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

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

• Moved here from WP:AN#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing
On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion
Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g., [1] [2] [3] etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about [the rule on canvassing], so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using {{notavote}} instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard or remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than jumping to conclusions simply because they suited him, and flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. User:DJ Clayworth posted on Talk:List of suicides to agree that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admins need to do anything here yet. I don't see where dispute resolution has been tried, as yet, and a board like WP:WQA or WP:3O should be a first stop before coming to ANI and "demanding satisfaction" in the form of sanctions against fellow editors. Why not try to work things out in a civil manner rather than "running to mommy" as soon as things don't go your way. Seriously, the shrill tone of this entire thread does not bode well towards a reasonable resolution, nor does it appear that there is anything remotely blockable here by any party to this dispute, and it would be nice to keep it that way. --Jayron32 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite see the issue here. Nightscream asked a few people to comment on a sourcing issue. So far as I can tell, he asked people who had commented on these issues in the past because they were familiar with them. That's not what's meant by canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, Gavia has a history of attacking me with false accusations, and refuses to respond when I refute them. You can't "work things out in a civil manner" with someone who has decided that he's simply not going to do so. I pointed out to him what I did to alert people to the discussion, and two others have now stated that what I did was not canvassing. Did he respond, either to rebut, apologize, or explain why he still thinks it's canvassing? No. He simply ignores this, so he can go off and do so again. People like this need to be counseled that this behavior is not acceptable. Serial incivility such as this, and refusing to acknowledge when you've been told you're wrong, is indeed a blockable offense, as is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, such as reverting during a consensus discussion, and/or against that consensus, as Gavia has done. If Gavia is willing to talk this out with me, and start fresh, I am more than willing to do so as well, since he obviously has the article is obviously one of his "babies", but so far, he has not indicated this. Nonetheless, perhaps I'm wrong about him, so I'll try to speak with him on his Talk Page about starting anew. Let's hope it goes well.

I have not, however, said anything about "demanding satisfaction", or "sanctions", as those are your words, not mine. I came to WP:AN because I was familiar with it, but in the future I'll keep WP:WQA in mind, so thank you for your suggestion. As for WP:3O, I was under the impression that that was for editorial disputes, and not breaches of policies related to behavior like WP:Civility, WP:Attack, etc. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.). The matter of the editorial dispute is being handled on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [4] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [5], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [6][7] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [8] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [9] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashville^talk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )

Oh very interesting [10] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashville^talk 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Wikipedia admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Wikipedia as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afd is currently pretty cut and dried, so I'd start by throwing out some good notability refs rather than fiddling with the text. Post 'em in the Afd if you have 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This has now progressed to pretty blunt personal attacks. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's right there at the top of my user page. I'm more concerned about his characterizing requests for sources as "a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI". —Korath (Talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he already mentioned as much. But given his tone and other comments, looking at your user page wasn't my first instinct. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems probable to me that JWAsm is notable, even if the current people involved are too busy being conflicted to look up sources :-P . Even if the page does get deleted, I'd definitely do it without prejudice, and it would help if we point out to Spook that it's possible to ask for the original text of the article, if he wants to make a new and improved version. (We should also take some time to explain how and where to look for reliable sources :-)).

If you know that I'm an eventualist, I suppose it's redundant to mention that I'm dismayed by all this "the article needs to be perfect RIGHT NOW" attidude I see displayed these days. It leads to lots of preventable conflict, as well as much redundant effort.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of the problem has been Hutch48's terrible attitude, where all he keeps doing is insisting (often sometimes with swear words) that everyone else is incompetent and breaking the rules. And Doktorspin's continuous wikilawyering that the rules somehow don't apply in this case hasn't improved the atmosphere any. All it needs is one source - say Sourceforge recommending it as the alternative to MASM, or some nerdy but noted in field online journo saying this is going to have an impact. The information is going to be in places like that - but Hutch48 recommending the forum where he spent 48 hours trashing Wikipedia isn't helping his cause at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, in dealing with Steve Hutchesson, don't expect such situations to do anything but degrade... rapidly. In his mind, if you don't agree with him, you are either wrong or misinformed, but never justified. The exception being if you have something of value for him. You'll notice that on his forum, japheth (the current developer of JWASM) is calling Hutch's general decision to no longer edit Wikipedia articles as a "positive outcome." Historically, such "back talk" would generally result in humiliation/slander/retaliation and/or banning. However, JWASM being the most probable successor to MASM, well, we can see the need for one to bite their tongue if the future of their "legacy" was dependent on that person's efforts. My entire point in mentioning this is that you have recent and direct proof that Steve Hutchesson will not respect you, Wikipedia or its rules, so you have very few choices on how to deal with him... usually dwindling down to writing him off as a troll and banning him, for most people. So far, your (admin's/editor's) choice to be as diplomatic as you are about the situation has been admirable, professional and much appreciated.

Now, to put a more positive spin on this situation, and as a party not invested in the success/development of JWASM, I am willing to write a review of JWASM and post it on something like ASMCommunity or Slashdot. It will be a non-trivial and unbiased, although technically oriented, review of JWASM... what it is for, what it can do, recommendations/advantages/disadvantages vs MASM and other assemblers, etc. Overall, I know this situation must seem somewhat rather silly, especially when certain "others" cannot make the distinction between an encyclopedia which requires significant verifiable resources and a technical manual, but it is rather important to the assembly language community; and potentially important to other software developers that could benefit from the knowledge of this tool's existence.

I have come to the conclusion that whether or not the JWASM page is deleted in its current incarnation is of no consequence, as it is clearly outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe a page similar to NASM or GAS with relevant links to resources, including a link to the review I write, should be sufficient for notability/relevance and other guidelines. That being said, I hope the my explanation/proposal is sufficient enough to keep the revised/new JWASM page safe from deletion. Thanks for your patience, understanding and any further advisement/direction that you may give regarding this situation.

--SpooK (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That would I think be helpful. If the page is not kept, one that covers WASM and JWASM is likely to replace it, as WASM has the necessary notability, and the two make a progression. Whatever happens, a critical technical review posted to an appropriate community would be useful for others to reference - with this kind of subject, the necessary references are going to be tucked away in unusual sites that are viewed by their community as reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

+1 Informative. ;-)

Thanks for the feedback, Elen. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot. I'll attempt to get the "others" involved by referencing it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, and hopefully they participate positively and get this thing going in the right direction.

(And another +4 Conciliatory : I know that score doesn't exist on Slashdot, but on Wikipedia, people are willing to go a long way for you if you are willing to work towards consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to wallop Spin with a trout, please feel free. He really isn't helping attempts to resolve this amicably. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I pity the admin who's going to read that 128K Afd... Pcap ping 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article

A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Wikipedia where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).

