Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎

41.243.171.14‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come back from a 48-hour AN/I ban to make edits to Debi Gliori and an attack on Talk:Debi Gliori. Can you help out, please? Esowteric+Talk 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: "recently banned" should read "recently blocked". Lacking nicotine late in the evening, I unfortunately posted in haste. Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My response on the user talk page:

"Hi, I've reverted your recent edit to Debi Gliori in which you deleted accurate and reliably sourced information from The Times with the edit summary " Editor has not even read the story, see his twitter, using an attention grabbing headline from a story you have not even read is not a NPOV." I have read the lead paragraphs to the article, as these do not require a subscription." See edit diff. The source confirms the Wiki content that the IP deleted. Esowteric+Talk 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has made numerous postings as a Wiki editor at The Guardian, AbsoluteWrite.com, in which he has made unfounded accusations that I am involved with an involved party of Debi Gliori's Wiki page, he has while in the forum on Wiki business outed me. He has detailed his plan to "dilute the controversy" by posting book reviews, which is what Debi Gliori asked for in her blog. He is clearly on some sort of White Knight mission on behalf of Debi Gliori and has shown a clear conflict of interest. Not to mention the unfounded accusations he has made against me. He has also been telling people on twitter that he is monitoring me, using his web server skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it a little strange that you should have visited my blog, my dropbox account, my web site and my twitter account. Esowteric+Talk 22:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Put the IP under your pillow and the stalker fairy will bring you a dollar! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening me up. Esowteric+Talk 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I said that I would dilute the controversy, because it was becoming WP:UNDUE. Please stop twisting everything. Visit my twitter or my blog. You won't find me calling you a troll anywhere. Esowteric+Talk 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are so hopelessly involved in this page, you are stalking me, and you don't even see it, you enter a thread as a Wiki editor, you then reveal where thread users can get my IP from, you then spend the next 48 hours telling everyone that you're being attacked by the dark forces of the internet. What have I done in the last 48 hours ? read your messages rallying up the forces against evil. I adopt a peaceful wait and see, you incite others against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All I linked to was the publicly-available edit history for the article. And my username and your IP are logged and displayed every time we edit. See the end of your comment above. Anyhow, I need to go to bed now. Esowteric+Talk 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules Esowteric has posted information on his user page, my usernames at 2 other sites, this information can clearly be used to help identify me and users could contact me using this information which is in violation of; "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia."

None of the information he has posted was available via my userpage and is clearly an attempt along with his numerous other communications to incite others against me WP:OUTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If User:Esowteric engaged in any outing of the IP here on the pages of Wikipedia, I have not come across it yet. Two of the IP's edits at Debi Gliori have been revision-deleted, which is usually not a good sign about the person who made the edits. The continuation of off-wiki disputes here on Wikipedia is discouraged. I've now read the contents of Debi Gliori#Controversy two or three times and am uncertain on whether it belongs in the article. I have trouble seeing the IP editor as a victim, at least if I limit my study to the visible edits by all parties here on Wikipedia. After reviewing the contents of this ANI, as well as the previous one here that involved an obvious legal threat by the IP, I suggest a longer block of the IP for disruption. The future of the Controversy section might need discussing at WP:BLP/N but that is independent of any outing issues. It's a question of relevance and of the type of material appropriate for inclusion in a BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is an interesting idea and may provide an exit strategy from this mess. See Talk:Debi Gliori for the history of the controversy section. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP was blocked not "banned". See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has posted my usernames from two other forums on his personal talk page HERE ON WIKI, in your own rules you say this is a "personal attack" and can lead to "harm". I never gave Esowteric permission to reveal this information and he is clearly inciting others to harm me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You publicly acknowledged that this was you. I wholeheartedly apologize for any distress or harm that I have caused you, and I will learn from this lesson. However, I do not agree with you that it is "Debi Gliori and her army of fans who include J.K. Rowling" who have defamed and cyberbullied either the artist, Angus Stewart or you. Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should be reblocked. GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we let this matter settle down, please?

