Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Talk:Jay Westerveld

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jay Westerveld still pending-changes level 2 protected

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

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

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

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

Confusing SPI result

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

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

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

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

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

Bot scale link changing by User:SnrRailways

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

---

User:SnrRailways seems to have a pathological hatred of the term Train station and is trying to systematically purge the term from Wikipedia, even when it is in piped links and does not show on the page. User:Edgepedia has requested that this activity cease pending the outcome of this discussion at WikiProject UK Railways but editing has now resumed while the discussion is ongoing. An IP has pointed out that User:Wedensambo has a remarkably similar history of removing train station links and has been active on Japan railway articles while SnrRailways has not been editing. I believe systematic changes on this scale may need prior approval as would be needed for bot changes.--Charles (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an unapproved bot, being careful to take steps (e.g. disabling autoblock) that are appropriate when blocking a bot. He's making so many changes in short periods of time (and always using precisely the same edit summary) that this can't be explained as making use of tabbed browsing. Let's hope that this permit more time for discussion; if discussion end up rejecting his idea but he continue these edits in a fashion that's plainly manual, blocks for general disruptive editing will be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Shot in the dark here, but this could be an indexed search that works through a database scanner to generate a list of hits. I've done the same thing to find specific errors in Wikipedia before, the edit summary is lacking the AWB bit, but I do not see the tell-tale signs of a bot. The edits are not spaced in such way as to be a bot, and the edits themselves are not indicative of tabbed browsing. This is definitely in the realm of human editing, but is probably assisted with a tool. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the message on the talk page in the hope that the edits were WP:POINTy after Sheffield station was put on full protection after SnrRailways had attempted this change by edit warring over a week. There appears to be a misunderstanding what is meant by discussion and case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT here. Edgepedia (talk) 09:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wedensambo

And User:Wedensambo? Similar concern - please see contributions. I must say for me the interest/concern is not so much whether it's automation per se or not; it is whether there is consensus, preferably at some centralized point such as a project, for these large-scale changes. Show me a place where it's been properly discussed and agreed, as a mass update, and I will be content. At the moment it has the worrying feel of an individual crusade and I would like to avoid this. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

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

DPL bot

DPL bot is creating The ancient inhabitants of the British Isles repeatedly and placing the {{dablinks}} tag. The page was speedily deleted under A10: was duplicating History of the British Isles ( check the deletion log). I think the original page consisted of more than 7 links to disambiguation pages; probably that's why DPL bot is placing tags on it. DPL bot has created the page 2 times. I read somewhere that a malfunctioning bot should be reported at ANI. Please look into this immediately. Thanks! Forgot to put name (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked it as the owner appears to be away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wouldn't it have been better to salt that page as it didn't appear that the rest of the bot was malfunctioning? Legoktm (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unblocking and protecting the page per Legoktm's comment. You have my permission to reblock if you think it necessary; I'll not consider it wheel warring. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we have a malfunctioning bot and absent owner and you think we should just let it run unmonitored? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem an urgent problem. It only causes a problem when a page is deleted after it is detected with dablink, but before it is tagged. I'd guess this is pretty rare. If not it can easily be blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 04:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Go to Special:Newpages and put DPL bot into the "DPL bot" line; you'll see that the bot's not created any extant pages in the last 30 days. Its deleted contributions, when filtered for articles only, show no deleted non-minor edits except to this page, and since only existing pages can be marked as minor, creating articles like this is plainly a first-time problem. Finally, going here reveals no new articles started by the bot. If this were a problem deserving of a renewed block, we'd see something happening somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Patricia Cloherty

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks from Kiefer.Wolfowitz

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked for the duration of the block Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

There's a recent dispute at Wikipedia:An#Inappropriate question at RfA, which led to Kiefer.Wolfowitz being blocked. Discussion on his Talk page has become rather confrontational, and he has "banished" me from posting there and has been removing my comments. However, he is posting personal attacks against me there, and I have no way to reply....

