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)

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)

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)

BLP material is BLP material, regardless of what kind of article it's in. And it's not about whether or not he "won" - if he got what he wanted, and the result is what we would want in line with Wikipedia's policies, everyone won. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Mr. Williams is quite right in that the arrest is incidental to the submarine. For pity's sake, we don't include in building or location articles when arrests take place there, even of famous people, never mind of folks without articles. Were Williams to qualify for his own article, sourced info of his arrest would be pertinent. In the sub article, it's well below superfluous. No one would dream of including the info in, say, the Buckingham Palace article were he arrested there.

Beyond that - and worth an "Ahem!" - we are here to determine what is right to do, not to score points off of other editors. Of course WP:NLT violations are pretty much at the top of the scale for misconduct here, but to not apply perfectly reasonable edits to articles because someone who narked us off could claim victory? To use an uncle's pithy phrase, we shouldn't get our asses in it that much. Ravenswing 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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 ([32], which follows an earlier revert made without comment today ([33]), and then to blank my requests on his talk page (one from a month ago that went unanswered and one from today, [34]). 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)
  • Nobody but me, ClaretAsh, and Nableezy seem to care, but I consider this highly disruptive. They've cleared their talk page again, and I've reverted another one of their unexplained edits and left a level-3 warning for vandalism, since there is nothing templated available. I could leave a note on their talk page, but what's the point? Drmies (talk) 17:10, 9 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)

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)

• blazetrak.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.blazetrak.com
• thequantumcapitalfund.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.thequantumcapitalfund.com
• fournote.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.fournote.com

Tracking. These Blazetrak guys have attempted to abuse Wikipedia for promotional purposes previously -- Blazetrak (talk · contribs) and JulieMichelle (talk · contribs). Oh, and another SPI. MER-C 13:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

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, [35], 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 [36] ("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 [37] "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 [38]. 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.[39]

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 [40] [41] 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)

can't possibly be regarded as vandalism. Simple addition of the correct WP reference. No change in content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 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)

As an aside, geolocation is usually fairly accurate, but not always. Common sources of inaccuracy include large telcos (which occasionally have a big pool of IP addresses that get allocated to customers across a wide area), coffee-shop wifi (the database might think that your IP address belongs to another outlet or even to the head office of the retailer), and business networks (in the office, you probably get to the internet through a proxy, which could be in a different office or even a different country). bobrayner (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

again, adding the reference to correct WP category not vandalism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.65.234 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 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 [42]) and they switch IP addresses when a final warning has been issued ([43], [44]). 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)

That range would block 2048 addresses. Although it's not an excessive number, rather than do that I've added the website to our spam blacklist. Hopefully this will deter future attempts. EyeSerene^talk 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a feeling they will still attempt to mention the product without the web address, but I'll keep an eye on it. Could the semi-protection now be lifted from the article ? Barry Wom (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done :) A rangeblock remains an option, but I think this is worth a try first. EyeSerene^talk 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• snusfabriken.com: 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

Tracking. MER-C 13:20, 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: [45]
  • his/her immediate reversion: [46]
• Multiple discussion place: User_talk:Clusternote#Edit_warring
  • his/her 1st personal message: [47]
  • my reply and my 1st guide to use article's talk page: [48]
  • his/her 2nd message ignoring my guide: [49]
  • my 1st warning message: [50]
  • his/her 3rd & 4th message ignoring my guide: [51]
  • my latest warning message: [52]
  • his/her 5th message ignoring my guide: [53]
• Proper discussion place: Talk:Clavia

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

Notified user with this diff--Hallows AG (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need for administrator involvement. This is a content dispute about whether some images should be used in an article. The note on your talkpage was a warning against edit warring, and that is the proper place for it. If anything I find your method of communication to be rather confusing not OpenFuture's. It takes two to edit war, so both of you should stop. If you don't have agreement on the content then there are other options such as WP:3O and WP:RFC. Polequant (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A short note: I only did one revert, and I wouldn't have done that if the user had engaged in constructive discussion instead or followed WP:BRD. He is still not engaging in discussion, it would perhaps help if some admin told him to. I don't know how to deal with editors that play the game of WP:IDHT, it's very frustrating. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I was troubled very much in the extensive and rapidly offensive messages by User:OpenFuture. I am very anxiety about Wikipedia having overlooked the problem of the offensive messages by this kind of belligerent user. --Clusternote (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed all of OpenFuture's edits around this topic on the various pages where the disagreement has been discussed. While they are firm, even vigorous, they are not belligerent, extensive or offensive. I can understand that you took offence that an image you had uploaded was described as poor quality - but that doesn't mean OpenFuture has been attacking you. I suggest we close this thread, and the two of you discuss the images needed at the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question for the OP. What's a "barnstar user"? while searching I can't find any previous mentions of this term.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably you can see the barnstar on several user's talk page. That's all. --Clusternote (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Besse Cooper

