Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→User page issue: archive, nothing more to do here.
Line 901: Line 901:


[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=488366773] Call me old fashioned, and many do, but I believe this is racist vandalism. The user has just come off a one week block for personal attacks and then does this. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=488366773] Call me old fashioned, and many do, but I believe this is racist vandalism. The user has just come off a one week block for personal attacks and then does this. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you Darkness Shines, Go ahead and delete my account permanently.

Revision as of 18:07, 20 April 2012


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    IP range from Wichita spamming Talk pages with illogical barnstars and creating other vandalism.

    To vote on a solution for this problem you can leave your feedback at this page.

    66.87.2.33, 66.87.0.115, 66.87.2.119, 66.87.2.2 and 23 other IP addresses in the same range, apparently the same person, has, since March 30, been anonymously spamming user Talk pages with barnstars for no apparent logical accurate reason. Examples particularly include barnstars for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when the edit counter was broken for numerous days so no one knew how many edits anyone had made. My Talk page, for instance, received two of these spam barnstars in the space of 10 days (still there, if you want to check). I contacted the admin Materialscientist, who said, "It is a busy range with lots of vandalism/trolling. Technical solution is easy: rangeblock of 66.87.0.0/16 for a few weeks, and the edits are here [1], but in this case, I would prefer to have some consensus reached, e.g. at WP:ANI."

    I really think something should be done to stop this trolling behavior. I hope something can therefore come of this ANI. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, an anon-only rangeblock of this address range for 2-3 weeks seems appropriate. Whatever they're up to, it doesn't seem to be beneficial to Wikipedia. -- The Anome (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is escalating to a disruptive level, then a limited time block is probably in order. I recently received a 'Smile!' myself, which wasn't unpleasant on its own. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Comment as nominator: I'm all for barnstars, but their value and purpose is diluted (could even say desecrated) when meaninglessly sprayed shotgun by a constantly changing and anonymous IP range for no good reason. The IP doesn't even have a substantive record of good-faith edits. Seems to clearly be trolling behavior. Perhaps a block should include an encouragement to create an account if the multiple-identity person wants to actually spread some Wiki-love (which seems obviously not the case here). Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with nominator - there is far worse vandalism than this, and many more people should be praised for the work they do, but this is just random and devalues well deserved recognition. The IP editor clearly knows how to edit, and the right sort of phrases etc. to use, so they are not a novice, and could make useful contributions. My concern is that a block may result in far more destructive vandalism, when the block expires, or they use an IP out of the blocked range. Arjayay (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally can't see how anything can make the whole barnstar schtick less random and valueless than it already is/ Bearing in mind the fact that my previous post to this one was dishing out a barnstar maybe I should shut my trap?. :-) Spartaz Humbug! 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them. That's not how their value is measured. Like any token gift, it's always worth exactly as much as the thought behind it. If you got a barnstar for nothing, it's worth nothing. But that has no effect on the worth of others. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a flower put on my page, then taken off, then put on again. Which is a bit confusing, but I'm really not getting this thread.
    Is it maybe possible that the IP is just eccentric and harmless?
    Seems like you can call anyone anything you like and threaten to burn their house down and all you get is a no consensus discussion about it. But if you go round putting flowers and smiles on people's talkpages, that's when you cross a line. Formerip (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC
    You also need to consider the effect on the person who received one of these anonymous barnstars. Chances are they smiled, said "that's nice" and moved on. Then if the barnstar gets REMOVED from their talk page without explanation, as happened to me, that's puzzling. Now that I know why, and realize that it was random and meaningless, I will go back and delete it again,. But IMO it really doesn't hurt anything to have someone going around distributing random attaboys. I agree with FormerIP that the practice seems eccentric and harmless. Block any further such spamming, if you like, but removing them seems unnecessary and a bit of a downer. --MelanieN (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a sun flower for reason I am still looking for. But yeah it felt nice.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's benign spam that hurts no one. I don't think it's any big deal, possibly aside from the misrepresentation of some as most active. If we got to the point that we're worrying about devaluation, much less desecration of barnstars (if that's even an appropriate use of the word), they're being taken far too seriously. I've gotten two spam barnstars; they made me smile for a minute, then shrug my shoulders. Frankly, we've got bigger fish to fry around here, particularly given the recent outbreak of incivility that's lead all manner of strife. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had two 'awards' from this anon editor now. The behaviour is odd, but I was a little surprised to see that an ANI was raised. This would seem to come under WP:CIR, but seems 'mostly harmless'. I was initially a little concerned that editors who responded to the anon IP might then be targeted with further 'mundane' conversation that might lead to some form of con, but this doesn't seem to be the case.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • <<<This is silly spam, nothing more. I don't see how a random allocation of barnstars could devalue them.>>> You haven't clearly read the thread or investigated the situation. The IP range is giving totally random people barnstars and telling them they are "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month!" when they clearly aren't. This is not only spam, it's fraud. Softlavender (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the OP that this is disruptive (the 5% claim is flat out wrong, though I don't think I'd call it fraud). Unfortunately, though, looking at the contributions on that range you gave, I see a fairly large number of good faith contributions unrelated to this problem. At least for me, I think we need to whack the individual addresses for now and see if they get bored. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If an editor with a username similar to Jimbo Wales posted comments on user Talk pages about a cash prize for the top 5% of editors in return for a small down payment, that might be considered 'fraud'. I'm not sure this qualifies.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just blocked [[User::66.87.2.96]] since I saw it active now. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I missed it, but did anyone else seem to think that this is someone on a cell phone? My phone's IP (not similar to this IP) comes back to the same spot northeast of Wichita, and I'm nowhere near there. Notice that the actual data does not mention the city. Perhaps the map is defaulting to that location because it is near the center of the US? Calabe1992 00:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be unusual, but I suppose it's possible. Geolocation services usually to err towards the nearest big settlement (ie. where a telco has a presence) rather than just sticking a pin in the middle of the map. bobrayner (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm using T-Mobile in the UK. I'm in Bristol at the moment. My IP geo-locates to London. 31.110.67.249 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (I am one of the users in this IP range who made some of the good-faith edits mentioned by Qwyrxian.) Yes, this IP range is a mobile system. Use "whois" instead of "geolocate" and you'll see all 66.87.x.x IP addresses are registered to Sprint-Nextel at their corporate offices in Overland Park, Kansas. Each time a user connects, the system seems to issue a different (effectively random) IP address: blocking individual addresses will have no effect on the offending Barnstar Bandit. Blocking large ranges would block anyone using Sprint's network, a bit extreme for such cutesy vandalism. 66.87.0.37 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (Same user here) I just disconnected and re-connected and was given this IP address 66.87.2.151 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP 67.80.64.128 is pro active in giving such awards. This is far bigger racket then I first thought.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I have a Virgin Mobile USA phone which i occassionally tether to my laptop. I have not left Michigan's state lines for over two years, yet geolocation on my phone's IPs always comes back to Overland Park, KS because I'm assigned an address out of the Sprint range. ~Crazytales (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Has anyone thought to plaster these few IP pages with alternative wikilove messages he or she might use ?. How about a few messages 'Hey you're doing a great job, try this cute message as well'.... Give them your favorite message, they may well pick up on it, one of the messages might take their interest, and you have a one editor welcoming/wikilove/cheersquad committee. Penyulap ☏ 01:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 FormerIP and +1 MelanieN. This place needs more eccentric editors, it's way to homogeneous. Penyulap ☏ 01:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    well, Penyulap I posted a wel come message earlier and gave cheese burger to the other one but still no reply. There are a whole range of IPs working here.--Vyom25 (talk) 04:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly didn't upset me, getting a WikiLoveSpam message. I just wish I had been one of the top contributors! I like the idea of showing them some alternative messages (and Penyulap is an absolute ace at creative stuff, mega-impressive mind :D ... I am perpetually astounded at the capabilities). Pesky (talk) 08:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Pesky, Vyom25, spam the IP range with wikilove, if you can find anything appropriate, I had a look at what's available on the superbright whimsical skipping in the afternoon-sunshine kind of thing and thought eewww, we got nothing in the wikilove standard messages. Give it a go just the same, cut and paste wikilove so that the IP editor has a larger vocabulary than just barnstars. If he or she has never seen a wikilove message, they can't use it. Spam wikilove, it is the proper response for cases like this. Penyulap ☏ 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tigerboy1966's comment makes me think that people are bringing guns to a foodfight, which is ill-advised, like 'bringing a knife to a gunfight'. So it's more a matter of fighting butterflies with butterflies, and I would think it's bad sportsmanship to use a vacuum cleaner on all the butterflies that have been left on peoples pages. Sucking them all up causes more harm than good. Penyulap ☏ 13:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a slightly modified one of Penyulap's:
    Good little things mean a lot
    This is in recognition of all the helpful little things you've done. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just adding that I got one that said I was in the top 5% most active Wikipedians. My thought is that we make it so you need to be autoconfirmed and have an account to give barnstars and other WikiLove. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's what mine said, too. I kinda like the autoconfirmed + account thing, except for the fact that we do have some people who are regular IP editors (and have been so for ages, some of them on static IPs) and it would be a bit of a shame if they couldn't hand out WikiLove where they see fit. It's one of those swings-and-roundabouts things. Pesky (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also seen numerous random barnsters given by 68.87.... IP's in Kansas. This DOES do harm in various ways. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "DOES do harm"... how? The whole WikiLove thing is meant to be light-hearted and fun. If some people treat the whole thing as a bit of a joke it's hardly a surprise. This is like criticising someone for disrespecting the flag of Grand Fenwick.  Tigerboy1966  08:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Crank calls are also "light-hearted fun." But if someone does it to everyone in the city, repeatedly, it ceases to be fun and moves into disruption. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We highly encourage IPs to get an account to gain extra benefits. WikiLove should be one of those benefits. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 13:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't hear any pummeling. Why don't I hear any pummeling ? I see a notification on the user's talkpage but I don't see any attempt to fix the problem. It's been like a week, with people wanting blocks, and others objecting to them in roughly equal numbers, so the solution will never be found there. A solution that everyone would be somewhat happier with is available, but has yet to be attempted, so the problem can simply drag on in a deadlock, or we just find one of the many solutions that everybody is comfortable with.

    Remember Skeptical of Love ? he was excluded from wikipedia, effectively banned (has he been back anyone ? I don't know) and stopped editing because of too much warm fuzzy attention. Whilst it was unintentional for us to exclude S.o.L., the principle has proven itself effective.