• Edit summary, "Stop lying, little man". I might be wrong, but I'm not a liar.
• Edit summary, "Regardless of your lying or bullshitting, which you can clarify elsewhere, Boeing, you are so reckless with the truth that you are banished from this page. I don't mind my opinions being considered bullshit, but I do object to being called a liar (though I don't really mind being called an airplane).
• Edit summary, "no bullshit artists or liars are welcome". More accusations of lying.
• Comment accusing me, and others, of being "clueless about sexism".

There is also what appears to be a personal attack on Wehwalt on the page - though I am not aware of any history behind it, it seems like a gratuitous attack. (I commented on it and then redacted myself, because I decided against possible drama escalation at the time). I ask that uninvolved admins please review Kiefer's talk page (including removed comments), and decide if any action is needed - for example, an AGF/NPA warning? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No comment on the above, but Wehwalt and SandyGeorgia have been going at it for months now. --Rschen7754 00:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I had already linked to Wehwalt's nasty attack on my page. I remain shocked that no administrator has had the decency to do anything about this misogynistic abuse, particularly since mature editors have joined Rschen7754 after the Xmas holidays. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to go to a Christmas Eve celebration, but it seems fairly clear that Kiefer is on a rampage and is wholly incapable of controlling his temper. I would recommend at a minimum that his talk page access be revoked during the remainder of his block and consider extending the block for the personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"on a rampage and is wholly incapable of controlling his temper". What a hypocritical personal attack. Why don't you block yourself for this personal attack, which has been criticized below and on my talk page by other editors, after blocking your buddy Boing for his repeated use of "lie" regarding Sven. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• And now he appears to be accusing me and other admins of "rushing to close and cover up an allegation of sexual harassment" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, let it be seen if the attacks continue - if they do, TP protection is fine; hopefully, they won't. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just revoked Kiefer's talk page access for the duration of the block per the normal way of handling editors who continue to make personal attacks after being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Merry Christmas from the Wikipedia admin corps. Black Kite (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly! he actually said " leaving an appearance of rushing to close and cover up an allegation of sexual harassment" - 747 was perhaps skim-reading. I doubt KW cares right now about talk page access, but it does seem this was a little hasty. Rich Farmbrough, 03:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

Weasel words don't change the underlying implication. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You think it's OK for him to banish an editor from his talk page, and then make repeated personal attacks in edit summaries when removing their comments? As for "leaving an appearance of...", that's only a thin veil on another attack. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea about the banishment, though I suspect the best thing to do when someone is blocked and tells you to leave their talk page is not to even read it. But "leaving an appearance of..." is not a thin veil, it completely changes the sense from a suggestion that something is wrong to a suggestion that it is unwise. I'm actually not that impressed with the talk page block being imposed after KW was told not to do it again, and hadn't. I really haven't got time to look into the details, but it does seem that a blocked person becomes persona non-grata - talk page blocks should be a last resort, and should run no longer than they need, as indeed should all blocks. Something we forget at our peril. Rich Farmbrough, 04:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC).

• Shutting down talk page access on blocked experienced editors is almost always a thuggish and cowardly action undertaken by bullies. This should be undone at once. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access is enabled for blocked users in order that they be able to post unblock requests or participate in a limited amount of collaboration with others. When anyone abuses it by attacking others, shutting down talk page access is appropriate, regardless of that person's experience. Nyttend (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, that's the standard practice and the reason I revoked talk page access here. I note that most of Kiefer's previous blocks have also ended up with his talk page access being revoked: [2]. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I find myself in agreement with Carrite and Rich here, though I do not phrase it the way Carrite did. Given that KW was already blocked, the talk page shutdown seems a bit over the top. Add that it is Christmas, and the act feels flat out wrong. I'd say let KW vent on his page, and be big about it. As for the underlying issues, 30 minutes of reading left me rubbing my eyes. We all really need to be getting along better than this, especially at this season. Merry Christmas, and I am not being sarcastic. Jusdafax 07:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  My view is that banishing someone from your talk page and then using that talk page to personally attack them (including in edit summaries) is an abuse of the right to edit that talk page - no matter what Christian holiday it falls on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  (I should add that I neither support nor oppose any specific actions, and I'm happy for others to decide that - whether the consensus is for or against block, talk page revocation, or whatever -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC))