The "involved party", artist Angus Stewart, recognizing the damage that this has done, has recently issued a heartfelt plea for the issue to settle down. Many people, including Debi Gliori are thankful and grateful for this manly approach:

He writes on his Facebook page for "Tobermory Cat":

"[Tobermory Cat] May we close this thread please. I would rather like things to settled down. It seems my idea to follow the process of creating a celebrity cat turns out to be an extremely dangerous and damaging idea. It has caused a great deal of hurt and I want no more of it. My understanding of what is and what is not acceptable is misguided. It has been extremely hurtful to Debi and she does not deserve it. I met her once and she does not deserve to be hurt by my work. I don’t like that. I am guilty of following an idea too far - the fog came down and I forgot about where I wanted to go. The good thing is Debi's book came out and its a good book and will give more pleasure to more people than this page will do if this is the way its going. Good things can come from difficult beginnings and truly hope that is the case for Debi’s book. I need a bit of time to think about this so if possible could everyone take a bit of a deep breath. Time to think about good stuff not bad. I would really appreciate that. Sunday [3 November 2012] at 12:20am · Edited · Unlike · 4"

Please can we allow this issue to settle down? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see, 41.243.171.14‎? No controversy section; the original allegations of copyright theft against Ms. Gliori, or the full story? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

− Yes I did acknowledge this was me on the forum, which I believe was the best response in the circumstances, but it wasn't for you to post the identifying information without asking me first, you then reposted the information on your talkpage. I am not sure how you expect other editors to contribute to the Debi Gliori page if this is how you behave when someone makes edits you don't like. Another editor thinks the whole controversy page you added should be removed, are you going to add another section to your talkpage called "Intimidation II", out them and then twitter for help? I think you need to understand that comment sections on news sites and forums are just people's opinions and not a Wiki of the facts. If people cannot voice their opinions without fear of reprisals then freedom of speech is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech and the right to respond to perceived errors. Perhaps the best thing for you to do here is to tell us what your opinions are of Ms. Gliori's behaviour (specifically the copyright issue and the cyberbullying). That is, after all, the crux of the matter. You argued, for example, in removed posts at The Guardian that Ms. Gliori had stolen copyright "ideas" and that her blog post was thoroughly "passive-aggressive". Regards and apologies again, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: "Ms. Gliori's blog describes the first meeting as an epic battle. She claims he was digging into her life and lunged at her, both of which are absolute nonsense. She claims she "snapped" and that "Hugh dug his heals in" when they should have just left. She mocks the importance of Facebook in Mr. Stewart's life claiming that it's insignificant in hers. Then her official line is of a victim whose very existence is threatened by the internet. Maybe if she had stayed on topic about the idea that was or wasn't stolen instead of Mr. Stewart's character her argument would be sound. Instead she just goes to her mob of fans' lowest instincts, which is the very same accusation she makes against Mr. Stewart, both are guilty of appealing to their fans for action when they should have resolved the matter amongst themselves. It also seems that she was very hostile towards Mr. Stewart before he took any action against her. What should be noted is that this story has been made into an issue of cyber-bullying by the press and not copyright and Ms. Gliori seems, so far, quite happy to go along with this. I think that it's important to note that the current flavour of the month for the press is "Cyber-bullying" and editors should be wary of any bias in the press because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to express your opinion on the copyright issue, as this is absolutely crucial to the case? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: ""Attacked by internet troll" should fall under Godwin's Law, it's just too easy to label anything you don't like as a "troll". Is it really immoral or evil to accuse someone of theft if you believe it to be true? If a wiki page reports someone as having been viciously trolled, does that actually explain what happened ? Not really, only that the writer believed it to be immoral and disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright issue was explained at great length at Copyright – words and images, not ideas, titles or cats and later at AbsoluteWrite, by writing professionals. Esowteric+Talk 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright it's worth noting that the publisher/book seller/author talk as if the cat were still alive, prior to the author writing her book, the cat alive was The Tobermory Cat of Mr. Stewart. Also the author describes the cat they were going to write the book about "even has it's own Facebook page". So if the real cat was dead what other cat could they possibly be talking about. I really think that the evidence at hand shows that the publisher/book seller/author intended writing about Mr. Stewart's cat(fictional creation), and as Mr. Stewart has pointed out there were many other similarities, of his creating, that appeared in drafts by the author. The author also admitted she had to go to the island to find more about the cat, but it was dead, so it's likely she could have injected some of Mr. Stewart's creation from talking to the locals as some of Mr. Stewart's observations of the cat must have already made it into local folklore. I don't think The Tobermory cat belongs to Mr. Stewart but they have obviously used some of his fictional creation and that is why they visited Mr. Stewart in the first place. Their original claims that they only knew he was taking photos of the cat are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All we can go on is what is reported in reliable and verifiable sources. This is why I used the words "unproven allegations" (with intentional redundancy), rather than simply "allegations" (whereby mud might stick) and obviously, I could not use the words "unfounded allegations" (as Wikipedia is not a court of law). Esowteric+Talk 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything is said other than "Debi Gliori and Mr. Stewart are involved in a bitter copyright dispute" it would be unreliable. "Viciously attacked by internet trolls" is journalist-speak for "Don't let my career die behind this pay-wall", if you use this then we will have to start talking about troll massacres in describing other events. The word troll is now used to describe anything that offends anyone on the internet, so what she's really saying is "Viciously attacked by words they didn't like" which simplifies to "offended". Is this TMZ or Wiki ?