    Admin action is not required here, regular editor action IS required here. I'm not a party to the barnstar exchanges, so it's not appropriate for me to thank that editor. Further, I don't watch recent changes, so I have no opportunity to respond in the window of opportunity indicated by the contributions page, it seems to last on average at least ten minutes, and up to 40minutes, plenty of time for a pointman to intervene with some WL. Penyulap ☏ 18:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just made a page for people to vote on what to do to solve the problem. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually take a Napoleonic stance on barnstars, but spamming them around just devalues them. Barnstars may not be some vital cog in the wikipedia machine, but rather a drop of grease that helps the gears turn a little more smoothly. As well as the devaluation of barnstars, spamming them is simply wasting people's time. bobrayner (talk) 08:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse of Autoreviewer Rights

    WP:NMOTORSPORT would suggest notability, and he does provide one source. It's another situation where the question is - is it better to have a pile of stub articles, or is it better to have fewer, better articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about notability? Of course people who have competed in MotoGP are probably notable, but these mostly haven't; they have only ever ridden in the "minor" leagues of Moto2 or Moto3, which aren't fully professional. I would have thought that these don't pass WP:NMOTORSPORT - anyone with more knowledge of the subject shed any light? Black Kite (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought the source was saying they had competed in Grands Prix, but I only looked at Álvaro Molina. If they've only competed in the second division, I'd say probably not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    According to that data, Molina has only ever competed in Moto2 and 3 (250cc and 125cc). MotoGP is 990cc. Black Kite (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Second-level series are a bit murky at times, but certainly don't pass the "competed in one event at the top level" standards (bit tautological there!). I'd say that MotoGP riders = notable, Moto2/Moto3 riders = possibly notable (per WP:GNG like everyone else!). - The Bushranger One ping only 17:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering I got my autopatrolled rights revoked, seemingly on a whim and in the middle of a dispute, I'm curious as to why this user's rights haven't been removed yet, either... (oh, and incidentally, did anyone ask or notify Fastily (talk · contribs) about this?)
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might have something to do with the fact that Fastily left this project in disgust. Or they just forgot, no one reads the instructions at the top anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I saw his gripe about "...frivolous claims that could have been easily resolved through talk page discussion." In the case I'm thinking of, he stonewalled and absolutely refused to discuss the issue. It took a ridiculous amount of jumping through hoops to get his bad-faith deletion reinstated. So I would have to quote Elmer Fudd at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that a further look at the articles reveals poor formatting, typos, 404 links and content which is effectively completely copied from a third party website, I have removed the user's autopatrolled status. I will inform them, though they appear to use talkpages very minimally. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user also does not seem to pay heed to so many deletion notifications on his talk page. besides with a speed of 1 to 2 articles per minute its obvious that he is creating articles for all the persons listed on that site with no second thoughts about notable or guidelines, Thanks for looking into the matter, but some one interested would want to take a look at the articles that had been created as they have not been patrolled. (is there a way to mark the articles as unpatrolled again ? )-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohm's Law - what's the link to Fastily - I'm missing something here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection to Fastily is that he is the one who granted the autopatrolled permission in 2011. See logs and Special:PermanentLink/434813722#User:Alexxander3000. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Should we be reverting the article creation, or just PRODding them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, first of all, the pilots of Moto2 and Moto3 is encyclopedic because it is a world championship, the highest level! Then, all entries have been created offline and then put together after all of wikipedia. I must say that I think is important to include the articles of these pilots, these people certainly encyclopedic. I await instructions on what to do.Alexxander3000 (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And I apologize for any inconvenience that I created.

    Moto2 and Moto3 are not "world championship[s at] the highest level". MotoGP is the top level of this sport, the Formula One to Moto2's GP2 and Moto3's Formula Three. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, Alexxander3000 has since created another 11 reference-less stub articles after posting here. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that 14 stubs. Blackmane (talk) 13:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A look at his talk page shows a distinct lack of communication; I also notice he got a BLP-4 warning back in October. I've given him an unsourced-3, along with an explanation of the need to reference (and a couple of BLP-PROD notices)... - The Bushranger One ping only 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User Compy90

    Compy90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Summary

    This editor has been going through articles on major championships and fleshing them out. I admit the articles need this but I have become greatly bothered by the inaccuracy of the work and Compy 90's regular removal of inline citations and unnecessary changes aka making something from correct to incorrect. I have addressed my concerns to this editor but he continues to make mistaken edits.

    Removal of inline citations

    • 1970 US Open. Here he removes both a controversial quote about the golf course and its IC.[3] The quote is still famous 40 years after it was made.
    • 1975 US Open. Here he removes mention of a golfer setting a scoring record and its IC.[4]
    • 1984 US Open. Here he removes two IC about a golfer's past history at the golf course.[5] This edit also includes a unnecessary change to the location of the golf course. It was originally pointing to the town article but was changed to disambiguation page.
    • 1986 US Open. Not just the removal[6] of a inline citation, but changing the total of the amount of golfers tied for the lead from 9 to 7. The IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using say its 9 not 7.
    • 1994 US Open. This edit[7] is strikingly similar to the one for 1986. Compy90 removed a IC but also changed a golfer starting bogey-triple bogey in a playoff to the golfer starting bogey on the first hole and triple bogey on the 3rd hole. Again the IC and the supposed sources Compy90 is using state the original score as being correct.

    Content mistakes

    Let me first say this editor is knowledgeable about golf history. He's made a long list of mistakes, and I'll provide a link to some of them later. The mistakes were preventable but somebody will say WP:AGF but two of them are so egregious they need to be pointed out.

    • The 1984 U.S. Open edit I already mentioned above he edited into the article 'Jim Thorpe finished in a tie for 4th place, becoming the first African-American to place in the Top 10 at the U.S. Open since John Shippen in 1902.' This is very wrong not to mention WP:OR. Calvin Peete, the winningest African-American golfer in golf history prior to Tiger Woods, had finished in the top 10 of both the 1982 and 1983 U.S. Opens. I don't know how this editor couldn't know that when his edit history[8] clearly shows he worked on the 1983 golf article before going on to the 84 one. The bit about John Shippen is unsourced and out of thin air.
    • The 1960 U.S. Open. This particular open is part of golfing lore(due to Arnold Palmer's huge final round comeback) so why would this knowledgeable editor write 'Ben Hogan, aiming for a record fifth Open title, got to within three of the lead, but he found the water on his last two holes and finished in 9th, four back of Palmer.'[9] Someone knowing golf history would know Hogan was tied for the lead not within three before finding the water. The sources Compy90 is supposedly using is clear on that also. Hogan's late failure in this tournament is brought up every time the 60 Open is discussed. It's not some obscure factoid.

    His Open Championship edits

    After working on U.S. Open articles, Compy90 moved onto ones about the Open Championship aka The British Open.

    The verification of anything Compy90 edits into these articles is difficult because 1- He doesn't do inline citations and 2- The locating of News articles on the Open Championship using Google News Archive to corroborate facts is not easy.

    Nevertheless I have found these problems. Compy90 changed the par scores for the 1949[10], 1950[11], 1952[12], and 1953 Open Championships.[13] In each case from correct to incorrect ones. For instance the 1953 Open, he changed the scoring to that for a par 71 course than that of a par 72. Ben Hogan from -6 to -2 when -6 was the correct score.

    In all these edits, Compy90 does not cite a source for his changes. The sources he is putting into the article(external links at the bottom) don't back up his changes. How did I verify them? Google News archive. Note- till recently golfobserver.com would have been the source for scores but that website's owner recently put that information and more behind a pay wall.

    Other wrong edits Compy90 has been making to the Open Championship articles has been the changing of golfers nationalities from either ENG to GBR or SCO to GBR or ENG. Why he has done this is hard to understand because these golfers articles show their nationalities clearly in most cases and they don't backup the changes Compy90 is making.

    Another golf editor has gone back and reverted these changes. They can be seen here[14] and here[15] for example.

    Notifying this editor about my concerns

    I've done so on multiple occasions. Here[16], here[17], here[18], and here[19] Note The last of those talk page posts has a list of other factual mistakes I have found and alluded to earlier in this post.

    There is a editor who does considerable work on golf articles, and I addressed the issues I have with Comp90 to him. These talk page posts can be found here[20] and here.[21]

    Have I notified Compy90 of this post

    Not yet, but I will when I complete this post.

    Clear about myself

    I'm not the most diplomatic of editors. The factual mistakes I keep finding in golf articles is one of my admitted bugaboos especially when most of them are easily preventable. I pointed out mistakes to compy90 gently but but when he said in one talk page post[22] that he didn't see where he was wrong, I started losing patience with him because I had sources to back up what I was saying.

    What am I asking for from administrators

    I'm not sure. Either that this editor have someone mentor him or that it be required that he provide inline citations for any golf article changes he makes so another editor can verify them. The adding of content to these articles is good but it needs to be accurate and verifiable....William 14:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why don't you just add the cites yourself instead of coming here and posting all these words? Jtrainor (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, the burden of proof should be on him. Has he gotten it from Sports Illustrated The Vault? Google News Archive? A paid subscription to GO? A book? A golf website? Why should I play or any other editor have to play guessing games?
    How many citation needed things are put in by editors on WP wanting confirmation? Thousands, over a million? It's quite routine to ask facts be verifiable.
    Oh and if you bothered to check, I've added citations after proving what he's written is wrong. For example here[23], here[24], here[25], here[26]....William 16:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's difficult to tell exactly what's going on here because this user appears to believe he is adding correct information from reliable sources. If you challenge any of his edits (and you seem to be challenging quite a few of them), he needs to provide a reliable source backing them up. Is there any consensus among golf editors or a relevant WikiProject about which golf sources are considered reliable and which aren't? Hopefully the user will chime in here with their version of what's going on. We can't have people adding masses of incorrect information to articles that has to be monitored and challenged. --Laser brain (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has never been a discussion among golf editors about what is a reliable source. Generally anything on the websites of the pro tours around the world is accepted. The World Golf Hall of Fame is acceptable too. Golfobserver was also considered a RS but as I said earlier it is now behind a pay wall.
    Just about all those reliable sources have or had errors in their stats. I've ferreted out quite a few and gotten the tours to correct themselves. Here is one example[27] and the World Golf Hall of Fame took note[28] of it almost at once. Because of this I usually poke around golf articles looking for mistakes. I don't blame the editors if all they're doing is copying from the tour websites and the tour websites are incorrect. Like they were in this case[29]
    Other sources, well....Golf history(like a lot of sports) has a tendency to lead to exaggeration over the years. For example a ESPN writer told a tale about Arnold Palmer at Pebble Beach one year. Out of curiosity I checked it and found what was described to happen by a writer today didn't match how it was described when the event actually took place in 1962. The ESPN writer said he was relating Arnold's story. I therefore give more weight to golf articles written at the time something took place rather than one written 30 years later. That's me but some golf editors don't practice it.
    Compy90 is continuing to edit even though he was notified of this discussion and his edits still continue to have the same problem. For instance here.[30] He changes the nationality of certain golfers from ENG or WAL to GBR in the 4th round section of the article. The thing is....
    • These golfers own WP articles say they are either from ENG or Wales not GBR. Golf biographies say Dave Thomas is from Wales.
    • Compy90 changes the nationalities only in the 4th round section of the article. For instance, Dave Thomas is listed as being from Wales in the 1st round, but after Compy 90's edit, he is from GBR in the 4th round section.
    Compy 90 has done these nationality change in every Open Championship article work of his that I've checked on. NOTE- I haven't checked every year and some article only have final round scores, not scores for after round 1 etc etc.
    In the 1957 Open Championship edit of his that was done after this conversation began, he put in bits about a rules violation and the site of the tournament being change. There is no inline citation for this, but one of his EL backs it up. Problem is- I can't find Google News Archive news articles that corroborate either the rules violation or the site change. Update I found a source.[31] It mentions the petrol rationing that causes the site of the Open to be changed but makes no mention of the rules violation and the article was written days after that Open took place.
    Yesterday Compy90 edited three open championship articles, 57, 58, and 59, and I reverted all three because of multiple mistakes in all of them or unverifed information in them. I told this editor I would do this....William 11:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments section

    • Holy tl;dr, Batman... I just wanted to chime in saying that the current convention in the sport internationally is to list the specific nationality (intimating ethnicity) of golfers from the country of Great Britain — so England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland would be correct, not GBR. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the current convention of golf editors to be specific about nationality. There are some golfers who have no WP article of their own and their history is murky and unknown and the consensus in that case with the British Open is that they be listed GBR. I would go blank myself but I appear to be a minority. Compy90's edits haven't so far as I know involved any of these golfers....William 16:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is somewhat tl;dr, but there seems to be a lot of history here. Compy seems to be editing incorrectly on a quite frequent basis and either unwilling or unable to communicate clearly about it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Compy90 has edited again. This time it is the 1960 Open Championship.[32]]. Once more he has incorrectly changed nationalities for golfers but only in the 4th round scoring section of the article. Which puts that section in conflict with other sections. For example in the 3rd round Syd Scott is listed as from ENG but in the 4th round as being from GBR. Factually, the article looked fine to me except for one potential quibble. He described a player hitting a ball out of bounds. The news source I used to check it, Sports Illustrated, described the ball as ending up top of a wall not OB. OB might be right(The wall might have been out of bounds), but I tweaked that bit of article, added a online citation, and reverted all the nationality revisions....William 19:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A different point

    Why are so many of these golf articles full of little flag pictures? Specific example of the problem:

    • Does Darren Clarke carry a Northern Ireland passport?
    • Was Clarke playing on some kind of "Northern Ireland" team in the 2011 Open?