• As the original blocking admin, I guess I should weigh in. Personally I am generally opposed to removal of talk page access, but it all seems to have hit the fan after I left last night and KW's behaviour means I unfortunately have t support the removal - for now. Could one of the admins above who opposed the talk page access removal e-mail KW and see if he is willing to calm down and discuss the situation without resorting to personal attacks? GiantSnowman 10:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Just for clarity, that would need to include an agreement to cease calling other editors liars - something in which KW indulged rather freely in his little festive spree. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Agreed. And I can see no reason why experienced editors should have a free pass for this sort of thing. I also think this needs to be taken into account in any future blocks -- and that this is a short block compared to other of his blocks this year. (note for transparency, as I recall I was also at the receiving end of one of his attacks) Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

If NickD blocked for the edit summaries, he did a poor job of documenting/describing that on the User's talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was the first to endorse revocation of Kiefer's talk page access privileges. I would have done it myself, but I didn't have the time. I've seen nothing here to change my mind. Per Doug, there's no reason to treat Kiefer any differently from any user. If anything, he should be held to a higher standard as an experienced user. He can appeal the revocation in the usual way. Frankly - and as my original comment implied - I think he got off lightly.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• It's not obvious to me why the block and talk page removal were both required. --John (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

  He was already blocked for something else (as I said in my opening statement), and then used his talk page to make personal attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Poorly done from the closing of the AN discussion and following. The oyster makes the pearl. The purpose of dispute resolution should be to deescalate situations, not inflame them. Certainly once KW was blocked the prudent thing descalatory thing to do once the talk page discussion became acrimonious would be simply to walk away. Thinking that talking at KW on his talk page would improve things is foolish.
Additionally referencing the Christian holiday for what believers describe as The Prince of Peace in the context of a silly pissing contest on a website is offensive to those who believe and irrelevant (or offensive) to those who don't. NE Ent 19:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that referring to Christmas a "a Christian holiday" implies that it's just for Christians, which it is not, it's for everyone. But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• There are no provisions in our blocking policy that tell us to account for an editor's experience level, nor to account for whether or not it is currently Christmas. A blocked user's talk page is for one purpose: posting unblock requests. If the user is using it for a different purpose (especially if that purpose is to rage and personally attack anyone who posts there), then talk page access should be removed, regardless of the user's experience level or time of the year. I would have supported an extension of the block based on the vitriolic comments that appeared after the initial block. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Going to restore talk page access

• I'm not trying to create more drama, but the removal of the talk page seems slightly controversial for several reasons 1) KW stopped the PAs after being told to stop, 2) There is strong concern that some of the PAs are taken completely out of context. I'm usually the type that calls folks out on hiding behind technicalities and subtleties, but I honestly think in this case that KW intended the meaning to be what was actually written and not what others have read it as. Also, the talk page block is well over 12 hours old and I am sure by now that KW has "cooled down" to the point where discussion can resume in a healthy way. So unless there is valid concern, I intend to restore talk page access in 1 hour.--v/r - TP 16:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• I support this. I would also disagree with the idea above that the purpose of a user's talk page is ONLY to request unblock requests. This has been raised several times and there is no policy that states this. It should be used for Wikipedia related discussion and not violate any other policy (ie: spamming/NPA/etc) but a blocked editor is still a member of the community. The purpose of the block is to prevent disruption, not to censor them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• As of 20 minutes ago, KW is no longer blocked. I think we can hat this thread safely. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 18:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not that I can see. I do support unblocking or at worst restoration of talk access, per Dennis and TP. --John (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "01:40, 25 December 2012 Nick-D (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 18:26, 26 December 2012" It is currently after 19:00 UTC on 26 December, therefore the block has expired. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
      • You're right, and pardon my stupidity. I think the block was heavy-handed and the talk page access revocation was definitely over the top. --John (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was going to support restoration of talk, but I see I'm too late. In my view, the ability of a blocked editor to edit their talk page is not just to request unblock (I used to think it was because a lot of people claimed it was, but I've never seen any actual policy that says so). I see any general "community-level" discussion as valid, including discussion of the issues that led to the block, etc, and talk page access should only be withdrawn for genuine abuse. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, I got pulled away from the computer and just returned. Wasn't able to get back an hour after I posted this.--v/r - TP 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  This has been an experience. Thanks whomever is familiar with the block tools, for undoing some of the damage of Nick-D, but this is not the first time somebody who has trouble with the blocking policy has trouble with the blocking tools. Now perhaps, I may resume my conversation with Black Kite without any other man from Military History dropping by? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Please keep this unclosed for 36 hours. I shall respond to the abuse above. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-blocked

