not show a desire to continue here in any capacity. A shame, really; passion can often be channeled productively even if this place can be intimidating to newbies.  Frank  |  talk  20:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The personal attack RM closure

Is it valid to vote in an RM, then attack the proposer as "dishonest," and finally close the RM, a move justified by further disparaging remarks? I should note that all of this was done before the minimum seven-day voting period expired. Anyway, I hope someone can look into it: Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move:_Genesis_creation_narrative_.E2.86.92_Creation_story_in_Genesis. Kauffner (talk) 09:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the close - the editor is too involved to be closing. From my knowledge of the situation I think this RM is significantly different to the last to let it run but if someone uninvolved and with more experience of the previous requests thinks this has already been significantly covered by previous recent discussion I won't object to them speedy closing.

As for the disparaging marks, yes they could have used better language but given the heat of the previous discussion and the fact that they (rightly or wrongly) believed you had been dishonest I suggest everyone assume good faith and assume this was out of character and caused by the situation. I think discussion of why they think you're being dishonest could be fruitful as sources appear to go to the root of at least some of this issue. Dpmuk (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for any personal offense caused - that was not my intent. I believe my wording was, "speedy close under incorrect assumption/dishonest use of sources." "under incorrect assumptions/misrepresentation of sources" (I was tricked in to thinking I'd ad hommed more than I did! </sarcasm>). Could I have eventually thought of better phrasing? Probably. I still invite any admin (who dares - the last one to close an RfM - User:Keegan - on that page was torn to shreds and had an AN opened by unhappy editors, plus the fact the last debate was at least 15-20 35-50 normal single-spaced typed pages long, spread over several sections) to speedy close this, as constant RfMs/RfCs are getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia (this seems to be a textbook case for WP:IAR). It is substantially similar to the last RfM, and, in any case, in the section below the RfM (in which you will see of all of the half-dozen votes cast, all are oppose, except for one facetious/sarcastic "keep" by User_talk:Noformation - who, now, on a second look, appears to have quit Wikipedia and had all of his stuff blanked out while I was asleep). I have included the relevant quotes which define the topic as a "creation myth" (as I said in my close rationale, that the sources directly contradict the reasoning of the request) from all of the sources given, and attempted to explain why a plain Google search does not establish what is or is not a reliable source. Again, apologies for any personal offense caused: Talk:Genesis creation narrative isn't a WP:BATTLEGROUND, for better or for worse (for worse), it's a razed warzone. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 00:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Block Evasion User:McJew

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

---

McJew (talk · contribs) is obviously a new incarnation of blocked account Big.mc.jew (talk · contribs) --HighKing (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Stuff this obvious can also go to AIV. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also  Confirmed:

• Johnnyscott9 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Wehatemillwall (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Parsons is a bender (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DannyWade6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Westham4ever (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--MuZemike 16:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Competence

Drift chambers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above-named user appears to be having trouble editing and communicating to the point of disruptiveness and it is beyond my ability to help the user as much as is needed.

The basic issues, with examples, are,

• Quality of editing, particularly writing style, referencing style, article structuring and content relevance.
  • See criticisms here, here, here.
  • Of particular note are the user's edits at Infinity (philosophy), El-Tod, and Isaac Newton's religious views.

• A persistent inability to communicate in comprehensible language (despite a babel userbox asserting a native understanding of english).
  • See an example here. See also responses to Drift chamber's speaking style here and here.

I also note the user has multiple accounts (see here for a summary) but, for current purposes, that's a separate issue and I won't concern myself with that.

As communication with this editor appears impossible, I've tried rewriting their edits in an effort to show them how it's done. But, aside from tidying an article, this has not worked.

Like others, I've tried a straight reversion with instructions to discuss any future edits on the talk page, but to no avail. Anyway, I suspect reversion may not be a constructive way to go.

I'm at the point where I simply do not know how to deal with him/her. I believe the user's intentions are constructive but their editing style is just too bizarre. As their talk page shows, Drift chambers has been asked repeatedly to write clearer but with no effect.

I admit I'm not comfortable raising the matter here as I do assume good faith on the part of this editor; and I emphasise I'm not seeking to commence some sort of warning/disciplinary process. Rather, I'm seeking some assistance (mentoring, perhaps?) for a user in need of more experienced guidance than I can offer.

Thank you. ClaretAsh 14:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I wonder. Is it possible that he's drafting his edits in another language and then babelfishing them to English? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to express my concern over Drift Chambers' edits. Although certainly in good faith, his edits introduce so much work for other editors to cleanup. One of the worst examples was his first lot of edits to cat intelligence here. Jack (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, this user is making an absolute mess of otherwise good articles. Tarc (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with all the quotes? —SW— ^babble 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think unfortunately this needs to be treated the same as disruptive editing, even though it is done in good faith. If someone has little command of written communication, they will do more harm than good around here. I see several attempts at mentoring, all which seem to have been ignored or resisted. The only thing left to do is warn and, if necessary, block for disruption. It's the very definition of a preventative block. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of shameless essay promotion, I'd say this user qualifies as a bull in a china shop. —SW— ^chatter 18:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I am one of the editors that was dealing with Drift at Isaac Newton's religious views. Like others, I originally reverted and then tried to modify the edits [30]. It is not a topic I know a lot about (I only ended up there because it was a Good article with a clean-up tag on it [31]) so apart from the obviously bad edits I found it difficult to judge the value of the additions. Some actually seemed constructive, but the bulk of his edits are unacceptable and it does not appear he is responding to advice or changing his style. Overall I would say he is currently causing more harm than good. AIRcorn (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate it when we have to stamp on enthusiasm, but I think our first priority must be to protect both our productive editors and our existing content. I've blocked Drift chambers for 48 hours; hopefully it'll be enough to focus their attention. If it prompts them to slow down and read up on site policy as intended, great. If not, I'm sure an indefblock will be forthcoming in the near future. EyeSerene^talk 11:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not happy with this outcome, although I understand the greater necessity for it. ClaretAsh 12:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand and applaud your misgivings, but you did the right thing bringing your concerns here. Most of us edit because we enjoy it, and dealing with difficult editors can rapidly suck away that enjoyment and kill any motivation to continue. Ultimately if we have to decide between losing one keen but problematic editor and losing two or three experienced editors in good standing, there's little choice. It amazes me really how much patience and good faith most editors are willing to extend, and how much they put up with, before getting to this stage.