I also fail to understand what a cat that lived in the previous century, or two that lived in a distillery have to do with this dispute, both parties base their dispute on a cat that died recently and one's living. This is not The Tobermory Cat Wiki page is it? Why is there a discussion of other cats of the same name ? Neither of their works are based on these cats or am I missing a source because it was her army of internet fans that came up with this information after the fact and Ms Gliori makes no mention of it in the design process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! The copyright dispute depends on the artist Angus Stewart having produced a substantially original creation about a cat named "Tobermory" or "Tobermory Cat" that is copyrightable, an issue that has been extensively argued on-line by writing professionals.

The lead paragraph of the controversy section is there to provide background information to introduce the controversy section and put it in perspective, and to add counterbalance to the allegations.

It is up to the reader to then decide for himself or herself whether others might have come up with the idea of a cat called Tobermory, made him famous, or whether the actual living cat Tobermory was already well known; or whether Mr. Stewart had come up with a substantially original creation. This is much better than leading with the otherwise provocative and unexplained paragraph "In 2011–12, Debi Gliori was at the centre of a disagreement about copyright surrounding a character named "Tobermory Cat" ..." Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take this back to a POV/attack entry alleging copyright infringement against Debi Gliori, with no rebuttal, redress or counterbalance, but that is not how Wikipedia works. See first edit, later edit. The problem with words like "allegedly stole" and the selective use of citations is that mud sticks and you have to be proactive to counterbalance that. Esowteric+Talk 09:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both parties are in a copyright dispute, nothing has been decided by a court of law, the views of Ms. Gliori's fans, fellow authors and journalists are prejudicial. They would never be used to decide what is fair elsewhere, why here at Wiki ? What do the involved parties say about the matter and forget about the rest.

Ms. Gliori in her blog makes it very clear the cat the publisher wanted the story to be about "even has it's own Facebook page" and the publisher asked her to look at the FaceBook page before starting her book. That is very relevant and would be the words of Ms. Gliori on her own Wiki page. This should be included on the Wiki if you are going to use a mud tree like "viciously attacked by internet trolls" to throw at Mr. Stewart. Currently the section on controversy is the view being put forward by her fans, with next to nothing about what she actually said and what Mr. Stewart actually said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section draws on reliable and verifiable sources from both "sides" which chose to publish. Ms. Gliori's blog being a primary/self-published source, the article does no more than describe the nature of the post, it does not draw any quotable content from it. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we, therefore, invite Angus Stewart, Debi Gliori and her publisher to view and, if they see fit, comment on this thread? Esowteric+Talk 14:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-wiki harassment by User:Euroflux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Lilley and Michael Portillo

Peter Lilley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Portillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles (and the talk pages) about two prominent British public figures are currently subject to WP:BLP violations which are poorly sourced. Philip Cross (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What specific violations? Being poorly sourced is, alas, an issue with 99% of articles, BLP or not. GiantSnowman 17:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are being named in blogs in relation to the Wales child abuse scandal. Both pages need to be protected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not the only articles being hit like this. I have revdeleted the offending edits on both articles and added them to my watchlist. Bencherlite^Talk 17:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now protected Peter Lilley (3 weeks) and Talk:Peter Lilley (24 hours). More eyes on the articles of leading UK Conservative politicians from the Thatcher era welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 18:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Portillo? Unusual choice... Already have the more prominent ones on my watchlist. But this is going to continue across lots of tory MP bios until the politician involved is publicly named. This could take awhile due to the gag order on naming in the UK. Hopefully a non-UK RS will print something soon so the focus can be narrowed. Until then its just going to have to be dealt with as/when they show up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

IP address vandal (Withdrawn from noticeboard)