This was wholly ironic - coming off of a block where many people worked their asses off to ensure it ended peacefully, only to come out swinging was 100% inappropriate. I have re-blocked - it's clear that KW cannot hold back their temper, and until it's possible, the community needs to be protected (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Let me get this right - you've just indeffed KW for claiming that someone else was personally attacking him? I don't agree with KW here, but to indef him for that - uh, no. I'm somewhat tempted just to reverse that. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll want to re-read the edit summary and the edit itself. Coming out swinging and accusing was not the way to right the world's great wrongs - a lot of people (myself included) supported his unblocking - the indef can be reduced, but only once there's no threat to the community as a whole (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Still an over-reaction IMO. Black Kite (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is this attack on Wehalt too, accusing him of "misogynistic abuse". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, and I really don't know what the accusation of my "repeated use of "lie" regarding Sven" is supposed to be about - I have certainly not accused Sven, or anyone else, of lying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That looks like a good block to me, and please let's not get into the silly game of admins rushing to overturn blocks before there's any proper discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• No, that would be silly. It'd be like removing a user's talkpage access whilst they were having a productive conversation with another admin, wouldn't it? Black Kite (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Calm down, Black Kite, there is a whole lot of anger being thrown around here and we don't need much more. Let's all just take a breath and discuss facts.--v/r - TP 22:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to throw my hat in with Black Kite here, but I'm not going to rush to unblock. Bwilkins is right that it's disruptive behavior, but someone should've reengaged on the earlier conversation with him. I have mixed feelings, but I think discussion with him would've better served Wikipedia than a reblock.--v/r - TP 22:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I wholly believe that discussion could have happened and should have happened. This was most definitely not the right start it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I saw that. I believe you were in the right to take the action you did, I saw the same things you did. I was still investigating before taking action, but I was leaning more toward engaging him on his talk page. I'm going to try talking to him on IRC, it's easier to calm someone down in real time discussion. I'm not sure if that will make me involved or not, but if I can calm him down and get him to cool it on the retaliation then I intend to unblock him (unless someone says it will make me involved).--v/r - TP 22:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Was it really necessary to block him? KW provided a link earlier [3] to back his claim, right or wrong, but it wasn't just some random "asshat" comment. Not saying I agree with KW's interpretation, but I'm not sure blocking was required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz

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

---

Could someone please take a look at the block against Kiefer Wolfowitz? He tells me that the block was accidentally extended during a back-and-forth about access to his talk page. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Contribs don't show him as blocked. Browser refresh / cache problem perhaps? NE Ent 20:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll send him a message to try to last log in and edit, and also to try to keep his cool. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

He just said that when he tries to log in, he gets a message that says he's blocked until 02:20, 27 December, 2012. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Can he not even edit his talkpage? It may be an autoblock, but he should be doing it ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked and unblocked; that should remove the autoblock... --Rschen7754 21:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Toolserver says he's still autoblocked. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not anymore. --Rschen7754 21:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Rschen, what you did didn't fix the autoblock. I noticed the autoblock after your message above on toolserver and I removed it. You have to unblock the autoblock, you can't just keep unblocking the user.--v/r - TP 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer Wolfowitz is unblocked, and thanks to all who tried to help. I have asked him to behave in accordance with what is expected of him. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Cullen,

I did what is expected of me.