    If the answer to both those questions is "no", why is Clarke's name always prefixed by a little flag picture that looks almost but not quite like an English flag? bobrayner (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The simple answer is that precious few sports-related WikiProjects pay MOS:FLAG much attention, and even those that do get locked into interminable discussions as to what is and is not an appropriate use of representative nationality. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with fixing it is that it's an utter nightmare to remove all of them without AWB, and with AWB (which is what I did in articles about supercentenarians) one typo can completely destroy a table. If anyone wants to learn how to quickly get remove all the flags in these articles, ping me on my talkpage and I can give you a crash course; WP:FLAGBIO is very explicit on this matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been standard to put the flags into golf articles as long as I have been contributing to them. I myself think the info is not necessary and it would be a royal pain to remove them all. Want to see alot of flags? Go here[33]] where a golfer has 88 wins and 28 playoff results all of which contain at least one flag. BTW I did those boxes for Kathy Whitworth....William 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It took me about 2 minutes to fix that article by simply pasting the stuff into notepad++ and replacing every flagicon entry with a blank space. Kaboom. Jtrainor (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...aaaand it took someone else 2 milliseconds to undo it. --64.85.221.126 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, well AWB basically does the same thing, except more efficiently if done right; all you have to do us put the flag icons in once in ind/replace, then go to every article and hit the edit button. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted back and put a note on the original reverter's talk page. Jtrainor (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related point, quite a lot of these sports articles have rather dubious nationalities. Considering the earlier example of 1960 Open Championship, the source lists lots of people with a nationality of "GBR", but in the article these were changed to "England", "Scotland", "Wales" &c. bobrayner (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC) (Sorry, this isn't really something that requires administrator intervention, is it? I'd like to throw some light on some of the murkier corners but this may not be the best venue)[reply]

    Blocked

    Unfortunately I have had to block Compy90 since he has ignored this matter and continued to edit. The block is indefinite since he has not engaged in any discussion. As I noted on his talk page, any administrator should feel free to lift the block without consulting me if they are satisfied he has addressed and discussed the concerns raised here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't want this outcome, rather have this editor change his ways and I would have been perfectly willing to teach him the tricks of trade for verifying info for golf articles. One question- He's banned but how can he try to communicate any willingness to change if his account doesn't work any longer? I am just curious....William 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, he is not banned. He is blocked from editing until he displays a willingness to discuss these matters at the very least. He can edit his Talk page; that is where he can discuss and place an unblock request. Right now, my only goal is to get him to acknowledge and discuss the matters you've raised. If he does that, we can unblock and move on. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explanation and I hope Compy90 eventually replies back and we move on as you say....William 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204

    In addition to several other disruptive behaviors (e.g. deleting cited information - [34][35][36][37]), User:HasperHunter / User:38.114.81.204 has been posting fairly nasty comments about me on my Talk: page; for example, this one and particularly this one. After his IP was blocked for the latter comment, he apparently convinced the blocking admin to allow him to edit through a hard block. The IP is obviously HasperHunter's; they both edit and revert for each other on a variety of unrelated articles (e.g. List of Jewish Nobel laureates, Kathmandu, High Five Interchange, 2011–12 La Liga, Ghana) - almost every page edited by the IP has also been edited by HasperHunter. I'm bringing this issue here now because HasperHunter is not only apparently deliberately logging out so that his IP can act as a "bad hand" account, but has also gotten his account modified so that he can edit even when his IP is blocked. Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure what this claim is about at all. The IP that I use is the one that I am using right now . This 38.114.81.204 looks like from my workplace. This is a group IP address of a university. There can be 100s of people with that same ID but that does not mean I was the one using them for all the edits. I have no idea what bad hand, account modifies and all this claims is. I dont think anyone can claim what a random IP did and blame it to random users like me. There could have been many users using wikipedia at the same time when I was using it from my office. It could also have been possible that I had left my user id logged in although i doubt it. I am sure though there were many users using from the same ip as it is of a workplace.HasperHunter (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference on the interactions between HasperHunter and 38.114.81.204, see Snottywong's new tool. Monty845 01:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasper, I believe the quacking behaviour is a bit too loud to ignore. :) Salvidrim! 01:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying every edits from that IP which probably is connected to over 100 computers in a university is done by me? I would like to see what edits were done from that IP and I can prove that it was not me, definitely not all the edits as I usually only edit from my home.HasperHunter (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazingly enough, that IP seems to mostly edit the exact same (apparently completely unrelated) articles that you do! And with the exact same POV! You even revert for each other! Are you really claiming you didn't leave those comments on my Talk: page? Jayjg (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not touched your page at all! I dont even know what for? How did you and me get involved in the 1st place! I am being blocked for reasons I dont even know yet and out of nowhere. You tell me why would I edit pages without being logged in. If i ever did would be from my workplace but as I already said that IP must be connected to over 100 computers. I am just curious as what are the wikipedia edits from that server. If i were disrupting others pages or reverting edit my own edits from a different server why would i not be doing this all the time!?HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that's just not plausible - the evidence is too strong to be simple coincidence. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you might want to consider logging in from school? This would be helpful. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do i need to do that? I do my edits from home. I am ok with this.HasperHunter (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, logging in would clarify the situation. It seems there is someone in your school who thinks, edits & behaves exactly as you do, which certainly is a surprising coincidence. Salvidrim! 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely do that. But still not sure how logging in will help. How can that person think edit behave exactly like me when there are articles that I have never edited and that ip has. I have already mentioned I use that IP sometimes while I am at work but then others might be using it at the same time as I did, can they not? I usually edit the la liga and football records, kathmandu (my homeplace) but definitely not that user talk pages of others that is being claimed. Now, I am not a computer expert. But if a few users use the same IP can they edit a few articles at different times? my workplace is a university so it can be possible many users editing same articles.HasperHunter (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go ahead and login from my workplace tomorrow as per your request.HasperHunter (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I originally blocked HasperHunter, but after taking another look at the situation after an unblock request from him, I have erred on the side of caution to AGF and unblock, mainly because of the difference in edits between the two accounts.

    That being said, if another admin and/or CU wants to look at this, I don't mind; alternatively, a full WP:SPI case can be opened up, in which I would naturally be recused. I know I am capable of making mistakes as an admin and a CU, but I would be more comfortable knowing that I have prevented more than likely sockpuppetry than feeling guilty about indefinitely blocking an uninvolved user who is happening to be sharing the same IP as some other troublemaker behind it. --MuZemike 05:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    After comparing the edit histories of the articles mentioned above, I wonder if I have made a grave mistake in unblocking; in this case, I will need an uninvolved admin to reassess this situation. --MuZemike 05:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would endorse an indef on the account at this point. Block the IP for a couple of months. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, what I was doing was comparing User:DBSSURFER's edits with HasperHunter's edits, in which I saw virtually no overlap there, even though there clearly is (as a lot of people are noting) between HasperHunter and the IP in question. That was why I decided to unblock, as it is very much possible that we may have run across a false positive. --MuZemike 22:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have no idea who User:DBSSURFER is, though your explanation for your actions makes a lot of sense. My issue was with the inappropriate edits of 38.114.81.204, including some rather nasty bigotry. Now that it has been shown that 38.114.81.204 is HasperHunter (logging out to avoid detection), and that rather than admitting this and apologizing, he chose to deny it, could you please block/re-block? Jayjg (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Logging out to avoid detection--- what does this mean? I am always and right now logged in as well! I have repeatedly mentioned that IP belongs to a university where all the computers have that same address. I will in no way take responsibility of 100% of the edits that were made from that IP. I have already said, I edit the Kathmandu, Prime Ministers of Nepal etc pages. I am OK if everyone thinks I should be blocked but in no way I am responsible for the talk edits Jayg is accusing me of so apologizing for this ridiculous accusation is out of question. I am actually trying to find with the IT services who might have edited those pages and who might have used my account if any. I have no more to contribute here. I will be editing and contributing the pages which I normally do. Its funny you accuse me straight of random article edits when you dont even know me? I edit articles which are interesting to me. Who gives the rule of specific articles edits for specific editors. Goodbye for now. I have a busy weekHasperHunter (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reblocked. Checkuser shows this account was created five minutes after another account, User:DBSSHASPAR, was created on the same IP with the same computer; the coincidence is too strong to ignore. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs

    At Garner Ted Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the last few days, several (now blocked) users and IPs have been edit warring over the addition of an image which has copyright concerns.

    • The image was initially uploaded by Garnerted (talk · contribs) (now indef blocked for "Disruptive editing: / using wikipedia as a promotional vehicle, personal attacks, ownership of articles")
    • Then added by TheWorldTomorrow (talk · contribs) (received a username block) - the user included an edit summary stating "We are the sole Copyright and Trademark owners and it is our "picture of a picture". www.cogwwm.org (All rights reserved)"[38]
    • Then added by 64.134.189.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for making legal threats)
    • Now being added by 12.124.83.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who has made the false claim "Photo cleared by admin" [39]

    Could use some more eyes to watch the page and review the situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected the article for a week. Garnerted is free to appeal his block, but circumventing it with IPs is not the way to go. I'll leave him a note at Commons explaining the copyright problem with the file. Jafeluv (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • merged "Legal threat over World Tomorrow" with "Image copyright issue - edit warring by blocked users and IPs"

    Julian Assange has a news show called World Tomorrow. I visited the talk page of the user who created the Wikipedia article for this show and saw that he had received a legal threat for creating it. The threat is here - User_talk:Sladen#Lawsuit_talk and I am posting a notice of it on this board per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. I do not want to be further involved in this and am reporting this here because the rule is to report legal threats when anyone sees them. I do not want to participate in this issue or give any comment. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP that issued the threat has been blocked for a month, and I don't see any WP:DOLT issues here, so I guess this resolved. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will watch the article, as I suspect the socks will return after block expires in a week. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unregistered User:50.95.41.4 threatening, racial slurring in Deletion proposal

    Please take into serious consideration this comments [40] here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj. Obnoxious and dreadful nationalistic threats towards another user and a whole community. This IP [41] should be blocked immediately, not only for vandalism, but for serious threatening of Wikipedia's continuity and welfare. I advise a serious investigation to be carried into consideration since such threats have been materialized into real deletions, POV edits, ultra-nationalistic policy and propaganda hidden behind pseudo-encyclopedic articles that only intend realizing the aims of this mentally-unstable-looking comment. All this then concludes with real frustration towards users, contributors and readers of a whole community.

