Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Abusive IP Addresses

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Palin alleged to have violated the law? Keep in mind she doesn't own those books, the publisher does. If she wanted to distribute them to contributors, she probably had to buy them (possibly at wholesale rate). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment looked like a paraphrasing of what Auntie Em said to Miss Gulch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Em said: "For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... Well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!" If Mrs. Em were an editor, I'd advise her of the same: attacking another editor is not the way to address your concerns. If Mrs. Em took a nastier route, and was also an editor with a history of poisoning the well, as it were, I'd redact her comment. In either case, I'd suggest Mrs. Em avoid directly interacting with Mrs. Gulch if she couldn't keep her opinion of Mrs. Gulch to herself. jæs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Palin article is alleged to have been "scrubbed clean". Where have I heard that before? For the Obama article, that's where. Apparently, wikipedia is infested with both liberals and conservatives. Forsooth! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed! It's just preferable, in fact obligatory, that said liberals and conservatives focus on editing productively -- as opposed to disruptively -- and not attack each other. It's possible, I tell you! jæs (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psst....Why are you guys talking in small letters? Doc Quintana (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, I can provide diffs from another edit war he's conducting over at Tennessee Republican Party. I used the talk page to discuss concerns and put POV and Criticism tags. He removed them. He argued. I got a 3rd Opinion. The 3rd Opinion editor found the article had a racist slant. I put the tags back. He removed them. Another editor put them back just now. He removed them again. If he doesn't get his way he puts tags up. If he doesn't like what you say, he takes them down. Diffs upon request. It is impossible to reason with this fellow.Malke2010 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, after this ends, he doesn't do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He just removed a declined unblock request, and I have just reverted him. I also warned him that such attempts would be met with a loss of the ability to edit the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And he just removed it again. I of course reverted him. Can an admin possibly warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I referred him to WP:BLANKING which states that declined unblock requests cannot be removed for the duration of the block, and warned him that removing it again will cause him to lose the ability to edit his own talk page until he is unblocked. -- Atama頭 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction time?

Uninvolved admin here ... I just looked at his block log. Good grief, it's genormous. Could it be time for a topic ban of some kind? Looks like it to me. Blueboy96 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning this user's recent actions, esp the edit warring to remove the unblock decline, but that block log is not exactly what I'd call enormous. There's only 3 blocks that were not overturned well before the duration was up, and those were about 3 years ago. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it looks like this has been an ongoing problem ever since he arrived here--the first block was back in 2006. Tells me this is a problem that should have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Blueboy96 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Scribner had only 32 edits between April 24, 2007, and February 11, 2009, which explains the big gap in his block log. There is no evidence that he has learned from his previous blocks. He has been unblocked because he promised not to do the same behavior on the article in question (different article in each case), but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same modus operandi on different articles. Also notice that all his recent activity has focused on three hot-button political issues (Sarah Palin, Tennessee Republican Party, and Tea Party movement, in which he is very clearly displaying a pattern of POV pushing behavior. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it wasn't as lengthy as I expected it to be, put down the pitchforks. It does appear that his talk page will have to be locked soon though, due to the repeated removals of the block decline notice. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Looking through the block log of this user, I see that they have primarily been blocked for edit warring/personal attacks, and as of the block before last, that time had been extended until a week, then lifted on the promise he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as how he has obviously done it again, what is the next step up? 24 hours is too short for a repeat offender.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article. I was watching over the Sarah Palin article a couple months back, and Scriber was definitely one of the major problems at the article then. Looks like things have not changed much since then, and it has been even longer of a problem than I have thought. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't !vote below (due to my involvement), but I think that's a good idea. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef topic ban

Per what NW said above, and to centralize discussion and for ease of editing,

• Support - Per what NW has outlined above and this user's block log. Broken promises is all they have to give. Maybe this will prevent further disruption from them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse If this user hasn't learned to cool it down in four years on its own, sadly we're gonna have to force him to do so. Blueboy96 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time an editor uses up in dealing with Scribner on these pages is lost from building the project. Scribner does not respond to working within process. Only one thing he said on the Tenn Republican Party talk page showed any ray of light of understanding when he said he could see my point about an edit. He also said he didn't support my point, but he could understand it. He said all this about ten minutes before he got blocked. The Sarah Palin episode caused so much disruption. He came over to the Tea Party Movement article and slapped tags on it because he disagreed with a comment on the talk page. It feels like a boulder has dropped on an editor's head when he appears on a page. But in the last 24-48 hours he seems to have been especially disruptive. I don't know what is at the root of this. But for now, a topic ban might help him regain some perspective. He's right about the Tenn Republican Party being racists, and it's Tenn, throw a rock you'll hit a klansman. And Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for disruption, or a soapbox, or a soap opera.Malke2010 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? That post was full of wrong. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban from what topic? If you're going to propose a topic ban, you should state what topic the user is banned from. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NW wrote, "I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article.". You can see this right above this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it should be specifically indicated at the point where you make the proposal. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. I quite clearly state, "as NW said above..."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't visited Tenn Republican Party or Tea Party movement but the core issue at Sarah Palin is a content dispute (gosh!) between Scribner and several other editors with opposing POVs. It's ruthless and nobody plays nice. I can't be arsed to go through the diffs, but observing developments at SP talk leaves a strong impression that pressure is subtly but regularly applied towards sanitizing the article (plus ca change. . .), and one or two in Scribner's opposition appear to have ownership issues, all of which Scribner resists. The proposed catch-all topic ban serves the interests of SP's WP protectors at the expense of the article itself. Scribner seems clued-up on SP and may have much to offer, but is not afraid to speak his/her mind rather bluntly, is outnumbered by opposing editors, and reacts too strongly for his/her own good to the goading and bullying etc. that SP talk offers would-be contributors who are not members of the Palin club. (Although arguably no stranger to personal attacks him/herself, Scribner has also been on the receiving end of abuse and apparent attempts to run him/her off the article. Few if any hands remain spotlessly clean at SP.) Given that Scribner's problems at SP appear to be largely procedural, solutions that are more constructive and less draconian might be worth considering here. E.g. WP:Mentorship. I'd like to hear what Scribner has to say about that. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Involuntary mentorship has a track record of prolonging conflicts and burning out mentors. If this editor has already sought out a mentor proactively that might be another matter? The difference has something to do with "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." The people who succeed through mentorship tend to be the ones who recognize the need for it and seek it out without being compelled. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support an indefinite topic ban. He is evidently growing increasingly unable to work within the guidelines set here, at an article on probation no less. The increasing attacks against anyone who disagrees with him combine with a long history of disruptive editing and a nearly complete inability -- within this topic area -- to work towards consensus. (I've seen one instance in which he was part of a process that resulted in consensus, but it was fraught with disruptive tactics on his part, and he's now taken to using that event as a line of attack against an administrator and editor involved in that process. Hardly heartening.) After a period of time (perhaps a few weeks or months), if he is willing to agree to take the personal attacks and disruptive tactics off the table, then I'd support lifting the topic ban. jæs (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is back at it on the Sarah Palin page. He's not using the talk page. He's adding to the lead and putting up a POV tag. No consensus, no discussion. If you want to know what Scribner has to say on an indef topic ban, I believe he's spoken.Malke2010 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention I don't think any editor is trying to run him off articles. Editors just want him to work within the process which means working for consensus. Right now he seems to think he doesn't need to do that.Malke2010 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose . Some of the points Scribner made hold merit. A few of the editors on the page have been rather uncivil and I think that coupled with the fact that other editors disagreed with him resulted in frustration and shouting back. I don't think it yet merits admin intervention.Chhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If you feel my edits to the Palin article were an attempt to damage the integrity of Wikiapedia as an encyclopedia, I should be banned from the Palin article. There's been no malice on my part, other than to add two simple facts. Don't blame me for standing my ground and defending policy. Look at the vast amount of effort it took to include the simple fact that Palin did not complete her first term as governor. Horologium fought the edit the hardest, claiming it POV. The wholesale POV in the article speaks for itself. Scribner (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple hours ago, I banned Scribner from Sarah Palin-related articles, talk pages, and community discussions[1]. I still think that this discussion should continue to see if the community wishes to expand the scope of the ban. NW (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist it's "he" by the way and Chhe, thanks very much for your input. Malke, you appear to have a problem with exaggerating and honestly lying, for lack of a better term, in the case of your claims with the TN GOP article and the Tea Party movement article. I think you suffer from WP:OWN issues with regard to conservative issues. Wikipedia becomes less an encyclopedia by shutting down vigorous debate. One thing I noticed when I returned to Wikipedia is that the best editors I had the pleasure of working with had left. It's obvious why the effort continues to degrade. Scribner (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of "minor" edit tag by User:Twinsday