It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Further comments removed. Ucucha 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. NW (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And why are you, Malik, threatening me with outing? Do you know who I am, or are you just guessing? It is disgusting that you are willing to go down that road. You should know better, and it does not make it look like you accidentally stumbled upon this article and nominated it for deletion as an uninterested party. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not threatening to out you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right because he did that already. Pantherskin (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where. You can email me directly if you have evidence of this and you don't want to note it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It has thankfully been deleted, see above. And the question is still unanswered by Malik what his motivation for the speedy deletion nomination of this article. An article that is very, very unlikely for him to encounter during his normal editing activities. And why he continues to harass me with template warnings on my talk page. Note to Tbsdy, the evidence was in plain view here, and emailed several uninvolved authorities already. Pantherskin (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer. Instead more template harassment on my talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You got an answer. I can't help it if you deleted it because you didn't like it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not the answer. I do not care whether articles I create get deleted or not, but I do care about speedy deletions, tagging and a thinly veiled outing are used as tools of harassment by an admin. So the very simple question again. How did you find out about this article? Pantherskin (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question. Now go away. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual you have not. You claimed that you do not really know the notability criteria, but you did not explain why you picked this article, and flooded it (and my talk page) with a multitude of tags and templates and attempted a thinly veiled outing. But I am repeating myself as you evidently do not want to explain how you found out about this rather obscure article and why you saw a need to invoke WP:OUTING. Pantherskin (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had it with your Chekist nonsense. This is the last response you will get from me. Stop harassing me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Complex hoax needs speedy removal

Resolved

 – User 'sploded and a trout to 'Julian' for his lack of patience. HalfShadow 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept my trout and will wear it as a warning. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew de Rothschild, Stefan de Rothschild, Rothschild Estates, James Mayer de Rothschild II and Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild need speedy deleting as part of a mass hoax. User:Womblethereof should be blocked as an SPA hoaxer. I have spent some considerable time investigating this, there is a discussion on [11]. I have email confirmation from Quinlan Private a company Rothschild Estates claims to have purchased confirming this is a definite hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason we should circumvent the already running AfD process? A hoax appears likely, but it isn't "obvious". --Smashville^talk 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes an email from Quinlan Private to me

"<blanked private e-mail>"

Confirming that the claim on the website [12] is bogus. Add in the fact that there is no trace of these supposed multimillionaire heirs anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Clear unambiguous massive hoax with potential in using the Rothschild name to defraud on a massive scale. Wikipedia should speedy clear this one up. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, that was totally inappropriate to post here. Tan | 39 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My real name is Julian by the way :) Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't Tan Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some guys name, phone number, fax number, with a quite obvious suffix that you are not allowed to release it under GFDL? "...it may contain privileged and confidential information". Probably need an oversight on this one. Tan | 39 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, it was. I blanked it. What part of this didn't you read? "This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it." Besides that, e-mails are not released under GFDL and therefore cannot be posted here without express permission by the sender. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer on the end of a private email is just standard. it is a public company I have full permission from Quinlan Private to sort this out so just becasue the disclaimer was there does not matter. I have permission to report that this is a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but did you have permission to post the e-mail here in it's entirety (especially with phone numbers et cetera contained within)? Summarise its contents next time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed oversight to suppress that edit. You are wrong here, Polargeo. Tan | 39 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed Oversight too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am right. Give me about 5 minutes and I will post complete confirmation from the emailer that I have full right to post that email. But rather than get into this craziness will someone do something about this. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blank private information next time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sort out the email, but could someone speedy those articles, or at least explain why not. We should not allow hoaxes like this to run for the full time of an AfD. Quantpole (talk)

Fully concur. As usual we are wasting time on percieved issues rather than dealing with the real problem. And please block the user while we are at it. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed the user who created these articles of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. The user should however be blocked immediately. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not as if User talk:Womblethereof is not already covered in warning tags about this issue with no response thus far. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrespective of that, it is common courtesy at the very least to inform a user when they are being discussed here and even more so when notification is required by the instructions on this page and in the edit notice. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for taking the trouble to inform the user. They have now been blocked and informed of this. Polargeo (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Anybody who thinks that the Rothschilds are WASPS needs an education. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Arthur de Rothschild (with the specified dates, parents, and much of the ancillary information included in the deleted article) certainly existed: the hoax element of the article was giving him a wife and children when he had neither, as can be determined by consulting the standard work on the Rothschild genealogy, Le Sang des Rothschild, by Joseph Valynsele and Henri-Claude Mars, (L'Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux, 2003), p. 97. The footnote (#158, p. 161-2) contains enough information for a factual article to be written (including some interesting comments by Elisabeth de Gramont about his misanthropy), so this deletion should be taken without prejudice to its re-creation. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It may have been a hoax in the manner of this fake company, which was used to defraud Sven Goran Eriksson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/6431534/SCH---the-biggest-company-youve-never-heard-of.html

But then it couldn't have been used on anyone more than the most vulnerable pensioners etc, since anyone with suspicions can contact one of the family's real banks. It's more likely the fictitious blogger "Stefan de Rothschild" made the fake websites to promote himself, no doubt partly so that he could produce citations for his biography on wikipedia. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The name Stefan rings a bell - I wonder if this is our old friend Stefan Roberts, a serial hoaxer who began as heir presumptive to various titles, progressed to being Viscount St Pierre complete with fake London Gazette page to show that his old man had been created an earl, and then became a hedge-fund billionaire. His "Roberts Investment Group" website was very like this "Rothschild Estates" one - glossy-looking but shallow with little solid information and no checkable contact details like address or phone number, only email. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost certainly correct. Remarkable that two people should not only share a first name, but look so similar in photos on their social networking profiles. I must say, this is rather amusing. He's put a lot more work into this one then when he was pretending to be Lord Jersey's cousin and so forth, and judging from his Twitter feed, he has a lot of people believing he's jet-setting in Davos. Choess (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It certainly is Stefan Roberts again - this "Baron Stefan de Rothschild" also has a father called Andrew, also was made a director of the family business while still in his teens, and, the clincher, has the same birth date - 2 July 1992. See his pictures here and here. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This was the most amazing, one .. a Washington Post article ... -- The Rothschild Estates has pledged $2.5 million. This is a company that we could find no record of it existing apart from the hoax website , so whoever it is had managed to get that posted on a major publication, imo it was a major deception that was uncovered, not just a few artcles here, that was just more affirmation of existence that would aid the deception. Have a look at the website of the fictitious Rothschild Estates that pledged 2 and a half million dollars to Haiti it was professionally done Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget the other website Rothschild Arts huge potential to fraud. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...and the Rothschild Global Foundation. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He's on twitter too: StefanDeRo. Cardamon (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have emailed the (real) Rothschild Foundation to let them know about the fake websites. My first thought was the NM Rothschild bank, but their website gives no email address; I asked the Foundation to pass it on if they thought necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned editor editing

