Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Jfgsloeditor

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

---

Resolved

 – Elen of the Roads has blocked Jfgsloeditor and the AfD's the user created have been CSD G5'ed. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their contributions, may need a CU to work out which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking ^(edits) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, do you know which this perpetrated user comes from a banned editor? ApprenticeFan ^work 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no I don't for sure, perm one form about 3 or 4. Mtking ^(edits) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should be looked into, as their sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to attempt to do a lot of bad faith AfD nominations for America's Next Top Model related articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the nominations were done in bad faith? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, according the checkuser page, that tool is not to be used for fishing. So, unless you think I am some specific other editor, they don't just check accounts on hunches based on their guidelines. Second, does America's Next Top Model really need that many pages? Isn't this a serious encyclopedia? Why is not just an article about the show sufficient? We're not talking about some show with the kind of number one ratings as American Idol or something. --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For being highly familiar with a specific subset of the policy guidelines, being familiar with AfD nominations, and your general combativeness, I concur with MtKing in that my I hear a lot of loud quacking that probably would be best served by an admin taking the user in hand and asking some on the record questions prior to the magic pixie dust being used. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, he's a sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a surprise, the Afd's he created should be CSD'ed G5 in order to WP:DENY the sock unless any of the !vote keeps really wants to keep the pages, I will nominate in an hour or two if there is no objection. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Any objection ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, I am going to give a support indefinite ban for the editor for life. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He is de facto if not actualy de jure banned, no admin will unblock and any socks he create will be blocked. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki harassment by User:Euroflux

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

---

After his recent block and my proposals to delete/rename two of his categories here, User:Euroflux is now harassing me on the Dutch, German, and Italian Wikipedias, ferreting out my real-life identity (not all that well hidden, I guess, given that I originally edited under my real name and only had my account renamed to avoid exactly this kind of behavior) and accusing me of "proven" sockpuppetry, hounding and blocking him here, destroying his work, etc. etc. Is there a central point to report this behavior, or do I have to deal with this at each WP separately? Any advice is welcome. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can request it at each Wikipedia separately, or you can request a global block at meta:Steward requests/Global. Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the standards for applying a global block. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I didn't know about this. Unfortunately, it's only applicable to IPs that are guilty of persistent cross-wiki spamming and/or vandalism. Thanks anyway. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the Dutch wiki's admin page, that's about all that I can do with my limited denkraam. Guillaume, if I need to support any statement on some meta wiki, just tell me. It's time this ends. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An admin could help by blocking User:Euroflux from editing his English Wikipedia talk page—User talk:Euroflux—where he is also carrying on this campaign. First Light (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion. We have had too much patience with Euroflux already, it is obvious that this person just does not get the collaborative spirit of this project. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree too and, so, I have gone ahead and done the honours. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (BTW: your block even made the Italian wiki...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Insofar he is not blocked on the Italian wiki [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sysop on it.wiki, so I cannot block him, even if I think he should indeed be. But I hope someone will indef him and be done with him there too... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This thread can be closed. Guillaume2303 is now retired. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User check : RobertRosen

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Wikipedia lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits([2] 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW^illiam 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI please. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable encyclopedia sourced from authentic and non-POV sources in so far as BLP articles are concerned. So yes, I do "tend" to remove information on BLPs till they are properly sourced and re-written by editors interested in the subject. I am primarily a Wikipedia reader/user and not a Wikipedia editor. The present dispute is about personal biographical information about a living person Aruna Roy. I had repeatedly asked the complainant to take it to the ARTICLE TALK PAGE since there were only 2 editors involved. I also advised him that WP:3 is the place to go if he wanted a third opinion. Instead he has brought a content dispute to WP:ANI within the space of a few hours and without any independent editors being allowed to participate. For instance, User:TheBlueCanoe gave his opinion before I had even properly stated my case. If insisting on strict adherence to WP policies is a crime, then please dub me a SP and throw me out of WP. RobertRosen (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any socks. I had to take it to ANI as the problem is not with this one instance, but many, as supported by the disturbing instances cited in my first post. User:TheBlueCanoe did respond after RobertRosen's reply, which still wasn't a favourable one for RobertRosen. This user has a flawed understanding of WP policies and his editing should be monitored closely to prevent him from defacing further articles. _morelMW^illiam 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad - your talk of "user check" and "patterns" threw me, I thought you were talking about socking. I'll try and have a proper look if I find time. GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another instance that makes me question his sound knowledge of WP policies. Controversies should be removed from a BLP article only when they form the main content, if I am not wrong. Or am I wrong? _morelMW^illiam 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you (MorelMWilliam) are. You're edit warring, not using the article talk page, not responding to a good faith notice place on your talk page, and running off to noticeboards. You're escalating the situation very quickly, and posting to ANI concurrently with RSN. Digging through an editor's history to find "evidence" of past misdeeds isn't really helpful, especially when at some of the links you provide don't really hold up. For example, RobertRosen made some edits to Arindam Chaudhuri with reasonable edit summaries, which were reverted by another editor; RR did not edit war (a third editor repeated some of the trimming). This discussion should be taken to the talk page. Going to RSN to get additional viewpoints is fine, but it's more helpful to give it time to allow other editors to comment rather than going back and forth with another editor. I don't see any need for admin action here. Nobody Ent 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam, Just FYI, what I removed on Salman Khurshid was clearly within the scope of WP:LBL. Let me also say that while I respect CONTRIBUTORS like you who add information ("WP is not a paper encyclopedia"), WP also needs those few remaining EDITORS like me who clean up afterwards. So chill and have mutual respect. RobertRosen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

@Nobody WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM support the addition of well sourced contentious material against Salman Khurshid as they don't garner undue weight in his article. As regards the Arindham Chaudhuri link, RobertRosen deleted the entire content rather than changing it to the way supported by the source. I chose not to take things on my own hands and took it to notice boards for outsider opinion. Besides, all your concerns are that I took it to ANI and not go by talk page disputes, then a 3rd party intervention and then an another step before I get here. Look at the amount of junk that is there on WP:RSN for addition of simple and non contentious facts in an article! Most of his edits, other than today's, have something to do with people/ organisations involved in India Against Corruption movement, and I see a pattern there. His edits are usually content removal, a lot of them of a not so sound judgement. When contacted, he comes forward with wikipedia rules that don't apply. A rollback of some sort for his edits is what I see necessary, and that needs an administrator! _morelMW^illiam 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from [3] and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Wikipedia. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All American Speakers website which has her 'bio' cited lists no author. This website sources content that are on public domain. Such as Jesse Jackson's bio copied from here. So it is not an SPS, but rather RMAF's content mirrored by All American Speakers. _morelMW^illiam 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the ongoing WP:RSN discussion, RobertRosen has veered off to conspiracy theorists' territories. His key points include

• Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation is biased to further American Interests as it is administered by Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.

• Vigil Online, a non notable think tank, authors books that are more reliable than most of the sources here that meet WP:RS.

• He is a self-styled 'door-keeper' who claims that it is because of him "that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs".

• He thinks because he knows many books that go "pornographic" when talking about personal details of Aruna Roy, Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's biography by an experienced filipino journalist Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is unreliable.

• He asks editors to read his Indian conspiracy theorists like Arundhati Roy sending me links to her criticism pieces such as this to become more 'informed'.

• He claims that the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by RMAF is contentious citing a few blogs.

It is now very clear that he subscribes to such ideologues and defaces articles with his wikilawyering. _morelMW^illiam 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MorelMWilliam, if you describe another editor as 'defacing' an article one more time, when what you mean is 'editing it in a way I don't like' I will block you under WP:NPA. This appears to be nothing but a content dispute, and I recommend it be closed before such an outcome occurs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the roads, did you read my entire post? It is not a content dispute; this user uses his personal research and unreliable/ shifty sources to support his wikilawyering. This RobertRosen has taken over Aruna Roy and many other wiki articles related to India Against Corruption and removes well referenced content citing their differences with his own knowledge supported by unreliable sources. Here are a few instances.

• He believes(1 & 2) that Aruna Roy and Sanjit Roy were never married. However, it is supported by multiple sources such as this and this.
• I found that a different version of the text under dispute was added by an administrator Ekabhishek in 2009. The same was removed by RobertRosen in 2011 stating that version to be copied in entirety from the source.

I am tired citing instances showing his bad judgement and I wonder if the above is not defacing, then what is! _morelMW^illiam 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I don't use my personal knowledge, my personal research or dubious sources to add (or delete) material to WP article space. That would be WP:NOR. My Indian BLP niche edits are usually of the "delete immediately without waiting for discussion" variety and strictly in terms of WP:BLP, WP:V etc.

Secondly, in 22.02.2011 I removed (as a COPYVIO) article text [4] from Aruna Roy which stated that she and Sanjit/Bunker Roy "are not separated". Today User:MWilliam tried to rope the editor/admin "Ekabhishek" whose text I deleted into this dispute to support him at WP:ANI. However, 1 of MorelWilliam's own 2 new sources which he relies on to show they were married ALSO says that they "are separated".

Thirdly, I would ask User:MWilliams to understand Sanjit Roy's carefully nuanced statement (in the 2nd reference he provided) "In India I'm always Aruna Roy's husband."

Fourthly MWilliams is not even allowed to post such an ANI because he did not discuss this incident on my talk page and considering that I had immediately posted a courtesy message on his talk page asking him to do so after I (once) reverted his edits for purely technical reasons.