If somebody reports a concern about sexual harassment, and gets threatened with blocking by three or more administrators, and reports feeling intimidated and not knowing what to do, and administrators rush to put close templates on all discussion, then an adult needs to step in.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Moved from bottom. --Rschen7754 22:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Page protection

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

---

Please protect the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations from the constant IP blanking. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the record, this should go to Request for Page Protection. The traffic isn't heave, though... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Normally, you want to take this to WP:RFPP. If I were patrolling there, I would probably look at this and decline as not being enough action to justify protection at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, this case should probably be marked as closed. TBrandley 02:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Since November 21, I can count around ten IP edits with section blanking tags. It might not be that much but it has been fairly constant. Decision up to you. 82.132.217.109 (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I would still recommend submitting a request at requests for page protection, as administrators deal with those matters there. This page is designed for incidents occurring among others, so please use the appropriate subpages. But since you are already here, an administrator may already deal with the concern. TBrandley 02:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was reverted again today. Can an admin semiprotect this please? The edit-warring has lasted over a month.82.132.246.70 (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you do know you will not be able to edit the article yourself unless you get an account (not hard) and become autoconfirmed?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite his comments above, Dennis Brown decided to semiprotect it for a month. I agree with his decision, because almost everything in the recent history is vandalism or someone reverting vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I was willing to; but was waiting for the OP to confirm that was what he wanted in the light of my question.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

MX896 and rapid creation of dubious redirects

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

---

MX896 (talk · contribs) has created about 40 redirects this morning, most if not all dubious, some removed, some up for speedy. At AIV but seems to have stopped for the nonce. If no one objects or beats me to it, I'll indeff him, does anyone have the tools to fix these rapidly? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times they've been warned, they're due an indeffing. Blackmane (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Phishing on Silk Road (marketplace)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help

Is anyone here who can help me or I have to quit. This User with IP address User:76.1.129.56 posted this at my talk page which sounds like vandalism, after when I reverted the edit; another User:Mrt3366 restores the same edit with his edit summary circumspect. Previously I had detected one edit of User:Mrt3366 as copyvio and labbeled, indicating the site from which the text was copypasted. User:Mrt3366 removed the copyvio template and reverted the edit with his edit summary vandal. The user oftenly uses these harsh and abusive words in his edit summaries. Previously he threated me in his edit summary. My request is an immediate action as desired. MehrajMir (Talk) 13:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That edit summary was not a threat. And what the IP address posted on your page doesn't look anything like vandalism, no (it looks like someone not using diffs or wikilinks and also not remembering to sign their post). And Mrt3366 would have been better off not restoring what you removed from your own talk page, but they are correct that you should be more circumspect before marking things as vandalism. And the quote you marked as copyvio is indeed rather long by Wikipedia's standards, though I'm not sure you handled it in the best possible way. Mrt3366 should avoid assuming you're a vandal, you should avoid assuming other people are vandals, and yes it's entirely up to you whether you "quit" or not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

CJ de Mooi

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

---

User

• Cjdemooi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has expressed disatisfaction with article

• CJ de Mooi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

William Avery (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not an ANI issue actually. First, we don't know if this is really that person, and we can't determine that at ANI. Second, this probably needs to be dealt with at WP:OTRS. I will leave a message on their talk page pointing them there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Boomage

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

Many thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all,

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

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

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

Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway

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

---

Hi,

User:Skarloey keeps undoing/deleting my additional information I add to the station information section to Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway. He/she keeps deleting information that I add and he has given no reason for doing this when I post questions on his talk pages as to why he/she deleted this information.