    You kindly oblige me by working on this issue. Sincerely, Empathictrust (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, consider also this new user's dubious edits [42], who seem to have opened his account for the sole purpose of eliminating Gjekë Marinaj in wikipedia and his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Empathictrust (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The first IP has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise for 48 hrs. The second IP last edited almost 5 days ago. If they're an IP hopper, they'll have likely moved on already. Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the swift answer Blackmane, they probably did move on. Sorry for bothering you again but even after the deletion nomination's closure there still seems that such users are disrupting this article. A new unregistered one with IP 87.236.90.110 seems to have logged in after I had commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj yesterday, mentioning the fact I wrote you here and these highly disruptive IPs. Seems that this user is accustomed with the rules, despite editing for just some 2 hours, he has written to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes/Archive, mentioning me as "definitely a sock puppet", even writing to another user page that voted for deletion [43] and misinterpreting my edits. Nevertheless, I just ran into this article when it was nominated from deletion at WP:SQ, and found sources that were in favour of his notability so voted for keeping it and made a long comment regarding issues I saw problematic.
    You can investigate on me and on them, I don't know how it works, I'm totally open for anything. Just I see the need that Future Perfect at Sunrise restricts the edits on this article Gjekë Marinaj for at least the autoconfirmed users, since vandalism and POV pushing is still evident, in favour and against the article as well. With all due respect, Empathictrust (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bullied by an edit warring admin

    Nightscream (talk · contribs) has been constantly adding ([44] [45] [46] [47] [48]) the words "Max Nicholson of IGN compared" to a simple observation stated by a reviewer. The observation merely points out the similarity between a part of the episode and a bit by Bill Hicks. Since this is a simple compare and contrast between two spoken texts, backed up by a RS, it falls under WP:NOTOR. A conversation was initiated on Nightscream's talk page; he carried it over to mine with a snide comment about what is and isn't his job and how he is above the EW law by WP:GAMING (quote: "3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of valid, sourced material"), then shut me down and refused to communicate after asserting that it's an opinion and I'm removing valid sourced material. The material was sourced by me. The addition was initially made by an anonymous IP, and Nightscream kept reverting it ([49] [50]) instead of doing what I did – Google a source. Jc37 (talk · contribs) protected the page and urged us to solve the dispute through talk, but Nightscream quit replying. Now he's bullying me on my talk page into quitting. This is no longer an edit warring matter, it's intimidation and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by an admin. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The source says that the "kill yourself" joke in the episode was "almost eerily similar to a standup bit from Bill Hicks." The content that you're trying to save says that the joke was "a nod to Bill Hicks." I'm afraid I have to agree with Nightscream on this one, there is no source which states that "this joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" as a fact, it's clearly an opinion and if it's going to be included in the article, it should be stated as such. It's also an extremely minor issue, certainly not worth climbing the Reichstag over. How about we all just calm down and move on? ‑Scottywong| talk _ 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After numerous ECs: There is no 3RR exception except for BLP, and this does not fall under BLP. You may be right abotu the content and wrong in the approach, which is where NS and SW are falling. That given, this is basically a very stale EW report + a warning from an involved Admin. The admin did not block. Is there anything to be currently done regarding this? I suggest we wait until we hear NS. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)x manyI was going to say the same thing as Scottywong. It's better to have the statement fully attributed (both by ref and in the article) to avoid the possible misunderstanding by a reader that the "joke is a reference to Bill Hicks" is universally accepted. I think this can be solved by a simple case of "if I were a reader.." Blackmane (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The text was that "it is a nod to Bill Hicks", which implies that you know that the writer intended this as a reference to Hicks, as opposed to an unintentional similarity. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Unattributed opinions are problematic at best, policy violations when presented as fact. When rephrased, they can be even more problematic. Nightscream was correct there, and so is Scottywong. The warning NS left was entirely appropriate, IMO. And you are making this a content dispute on ANI, not about the admin's alleged bullying. If you want to argue content, go elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I believe there is a huge confusion. The "nod" diff was by an anonymous IP. My version is here, and it states as follows: "Stan's phone call to J&G, in which he angrily urges the host to kill himself, is similar to the "Marketing and Advertising" bit from comedian Bill Hicks' 1997 album Arizona Bay." What exactly is problematic here? And KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), I'm not arguing content, I tried that with Nightscream and was rudely shut down, which is why I came here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you are arguing content, and so is Scottywong. Could we please stick to the issue at hand, which is whether Nightscream acted appropriately by his numerous reverts, and giving the warning? All else is inappropriate on this page except as context, which has been clearly established. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look in our brief encounter, I found your behaviour stubborn, rude and self-opinionated, and I let the talk page stalker deal with your aggressive and uncivil comment to avoid getting into a spat. So I was just adding some context in response to SW's question. When you're wrong or consensus is against you, why not just accept it gracefully? Cue round of applause and a self-congratulatory pat on the back! CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Something may indeed be "as clear as the sky is blue", but that's not succificent for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To Bushranger: this is why it is backed up by a reliable source, therefore completely in compliance with WP:V.
    • To Captain Screebo: if calling you out on your rudeness is rude, then cue the sympathetic chants. There was no consensus, just Nightscream continuously reverting me in a self-righteous manner. Besides, your attempt to discredit me by quoting an unrelated incident borders on a plain personal attack. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    From your own talk page, Get some manners and use them. Sound advice, I'd say. CaptainScreebo Parley! 16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there weren't consensus there, there certainly is now that there's been some discussion on it. You are, simply put, wrong that a journalistic interpretation of the similarity of these works somehow makes it an obvious fact which can be presented as such. Nevertheless, Nightscream should have been mature enough not to edit war with you over it, let alone escalating it to warning templates. That is ideally what we should be discussing, and the actual content dispute dropped (as you're the only one who apparently doesn't agree with Nightscream's interpretation of how we report opinions). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I say, put yourself in the reader's shoes and think, if you knew nothing about the subject matter and just wanted to read Wiki to get some info on that particular episode and read that statement without an in-article attribution to the journalist who stated it, would it not be reasonable to expect the reader to believe that he comparison is exactly what the episode writer wanted? Before the usual ANI shitfight kicks in, can we all settle down and chill out? Rather than dig up past dirt lets deal with the, content-unrelated, matter at hand. Tea anyone? Blackmane (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we leave out the various digressions that have come into this discussion, the essential points are:
    1. Nightscream and Hearfourmewesique have both edit warred.
    2. Contrary to what Hearfourmewesique says, this edit was not bullying, but a simple explanation of what the problem with his/her editing is.
    3. There is a clear consensus that Hearfourmewesique was mistaken.
    4. Contrary to what Nightscream says, there is no exemption to the edit warring policy for "addressing or reverting clear policy violations". (Though, contrary to what some other people seem to think, BLPs are not the only exemption: the policy lists eight different exemptions.)
    What is the way forward from here? We could consider blocking one or both editors. Better, though, in my opinion, is for the matter to be simply dropped now, with Hearfourmewesique accepting consensus. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi. I just saw the message on my talk page regarding this discussion. I think a lot of what I would have said in response was covered by the quite-reasonable reactions already here, so in order to avoid a comprehensive rehash of everything, I'd like to narrow my focus this: The notion that I edit warred; violated 3RR or came close to; and the suggestion that I should be blocked. I'd like to explain my position here, but I have to go out now, and don't know if I'll have time to compose the thoughtful response I'd like to by later this afternoon, later tonight, when I get home from the city (and might be tired), or first thing tomorrow. May I be allowed this time to respond? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Why is this here and not at WP:AN3 or WP:DRN?  --Lambiam 20:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would it be at DRN when there is no apparent discussion on the article talk page? Nil Einne (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRN "enforcer" approves of this comment Hasteur (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nightscream's response

    Arbitrary break. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not engaged in any "edit warring". Edit warring does not refer to the reversal of clear and unambiguous policy violations, and presenting an opinion as a fact is indeed such a violation, since attributing such claims or opinions to their authors, rather than stating them matter-of-factly, goes to the core of Wikipedia's neutrality. Any claim that is evaluative, interpretive or analytical not only requires the citation of a reliable secondary source, but needs to be explicitly attributed to its author. It is for this reason that The Shawshank Redemption article, for example, does not state as fact that that film is an allegory for maintaining one's feeling of self-worth when placed in a hopeless position. It properly attributes that analysis to Roger Ebert in the article text, and not simply with a citation footnote at the end of the passage. If repeatedly reverting an edit that presents an opinion as fact constitutes edit warring, and is not an exemption to 3RR, then by extension, that would mean that every time violates WP:NPOV by making such edits, and refuses to back down, that I have to hold a consensus discussion on the matter, which is silly.

    To provide an additional context for this, keep in mind the South Park articles are frequent targets of unsourced or poorly written ([53][54]) trivia, fancruft, POV and other material by editors, mostly anonymous IP newbies, many of whom can't compose a coherent sentence, and not only have no interest in learning Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but show outright contempt for it and the editing community here. (One editor once said to me in a talk page discussion "And no, I won't sign my name with four tildes or sign up with a username to Wikipedia in order to ostensibly be taken more seriously. I don't see the need to follow those suggestions either".) These editors often leave less-than-constructive posts or make bizarre comments on the article talk pages, rarely following up or showing any interest in my attempts to explain policy and guidelines to them, and in some cases, violating Civility and even vandalizing my talk page and user page because they don't like it when I try to explain to them policies regarding content and sources. I used to have other editors like User:WikiuserNI to assist me on the SP articles, but I haven't heard from him in a while, and I don't notice a lot of traffic nowadays on those articles from skilled, experienced editors who understand policy and basic article composition. Can you imagine how those articles would grind to a halt, as would the work of lot of the editors who take time to participate in consensus discussions and on noticeboards like this one, if every time some ignorant, quasi-troll who no regard for basic writing or the standards by which an encyclopedia is written, makes some edit that clearly flies in a face of a core guideline, and have I have to come running to those more dedicated editors to say, "Mother may I, is it okay to revert? Can you participate in a consensus discussion on this?" Isn't reverting such disruptive edits, and cautioning those who make them, one of the reasons that we have admins in the first place?

    Editors should discuss editorial matters, but only when there is not a clear-cut policy violation, and there is a genuine, good faith disagreement on the proper application or interpretation of policy or guideline. Hearfourmewesique had none, as seen in his edit summaries, his conduct on his talk page, and his statements here.