This is a content dispute and nothing else. The complainant is insistent on inserting a poorly sourced, copyrightvio'ed and controversial text into a BLP and is stalking me to achieve it. Can somebody please close this discussion, and/or get User:MWilliams to stop stalking me, repeatedly examining and maligning my editing style (and despite being advised not to do so by 4 neutral admins), calling for a WP:CU for me without any basis, and dismissively bypassing each and every conventional WP dispute resolution process so as to malign me. RobertRosen (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly(sic), this is NOT A CONTENT DISPUTE.
• Secondly(sic), this IS A COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR EDITING STYLE and nothing else.
• Thirdly(sic), I am NOT STALKING YOU. I am just not that into you, okay? By the way, did you happen to land on Ekabhishek's talk page just like that?
• Sanjit Roy's statement implies that he is relatively unknown in India, other than for the fact that he is Aruna's husband. What did you understand? You have now come to believe that they are separated from your earlier stand that they were never married.
• You should seek advice from WP:RSN before you remove a source from a page. If it is you who regards a source dubious, then it is your personal knowledge / personal research. I didn't come up lived in sin because of their brehman - low life unconventional mixed marriage. Do you have a reliable source for that? _morelMW^illiam 13:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

On reviewing the editing at Aruna Roy for the past 2 years, I find that an anon IP band 117.xxx.xxx.xxx geo-resolving to BSNL in Rajasthan State in India, has been persistently trying to include personal biographic details of her to the article. I am not the only editor to have reverted this text/anon User:Materialscientist(an Admin) also did so on 22.Feb.2012 and so did User:Jargon777 on 25.May.2012. Curiously MWilliams is going to extraordinary lengths to reinsert much of the same (now seemingly self published) material which was removed by Materialscientist and by me (twice) as say on 10.Oct.2011 much after the text was added by MWilliams on 30.Aug.2011. So its not the first time this very text was added by Mwilliams and removed by me about 2 months later. So the sequence goes like this --> On 22.feb.2011 I remove the disputed text which I noticed after removing a patently COPYVIO image from flickr (which image also repeatedly gets reinserted back on this page), MWilliams adds the text back on 30.Aug.2011. I remove it 2 months later, then the anon IP replaces it and MaterialScientist removes it immediately. Then Mwilliams puts it back and I revert it immediately. It may also be relevant that Aruna Roy's organisation the "MKSS" is based in Rajasthan and she was also involved with a "Barefoot University" there. RobertRosen (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What's happening is a slow-moving edit-war, and just because it's 2 months apart doesn't make it any better, or any less of an edit-war...WP:BRD still applies. However, if you're suggesting some form of "undercover" or covert operations going on, then you'd better take a very quick re-read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and realign your manner of thinking as the hints, suggestions, and almost accusations above are inappropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Bwilkins, I respectfully beg to state it differently. Somebody is repeatedly attempting to violate WP:NPOV on this WP:BLP by inserting a specific set of controversial text including concerning the subject's marital status and parentage. The article subject herself is a controversial personality much in the news. Several independent and neutral editors (including an Indian WP:Admin and a WP:Rollbacker from Toronto) have stopped him/them on technical grounds. None of us (incl. me) have problems with the content per se, we had always removed/rollbacked it for technical reasons. None of us rollbackers (as far as I can make out) have added any significant material to the article. Because of the glacial pace (and the anon IP), we could not see the pattern earlier.

WP:DR I have not contacted those other 2 editors or involved them. I had put a message on MWilliam's talk page asking him to discuss it, either on my talk page or the article talk page but he unilaterally chose to bring it to WP:RSN without any discussion saying "I would rather spend time adding valuable content on the article space than chit chat with you upholding niceties such as politeness, good faith and courtesy." and also "This discussion would be moved to the article's talk page once resolved. Let us get to WP:DR when there is a dispute. Like when both of us believe that earth is flat". He then came to WP:ANI to escape from the ongoing WP:RSN discussion which later went against him. RobertRosen (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've also just discovered that "MWilliams" has also complained about this/me to the BLP notice board [5] and neglected to inform me or place the "blp-dispute" tag on the article's talk page. RobertRosen (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, I also find that MWilliams has moved all his controversial talk page content to archives, and in the period when this slow "edit-warring" first began ie. Feb-July 2011 he had been indulging in massive copyvios and was "blocked" for disruptive editing. It also seems from his archive he had another user name, ... which I've now discovered resolves to former SockPuppeteer "Manorathan" [6]. [7]. RobertRosen (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In view of the above. I would like to try and resolve this "one-on-one" with User:MonelMWilliams, and see if he promises to reform and be a "good boy" at Wikipedia in future. I'm not a vindictive person and believe there is good in everyone and ultimately we are working towards the same goal. RobertRosen (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Holy crap ... and now you'll only resolve it if he "promises to reform and be a 'good boy'"? Can you be any more condescending? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement [8]. Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat [9] but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a block on that basis. Additionally, based on his edits today, it's not the last we're going to be hearing about IBobi. If the account isn't blocked now, we need to keep an eye it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indef'd, given the NLT aspect. Feel free to revert me without input from me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

edit-conflictedNot sure that we should be banning any employee of a company in conflict with us per-se, even if their employer's actions off-wiki are quite despicable and they certainly are. The reference to consulting the WMF laywer might be simply a reference to their complaint that the trademark has been misused in the past by X and Y and whoever, see their lawsuit. But maybe I'm trying to AGF a little bit too much. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable too. 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IBobi also supported the legal threats against 8 admins on WT by a user called IBLegal. Thus he has a history of making legal threats. Can dig up the diffs if people wish to see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Philippe has unblocked the account, in staff capacity. --Rschen7754 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippe clarified that this is not an office action, but a personal decision. He wants us to de-escalate the situation. The way I see it, IBobi hasn't done any actual harm yet. He can bitch all he wants that we're planning to remove the links to his website – just ignore him. If he does anything truly disruptive we can block him again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Three admins had declined unblock requests, including you. I think the situation was well in hand. Tiderolls 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of Philippe's unblock, but for the moment, I'm willing to take a "what's done is done" attitude. IBobi (and the admin corps) have been advised that because this was an IAR unblock, not an OFFICE one, if he continues his disruptive behavior he can be reblocked without fear of (much) WMF wrath. While I wouldn't encourage any admin to do that re-blocking unilaterally if he continues (as it would technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL), I rather think that if the POV pushing/COI editing continues, the issue can be dealt with by a noticeboard thread and the block reinstated then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With Philippe conceding in a consensus-finding-discussion that he would not oppose anyone reblocking on any ground (albeit he doesn't recommend it, of course ;-) , I figure that a block would definitely not constitute WP:WHEEL warring by any sane interpretation of that text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: #Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT

IBobi (talk · contribs) is an employee of Internet Brands, a company presently suing several Wikimedia volunteers over their efforts in creating the new WMF project Wikivoyage, and countersued by the WMF as well (see [11]). However, he is still actively participating on Wikipedia discussions, arguing the company line. This seems like a clear violation of WP:NLT, and I think it would be in Wikimedia's best interest to preventively block him until the conclusion of the lawsuits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Just realized there is already a discussion on IBobi's talk page about being blocked for WP:NLT (and another discussion right here on WP:ANI), including a determination by WMF legal counsel that "we do not consider iBobi to be the threatening party in the NLT situation" and a reversal of a previously imposed block. However, this does not equate to the WMF saying he should not blocked, so I would still like to see a wider discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: This edit by IBobi sounds rather a lot like a veiled legal threat. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Jani, give it a rest. We just went through this. Admins, please check my Talk page for current discussions and results prior to taking action on this spurious request. Thank you.--IBobi (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing spurious about it, idle threats are a dime a dozen but frivolous litigation that gets noted by the New York Times is crossing the line a wee bit here when it comes to WP:NLT. I have no idea why any WMF project has any templates, interwikis or outbound links of any kind to a company who does this sort of thing, but as far as your editing here the policy is clear: don't do it. K7L (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should catch up on my Talk page.

The reasons for the links and templates are pretty clear: Wikitravel is by all measures the premier travel wiki in the world, and has been for nearly a decade. There's been historical cooperation between our communities. We helped Wikipedia grow through links, and vice-versa. Fair enough?--IBobi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This "historical cooperation" consists of you blocking any user attempting to mention Wikivoyage anywhere on your site, as well as directing frivolous litigation against volunteers here. You are also clearly operating a single-purpose account and acting with a conflict of interest which suggests you're not here to write an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our communities IBobi. You do not represent the (original) Wikitravel community who cooperated with us. The people one would consider representative of the Wikitravel community (to wit, the (ex-) WT Admins) are no longer working with you.

Despite the above, I do note that [User:IBobi|IBobi]]'s contributions list is very very short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IBobi . I submit that it would be a stretch to find anything there that violates Wikipedia policy.

IBobi: User:Fluffernutter gave you the standard sage advice: you're welcome to edit on en.wikipedia. However, do note that it is recommended for people stay away from topics to do with their employer or passion, as it is hard to remain neutral on those topics. In your case that means you would be wise to stay away from things to do with Internet Brands or Wikitravel.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, my primary concern is WP:NLT and any possible legal repercussions of discussions with people who are engaged in lawsuits against the WMF and its users, and my secondary concern is WP:COI. If IBobi was merely a random Wikitravel fan boy (a beast almost as mythical as the Caonima), his edits would not be bannable; but, of course, he isn't. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RTFL(inks) would show that WMF Legal Counsel states that IBobi has made no legal threats. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) (But we do get that via Hearsay, I'd love to actually read a statement by WMF legal counsel themselves)