Incidentally, Drift chambers has posted something to their talk page but I can't make much sense of it. It may be (or contain) an unblock request though, so if anyone wants to review... EyeSerene^talk 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Improper page move of Kerala High Court

Ppyoonus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has moved the Kerala High Court article to Malappuram Collectorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in what appears to be an attempt to start a new article. The move needs to be undone as this has essentially wiped out the article on the Kerala High Court. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done.  Frank  |  talk  15:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Both articles currently use the same infobox photo. Are there still problems with the articles? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Themacor

• Themacor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• http://www.utakmica.rs: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I work at WP:COIN and this report came in recently. Themacor has added a website to over 500 articles. The website is completely in Serbian and has no alternate translation (specifically English). Per WP:NONENGEL, the link shouldn't be added unless there are no English alternatives. Not only are there several English alternatives, they're listed in the articles in question. The Serbian website contributes no new information.

The only communication the user has attempted to make with another user is an email sent to user:MER-C here. MER-C replied here and states that the user has a conflict of interest and some other useful information. Themacor responded by [deleting the post. The user has received two warning at this point and removed those as well. I would apply the regular warnings and then seek help from ANI but the user has added the link 83 times yesterday. The regular path doesn't seem appropriate for this case. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You negleted to notify the user of this posting. I have remedied this. Hasteur (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. Thank you for correcting it (small thanks, too). OlYeller21^Talktome 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I hit rollback a time or two. I'll place a final warning: this seems like spamming to me. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I just received a message from Hasteur about this. First of all, MER-C and I exchanged several e-mails about this issue some time ago and clear things up so that there was no problems later. After that I had no reason to add new links because there was no changes in Serbian SuperLiga. Second, why am I adding these links? you ask, the answer is simple: There is no better site about Serbian Superliga then www.utakmica.rs. Official site (www.superliga.rs) is terrible and no one else have this much info about Serbian top league. Ok, sites like transfermarkt are good, no doubt, but they can not have such good information like I have, ever. In the meantime, between my two 'waves' of adding-new-links there have been other editors who add links to utakmica.rs and this was no problem, right? So, what is wrong now? It is true, yesterday I changed 83 articles but except that more then 180days I did not change anything and some of changes were just adding sr-logo to identify my site as Serbian. Bottom line, utakmica.rs is right website to be added and it is white-listed [here] and there was no problem with that [here] and I am not spammer because of 83! changes in 200+ days. --Themacor (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• This seems to indicate what MER-C thought of it. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• We exchanged several e-mails and that was just first of them. After all, why would he allow me to add 5x more links if something was wrong? Even better, ask him or someone from this page for opinion about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themacor (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, that "white list" you mentioned, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links, it says explicitly that these are not automatically reliable sources, and that also means they are not automatically acceptable as external links. If you wish this to be accepted as OK, you should probably find a consensus for it at WP:ELN. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you for that info. I will contact people who are moderators and see what can be done.--Themacor (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • This wouldn't be as big of a problem if they were used as references to source information in articles that can't be sourced with another website. WP:NONENGEL is fairly clear about this issue. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • And for the record, you've added the link over 500 times with that account. That addition appears to have been reverted about half of the time. That seems like a clear indication to me that other editors don't agree with its inclusion but can't keep up with the rate at which you add it to pages. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Uboater at Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine#Connection_with_trust

Dealing with UBoater

Editor objecting to inclusion of sourced content now says "Unless you remove the section, which is clearly in breach of the british law of subjudicy, I will have no alternitive other than to persue a libel by litigation cace against you." PamD 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And a direct threat of litigation has also been made directly against Wikipedia and myself here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. As usual for LT blocks, it is indefinite. But the user may be unblocked by any admin (without prior consultation with me) if they determine that the threats have been sufficiently withdrawn. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else please keep an eye on the blocked user's talk page. I've been in discussions with him, trying to get him to understand that he has to withdraw the threat without trying to renew it in the next sentence. The discussion is ongoing, but I'm going to need to leave the computer for a hour or two, and will thus be unable to respond in a timely manner to any more responses from him. So if one or more other admins would keep an eye out for further responses, and continue to assist him, including unblocking if the other admin(s) feel that a sufficient withdrawal has been made, it would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at his talk page, and I praise higher powers that I didn't press F7 (spellcheck) by accident. Had I done that, my computer would have self-destructed. It must be some sort of unofficial world record. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's perhaps worth noting that Uboater self-identifies as "Capt.Richard Williams", the person the disputed content is about, so it's natural that there will be an emotive element to this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their statement "I was arested, but have not been charged with any offense." makes it clear that it it is a personal matter. They are thinking in terms of British law, not Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't think you are going to change their minds on this. The user's contribs show they have a singular interest at Wikipedia, and their interest is in their own reputation. I don't see this getting to the point of unblocking because the user's self interest is greater than their concern about the process here, and they are basically giving an ultimatum that if we do thing their way, they will consider not seeking legal action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Back. I agree that it looks unlikely now that they will withdrawal the threat sufficiently to meet WP:NLT. Should a heads-up be given to the WF legal team? UK vs US or not, I do not see him giving up on this, and that means that there will possibly be something or other coming at the project at some point over this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how his last statement ends, "Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange," shall we simply ignore him? He's not abusing his talk page so I don't know if there's reason to block access to it, yet there's apparently nothing to be gained by continued engagement. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I left a note, in one sentence. I propose we simply leave this be until the captain retracts. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted a withdrawal of the legal threats, and unblocked Uboater, with a warning to avoid any more mention of any potential of future legal actions on his part. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