    • He argues, for example, that including attributive wording "clutters up the text", which is preposterous. Should we go through all articles on works of fiction that feature analytical or evaluative material, and remove the names of those who provided those viewpoints?
    • He argues that when an evaluative claim is supported by a secondary source, then "It's not opinion". So in other words, that The Shawshank Redemption is an allegory for what Ebert says it is is a fact? Do I really have to elaborate on this? This is not about a good faith difference on policy; it's about an editor with an only modestly skilled vocabulary. If he doesn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion, then he has no business making any edits that require such judgment, assuming he has any business editing Wikipedia at all.
    • When I warned him not to remove valid, sourced material (specifically, the in-text attribution of the claim's author, Max Nicholson), he seemed to engage in what was either willful mendacity, or just sheer obliviousness to his own self-contradictions. When responding with a list of four numbered points, his first point was the question, "The info is sourced by me, so how exactly can you accuse me of removing it?", suggesting that he didn't know what material I was talking about. But then, in the third numbered point, he argumed, "I think the better wording is to state the observation with a footnote. Cluttering the text with redundancies hurts the spirit of Wikipedia." So in one breath, he claims ignorance of what I'm talking about, and in the next, he concedes that he favors removal of the material in question.
    • Perhaps the most telling behavior by him concerns the methodology by which matters of fact and reason should be argued by disagreeing parties. If one person provides a claim, and backs it up with some line of argument, and you disagree with it, then you have to falsify the claim, either by showing how the line of reasoning or evidence being employed is false, or how it does not lead to the conclusion in question. Many people, however, do not do this, and instead engage in behavior that is either intellectually dishonest, or just rhetorical. This pertains to Hearfourmewesique thus: I tried pointing out to him that 3RR does not apply to editors addressing or reverting clear policy violations, such as the removal of attributive wording whose absence would violate NPOV, as I pointed out above. Did he falsify my argument? Did he challenge my reasoning? No. His response was the following: "You are still on the verge of violating 3RR, no matter how nicely you put it otherwise." So in other words, he just repeated the original assertion about 3RR, and mischaracterized my reasoning as "putting it nicely". This is the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in their ears and saying, "I can't here you, La-la-la-la-la...." He also linked the word "nicely" to WP:GAME, but because he refused to falsify my reasoning, or even addressed it, he never bothered to explain how it constituted "deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia."

    With this, I realized that he was neither willing nor capable of conducting a discussion in which he could argue his case with intellectual honesty or coherency, maturity or basic decency, so I ceased my attempts to discuss this matter with him, thinking he'd cease his disruptive edits. (His presentation of himself here as a victim by co-opting a current social movement and histrionically referring to that legitimate warning as "bullying" only serves to further underscore this.) By virtue of both the lack of merit to his position, and his inability to engage in dispute resolution or discussion to show otherwise, both my reverts and the block warning I gave him were perfectly legitimate, and did not constitute edit warring or a violation (or near-violation) of 3RR. If anyone here can falsify what I have said here by way of evidence or reason, please do so. Nightscream (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I was wrong. I thought that the only significant problems here were on Hearfourmewesique's part: his/her refusal or inability to accept consensus, his/her belligerent attitude here, etc. I thought that, while Nightscream had edit warred, and had mistakenly thought that "clear policy violations" were an exemption to the policy on edit warring, there was no significant problem there. The edit warring was on too small a scale to be very important, and now that the misunderstanding of the edit warring policy had been pointed out, he/she would realise his/her mistake, and that could be an end of that matter. However, things have turned out to be different from that.
    1. Nightscream persists in the belief that "clear policy violations" are an exemption to the policy on edit warring, despite having had it pointed out by several different editors that this is not so. Technically speaking, the edit warring policy does not list any exemptions at all to edit warring, but it lists eight exemptions to the three revert rule, which are in practice treated as exemptions to edit warring. Those eight exemptions are as follows: 1 Reverting your own actions; 2 Reverting edits to pages in your own user space; 3 Reverting actions performed by banned users and sockpuppets; 4 Reverting obvious vandalism; 5 Removal of clear copyright violations; 6 Removal of other content that is clearly illegal in the U.S. state of Florida; 7 Removal of material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons; 8 Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page. Nothing there can possibly be taken as meaning that "clear policy violations" are exempt.
    2. Nightscream has presented a long diatribe about why he/she thinks that his/her repeated reversions were justified. Time and again I find that editors blocked for edit warring use "but my reversions were justified" as a defence, but to see this defence used by an administrator is disturbing: any administrator should know that you may not edit war even if you are "right".
    3. Nightscream evidently thinks that his/her long post is a defence against the charge of edit warring, but a large proportion of what he/she writes is irrelevant to that charge. He/she is essentially arguing at great length "some articles are very badly edited, and some editors edit very badly, so it ought to be acceptable to keep reverting what they do to save time and trouble". His/her arguments might or might not be good points if they were presented in a discussion as to whether the policy ought to be changed, but he/she seems to have completely failed to see that they are irrelevant to a defence against the charge of edit warring according to the current policy.
    4. Although I did not agree with the main substance of Hearfourmewesique's complaint against Nightscream, I do think that Nightscream could have handled the matter better. For example, this edit is distinctly contemptuous in tone. An administrator should be more civil and constructive, even when he or she is dealing with an editor they think is in the wrong.
    Frankly, I am alarmed that an administrator should behave in this way. We have the following: (1) Edit warring. (2) Uncivil behaviour towards another editor. (3) Erroneous belief about exemptions to the edit warring policy. OK, we all make mistakes, but more serious is the stubborn persistence in the mistake, even when several people have pointed out the error. Nightscream should have checked the policy, and come back and said "thanks for pointing out my mistake". (4) Erroneous belief that edit warring is acceptable if the editor doing it is convinced their edits are "right". (5) The inability to distinguish between the two concepts "what I think the policy should be" and "what the established policy is". (6) Responding to suggestions that he/she had edit warred with a long post that exhibits a combative, battelground approach. What is more, this was done when consensus in the discussion was clearly in support of Nightscream in most respects, with the matter of edit warring being a side issue, which had ceased days ago, and was likely to be simply dropped.
    None of this is the sort of behaviour which I think we should see from an administrator. I did think that, although Nightscream had edit warred, and had made a mistake about what policy was, there were no serious problems, and no need for any action, but unfortunately the latest post by this editor has raised very serious concerns. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    see also Nightscream's recent contributions to the talk page at Touré and response to clear evidence of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.96 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry block on User:Schrodinger's cat is alive

    User has been unblocked and meatpuppet has been instructed how to appeal. More importantly, though, please note that declining an unblock request does not an WP:INVOLVED admin make. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for apparently having a sockpuppet, ThatManAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Schro is an editor who is otherwise in good standing, and I would suggest that this is a wrongful block that I would like another admin to look at.

    The block seems to be very light on justification. There is no WP:SPI case, as far as I can see. Conceding that ThatManAgain is a relatively new user, the two users have barely interacted with each other according to Scottywong's Editor Interaction Analyser. There does not seem to be any previous, current and/or continuing disruption to the project.

    It seems likely, then, that the explanation that Schro gave in her unblock request is likely. That the two users use the same connection and they happened to cross the same page, once at some point. If that was a reason to block, then you'd probably have to block me because no doubt I've crossed paths with half the staff and students of the NSW Department of Education. For example, one of the history teachers at my old school who, after discussion with me, has responded to vandalism on a couple of pages that I also edit occasionally. This is a weak case for a block.

    Bwilkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) declined the unblock request on the basis of a decidedly unWP:AGF reading of what Schro said and then followed up with a suggestion that Schro do some performing pony tricks with WP:GAB to get unblocked. This isn't reasonable.

    I realise that I'm sounding a bit militant here, but, hey, I'm definitely not in as good standing as Schro. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Separately, while I'm posting as a result of discussion at Schro's talkpage, I think the block on ThatManAgain is also worthy of a second look. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would unblock both accounts. The cat is denying its him and a minor meat issue is the most there is - explain to him as the two accounts are from the same ip to avoid any editing that might appear meatish and unblock for time served. - Please don't do it again, or rather, allow an appearance of doing it even if you didn't and unblock. Youreallycan 15:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has been unblocked by User:JamesBWatson.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    • I don't know how thoroughly Danjel checked the editing history, but there are several pages that both accounts have edited. Nevertheless, having read Schrodinger's cat is alive's comments and looked carefully at the editing history, I see no unambiguous evidence of abuse (both posting to the same AfD is the one that looks most doubtful), so I have unblocked Schrodinger's cat is alive. I do wonder why I wasn't consulted before this thread was started. My understanding is that, if you disagree with someone's action, the first thing to be done is normally to raise the matter with that person, and only to start administrators' noticeboard discussions if you have tried and failed to reach agreement. As for ThatManAgain, it seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do is to consult DeltaQuad, the blocking admin, because as far as I know he/she is the only person who knows what other account(s) he/she had in mind when blocking for "Abusing multiple accounts". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that blocks should be used to prevent disruption of the project and generally shouldn't be fired from the hip. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a general understanding of what the American colloquial expression "fired from the hip" means, but could you explain what you mean by it in this context? If you mean that you presume that I blocked without due consideration of the evidence, I can assure you that you are mistaken. I spent five minutes carefully considering the evidence. I would also have thought that AIV discussions should not be "fired from the hip": your failure to consult the relevant people before starting this discussion, suggests that you may like to think about whether your house is made of glass. I have also just looked at your posts to User talk:Schrodinger's cat is alive, and I do wonder why you thought such an aggressive response was the right thing to do first, rather than beginning by politely consulting the relevant people. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You say that you gave the situation due consideration, and, yet, you blocked a user in good standing on the basis of what? There was no disruption to the project, ongoing or otherwise, there was no SPI case, no other complaint anywhere else. Why don't you leave the holier-than-thou and innocence-abused attitudes behind and just leave a mea culpa? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So this is one of those mornings I woke up to one of those 'you've been taken to ANI' messages. Nice and I did not even know what this could have been about. I go with JamesBWatson's comment in the fact that I was not consulted at all either before the issue was taken here. If you need the link, it's in the block message or right here for you. Anyway, I'll speak more to my block below, but just for the record, I don't need an SPI to issue blocks, I can call it as I see it without an SPI. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ThatManAgain

    ...is still an open issue for discussion. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As the user has only a few recent edits I suggest leaving him blocked unless he requests unblocking. Youreallycan 15:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Strikes me that this is a particulary bad way to welcome and encourage a new editor. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 15:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well he did have a chat with his amigo and with his first edit he then opened a ADF discussion - not bad for a newbie - I say, let him explain if he wants unblocking - Youreallycan 15:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at this, DeltaQuad's block reason (inappropriate use of alternate accounts) is spot-on. ThatManAgain has another account that they used to edit Carratu International. Editors should not use multiple accounts to edit the same article. TNXMan 15:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are the socks? I see 4 edits from ThatManAgain on Carratu International, none of which seemed contentious in the light of edits from the one other intervening editor. Where's the disruption? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So my block was done on the basis of not knowing who the master was, and was done because the likelihood that a new user, would not be able to pull of an AFD nomination in so few edits. That combined with the policy WP:ILLEGIT #2 which says "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." is why I issued my block. Could it of been a meatpuppet, I doubted that fact unless the person was standing over their shoulder and told them to type [[WP:CORP]] into the AFD. New people don't just know project acronyms like that. So with that being the case, I don't have to make the differentiation between WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT as WP:MEAT states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."". So my block is completely valid and I will not stand down from it. I'm not pointing the finger of the master at anyone, but the technical trail lead for at least a discussion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me get this straight. You blocked this user on the basis of:
    • The fact that s/he opened an AfD;
    • Knew some WP acronyms;
    • A suspicion that he was a sock;
    ...and nothing more. No apparent disruption. No complaints at any noticeboard. No CheckUser involvement (I note that you are not a CheckUser).
    Are you serious? Of course this should have been discussed, perhaps at SPI or here or wherever else, beforehand. You have the temerity to say that you should have been personally consulted before this discussion, yet you act without any consultation at all on the basis of nothing more than suspicion and block a new user? No wonder we have issues with attracting and retaining editors.
    I don't know if ThatManAgain is a sock or not, but, you're right, it does deserve discussion. As does your action here as an admin.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser Note