Has anyone seen this? Some noxious banned editor seems to be vandalising a philosophy article as some kind of prank. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a new article. It's being sourced. Looks like good work to me. Let him edit away. If and when he switches from creating content to making some sort of point, action can be taken then. Meanwhile, perhaps don't call people "noxious" even if you happen to disagree with them. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Retracted, but all the same this looks suspiciously like User:Peter_Damian, public enemy number 1 (second to Gregory Kohs) of Wikipedia. He was recently blocked for this account. Isn't there something about 'banned means banned'. Are you saying that the quality of contributions could possibly outweigh a community ban? Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A tad omphaloskeptic, are we? Both now blocked as Damian socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think omphaloskeptic would indicate suspicion of or disbelief in one's navel. Is that what is meant? Or is navel gazing from the blocked editor being suggested. Sorry, these fancy words are unfamiliar to me. Oh wait, because Rupert is also the same editor? So one is the navel of the other? And he's indicating suspicion of himself? Or is it being suggested that raising suspicion of his own sock account is meant to raise suspicion in his own navel. I'm very confused. Will someone check out my question on the article talk page of the article that was created about eternity? I don't understand the lead. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Navel contemplation

I regularly feel skeptical about my navel. Should I get help? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

At least you HAVE a navel. I have it on good authority that, like Satan, PD and GK do not. At least that's the impression one gets reading some stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I know not of past dramas, but seems like he misses Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of curiosity, what happens now with the article newly created by one of these banned socks, Eternity of the world? Bielle (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, if the emperor is wearing nothing but socks, and yet no one seems to care due to general fascination with his navel, can we all agree that a good article is worth a wink to a blind man? Steveozone (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly a A Nod Is as Good as a Wink... to a Blind Horse. We all know that. Carptrash (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...not what I had in mind, but I too wonder if the article is a go-er. Steveozone (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Gone. Fram (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse deletion as within policy. However, (copied from article talk) I've restored this article and the talk. It was properly deleted under WP:CSD#G5 by User:Fram as work of a banned editor, but after review of the material, I am willing to stand behind the edits. Also, a review of the history will show edits by others that I deem "substantial" enough to qualify, although Fram may not have felt that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Damian was an excellent, very valuable content editor, he is easy to recognize. It is unfortunate that he became too obsessed about wikipolitics and one editor in particular, causing his banning. His socks will probably just continue to contribute good content to show everyone else up, and like now, it should simply be accepted, with a wink and a nod. Unbanning again in the future should not be ruled out, but might not be too probable.John Z (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

...or his contributions can deleted on sight, because we have no deadline, eventually someone else will create it anyway, so why would we encourage him to continue socking? If his articles are kept, it makes sense for him to continue socking here. If his articles and contributions are reverted or deleted, then this all becomes a waste of time for him and he may finally just leave. The exceptions some people make for good content contributors (they are allowed to be constantly uncivil, to sock to avoid a ban, ...) are beyond me. We are a community and a content provider, and sometimes the content is less important than the community, as in the case of people violating time and again some of our basic policies. He is banned for a reason, and as long as it stays like this, we should be clear to him and all other banned editors, that none of their contributions are welcome, no matter if they are poor or of FA quality. We can and will do without them. Fram (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a rabid eventualist, but there aren't many experts on medieval philosophy and logic here or elsewhere. Many of his contributions, about which there were never any problems, would not be created anytime soon if ever. Unlike most banned editors, he clearly wants his good content to be deleted, to prove his pointless point, that wikipedia is flawed, like everything else real. CSD G-5 is a may, not a must. No one is suggesting he be allowed to sock with impunity.John Z (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Baseball1015

Resolved

 – Blocked as a sock (what a shock!) -- Atama頭 21:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there's something up with this user. First, I just noticed in his talk page history that he removed all his talk page messages (except the welcome message) from a revert. Secondly, I made a couple edits to Template:Uw-voablock yesterday; he reverted them w/o a specific reason today. I restored mine about half an hour after that. I don't know what's going on with this user; I'm not bold enough to ask on their talk page, so I'm bringing this up here. Maybe they're a sock puppet? Schfifty3 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you notified this user of this thread?--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ive gone and notified this user. But YOU should have done so after making this thread.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry for that. I had to attend something after I posted this thread. Schfifty3 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been blocked mistakenly, supposedly as a sock of MascotGuy, by J.delanoy, in the past. It has since been rversed. Maybe ask him for a CheckUser? Connormah (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to chime in, I've posted what I regard as a very nice talk page message which was again removed like this user does with all talk page comments. I know Wikipedia isn't a social network and that people with excellent content contributions, but this guy steps out of all bounds. If you look at his edit history, it appears to be consisting solely of reverting other user's changes without any comment or summary whatsoever. User:Krator (t c) 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Apart from blanking his talk page, has he been disruptive on any other area of Wikipedia? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What I've initially wanted to talk to him about was biting newbies. He reverted a new editor twice, calling good-faith (but badly formatted) first-time edits vandalism and spam, and then reverting the new user's questions about those reversals on his talk page as vandalism. The new user then came to WT:VG, which is where I picked this up. This isn't anything I would normally be really angry about, except that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is a bad thing to do. He's a bit trigger happy on the vandalism button, that's all I think. Take a look at the guy's talk page and there's just a stream of people going "hey, what's up, I don't understand what you're doing" and this guy reverting it. User:Krator (t c) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I came across the one he marked as spam and vandalism while I was Huggling. I thought it seemed odd, but, not being familiar with the topic, I decided to let it drop, presuming there was consensus on the talk page or something. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I came to file a report and discovered that a thread is already open. He reverted a number of Ikip (talk · contribs)'s edits to user talk pages [13] with the edit summary "Arbitration enforcement: Spamming user talk pages.". Aside from the fact that he's not a admin or an arbcom clerk, I also can't find any arbcom decision that Ikip violated in his messages. Also, I checked his contribs and this does not seem to be a new user. Tim Song (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned. But that doesn't say anything about enforcement by revert. I have reverted User:Baseball1015's deletion of this "invitation" from my talk page, and asked him not to remove content from my talk page. DES ^(talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, their userpage has been U1 speedied four times in the last month. But regarding the above, there are six different users asking them to not delete messages from usertalk pages. And, if I recall correctly, there was no consensus that Ikip's message was inappropriate, so the arbitration enforcement claim is nonsense. I think it would be best if Baseball1015 would come here and offer some sort of explanation. —DoRD (?) (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The only talk page contributions the guy has made are strange reversals ([14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) and the only ever non-blanking comments he's made on his own talk page are "Whatever" [20] and this. Somehow I have little faith he will chime in here. User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that guy for real have rollback, as one editor stated? If so, how did he get it? P.S. He's no relation to me, thankfully. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned with this user's editing pattern. If you're going to revert Ikip, you need to be willing to talk about what you did and why. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks for Baseball1015:

• Baseball1015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed a very new editor accusing User:Baseball1015 of being a sock of User:Dalejenkins, who is indef blocked. Per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins there is a possibility there. One SPI participant said "Dale is a notorious delete-happy account that used the socks to antagonize members of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron (ARS)." Baseball1015's mass-reverting of invitations left by Ikip to join an inclusion/deletion debate would fit that pattern, at least. If the strange behavior continues, a new filing at SPI could be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bugs: No they don't have rollback. —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. This[21] is where I saw it, and might have misinterpreted what he was saying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Albeit that it probably wouldn't get results, has anyone tried simply asking him if he is a sock/has any other accounts, and if so, what they are? Very small chance it would work, but the simple stuff sometimes works the best against all expectations. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

After a couple of fruitless attempts to get an explanation, I informed the user that I would formally request that access to twinkle be revoked if I saw a repeat of talk page blanking, or if no detailed justification were forthcoming. Given that I am clearly not an isolated example, I would like to at least float the suggestion here. Obviously it should not be the first step we take. But the bottom line is that if a user does not acknowledge that using rollback on talk pages can pose problems, the user should not have rollback in any form. Period. [22] [23] [24] WFCforLife (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This may or may not answer the sock question, but it's of interest that his most recent edits have been to post stuff on blocked users - the notorious Axmann8 and another one (South Bay) that was just blocked recently. Maybe that's a clue as to what's "up" with that user? But don't rule out that it's a sock of the even-more-notorious Pioneercourthouse, who was apparently the one that tried to get Axmann8 (and others) into further trouble last summer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I just noticed is the history (admin only) of their monobook.js page. This is anything but what you'd expect from a new editor. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno ... I modified my monobook by copying something off of someone else's, once I learned that it existed ... maybe I'm WP:AGFing too much (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but yours wasn't created and deleted four times in less than a month, either. ;) —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed sock of John254 (talk · contribs) - now blocked indef - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jza84 using his admin powers to steamroll his personal point of view.

Note: This was archived by the reporting user, thus presumably it's resolved or being handled elsewhere. NJA (t/c) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a short note asking if everything is OK. Jeni is a pretty dedicated editor, I would like to make sure everything is resolved peacefully. Even if it's not on AN/I. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

On Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Dublin, User:Jza84 made a comment "I intend to remove this function", despite there being no consensus for him to take this action from anyone involved in the conversation. Today he took the liberty of making the non consensus edit[25] and is now refusing to revert himself, despite everyone involved in the discussion being against it.

This is despicable, it is a protected template and he is using his admin powers to ensure that he gets his own way, regardless of consensus from other users. It isn't like he even gave discussion more than 24 hours to take shape! Jeni ^(talk) 12:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note he has now taken this moment to self revert, presumably under the treat of this thread. He is still stating that he will make the edit at a later date. Closed this discussion for now, though I'm pretty sure this wont be the end of it. Jeni ^(talk) 12:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Jessica Liao

Resolved

 – WP:PLAXICO for use of a loaded gun, WP:SPI for ducky posts. WP:STICK for .. hey! Where'd the horse go? tedder (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

There is already consensus to add this user to the banned list. [26] I would like to request an uninvolved admin to look at this and add this user to the list. If the user cannot be added, can you provide a reason? Thanks. Girafe53 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, this is just a housekeeping request, yes? User is already indef'ed and there's no discussion about removing that block. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

We have the list to publicly humiliate banned users even though they use it to look for glory. But that's just so they can have their pride. 5 administrators declined her unblock requests. It's clear that no admin would be willing to unblock or make her block finite. Girafe53 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI seems like a better policy to me. Jclemens (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

She is already a long-term abuser. She has 47 confirmed socks. And don't give me that excuse of WP:DENY or WP:RBI. It's not policy and editors are not required to follow it. Girafe53 (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And whose sock are you? A new user does not go to WP:ANI on their 11th edit. They certainly do not discover WP:BANNED one hour after they register. Tim Song (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I can smell the gunpowder.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone turn the quacking ducks down from 11? It's too loud in here. tedder (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Alanya help

I'm looking for some help with a featured article, Alanya. I have a user who insists on deleting certain large sections of the article repeatedly, usually those that mention the role foreigners play in this southern Turkish city. It's very frustrating, and I'm not sure how to protect the article. The user is Omulazimoglu and their sockpuppet Ozgurmulazimoglu. I've tried repeatedly to engage the user on their talk pages and on the article's talk page, so they could defend these deletions, but they seem to have no interest in this, so I'm at a loss. How should I react?-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 21:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fully-protected the article for 1 week and indefblocked the sock account (pretty obvious per WP:DUCK). I've also warned them that continued edit-warring or failure to engage constructively on the article talk page will be viewed very dimly and pointed them to WP:DR. If you don't mind me mentioning, you should also be careful about reverting their edits; it takes two to edit-war and reversions are really for handling obvious vandalism only. Using them for anything else puts you in danger of sanctions too. Stick to WP:BRD (as long as it's not a WP:BLP issue, it really doesn't matter if they make an unsuitable edit that's not immediately removed), retain the moral high-ground, and if the disruption continues when the protection expires either report back here, drop me a note, or request further page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 09:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am frustrated to see how you showed me to the community as a racist person as everyone may see in the history page of Alanya. You are in a big mistake and you do not have the right to show me as racist. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is a content dispute that started over some photographs and has got out hand. I have no way of knowing the motivations of you or Patrick, so no-one's accusing anyone of racism. What can't be argued is that you've been removing large, sourced sections of the article (and sometimes just sources) without a good explanation. If you believe some content is unsuitable, it's up to you to convince other editors of that on the article talk page. You may succeed; you may not... but what you can't keep doing is disrupting the article. EyeSerene^talk 12:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets say you are all right about the Alanya. Pls do not change the topic. He is clearly saying that i am racist. Is it ok in Wikipedia? MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to this edit? Liquidluck✽talk 13:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The topic is disruption to the Alanya article (see the title of this thread). However, since you seem to be wanting to focus on something else, so be it...

• Question: Is it okay on Wikipedia to call someone a "racist"? Answer: Not without very good evidence, no
• Q: Did Patrick call you "racist"? A: No
• Q: Did Patrick imply you might have xenophobic motives for your edits? A: Yes
• Q: Why did he imply that? A: You seem to be removing information about foreigners from the article
• Q: Do I agree with Patrick? A: No, it looks more to me like you're removing anything that might show Alanya in a bad light, some of which is about foreigners
• Q: What am I going to do about it? A: Ask you both nicely to work constructively on the article talk page to resolve your content differences
• Q Statement: But I've been falsely accused! A: That's regrettable, but you've been subjecting Patrick to considerable provocation by ignoring his messages and disrupting the article. Your best option would be to read our editing policies and move on.