If it wouldn't constitute wheel warring, I'd definitely block here. IBobi claims to be the Community Manager of Internet Brands — that definitely sounds like a high-up position in the company. While individual officials presumably aren't parties to this case (without having looked at it, I'd guess that the main plaintiff is Internet Brands, and any other plaintiffs are presumably other corporations, not individuals), their place as company officials means that they're too close to the suit to be immune from the spirit of WP:NLT. Whether the account named IBobi has made any legal threats on-wiki isn't particularly relevant here. Of course, my argument will break down if the Community Manager be a Dilbert-type job; I'll happily retract my willingness to block if I see evidence that the Community Manager isn't a high-up official. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a slippery slope! If IBobi is contributing , and as long as he/she doesn't reference the legal aspects of the issue, then I don't see how we can block him/her from editing for NLT. Ibobi should just be aware that making any mention of the legal on-goings, or even the litigating company in general, puts him/her in a vulnerable situation with a very short rope. Standard WP:COI principles should apply, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem... he is not contributing in any meaningful sense and is not here to write an encyclopaedia. He is here for the single purpose of advocating for the interests of IB, a commercial for-profit, therefore WP:COI and WP:SPA. That he's here as an IB employee to advocate over three thousand {{wikitravel}} links be retained (instead of being replaced en masse by a 'bot, as everything on that site is already on Wikivoyage) indicates that his aim is to advertise his site here, a WP:ADV and WP:SPAM issue. He seems to endlessly claim to have some number of page hits, as if that in and of itself justifies a link which offers no new info to the encyclopaedia's users that isn't already available elsewhere. As such, he's editing for IB's interests, not Wikipedia's interests. WP:NLT is only part of the problem, although I won't downplay that as this is a clear violation there too. K7L (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion however. And one that frankly the WMF has brought on itself by endorsing the whole sordid WV/WT shenanigans. You do realise why that given that IB's case hinges on interference with their business, removing all the Wikitravel links would be a bad thing to do at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IB doesn't have a case. The content is the property of its authors. Read the license. The original contributors have every right to walk away and take their content elsewhere. That's the way it works. And no, Wikipedia is under no obligation to retain links promoting any external, for-profit website. What you call "interfering with their business" is called "fair competition" in the rest of the world. Deal with it instead of crying that WMF owes some random for-profit commercial site a few thousand links of free advertising (which it does not, per WP:ADV and WP:SPAM). K7L (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the best option is probably to leave him enough rope to hang himself with. No need to be hasty. If current trends continue he'll provide plenty of justification for a block shorty.©Geni 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if WMF were doing exactly that... or letting this run until the opportunity arises to invoke Godwin's Law. So be it... K7L (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not really common to find a user who knows where the drama boards are but has zero contributions in the article space. At this point, Wikipedia would not lose anything if User:IBobi gets indeffed again. (It probably will not win anything, either).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This odd editing pattern isn't just on en: - a glance at meta:user talk:IBobi shows at least one complaint about this user editing other people's comments in meta: discussions on WMF taking on the Wikivoyage project - an issue in which IB has a financial stake as owner of WT's domain. Edits like this (which autonumber comments made in reponse to "oppose" votes as if they were themselves votes against the proposal) are a bit dodgy. I'm not sure how closely we watch this sort of cross-wiki activity (for instance, the question of whether policies like NLT apply there has come up) but it is worth noting. K7L (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel existed first. There has been historical cooperation between Wikitravel and Wikipedia. Both sites have benefited from the other. If anyone would like to deny that the reason these links are being proposed for deletion is out of sheer malice against a 9 year old wiki that serves 250,000 travelers per day, let him or her step forward and make a case. The idea that the "new" WMF travel wiki is not a mirror but a fork is salient here; once the fork is up and running and receiving editorial contributions from WP editors, it becomes a different site, with different resources for travelers than Wikitravel. This has in fact already begun, as the (for the time being) independent site Wikivoyage has forked Wikitravel's original content and that content is being changed in situ. So, what is the justification for denying Wikipedians, and the general public they are supposed to serve, links to *both* of these unique travel sites -- one of which has built and retained said links for *years* with no mention of removing them, until its content was forked? Look to the people proposing this change for your answer. They have left a wiki they helped build; that's all well and good. But they harbor resentments about their former site and now that they have a new sandbox to play in, they want to take a shit in the old one -- no matter how many users they harm in the process. If you're supporting removing those links, that is who you're throwing your lot in with.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about any of this.

Whether you agree with my points or not isn't even relevant to this page. This is about an account block that was proposed by Doc James, a guy who simply does not want this *discussion* to take place, because he prefers one site over the other, for whatever his personal reasons are. If this community is going to allow stifling of *discussion* on a technicality (one that is only being taken advantage of by a very dubious interpretation of WP policies), where is the openness? Where is the philosophy of sharing? Does that go out the window because some people don't like the idea of an independent wiki that's supported by advertising? We get it. Ad-supported and donation-supported are different. Does that make a wiki's resources less beneficial to those who come there?

How many ad-supported wikis has the WMF forked lately? Ever? How many WT/WV/WMF/WP situations like this have you dealt with before? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero. This is new ground for all of us. It perhaps requires a new point of view. Believe me, nobody came out of this smelling like a rose. The only thing I have proposed, as respectfully as I could, is for the WP community to be able to *hear* all points of view, and decide on a course of action after being well-informed. Those who supported the formation of this fork site have consistently tried to suppress that. And they're doing it again, by suggesting this ludicrous block, and threatening to reinstate it if I have the temerity to continue the discussion anywhere on a WP talk page. Support them if you will. But I don't think it's in the best longterm interests of Wikipedia, Wikitravel, or the public they both serve.--IBobi (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia was founded in 2001, wikitravel in 2003. So your claim that "wikitravel was first" is erroneous.
• There has been historical cooperation between wikipedia and wikitravel communities. Note, however, that those who could be considered representative of the wikitravel community no longer reside at the wikitravel website. I do not believe you represent the wikitravel community. Instead of you leaving, everyone else did.
• The links in question are being shifted to point to the new location of the previously-known-as-wikitravel community. It would be unfair to point those links elsewhere.
• AFAICT we recognize only one (previously-known-as-)*travel community.
• The people who built the-wiki-previously-known-as-wikitravel hold their own copyrights. They are merely moving their content to a different location, after which the community continues as before. This is despite efforts by yourself to damage the community.
• You have been granted every chance to talk about this in appropriate forums, you were granted as much space as you wanted to put forward your position. You had time and communications capacity on your side, and you blew it spectacularly. I know this full well, I watched you do it. If you would like to request another chance, feel free, but do so in an appropriate forum. En.wikipedia is NOT an appropriate forum (or -in fact- a forum at all)
• I don't care to figure out what you're talking about wrt ad-supported or donation-supported or whatever your story of the day is. You are now typing on en.wikipedia. At large, the en.wp community couldn't care less what kinds of squabbles have been going on some insignificant little sites outside this community. Here you are required to adhere to en.wikipedia policy. No more, no less.
• I think Doc James has some very valid issues with you. I believe it would be unwise to mention those issues on this wiki, as that might lead to a block.
• On this noticeboard, the actual policies that apply here are discussed daily, sometimes hourly.
• You might think no-one came out smelling like a rose, but that is your personal reality, not the reality of hundreds of community members across wikimedia and wikitravel. What I saw was one obstinate person in particular auger in an otherwise perfectly salvageable situation, even while ignoring viable advice by many many experienced admins on their own home wiki, as well as even advice from the wikimedia community.
• The en.wp community in particular doesn't care what you have to say unless it has something to do with writing an encyclopedia on a wiki. I have personally never seen you do that before, but I'm willing to wait and see. :-)
• I support the wikipedia and previously-known-as wikitravel communities. You have (unwisely) positioned yourself as an opponent to the (now ex-)wikitravel community. The reason they are (ex-) is because you made it that way, by your own choices. I'm not sure you can reverse that choice now; but either way, it's not my problem anymore.

Short version: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are here for any other reason other than to edit a wiki-encyclopedia, please leave. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, you are most welcome to stay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a debating society. Are you here to contribute? I mean, we have lots of articles needing references, lots of dead links that need fixing. Maybe write a WP:DYK... —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if he's looking for an article in need of maintenance, en:'s article on Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español has been flagged {{outdated}} for a year now. EL is a fork of the Spanish-language Wikipedia which originally split in 2002 (before any version of WT existed) over concerns that Wikipedia was going to take the commercial route and plaster ads onto content (which didn't happen, we instead ended up with the Wikimedia Foundation non-profit structure). This article does need to be brought up to date, so maybe a self-proclaimed expert on travel and forks would be able to understand enough español to take a peek? K7L (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to own employers website as spam?

Just noticed this... IBobi's only mainspace edit [12] modifying the page on Mordor to add a link to a joke page on his employer's website, WT. The edit was promptly reverted, but inserting external links to some web site into articles while employed by the owners of that very web site looks a bit WP:COI and WP:SPAM to me. K7L (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Given IBobi's responses in this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that he is here on Wikipedia solely to plug Wikitravel and pursue a vendetta - a paid vendetta, even - against the community that left Wikitravel. He's shown no interest in editing on any topic other than pushing Internet Brands' POV on discussions related to Wikitravel, even when asked point-blank to do so, and he just keeps telling us that he's here to make sure The Truth (tm) gets told. I'm really not seeing any benefit to the community by letting him continue to push his job's POV (or his own, for that matter). I propose that he be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia until such time as he can commit to editing here in a non-COI/POV-pushing manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Really the only downside of this is that we run the risk of IBobi claiming that he's being persecuted by the community for being a dissident. Well, that would put him in the same category as plenty of other agenda-pushing timewasters. So, yeah, support plonking him on indef until he actually wants to contribute to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. He hasn't really *done* much of anything at all yet on this wiki, let alone something wrong: Special:Contributions/IBobi . That's kind of a requirement for a block, imo. (blocks are not preventative or preemptive) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocks are not meant to be meted out as punishment, but they certainly are meant to be preventative.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Teach me to type while sleepy: I meant that blocks should be handed out for existing, current, ongoing disruptive behavior, as opposed to potential future behavior. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ADV and WP:SPA. He's operating a single-purpose account to advertise his (or his employer's) commercial business, while contributing nothing worthwhile to the objective of writing an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support doesn't do anything to benefit Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also support making a request to the stewards to lock the account. --Rschen7754 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

  That is not what locking is for and such a request would be declined. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 08:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  meta:Global locks#Reasons to request a global lock does list "Accounts that have violated other principles which are grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects, such as making repeated legal threats..." among the valid grounds. So far, he's only hit two wikis (en: and meta:) but he might just qualify on WP:NLT grounds. K7L (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

  ...and you run afoul of the "grounds for indefinite blocks on multiple individual projects" prong. IBobi's only other project, as you note, is Meta and he's done nothing which would earn him an indefinite block there - indeed, his presence there has been rather explicitly accepted (see here) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. IBobi's sole purpose here is to promote the inclusion of links to his employer's website. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and so he should not be permitted to edit any page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:SPA. –sumone10154^(talk) 04:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• steady now Less than 50 edits on this project. Lets leave it a bit longer.©Geni 08:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not yet - as per Kim Bruning. If he does end up doing something that clearly merits a block, it will be easily enough done at that point. Enough rope, etc. polarscribe (talk) 09:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kim Bruning and my own inclination after reviewing the circumstances. My76Strat (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support, NOTTHERE and lots of drama. Max Semenik (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Regardless of the passions of those opposed, there isn't currently a policy against paid editing, and users should be blocked for violation of policies, not essays such as NOTTHERE. Until a pattern of disruptive editing has been shown and lesser sanctions have not been effective in alterating such a pattern, indef block discussion is way premature. Nobody Ent 13:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment WP:PROMOTION is a policy, not a guideline. WP:NLT is also policy. K7L (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Poison

Resolved

 – Article is full-protected. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. I do not want to be blocked, so I want someone to fix this. Here I leave you some references that confirm that I am right.