    ←Alright, so I have been asked to look into this in my role as a Checkuser. I will preface all of this by saying that the range that these accounts are operating on is large, and according to my research is problematic on other sites as well. From a purely technical stand point, the following accounts are  Confirmed:

    The following account is highly  Likely related to the above two:

    That said, Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs) and ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) tend to edit within hours of each other, but when they do 99% of the time, their useragent is different. So, this could mean that the person gets up and spends an hours worth of time changing computers with the intention of throwing off a CheckUser, or the story that Schrodinger's cat is alive is telling is correct and the IP range is shared but they are two people editing from two different computers. I will note though, that their useragents have overlapped before. Additionally, there is some "editing while logged out" going on. For obvious privacy reasons, I will not publicly release the IP. That said, it appears that ThatManAgain (talk · contribs) is the one doing the editing via that IP given that useragent matches. Lastly, as I said before, the ISP that they are editing via has been blacklisted on a number of sites for excessive spamming and torrents. So, take all of that as you will. Tiptoety talk 18:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, so all we have is some very circumstantial evidence that appears well explained by what Schro has already said (keeping in mind that Schro is a user who is otherwise in good standing). All being told, there would be no gain for Schro to use a sock in the way that would be suggested from ThatManAgain's edits (being that the one apparently contentious edit where the two users overlapped was an AfD that ended non-contentiously). If ThatManAgain has been editing under an IP, as suggested, then it's entirely possible that s/he does have more experience with acronyms.
    I suggest that the way forward to to WP:AGF and unblock ThatManAgain's account with some stern advice to both users to avoid creating a perception that they're related. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 18:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Danjel, an important thing to realise is that administrators and checkusers are entrusted by the community to make judgements. Very often those judgements have to be made on the balance of evidence, where there is no absolute certainty. If you disagree with another person's judgement, it is helpful to politely raise the matter with that person. My best judgement at the time when I blocked was that the evidence strongly suggested sockpuppetry. My judgement at the time when I unblocked was that new evidence had cast enough doubt to encourage me to give the user the benefit of the doubt. It is perfectly reasonable for another person to hold the opinion that one or other of those judgements was unwise, but holding such an opinion is not justification for ranting about how grossly unreasonable I have been, that I "shoot from the hip", that I have a "holier-than-thou" attitude, and so on and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entrusted to make judgements, absolutely. However, the community including myself expect those judgements to be made on the basis of black & white policy. Where there's some doubt, we expect the situation to be discussed.
    In this case, there wasn't even confusion. There was nothing more than suspicion. There was inarguably no disruption occuring, and there was no reason to believe that disruption would occur. Basicly put, there was no part of WP:BLOCK#Common_rationales_for_blocks that was (or is; ThatManAgain is still blocked) at issue here. The net result is that one user who is otherwise in good standing got blocked and a new user is blocked for... suspicion of "Abusing multiple accounts: Inappropriate use of alternate account". This is shooting from the hip. I can't even call it shooting first and asking questions later, because questions weren't asked. all I can see here is defensive circling of the wagons to avoid any taking of responsibility for one wrongful block, and another block made on top of that wrongful block. ThatManAgain should be unblocked, and an apology should be made to him/her for involving him/her in this mess before we lose him/her as a productive editor.
    This is not OK. The community expects better.˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Holy cheese and rice. The editor admitted to chatting with their friend, then editing the same article. I politely declined the first unblock, and gave them FRIENDLY advice on how to compose a new unblock that would address it and get them unblocked. In short, I highly suggested the re-request unblock and pointed them to GAB where it says "show the community it won't happen again". Suddenly I'm asking for some dog-and-frickin-pony show? No. All I said was "do another unblock that says this you'll get unblocked". What a bloody waste of time some people like to perform around here. A single declined unblock, and someone else gets their shorts in a knot instead of doing the right thing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The checkuser evidence combined with Scottywong's tool points in the direction of a sock connection between Schrodinger's cat is alive and Hydeblake.  --Lambiam 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't remotely agree with Daniel's interpretation. There is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. (I unblocked because I decided to give the benefit of a small amount of doubt.) If it isn't one person then it is meatpuppetry. Contrary to what you say, there was disruption, in the form of one account supporting the other in an AfD. Daniel, you refer to "wrongful" blocks as though that were an objective fact. It isn't: it is your judgement. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The CheckUser casts sufficient doubt on your "strong" evidence by pointing to the different useragents used by the two editors. If there was meat puppetry in the AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carratu_International), it isn't (and wasn't) a very effective strategy. Where was the benefit gained in using a meat puppet to do what Schro could do just as effectively her/himself? If you suggest that this was an attempt to pile on the votes, then (a) how did Schro see that that was needed; and (b) why didn't s/he follow through and actually pile on the votes?
    What did DeltaQuad have to go on in the first instance? There was no SPI report and no CheckUser involvement (until now). So why was the block given in the first place? On the basis of "again" in the username? Where did the suspicion (because that's all we had, and all we still have) come from? That there was no discussion or investigation or 'anything prior to this block says that this is inarguably a wrongful block in contravention to WP:BLOCK. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your very poor judgement speaking again. It was a fully-valid block according to that policy. Your bizarre interpretation is not getting you anywhere, except causing additional embarrassment for the now-unblocked user. Suspicion is enough. Stop screwing with the poor editor - you're making them (and yourself) look bad. Your involvement in this has been poor from the start. Drop the stick. Oh, and if you don't know the different between a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN yet, even more reason to move along (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of just saying that it's poor judgement on my part and that it was a fully valid block etc., then how about you explain how it is compliant with policy instead of circling the wagons? A new user has been blocked, for no good reason. That's the situation. It's abhorrent.
    Separately, yeah, I wrote ban rather than block, quickly fixed. But, whatever helps your ad hominem case. Pointing it out makes you look like a tool. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And now you're warning me about personal attacks? Have you tried reading that policy before you make such accusations? Funny how you accuse me of such where none exist, yet include your own. Brilliance - sheer brilliance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you like to explain how pointing out a minor mistake on my part that I quickly fixed was relevant to this discussion? It isn't. It was an argument "to the person" rather than to the actual content.
    While we're on the topic of reading things we link: from WP:DUCK: "The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." Emphasis added. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can a "non-involved" Admin go over this?

    I'd like to ask that a non-involved Admin look at this, because it's clear that this is going to get nowhere when people are unwilling to take responsibility and just fix the situation.

    The issues at hand as I see them are that: (a) A new user has been blocked on the basis of suspicion, and nothing else and this damages the project; (b) The blocking admin put on the block without any discussion, complaint or consultation with, for example, a CheckUser; (c) There was no disruption to the project and there is no continuing disruption to the project.

    Either explain how the above is acceptable per Wikipedia policy/practice or do what DeltaQuad, JamesBWatson and BWilkins are unwilling to do and work on a way to repair the situation. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted the attempt to close this discussion by Bwilkins before I posted the above because he is clearly and unambiguously WP:INVOLVED. This was raised on Bwilkins talkpage (diff), but the response was a revert with an abusive edit summary (diff). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, are all three admins you mentioned above "involved", and not just BWilkins? Because none of them appear to be actually involved in the way I think you mean; and searching for an "uninvolved" admin does not mean finding one who agrees with you when the majority do not. The blocked user can simply post an unblock request. They have yet to do that. Doc talk 11:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I missing something, or are you seriously arguing that this was a bad block because the checkuser that confirmed these editors was carried out after the block and not before it? Is it perhaps that you feel it is only socks and not masters which should be blocked? Sorry if these seem like very simple questions, but I don't actually see that you've answered them in between all the polemic you're firing around. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pleased to see SC has been unblocked; as editors go there are few more industrious when it comes to getting articles promoted to GA. As for the "meat puppetry", none of the edits were undertaken to avoid a 3RR violation so I question whether there should have been an immediate block as well. I don't see the harm in two real-life acquaintances collaborating on an article, all they need to be aware of is that their edits won't be considered independent with respect to 3rr/edit-warring considerations. Betty Logan (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Evading the three revert rule is by no means the only reason for blocking sockpuppets. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc: it seems pretty clear that the three admins above are circling the wagons. It is their decisions that are in question, and therefore they are involved. In the real world, if I and a couple of my colleagues did the wrong thing, it would be unreasonable for us not to recuse ourselves from "resolving" the situation. That would be because we're "involved".
    Thumperward: No worries. I'm probably struggling to be clear because I'm saying roughly the same thing over and over trying to get some concession from the other side (instead I get told that I need a clue). The CheckUser's statement, together with the circumstantial evidence, leads to significant doubt about the point that the two users are one. I personally believe that socks and masters should both be blocked, but this does not seem to be the circumstance here. What seems to be the circumstance is that a new user has been and is still blocked based on "suspicion".
    So, yeah, I'm not happy about the process. Because if blocks can be handed out on the basis of suspicion without investigation and those decisions then become sacrosanct, then there is a real problem with how the community works. But the other problem is that a new user has been blocked needlessly. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree that hunch blocks are bad if they are baseless, but we have never required checkuser prior to sockblocks and if an admin has the savvy to identify socks without a checkuser then it that can only benefit us. In this case, considering the facts (SC and TMA are on the same IP: SC and TMA discussed TMA's plan to AfD an article on his first edit; the first comment at that AfD is from SC), it can certainly be argued that SC went about the process of introducing this new user to Wikipedia in a way which brought suspicion upon himself, because the pattern of edits is literally identical to that of any average AfD sock. Now given that SC has until now been in good standing and that the disruption here was minimal, would I have leapt straight to a dual sockblock? No, but it would not be baseless to do so. In the end this has been unpleasant for a number of reasons, most of which is due to editors assuming the worst of one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Am I missing something? Apart from Danjel, 11 editors have posted to this discussion, seven of them administrators, unless I have miscounted. Asking for more admins to comment looks strikingly like admin shopping. Could it just be, Danjel, that consensus is against you, and that you would be better off accepting the fact and dropping the stick? JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right! Several editors and admins have posted to this. This is the breakdown:
    Danjel (Editor): Does not support block
    Youreallycan (Editor): Does not support block
    EdinburghWanderer (Admin): Non-commital Comment
    JamesBWatson (Involved Admin): Supports block
    DeltaQuad (Involved Admin): Supports block
    TnXMan (Editor): Supports block
    Tiptoety (CheckUser): Non-commital Comment
    Bwilkins (Involved Admin): Supports block
    Drmies (Admin): Non-commital Comment
    Lambian (Editor): Non-commital Comment
    Erm... I wrote that I saw evidence for sock puppetry by SC.  --Lambiam 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc9871 (Editor): Non-commital Comment
    BettyLogan (Editor): Does not support block
    Thumperward (Admin): Does not support block
    That's not a very clear consensus your way when you take out the involved admins... Apologies in advance if I have misrepresented (1) anyone's positions or simplified complex positions as either for, against or non-commital; (2) an editor as an admin or vice versa. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm Doc talk 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is unblocked, yes? After properly requesting unblock and agreeing not to cause the problem again? The block was valid (and I would have Supported it - and the unblock - on the merits), and it's already been lifted. What did this dead horse do to you, Danjel? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Schrodinger's cat is alive has been unblocked, yes. User:ThatManAgain, the new user who probably has no clue what happened (there's not even a block template on his/her talkpage for him to appeal against) is still blocked. Schro can fight for him/herself at the moment, I'm advocating for ThatManAgain. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a note at Thatmanagain's talk page, explaining the block and showing how to make an unblock request. I absolutely and categorically oppose an unblock prior to that unblock request - but if they show that they understand what happened, and that they'll edit in other areas from Scrhodinger's Cat, I don't see why they could not be unblocked. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. It's not the outcome I want, obviously, but it's a way forward and you've done a good job of saying how to move forward for that user. I would suggest also that anyone reviewing his unblock request take special care with a new user, but don't know how to word that properly. Happy for the above to close (now), but still not happy about the below. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I put it as I did - you're right, they don't know. But if we unblock without helping them understand what happened and why, then they're just gonna get blocked again. The critical point is to edit in areas where Schrodinger's Cat isn't editing - that reduces the possibility of another block like this one. My wife edits once in a long while, and I stay right the hell away from those articles for that specific reason - no need to tempt fate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I see your point. I work in schools, but I try to be very careful about who knows that I edit here (primarily because I'd like to avoid telling my supervisors that I won't "spruce" up work-related articles for them as I have had to say once in the past). Wife is utterly disinterested in wikipedia (which is a shame because she's a researcher with substantially better writing skills and knowledge about certain things than I). *shrug*
    Can you close everything above now? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bwilkins