EyeSerene^talk 14:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mulazimoglu, I do not mean to call you anything, but it does seem that from your edits going back to October to this and a variety of anti-Armenian articles, that you do not want Alanya to discuss "wrong info" about Iranians, Europeans, the PKK, Jews, Africans, the AK Party, or any negative sides of the city. Foreigners may have only a small impact on the city, and for example, the majority of the city does not celebrate Nevruz, but in a discussion of holidays celebrated, it too has a place. The user has claimed repeatedly in edit summaries that deleting this information is "taking out racism", but that just doesn't make sense to me, and I don't think they understand the problem with it.

I would love to talk content, but this is what I get, dramatic accusations of ownership or racism. I tried to engage with a list of questions on the talk page that was never responded to. Questions like what's wrong with noting the mayor's political party or the various causes of the economic downturn? But instead of reasonable discussion on the talk page of this featured article, I see edit waring, and I'm not sure how to proceed. So thanks for the article protection, hopefully this won't be an issue again.-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 16:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I don't see the racism/xenophobia stuff (real or imagined) as something worth spending time on, because while we are all free to draw our own conclusions as to why someone edits the way they do, it's generally politic to keep such speculation to ourselves. We are asked by WP:NPA to "comment on the edits, not the editor", and adhering to that helps to keep focus where it matters; on the article content itself. In my experience editors that are here for motives other than to collaboratively build high-quality content constantly run into policy difficulties and sooner or later find Wikipedia a frustrating and unwelcoming place. They tend to hoist themselves on their own petard.

Anyhow, I've tried to address the socking and disruption to the article and Omulazimoglu is now aware that further edit-warring or removal of sourced content will lead to a block on their account. The content disagreement is beyond both the admin remit and the scope of this board and is for you and Omulazimoglu to work out. If Omulazimoglu is editing in good faith, they'll be happy to abide by Wikipedia policy and engage in constructive discussion to try to create a talk-page consensus for removing that sourced material. If not, we'll know soon enough and can act accordingly (see my first post above for some options you can take). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor from New York State Unified Court System

207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs), which sources to the New York State Unified Court System, is repeatedly removing sourced material from the Michael Allen (journalist) article. They're currently working on their 3rd vandalism warning. Woogee (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, for all we know, it's the janitor.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He was also removing a slur from the lead sentence which you restored. "A stenographer for the political establishment" implies he writes what they tell him to. Holly25 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, and I thank you for correcting that. Woogee (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, have you actually read the content you're battling to keep in the article? Stuff you claim is sourced like:

• the subject is "a stenographer for the political establishment" (no source, outrageous BLP violation)
• a large blockquote with no source.
• a section that reads "Often the material quoted is unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone." - the "ref" that follows it is just an article that whoever wrote this hatchet job thinks is "unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone", not an actual ref

The whole controversy section is a POV nightmare supported by partisan blog entries, not WP:RS

So the IP is entirely correct in removing this garbage; it's all a flat violation of WP:BLP. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks sourced to me, but ymmv. Woogee (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to that version and check the sources, it wasn't actually sourced criticism. One source was an article by Allen; the sentence it backed up was a POV criticism of that article. Another source showed that he'd interviewed Cheney; the sentence it was backing up basically said that Cheney agreed to the interview because he knew his spin would be more or less reproduced verbatim. The IP was actually removing contentious BLP material, not vandalizing. Holly25 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, are you seriously claiming that when you restored a large section with a "citation needed" tag, and no ref, as you did here, that this "looked sourced"? Blind reverting like this does nothing but harm Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't just the unsourced quote which was removed but the whole section (which appears to be well-sourced). I would probably have reverted as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't well sourced at all, the provided sources didn't back up the claims being made. If a revert is restoring "sourced" material to a BLP, then it's important to take the time to check the sources are what they claim to be. One of the sources even jokes about the "stenographer" vandalism in the first sentence. Holly25 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Weird, problematic editor

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked. NW (Talk) 04:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiyahiyahiya (talk · contribs) Has been around, on and off, for a few years. They seem to make some useful (or at least neutral) contributions but they also have an ongoing problem with creating nonsense articles, as well as BLP violations and vandalism in the past. They have many warnings on their talk page. I think this is someone's "play" account and should be investigated and possibly blocked. The account name also violates the username policy since it's basically a slur against Native Americans. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good block, although I find the racial slur allegation quite ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Any administrators here that are university faculty members or American Ph.D's?

Resolved

 – Not the right venue (this isn't an incident requiring technical administrative intervention), but Category:Wikipedians by profession and WP:VPP could be useful to pursue this further. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a heated debate in the Talk:Barack Obama article. Some insist on calling him professor. Some don't. My main issue is if the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor. Professor is the very high rank, like general. professor is the generic term. The neutral way, I think, would be to respectfully mention that President Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago; he was a Lecturer then later a Senior Lecturer while teaching constitutional law.

Any administrators here that are university faculty members that can help with what they have experienced with the general public? Is a teaching assistant a professor? Isn't that stretching it and resume inflation. On the other hand, simply stating he was a Senior Lecturer is very factual and gives Wikipedia credibility.

I found some Ph.D. but they may not be editing right now. I found them by just typing in some chemical or math theorem and seeing who edited those articles. JB50000 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not exactly the right forum for this.. but you should check out Category:Wikipedians by profession if you're looking for specific Wikipedians.. unless there's some reason why you only want to hear from specifically administrators? -- œ^™ 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should probably use the definition provided at Professor, particularly those that apply to the definition in the United States.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an oft-repeated topic on the Obama talk page, stemming from a particularly disingenuous "OMG he's not really a professor!" right-wing talking point in the last general election. There is no universal rule or policy to say who gets to be called "professor" and who does not; it is something that can vary from one university to the next. If the University of Chicago calls him a professor, and reliable sources reflect that, then that is what goes in the article. FWIW, I personally would never address a person as "professor" if they did not have a terminal degree, that's just the way it was at my ol backwoods liberal arts college. But personal opinio doesn't count for much here. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• The question is so open to interpretation. At my school "professors" made it clear whether they wanted to be called professor or something else, and it had a great deal of correspondence with the predilection to wear tweed, so maybe we should be focusing instead on Obama's suit material to answer the question;-)--162.84.166.253 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Notice how this question never even came up during the previous administration. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarumio

The above was found to be using sockpuppetry back in November, at which point the four IPs listed were blocked. Sarumio claimed he "omitted to log into his account" as an "innocent mistake" and that he would "endeavor to make certain that [he is] logged in as Sarumio in every instance in the future". Since then he's used 87.113.90.204, 87.115.173.198 and, just yesterday, 195.195.247.144. - Dudesleeper talk 09:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and 87.113.127.252. - Dudesleeper talk 09:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, for both the inability to log in - despite promises - and the practice of removing the "F.C." initials from football clubs. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Skinmeister gross incivility

Resolved

Their most recent edit is [27] edit summary Read the original source the quote is from faggot. Appears to be a personal attack aimed at User:Jared Preston who changed it before [28]. Regardless on whether the edits are correct or incorrect, Skinmeister should not have used such language in edit summaries.