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

This user marks all their edits as "minor". Although many of them truly are, many are not. They have repeatedly been advised and warned about misuse of the "minor" tag but still do it. (Search their talk page for the word "minor".) Will an admin please deal with this user? I have warned them and notified them of this report. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the version at the time I made the notification, since an IP vandal or an IP sock has deleted my warning. Twinsday has also deleted one of the other warnings. Whatever the case, we're dealing with a disruptive and uncollaborative user. (Uncollaborative = an editor who doesn't seek to solve a problem, but to hide or deny it.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is much more an issue for WQA than ANI. Also, the user is perfectly allowed to remove warnings from his own talk page -- that's not indicative of disruption. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that wording, and with editors who aren't engaged in anything suspicious, we are to AGF. When they are engaged in suspicious behavior after being repeatedly warned, we should no longer AGF. It's quite naive to ignore patterns that indicate an unwillingness to listen to and abide by the warnings. AGF is not a suicide pagt. This is a common problem and the removal of warnings, while a "right", isn't automatically a sign that the editor is acting in good faith with an intention to collaborate with other editors by listening to their concerns. Such editors do not deserve naive AGF. Of course if their behavior changes, then we should begin to AGF.

When an editor removes a warning, it is considered an acknowledgement that they have physically "seen" the warning. (That idea is basically a meaningless "duh" statement, but nevertheless it's thrown around as policy all the time. That's weird!) It does not follow that they understood the warning, agreed with it, intend to follow it, or that they intend to discuss it. They can say "I hear you" without a serious intention of really hearing. Anything less than a willingness to at the least discuss the matter in a civil manner is uncollaborative behavior. We don't need such editors. They're expendable, just like admins who side with such editors. They are aiding and abetting such behavior.

I will say one thing that's interesting. The last three edits Twinsday has made are the first ones without a minor tag. Maybe this report has solved the problem? This might turn out to be a rare (disruptive editors don't usually change that quickly) occasion where their later behavior showed that they really did heed the warning. Let's wait and see what their edit history reveals. This might be a hint that we can begin to AGF of this editor. I sincerely hope so. They might be getting tired of deleting all the warnings for their many types of infringements. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood why Wikipedia offered a "Mark all edits minor by default" option in preferences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a good point. Maybe it should be raised somewhere? One of the Village Pumps? Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, your post seems as if you are trying to project a small-scale issue onto a larger problem with the project as a whole, and this is not the proper venue for such an argument. While I agree the "mark as minor by default" tag is ill-advised, this hardly seems the place to start debating wikipedia policy. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Twinsday's behavior may arise "not from malice but from ignorance". I recently had some contact with this editor, and my impression is they are making a lot of contributions without having any real grasp of Wikipedia policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They were just some comments with no intention of starting a long discussion of policy here. I just get tired of people throwing in comments like the one to which I responded, without consideration of the circumstances. It does make a difference what type of editor one is dealing with. If I wished to really discuss this, where would be the best place? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I considered the circumstances when I made my post, and I suggested you take this to WQA. The argument can be made that WQA ain't the right place, either, I suppose, but I am not sure why you had such a huge problem with my stating the obvious, that a user is perfectly allowed to do whatever they want to their talk page in terms of removing content. AGF doesn't cover that -- there's no "faith" to "assume" in such situations. I think you misread my post. I was NOT suggesting that you AGF with the editor at issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Under the circumstances I took it for a defence of the editor, and thus that we should AGF whenever an editor, regardless of the context, removes a warning. It's comforting that you do see more nuanced on the situation. Do you have a suggestion for where would be an appropriate place to discuss possible rewording, or clarification, of the existing policy? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with a move

Resolved

Sikander Warsi (talk · contribs) moved their talk page into the live article space yesterday. I can't move it back because of the subsequent redirect at their talk page. Could someone please undo it and leave them a message? [2]. As far as I can see, they haven't really done anything else except create an article that was speedied and then work on their userpage. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the move part for you. Not sure where exactly to put the message. Minimac94 (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's (now relocated) talk page. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a situation

119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past few weeks, sparring with Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs), and they've been edit-warring on multiple articles. After a recent block, Omirocksthisworld has been toning down his aggression, but there's a lot of bad blood here, and 119. doesn't seem to understand the term "agree to disagree".