• Legal threat though it is, the material is improper and a violation of BLP Do no harm. The arrest is over the tax concerns of the owner of the Uboat replica in an unrelated venture. Apparently it happened on the boat, but as our article explicitly says, it has no other connection. I can not see keeping this material here, and I have deleted it. if he wants to think we removed it as a result of his threats, we can not stop him, but he did have a justifiable complaint no matter how improper was the way he pursued it, and the removal is in accord with our policy. TransporterMan justifies the sentence on the basis no RS says it is unconnected. The true policy is that it must be removed until there is a RS saying it is connected. We do not include negative information of this nature while awaiting a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a certain irony to all this, given that the editor in question first came to the attention of many editors by spamming another story about himself onto Royal Armouries Museum and various other articles. He is now unblocked and has the sourced news item removed - he appears to have won. PamD 08:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a cut-down form of wording: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat when a man was arrested on board in January, 2012, in connection with an alleged multi-year £1 million VAT fraud." be acceptable in BLP terms, with the existing sources? It was the boat which made the headlines - if he had been arrested in an ordinary house the press would not have been interested. PamD 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Or the form the editor himself said he would be "quite happy" with: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arest" (spelling, date format, and self-awarded title to be amended)? PamD 09:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pam, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the user is happy with. It matters how we handle unimportant criminal events that happen to get a little publicity. If he wants to hide his arrest or flaunt it--presumably for publicity, it doesn't matter. He can be as foolish as he likes outside Wikipedia. We have our own reputation, and we're not a tabloid. Let's say of the the faculty whose bios I often work with wants to put in his bio, possibly for his street cred with his students, that he was involved with drinking or drugs as an undergraduate. It doesn't go in, unless he's so famous that everything about him is pertinent or its actually relevant to what he's famous for--e.g. Kary Muliss DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a bio. It's an article about a (probably only marginally notable) minor tourist attraction. It featured in newspapers apropos of an arrest; an editor added that fact; a WP:SPA editor removed it; it was replaced (several iterations); the SPA threatened legal action if it was not removed; he was blocked, he was unblocked, it was removed. Ah well, there are more important things to fret about than this pretend submarine. PamD 22:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User creating autobiography on common.js and common.css

User Elizabethelvington (talk · contribs) has created User:Elizabethelvington/common.js, which consists merely of her name, and User:Elizabethelvington/common.css, an autobiography. I tried tagging these for G6 speedy, but I can't edit someone else's common.js or common.css files. Can an admin please take care of this and educate this user on the proper use of these files? I admit I'm not all that familiar with them myself. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think warning her for creating an "autobiography" is a bit bitey. I moved it to her userpage, but I don;t see the need to do anything else. Though one wonders where she found those pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I'm too thin skinned, but if I were a new editor and got a welcome like that, I'd consider not coming back. "Sneaking an autobiography onto Wikipedia"?? Geez. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of admin authority on Peyton Manning article

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

---

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I believe User:Eagles247 has improperly used his admin authority in locking down the Peyton Manning article, in violation of WP:PROTECT.

User:Eagles247 is of the opinion that the press conference announcing Manning's release from the Indianapolis Colts must not be mentioned in the lead section of the article. I and other editors reasonably disagree.

Please note that this dispute is not about whether or not we can say Manning has already been released from the Colts. It is conceded that Manning's official release might not have taken place yet. We are talking about a mention of the press conference (all over the news this afternoon, FWIW) that says that the Colts intend to release Manning today.

User:Eagles247 has now blocked everyone else from editing the article, even though WP:PROTECT mandates that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes."

He states that he implemented the block because of the "edit warring" supposedly taking place, even though he was PART OF the edit warring. He describes the dispute as "bullshit": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&diff=prev&oldid=480715756

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Terence7 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I protected the page due to the excessive edit warring there. Many editors were changing the article to reflect his being released, which hasn't even happened yet. I believe WP:BLP supports my decision to protect in this case. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Your in an uphill battle that you are likely to lose. Give up.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the previous protection, and I fully expect the article to be re-protected until his release becomes official. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I would still appreciate hearing others weigh in on whether or not this (mis)use of admin authority was appropriate. I personally believe that this type of heavy-handed use of admin authority is a significant problem for Wikipedia that drives many well-intentioned editors away. Thank you. Terence7 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not appropriate, and I apologize. I clearly violated WP:INVOLVED, and I was in the wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

My $.02: I asked Eagles247 for clarification on WP policy as it relates to "the team says the player is cut" versus "the team filed papers that the player has been cut". IMO, waiting for the latter in a case like this is too conservative. I haven't seen that policy, but it's possible more experienced sports bio editors have reached this consensus. Can someone point to the policy?