Alastair Carr (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• Have you considered adding references to support the disputed material you wish to add? In any case this is a fairly low-key content dispute and I am not sure what sort of admin action you would expect to be taken in a case like this. --John (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The main page about the line is perhaps not the best place for detailed information about its individual stations. This kind of information belongs on the separate pages created for each station. All the main page seeks to do is provide a brief introduction and in this respect I would have to agree with User:Skarloey's changes. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK, thank you very much for your views on this matter. In my view, User:Skarloey has a chip on his shoulder about whatever I do. For example, when I changed Template:Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway or rather added collapsible status to the stations, he/she immediately changed it to show the collapsible sections from in-between stations to in-between sections of double track, and therefore missing out stations. My view is that the general public doesn't want to know where the track sections are, they want to know where the stations are. Thankfully, he hasn't changed this, however. But, it still seems that everything else I do, he changes in some way.

Alastair Carr (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You may want to raise this issue on the UK Rail page which will bring it to the attention of editors who contribute to articles on UK railways who can give their point of view. A kind word of advice though, you're more likely to get somewhere if you assume good faith and approach the matter in a neutral manner. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Alastair, the problem is that a lot of the information which you have added about the various stations is not of relevance to the article, and a lot of it is needlessly duplicated. It is simply unnecessary to include information about disabled access at intermediate stations (that sort of information is purely unencyclopaedic and quite honestly un-noteworthy). That sort of information would be more appropriate on the company's website than on Wikipedia, as is information about access to workshop buildings and the like - we can take it as a given that access is restricted. Also, is it really necessary to include the line diagram on each individual station's page? There is already the information box at the foot of each page, noting the station's location in relation to the others. Also, we do not need the diagram on the main R&ER page twice. I am still not particularly convinced about it having "collapsible" sections between stations, as all this succeeds in doing is restricting the amount of information which is given. When editing Wikipedia, I try to stick to the maxim - use what is useful; discard what is not. May I assure you that I most certainly do not have a "chip on my shoulder", Alastair, I merely feel that some of your additions to the article(s) have not been particularly beneficial or useful. As an aside, don't we all have better things to be doing on our Christmas Day?! Skarloey (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to add, you say that I didn't reply when you posted about it earlier on my user page - there was little over an hour between you posting on there and posting with your "concerns" here! Perhaps it would have been better to have undertaken a discussion there, rather than this massive over dramatisation here in an administrative area. Skarloey (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

IP address 69.119.118.141 vandalizing...

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

---

Over the course of 2 months, 5 edits, all vandalism of specific Jewish institutions which the user seems to disapprove of. I'm unclear how to investigate if this is the only IP address implicated, as it may be just a dynamically assigned address that was used by this user multiple times over several months. More vandalism may exist. 16:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidmanheim (talk • contribs)

Five edits in two months isn't much, really. You could request the page be semi-protected, but I doubt that'll happen with such infrequent vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what its worth, users who vandalize are generally reported to the administrator intervention against vandalism. But since you are already here, an administrator may already deal with the concern. TBrandley 21:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the matter is stale, blocking would serve no purpose at this point. 209.255.230.32 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Borderline legal threat?

Resolved

[4]?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The seem to have already removed that content [5]. Not sure what the outburst was for.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps next time you might find it more helpful to the user to direct them to OTRS rather then seeking tarring and feathering. There is clearly nothing more to do here so we can close this. I'll leave a note on the users page. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But you still have not addressed the post made after the deletion. Was that, or was it not a borderline legal threat?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just removed the line entirely; unless we're talking about Drew Rosenhaus or Scott Boras getting them a high three-figure contract, sports agents usually aren't mentioned in articles of their represented athletes, and golf agents are never usually famous, nor are college golfers who don't go further than that. A totally doable request for sure. And no it wasn't a legal threat, just a simple request (probably just of the 'I'll send an email to the general WMF address to see what else I can do' variety). Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nate...although that is not at all what I have been told by other admin. I'll take your word for it.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Despite its pointy title, WP:DOLT is applicable.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I actually agree this was not a borderline legal threat. A threat to take action could mean an intention to contact WMF. No mention of "Legal action" or mention of slander etc. I feel satisfied that it was I that was mistaken.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Buck Winston