Resolved

 – (I hope.) Editor seems to have backed away from the article after an admin caution. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

A user is engaged in a tedious edit war with several of us over whether becoming the 15th oldest human is a "milestone". Since he won't stop and discuss, I'd like the experts here to provide an opinion on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at first glance I do see three improper uses of the rollback tool on non-vandalism edits by DerbyCountyinNZ. Also, I'm not too crazy about the confrontational tone he takes in discussing the issue but that's just me. I really don't like the term "fanboy". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Ron, but I also don't think this is ANI material. WP:3O...WP:EW perhaps, but not necessary here. Let's try User talk:DerbyCountyinNZ first...so far it's only been edit summaries, which hardly ever resolves anything.  Frank  |  talk  13:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be interested in the opinions of admins who have actually looked at that user's approach to things. I also notified him, so if he ignores it and doesn't come here, you'll know better what we're dealing with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

C'mon, Bugs, did you look at the page's history? I know full well the approach; I just don't think the dramahboard is the place to address it. I've commented on the real matter at hand at Talk:Besse Cooper.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that there was an arbitration case surrounding this topic a year ago, so the people in this area haven't always managed to resolve their disputes. It may not be an ANI issue yet, but more eyes there would definitely help. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, wasn't that more about reliable sources?  Frank  |  talk  15:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the major issues, too, but what really brought things to a head was the fiasco that was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts. It's not hard to see why. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any comments on that page from Derby, FWIW (which I realize isn't much).  Frank  |  talk  15:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated ban vio

There have been repeated interaction ban violations by Darkness Shines... A block was issued on one (which was removed when he convinced the blocking admin that he wont do it again). I have clarified this with the same administrator (Salvio giuliano) so that I'm not taken as wasting community's time or initiating an interaction through the report. Salvio has said it is a clear ban violation but I've to report it here for further action as he's not available. There have been clear massive taggings on my contributions at other articles too. Tagging the whole article for improvement is one thing, but these were specific tags on my additions repeatedly. [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. I didn't know then if they were violations and ignored them, but now since I've clarified them, these should be reverted as ban violation (or I should be allowed to revert such vios if they are declared as such). The current one I reported is here: [60]. There was also an intentional overwrite of full article [61] and then a self revert... there've been too many self reverts recently... I ignored them as it can happen when rollback is mistakenly clicked or one doesn't know whose contribution it was, but this one was deliberate overwrite of full article for whatever reason. Please refer to the clarification discussion here which I had with Salvio for the context. Can some one please drop the ANI notice too as I don't want to violate IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified. Dru of Id (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• currenly on my mobile there is nothing in the iban which says adding tags was. It allowed. I do not think it a violation. Will comment further when I get home Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Was DS blocked for this at all? Or, if I may be so bold, DS, why the fuck would you want to do stuff like that? Were you drunk? Never mind, I don't want to know. Salvo, you seem to have been appointed as the arbitrator here. If you can get those two, and the associates, away from here, there's a barnstar in it for you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Salvio said he's too busy to do anything about it now.--Atlan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No block was issued for the said edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies, except... Why is TopGun editing so many articles Darkness Shines has started in the last week (I believe all of the examples above)? Surely, if adding {{cn}} tags is an interaction ban violation, then finding multiple articles created by the other editor and editing them in a way designed to annoy them is one too? Perhaps it's time to block both indefinitely (well, that's me, I suppose others might want to be lenient and start with 1 week or 1 month) as "far too focused on scoring points against the other and getting away with it"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I asked for a clarification previously at ANI... and I was told, IBAN didn't mean first come first serve and we could edit as long as we didn't interact. I made sure of not interacting. Some of the articles were either mutual, one got a history merge and another was related to articles I was working on. Salvio has acknowledged that I was not hounding. I'm minding my own business. But I didn't even report those tags for so long till I clarified this with Salvio today on another one of those. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually User:Mar4d is looking for trouble big time with DS. See the history of the articles started by DS: 1 and 2. It is quite annoying as Mar4d has i. e. edit warred this unreliable blog-alike source into the infobox which is run by an involved party which refers to one side as "freedom fighters". Any attempts explaining to him that an impartial source is needed have brought no result so far. Can someone please provide his/her input on the validity to use that source for the infobox? JCAla (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How's that related here? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Home now, I will point out that if TG did not know that adding a RS tag was a violation then how would I? He just wrote above that this was just clarified. Quite simply That is all I have to say. BTW Drmies yes I was quite quite drunk and had been for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's just great, and you're really helping your cause. I hope you know what to do next time. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)x2 If I may, WP:IBAN states that undoing the other editor's edits is violating the Interaction Ban. Adding to them is not. This technically is not an interaction ban violation although I am curious why DS was editing while being drunk like that. However, bringing up this thread is an interaction ban violation on TopGun's part.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,422,448) 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Bringing this thread up is not a vio... reports of violations and clarifications are not violations. I was recently told to self revert a text which was deleted by DS, added by another editor and then again reverted by a third... that was not as of his edits but an addition of another editor deleted by a third. I was told it was not a technical violation but a violation in the spirit of the ban and blocks will be issued for such. This is a similar case. And I brought this thread up after administrative advise. If these edits are a violation, they should be reverted or I'll assume I can make similar ones in future. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Editor X is not permitted to:

  • edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
  • reply to editor Y in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
  • undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

  But if administrators told you that this was OK, then I am going to leave it at that.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,438,475) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, they did. [62]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, you need to read a bit further. There are exceptions to the ban and this report, requests for clarification, etc. all fall under those exceptions. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  And I completely missed that section, Facepalm. I am going to seclude myself into a dark corner and feel ashamed of myself for making myself look like an idiot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,440,246) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, drink more so I pass out, then I will be unable to make such a fool of myself Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Propose a total interaction ban between these two. If one of them edits an article, the other MAY NOT edit the article, the talk page or bring up the article anywhere on Wikipedia. They may not discuss each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Should they have concerns about an article or about the other editor, they may post a request to a neutral admin, detailing their concerns. ONLY at the request of that admin may they add to their initial request. They obviously can't stop it on their own, so this makes it EXTREMELY difficult for them to edit WP at all. Too bad for them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a ridiculous proposal... not only will it create complications where we're both editing but also be against the rules of an interaction ban. If some one violates a ban he should be blocked. I've initiated no interactions. I'm in my full right to report a violation... this will prevent me from making valid contributions because of the edits he is responsible for. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing, personal attacks and edit-warring

User: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
ERIDU-DREAMING is a single purpose account that edits almost exclusively on "Right-wing politics". He has edit-warred on the main article and posts long essays on the talk page, without providing sources and is offensive to other editors. Other editors have discussed these issues with him, but there has been no change of behavior. I would like to seem him warned against soap-boxing and personal attacks. (Edit-warring if it continues can be handled at the edit-warring noticeboard.)

Examples of soapboxing: SPOT THE SOPHISTRY, A Leftist Definition, False Definition, Do Leftists comprehend the Right? These are just discussion threads begun by ERIDU-DREAMING within the last month. All of them are expressions of opinion, hostile attacks on other editors and without sources for improving the article. A review of the talk page and archives shows that this is part of a consistent pattern.

Other examples of personal attacks:

• "a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry)"[63]
• "Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-wing_politics#Why_was_the_bias_tag_removed.3F

Another editor and I have have discussed the matter with ERIDU-DREAMING.

• I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[64]
• The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop. TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[65]

TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is true that I have contributed rather more to the talk page on Right Wing politics than planned, and in the last few days I did get excluded for a day because I reverted a controversial change to the article. The Four Deuces (as usual) tried to get me banned for life (later he made up the claim that I was taking on different identities even though he knew this to be false given the nature of the edits) and he succeeded (for a time) in getting the ban extended to a week - until this was reversed) and I recall that it DID take several weeks of discussion on the talk page a few months back before the claim that the Right = Fascists was addressed. During that time The Four Deuces hid my posts, deleted my posts, accused me of being a sock puppet, in fact it is hard to think of something he has not accused me of, in order to promote his claim that the Right are extremists. It is to the VERY GREAT credit of Wikipedia that somebody eventually enforced a process that corrected him.

I took him through the major scholarship in this area but anything which contradicted his (I have to say) extreme views was dismissed by him as marginal scholarship, even though I used the leading scholars in the field!!! To avoid being accused by him of being a sock puppet I registered as Eridu Dreaming.