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

---

IP User 76.178.160.125 just made a vandalizing edit to the page Frank L. VanderSloot dif. The user's only other contributions are two acts of vandalism Fiona Apple's page (dif and dif). Andrew (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) Why didn't you take this to WP:AIV? Go Phightins! 20:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that's my mistake. I will refile the case there. Andrew (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Dapopewarrior

This offensively-named user has done nothing but create trivial articles which were all speedily-deleted, committed plagiarism, and is now engaged in vandalism (see [2]). Does the building really need to be ablaze to put out the fire? Quis separabit? 20:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

While the seemingly arbitrary change of birth year on Katherine Helmond may not appear to be vandalism, this editor has also added made-up dates of birth to at least two other articles [3], [4]. They've also been adding and/or oddly altering protection templates, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. It's posssible that all of these were all misguided efforts to be helpful, but it's disruptive nevertheless. I'll leave him a note about these issues. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Non admin claiming to be an admin

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

---

Warter_199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Warter 199 (who is being investigated as a sockpuppet of a rather prolific sockpuppeteer) starts off by filling in his userpage with templates claiming he's an admin. He's made additional edits since then, still keeping the admin templates.

Obviously, he is not an admin. At the very least he needs to know that the template he's using doesn't make him an admin, and considering his only other edits are in line with a long-term sockpuppeteer... I'll let someone else decide, but it's pretty clear what I think since I filed an SPI. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they copy pasted tweaked someone else's user page? I removed the admin stuff from their page. Nobody Ent 23:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. If the other behavior didn't match a sockpuppeteer who's claimed to work for the government and for companies he's written about, I'd have just assumed that, removed it myself, and notified him of it. Given that other behavior, his failure to remove those templates after editing his user page four more times has me wanting a few more eyes on him. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You properly filed an SPI report, and it's been confirmed that he's a sock; it's just awaiting administrative closure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement of intent to go against consensus, followed by that action

User:Beleg Strongbow stated here on his talk page that he was aware that he did not have consensus to incorporate his preferred version of the article Maafa 21, but that he was going to put it in "anyway". (He has been working on his version for weeks, and there has been a lot of discussion about how it is irrelevant, incorrect, misleading, inappropriate, filled with synthesis, original research and undue weight.) About three hours later, he indeed posted his version and was reverted 90 minutes later by Roscelese. He quickly reverted to restore his version. This is clearly disruptive editing following a declaration to engage in disruptive editing. Note that the article is under 1RR sanctions because it is within the general topic of abortion. Binksternet (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

User notified. Also, I reverted his massive edit. I'm not terribly sure he understands how consensus works, so someone may need to break that down for him. Ishdarian 03:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for notifying him; I should have done that.

I'm not so sure he is innocent of knowledge about how consensus works. His obstinacy looks purposeful to me. Binksternet (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

My intent has not been to disrupt legitimate editing or to undermine legitimate consensus. I have sought consensus, continually asking for assistance from Binksternet and Roscelese. Please look through the multiple conversation threads and judge for yourself, but I feel that I have been acting in good faith and have made many concessions, based upon feedback. In the end, I was simply tired of being bullied and concluded that consensus was never one of their goals. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is when a group of people come to an agreement about something. When most of the group disagree with your suggestion, you can't go ahead and ignore them. This applies even when there are only a small number of people in the discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are, of course, speaking in general terms that should be obvious to anyone, but if you are willing to review the corresponding discussions within the Talk page, you may see that this simplistic definition of consensus does not exactly fit. You may also observe the following: "there have been many violtations of key behavioral policies, such as WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:DNB, etc., but none of the corresponding comments were made by me, with the exception of the three borderline uncivil comments for which I have already apologized." -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No really. Read WP:CONSENSUS. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

quick revdel please

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

---

this [9] - and my following revert (should have thought about what I was doing :( ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't quick but I deleted it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

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

An IP has changed hundreds of politicians' birthplaces to historically incorrect place names