Further, I think that Rockchalk's comments haven't been helpful, and indeed have fueled this edit war. Rather than saying "WP policy says (does it? ;)) that we don't change this until X, Y, Z", we've gotten a lot of reverts that say "it's not official" -- I feel this has left plenty of editors, myself included, scratching their heads. How isn't it official? It's on the team's site?

But if that's the policy, it's clear that protecting the article needs to happen because plenty of editors (myself included!) didn't know about this policy, and that everything will spiral into a revert war.-- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will admit Irixman is probably right, but the point is repeatedly in the media they are reporting that until 4 PM EST that he is still a member of the Colts. At 4 PM EST he is a free agent.--Rockchalk717 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Manning's been officially released now, per Adam Schefter [32]. I've updated the article as such. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's great, but my question to both of you still stands -- where is the policy that says "colts.com says 'Manning is an unrestricted free agent'" is an insufficient source to say Peyton Manning has been released, but "Adam Schefter's tweet saying 'Colts officially have released Peyton Manning'" is sufficient? I mean, if we have to wait for someone to say "paperwork has officially been sent to the NFL", that's fine, but it would be helpful to write that down somewhere so that everyone can be on the same page. If not, this'll only happen again... -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I know WikiProject College football has an entire set of "project guidelines" which WikiProject NFL does not have. I'll probably get to writing that at some point, as the NFL project overall is a bit inactive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to run this into the ground, but one thing I read there that really jumped out at me was the following: "Project consensus supports that there is often no better source than the school itself for information on who the coach is at any given time."

My edit to Peyton Manning was based on the colts.com quote above that says "Manning is an unrestricted free agent". What criteria are you & Rockchalk applying that is not satisfied by that quote? Where is that criteria outlined? As I read it, the Colts official page says "Peyton Manning is an unrestricted free agent", no if's, and's, or but's -- but that has been rejected because it's not "official".

Again, my motivation here is to clarify this for the future. If the media reports that famous player X has been cut but we have to wait until someone says the word "official" that's cool, but we might want to say that somewhere so there's a lot less confusion. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Generally team websites cannot be 100% reliable. For the most part, their coverage is decent, but team rosters on these websites, for example, are not always up-to-date and accurate. This really isn't the place to discuss this, but I'll go into more detail in a different venue. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - please send me a follow up on my talk page, because I'd like to see this hammered out. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 21:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) So....mark this resolved and continue discussion on appropriate talk page? --64.85.220.22 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Sundostund and multiple articles on presidents of Egypt

Sundostund (talk · contribs) has been making several reversions without comment about Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (the military junta currently ruling Egypt), being the current "President of Egypt". I have disputed these edits and have repeatedly asked that Sundostund justify the edits on the talk pages of the affected articles, those articles being List of Presidents of Egypt and President of Egypt. You can see the talk page sections here: Talk:List of Presidents of Egypt#Acting president and Talk:President of Egypt#office is vacant. Sundostund has repeatedly reverted without making comments on either talk page. He has also refused to respond to my requests that he address the issues rather than repeatedly revert without comment on his own talk page (see here). Most recently, having again reverted without comment, I again requested that he address the issue at the relevant talk pages. His response was to once again revert without comment ([33], which follows an earlier revert made without comment today ([34]), and then to blank my requests on his talk page (one from a month ago that went unanswered and one from today, [35]). I dont know what else I should do, I would like to refrain from edit-warring but discussion is apparently not on the table with this user. I refrained from bringing this here in the past as I do not doubt the user's good faith, but when he refuses deign to even acknowledge my requests on the talk page I do not see what other choice I have. He may have reasons for repeatedly placing somebody who is not a president of Egypt in a list of presidents of Egypt, but as he has refused to say one word to me about that I am not quite sure what those reasons are. nableezy - 20:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

After being informed of this report, Sundostund has made yet another reversion without any comment, not deigning to provide so much as an edit summary for reverting (here). nableezy - 22:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do have my doubts about the user's good faith, and I certainly have doubts about their ability to work in a collaborative environment. In their last 1000 edits there isn't a single edit summary, not a single edit to a talk page. That is not good, and the longer I'm around, the more I begin to think that we should have a blocking template for refusing to talk. Note: editor was been blocked before, for edit-warring. I hope they will respond here soon. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've come across the same pattern of unconstructive editing at List of kings of Iraq and now also at List of kings of Lesotho. On both articles, I upgraded the monarch list to include more information and to standardise the presentation of that info. I was reverted by User:Sundostund without explanation. I've repeatedly requested a talk page discussion. I've attempted to start such a discussion myself, both informally and currently by RFC. All in all, I can rely on this user neither to communicate nor collaborate. ClaretAsh 23:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Sandra Fluke

I'm not sure where to post this, so apologies in advance if I'm in the wrong place. I count at least 7 "strong keeps" on this page that are by brand new accounts. There is also at least one "delete" by an account with few other edits. I figured rather than removing or striking these comments myself, I'd ask an administrator to take a look at it first, as I'm not too familiar with AfD protocol. Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that such !votes usually aren't removed. Instead we usually tag them with {{subst:spa}}. As I've only taken a quick look, I may have missed something; did I? --NYKevin @121, i.e. 01:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This could also be a {{not a ballot}} situation. Given the amount of media and blog attention Fluke has gotten, somebody's probably issued an e-call to arms, so it could multiple people all creating accounts. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged 10 for spa, and someone has tagged others. It could be just because of the recent attention, but the similarities and volume make me think there is meatpuppet/sockpuppet action going on as well. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

More a policy question/idea this: I imagine in stead of acting so unfriendly and paranoia we give those new editors a chance to write this article. Not sure how but that is my general idea.