Previously they have also been blocked many times before [29], most recently three months ago.

Their edits are almost never constructive, just trying to create arguments [30], such as removing Welsh language translations of place names from place name articles, just because they are located a few miles into England, e.g. [31]. WP:BATTLE

Not logged in, because I don't want to receive any personal attacks from them. 82.152.207.251 (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor is a problem but has only edited once since his last block, a 2 week block in October (to which he replied "Pay attention dipshit, there is consensus, to remove it.". His edit on the 18th is clearly unacceptable and I'm happy to warn him about it, but I'm not convinced he should be blocked - yet. If he goes back to his old ways he may warrant an indefinite block. I'll notify him of this discussion and warn him. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I personally don't understand this at all. A user uses an epithet such as faggot should be shown the door immediately. Maybe you don't understand how that word resonates; it's just as bad as... I don't want to say, just think of the most offensive words for various peoples based on skin color, ethnicity, etc. and know that his word is in that league to many gay people.--14:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I concur with the wholly improper use of "faggot", a quick glance at his entire talkpage shows significant past issues with edit summaries such as "I fart on your grave". I would suggest that perhaps an WP:RFC/U be undertaken to address and discuss the general attitude and gross incivility of the editor. I might have been a little more willing to issue another short break, but I shall defer to Dougweller at the moment. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this editor is heading for an indefinite block. Since the edit in question was 11 days ago and the last edit before that was 3 months ago, a 'short break' doesn't look like it would be effective. If people think given his history he should be given an indefinite block now, I'm happy to do so, but I'd like to see some consensus on that. My guess is that his next edit will in any case be his last. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh don't be so ridiculous. Blocked indef. Back to retirement now. Bye. Black Kite 18:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Resolved

Could an admin block this account User talk:J.delanoy is an imbecilic motherfucker, I have reported it to UAA but seems to be heavily backlogged. BigDunc 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Willking1979. BigDunc 11:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that blatant could probably be taken to WP:AIV, where it might get faster results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

J.delanoy seems to have a fan here, has the IP been traced and blocked yet? raseaC^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. J.Delanoy himself is a checkuser, and it would certainly be ethically justified for him to use his skills in isolating that character if he wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Panic! at the Disco vandalism

The Panic! at the Disco article is being vandalized, and when attempts to remove it are made, they get reverted. Near the bottom, there is a painting someone put there of circus performers claiming it's from a P!@TD concert. There was an attempt to remove it but a user said "Not sure how that's vandalism". Also, on the article's Talk page the issue is brought up and the user who reverted the removal says "How are you sure that's a painting?" Can someone protect the page or at least tell the person that keeps putting the picture back to stop? NevershoutBarney! (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a painting, it's a photo and one that arguably has a lot of encyclopaedic merit given it's position within the article (in the performance section). The license is fine and unless there's better quality picture (this one isn't great) it should stay. This certainly isn't an AN/I issue. raseaC^{talk to me} 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a photo. (There's a painting in the background.) Does the group have a copyright on their performances that this photo might be violating? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The removing user has not explained how this picture is fake or how it is a painting. Valid and useful pictures are not pieces of vandalism. Timmeh 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:71.254.178.92

User at IP address has consistently vandalized articles. See recent history for Matthew Underwood.Bjones (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your report. However, they haven't been active for a few days, and because the individuals behind IP addresses can change we need more recent activity (or evidence of long-term abuse from the same IP address) before we'd think about blocking. If you happen to catch them at it while they're active, the best place to report would be at WP:AIV. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 14:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll keep that in mind.Bjones (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:King of Mercia

Resolved

 – King of Mercia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked indef by Tnxman307. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughly unpleasant editor. Full of vicious personal attacks, and more often than not, unproductive edits. There's already a couple of editors following their edits, but any extra admins purely for the sake of neutrality would be appreciated (he has attacked the last admin who blocked him by calling him a "pathetic C*nt" here). I'm sure if they persist, it won't be long before they are indef blocked. _Will^dow (Talk) 16:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him for 48 hours, and straight back off his block he's back with POV edits and personal insults directed at me. Although I'm used to it, I wouldn't object if another admin decided he is not fitting in here and should be shown the door. I'm fed up of directing him to our policies and guidelines. Rodhullandemu 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for this, if nothing else. TNXMan 16:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, nationalistic POV pushing, removal of references and edit war

Massive POV pushing at protected article Romania. The story:

Background information: Transylvania had/has a mixed Romanian, Hungarian and German population and was part of Hungary before 1918. After World War I the territory became part of Romania after the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1920.

A Romanian user, Criztu began to remove Hungary related edits -or edits made by Hungarian users- on January 25 2010 when he changed Kingdom of Hungary to Habsburg Empire but that was later corrected. (Transylvania was part of Hungary before it became part of the Habsburg Empire) At 20:40 user Criztu re-added the information in an incorrect way, but another user fixed it (see this link).However user Criztureverted this edit with a comment "much better order", although it was incorrect. Another user fixed it again, but it was reverted again by Criztu ("nopeee, this is chronologically better"). After user Qorilla specified the date (exactly how long was Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia ruled by the Romanian Prince Michael the Brave), but was reverted by user Criztu and he added unsourced information about the oppression of the Romanian people by Hungarians. (see link) On 2010 January 27 he made an edit with the following comment:"dear hungarian friends, i know u hate the formulation "Transylvania united with Romania" but the international law (Hungary adheres to it also) recognize Romania as a unitary state. so please" On 2010 January 27 Criztu, with the comment "slavs were nice people, we forgot to put them in the paragraph tho." added the following unencyclopedic text: "The Slavs also settled this beautiful land during this period", but his changes were reverted by another user, but Criztu made a revert too. On 2010 January 28 heremoved the information that Hungarians are a sizeable minority in Transylvania, although 1,434,377 Hungarians live in Transylvania, according to the Romanian census from 2002 (see article:Hungarians in Romania). On 2010 January 28 his edits were reverted by another user with the comment "to eliminate POV and ideological edits", however, Criztu reverted this edit too, but User:Man with one red shoe reverted him again and warned him to do not push his POV. On 2010 January 28 User:Rokarudi expanded the article, with the information that the defeated Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon, which outcome was that Transylvania became part of Romania. User:Criztu moved to the talkpage and requested sources to prove that Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon "dear hungarian person, who thinks it is a fact that Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty"..."Please provide a reliable source publishing "Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon" (See: [[Talk:Romania#Hungary forced to sign Trianon Treaty and other stuff]]) When I saw this I added two reliable, English third-party published secondary sources to prove this, (including Encyclopædia Britannica) but he immediately removed the reference and reformulated the article to hide this fact, so I reverted him and I asked him to prove his statements. Meanwhile, Criztu reverted my revert and marked it as "revisionistic POV" (Britannica!). User Criztu thinks, that according to the text of the treaty, which is a primary source "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories (including Transylvania) Transylvania)", so Hungary gave Transylvania to Romania, and he doesn't accepts the aspects of moder, neutral sources written by historians that as a defeated country, Hungary had to sign this treaty with this text. He pushes his POV and the "text of the treaty" (Although I told him this "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"), and he removes everything, what doesnt fit into it (reliable, modern, published english sourcesfrom historians). The discussion is useless. See the "efforts" of the discussion: 0 effect.