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]

Cristian MH (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed it, citing the first reference. In the future, I'd suggest WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI for content disputes. Nobody Ent 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cristian MH (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Content help,anyone? It's been reverted by an IP, so if anyone would be interested in taking a look, it'd be appreciated. Nobody Ent 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've locked it for three days so Cristian MH can stop edit warring and everyone can discuss it on the talkpage or use DRN. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued harassment of Mr.choppers by an IP

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

---

IP user 98.193.61.234 has already been reported here once for abusing Mr.choppers, with the result of the IP being blocked 3 days by Blade. I have occasionally checked on the situation and since the block's end, the IP has made two more edits [20] [21], both of them block-worthy, considering the previous circumstances. Furthermore, the second edit is also threatening, and it implies that the IP is being used a sock. After all, the IP claims to have made many edits over half a decade, but the contributions of that IP are minimal, with all but one coming in about a month's time. I'm not saying that there is anything amiss there, but it certainly is fishy. AutomaticStrikeout 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks, for the personal threats on Mr.choppers' talkpage. Feel free to file at SPI as well if you feel it's warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit warring by multiple users on the Election article

Resolved

 – The issue is moot, as Florida has officially declared for Obama.

Couldn't decide whether to put this on AN/EW or here, but it hasn't been resolved yet after I requested it elsewhere.

Multiple editors keep insisting on adding that Obama has won Florida to the article, against consensus on the talk page. I requested full protection, that hasn't happened. I'd rather not go over 3RR (which if I already have I'd like to apologize to everyone), so can an administrator go revert and then full protect the page? Thanks. United States presidential election, 2012. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN.com still has it too class to call, and I would think that's a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and so does pretty much all other sources (FOX, NBC, ABC, you name it). That's why I'm requesting revert and full protect. The request wasn't handled at other places (RPP) so I brought it here because it continues to escalate. I can't revert or else I'll go over 3RR. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion this is a minor issue, and it's not happening so often that it's disruptive. The number of productive edits in comparison is much larger, and full protection impedes article improvement. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but what would you suggest for editors who come across the information being readded? I know I can't revert again for at least 20 more hours or so, and if nobody else is monitoring the page, then what should be done? That's the only reason I wanted protection, because it's editors who aren't listening to talk page consensus after being told about it multiple times. There's always the Template:editprotected that anyone can use if they absoultely need to. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Nyttend is on call, I see. Or (but I'm sure you don't want to hear me say this) you can not worry about it. It'll be called soon enough, Romney's campaign has conceded, no one believes what Wikipedia says anyway. No, don't go over 3RR, leave it to others and trust that strength comes in numbers. If if gets out of hand someone will re-ask this question, and the admins on the West Coast and in Japan will look at it afresh. Thanks for helping keep the place clean--and my apologies, on behalf of my colleagues, that your request was languishing a bit at RFPP. It's not a heavy-traffic area, as you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand Romney has conceded. But the news has said that there's a moderately good chance of there being a mandatory Florida recount, so why call it? I totally understand about the RFPP, no need to apologise there. I'll leave it to others, unless it gets out of hand. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that supporters of keeping Florida neutral greatly overstate the breadth of their "consensus;" there absolutely is a consensus to be careful and not call states early, but it isn't "early" after Romney has conceded. (Note: I have made 0 edits to the actual article although I support changing the article to reflect Obama winning Florida). That said, I'm fine with waiting a day as I'm quite sure that we'll see all the other news sources cited catch up and mark Florida as blue.

The comment about a recount is irrelevant, though; a mandatory recount is unlikely at this stage, and whether a recount happens or not, Wikipedia should report what the reliable sources write. (Which would mean potentially calling Florida for Obama if that's what the sources do even if the recount goes off after all.) SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend this discussion be closed; I think there's not much more to say here at present. It seems like edit warring has ceased for now. Additional arguments of whether this should change or not can go back to the talk page, not here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend we lop off Florida; it looks like a penis anyway on the US map. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is just a giant hanging chad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it pass the Mull of Kintyre test?--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the electoral map is also posted on the United States elections, 2012 article, along with brief content about the presidential election. Thus please do not have this type of edit warring spill over to that article, or any other related page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the talkpage posters can't work out a reasonable compromise about that table, then it sounds to me like there is tendentious editing going on, and THAT should get intervention. An example compromise might be putting an asterisk in the table cell, pointing to an explanatory sentence giving the current numbers and saying Romney has conceded. The current state of the table is misleading IMHO. FWIW the NYT electoral map[22] says 100% of the ballots are counted and my calculation from NYT's numbers has Obama about 0.57% ahead, which is about the 0.5% level that triggers a recount in Florida. I guess it's possible some absentee or provisional ballots are still being counted, though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly, if the entire article had to be full-protected a couple of days to prevent BS (it would likely be protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION anyway) then so be it ... an encyclopedia doesn't need to have cutting edge news (if it did, my day job would be out of business!) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Auntie Beeb is saying [23] that it could be mid-day Saturday before Florida is decided. Pity they can't simply be removed from United States of America and their spot given to Puerto Rico (or the other usual "51st state" candidate, Alberta :) in the interests of restoring democracy. K7L (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, if Puerto Rico became the 51st state, Vermont would happily replace it and return Canada to its 10 province/3 territory glory (and the US back to 50 states) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that Obama won Florida, and the Romney campaign has conceded that it lost, is there really any point to claiming we have to wait for networks - for whom the story is no longer newsworthy - to call it? That's the situation found in a dispute on that page's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to wait. According to a Dutch source ([24]) it is still an unofficial result and the counting is still in progress. The Banner _talk 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Every result is an unofficial result at this point. That's what calling states means. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Google-translation of the Dutch text: Florida is, 3 days after the election, still not finished counting votes, although the camp of President Barack Obama's Thursday already declared victory. The Banner _talk 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the article being reported in American newspapers some time ago. You know they're still counting ballots in Arizona, right, and yet we'vbe coloured Arizona red. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize, that Arizona has been called by every major news network? No major network has called Florida for Obama: CNN, FOX, NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. Oh, wait. All of those sources say that Florida is still uncalled. So, we can't add it, as it wouldn't be substantiated as in the other projections listed on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

States are called, as was well-demonstrated on Fox News, when the available information indicates an extremely low probability that there are enough uncounted votes to make a difference in the outcome. That's how they could call Ohio, even though it looked close. In contrast, Florida has too many votes to count yet in various places, and there's too narrow a margin, to make a high-probability call. Maybe by this time tomorrow there will be enough votes counted that it can be called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"With only ballots from Democratic-leaning counties left to be counted, the final tally was not expected to change the outcome, Republican acknowledged." - New York Times, November 8. This is so incredibly stupid. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It, for the media, probably has to do with having other things to do which actually matter (until the stories are ginned up about the possible recount). At any rate, this encyclopedia with consensus follows the main-steam, preponderance of sources. It doesn't lead. And the rest of this discussion should be taken to the article talk page. Here, we just say don't edit war, follow policy, come to consensus, and be civil. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN has now called it for Obama.[25] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User: SaberToothedWhale and personal attacks, although it appears they are allowed on en.wiki

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

---

For what it's worth, I consider these personal attacks to be out of line and disruptive to editing and reading en.Wikipedia:

On an article talk page: "I'm talking about common names moron. .... Perhaps you shouldn't talk out your ass. Thank you. Good bye." [26]

In the edit summary when restoring the "moron" remark: "(Undid revision 522055685 by Fjozk (talk) i actually made a really good point, assclown.)" [27]

In response to a talk page warning for personal attacks: But he's a bitch who made a comment only a bitch would make? :) [28]

Followed by calling someone a nazi in an edit summary "RE to a nazi": "Just putting a bitch in HIS place. Do you did to be sat down too shorty? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)" [29]

If this isallowed, encouraged, ignored, I'll be glad to go there. -Fjozk (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• who told you it was "allowed"? Or did you just expect random patrolling admin to find it? If you bring it here and no admins addres, then start your "it must be allowed" routine. Doing it pre-emptively just looks whiney. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling me whiney, way to enhance the situation. WP:NPA tells me it is allowed. All the other warning templates have policies behind them. NPA says to ignore it or discuss it with the editor calling you (or someone, hard to tell in this case) a nazi. That's absurd. They're name calling because they can't engage. -Fjozk (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Niteshift! Always nice to hear your voice of reason here. The blind are leading the blind, it seems--but one of them won't be doing it on-wiki for the next 31 hours. Fjozk, settle down, will you? Carry on, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am settled down. I've found thousands of articles full of nothing but junk science; and, on top of that a great new article by a student, not en.Wiki style, except for all the important things (real content, no junk science). Wanna take bets on how long it takes to get rid of him? Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked the problem user for harassment and personal attacks. Admin action taken, case closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

---

Per WP:BITE I think it's preferable to politely ask the person to tone down the invective rather than blocking right away, and in the case of a potentially good contributor, it's worth the trouble. I've had good luck trying to do that on some other occasions. I left a note on the blocked person's talkpage after the fact, but I don't know if it will help. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The blocked editor was Saber Toothed Whale, the one being reported. He has been editing since May, so WP:BITE doesn't really apply when you've had a bunch of edits over 6 months. Or maybe you thought the reporting party was blocked, which would mean you started commenting (and pointing fingers) without reading the whole problem. So which was it? Are you misinterpreting policy or just under-informed? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Anti-British rhetoric from IP

I've just noticed that this IP, 117.212.54.48 today appears to have started going on a streak of pages making apparently insulting references to religions and to the UK (even seeming to think that he's the antichrist). I'm not sure if this needs action or not but it certainly can't be productive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV might have been a better venue for this... I've given the IP editor a {{uw-vandal4im}} warning; if he vandalises a page again, I or another admin will descend with a blockbat. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP from the same range 117.199.98.51 with same style went on a similar spree in July. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassing by User:IndianBio