AFD isn't even based on votes, the closing admin should decide. By the time the afd is closed the new users might have additional contributions to consider. As new users are unlikely to interpret the guidelines properly the admin would only look for additional references in the comment.

I don't think it is safe to assume the closing admin is incompetent at that. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

possible death hoax

An edit was made to Leonardo Cimino stating he died. I removed it after not being able to find any news articles about it anywhere including Google news, and various other sources. The page could use some cleanup too. I am a regular but am on a non secure internet connection--173.49.255.227 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've searched and found nothing to verify it either. I put it in my watchlist, and will monitor it and the news for a day or two. Sounds like you have already done what needed to be done, not sure that admins can do any more than that. This kind of misinformation/vandalism/mistake happens somewhat regularly. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian People page

The IP user 187.141.81.182 has broken the 1 revert per 24 hours edit rule on the Palestinian page after I told him/her they should discuss it on the talk page. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The same IP has now inserted the same extreme POV material in Palestinian people 4 times in the last few minutes. Meters (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP blocked 3 years as a proxy.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Block and revdel over outing?

Can someone block and revdel 65.12.179.252's attempts at outing? The content (and abuse) is also covered under a variety of Eastern European arbcom sanctions. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked, semied, and revdeled. Can someone review to see if any of the diffs should be restored? I may have overdone it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I restored most of the edit summaries. The block may be a bit long—the IP could easily change hands within the next year, and you may have deleted more than was absolutely necessary on the diffs, but even in the innocuous edits, the IP was trolling. Your actions look reasonable to me (though I would suggest reducing the block or perhaps just unblocking the IP after a week or two). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocking request for TWO users for VANDALISM

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

---

These two users: 94.96.54.97 and 124.106.150.198 (talk) has been warned several times to stop vandalising the Star Cinema page, the Upcoming releases section yet they still continue to do so. They can adding rumoured movies with unreliable or often fake sources as reference, and I would know as I have checked them as well as being an avid movie-goer. I request that these two would be banned from editing this page. Ifightback 7:29 8 March 2012 (PHT) —Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC).

WP:AIV exists for a reason. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

And this user doesn't know how to use it, or indeed how to sign his posts, so maybe it would be more helpful if we directed them to it rather than biting them... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Pay for edits in Wikipedia

I came across a contract here. Together with the history of the article Blazetrak, it looks suspicious. Hermann.129 (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted history, it rapidly becomes obvious here WizardlyWho (talk · contribs) is involved... The Cavalry (Message me) 09:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The job history rings a few warning bells (for example, this and this don't look too hopeful at face value). EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there any relation to this? Also MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs). Polequant (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Mooshie is definitely the same user, which would make Wizardly a sock of them, since Mooshie just edited the other day. Doc talk 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this account? User:Foxj. Curious because matches the name and deleted the article in a rush.Hermann.129 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

? Foxj is a six year, 28,000 edit admin account. They just performed a WP:CSD. Nobody Ent 13:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The name does match the elance account, though I'd hesitate at this stage to jump to too many conclusions. However, the deletion may have been out of process. It was deleted as "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page", but according to this WizardlyWho accidentally blanked the page (also see deleted article history, admins only unfortunately) and was thanking Bentogoa for restoring it. G7 wouldn't seem to apply. I'm wondering if some checkuser input might be useful here. EyeSerene^talk 14:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Checkusers are aware, don't worry - it'll be sorted by the end of today. The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks :) Also, on re-reading my above it's less clear than I intended. By my checkuser reference I didn't mean to imply that Foxj is running sock accounts. I was referring to the WizardlyWho and Mooshie accounts. Sorry about that. EyeSerene^talk 14:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed (and now blocked) socks are:

• BicycleFinish (talk · contribs), WizardlyWho (talk · contribs), WizardA1 (talk · contribs), and MooshiePorkFace (talk · contribs) --Versageek 14:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your alacrity but we shouldn’t rush this. (I got that from The Leader Phrase Book). What are these users being blocked for? Paid editing or sockpuppetry? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The block message for MooshiePorkFace (that fine article's author) says "abusing multiple accounts / promotional editing/COI", which seems about right. EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the block was for "Abusing multiple accounts for the purpose of promotional editing" - something we block for regardless of the paid/unpaid status of the individual. --Versageek 15:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, sorry. G7'd it since I figured that blanking was a request to delete the page. I assume now then that the article is to stay deleted since it meets G5? — foxj 14:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and that is one insane coincidence. Believe me, I live further from Colorado than I care to admit. And my name is Joseph. Weird, though! — foxj 14:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