Tonight's incident seems to be spread across two articles, at WP:AN3 and WP:RPP respectively. However, while Omi has at least been civil this time, 119. seems to be feeling cheated out of an arms race and is starting to cross over into harassment, issuing ultimatums, copy-and-pasting a 3RR report Omi filed against him, and berating him for "issuing an ultimatum" (actually the bog-standard {{uw-3rr}}). Since I need to head off to bed, could a chummer take over for me? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was notifying the IP, it was blocked 24h. Depending on his behavior, this thread may have been rendered moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as I was writing this, ... IP Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but as this IP has only been editing today, I expect we will have this Karchi based editor, using Mobilink-Infinity, back again soon. I'll have a word with Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though personally I have nothing against this editor, the fact that he was not willing to discuss issues or even attempt to reach an agreement really irritated me. At first I just kept reverting his edits hoping that the strange edits would stop or that he would start to attempt to work things out, but I think I made him angrier and he seemed to felt that it was personal. That's when the edit warring issues started and I ended up getting blocked for forgetting Wiki procedure. This time around I reported him, which I think made him feel even more like I was personally against him or something (at least thats what it looks like from his comments on my talk page). I think the main issue with the other editor is that he doesn't know English too well so when I try discussing things with him he doesn't quite understand, and it looks like he is from Pakistan because he was using derogatory words in Urdu on Talk: Younus AlGohar. Since this issue has been ongoing I think I will have to put an RFC tag on the articles that the IP has been having problems with so that this doesn't keep happening. Hopefully things will get better once different neutral editors start discussion on the talk pages. I'm very sorry for my part in all these disruptive editing wars and my mistakes with Wiki procedure. --Omi(☺) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This user (who may be Falconkhe?) is today engaged in related behaviour at Sufism. See edit diff, and also earlier article history and talk page comments. Esowteric+Talk 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Has just returned as 119.160.36.86 and made the same change to Sufism, possible to avoid 3RR edit war. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe is also engaged in an edit war with Omirocksthisworld today at Younus AlGohar: see the article history. RAGS International shows a similar history of conflict. Esowteric+Talk 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't blaim me for 119 acts, what you are getting is readers response might be but I should not hold responsible for that.Its true that I have some differences with Omirocksthisworld but it doesn't mean that I was blaming for doing nothing. I always try my best to abide the rules & regulation of wikipedia--Falconkhe (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't know if it was an edit war, but he was removing the references I was adding (hopefully by mistake). His edit summaries on the article history have been confusing though. Anyway, we've been discussing it in Talk:Younus AlGohar and hopefully we can come to an understanding soon. Though I personally don't have anything against Falconkhe myself, his recent edits to Younus AlGohar, RAGS International, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi, and pretty much all the articles/pages related to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi haven't exactly been constructive. Omi(☺) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check this User:Jasepl

I noticed this User:Jasepl has some personal problem with me. He is reverting my edits and asking me to put references when the references are already mentioned (How can i put the reference again when its already mentioned?). Recently he created my user page without my knowledge and put sock puppet tags on it. I have asked him to do a Check User but it seems like he is not interested in it. Its very annoying. I saw his history and he accuses most of the new users who edit aviation related articles as Sock Puppet of this User:Rhp 26. Please do something about it. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

It seems that he has constant edit wars and problems with so many users, few are mentioned below:-

• User talk:Abhishek191288
• User talk:Chocolateswizo
• User talk:Druid.raul (blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Rhp 26 which was true)
• User talk:Dimitree
• User talk:Rhp 26 (blocked)
• User talk:Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (blocked and also accused of being a sock puppet of User:Rhp 26)
• User talk:Editor800 (blocked)
• User talk:Airtran371 (blocked)
• User talk:MEA707
• User talk:Muthu9

Please do something about this User:Jasepl, his history shows that he seems to always disrespect other users contributions. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm curious if a SPI is going to be run on this- the level of response by Wardark here makes me think WP:PLAXICO is likely to take effect. Hopefully Jasepl will take it to SPI with some evidence. tedder (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take it up. And it will surely pass the quacks-like-a-duck test with flying colours (just like before). Thanks for the heads up, Jasepl (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Rhp26 was the first blocked user (for gross incivility, and that block had nothing to do with me). That was followed by Druid.raul (also blocked for the same reasons, partly my doing). That was followed by Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (also blocked for the same reasons, my doing). All proven socks, by the way. The rest of the list is immaterial. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok u can do nething u want. But ur making a fool of ur self, i can say that. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

If you are concerned about incivility and random accusations of sockpuppets renaming your account to something similar to the sockpuppetmaster is a rather odd thing to do today. If this is some kind of protest renaming i would suggest you change back/again. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation / Background

Should this renaming even be allowed? Let alone the users’ continued editing privileges (under any name)? User Abraxas Wardak first denied the sock by filing an ANI. Then, shortly thereafter, admitted it by requesting a name change.

As explained, Rhp_26 = Druid.raul = Marcosino Pedros Sancheza = Abraxas Wardak. This is all proven now. Besides, the first three accounts were indefinitely blocked for a host of reasons, including gross incivility, racism, verbal abuse and so forth.

The block logs are here:

• Rhp_26
• Druid.raul
• Marcosino Pedros Sancheza

And the Sock Investigation (complete with checkuser results) is here. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just got this delightful comment - yet another admission. Jasepl (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere

Resolved

 – Dunn dunn dunn, another one bites the dust...