Respected Wikipedians,I want to inform you that User:IndianBio is harassing me and doing personal attacks to me.he reverts my edits from article In My City.I want to say I'm responsible for this article,I had done maximum edit,I had added references,sections.That user only did little bit correction and he didn't contributed single word,he never did added reference except 1 which he did after I said.He don't know about Songs Wikiproject and he edits song article.I told him there is no need to add reference in single infobox bit he didn't listen to me.There I did everything to me ,I contributed maximum to the article and he calls me fancruft,I added everything within tefrence.please block this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear a certain Australian hunting implement may be approaching at speed... I see no evidence of personal attacks by User:IndianBio, in fact, I see evidence of him repeatedly trying to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. I also see evidence of edit-warring by both parties, and a total lack of communication on the article's talkpage (though you've both ranted unconstructively at each other on your respective talkpages). As such, I'm applying full protection to the article for a short while, to halt the edit war - discuss it on the talkpage (ask for a third opinion if necessary) and provide, via a civilly worded argument, the case for including your edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm responsible for this article" - No you're not. You might have created it, but once you hit "Save", anything you write can be changed at will. In this case, IndianBio has identified you referencing content to Digital Spy (a suspicious source in itself), and reverted it as being unverifiable, which he has a perfect right to do. In response, you said "need to checkup your eyes", which is not particularly civil. This is little more than a content dispute, and from my eyes, it looks like you are more in the wrong. Take your grievances to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't mean that,that is mine but all I wanted to say that I contributed most to each word,he never did,he should have friendly with me.but he's not.Also,if it's about reference ,I wrote about his eyes because it is clearly written that she will release her album through Island Records in Uk and elsewhere(only USA through interscope and India through Universal,India) that why because it is rfrenced.you can check.(Pks1142 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how much you contribute - you still can't dictate what other users do if they follow policy. I've quadrupled the size of articles taking them to WP:GAN, but if another editor wants to do minor copyediting and tagging sources, they can. The very fact you say "she will (my emphasis) release her album" is a problem - it might be too soon to include that information. You can't say the album will be released - perhaps the record company will go bankrupt? Anyway, none of this requires any administrator intervention - like I said, take it to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been some personal insults by this user. Check the edit summaries of the article. I was gonna post it to ANI thread myself with the differences, but I will leave it to another chance being given to Pks1142. To Pks1142, cool down, and try to understand why edits are being removed when you still feel they are right. Wikipedia's policies cannot be violated and in cases like these they fail a range of policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should sort out our problems and let's make Wikipedia a far better place.Edit the articles with friendly and politely.What's say User:IndianBio.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Nice attempt to duck the WP:BOOMERANG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User Kraxler using abusive language and deleting talk page information

User:Kraxler calls my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia" at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover and in the edit summaries in the article space. See a previous ANI here over him calling me "mentally retarded" and "half-illiterate". He is also removing my additions to the talk page. Otherwise he is an excellent editor adding lots of biographies and doing excellent research on deserving people from history. The problem arises when we both end up editing the same article. We both work in the area of biography and New York, so now twice we have encountered each other. I show respect for his opinions but he is abusive when I edit an article that he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree that this is merely when you both edit the same articles: an interaction ban certainly won't fix behaviours of calling anyone illiterate or retarded. The overall behaviour is enough that IMHO it's time to block - this level of filth directed at another editor is wholly unacceptable. I'm not as concerned about them calling your edits "shit" (although that's uncivil) - it's the direct NPA's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair he called me "half-illiterate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified Kraxler about this discussion. I have now done that and I have now left him [Kraxler] a 4im warning too. Anyhow, I'm not opposed to an immediate block regarding the nature of his comments. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I notified him at 11:20 with this edit and gave him a 3RR warning for removing my talk page comments again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't sign those (at least originally)... and they were meshed together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just added the templates. I see they both run together and I added a header so they stand out a bit better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a contrast see how Road Wizard interact with mutual respect to improve the same Stephen H. Wendover article. There is no name calling or intimidation, even as we question each other's information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested Kraxler tone it down on the 7th. I think he toned the language down a bit - I hadn't realised he was deleting half of RAN's talkpage edits as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can have a second opinion on what started the rude comments. I was editing the article by converting the references that are a list of external references and changing them to in-line citations so that each fact was now tied to a specific reference. Here is his original article and and here is the reformatted version. I also add {{no footnotes}} to articles I am editing but have not made the switch yet, so I can find the ones that need to converted to in-line citations. Does anyone have an opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He also left with this edit a threat on my talk page when I added the 3RR warning on his talk page: "Do not send me warnings referring to a dispute you are a party to: See WP:INVOLVED. Besides, You are not and [sic] admin, so do not send me warnings anyway, or I'll have you blocked." I am required to give a 3RR warning before reporting him for any 3RR violation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Block for Festermunk

Festermunk (talk · contribs), fresh off a one-week block for edit-warring and with a bit of a reputation to uphold, is doing the same old same old on RT (TV network). This user just can't seem to get enough, and that article is enough of a mess already (look at the talk page, if you are constipated). Anyways, my finger was on the block button, but since I made a couple edits to the article and placed a note on the talk page, and since Festermunk strikes me as a bit of a wiki lawyer, perhaps one of you lot can have a look and take--what I consider to be--the appropriate action. See also Bbb23's warning and the comments of other admins (declining various unblock requests, all of which denied that Festermunk did anything wrong) on the pre-blanked version of their talk page. This user is not here to contribute positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I'm currently discussing the changes I would like to see reinstated on RT on the talk page as referred to by you and user Bbb23 and doing so in a much less combative manner. If that isn't an example of, "contributing positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior" I don't know what is. Festermunk (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And that response is precisely why I'm asking what I'm asking. It's either incompetence or ignorance--an editor comes back from a block for edit-warring and goes right on edit-warring, as the history of RT clearly indicates: I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the lead issue was already established by consensus in the talk page so in reverting the lead I was only doing what is stated as per Wikipedia guidelines. However, as soon as another editor reverted my edits, I immediately put a stop to what I'm doing (and will not revert it barring consensus on this issue) I haven't yet got around to discussing that issue, but will do so after I'm done what I am doing. Festermunk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI I was about to save this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Festermunk_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_.29 when happened upon this, so added the link to this discussion. Since Festermunk already has been warned he will be permanently blocked for edit warring if he is blocked for it a 3rd time on this article for it, I think the Edit Warring complaint takes precedent. Whatever... CarolMooreDC 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Festermunk. My only interaction with Festermunk has been administrative. After the discussion Drmies and I had with Festermunk on my and Drmies's talk pages, I am disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised, that they didn't heed our advice on how NOT to get blocked. Festermunk has had several blocks of increasing lengths. However, Festermunk has proven to be remarkably impervious to statements by other editors. After the most recent one-week block, I specifically warned Festermunk at WP:ANEW that a resumption of their misbehavior might lead to an indefinite block. I agree with Drmies that there's a bit (actually, more than just a bit) of wikilawyering in this user, so I expect some rather strident unblock requests, but I don't see this editor as an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of POV-pushing and racism at Tipperary Hill

Yesterday, an anonymous user posted a rant on the Tipperary Hill talk page, making accusations of POV-pushing and racism in the article's Green over red section. I reverted the edit, and warned the user not to use the talk page as a forum. Today, the anon. reinstated his rant and expanded it to include numerous comments directed at me. He also added an NPOV tag to the article. I reverted again. My concern is that this has the potential to turn into an edit-war, and I hope to stop that before it begins. The anon. mentioned that this was featured on Reddit in the last day or two, but I don't know that this necessarily means the article will get more traffic.

I see no NPOV issues here. The section in question is factual and referenced, and it does not push a pro-Irish position. It simply states what happened. The anon. offers no actual evidence of POV, only that we "aggrandize and point of view push blatent racism and pathologically insane behaviour" by even discussing this issue. This seems to be a simple case of I don't like it, to which I would respond: Too bad. At any rate, I want to hear what other editors have to say. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy's spelling (and style) reminds me of a previous banned user, but he wasn't based in Australia (the WHOIS info on the IP is that it belongs to Telstra). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Geolocate says "confirmed proxy server"

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

---

I've been investigating some odd edits to an article on my watchlist when I came across the fact that three similar IPs all say in the Geolocate data that they are "confirmed proxy servers" and also "Static IPs", which is particularly odd considering that it is very obvious that the same individual is operating from behind the IP addresses but 3 of them are in use (two in use within minutes of the other). The IPs in question are:

• 67.142.168.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In addition to the edits on the page I'm keeping track of (and recently my decision to prune it of plot summary was met with more reverts), I saw large contributions by the IPs to Thomas the Tank Engine pages, which raises a red flag for a previous banned user but I'm not exactly sure which one. So these edits and the fact that the IPs are being reported as proxies are why I'm bringing this up for review.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a possibility that they are open proxies they can be listed at WP:OPP for confirmation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is useful, there's also the fact that the IPs contribute to many animation themed pages and there were several long term problem users who do the same. I am not familiar with any particulars but this may be a way to get the word out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong and co - just letting you know I'm watching this page. Best, --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, whats up? I was just mulling over the talk pages and contribs of those three IPs. I personally believe that they are all the same person, but of course my opinion is unwarranted. In any case, it appears to be that the user willingly makes edits in good faith. However, perhaps those edits do not follow our general guidelines - it is through this he has become frustrated as seen on his talk page. We should consider fast-tracking this issue over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. What do you guys think? --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering he edited as 67.142.168.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) after his proclamation of "I QUIT", this suggests that that is not necessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see the contribs. Very similar style of editing. Can anyone care to comment?