    Bwilkins has twice closed this discussion despite his clear involvement. This is a clear breach of WP:INVOLVED, particularly where a consensus has not completely formed. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus has been formed by the community long before you became involved in this single case. The newer consensus to come is your upcoming block for disruption and edit-warring. You cannot invoke involved because the reason I'm closing it is to protect both YOU and the editor you claim to be protecting. If you want WP:INVOLVED, just post one more misguided post on my talkpage that shows your ignroance for policy, and your contempt for this commmunity ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussions at ANI are routinely closed when either A) the issue is resolved, B) The discussion comes to a consensus, or C) when no further administrative action is requested/required/warranted. For the first section, A) applies. For the second, I look to point C) - What administrative action are you looking for? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded to you above. We're not arguing for Schro (who's situation is resolved, except for a messy block log, and I'm sure s/he doesn't care that much). User:ThatManAgain is still blocked so the issue is not resolved and further administrative action (or at least an explanation) is still required.
    I've unclosed this again. I'm not going to do it again and give someone an excuse to block me for 3RR, but I think Bwilkins is in breach of WP:INVOLVED, so that's a second issue that needs a resolution. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's 3RR you need to worry about; edit warring on ANI has always been spectacularly unwise, and Edit Warring is not defined solely by 3RR. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin actions (i.e., thread closure) by involved admins are meant to be unwise as well. So... ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone want to do the honour of blocking, I'm afraid the editor cannot understand WP:INVOLVED nor edit-warring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't exactly resolve the situation, does it? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does - the still-blocked editor can follow the same rules and policies that every fricking other editr has to follow without the Lone Ranger misquoting and misinterpreting the norms, policies, and common sense that this community has built for years. Don't you see: you have become the problem, and are destroying any possible solution. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How? Put yourself in his/her shoes. There is no block template on their page. They probably won't be able to understand how to get through getting unblocked anyway, so how does closing this resolve the situation?
    As for having me blocked, this is how the discussion has gone:
    • Bwilkins: *involves self in discussion*
    • Danjel: Asks for non-involved opinion
    • Bwilkins: *closes thread in his favour*
    • Danjel: reopens thread, points out WP:INVOLVED, asks Bwilkins not to close thread
    • Bwilkins: *closes thread*
    • Danjel: reopens thread, again points to WP:INVOLVED
    Where's the resolution there? Or are you above the rule of WP:INVOLVED? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WTF? "In my favour?" My closure of the thread is well-explained, and I'm not sure how any of this involves me other than I declined an unblock and tried very hard to explain to the editor how to become unblocked. You really need to read and try to understand the most basic of policies around here before appointing yourself to be someone's laywer on this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, in your favour. In favour of the position that you adopted and, whether by design or not, to head off having to explain your actions. Schro might not have an issue, but I have a problem with people who accept a position of power and then either abuse it or don't put the necessary effort in. You really need to read WP:INVOLVED or, if you can't do your job right, just hand back the mop. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Slow down, take a step back, and relax. I've posted at ThatManAgain's talk page with a path forward. Now you need to stop with the disruption and the accusations. Disrupting ANI will get you blocked, and I don't give a good goddamn if other editors have done BAD THINGS or not - your conduct is at issue. It would be well for you to take a step back before you do get blocked. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, how is my conduct at issue? Because I have a problem with an admin working in breach of WP:INVOLVED? What's the point of having WP:INVOLVED if the moment it's brought up it's either blank ignored (as by Bwilkins) or the result is the party who brought up the issue is considered to be conducting himself badly? The admin conduct here has been shameful from the block on suspicion (without a template) to the circling of the wagons to the involvedness. I've seen first grade teachers work better with their charges. It speaks to a very broken culture. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Dispute with Editor 7&6=thirteen

    Yesterday I made an edit to Edward Terry Sanford's See also section which had a link to List of United States Chief Justices by time in office. Since Sanford was never Chief Justice so a link to the list is irrelevant. This particular associate justice served under just one chief justice and most AJs serve at most under two or three. How is a link to a list of mostly people he had no association with relevant. There is a SA link to cases of the Chief Justice(Taft) he served under and I have no problem with that.

    I've noticed similar links to the list article in other justice articles and this morning and began taking out more See Also links. This editor, 7&6=thirteen , reverted my Sanford edit and a few others I do. I reverted them and also posted to a talk page[55] so to work this matter out.

    This editor though has been belittling me and I'm getting a little tired of it. My edits and even reversions were never personal however he wrote "Nobody else is "confused." Its not confusing to readers." Why the bringing up of confused? I never use the word. He addressed me as Mr. William before listing every post I changed. Nobody calls me Mr. William. It's obviously a first name.

    My reply to him- An offer to get another editor to mediate. His response included more swipes at me 'your new found epiphany'.[56] J A check of my edit history will show me regularly cleaning up See Also sections including in one particular instance where I took out some 20 or so links and which he didn't like but another editor ruled in my favor. It's possible he's carrying a chip on his shoulder from that or he thinks he owns certain articles. I'll let somebody else determine that. No epiphanies, just me poking around parts of wikipedia I follow and making attempts to improve articles in certain subject areas that interest me.(Golf, Baseball, Judges and law articles, aviation incidents, Florida, town articles to name a few)

    I told him I didn't like his attitude(The harshest thing I said about him to that point was 'one editor disagrees', So he replied. 'I'm sorry that you don't like my attitude. WP:Civil precludes me from discussing yours.' He also wrote 'You either overlooked or chose not to respond to my proposal. Duly noted.' I went to the talk page, made my points, offered to settle this through the help of another editor and promised to maintain the status quo till the matter was settled(I've made no more changes since I made that offer), but get this reply 'While I have no problem with mediation or arbitration in theory (I do that for a living), I don't think we are there yet. Let's get the input from the other concerned editors. This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason.' Is he now saying I can't reason?

    He defends the links because they have been up for a long time but where in WP does it say something can't be removed just because of the length of time something has been in an article.

    So I brought the matter here and I'll inform him as soon as I leave....William 15:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand on the record. I am not belittling anyone. If I got his name wrong, I am sorry. No offense was made and none was intended. I was suggesting that we ALL should try to come to a reasoned consensus. Hypothetically, even if WilliamJE and I agree, it is no substitute for informed debate and consensus by the larger community. When I said, "This is actually a bigger issue (with other implications) than this relative 'tempest in a teapot.' I expect that we can come to a consensus, and do this through reason." I was trying to work through to consensus and to put the matter in perspective. I was not impugning WilliamJE's intellect or rationality. In fact, I was hopeful that we could harness it and come to a good wikipedia solution without intervention by third party intermediaries. WilliamJE is being overly sensitive. It isn't about him. It isn't about me. It's about coming to a good solution through recognized debate and decision making.
    I note that he indulged his editing decision by vandalizing a bunch of pages. He then invited debate and told me to go to the judiciary page. He continued his editing, notwithstanding calling for a truce. I went to the section of the page that he created, and tried to engage him and other editors. I also asked him nicely to stop the wholesale changes, and to engage in the debate he started. Those pleas have been ignored.
    I truly don't understand his complaint, if there is one in there. Apparently he doesn't want the matter debated on its merits. If this is a personal complaint, I request that you DISMISS it outright. If this is an attempt to invoke arbitration of mediation, I have not and do not consent. While I could ask for retribution from the Administrators, I choose not to do that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retribution? For what? Complaining? I don't see the vandalizing you refer to.  --Lambiam 21:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not vandalizing and this editor is more than sufficiently smart enough to know the difference. The edits are ones he did and the attitude he's shown in reply to my removal of them gives me the impression he feels he WP:OWNs these articles or at least the parts he's worked on. See this content dispute between the two of us from Feb 2012 for why I get that impression. The See Also section in question was bursting at the seems and not in line with similar sections in other justice articles. I cleaned out the clutter and he took objection.
    BTW at the talk page where these most recent See Alsos are being discussed, the only two editors to chime in so far have supported my stance.[57]...William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor also accuses me of violating a ceasefire I called for here.[58] I clearly wrote "In the meantime I won't change anything more and you don't do reversions either. The status quo till this matter is settled. Agreed?" A check of my user history[59] will show I haven't edited one single judge article since making that call. He is misrepresenting what took place....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    William, what administrative action(s) are you requesting exactly? After looking at this, what I see looks like a run-of-the-mill content dispute. Wouldn't it be better to wait and let this discussion pan out?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am waiting to see how the discussion pans out. My coming to here was to get this editor to stop his jabs at me. He's made his dislike of my edits into a way to make subtle personal attacks....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (As an aside, I know 3 unrelated families whose last name is "William" (no, not Williams). As well, calling someone "Mr *insert first name*" is usually a sign of respect) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is big family. I'd never run across this particular editor before. In a place that is rife with pseudonomyous names, it was a mistake as to which name he was using. Not unlike calling the former president of Korea Mr. Il, not Mr. Kim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He has come across me before and we had a content dispute in February 2012. Posts are here[60] and here[61]. This dispute was settled through a third editor at the talk page.[62] Like this dispute it was also about the See also section. Note I offered to settle this the same way, he refuses. I am still willing to settle it the same way.
    As for the use of Mr. in front of my name, I also go by Bill(JE as in WilliamJE my WP identity are the first two letters of my last name), when someone puts Mr. in front of it I'm reminded of this[63] and when addressing a person as Mr. Bill the Bill in question may not feel very flattered. In the light of the tone he's taken and the use of word retribution, confusion, and vandalism towards me, the calling of me as Mr. William makes me think his use of Mr. wasn't sincere....William 13:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that a generous dose of good faith is in order followed by some tea. At this point it would be best to drop any differences and continue in the content discussion. Fortunately, there are more editors who have joined the discussion so the two of you don't have to continue as before. I don't see anything sanctionable here...these sort of civility issues are also best reported at WQA.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 14:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently Bill has a better memory of the prior content dispute than I. In fact, I have no memory of it at all. I expect that I will go along with whatever the consensus is. I have no interest in going to war or arbitration over a minor content dispute. That of course is just my perspective. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 76.75.41.66

    WP:AIV is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved
     – IP blocked. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user 76.75.41.66 is a repeat vandal who has received warnings every month without fail, so I am suggesting blocking him for 1 month for continually vandalizing Wikipedia.--Deathlaser talk 16:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. In the future, WP:AIV is the best place to report vandals such as this. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    user:RepublicanJacobite, Steampunk, WP:OWN and forum shopping

    There is a long-running WP:OWN issue regarding RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs) and Steampunk. Part of this involves the film The City of Lost Children, which is widely regarded as having been an inspirational film in the steampunk genre, at a time (1995) before the genre was widely recognised or known under this name.