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), a 16 year old, is vandalising Hamid Karzai page by removing correct and updated information and replacing it with false outdated information. He/she is also tampering with Hamid Karzai's quoted statement.[3], [4] He was advised on his talk page about his errors [5] but still refuses to listen. He changes: Karzai warned that "Iran and Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone." to Karzai warned that, "Iran, Pakistan, and others are not fooling anyone."--119.73.4.155 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is looking like a content dispute from where I'm viewing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reporting editor blocked for 31 hours for this. Looks like he might be on a dynamic IP; if so, I'll semiprotect the article for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that edit summary is right out, so good call on the block, I'd say. The rest does just look like a content dispute - they are basically conveying the same information with slightly different phrases each time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fantastic not being notified of this. The quote was overlooked by me in the reverts. I usually try to find any credible edits among my reverts and put them back in but my eye glanced over that. I'm usually unable to respond easily to queries on my talk page because there are several other things going on the real world that take precedence. Add increasingly rude commentary and it makes the response fall ever further down the list. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible block-evader

Resolved

 – IP anon-blocked for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that User:70.171.236.188 may be the blocked Catterick (earlier account being Lord Loxely) account. The IPs blogging at Template talk: English, Scottish and British monarchs appears familiar & his recent evasivness (in the last few minutes) seems curious. Could somebody run an SPI on it? GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP account seems to have demanded that nobody contact him at his talkpage, asking that nobody spam it. Either my suspicions are correct or we've a paranoid newbie. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any edits from Catterick (talk · contribs) recent enough to be useful for checkuser; anything more recent, possibly from other related accounts? Whatever the case, the IP's behavior is definitely odd but that's not conclusive in and of itself, just yet. Is there anything specific that makes you think they might be related? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its behaviour at talk:Danelaw & more importantly talk:Angevin Empire is becoming obnoxious. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticed some similarity to C's edits at Talk:List of English monarchs. Still looking. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope my suspicions are wrong, but the behaviour (rambling posts & rants) has a famililiar pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While GoodDay is gallivanting about to destroy another person, like this is WarCraft, he fails to look into the mirror to see how he pushes other people around all about wherever he goes, sticking his nose in business where it doesn't concern him, vociferously arguing with people despite them not inviting him to share his commentary, as he has done at User:TharkunColl and elsewhere in which he finds himself. It's okay to bring down that gavel hard on other people with know-it-all crusades about the Scottish succession, right? Whose political correctness is NPOV? Come, on GoodDay...your "do-gooder" Dudley Do Right crap and convictions about politics and religion are just as suspect as those of other people you have hounded here. Take it to your own conscience and cease to perturb others with this inner melodrama. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked you a simple (yes or no) question at your talkpage & since then, you've avoided answering it. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hop to it GoodDay. Do what I command you instead. How about leave me alone? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Were you Lord Loxley/Catterick? GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you leave me alone? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is, who's you? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And the answer is, check back in a week when he's unblocked. Although it might be a good idea for the admins to disable its talk page access and put a muzzle on its bizarre edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP continues to rant/delete/rant/delete at his talkpage. Perhaps his talkpage should be blocked 'or' the block on his account extended. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Kenneth Alan

WP:DENY notwithstanding (it's never worked for this chap in the past) 70.171.236.188 is ultra-long-term disruptive editor Kenneth Alan, who has been with us since at least 2003, under a range of accounts including: Kenneth Alan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kenneth Alansson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WikiRetiree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fitzpaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lord Loxley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Borderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He also edits anonymously from a range of Cox Communications (Atlanta) addresses (in the past including 68.0.151.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). He's not very hard to spot - he's interested in Yorkshire and the Danelaw, ancient kings of England, and lengthy rants. He's blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan with innumerable block evasions, and given the laundry list of subsequent blocks he's thoroughly community-banned. More than six years ago Kenneth told us "I want nothing to do with wikipedia anymore"; would that he lived up to his word. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm glad he's fond of me. PS: Strange though, if he'd told me he wasn't Catterick? I likely wouldn't have reported him. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the original account isn't even blocked currently? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is now. -- Atama頭 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromised rollbacker account

Please have a look at User:DC. Account with rollback rights, most probably compromised: Rapidly reverting respected users (Darwinek, UncleDick...) to IP versions (eg [6], check contribs), blankened user pages, very unusual change in editing pattern since tonite. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback removed, clearly the tool has been misused. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for containing that problem: the same thing happened to me. The DC account looks like it had a good track record, but suddenly the behavior was rapid and reckless. CosineKitty (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a peek and undid a few of those reverts. Looks like [7] and [8] remain (both valid vandalism rollbacks); not sure about [9]. Might have been a compromised account, definitely worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they just used it in an indiscriminate manner. –xeno^talk 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The mix of edits reverted is bizarre, to be sure. Top edits from the watchlist, maybe? I'm mainly confused by the sudden nature of the outburst; looks like DC's been editing more or less without incident since July 2009 and got rollback in November, and I'm not seeing any obvious spark to set this off. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EWI or compromised account; DC's been too sane for too long for this to just be a reaction to something on WP. The mass rollbacks are easily explained by a "rollback all" tool used on a page somewhere; the blanking of the user, user talk, and edit notice pages are less explicable as an accident. Let's wait to see if a sheepish apology is forthcoming tomorrow, vs. continued odd behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I too first thought maybe this was a misfire of a mass rollback but it doesn't appear to be in his monobook. Could be wikicide. –xeno^talk 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Luna, have you performed a Checkuser to see if there is clear evidence of a compromised account? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I have; results aren't especially conclusive, but might lend or detract credence from whatever explanation we hopefully get from DC. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would emailing DC be a good idea? —  Cargoking  talk  21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also done so. This is certainly out of character for DC, whom I've always respected since I first came across him several months ago. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got a response stating, "I left Wikipedia up on my computer in a common room in my dorms. Someone must've gone onto my watchlist and hit rollback a lot. Also I tried logging on to wikipedia, and it looks like my password was changed because I can't get back onto my account." He's now at work, so he won't respond to any e-mails for a while. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I expected as much. I've interacted with DC in the past, as recently as last month, and he seems like a respectable editor. I hope he won't make that mistake again, a person who lives in a communal place like a dorm needs to be particularly careful about computer security. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we know the account is compromised, can someone please block it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Once he confirms he's back in control of his account, feel free to unblock. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should tell him to request a password reset before the dorm-mate prankster changes the email address attached to the account... –xeno^talk 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's now claiming to have regained control. I've never dealt with this before, what do we do to confirm that? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ideally if he's emailed someone in the past (when we knew he was in control of his account), he could email them again. This kind of thing is why it's important to set a {{User committed identity}}. He had an email address listed since Jan 15 on his edit notice, so I've emailed them for verification. –xeno^talk 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once he is unblocked, certainly rollback rights should be restored. It's an unfortunate event, but I think he won't let it happen again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal returns

User:71.234.20.11 returned from a week long block for vandalism and immediately vandalized one of the same articles he was blocked for vandalizing. [10]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him, for two weeks this time. Suggest doubling if he continues. Crum375 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page vandal

Would someone mind blocking User:Beyond My Hen, who is vandalizing my talk page? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This one too [11]. WTF? Bearian (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is User:SENIOR WlKlPEDlA ADMlN? Bearian (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I've indeffed him, username block. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing - community input requested

As I am semi-involved I feel it necessary ask for community input in relation to restricting User:Caesarjbsquitti. There is a long term issue with his use of talkspace, his attitude toward other editors and editing in breach of WP:OR, WP:SOAP. To my mind this user has demonstrated a disregard for site standards and policies that is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of this site fo a number of years. I suggest it is time to restrict Caesar's talk page postings, or to consider an other community sanction.