Over the last few days User talk:67.49.49.195 has changed the birthplaces of hundreds of politicians (it looks like mostly Africans and Europeans) to the current place names of cities/countries/provinces/etc. which are historiclly incorrect - for example he/she changed Salva Kiir Mayardit's birth country to South Sudan which did not exist at the time. The name changes in most cases also result in the incorrect place article to be linked. These edits violate WP:MOSBIO. In many (most?) cases the articles are subject to BLP rules thus AIUI remedial action is urgent. (The editor concerned has been notified.) Roger (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just issued a final warning. A temporary block will follow. --Tone 08:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone go through the edits and revert them? --Tone 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some but it's too many to check at the moment. --Tone 09:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)The IP is not responding at all to multiple attempts to get their attention - can someone please block this editor to limit the ongoing damage to WP and force him/her to attend to this attempt to discussand resolve the issue. As it is, reverting the edits is going to be a large job, I've done a few but I do actually have a life outside of WP. Roger (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning posted by Tone has put the brakes on the IP's editing. Is the there an accepted method for mass reverting the edits? Roger (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, it hasn't. One week block. Mass revert makes sense, not sure how to do it, though. Bot? --Tone 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the contributions list but started random sampling, and I think a lot of them have been reverted by various editors chipping in, as I couldn't find one that hadn't been changed. Will check again later but well done, people. Britmax (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, still some to do. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSROLLBACK might have been useful :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that, until I encountered this user's edits to Kailash Purryag. The one I undid was obviously bad, this one was alright, and the validity of that one depepends on whether you like red links in your infoboxes (I don't care and have no reason to, so I've left it alone). Graham87 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• A friendly reminder that we really do need to end the ability of unregistered IPs to edit. Nothing but problems... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregoryat and disruptive edits

Over the last few days, User:Gregoryat has seemingly committed several offenses against Wikipedia standards and guidelines. It all starts with an article the subject created about themselve at Greg Terhune. While that isn't of itself a big issue, their behavior and actions since that point have become disruptive. From Wiki-lawyering, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3), to personal attacks, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5), to telling multiple experienced editors that don't understand established wiki policy (too many to list, but main issue lies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune). The user has been warned of their behavior, but the person continues to engage in bad behavior ((Warning and deleting someone else's comment at the deletion discussion). Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked for a week for operating a sockpuppet (LA Kings 23 (talk · contribs)). Favonian (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's also accused me of libel (three times at last count?), described editors as "stupid", and accused others of "gross negligence". He's been blocked for socking for a week, but given his attitude at the AfD he is clearly not here to contribute positively. I personaly would favour an indef. GiantSnowman 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess while I was putting together the list, he was blocked. So you can add sockpuppetry to the other charges in case he wants to come back. Patken4 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note the one week block was placed based solely on my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregoryat. If any admin would like to extend the block based on other behavioural factors then I have no problem with that. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly not here to be helpful. Those mentions of libel should be an indication for an indef don't you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Saying the L word doesn't automatically make a legal threat. If you delete this I'll sue you for libel is a legal threat. Editors frequently discuss whether an edit is a "copyvio," for example, but that's not a legal threat either. Nobody Ent 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree he hasn't made any explicit legal threats - but he is clearly not here to be constructive. GiantSnowman 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I do see where you're coming from. I've thought about this before and I feel that if an editor is continuously using "libel", specifically referring to libel against himself, in order to intimidate other editors and skew discussion then that's probably grounds for an indefinite block. Like GS said, he's not here to help is he? Anyway, probably redundant Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't cost us much to let the block time out and see if post-block behavior improves. (I consider AGF to be a code of conduct for ourselves, not a probability assessment.) Nobody Ent 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this unfold and trying to help Gregory for the last few days. The legalistic comments did not rise to the level of a legal threat or I would have blocked him myself, although I did warn him about the NLT policy since he was headed in that general direction. He also edit warred with Patken4 on his talk page but that seemed to be a newbie misunderstanding of the difference between removing a comment on an article or WP-space talk page and doing so on a user talk page so I again warned but did not block. I have to say the condescending, arrogant, know-it-all attitude of this user does not fill me with hope that they will turn around and become a productive user after the block has expired, but stranger things have happened. As I said on his talk page this whole incident is a textbook example of why it is a bad idea to create autobiographies on WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And now he is removing every post by another user to his talk page, but leaving his own replies to those posts. This sort of childishness does not bode well for the future, and also would seem to contradict his claim to be a law student. (of course one of the sources he provided about himself said his undergrad major was "sports marketing" so I already had my doubts about that) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of his spam from my own talk page, but his behaviour towards me and the other Wikipedia editors involved in the AfD over his personal article was unbelievable - as was the totally off-topic spam about Barack Obama being, in his eyes, Kenyan (which I'm fairly sure was removed). I apologize for some of the name-calling (for want of a better word) I used towards him, it was sheer frustration at the way he was acting both towards me and other editors, but that's no real excuse and I am disappointed with myself for responding in such a manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A pathetic individual; a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath who had a very impoverished upbringing