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

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

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

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

G'day all, User:Kereći svatovi is a relatively new account (started editing under this name on 19 November 2012 and till now has only 24 edits) that is essentially an WP:SPA on Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja. He/she (referred to as "he" from this point on) has only edited four articles on WP, and they all relate to the region of Vojvodina in Serbia (formerly in Yugoslavia). Thus, they all fall under WP:ARBMAC. When he began editing Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja I attempted to WP:AGF but his attitude quickly got out of hand. He dropped off the face of the earth on 23 November after a number of acrimonious edits, including one edit summary that said "wrong! there was recognized yugoslav government in exile. hungarian occupation was unrecognized and illegal. there is no need for illegal fascist names here" [6]. I had previously warned him and another user about edit-warring on the article and about ARBMAC here [7]. On 23 December he re-appeared to make significant edits to Hungarian occupation of Bačka and Baranja that I had made significant improvements to, got through MILHIST B class and nominated for GAN. Here is his edit [8] and after his deletion was reverted by User:Antidiskriminator and Antidiskriminator and I began discussing the details of what should be in the infobox, he again deleted the infobox he did not like here [9], and replaced it with an infobox that suited him here [10]. After I reverted him, he once again reverted me here [11].

I had warned Kereći svatovi here [12] and again here [13]. Immediately after the most recent revert on the article, I received a series of messages on my talkpage from IP 79.175.75.179 Special:Contributions/79.175.75.179 essentially carrying on with the same stuff (WP:DUCK)? I consider this really disruptive, and while I am very happy to discuss the pro's and con's of the infobox (and have already made amendments and responded amicably to comments by constructive editors like Tomobe03 Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#GA_Review and even Antidiskriminator (who I have had significant disagreements with before) Talk:Hungarian_occupation_of_Bačka_and_Baranja#Infobox, this is getting ridiculous. Could I get an admin to have a look? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Continued Block Evasion by User:Dannyboy1209

Hello, this is a Confirmed IP sock User:92.0.110.196 (see Special:Contributions/92.0.110.196) of User:Dannyboy1209 who has been evading their indefinite block and editing via multiple IP addresses after a recently put block by User:Bbb23 expired. An Admin review over this will be helpful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended block for another 2 weeks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Tailsman67 problem

Hello everyone! Tailsman67, who is defacto community banned, has been using two IPs (98.71.62.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 74.178.177.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) to engage in disruptive editing at Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_for_Nintendo_3DS_(North_America) and wikihounding on the contribution page of administrator Sergecross73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), as well as disrupting the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style phenomenon. He was issued a final warning, but he has continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings ([14]). Can someone please do something about this? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Yes, thank you Sjones, you beat me to this. For a little bit of background, see User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67, where this person, who only uses IP address, but constantly calls himself "Tailsman67". (We looked it up once. It's his username he used at a Sonic Wikia - he started editing Wikipedia around the time where he had been blocked for a month for incivility.) Since around Q4 2011, he has managed to be blocked here on Wikipedia at least 7 times we've tracked, and as Sjones pointed out, eventually community banned by User:AniMate. Once all his numerous blocks ran out, I wondered if it would be easier to try to help him edit rather than continually warn him and advocate for his block. However, it's degraded into the same ol' problems. See his latest IP's collection of warnings, where I've had to warn him of personal attacks, giving absolutely terrible advice out to others, not adhering to WP:BRD, etc.
• Additionally, I'm getting very tired of the IP constantly hounding me. If he's not crying to me about how he's changed on my talk page (something he never backs up with any action or proof), he's following my contribution list around, making non-constructive or pointless comments. (See here or this terrible AFD comment or this one. These topics are pretty all over the place, and he clearly has no conception of a good AFD argument, so it's pretty easy to see he's just going around hounding me.
• Anyways, I'm more than tired of dealing with this disruptive IP editor. He's gotten far more chances than most, and is still stuck in his disruptive ways. I'm WP:INVOLVED, so I didn't want to block him for this, but I'd like a longer-term block put on his recent IPs. (If he continues to block evade like he has in the past, I feel like that would go into the "any admin would do the same" clause of INVOLVED, so at that point I'd probably block him for block evasion. I think that would be best, I'm always the first to spot him since he's always following my edits around.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I told you I have no interest in followin Sergecross73 nor what he does aslong as it doesn't effect me,also I can't stop my Ip from changing.About the "disrupting" on the AFD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gangnam Style,yeah I'm sorry about that.Right now I'm moving on.And it was suggested I get a defacto community banned,but they held it(I think)and bet it all on the last ban I had,seeing if I could hold out that long,and I did.I continued to post on one of the articles in Sergecross73's contribution page despite the warnings because I felt the need to reply so it doesn't seem I chicken on the subject,but if you read I have posted my last comment.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is pretty much the same thing he says every time, and yet he never leaves and never stops. Also, I'd like to point out that, for someone who has no interest in me or following me around, just today, he started up a conversation with a disruptive user that I had been warning the last few days, that he had never interacted with before. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Speedy_X_77 Sergecross73 msg me 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