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
User:Caesarjbsquitti is continuing to use this site, its article pages, its talk space and its user space to push his ideas. Caesarjbsquitti has published a book which he uses his user page to advertise in breach of WP:USER and WP:AD [12]. He uses talkspace to lecture us all on how 'The truth can lie' and has been doing so for years.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
He has accused this site, its sysops, and other volunteers of intimidation and censorship [21][22][23][24][25]
But the issue is that User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing and forum posting on this site in relation to multiple topics. He repeated this behaviour today. Rather than block him I warned him again, and again (explaining why), and again. He hasn't listened[26][27][28]. (please note also he posted the same stuff to two pages [29][30]) Therefore I'm bringing this to the community in order to request broader input on the situation.

History

He was topic banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing[31], he was blocked twice for it[32], he has been repeatedly warned over the course of years[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] but he is not listening.

I'm restricting evidence to edits since his topic ban in June 2008. For anyone interested in his behaviour before that please see this for an indicative situation and conversation related to the topic Devil.

Soapboxing since the 2008 topic ban

• Relevant policies & guidelines: WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM & WP:BATTLE

On Talk:English language[40] [41][42][43].
On Talk:Thallium [44]
On Medicine_in_China[45]
On Talk:Crohn's disease[46]
About feminism and bias against men[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60]
On Talk:Pornography[61][62][63]
On 'abuse' topics (watch out for repeated phrases like censorship, hidden agenda etc) [64][65][66][67][68]
On Talk:Political correctness[69][70]

Multiposting

• Relevant policies WP:POVPUSH, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG,

On Vitamin talk pages[71][72][73][74][75][76][77]

On domestic violence topic articles (June 2008)[78][79][80] - please note the coatrack issue in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to review this--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of this complaint deals with the listing for Violence against LGBT People

The problem with the entry is that it polarizes the issue, as do many of the past entries on abuse, most notable againt men, and against the heterosexual community. Here is the reference provided.

A most notable case involved a bisexual women who killed her boyfriend, by becoming involved with a lesbian woman,Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder

I will try to find another link. The fact as you say that the CBC does not make mention of the sexual orientation, (while other sites do) shows how censorship of this situation is quite prominent in North America, or at least Canada...Guilty verdict in lesbian axe murder

This article in the Toronto Sun makes mention of a lesbian, (the CBC report states same sex. Another article title refers to a bi-sexual woman. (good case study for political correctness ?)Toronto woman in court in bisexual love-triangle murder case

This article must remove gender or orientation biases because it is discriminatory. While it is true this group can be victimized by others, they also can be victimized by themselves and they can also be abusers.

The issue is addressed by someone else as well...Violence by LGBT

As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alohahell repeatedly uploading copyvio, is a block in order?

User:Alohahell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has updated numerous copyvio photos of locations in South Korea. For example:

• I deleted File:Shinsegae Centum City department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which he admitted to having stolen. He later replaced it with File:World's largest department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which is also questionable (Seb az86556 believes it's copyvio, see comment here).
• File:Daegu Tower.jpg, was obvious copyvio
• File:Ryugyong Hotel under construction on 26 August 2009.jpg, at FfD
• Since I posted this, Caspian blue has located the sources of several more of Alohahell's uploads. See the redlinks in A's upload log.

Overall, most of his images are 1) very low resolution, which suggests he doesn't have the original photos but simply copied them from news websites, etc.; 2) of a higher quality than he is probably able to do himself. Unfortunately, for most of the images I haven't yet been able to find exact copies (through http://www.tineye.com) yet, which is why I haven't taken much action. But based on his history, I'm beginning to think it's safe to assume that all his uploads are copyvio. There are two things that I think ought to be done:

1. Delete all of Alohahell's uploads both here and on Commons (see his upload log for en-wiki)
2. Block Alohahell for an extended length

Thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is getting tedious, esp. since he renames the files so they cannot easily be tracked, erases the meta-data so they cannot be compared, and then blatantly goes "me? no, why?" -- now we need to manually go around looking at thousands of pics online to spot similarities and arm ourselves with magnifying glasses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can come to an agreement that he's untrustworthy, I don't think we'll need to investigate every image. Specifically...if he did take these images, he should have the high-resolution versions on his computer or camera somewhere. We can simply ask him to upload those to prove that they're his; any image that he can't provide a high-resolution version for we can assume he stole, and we can delete it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't need a WP:CCI. Just delete his uploads presumptively per WP:COPYVIO. MER-C 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If he has continued doing this after being warned, and if, as Seb az says, he is actively trying to deceive and evade scrutiny, then the answer must be: speedy delete everything, block indef, throw away the key, and ask the commons admins to do the same over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I was about to indef him myself, but it looks like FutPerf beat me to it. I've already had to spike a bunch of bad uploads already this morning ... my clicker finger's getting tired. Blueboy96 13:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Copyright violations supports presumptive deletion in cases like this: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." If there are too many in his history to easily run through them, a WP:CCI can help organize them. Otherwise, it seems mass deletion would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moonriddengirl. None of the uploads I checked had camera metadata and a review of this editor's user talk page is worrisome: evasion in response to questions, lack of acknowledgement of a problem, plus a total inability to explain how he had supposedly gotten into North Korea to take a picture there. The AGF policy was modified last year to accommodate this type of situation. "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate." Mass deletion is the best solution here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question...if I delete all his uploads, will ImageRemovalBot take care of removing links to them, or should I do that by hand? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Think so; not absolutely sure. One of his uploads had been transferred to Commons. I've deleted there. If any other cross-wiki deletions are needed please post the filenames here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the things he uploaded to commons with his own account: [81][82][83]. There are also some that other people transferred, so I'll keep an eye out for them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are more of his images that have been transferred to Commons: [84], [85], rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the rest of his images on en-wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No responses at the Commons admin board yet; will follow the links to the transfers. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed on Commons. Deleted selectively there; a couple of edits were legitimate derivative works, etc. Looks like we can mark this resolved. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Would somebody correct the bad renaming of this and the redirect article? The history is not reflective of the reality. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion G12 (copy-pasted today to circumvent moveprotection, history/attribution broken or missing) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, issued a level 3 vandalism-warning for this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User doesn't get it. (Notified) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there is an probation regime in force on that article, I have raised this as an enforcement matter at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎#Macai. I suggest that further discussion should be directed there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod edit warring