However wrong I may have been, did I really deserve to be called a "a pathetic individual" and "a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath" who "had a very impoverished upbringing" by User:Tagishsimon? I don't understand how someone can write such things about a person he or she encountered only a day before. All of that is a result of a single, trivial dispute. At first, I did not intend to be all dramatic about this, but it occurred to me that such behaviour should not go unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, you don't, removed comment {{rpa}}.
• Both editors got into an increasing spiral of accusation and counter accusation. I'd encourage both to stop discussing and describing each other. Best way to resolve the disagreement is to get additional assistance; I'd suggest WP:DRN or WP:THIRD. Nobody Ent 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The actual disagreement was resolved immediately. What followed was, well, that. I'm actually ashamed of having taken part in that. Hopefully it's over. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made it clear to the editor that his messages are not welcome to my talk page. He nevertheless refuses to stop writing on my talk page and has called me a "deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies".[10] He's gone too far and I would truly appreciate being spared new insults every time I log in. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio

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

---

This edit (2011) deleted almost the whole article, copying from this site (2007). It should be reverted and cleaned up the chronology. Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 23:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's taken care of--and it's not a matter requiring administrative attention anyway. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oh, and it's not a copyvio--they copied it from us, since the article already contained this content in 2007. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrator violating WP:BITE

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

---

• Nuveen Investments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nickienelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A.K.A. John Galt
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, a newbie User:Nickienelson (well, the account was created in 2010, but has only made a few edits until recently) posted a question on my talk page about Nuveen Investments, asking for help. I had forgotten about this, but last March, I added a few problem templates to the page, among them Undue Weight and Neutrality. The editor asked me for help editing the article, and I provided some basic guidance. The editor also posted at the talk page of Administrator User:OwenX, who has some history of editing that article. Prompted by Nickienelson, I had a look at the page, and saw that fully 3/4ths of it is overloaded with a laundry list of negative claims about the company, many of them totally unsourced, some of them sourced to blogs. An unsourced negative claim about the company was in the lede itself. I deleted the negative claims because, frankly, they violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, as well as at least one of the cited sources violating WP:RS. OwenX reverted this, and did nothing else but add a source to the lede. He then responded on his talk to Nickienelson with extremely bitey language, accusing Nickienelson of being a "corporate lackey" [11], and insisting he will revert edits to the article based (paradoxically) on POV (and COI). Do we really wonder why new editors abandon Wikipedia? Here is someone asking politely at an administrator's talk page for help and was met with unbacked accusations of COI, not to mention implying that Nickienelson and I are acting in tandem to whitewash the article (same diff linked above). Can an uninvolved person please step into this, hopefully help this newbie who has just been bitten by OwenX, and restore some semblance of sanity? OwenX has been notified and I am notifying Nickienelson now. - John Galt ✉ 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• For better or worse, no action will or can ever be taken here against any admins. Someone will soon tell you that this is the wrong forum to complain about abusive admins, and to consider opening an RFCU. Good luck with all that, and try not to get jaded by this experience. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm already jaded, but I'm not going to keep quiet about it. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple Google search for Nickie Nelson Nuveen should make the "newby's" COI obvious Hot Stop (Edits) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you found a possible COI (I did not search as I was assuming good faith). Is that any excuse for his reference to "corporate lackeys" and violating WP:BITE? If this editor does have a COI, there is a proper response to that, and none of them involve name calling. And there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• A claim is allowed to stand unsourced in the lead if it is verified later on in the article. There were problems, maybe, with undue weight, but the WSJ isn't a blog, and Barron's isn't a blog--and those were among the references you removed from the article. Having said that, I don't approve of OwenX phrasing things the way he did so quickly, but it's perhaps understandable given the name issue and the condition of the article, which you turned back into a company brochure. It's reverted, and I suggest you don't hit rollback or undo. I note also that Owen has worked on this article going back to 2008: it may well be so that further digging in the history provides background to these issues, or that Owen simply knows things we don't. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Further: "there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims"--that's probably correct. Good thing that wasn't the case here; one might argue also that there is no excuse for an editor to remove a ton of valuable information and reliable sources from an article without much of a reason. Get to editing the article, that's what it needs. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We really want to encourage corporate PR folks to talk to us if they see problems, as Nelson has done, rather than just deploy people to make biased edits. In that respect OwenX did a terrible job. As for the article, well I don't care. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickienelson's comments allude to canvassing/socking and OwenX had every right to think so because of past history. User:KHCardoza is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of User:Nickienelson. The latter used this IP today which is the same IP that had tried edit-warring with OwenX in the past and KHCardoza made the same edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIC In order to request help from uninvolved Administrators an {{uninvolved}} template should be posted here, on the WP:ANI page, filling correctly all the sections:

{{ Uninvolved | type | explanation/note | answered=yes }}

as to welcome Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED Admins to post comments on some ongoing incident.

Please note that AFAIK ALL Wikipedia ADMINistrators are volunteers, time is money and asking for help should be done only for *REAL* incidents and not for time-wasting nonsense forum-chats.

I hope that this helps.

 —  Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That template should never in a million years be used here in ANI or on AN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Look, the admin was a bit abrasive at most while he was acting in his capacity as an editor. Maybe we should replace WP:BITE with WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY, since it would take care of 99% of BITE violations. Owen invoked WP:BRD as per his prerogative, and now there is an RFC on the talk page. Recommend closing this now the RFC is open, because it all boils down to being a content dispute which can be resolved in the normal way. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to concur (partly) with Betty Logan. The fact that the editor who was WP:BITEY is also an admin is somewhat irrelavent: he was not using admin tools or threats of admin action during what is undoubtedly a content dispute. Indeed, they did not edit war, or violate any policy. Yes, admins are supposed to model correct behaviour - but they're also human. The hazard to Wikipedia articles when they're edited by people with such obvious COI is apparent to anyone who has read this thread or even glanced at Wikipedia as a whole - it can, indeed, be frustrating. If you want to desysop or block anyone for biting anyone (especially an editor with COI) then I do wish you good luck with that process ... start an WP:RFC/U. The real surprise is that the COI user wasn't blocked immediately - now that might have been something to actually complain about. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User check : RobertRosen

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Wikipedia lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits([12] 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW^illiam 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from [13] and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Wikipedia. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Edits by User talk:Carolmooredc on Russia Today

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

---

I am asking for administrative help in response to this edit by user CarolMooreDC in which the user unilaterally modified content that was agreed upon by consensus on either the relevant sub-sections on the RT talk page or through the RT section on the DNR. To justify this, the user provided the revert explanation of, “per talk return to more October 12 NPOV version worked on by several editors; updated good changes follow immediately” however in doing so the user not only removed but also subsequently failed to reinstate the content that was achieved through consensus.

As per WP:BRD, I intended to restore and modify all of the aforementioned text that was achieved through consensus, but overridden through the unilateral edits by the user CarolMooreDC, but as I’m coming off a block, I’ve decided to take this issue here first. Specifically, I draw the administrator’s attention to the following requested changes:

1. As per the RT section on the DNR, moving the Assange paragraph from the history section to the programming section. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to these lines by third-party observer User:Noleander: “Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section.” and “Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path.”

2. As per this edit by third-party observer User:Noleander, reinstating all the the content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to the user’s opinion that, “Although those are valid and belong in the article…” However, as per the RT section on the DNR, a resolution over the name of the headings has yet to be decided upon, so I would leave the headings as shown in the current version of the Wikipedia article as they are for now

2. As the content to be hypothetically reinstated is lengthy, I draw the administrator’s attention to the relevant sub-contents that were disputed and subsequently resolved:

a. The Marcin Maczka material: in particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one?”

b. NY Times article by S. Heyman: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used.”

c. Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this paragraph between myself, User:Carolmooredc and User:Noleander: "FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position." Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed.

In addition to those changes, I would like to make the administrator's aware of the type of content User:Carolmooredc has been uploading onto the RT Wikipedia page. As per this edit, the user believes that statements like, "the Kremlin is using charm, good photography and a healthy dose of sex appeal to appeal to a diverse, skeptical audience. The result is entertaining--and ineffably Russian." is appropriate for a lede for the reception section of the article.

Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For guidance on this issue I recommend editors look at this September 20th block of Festermunk for editwarring on RT (TV network). Also see this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking his talk page which contained his October 31st block for edit warring and battleground behavior on RT (TV network), as well as rejections of his block review; as well as this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking the talk page again. I think Festermunk needs intensive mentoring to understand Wikipedia policy on edit warring. CarolMooreDC 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's should note that the comments by CarolMooreDC do not address whether or not the content that was previously agreed on by consensus should be included in the RT talk page. The user also does not address why the user failed to re-include agreed upon content after the user's edits, in violation of WP:DGF. Administrator's should also note the comments about my past conduct are irrelevant to that what is being discussed and urge that the administrator's focus only what is being proposed for discussion. Festermunk (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint is a WP:Content dispute. And anyone who reads the Dispute Resolution link, the article talk page, the article edit history, or your talk page can easily see what the problem is. I am providing information relevant to this noticeboard. I'm sure someone else will explain it to you. CarolMooreDC 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It has to do with content, but more specifically it has to do with your disruptive editing given how you not only deleted but did not restore content that was already accepted via consensus. That much should've been obvious to anybody who read the original post. Festermunk (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this right now, since the only thing that can come out of this is an indefinite block for Festermunk for persisting, if not (yet) in edit-warring, in battleground behavior. At any rate, there is nothing here for an administrator to do in what is a content matter that needs to be dealt with on the talk page. That Festermunk would come here first is telling and does not bode well for the future, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

As the changes I'm proposing already have consensus but as there has yet to be a response or relevant response addressing the changes I've raised (which is unusual given the high-level of traffic on this page), may I suggest setting a time-frame beyond which silence and consensus for the changes has been established in order to to expedite the process? Perhaps the next 24 hours? In the unlikely scenario that nobody responds within the next 24 hours, then I'll tentatively go ahead with the changes as per consensus. Festermunk (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IP is asking to be blocked

NO, literally, I recieved a note (Look at "Block this address " ) on my talk page from an IP asking that they be blocked. I left them a warning two days ago for vandalism, and since it's a school, it's likely not the same person, but more likely a teacher or something at this same IP asking that it be blocked. Since I can't do that anyway, thought I'd pass it on to an admin. (Yes, it's the same IP asking that their IP be blocked )

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Block#Self-requested_blocks, I don't know if that's gonna happen, though I don't see why not if we can establish that that is a school, and that the message is from someone with the authority to request such a block (or in a position so that their higher ups won't find out/won't care). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a static IP registered to The Halton Board of Education, Ontario [14]. But I don't see any reason to block it right now. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement [15]. Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat [16] but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Poison

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

• http://www.bulletformyvalentine.com/us/music/poison
• http://www.allmusic.com/album/the-poison-mw0000346598
• http://www.musicomh.com/albums/bullet-for-my-valentine_1005.htm
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/music/sites/bullet-for-my-valentine/pages/poison.shtml
• https://itunes.apple.com/es/album/the-poison/id262616083
• http://www.amazon.com/The-Poison/dp/B001VVZ7Y6/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1352393271&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=bullet+for+my+valentine+the+poison
• http://images.coveralia.com/audio/b/Bullet_For_My_Valentine-The_Poison-Trasera.jpg Cristian MH (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Continued harassment of Mr.choppers by an IP

IP user 98.193.61.234 has already been reported here once for abusing Mr.choppers, with the result of the IP being blocked 3 days by Blade. I have occasionally checked on the situation and since the block's end, the IP has made two more edits [18] [19], both of them block-worthy, considering the previous circumstances. Furthermore, the second edit is also threatening, and it implies that the IP is being used a sock. After all, the IP claims to have made many edits over half a decade, but the contributions of that IP are minimal, with all but one coming in about a month's time. I'm not saying that there is anything amiss there, but it certainly is fishy. AutomaticStrikeout 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Users Msc_44, Janedoeare, and Buck Owens talk page.

User:Msc 44 Added a bunch of information to the Buck Owens article. We ended up in a discussion about it at the article talk page. The user and User:Janedoeare have now repeatedly tried to remove the entire conversation claiming that some of it contains the users personal information [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] <-(as IP) and [25] <- Janedoeare. Msc 44 has not said which information they wish to have removed, despite being asked multiple times,[26] [27] and has insisted that the entire conversation be blanked. Janedoeare has left me a level 4 vandalism warning on my talk page with the latest revert. [28]

Msc_44 has been warned by multiple editors on multiple occasions to not remove other people's posts from that talk page. [29] [30] [31]

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

User:Janedoeare has been notified. [32] User:Msc 44 has been notified. [33]

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