NO Serge the last time I was THAT I ever said anything I just edited,If you be humble I can show you all that I can help,I did stop but it's hard to edit what has been fixed,maybe if people recommend pages for me then you will be surprise.I have made positive edits don't believe what you want to see.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen him around on Sonic articles.98.71.62.112 (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you said on his talk page was related to what he and I had been discussing. (Comparisons between Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog games.) Are you really suggesting it was just one big coincidence that despite your history of following my edits around, you just happened to run into the same person I had been talking to, and just happened to discuss a similar topic, within a roughly 24 hour timeframe? Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is a very long-term issue and I could rant at great length about it, but I've grown tired and disinterested. I have, in the past, engaged the editor negatively and been pro-active in seeking blocks and sanctions (the previous AN/I threads, the SPI, the multiple range-blocks, as seen on the summary page, which you'll notice is in my userspace). During the last rangeblock the editor has engaged in discussion with me and I've since then been very passive and taciturn in my communications with him. He staged a return despite AniMate's proclamation of his de facto community ban, and since his initial contributions weren't immediately negative, I passively gave him some rope, see if he had really changed; after all, assuming good faith's one of the basic of Wikipedia interaction. However since we had discussed it and I did not voice strong opposition to his return, he paraded around proclaiming I was supporting him as justification for his actions, which is at best a horrendous lie and at worst the sign of a deep delusion. I do not believe the editor will change his behaviour (despite his repeated claims) in anywhere under at least a year and I do not believe it is relevant or pertinent to have other constructive editors wasting time and effort dealing with this. Plenty of diffs of his behaviour can be found through the contributions of the IPs in the list on the summary page, should you be interested. Salvidrim! 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Might be time to reinstate those range blocks. If anything, that de facto ban may need to be brought back up onto AN and converted into a proper community ban this time. Blackmane (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 Premier League

Can someone sort out the edits on this. In the last 40 minutes it's been the subject of vandalism from 2 new accounts but I can't rollback without losing some valid edits by other editors. The two jokers are User:RaymondHolianBers and User:MattMarleyBers both of whom I have reported to AIV. The last clean version prior to their activity is this one. NtheP (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page has been protected and both users blocked, no need to report this type of problem to both AIV and ANI. The report at AIV sufficed. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone handle this please

I have unavoidable commitments that prevent me following this through, and am involved too. We need to check out edits by User:Sk8terguy27 (whose RfA was removed as unsuccessful last week). I took him to task re a copyvio here. Also, see this which is one of his earlier contributions, a cut and paste copyvio from this. I'm guessing there is more, but simply haven't the time to investigate further. User being notified. Moriori (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)