Resolved

 – moved to User_talk:Reconsider_the_static#ANI where the discussion belongs before coming here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Reconsider the static is edit warring and reinserting prod notices. There is no requirement that he has to like my reasons. I demand he be reverted and warned. He can use AFD if he wants to play games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.57.210 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Reconsider the static is not alone. Many editors are now reinserting prods again and again against policy. This is not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.57.210 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IP has raised this at AIV and Jimbo's talk page as well. And wants Scibaby back. :) Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have listed several articles which had prod tags replaced at AfD, as per instructions... Might as well get it deleted there to ensure consensus, as a prod can still be contested even after deletion at DRV. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Two AfDs for one article within 5 days

Resolved

 – With the original delete closer repudiating the applicability of his close to the now-sourced version, there's no deletion argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct form to nominate a single article for second AfD within five days of the first AfD's closing? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DJ_Quicksilver_(2nd_nomination) was the subject of an AfD that closed on 1 February, and the closing admin on the first AfD made it clear that the article should not be deleted if it is sourced correctly. This doesn't seem right. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In most circumstances this would be inappropriate. However, given the unusual nature of the original close (consensus to delete held up by the closer's discretion) mean that it's a question for the closing admin of the first debate whether or not the second discussion ought to be allowed proceed. I'll drop them a note.  Skomorokh  14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(Ec)Normally, I would find this disruptive. However, the previous Afd was closed as delete, not as keep. Then the article was subsequently restored with the promise of sources being added. Unitanode now contends that the sources added after restoration are inadequate, so I feel this Afd should run its course.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF and stuff. One can re-nominate for AfD if a different enough reason for deletion appears. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember a 2nd AfD, I might have started it myself, starting shortly after an AfD with a keep result when it was discovered that the sources were fraudulent (not saying this is the case here, just that there can be good reasons for it). Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first AFD was closed as delete despite what looked like clear consensus to keep. The article was restored and sourced, but much of the article was found to be a copyright violation, so it was trimmed quite a lot. The article is now sourced and clearly passes WP:MUSIC in my view. The strange closure of the first AFD, and subsequent reversal led, I believe, to the second, but I can see the second AFD closing fairly quickly as either a snow keep or (hopefully) withdrawal by the nom if they are agreeable, so no real harm done overall. If we get a clear consensus this time and a closure that reflects that consensus we can all move on.--Michig (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first AFD seems to have been closed based on the closing admin's personal opinions rather than consensus of the debate but since we now have a second AFD on our hands, I'd say let it run to make it absolutely clear what consensus is. I recommend a trout slap for Scott for his close of the first AFD. I know he is passionate about unsourced BLPs but closing an AFD is assessing the consensus of the discussion as it has happened and the consensus was not in favor of deletion nor did those arguing for deletion make solid policy-based arguments to justify it. The original AFD even had links to reliable sources in it after all and WP:DEL says "If it can be fixed, it should not be deleted". Regards SoWhy 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem strange to AFD the article as it is now, it occurred after unitanode added two templates expert required and please expand and as I was involved in finding sources and working on it after the first AFD I felt that the details about this quicksilver are pretty much covered and that to expand the article you would have to waffle on so the templates are not going to help the article as imo the issues they cover do not apply, so I removed the two templates, unitanode then replaced them and immediately started the AFD, in what I thought was a reactionary way, it is clear if you look at the article that it is above the standard of quality and notability where it would require or get support for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be crystal clear. The first AfD reached a consensus that the article was notable. That would have meant keeping it, but the BLP article remained unsourced. I deleted it on that basis, until the sourcing problem was sorted. (People objecting to speedy deleting unsourced BLPs keep saying "take it to afd". Fine, but that doesn't work if the article gets kept and the sourcing issues ignored). Once the sourcing issues was adressed, then the article gets kept because consensus is that it is notable.

As for a second afd in five days, that looks poor form to me. We have a consensus that the article is notable, so unless there's new evidence, then an attempt to overturn it 5 days later isn't great. But my closure has nothing to do with that. The article was retained because it was notable - once sourcing was adressed, the initial closure can be read as a keep result.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Wikireader41

I want to bring to the attention of the administrators a series of personal attacks by User:Wikireader41 directed at User:Mughalnz. Wikireader41 repeatedly accuses Mughalnz of being an "Islamofascist", being "sponsored" by the I.S.I. (a Pakistani intelligence agency) to "spread propoganda" and being a wahhabi (an extremist sect of Islam). I first reported the following diffs here at the Wikiquette alerts page on 25 January 2010:

• Diffs from Talk:Al-Qaeda page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339664168&oldid=339663742
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339642045&oldid=339639555
• Diffs from Talk:Balawaristan National Front page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339661896&oldid=339658919
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339475058&oldid=339458122
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=269397344&oldid=269333867

I also posted the following warning on Wikireader41's talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikireader41&action=historysubmit&diff=340011772&oldid=339453139

On 28 January, Wikireader41 responded at the Wikiquette alerts page by continuing to accuse Mughalnz of "pushing a stridently wahhabi POV", being a "paid editor", etc. He comments on Mughalnz's poor english and states he has reported Mughalnz to admin. He also responded to my warning by posting the following message at my talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHj108&action=historysubmit&diff=340461756&oldid=326990429

On 29 January, Wikireader41 posted the following at Mughalnz's talk page, again containing accusations of Mughalnz being a "wahhabi POV pusher":

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340643820&oldid=340621071
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340657546&oldid=340652293

I do not believe Mughalnz's edits justify Wikireader41's abusive posts and there appears to be no change in Wikireader41's behaviour, despite a warning from User:Looie496 at the Wikiquette alerts page.