I ask any disinterested reader to view the section about which The Four Deuces and R14 are objecting on the grounds that it is soapboxing to see if they agree with them that it is not an attempt to directly address a substantive question (namely is it correct that Classical Liberals can be described Right-Wing) and instead is nothing more than an emotional and irrelevant outburst which justifies R-14 moving the text, hiding the text, and in the case of The Four Deuces, bringing me to this tribunal, in order to get me banned. I DO admit that I said that Rick Norwood (one of the editors) hates Republicans, but he assured me some of his best friends are Republicans, and so I withdrew it! But my intention (at all times) is fairness and accuracy. I DO believe that some are importing (unconsciously in most cases) their political prejudices into this particular article.

All I can say is that it is much better than it was!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a curious mixture of truths, half-truths and untruths. Could you please provide differences to support the statements you make. For example, I did not try to get you "banned for life". I reported you to the 3RR noticeboard and the blocking administrator considered an indefinite block.[66] You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors, which is why I have brought this matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - Disruptive Editing, Hounding & Forum Shopping

With great regret I must report that an editor Dennis Brown is commiting disruptive editing in violation of WP:HEAR pretty much thumbing his nose at admins who have settled and [67] archived an AFD case and closed two redudant ANI charges based on the same AFD case (his & "others" forum shopping for duplicate outcomes) [68] and [69] where he again tried to bring up the same argument a THIRD time. In addition to the disruptive editing (which I will discuss below) by him that has happened after the AFD was settled, this clearly was forum shopping by him to try to get an additional result after the initial AFD discussion and other redundant/duplicate ANI discussion was closed. He attempted on that (third complaint/second ANI proposal) he called "Bot archived too soon" to resusitate the first case after multiple admins basically told him it was over.[70]. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help that he is trying different forums in the hope of finding one where his constant complaining about ONE issue will get multiple outcomes he is looking for.

It's been hard, but I have restrained myself and held my tongue hoping that this one sided attempt by him to harass me would end. Clearly it has not. I have patiently waited and not reverted his malicious edits and I haven't responded to his repeated attempts at forum searching (even when he did not notify me that he was doing this third attempt at regurgitating the same dead horse argument, as required by ANI). But it is clear that this is a pattern and that he does not plan to stop because he did not get his "my way or the highway" desired outcome from ANI and dispite he got what he wanted from AFD, which was a very good article being deleted (which I have my suspicions was done by a faction that sided with him through false consensus).

He is told (by) Nil Einne (talk) at 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[71] that:

"As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action...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...I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI."

But he won't let it go.

I'm coming here because in the last discussion I tried to reason with this very angry editor Dennis Brown who told me not to talk to him on his talk page (he has a warning on his user page for no one to leave messages for him on his talk page). I cannot go there and leave a message for him, because he will get angry an spin it into an attack. So that's why I am coming here.

After the closed AFD Discussion and and after the closed first duplicate ANI discussion, and during his third attempt to cause trouble on the ANI board by trying to drum up a third forum, Dennis Brown tracked this user's recent contributions and blanked or reverted many of them clearly as part of his vendetta against this user. I am concerned not just because he seems to be hounding this user specifically and selectively reverting my contributions, but because on the articles he is changing, he is making gross deletions to biographies of living people. He is randomly blanking huge sections of content even on a page of a well known Academy nominated actress, another well known actor, and an Award winning film distributor:

• Here he blanks all the credits off a biography page [72] that I had originally created here [73]

• Here at he blanks the entire credits of an Academy Award nominated actress that have clearly been built up by various users over a long period of time [74]

• Here at he removes major credits from a cult actor's page with no regard as to the cult value of each credit he is arbitrarily deleting [75]

that I had contributed here on 14 Feb 2012 01:38 [76] and here [77].

• Here he removes more content from another page I contributed to and which he then tags as a stub: [78]

• Here he removes another credit from a page [79]

• And this morning he has started blanking sections of another page I have contributed to, removing titles and credits at will to another living biography:

• here [80]
• and here [81]
• and here blanking an entire columns of credits [82]
• here [83]and
• here [84]

These edits show a pattern of targeted disruption and an unwillingness of this editor to accept the outcome of the AFD and ANI. While editing of content on Wikipedia to make it more encyclopedic is encouraged, deleting valuable content and basically vandalizing of articles especially biographies of living people is not. I think he is in violation of "no angry mastodons" WP:NAM trying to bait this user into reverting his hostile and vengeful edits, in order to try to stir up more trouble. The user is clearly Wikihounding by singling out one editor, and going to multiple pages or topics I may contribute to and/or create, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit this user's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to this contributor because he didn't get an outcome he wanted out of a duplicate complaint that he made on an ANI forum.