  Denver... Western Australia... one hell of a commute :) FWIW I don't think it's a major issue as it looks like a recreation of a previously deleted article anyway so, yep, possibly even G11 if not G5. I certainly wouldn't argue for it to be restored. EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out my comment from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ukhealthman/Archive which is likely related. Quantum Capital Fund certainly also offered a contract on the site for a Wikipedia article.
This seems systemic. Should we watch the page just as systemically? Amalthea 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive. Lot's of socks.
Coming from there I notice the history of Patrick Alain, which has two editors from the ongoing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Questionable pulse. Coincidence? Amalthea 21:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the Patrick Alain article earlier and tagged it for COI. I'm not sure if it would survive AfD; although it asserts notability, it appears to exist in large part to promote The Leader Phrase Book (which I have AfD'd). Regrettably this does have an unpleasant air of sockfarming about it. EyeSerene^talk 21:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Alain now also at AfD, after a hard look at the referencing. EyeSerene^talk 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Further to the Blazetrak issue above, this user has also spammed a few articles with that website, although I see the account hasn't been active for a few months. ClaretAsh 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that account or the other sockpuppet investigations; but the fact that the operator of the accounts lies, saying they were "new to Wikipedia" with one account, and claiming to be working on an "ongoing series of assignments that I'm completing for an Advanced Composition English class" with another shows that this user: a) Knows very well what is not allowed and is deliberately trying to deceive other editors, and b) Thinks they are "smarter than the average bear" to get away with it. Nefarious. There's some mighty intelligent bears on this project, I believe, and most of them are none too happy when a hack offers to subvert the rules for profit. Now... who actually is this editor on WP? That's the real prize... Doc talk 05:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved editors in stopping these sorts of things. I will sleep better now (and soon, 2 0'clock!). Thanks again, roses etc.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

The talk on my user page: user talk:Jim1138 is getting a little strange. I am not sure who to notify about this notice, if anyone. This is in regards to the article Brookhaven, Georgia history:Brookhaven, Georgia My involvement started with a potential edit war on the page. Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I have somewhat indirectly advised him of this report, it's your responsibility to do so. Have you tried talking with him ... like I just did? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Indefblocked pending retraction of legalese and assumptions of bad faith on the part of Wikipedia and/or its editors. Feel free to overturn if it's too heavy handed, but the attempt to intimidate (e.g. chilling effect) is clear enough to me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BWikins: I am not familiar enough with nor really feel comfortable implementing wp:nlt policy. I felt best to leave well enough alone and report on ANI Jim1138 (talk) 10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Bot archived too soon

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

---

A bot archived an active session last night, [36], which needs to be restored to this page please as it had not been concluded. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot is set, per longstanding tradition, to archive incidents over 24 hours old. This had not been happening consistenly for a while due to technical issues as discussed here. Nobody Ent 13:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a discussion isn't completed after 24, it just gets archived and the issue dropped even if there hasn't been a resolution? Dennis Brown (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the 24 hour timer is since the last edit/timestamp in the section. So it is not "24 hours total", but rather "24 hours since anyone has added anything to the discussion". - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. But what about resolution? Usually an admin comes in with some cheery advice and/or action, but what if they don't, like in this case? That is why I was asking for a restore, it was an issue claiming misdeeds but hadn't been closed/concluded/adjudicated/etc. I'm guessing you don't want people continuing a discussion in the archive, that would defeat the purpose of archiving it. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is far from unheard of for people to unarchive incomplete discussions. A new comment added will reset the 24 hour clock. I'm not sure what general policy is on such unarchiving, though. You're not likely to get in trouble for unarchiving once. But if you unarchive something repeatedly, then you are likely to get complaints, or worse. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm asking for administrative intervention to reopen an incomplete discussion. I'm not going to stomp on the process by unilaterally doing it myself. I'm still unclear as to the actual policy on unresolved issues. Wouldn't make sense to ask for review for something that hasn't concluded. It is a very long and complicated issue that needs administrative conclusion here at ANI, that is kinda my point. Let it go unresolved, from my perspective, isn't a good option. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't need administrative intervention to reopen an incomplete discussion any more then you need administrative intervention to open one in the first place. And reaching consensus to reopen an ANI discussion will usually be a waste of time. As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action. (But this is also no different from if you keep opening discussions considered unsuitable for ANI.) You should also bear in mind it may negatively affect people's opinions of you if they feel what you're doing is unneeded, but again this is no different from opening a discussion in the first place.

Perhaps most importantly, you should consider that a lot of the time the 24+ hour limit works well. Given the activity of ANI, if no one has replied in 24 hours, it very often means the discussion has reached a natural ending point, even if it's technically unresolved. I had a brief look at the very long discussion and from the little I saw, I admit I think this is probably the case here. (From the little I saw,) although there seems to be strong concerns including by largely uninvolved users, I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI. Instead, I would suggest an RFC if you feel it's necessary or just let it be and hope the editor reforms. However repeating what I've said, I only had a glance at the discussion, and you're still free to disagree with me and re-open the discussion.

In summary, you're free to reopen the case if you want, you're not likely to be blocked for doing it one time, but consider carefully whether there's any point. At the very least, I suggest if you reopen the discussion, make a new comment making it clear what administrative action you're after, be it a topic ban, an indefinite block, a community ban or whatever. (Generally topic/community ban discussions happen at AN but I think they're allowed here if they originate from a discussion here.)