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

Awkward editor

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

---

Could someone take a look at Yummy Dunn (talk · contribs) please? There is an on-going problem at St Austell about the size of the section on Freemasonry in the town. A discussion is underway on the talk page, to which he contributes in fits and starts. He has accused other editors of vandalism and prejudice, while repeatedly ignoring BRD, and exercising ownership to the extent of demanding that discussion about the article takes place on his own talk page. I'm fed up to the back teeth, and I suspect the other editors involved are too. Anyone uninvolved fancy taking a look? Many thanks. I'll point him here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a previous ANI thread about him (under his old username) [here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I echo these concerns too. He needs to drop the battleground attitude and the accusations and open up into civil dialogue, which I tried to, ahem, "guide" him too via mentioning it wasn't very masonic to make unfounded accusations (lol). I try to keep my head out of heated arguments on Wikipedia these days, but this one is becoming strenuous due to bad faith and a lack of communication. It doesn't have to be this way at all. (Ooo! Monkey's on the TV!) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He is repeating exactly the same edits (ethnicity changes and free masons) for which he was brought to ANI last time. That is additional to the reference from Duncan Hill so that is now three ANI references including this one. He responsse to Duncan on his talk page says it all ----Snowded ^TALK 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

List of terrorist incidents in London

Hi, I would appreciate an Admin's assistance at List of terrorist incidents in London. This article name was changed today to List of militant attacks in London. There was a nonconclusive discussion on this over two year ago which petered out and no change took place. Then today an editor has made the change without starting a new discussion but just tagging on to the dead disucssion with a comment "excellent idea" See here. The new title is not appropriate in my view as it does not describe the content accurately and is out of line with similar and related articles. Unfortunately a subsequent edit has been done so I cannot undo myself. Please could an Admin do the required "Undos" and then if needed we can have a proper discussion about the merits or otherwise of a new article name. Thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Returned to original title and move protected. There was no edit to the redirect so you could have moved it yourself. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the move protection, unless there is a move war. The move that happened looks like ok BRD to me. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 04:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What´s the problem? There was a majority in favour of moving, and the word terrorism is problematic, right? Gob Lofa (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the discussion was opened, on that page only, 12 January 2007. The first reply was not until just over a year later on 21 May 2008. It then went dead for 21 months until 4 February 2010. Then two suggestions for a new title were given but gathered no response other than a reply saying the first suggestion wasn't suitable. Given that it has now been over 30 months since that was last discussed it is obvious that there is no consensus to move the page and definitely not to "List of militant attacks in London". If you want it moved start a new discussion at the bottom of the page and follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Niteshift36, egged on by Admin:

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

---

It is impossible for a user to understand the bureaucracy of rules that is Wikipedia, and wading into the cesspool in order to correct something that Wikipedia is sending all over the web, bad science articles in DYK seems worth doing, but these gangs of social networking daddy-scolders are so overdone.

I have repeatedly told User:Niteshift36 to stop posting on my talk page. I finally went to his talk page and told him to stop. He did not stop. He posted again. I have reverted it as vandalism, unread, which it is, and which his comments have earned. Now he is simply harassing me. It's time for him to stop. Past time. Like the usual cesspool of drive-by scoldings on Wikipedia, nothing he is doing is about creating an encyclopedia. He was encouraged in his actions by Admin:Drmies congratulating him for his drive-by post to my AN/I post about a user calling other users assholes and nazis.

A little less friends hanging out and a lot more editing would stop the cesspool of bad science that en.Wikipedia is spreading through cyber space. Since it is apparent that Niteshift36 has no intention of stopping posting on my talk page; since his edits to my talk page are harassment and nothing else, and in contrast to contributing he is interfering with my editing and correcting science articles harassing me, I request an admin stop him from editing my talk page.

-Fjozk (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Given what Fjozk had to say awhile back when I reported them here for battleground behavior, it will be interesting to hear how Drmies and Niteshift36 respond to their "whining subpoena." Until something is done about Fjozk, they are going to wind up here again and again. AutomaticStrikeout 01:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of this report, Niteshift has said he will stop posting to Fjozk's talk page and trusts Fjozk will reciprocate. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't stop posting on my talk page; I told him to stop multiple times; he continued to post; I posted a stop on his talk page; he continued to post on my talk page. I am not posting anything on his talk page other than the notice to stop posting mine and the required AN/I notice. -Fjozk (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Actually sunshine, you never told me to stop posting on your page until your last little rant," isn't a promise of anything, it's just more harassment. And, per instructions, I put this in a new section. -Fjozk (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe you should slow down and read: "Now that we've cleared up your false allegation, and you've finally expressed your wish in actual words (not just in your head), I will no longer post on it."[30]. Nice try though. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new section, but given your persistence, I'm reopening. I'm concerned that this will WP:BOOMERANG as you are not only complaining about Niteshift but about Drmies, generally about admins, and about Wikipedia. What administrative action do you want here at ANI? I won't even ask what you want to accomplish at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it will boomerang. I'm both a content editor and an expert, highly despised persons on en.wiki. I also correct copy vios in DYK and point out the crappy science all over Wikipedia while correcting it. Not a chance in hell this won't boomerang or I won't forever be engaged in being bullied by Niteshift, AutomaticStrikeout and all their buddies. And, did you revert because of my persistence or because I accused you of a COI in regards to Drmies? Heck, we want AutomaticStrikeout to get more opportunities to beat me over the head with his hammer also. I request an uninvolved admin tell Niteshift36 to stay off of my talk page. Really, I have no interest in his, and I am not the one posting on his after being told 4 times to stop. -Fjozk (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't even see your absurd post to my talk page about my alleged conflict arising out of my "relationship" with Drmies. If the only uninvolved admins are those who aren't friends with Drmies, you'll have a very small subset of "uninvolved" admins. You're being silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just eliminate the ones he nominated for adminship. Tit for tat. -Fjozk (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The good doctor is of the XX persuasion, as it were. I'd suggest you adjust your pronouns accordingly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? There is no way to tell gender on Wikipedia, and apparently her issues here are about my failing to thank her (inaccurate). Another grudge match, it seems. Everyone uses "he" on Wikipedia as a default gender. And, I won't be interacting with Drmies in the future, so remembering specific users' genders when they are not obvious, won't be necessary without communication to or about. -Fjozk (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bully, you are. That is why this is likely to boomerang. AutomaticStrikeout 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the bully; you come here to post, and you will take every opportunity as long as I am on Wikipedia to wish that I fail; because I had the audacity to speak against your friend. And that's what bullies do, they get their friends and gang up. There are even comments about this at the admin you recently nominated. You use WP:AGF as a hammer. You enflamed the situation at the post about the edit conflict, and you are here now to provoke me, no other reason. It's harassment, it's bullying; it's not the least about editing the encyclopedia. -Fjozk (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page. You can't respond to what someone posts on your page and then selectively remove the comments when he replies [31] (you even asked him a question). Either remove the entire section or allow him to post. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IRWolfie, but you're wrong. If Fjozk hadn't reverted you, I would have. With very limited exceptions, every editor has control over their own talk page. Moreover, your reversion unnecessarily adds to this little drama.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't even have any meaning, IRWolfie. I reverted what I consider vandalism, continued harassment of me by an editor told not to post on my talk page. I will not be leaving posts by a harasser on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet you restored posts by niteshift to your talk page that I (admittedly inadvisably) removed [32]. Do you not think it would be best to remove them? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, what ever are you doing here? -Fjozk (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. That which was wrong with the previous ANI thread is one of the things that's wrong with this one. In the previous one, complainant comes and cries loudly about how we admins are letting people talk badly, when of course we only know they're talking badly when we're told. That was, in fact, the thrust of Niteshift's response (the "whiney" excluded--but I challenge you to find a better word for the tone of Fjozk's complaint). And here we go again. I got little more to say, because every word is probably a personal attack to this editor, but if anything sounds like playing the victim, this is it. Oh, by the way, Fjozk, I granted you your request, didn't I--yeah, you're welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• From their talk page, section from October: "Following Dennis's links and discussions elsewhere, it appears he fully supports the battlefield mentality". That's Dennis Brown. Dennis Brown--the man who couldn't find a battlefield mentality if he was riding with Napoleon toward Waterloo. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And, you then egged on Niteshift, congratulating him for getting a drive-by in, emoboldening him to come to my talk page and continue with his "whiney" remark. And, apparently, your friend Bbb23 just shared his post on your talk page, so continuing there also. AutomaticStrikeout is my mentor when it comes to AN/I posts, and I think my tone is on a part with his battleground mentality post. And, yeah, Dennis Brown, you should check out his contributions to ArbCom while he was making his remarks on my talk page. Maybe you can find something there. I think I judged him rightly. -Fjozk (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

404 edits and you think you know us. Tell you what, you are a quick learner in many ways, though I wonder if an account with so little verified experience here should be making article quality assessments, for instance. It's easy to find fault with me, I admit (yet I notice you still haven't thanked me for responding to your lengthy, combative, and unattractively formatted request), but it's pretty difficult to find fault with Bbb23 and Dennis Brown so quickly--unless one is looking for conflict. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I did thank you.[33] That's what this is about, that you think I didn't thank you? Wow. -Fjozk (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given what you had to say about my ANI post way back when, I find it amusing that you consider me to be a mentor (not that I really think you meant it). Still, when everybody else is against you, what do think that indicates? AutomaticStrikeout 01:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in whineyness. And, everyone isn't against me, just people who aren't editing articles, and not all of them, either. Most of them aren't as interested in me as you are. -Fjozk (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly did you remove my post? This is not your talk page. AutomaticStrikeout 02:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an edit conflict. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing for me to defend here. The complainer's original poster's actions and persistant victim complex speak volumes. He argues with those who offer to help him, claims everyone is attacking him and seems to have some very unrealistic notions about what admins are supposed to do. Besides, this is really more of a WQA issue than ANI. This is a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WQA was done away with some time ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't know they actually did it. If I drank a shot every time the OP posts "egged" (in one form or another) or "drive-by" on a Wikipedia page in the past 8 hours, I'd be bordering on alcohol poisoning by now. It's a broken record. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone fire ahead with a boomerang? The initial filing alone was effectively boomerang worthy, and the response Fjozk has been giving to every respondent here has continued on that trend. From his talk page all I see are assumptions of bad faith against numerous editors (and even Dennis, although i don't know how that is possible). IRWolfie- (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So, harassment is allowed? Seems that my original post, that Niteshift had to make fun of and accusing me of whining for, was correct. Thanks. And, Niteshift will be allowed to harass me on my talk page. So, Niteshift, see, I was right. -Fjozk (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• If that helps you sleep or makes you go away, then I won't burst your bubble. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Hmm, so you're not staying off my talk page, you're just finding new venues for harassment and comments. Maybe Drmies will give you another piwo for this one. -Fjozk (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what you might think, just because you supposedly can kick a respected good-faith editor like IRWolfie off your talk page, that doesn't mean you have any control over their posts at ANI. AutomaticStrikeout 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Who kicked IRWolfie off of my talk page? Thanks for establishing you're here on your own vendetta and don't even know what this thread is about. -Fjozk (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You did. Right here. And I know perfectly well what this thread is about, you found another user or two that you can't get along with. AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I did. I can't say I don't get along with him, though, as I still have no idea what he's talking about. Maybe I can take your example and develop long term grudge, but, unfortunately, I probably won't even remember his name. So, it seems pointless for him to post on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you do have a point. I have been holding a grudge and for that I apologize. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you stop holding the grudge, I fully accept your apology. -Fjozk (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• This has all the earmarks of a trolling sock. My suggestion is that unless an admin wants to take action against Fjozk, the best response is silence. Barring something extraordinary, I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes, I must be a sock, because I don't like being bullied. I'm surprised the accusation took so long. Post the whine at whatever the sock puppet page is, rather than just making the accusation against someone who already accused you of a COI. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have de-archived this. There are multiple issues in the original posting, and not all of them have been dealt with. As an attempt to help resolve the situation overall and to clarify their position, I politely reached out to the OP to try and gain their perspective along with some diff's of the specific timeline. Apparently, because I actually asked to help them I am an "incompetent admin" and that "I'm fucking kidding". It is of course best for all parties that this be resolved at the lowest level - but stooping to the lowest is not the goal (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This has gone to absurd limits now. A user (who's pontificating about being a productive content contributor) has less than 450 edits on en.wiki, 75% of which are on various talkpages (and anyone who's seen the bruhaha he started on DYK and new page patrol projects, knows how productive these have been). He's been to ANI twice now with frivolous reports. And, has accused (by my count, and I haven't been keeping up with him since his last time here) at least 5 editors (all of whom are in well-standing in the community) of harassment. Disruptive much? Cut the drama, and stop feeding the troll with attention. Yazan (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Ghost rider14