One reviewer Ravenswing said here: [85],

"Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either.

Because this problem is continuing, because this user is well versed in Wikipedia and knows the damage he is doing (he is not unaware) and because he is clearly out for revenge, because he also doesn't seem to listen to admins who have continually suggested to him that his AFD case has been resolved and that his blatant forum searching is not a good idea and that basically he should "let it be." I think this user needs to hear from admins, possible be blocked and his reverts (and possibly those of others who are in his faction) need to be restored. This is tendentious behavior in that he continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point, which is to drive away a productive contributor per WP:DEPE. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment For reference, the recent ANI regarding Catpowerzzz can be found here. It may also be helpful to review Nil Einne's post on Catpowerzzz talk page following the ANI discussion:

"Whatever the 'wrongs' of others you've been involved with, it seems clear several uninvolved people, upon looking at the history, have concerns about your behaviour and your explainations generally haven't helped (if anything they appear to have made things worse)."

The AfD to which Catpowerzz refers can be found here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is our collective fault, really, for not solving the problem in the last ANI thread, but foolishly hoping that things would die down after the AFD ended. I suggest correcting that error now by telling Catpowerzzz in no uncertain terms to stop this, and back it up with blocks if it continues. The report above is so full of unfair descriptions and mischaracterizations of other people's comments that it can't be the result of errors in judgement, it is the result of intentional misleading. I do not see any problematic edits on Dennis Brown's part in the diffs above. When an editor has shown that their edits are problematic, it is not harassment to look at their edit history and fix the problems they're causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Here we go: Catpower blocked for 12 hours by way of the boomerang--i.e., persistent disruption and now a bogus charge. Immediate cause is this edit and its summary--a false charge of vandalism. Given Catpower's editing pattern I have no reason to assume that they won't persist in such vindictive edits, where a content dispute is turned into a vandalism accusation. That the ANI report here is without merit is clear enough; perhaps Catpower will now understand that this should be over, that they should start listening to sound advice (some of which was removed here). As for the block and its length, I encourage your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• (Nodding at Floquenbeam's description), I previously characterized this behavior here [86]--I've never used quite that language before, but there's a persistent and even malicious misrepresentation of events. Thanks to Drmies. As a betting man my money is that this will continue until the blocks become more severe. Then I'd suggest keeping an eye peeled for socks, especially at Chris Innis and associated articles. JNW (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious editor needs to be blocked

Penguinluver1431 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been censoring portions of articles to fit a far-right agenda. They have been warned repeatedly and had the guidelines explained, but these warnings and explanations have been removed from the talk page.

• Covering up for Sarah Palin.
• Removing Obama's religon.
• Censorship at Fox News Channel controversies
• Censorship at Ave Maria University, continued, and even outright lying in the edit summary to remove references.
• Censorship at Template:Terrorism, and more censorship at Template:Terrorism
• Acknowledged warnings about this behavior by removing the warnings and removing other warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria university
• Removing a final warning from another editor
• Removing the Christian Terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article because it's "misleading" somehow
• Removing more warnings
• Resuming edit warring at Ave Maria University
• Removing Keith Olbermann's American nationality (as if being left-wing revokes it or something)
• Removing an explanation of how to not push an agenda here, which included relevant policies and guidelines
• Removing a second final warning
• Once again removing the Christian terrorism category from the Joseph Kony article, again claiming it's "misleading"

It has been explained repeatedly that this sort of behavior is not acceptable here. Penguinluver1431 removes the warnings, so they have been acknowledged. Time for a block. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• The removing of warnings doesn't violate policy, but does indicate he doesn't care about them. Some of these edits fly in the face of prior consensus; others seem to just go against common sense. Plus there's the issue of edit warring. I would suggest something in the two weeks to three months range, and then indeff if he comes back to do it again. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse Floquenbeam's indef block--they beat me to it. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) Rather than block for a shorter period and see if that changes their attitude, I've instead blocked indef, and if they can convince someone they've changed their attitude, we can unblock. This account has been POV pushing for a long time, with long gaps in between edits. I don't think a shorter block to get their attention will work. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Beat me to it as well. Endorse the indef. Swarm ^X 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that removing the warnings violate policy, but cited them as indicating that Penguinluver1431 knows Wikipedia does not approve of those other actions (if he/she didn't remove them, he/she could pretend they didn't read them). Thanks for the block, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)