Sources which prove that Hungary was forced -but according to Criztu revisionist POV pushers- to sign the Treaty of Trianon:

"Although two million Magyars lived in Transylvania, Hungary was forced to sign the treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920" From: Spencer Tucker,Laura Matysek Wood,Justin D. Murphy, The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. 1999. p. 691. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

"[Hungary] was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon" (June 4Chisholm, Hugh (1922). The Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica Co.. p. 418. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

I am requesting administrator intervention to resolve this problem.--B@xter⁹ 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify people if you are reporting them here. Second, walls of text are very likely to be ignored (and personally, I'm not bothering). Third, content dispute stuff isn't appropriate here. Follow dispute resolution, and this isn't the next step. Fourth, I think this is moot as User:Anonimu has at least acknowledged the concern here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Human Rights Believer

Human Rights Believer was initially blocked by myself for 12 hours, then made a personal attack against my person, so I extended the block to 24 hours. The reason for the block was a topic ban on any Balkans related articles. They then expressed regrets at this, so I unblocked. Soon thereafter they started again. I have now extended the block to an indefinite block.

I am taking this block to review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Butcher of the Balkans couldn't have been a more blatant violation, in my mind. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur: This editor has a long history of WP:POINT violations, most recently here. The creation of an article in the face of a specific topic ban was just another example, for which he was blocked for a week. I think overall, he is not a net benefit to this project and should be shown the door. Rodhullandemu 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be wise however to consider previous ArbCom rulings. Note this case. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Principles Principle #4 reads:

4) In non-emergency situations, administrators should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves. Passed 7 to 0 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

:--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The standard block length is normally 24 hours, I chose 12 hours in a good faith attempt to allow them back to editing as soon as possible. When I saw the response, I realised that wasn't going to happen so I increased it. I probably should have been more clear in my response. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse - This user has taken up an inordinate amount of time, and is very good at "I can't hear you." This was a very clear, very blatant breach. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block Between changes like [32] and [33], edit summaries like [34], and refusing to work out problems, it's evident that this block is not a "retaliation" under any reasonable person's definition and is simply to protect the project. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If that was a reference to my comment I just want to clarify, I mean no accusation that this block wasn't earned. Only that at one point there was a deviation from best practices. While in this case it may not be a big deal, it's a good thing to remember for the future. That ruling is a protection for admins. I'm only giving advice to take advantage of it in the future.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear; it wasn't meant to be against you, it was more of an "I agree with Cube lurker in that these situations need to be handled carefully, but this is why I endorse it...". I think it was quite clear you endorsed the block, and my statement was not intended to rebut you in any manner. :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. It's the ever-present dificulty of written text. The tone of comments can be read different ways and sometimes it's a guessing game.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block The editor is either willfully disregarding clearly communicated consensus rulings against him or is extremely incompetent. I highly suspect the former to be the case. A Balkans-related topic ban pretty clearly precludes the editor creating articles with the word "balkans" in the title. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Editor completely reneged on the multiple promises made on their talkpage. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally endorse the block, and the comments on the blocked user's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - looks good to me. User appears to be bound and determined to POV-push as hard as possible, despite well-intended warnings to the contrary. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Dorey moving his talk pages around

I just saw that User:Peter Dorey moved his talk page to User talk:Yerodretep, which is an unregistered username. Probably not the best of ideas, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than taking any action on it myself. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved back and left message (it's his username in reverse...) ninety:one 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I also left him a note pointing to WP:CHU, in case that is what he is after. Shereth 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Abuse/Vandalism - Article needs to be temporarily locked from anonymous edits

Resolved

 – Semi'd until 1 February by Floquenbeam. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Kansas State basketball page is being vandalized by KU fans in anticipation of the upcoming basketball game with Kansas State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_State_Wildcats_men%27s_basketball

Changes are being repeatedly made to the venue, calling it "Allen Fieldhouse West"

The correct name for the venue is "Bramlage Coliseum"

Can an administrator please look into this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.203.246 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted to the correct version. I'm only seeing the one vandal edit today. My personal opinion is that it's worth keeping an eye on, but we might want to hold off on protection until we see if any further vandalism occurs.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Although the same edits are being repeated. It may well be that this does need to go to WP:RFPP--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested protection at WP:RFPP--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's being hit really bad.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Today22

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Tnxman307. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a sockpuppet of Xtinadbest (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest, WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Xtinadbest/Archive), Today22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that I can't keep up with. Removing speedy and AFD templates from every article she's been involved with, primarily articles that are being speedied because she created them.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported to WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

starblueheather, pointy edit warring, harassment claims

This issue really needs a neutral party to look at it.

Recently, Starblueheather (talk · contribs) added results of an ongoing reader poll from Washington Post to a bunch of online comics. (examples: [35], [36], [37], [38]). After Rjanag (talk · contribs) brought it to the user's talk page, a discussion ensued. Consensus among other editors (Rjanag, myself, Conti) was fairly clear, but the editor chose to see things differently.