Nil Einne (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Typically, if it falls off the board because of no comment within 24 hours, no admin was going to take any action (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

Hi folks. I have been inviting people to an upcoming edit-a-thon. I have previously invited User:Coviepresb1647 to an event, and they said they felt it was able to be considered harassment. I felt terribly, and genuinely did not want the person to feel that way, and they accepted my apology. Months later I promote this current event, and I made the innocent mistake of sharing it on their talk page (there is no place on their talk page until today that stated they did not want to be invited to local events) and they have now threatened potential legal action against me. Again, this was another innocent mistake on my part, but at the same time, I believe legal action is a bit over the top. I was told this was the best method of action, as I'm rather nervous about attempting to apologize again due to them possibly considering that harrassment. Thanks. Sarah (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a message on their talk page.--v/r - TP 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a clear and unambiguous legal threat and he/she should be blocked for it. It's also a way OTT response to a very innocent invitation if you ask me.--Atlan (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:NLT is based off the chilling effect legal threats have on article collaboration and editing. "The article says this or I'm going to the police." In this case, an article is not involved so there isn't exactly a 'chiling effect' and so I feel the issue isn't as urgent and can be solved by simply educating the editor. If they don't get the clue right away, I'm happy to block and I've no issue with another admin doing it too.--v/r - TP 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur, premature for a block. I've also left the editor note about the uses of talk pages. Nobody Ent 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarah, the overreaction of this user to a simple mistake is very sad indeed. There is a potential issue here: we have categories and userboxes that identify people's location—Category:Wikipedians in London, {{User London}}, that sort of thing. Given that we've used those in the past to identify people who might want to attend meetups, edit-a-thons, GLAM events and so on, it might be an idea if we could have some kind of universal location thing, a bit like how we've got Babel boxes. These could formalise the userboxes and categories. One of the options would be both opt-in and opt-out for event announcements. Some property like "event announcements" which you could leave blank or set to "always" or "never". And if you'd chosen "never", the message delivery bots that people use could be set to respect that and not deliver messages to those people. This is just a sketch of an idea, but it seems like it might be useful to make this kind of thing slightly more formal and therefore less prone to accusations of spam. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely support this idea.--v/r - TP 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is in my archive where I first said and clearly implied that I was not interested and for her to stop sending me messages. I left it in my original talk page for a few weeks before I archived it. Today, I transferred it from my archive to my talk page since it seems that is now an on-going occurrence. So, to say that I never said that until today, I was not interested is a false accusation. I have considered the wisdom of TP's message to me and have retracted and recanted my legal threat. Indeed, sugar is more effective than salt and/or vinegar. I do apologize for my deficient charity/love on my part in this conflict. Further, I would NEVER consider reconciliation (apology and/or dialogue to the effect reconciliation of a conflict) as harassment. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Really? You don't find a legal threat for someone issuing a friendly invitation an overreaction? Anyway, retraction is good enough for me.--Atlan (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed my position. I now see it as an overreaction and do additionally apologize for overreacting to Sarah.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

TomMorris, that is an excellent idea about "opt-in" / "opt-out" of announcements. That would definitely improve wikipedia and benefit both the senders and recipients.Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

On my part, some of this stems from overreaction due to deficient charity and some of it stems from simple, innocent ignorance wikipedia's editing atmosphere and its position on litigation and how it negatively effects collaboration and editing. I have already apologized to Sarah for wrongs on my part in this conflict. I do feel bad and sorry for subjecting her to an unwarranted legal threat (and the negative emotions related to that subjection). As for my ignorance, I do appreciate TP's being patient and sharing with me more about wikipedia's positions and policies. I will certainly double-check myself in the future. Coviepresb1647 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Need a clue

Recently I put a POV tag on the article Mau Mau Uprising and pointed out some specific problems on the talk page. This has been met with some crazy derision on the talk page by the apparent "owner" of that article Iloveandrea (talk · contribs), as well as continued attempts at removing the tag without actually addressing the problems.

In fact, apparently, as a form of taunting the user slanted the article even more in response to the POV tag [37] ("Blacker laughs that Elkins’s figure..." - part of the POV problem is that Iloveandrea is treating one source, Blacker as some kind of holy book, while simultaneously pouring their personal disdain on another source, Elkins (who's a Harvard professor in history)).

On the talk page s/he started off with [38] "Mmm, I would simply reply with the words "shut up and do it yourself", but given your rather delusional take on things, I think I'd rather do it myself." and then went into more taunting [39]. When I asked again for the tag not to be removed (still politely) it got upped a notch:

• "Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool. "
• ". I'll find a source to pour scorn on Elkins numbers, if that's what it takes to shut you up"
• "For now, I've deleted your precious POV tag, purely to irritate you. "
• "Do me a favour and take your sneering, magisterial self-regard somewhere else."
• "Seriously, arrogance like you just simply does not merit being addressed in a civil manner. "
• "You think for a second I believe you have a doctorate in economics? Ha ha ha! Get a life!"

etc.[40]