Hi, could someone please look at the recent work of the editor User:Ghost rider14, who appears to be the same as blocked sock User:Jetijonez, and is taking up his older work in terms of adding copyvio material to Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.. I've already posted on WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum, but that does not address the repeated copyvio issue. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of the serial copyvio and WP:IDHT:

"The company began 2006 with a new name, PHI, Inc. The move was made to unite its broad range of operations under a single brand. Its old NASDAQ ticker symbols (PHEL, PHELK) were replaced by new ones (PHII, PHIIK), as well." [34]

"In 2006 company officially changed its name to, PHI, Inc. The move was made to unite its broad range of operations under a single brand. Its old NASDAQ ticker symbols (PHEL, PHELK) were replaced by new ones (PHII, PHIIK)" Petroleum Helicopters International, Inc.

Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to properly look into the copyvio allegation but from what I can see this is not an incredibly obvious case - especially given that another admin has already denied a G12 as they did not think it was an obvious copyvio. Therefore I would caution both editors against continuing to edit war as I am not of the opinion that the exception to 3RR for copyvio will apply given the circumstances. Dpmuk (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dpmuk, thanks for the quick reply. I will take a break now :) Part of the issue is that Ghost rider14 seems to be the same editor as blocked sock Jetijonez. The denial that you refer to was about Jetijonez's edits, which were highly similar to Ghost rider14's edits. And there is other behavioral evidence here WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yattum. So it is sockpuppetry mixed up with serial copyvio, which is why I took it to ANI. FWIW, though, I think the sample passages above are copyvio. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

At the moment I am of the opinion that they may be copyvio but if they are they're not so obvious as to be able to be dealt with quickly and I don't have time right now to do a more thorough investigation. Given the uncertainity I don't think the 3RR exception replies as that's for "clear copyright violations". If you are concerned that it is a copyvio the appropriate action at this point would be to add the {{copyvio}} template. WP:CP is currently stupidly backlogged but I'd try to have a look at it when I have more time. Dpmuk (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi so are you saying that I should follow these instructions including blanking the suspected material? WP:CP#Suspected_or_complicated_infringement Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Logical Cowboy (talk) requested a Speedy deletion reason: G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement It was reviewed by WilyD and declined on Aug 23, 2012 - and this his 2nd attempt to tag me as a sock - first time "decline NOT RELATED"! Ghost rider14 (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Comment was by Blocked sockpuppet. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Garrybalarry (talk · contribs), who contributed to the PHI article, just blanked Ghost rider14's talk page. Not involved, but it seems like a simple case of 'forgetting to log off the sock account while blanking their talk' to me. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Alison appears to be currently dealing with the checkuser / sock puppet side of this and I'd imagine will shortly be along with more. I'd already indeffed Garrybalarry (talk · contribs) as an obvious sock and blocked User:Ghost rider14 for one week for that socking (with no comment on anything beyond that). From a copyvio point of view the extra work done by Logical Cowboy while I was away makes it very clear that we do have a copyright problem so I've reverted and left a note on the talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 06:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that Yattum has been blocked as sockpuppet, by the SPI clerk Dennis Brown. Not the sockmaster. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Logical Cowboy, see WP:CCI about doing copyright investigations. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think it is more widespread that is. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Users Msc_44, Janedoeare, and Buck Owens talk page.

User:Msc 44 Added a bunch of information to the Buck Owens article. We ended up in a discussion about it at the article talk page. The user and User:Janedoeare have now repeatedly tried to remove the entire conversation claiming that some of it contains the users personal information [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] <-(as IP) and [40] <- Janedoeare. Msc 44 has not said which information they wish to have removed, despite being asked multiple times,[41] [42] and has insisted that the entire conversation be blanked. Janedoeare has left me a level 4 vandalism warning on my talk page with the latest revert. [43]

Msc_44 has been warned by multiple editors on multiple occasions to not remove other people's posts from that talk page. [44] [45] [46]

It is quite impossible for me to have outed the user in question in any way as the only information I know about them is what they have themselves posted to the article talk page. My feeling is that the information they want to suppress is from their own posts. I am quite happy to let them redact anything they've posted that they now see as sensitive, but I would rather the bulk of our conversation remain.

User:Janedoeare has been notified. [47] User:Msc 44 has been notified. [48]

-Sperril (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled the above from the archive. To reiterate, my comments at a talk page have been removed by 2 different users. One of them has already been warned not to remove my comments 3 different times by 3 different editors including 1 admin. If nothing is going to be done from an administrative standpoint, can I at least be told why or given other options? Thanks! Sperril (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• The whole thing is very odd. I don't understand why there are two relatively new editors who both seem interested only in the Owens article. I don't understand who the IP is. I don't understand the removal of the comments from the talk page. I don't understand who they are trying to "protect". Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole thing makes little sense. In any event, I've restored the talk page material and warned the two named accounts that unless they justify the removals on their talk pages or here, any further removals will be met with blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'm getting the same impression you are. There seems to be something else going on here that I can't quite figure out. There doesn't seem to be any purposeful socking going on as far as I can tell. I've also gotten a number of strange emails from Msc. Sperril (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Msc_44 (talk · contribs), Janedoeare (talk · contribs), 70.41.215.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), Buck Owens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sorry if you didn't get a quick response the first time. We're all volunteers here. They've been thoroughly warned now, and they don't seem to have done it for a couple of days, so hopefully they'll find more constructive ways to raise whatever the issue is. I don't see anything very out of line in the talk page content, although I did find one email address that needed redaction. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I know you folks are busy. I was in no hurry. I just didn't want it to fall through the cracks. Also, I believe Bbb23 inadvertently removed a comment from Msc that was posted between my last change to the talk page and his revert. I've restored it. If I'm wrong and it was removed on purpose please feel free to revert me. Thanks again for your attention. Sperril (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It was kind of you to restore Msc's comment, but the removal wasn't inadvertent. I figured they created the mess, and they could always restore their own comment, which wasn't all that important, anyway. Certainly your restoring the comment wasn't "wrong". As a clarification, the e-mail address properly removed by Bovlb was not part of this material but from 2006. The section with the e-mail address is pretty odd, as is the entire history of the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you like me to self-revert Msc's comment? And if there are issues on that talk page in the future should I bring them directly to you or should I post here again? Sperril (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, no, you were absolutely right to restore Msc's comment. As for the future, it's a judgment call depending on the circumstances, but you can certainly feel free to come to my talk page and discuss it. I'll leave the article on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I may now have a glimmer of an understanding as to why Msc removed material from the talk page based on their most recent removal (post my warning). I think they wanted to remove their own posts but removed the entire section instead. Their own posts were unusual, revealing things that were not supported by reliable sources, and my guess is it may have revealed more than Msc wished. That, of course, doesn't explain why Janedoeare also removed the same material; indeed, it makes the two editors' "relationship" more suspicious. In any event, although normally one shouldn't even remove one's own posts once they've been responded to, I let it go because of the privacy claims. I added a note to the section, though, because with Msc's posts gone, the other comments make little sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Assuming nothing else happens, I'll be happy to let it go at that. Janeoeare hasn't really been an issue except for the one removal. (S)he seems to have made a large series of minor edits to the article, and then has reverted each of the changes in turn. (Trying to push something off the first page of the article history was my guess.) I'm not sure it's worth an SPI, again assuming nothing else happens. Sperril (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-hounding from User: DAJF

Good evening. I am a wikipedia user "Sysmithfan", and I constantly being harrassed by User:DAJF. His annoyance has been going on since August 2012. He follows me practically everywhere. He always changes/reverts the pages that were just edited by me, including: Toshinobu Kubota, Mamoru Miyano, Koe ni Dekinai, and most recently Kreva (rapper). He taken place in dicussions/debates including [49] and recently crossed-over to the Wikipedia Commons to participate in my discussion, which had nothing to with him.[50]. In August 2012, I told him to stop following my edits, but to this day, he continues.[51]

When he was recently approached about his wikihounding, he stated that most of the pages were on his "watchlist". While most of these pages I have edited may be on his watchlist (maybe!), I find the need to "watch" my image uploads unnecessary. Furthermore, he would have to be following my edits because most pages I have created, are under the assumption to be on his watchlist. To justify his claim as not wiki-hounding, he also stated that I do not follow most of Wikipedia rules, which is a false allegation. If I edits are wrong, why is he the first person to change this, and not another user or admin. The bottom line is, he is Wikihounding me. This has happened too many times for it to be a coincidence. Please stop him from following me. Sysmithfan (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence in the diffs you provide above of hounding. Some are pretty old (August). Some, like the AfD discussion, doesn't even seem to be a real dispute between you and DAJF. In the Commons discussion, DAJF wasn't the only editor who questioned your image uploads. As for the other articles, I looked at one, and the dispute was also in August - and a silly one at that, about date formatting. I can see you don't like DAJF editing the same pages you edit, but that isn't sufficient for a charge of hounding. Perhaps if you provide more recent evidence, that would be helpful. I'm still reeling from DAJF's statement that he has over 12,000 pages on his watchlist. And yet he seems to find the time to "follow" you around. I'm surprised he has the time to sleep.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

DAJF did not begin the questioning about upload at the Commons, but he did follow me there after I made a reply. Futhermore, I have not problem with DAJF's editing, but I do have a problem with him following most of my edits. I can also do not understand why you denote my claims as hounding considering most of time I edit a page on his so-called "watchlist", he follows behind me by adding something. I am well aware of the fact that he has been on Wikipedia longer than me and the number of pages he edits everyday. I am simply stating that most of his edits that coincide with my own, is a little more than a coincidence. Especially considering the fact that he has added most of image uploads to his watchlist. For what purpose is that? As well as following me to the Commons discussion and participating there. There is no way he would have known about that without looking at my contribution history on a daily basis. Sysmithfan (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Complex move chain needs fixing

It appears that someone confused about the purpose of the Wikipedia:Main namespace page has created a new article, Har Swarup, by copying and pasting the contents of their sandbox to Wikipedia:Main namespace. Following this, the page was moved (twice), creating a chain of redirects. I'm assuming that this needs administrator assistance to properly preserve the page histories, so I'm pointing it out here. The move logs are here. Thanks. -- Mrmatiko (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh jolly dee. I'll see if I can sort it.