The editor proceeded to add the content back to the comics with a pointy edit summary (examples: [39], [40], [41]), then began pointy edit warring on an image used on the Xkcd page. (examples: [42], [43], [44], [45])

Rjanag warned the editor about edit warring, Starblueheather then invoked WP:NPA, tag-teaming and harassment in the response to this warning and also issued a NPA warning against rjanag. (examples: [46], [47], [48])

While I admire the stubborn enthusiasm and wikilawyering by Starblueheather, the whole thing is a dramafest that shouldn't have had to happen, especially after consensus was shown. More importantly, it isn't an issue that has been dropped by Starblueheather (ongoing edits to xkcd). I'm really hoping an outside admin can look at this and handle it however necessary. Starblueheather has exhausted my supply of AGF, and I assume the other editors who have had the patience to deal with this editor must be getting close to that limit. tedder (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Starblue's first NPA complaint was not totally out of line; in my edit summary at the article I did say that she was editing out of "jealousy that her earlier edits weren't included", or something like that, which could be construed as something of a personal attack (although I think it's still relevant). Although I agree with you that her later complaints (specifically "harassment", when all I had done was leave a message saying that she's welcome to seek other opinions through the talk page or 3O) were over the top. The real issue, of course, is edit warring. Starblue getting mad at me at her own talk page is something I can live with so I'm not too concerned about incivility, but if it prevents her from engaging in discussion (and if she keeps edit warring in the meantime, against consensus) then it would be a problem worth worrying about. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

In that manner, the second NPA complaint isn't terribly out of line, either, as you did make a throwaway comment in your editsummary. However, it's another example of the tendentious nature the user is employing to not address the root issue. tedder (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's where I disagree with Tedder and friends: Tedder and friends claim that performing simple counting is original research and who can really say that there are 22 semifinalists for best webcomic of the decade when the Washington Post blog explicitly says there are 22 and anyone with two hands and half a foot can count them and see there are 22 . According to Tedder and friends, we limit article content based on notability, despite Wikipedia:Notability saying explicitly "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Tedder and friends further believe that Teder's blog is as notable as a Washington Post blogger, despite Tedder and friends failing to provide a link to Tedder's notable blog, and despite WP:WEB saying that blogs published by the Washington Post are notable. ("web-specific content is deemed notable [if] The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine ...") Not sure why these people believe notability limits article content, not sure why they think the Washington Post blogs are not notable, not sure why they think the Washington Post is not a reliable source for a Washington Post reader poll, not sure why they think counting to 22 is original research, not sure why they think information about being a semifinalist in The Washington Post's readers poll of best webcomics of the decade doesn't belong in an article on a webcomic, and I'm not sure why they've been harassing me and making personal attacks, but I sure which they'd stop the attacks and improve their encyclopedia writing. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

TL;DR. This is not a place for reiterating the old content dispute (most people watching this board are, unfortunately, not interested in it) but for dealing with the behavior issues. If you can briefly state your case about your recent edits to xkcd and your talk page (i.e., your edits about the image, not about the poll, which is a separate issue and on which consensus has already been reached) I am sure the people at this noticeboard will give them full consideration. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Online, unscientific reader polls are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you direct me to some policy or guideline, rather than just your personal opinion, that says reader polls and other Open access polls are not reliable sources for information on those polls? It is contrary to my understanding of sourcing policy, and contrary to Wikipedia practice such as Films_considered_the_greatest_ever#Audience_polls. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Starblueheather, thanks! I guess I've made new friends in Rjanag and Conti, according to you. In any case, the mention to my personal blog was a literary device (analogy) to show why a poll-in-progress from the Washington Post is not to be treated the same as, say, an article from the front page of the same paper. The issue isn't "simple counting", it's the poll itself. However, you are missing the point of this ANI thread, which is about behavior, not the RSness of a given poll. tedder (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Stablueheather is by no means the only person who has had these kind of problemsfrom Rjanag. I had to ask him formally to stop hounding and PA - his response was to archive this request so it did not appear on his user page. NBeale (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I took this off-course with the RS issue, but to answer Starblueheather's question, it is generally understood that web polls with no controls against multiple voting or other fraud are completely unreliable. But, for some more thoughts on the matter, here is a discussion from WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Back to the central topic, though, I can see why Tedder has thrown up his hands in the matter. I'm not sure that another admin can do much at this point, but between the diffs above and this gem of an edit summary, it's clear that neither side is entirely faultless. —DoRD (?) (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing and vandalism

Dear Administrators,

I would like to report one user, Rochass (talk · contribs), for ongoing POV pushing on several Yugoslav-related articles and removal of referenced chunks of text without any discussion, which are pure acts of vandalism. From Rochass' contributions, it is more than evident what's going on here:

• War crimes in the Kosovo War: His edits entail complete removal of the "Background" section, removal of part of the list containing articles concerning attacks on Serbs, rewriting text that is referenced to his own POV of the events, without providing a single reference,...

• Tuzla Massacre: Complete removal of the "Background" section of the article, which is referenced, and then, after he was reverted, he removed it again, without a word written on the article talk page.

• Role of the media in the Yugoslav wars Complete removal of the "NATO propaganda" section in the article, without explanation. The section was very well referenced.

I can go on, but it's getting really frustrating to deal with this user. I have contacted him about these matters, but he has not replied and, instead, has reverted my edits that re-added the chunks of text he removed without explanation. I would like to kindly ask the Administrators of Wikipedia to look into this matter, as I've tried talking to the user, but he just continued vandalizing articles.

Kind regards,

--Cinéma C 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Cinema is lying. He is a Serbian propagandist who is trying to include false information in some articles related to War Crimes committed by the Serbs. Here is an example: He tried to justify 1995 Tuzla massacre [49] with 1992 Tuzla column case. He wrote that Tuzla massacre was a reaction to Tuzla column case that happened ten days before Tuzla massacre, but that case was 3 years before the massacre, so this is obvious example of his actions. Rochass (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look over both editors claims. Rochass has made those edits and removed the material. But, Cinema C also put in the paragraph about the 10 days before and sourced non-english articles. Cinema C tried to talk with Rochass on his talkpage. I suggest waiting for both users to actually talk about it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Rockass'? HalfShadow 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo Fixed, my bad. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme moving an article just before nominating for deletion, maybe gaming the system

Just recently, User:JBsupreme moved Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients to List of Internet Relay Chat clients [50] without an edit summary and I couldn't see a reason for that. Especially because it obviously is a comparison article and he said on the talk page that he'd nominate it for deletion "next week" [51]. Therefore, I requested the move to be reverted [52]. I also notified JBsupreme on the user talk page about that [53]. Now, JBsupreme nominated the moved article for deletion: [54]. This initial version of the AfD lists one previous 2007 AfD about a totally different article located here and not the recent one to the old title of the article here. To illustrate that the old AfD isn't about the same article content, one can take a look at the version the 2007 AfD was about here. I have the strong suspicion that this move right before AfD'ing the article was intended and that JBsupreme intentionally didn't link the most recent AfD about the article which resulted in speedy keep to game the system. I didn't attempt to resolve this dispute with JBsupreme directly, because he didn't reply to my message about the requested move and my involvement in the recent Arbcom case about JBsupreme and others, where he refused to comment. I'm not sure the current state of the AfD is how it should be and would ask an (uninvolved?) administrator to fix the issue. Also, JBsupreme not using edit summaries when making that nomination for deletion wasn't appropriate, he was told to use them just a few hours before making it [55]. --thommey (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)