I could care less about the incivility and personal attacks as I've had much worse but I don't want to get into an edit war over the NPOV tag which very clearly belongs on the article. I also think that if the article is to improve then this editor's stranglehold, defended by this kind of belligerence, on the article needs to be at least relaxed a little. Finally, there appear to be some basic WP:COMPETENCY issues here, just with regard to interacting with other people. At the same time this is a little too extreme to just take to Wikiettiquette or whatever.VolunteerMarek 15:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not to defend some definitely over-the-top reactions on Iloveandrea's part, but do I understand correctly that you do not think that you initially approached this like an arrogant jerk? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to the "Clean this up please"? Really?VolunteerMarek 15:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire intial post to the talk page. If I'd spent significant time on that article, my back would be up too. Of course, Iloveandrea handled it in just about the least productive way possible. I'm sure others will come along and hand out warnings and blocks and opinions of relative blame and such, but the underlying problem is that the two of you have poisoned the discussion so that nothing said there can be productive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you understand the difference between being critical of an article's content, which is what I did - and which is in fact encouraged, particularly in cases as slanted as this one - and attacking another person (over some stuff you found on their user page or whatever).VolunteerMarek 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, I do understand the difference. You started this thread, I didn't; if you don't want outside opinions, don't ask for them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion's fine and I'm glad you provided it.VolunteerMarek 16:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, I'm not trying to start an argument with you here and I feel like we've butted heads recently too, but your statement goes both ways. You replied here, if you don't want to discuss your opinions; don't offer them.--v/r - TP 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good point. Sorry, Marek. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor's user page is mostly their own business but this [41] [42] pretty much shows the editor is not interested in cooperating at all. Like I said, I don't care about the juvenile personal attacks, but I would like to be edit the original article, and that includes de-POVing it and putting in the tag in the mean time. There's no way I can do that unless this editor either "let's me" or at the very least discusses things rationally on the talk page.VolunteerMarek 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant personal attack; I've warned them and would seriously suggest a WP:NOTHERE block as the attitude expressed in that statement is absolutely the antithesis of a desire to operate in a cooperative, civil editing environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd strongly agree with that. That's absolutely unnecessary and it needs to be ended 5 minutes ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, they blanked the offending text - and the warning, too. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Advertising in article

We've got what looks like a publicity agent or something completely changing Hollyoaks and Lime Pictures. Could someone with more time on their hands deal with this user, Special:Contributions/IndieTVIndustryInsider, in whatever the proper manner should be? Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Plain and simple advertising. I gave a level three warning, suggest we escalate to level four if it continues, then block. Copying in the TV press release is not writing an encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TeaDrinker :) I think their blatant copyvio merited an additional warning though, which I've given them. If that happens again I'd recommend skipping L4 and just blocking indef until they can show that they understand why we can't have copy/pastes of someone else's work on here. EyeSerene^talk 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea, thanks. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

User: DrizzyDrakeFan removing content from articles

After giving a level 4 warning for doing this, he still removed content from Make Me Proud on March 3. Jawadreventon (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure your warnings were overly correct - I see good faith edits ... adding and subtracting. I don't see where you advised him of this ANI report, as required. Plus, how can we block for something done 5 days ago? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment-tampering by 209.6.69.227

-- and possible "!vote" stacking too. Whatever you think of the merits of having one or two articles more or less about Sandra Fluke (the woman who spoke to Pelosi but not Issa, and who various right-wing pundits have ridiculed), you'll likely agree that the AfD on Sandra Fluke has its oddities. General questions on this are raised in a section above. But here's something specific:

1. 02:01, 5 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 adds a "delete" comment
2. 17:43, 6 March 2012: 209.6.69.227 rewords an earlier "delete" comment by 72.181.154.217

Is the very vigorous single-purpose IP 209.6.69.227 the same as 72.181.154.217, or not? If so, then the second "!vote" should be struck. (Yes, yes, in principle it's worthless even if written by an entirely separate person, but the admin who wraps an AfD sometimes talks of votes.) If not, then 209.6.69.227 shouldn't be tampering. I thought I'd ask (on the IP's talk page). I wake to find no response there, but elsewhere more comment-tampering.

I invite one or two uninvolved admins to keep a close eye on this IP. -- Hoary (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on IP info, and those changes, I'm actually not certain they're the same person. That AfD definitely's going to get some vote stacking though... from every side. But I don't think this is a sock. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Note, I just commented there but I hadn't been involved before my comment... just full disclosure. Shadowjams (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if I understand the "Geolocate" business correctly, the one-time commenter whose comment was tampered with is in Texas whereas the tamperer is in Massachusetts. But I'm not sure that the latter has got the message that other people's messages can't be altered so that they say what you'd prefer them to say. -- Hoary (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Persistent spamming of Snuff

An IP Hopper (almost certainly the owner or an employee of the company) has been attempting for two years to add a link to a Swedish snus kit retailer to the page on nasal snuff. The IPs involved so far have been 81.225.49.116, 81.225.51.71, 81.225.52.94, 81.225.48.207, 81.225.48.49, 81.225.54.132 and 81.225.50.164. Repeated warnings have been ignored (one time by blanking the warning from the talk page [43]) and they switch IP addresses when a final warning has been issued ([44], [45]). Apart from the occasional attempt to add the same link to the Snus article, this spamming has been their only contribution to Wikipedia.

Although a week's semi-protection has been added to the Snuff article, would it be possible to place an editing ban on the IP range 81.225.x.x instead ? I think this would provide a more permanent solution. Barry Wom (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispersion of discussion by User:OpenFuture

I'm currently try to discuss with User:OpenFuture (a kind of Barnstar user), however he/she wrote belligerent long messages on multiple pages to confuse discussion, in my eyes. I've already guided to him/her to use article's talk page regarding public nature of discussion, however he/she ignored my directions.

Please advice him/her to stop belligerent attitude on discussion, and also advice to use article's talk page to avoid dispersion of discussion.

• Starting point on article Clavia: my advice to search image he/she want: [46]
  • his/her immediate reversion: [47]
• Multiple discussion place: User_talk:Clusternote#Edit_warring
  • his/her 1st personal message: [48]
  • my reply and my 1st guide to use article's talk page: [49]
  • his/her 2nd message ignoring my guide: [50]
  • my 1st warning message: [51]
  • his/her 3rd & 4th message ignoring my guide: [52]
  • my latest warning message: [53]
  • his/her 5th message ignoring my guide: [54]
• Proper discussion place: Talk:Clavia

best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)