That was me. Now all sorted. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Dapopewarrior

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

---

This offensively-named user has done nothing but create trivial articles which were all speedily-deleted, committed plagiarism, and is now engaged in vandalism (see [52]). Does the building really need to be ablaze to put out the fire? Quis separabit? 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that is vandalism. Edits in good faith are never vandalism and that appears to be in good faith to me. As far as the deleted articles go, I'm not seeing why the editor needs to be blocked over that. They've mostly had some sort of claim to notability. In fact, one of the speedied I'd even argue should've gone to AfD. Not saying your concern isn't valid, but I think a block is too much. This user needs guidance.--v/r - TP 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As a non-admin, I cannot access speedydeletes so I don't know what the articles consisted of. I have been an editor since 2005, and my instincts tell me his edits are not being done in good faith. Look, I know I am nobody to throw stones, but I think you are being naive. Did you see the photo on his userpage in which he is doing an apparent imitation of the Anthony Weiner underwear Twitter scandal, which resulted in that congressman's departure (hopefully forever) from public life? -- what kind of editor uploads their underwear clad butt to Wikipedia in good faith? Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This looks needlessly harsh upon an editor who only joined Wikipedia about three weeks ago. Please Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Assistance in the ins and outs about Wikipedia (and sourcing!!) might be better then biting him. The Banner _talk 21:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite numerous warnings on their talk page for uploading copyvio images in October, yesterday they uploaded yet another one, File:Jon.manfrelotti.jpg.png, claiming it was their own work and had never been previously published. Blatantly untrue. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

While the seemingly arbitrary change of birth year on Katherine Helmond may not appear to be vandalism, this editor has also added made-up dates of birth to at least two other articles [53], [54]. They've also been adding and/or oddly altering protection templates, e.g. [55], [56], [57], [58]. It's posssible that all of these were all misguided efforts to be helpful, but it's disruptive nevertheless. I'll leave him a note about these issues. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, this type of edits make me think of people active in a certain type of childrens theater. Not to a new editor. The Banner _talk 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too laid back, but I totally fail to see how this user's name is "offensive". Kansan (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It could be offensive to some Catholics, but that's about all. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh in that case, carry on? Not like he is insulting Mormons, Jews, or Gays right? --Malerooster (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you are driving at. Very poorly worded on my part. Sorry. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've taken this out of the archive because it was not resolved. On November 7, I left the user an explanation of why their edits were becoming disruptive, especially their altering of protection templates [59]. Their sole response was to to return yesterday and today for more of the same. Altering protection templates [60], [61], [62]; blanking a large portion of Barry White and making a completely inappropriate page move at Peter Sauer as well as adding a date of birth for which there is no reference whatsoever and may well be spurious like the others he's added. Voceditenore (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt until the newest swath of disruption. Indef'd until they're willing to show the community that they are actually here to edit non-disruptively (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

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

English language proficiency of User:B767-500

User:B767-500 has a long history of warnings about their english language proficiency. I am not sure if there are any other serious issues with this editor. is there a way to politely let them know that contributing to WP requires a language proficiency that matches the tasks selected? i have edited foreign language WP's, but usually adding images, or links, but no sentences, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Having had a look over their talk page, it's apparent that their language proficiency is well below the par that we expect for editing of any level on this 'pedia. I'm sure they're trying hard to contribute but unfortunately their competence is seriously lacking and it's been a bone of contention over the last several years. Blackmane (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the other party when you post at ANI. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at messages to this user, it appears that they have been sufficiently informed about their limited proficiency in English but have done nothing to address or even acknowledge the need. A sample of their edits shows a lack of English skill that significantly diminishes any possible benefit to their contributions. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

This indicates that the problem isn't just their ability to speak English (they dumped a load of printers pie onto the talkpage) . Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

pattern of possibly disruptive Talk: page editing, or good faith edits?

Hi,

Charles35 has made some significant edits to Talk:Crack cocaine that include claiming the comments of an IP editor, and removing a comment by that same IP editor. I have manually reverted the latter edit, but am unclear on how to do so with the former.

On Charles35's talk page, he/she has been warned repeatedly in the last few days to use strikethrough rather than deleting comments, so this seems to suggest a pattern of WP:DE rather than a set of underinformed but good faith edits. Of course, I could be wrong, but i thought it might be helpful to post here about it in order to try and sort things out.

relevant diffs are:

[63]

and

[64]

Thanks

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am not trying to make a destructive edit. I am trying to follow the rules. I have been informed by several experienced editors recently that I am allowed to delete my edits as long as they have not been there for a while and especially, if nobody has responded to them, or if they are on my own talk page (which doesn't apply here). On the talk page in question, I made a new section. I mistakenly wrote that I was unable to edit the article and I asked if someone else with a confirmed account could do it for me (it's a semi-protected article). After saving the edit, I realized that I was not logged in. Then, I logged in, and I realized that I in fact could edit the article. Since this was only about 5 minutes later, and nobody had responded to my edit (nobody had probably even seen it), I figured it would be better to just erase it altogether, as it was completely pointless and would just be taking up space! I have been told by several editors who present themselves almost as if they are 'staff' here that I am allowed to do this if nobody has responded. If that's not the case, sorry! But either way, I disagree with the rule and I believe that I should be able to delete my comments, no matter what. I will still follow the rule, but I'd like it to be noted that I disagree.

Can I delete comments from my talk page? I would rather not have this warning that has been given to me, especially since this is such a trivial matter (in my opinion, at least).

Sorry if I caused a problem. Thanks for your time. Charles35 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude or sound demanding, but if somebody could help me straighten this out as quickly as possible, I would really appreciate it. I do not like seeing seeing that big fat warning. If I broke the rule, please just inform me. I don't appreciate that warning tainting my talk page. And honestly, it seems like people are just scanning recent edits trying to find something they could twist into an 'incident'. And it hasn't been repeatedly. It was one other time. Charles35 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You can remove the warning. With limited exceptions (e.g., WP:BLANKING), you can remove anything from your talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Was I correct or incorrect about removing material from other talk pages if nobody has responded? I'd like to know so that this doesn't happen again. And also, can I remove the pointless section from the crack talk page? Thanks Charles35 (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You can generally remove your own comment if there've been no responses to it. I've removed the "misinformation" section for you. In the future, you should provide a clear edit summary if you're going to remove something that is signed by an IP so that people know (assuming good faith) that it's you. The best would be not to edit unless logged in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You may remove anything from your own talkpage except certain notices if you are blocked. If someone posts a warning and you remove it, you are considered to have read it, and can't later say 'well, I wasn't warned'. If you write a post then pretty much immediately think better of it, you can revert the edit (we have all done this sometimes). If someone has replied or cited your post, you should not remove it, and should use some indication to show where you have edited it (eg strikethrough). You may not remove anyone else's posts from a talkpage. If you think it needs removing, ask an admin (if it just says something like 'you all suck', you're probably ok to nuke it). Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if i was overly alarmist about this. There was the suggestion that the ip edits came from you, but it wasn't clear from the edit summaries that it was you who made the ip-linked edits. Given the previous warnings, i figured best to ask someone else with more experience to sort it out than to try and deal with the potential worst-case. Again, my apologies. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Truth_About_Love_Tour

Forgive my ignorance if this is not the correct place to post, I am new here. But, I believe Administrator intervention is required, either to set me straight or some others. I nominated this article for deletion. I don't believe it reflects the intent of the Wikipedia. If it had move coverage in the general media, I would not object. But it does not seem to be there. When I have tried to point this out in comments(I admit a bit sarcastic, but it is my nature) they get reverted. My vote was also reverted, being told, I don't get a damn vote. If this is normal, then I have been wasting my time and will quietly go away. -- :- ) Don 00:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

And now I find out I am tagging Newbies who got drug into this. This totally SUCKS. -- :- ) Don 01:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't understand your second comment (links might help) but as to the first - your nomination is fine, policy cited and all that, template transcluded properly etc. You don't get two votes, nominating it for deletion counts as one vote - you probably didn't realise this and tried to vote again. This remark was very rude. You're lucky someone reverted it before an admin saw it, so the less said about it the better. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible made-up citation and hoax

The "London Daily Times"; January 23, 1994, supposedly cited by Stringer and McKie (Robin), 1997; page 190.

• This is partly a misleading, nay false, citation. It is not an academic paper, but an entitled, bound and published book, not in or of academic binding, cover or appearance, but that for the consumer [65] [66] [67] [68] – probably also not peer-viewed – complete with its ISBN ("African exodus: The origins of modern humanity", 0805027599) [69].

• NO such newspaper entitled "The London Daily Times" was known to had existed in England during that time, in the year 1994.

• Given the long history of the modern homo sapien human race, spanning over at least 50,000 years, it is also highly unlikely that a publication with only and merely 282 pages can possibly touch upon the subject of the Chinese community in the United Kingdom in any length.

• Therefore, I would move to allege and denounce that it is also partly a made-up citation, with an unrelated publication, and that all of this is ultimately a hoax of some sort.

• This citation is not only used at the article for the British Chinese, but also previously in the article for the Model minority.

-- KC9TV 00:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• You should post this on the talk page of the related article, as that is where the most knowledgeable editors in this specific area. If there were a pattern of this, however, here would be the right place to go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)