--Hj108 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the other party that they are being discussed here. I have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

user mughalnz has been indulging in aggressive POV pushing and going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir. I would again state that he has been pushing a wahhabi POV. in spite of my repeatedly telling him to stop he was not backing off. moreover he is a self confessed dyslexic & was making very poor quality edits and not doing a basic spell check before posting in spite of several editors asking him to do so. I have reported him to 2 admins familiar with the issues involved in the articles covered [86] and here [87]. It is hard to be neutral towards people who seem to be siding with people who are actively seeking to kill anybody who doesnt agree with them but I have tried my best. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and blanking talk page comments

On being warned about taking an edit war approach on an article, User:Wolfkeeper has been blanking other people's comments on his talk page ([88], [89]). It looks as if he has been doing this in the past, also ([90]). I don't know how to deal with this so I'm bringing it to the attention of experienced administrators. I don't know how to get him to play nice; as one of the stronger voices in this tedious deadlock it would be nice to see him playing nice so it could be resolved rather than being dragged out forever. Snied (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Users may delete others' comments from their own talk page, per Wikipedia:User page which says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor, back slowly away from Centrifugal force related articles and forget you ever saw them. It's one of the worst quagmires on Wikipedia, the regular cast of editors of those articles love to argue every tiny piece of minutiae to death, and will accuse you of being to dumb to participate in the discussion if you try to introduce some sort of sanity to their conversations. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopper

An anonymous user is repeatedly removing other's comments from Talk:Open Watcom Assembler. However, they are operating from different IP addresses (or are 4 different people), including:

• 99.89.97.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.35.228.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.254.61.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.41.77.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.23.189.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is there anything that can be done? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prodrego has semi-protected it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know who might be the puppet master?

HamSquidLllamaHam (talk · contribs) (see his user page) and Hopsticks (talk · contribs) look very much like socks. One created and the other edited the now deleted nonsense article Sauswich. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but the first one claims to be "smarter then" ClueBot. :D —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...(OT) don't mess with Cluebot! Skäpperöd (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this was a good idea, but I really didn't like the content on their userpages. Some of the content they put have a negative effect on Wikipedia. I replaced them with those "Blocked indefinitely" templates. At least the blocked users can't change it unless their unblock has been granted. Minimac94 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a fine idea, although I appreciate the irony of a user who apparently does not understand that the Colbert Report is satire. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Satire??? Next thing you'll be telling us is that there's no Santa Claus, or that The O'Reilly Factor is legit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider taking this to WP:SPI yet? Perhaps if they make another account, but I'm not sure if waiting is a good option. [[♠]] 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird situation here.

Current IP:74.12.121.29 (talk · contribs) / Previous IP: 74.12.122.235 (talk · contribs)

For the last couple of months, this guy's been essentially trying to 'steal' Thomas (talk · contribs)'s user page. The user in question hasn't edited in some time, but it's still their page. The page has been semi-protected to keep him, off it, but now he's trying to tell people he's Thomas (which is clearly impossible; Thomas's edits were far beyond the IPs; this guy edits like puberty hasn't hit yet). Now he's even going so far as to fake the users sig. Any options here? HalfShadow 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the contributions of both IPs. I now know that 74.12.122.235 hasn't edited since early January. The only IP that we have to be concerned about is 74.12.121.29 as he/she has been editing since today. Minimac94 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I should mention both anyway. Never hurts to be thorough. HalfShadow 18:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding 174.88.54.86 to the list per [91]. Block 74.12.121.29, they're obviously only here for disruption. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock with disruptive sig

Synergy44 (talk · contribs) – who anyway appears to be an obvious sock – has been making a very strange series of edits, and his signature doesn't include a link to his userspace, as is required. Would someone mind peeping? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor has admitted having multiple accounts, they even listed them at the top of their talk page. They also seem to be trying to use a proper signature, but are signing with some odd backwards tilde instead of the regular ones so the signature isn't appearing. The editor has apologized for having some problems "figuring out" Wikipedia. Either we assume good faith, and this is really a person with good intentions who needs help, or they are playing a prank on the community. I don't see evidence, yet, of the latter so I suggest just helping the person out, unless they just can't "get it" in which case we should consider WP:COMPETENCE. -- Atama頭 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And the sig? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a weird sort of tilde, could it possibly be a font problem? Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, in his other account he never had any problem to sign properly. He made one good signature just four days before starting the new account.... [92]

And why does he say that he is making his first visit to the village pump[93] if his other account has already visited it twice[94][95].

Either it's a different person or he is pretending to be new. I mean, dude, in his third edit he welcomed himself using the "Friendly" script[96] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth name policy

Wikipedia articles usually give a subjects birth name, either as listed or with a caveat to the name the subject now uses stating "born as ***** ***** ****". I recently was checking the recent changes listing and came across these edits- 1 2, to the Kelly Carrington article. The edit summary for both edits states

"that information should not be public due to privacy and safety issues. thank you!"

I searched for any issues regarding Carrington and found none, but did not want to reinsert the sourced material without knowing if there are some Wikipedia policies involving this issue I do not know about. I made a comment asking the IP user the reasons for the removal, but wanted to also ask if I was missing something here. To be honest, I never heard of the subject before and her biography is very short and borders on being not notable enough for an article. Though I do want to know for future reference the policies for these issues. Thanks for any help. Here is the source that was removed and which leaves an error on the page. DD2K (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be public information. My guess is that the IP is trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With the arguable exceptions of children and the victims of crime, WP:RS prevails. So, is tcpalm.com a reliable source? It seems to be a newspaper? Googling for the person's alleged birth name finds similar stories in the Palm Beach Post and the Orlando Sentinel. So this does appear to be public information. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you, those were my initial reactions also, but I wanted confirmation. Also, I do think TCPalm.com is a WP:RS, as it's a website that prints stories from a collection of SE Florida news outlets under the parent company of Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. Thanks again, and I think this can be marked resolved. DD2K (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can't be marked resolved. I think you guys are wrong. The BLP policy states there is a presumption in favor of privacy. Is this woman's name well known? I know the general consensus for pornographic actors has been to not include the birth name unless it is widely known and published in several reliable sources. A very long, though somewhat dated conversation about that can be found here. I would assume the same holds true for print models. AniMate 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, one of those news stories is from a blog where the writer says Kelly Carrington is her real name, and her birth name is the alias suggested by Playboy. AniMate 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Animate's desire follow the spirit of WP:BLP, in this particular case the use of the birth name does not seem to be an issue since it has been already used by reliable sources. Not only does this imply that the person gave their at least tacit approval with their participation, but anyone who can type a search string into Google can already find the information. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DC here. The policy says that Wikipedia shouldn't be the "primary vehicle" for claims about people's lives. To my mind, the fact it was used in a mainstream newspaper is the end of the ballgame. Blueboy96 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated POV tag removal at Hugo Chávez

Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this POV tag removal, as well as this, this, and this, relative to this discussion. The most recent tag removal by User:The Four Deuces was after I posted specific POV concerns to the talk page. A related discussion is at the RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left The Four Deuces a warning to cease edit warring, and shall watchlist the article. I don't think anything more is necessary for now, but feel free to make your own assessment. NW (Talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NW and Ludwigs2 (I'm most encouraged to see an ANI thread that doesn't fall victim to the peanut gallery :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I have to say I really dislike it when people remove dispute tags before the dispute is resolved. I haven't fully grokked the page yet, so I don't yet know whether it actually has a POV problem, but there's no reason to remove tags peremptorily and a lot of good reasons to leave them on. give me a day or so to review the material fully and we'll see. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like for me to add more sources to the talk page (the work I started when I added the unbalanced tags), it will have to wait until after I promote WP:FAC. The lionshare of my time in the last two weeks has gone to trying to clean up Venezuelan BLPs, one of which had a most egregious BLP violation so I've been checking others, and I'm apparently the only editor on Wiki willing and able to engage the content on the Venezuelan articles. I can't get to any more for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gadeshina33

I've gone through the process of locating the source image and tagging the copyright violations for speedy deletion on most of the images uploaded by Gadeshina33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's a handful taken from sources too obscure for me to find in a reasonable time, so if someone can delete them on the basis that since everything else was a copyright violation, these probably are too, I'd appreciate it:

• File:Joe Jonas.jpeg
• File:Doug Brochu.jpeg
• File:Brandon Mychal Smith.jpeg
• File:Nathan Kress.jpeg

—Kww(talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Dear Sir, I would greatly appreciate if independent editors-administrators would examine the following case. Draganparis Sockpuppetry case Articles Refering to: Talk: Alexande the Great and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius as well as Talk: macedonia (ancent kingdom).

The problem is not sockpuppetry case. The problem is more then this. This is a case of a confrontation of one (or two – if at all) newcomer on Wiki where one tries to pursue a simple argument AND, on the other side, partially organised group of – how I underestimated them! – not 3-5 but about 10 or even more, basically Greek political fanatics.

The problem was always one word: whether Alexander the Grate was “Greek king” (certainly not, as I say, the Queen of England would be then German queen!!!); whether Cyril and Methodius were “Greek brothers” (they were of course Byzantine brothers – we can say Greek brothers but it is just slightly better to say Byzantine.). Trivialities. Yet, as the answers I received pages of unreferenced text rich in nationalistic and racist accusations. Who are these people? There is one who I can understand his/her condition and would not advance any explanation here. But the others who supported the front liner! The argument was absolutely trivial. But their excitation was bewildering!

As I said, the two small changes in the articles that I proposed were unimportant and a normal answer would have satisfied me. I started with a dose of humour, and this was a mistake, I admit - since the answer was a triple dose of hate. I was watching for about 1-2 years the bitter dispute of ths Greeks and their northern neighbours “Macedonians” and laughed. Not really shearing much of the feelings with both of them. But now I can see how hard this may be to the involved. My small interventions since about 2 years has been a kind of game of history, because the real history is wonderful game – if politics is kept away. I see now that you all have much, much more in that “game”, apart from history. This is where from comes that immense hate. However, I am against propaganda in science and what have happened here is appalling (accepting by the administrator the references that were copied-pasted from nationalistic pages and which are STILL there on the Talk page!), the uncivilised tone, the insults and the indolence of the "group" which thereby took part in this revolting event. This being not a sign of a conspiracy theory, but of THE conspiracy practice.

Of course it looked like that “Greek brothers”, for example, is accepted in popular literature (encyclopaedias) while Byzantine studies scholars prefer “Byzantine brothers”. I was ready to accept "Greek" - Wiki is popular, but not accusations and hate. I am even not Macedonian or Greek or involved politically in any of their blind disputes. I will give you, Wikipedia, my full name, telephone number, address, Wikipedia has my e-mail, I can give to the Wikipedia officials my University e-mail EVERITHING!! – if Wikipedia would request. You can then find on the internet my full biography, publications, all, absolutely all, all is public. But this must be requested by the highest level of Wikipedia and not by the front-liner who is obvious gang member. Let us verify all of these! If you dare to take a risk and uncover the gang of political pamphlets and falsifiers of history. But if you are a part of them, then… then I wish you all the best. Sincerely,Draganparis (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that the problem is not the sockpuppetry; you are only allowed one account, in general, and using more than one account to try to win a conflict is a serious problem. If you are right, and there are factual inaccuracies in this page, it is inevitable that other users will correct them. In general, you'll find that users who are pushing the Truth regarding national conflicts, no matter what they think the Truth is, are disruptive to our more mundane job of publishing the verifiable facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've reviewed this user's contributions and those of the accused sockpuppet. The two accounts are editing the same articles using the same writing style, pushing a point of view in a disruptive way, so I've blocked the newer one indefinitely and the older one for a week. If anyone disagrees, or feels a different response is more appropriate, please feel free to adjust this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there an ArbCom case about the whole Greek/Macedonian mess, or is that one of our ongoing squabbles? As far as the socking goes, seems pretty clear cut. Indef/1 week is a pretty standard block. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There were two, and it's never going to be solved. WP:ARBMAC2 is the more recent of the two, and has some relevant discussion. Horologium (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Skepticism

Would editors interested in keeping Wikipedia 'neutral' please help ensure this Climate Skepticism page is not summarily deleted by those responsible for the one-sided coverage of this issue elsewhere!

Gemtpm (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been tagged as a content fork of Global warming controversy, which seems like an unimpeachable justification to me. If the latter article falls short of our neutral point of view policy in your opinion, raise the probems on the article's talk page and work with your fellow editors to resolve them. --TS

Doesn't the title indicate that this is an article about people who are skeptical that climate exists? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will end it: Redirect as per Global warming skeptic, stable for over two years. --TS 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this translate as "I am here on a mission and will make as much noise as I can, please ban me now"? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just you.  Dr. Loosmark  00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I also think CU results on this account could prove interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DragonFable

Seems there is a bug or something while trying to delete this article after I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonFable (3rd nomination). I think it might be a MediaWiki issue. Can someone fix the problem? Thanks! JForget 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles with huge histories cannot be deleted by admins. It's to prevent the whole "rogue admin deleting the Main Page" thing we used to get. You'll need to find a steward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request made. --JForget 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)