    At the end of last year, RepublicanJacobite retired with the traditional page-blanking flounce. To be honest, I've missed him since - although we disagreed on the issue of new additions to an article on a pop culture scene that's at its most active right now (see Talk:Steampunk/Archive 9#David Bruce.27s .22Steampunk.22) we probably agreed on more edits than we disagreed, at least when it came down to pruning the obvious spammy crap. Since then the steampunk articles have suffered somewhat from the addition of poorly-written and over-promotional content. Unfortunately I'd be seen in the steampunk world off-wiki to have a COI about some of these, so I've felt unable to remove them.

    Recently though, RJ appears to have returned - I noticed this when once again he removed the category Steampunk films from City of Lost Children. I restored it, he removed it again with the (not unreasonable) message, "Provide a source showing this is steampunk; whether I've retired is none of your damn business.". So I did. Three of them, with added text. Since then he has removed these three references.

    More than that, I now notice that he has been forum shopping amongst admins, presumably to seek a block against me. User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie#Andy_Dingley, User_talk:NawlinWiki#Andy_Dingley, "I reported this to another admin., but he took no action."


    In a not-entirely unrelated issue, there has been a question about one of the refs I added. User_talk:Andy_Dingley#The_City_of_Lost_Children Another editor added a fourth reference and removed one of those I'd added. Now I accept their point - it's a low WP:RS blog cite, however we're not required to hold every ref to the standard of WP:RS, when the crucial issue of notability etc. has been demonstrated by solid WP:RS and this ref adds something in addition. In this case it's a pop culture blog discussing a pop culture issue with a useful direct quote [64] that indicates the strength with which this film has been adopted by the steampunk community.

    I would not have brought this pretty trivial issue to WP:ANI (and I don't think I have done previously, even though the WP:OWN goes back years). However secretively forum-shopping amongst admins is not a practice that we should stand for. If admin involvement is required on either side, then let's do it openly. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    RJ has removed the three added refs once again.
    One of these, Blake Peterson. "City of Lost Children" (PDF). Film Notes. Brattle Film Theatre. The cyberpunk fringe movement commonly called steampunk is a page from the regular viewer's notes for a serious and established cinema. Far from a lightweight blog, but WP:OWN doesn't see a distinction, just a pre-judged goal. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First the two of you should stop edit warring. Second the content is still there, only now it is sourced to academic sources and not blogs. I fully agree with you that there is an OWN issue, I also fully agree with the last edit by RJ. If we have academic sources the others are not needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So would you claim that any statement on WP should have at most one citation to support it - and that any that have more than this (as here) should have all but one removed? That's ridiculous. Other sources, particularly as here, where we use such a strong direct quote, add breadth. After all, this is a content issue that has been challenged so strongly by RJ so far that he has repeatedly removed the category, even though that one source was already listed on the talk: page.
    Why do you claim that the Brattle Film Theatre reference isn't WP:RS? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said Brattle Film Theatre was not reliable, I said as there are now two academic sources the others are not needed. Especially the blog . Is there a particular reason that source needs to remain? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the two "academic" sources? Cohen, yes - although it contains almost no content beyond the title, the word "steampunk" and a vaguely professorial imprint. Even then, this is no more than a student dissertation that we're reading. The Vandermeer anthology is far from academic - it's one of those innumerable sf anthologies that rushed out a few years ago to jump on the steampunk band-zeppelin. Removing the three other references removes the two that (whilst hosted on wordpress) actually contained accessible on-line content that benefited the readers of WP articles. I don't believe RJ is concerned about such matters - indeed, I believe that he deleted this content more because of who had added it than because of the content itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Steampunk and dubious references again? Sigh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    At least it's not dieselpunk.... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor Deleting Content

    Editors who opened it has asked for it to be closed, admin mentioned has had a chance to respond and there doesn't seem to be anything else that needs admin intervention. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This morning I created a page for Asia Food Recipe. The page was marked for speedy deletion within minutes of creation and was deleted within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion. I contacted the editor and the page was reverted and allowed for comments on the talk page (which was also deleted and had to be recreated). The page was deleted again within a few minutes by another editor with whom I also left a message. Since that time the page was returned and marked as recommended for deltion, but not speedy deletion. This is a good process as others can now weigh in on the matter.

    However, I made a comment to one of the original editors (user: JamesBWatson) reasons for wanting the page deleted. The comment can be seen=HERE. This user has since gone through my article page and deleted another article (TravelFox) that I just published. This is not the way to edit on Wikipedia. I understand that he/she may not agree with my opinion on why Asia Food Recipe is notable; however, the retaliation just to make a point is unacceptable.

    I would request that both Asia Food Recipe and the article TravelFox both be protected and that this user refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree. --Morning277 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional Information - The reason posted for the deletion of TravelFox was A7 which is listed below. Note that the bold section applies so I am unsure of why the article was deleted without being tagged for speedy deletion or nominated for deletion. This falls within vandalism. --Morning277 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content). An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions),[5] or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. This criterion does not apply to species of animals, only to individual animal(s). The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.[6] The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
    • No, they won't be protected. If anything they'll be protected from recreation. Sorry if you feel like your welcome was less than hearty, but these articles simply do/did not credibly claim importance, and the article currently at AfD is headed for deletion as well. Notability must be established using reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I've just looked at the deleted TravelFox, and it was a good A7 deletion. It was an article about a website that was only launched on March 1, and it gave no indication of the site's importance - it just described what it does. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (I see the article contradicts itself and says launched March 1, 2012, but founded in 2010, but no matter, there's still no indication of importance) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for both responses. The issue that I have is with the process. I have no issues with an article being nominated for deletion so that others can weigh in. Here, an editor disagreed with a comment that I wrote and instead of coming to my talk page (which is the first step in the process), he simply started to go through and delete anything that he could within what he probably thinks he can defend. The process A7 is if the claim of credibility is unclear, then it can be improved (which it was not), propose deletion, or list the article at article for deletion. None of these were done, it was just deleted. So, aside from the credibility of the article, I have an issue with the editor as although I will not consider it vandalism (as I think it falls short of the Wikipedia definition), the conduct is not appropriate.
    As far as claim of importance, there is one for each article. TravelFox is a different kind of travel search engine that uses other travel search sites and not the travel companies (hotels, airlines, etc.) themselves. This is notable to me however, we seem to disagree. This is why the page should have been left and nominated for deletion instead of blanked. For Asia Food Recipe, it is the largest recipe submission site in Asia and also uses YouTube uploads (you should try the site it is actually pretty cool). They also have Asian recipes for diabetics which is soemthign you will not find on other recipe websites. If Asia Food Recipe is deleted because it is not notable, then the following should as well: AfroFoodtv.com Cookin' with Coolio Epicurious FoodPair RecipeBridge Yummly. Some of these articles have NO SOURCES yet they still remain. I pointed this out to JamesBWatson but instead of going to those articles, he decided to delete TravelFox. I would delete the other articles for recipe websites; however, I fear that I would be blamed for vandalism and blocked from Wikipedia. All I am saying is that things need to be fair. If Asia Food Recipe is not notable, then neither are the others and they should be nominated for deletion or deleted immediately as TravelFox was.
    Finally, sorry to rant. I have been on Wikipedia for many years and have made numerous edits and page creations. I now need to delete my "bragging" section on my page in fear of another editor doing what JamesBWatson did for me disagreeing with him. Thank you for taking the time to respond and please consider the other articles listed above as a base for Asia Food Recipe. I looked at all of these prior to creating the article and determined that it was most certainty notable compared to the others that are still on Wikipedia. --Morning277 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read WP:otherstuffexists? The "but these pages are here and they're worse" argument is never taken as valid in deletion discussions. When determining the notability of a subject I really recommend that you don't use other pages as examples, as there are plenty of not-very-good Wikipedia articles. Regards, OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am familiar. What I am trying to say is that I feel that I am a very good contributor to Wikipedia. I have reverted countless vandalism and have made may edits and article creations. I would not put something up that I feel did not meet the guidelines. I felt that this article was not only notable but an overall improvement to the category. Thank you for the information. As far as the other articles, can I delete them without being accused of vandalism? --Morning277 (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying that you're not a good contributor. I believe that you are, and if others feel that something you created should be deleted then that doesn't make you a bad contributor. People disagree and all that. And yes, you can nominate the other articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. That's certainly not vandalism. OohBunnies! Leave a message 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict)

    • I have no idea why Morning277 thinks "The page [Asia Food Recipe] was deleted again within a few minutes": it has been deleted only once. After I deleted it and Morning277 questioned the deletion, I restored it to allow him/her to improve it even though I still thought (and still think now) that it does not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion standards. (Incidentally, the deletion did not take place "within 10 minutes of being marked for speedy deletion", it took place 29 minutes after being tagged: the times were 12:33 and 13:02.) The deletion of TravelFox was not "retaliation just to make a point", but because the article made no claim whatsoever of significance. I wonder what makes Morning277 think it was "retaliation just to make a point". As for "this user [evidently meaning me] refrain from going through my edits just because they disagree", rightly or wrongly the way the Wikimedia foundation runs Wikipedia involves entrusting certain editors, called "sysops" or "administrators", to make judgements as to whether pages satisfy Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria. Rightly or wrongly the Wikipedia community has decided that I am one of those entrusted with that task. As long as that is so, I will exercise that trust in good faith, to the best of my ability, and the idea that I should abstain from doing so in the case of articles created by one particular editor because he/she disagrees with some of my judgements does not seem to me to be within the spirit of how Wikpedia works. Finally, if there are other articles which you think should be deleted, then please nominate them for deletion. It is unreasonable, however, to criticise another editor for not doing so. There are over three million articles on English Wikipedia, and there is a limit to what any one editor can do. It is inevitable that among the millions of useful things I could have done but didn't, there will be some which you think would have been more useful than some of the things I did. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Ultimately, "credible claims of importance" need to turn into evidence of notability (though actual notability doesn't need to be demonstrated to avoid A7), so we're not looking for "I personally think this site is important because it's different from other sites in that it has xxx", what we need is "People out there think it's important, because they've said xxx", or it's featured in mainstream media, or things like that. So ultimately, an article needs evidence that the subject is considered notable by independent parties, and that must be supported by reliable sources. Now, to judge the "importance" needed to avoid A7 speedy deletion, I tend to think along the lines of "Is anything currently in the article likely to be the kind of thing that could ultimately turn into notability as defined by WP:N?" In my opinion, nothing in TravelFox came close. It's a meta-search that uses other searches? That's no big deal - sites have been doing that for years in all sorts of fields. But if you disagree and you believe there is more out there that can at first support a claim of importance, and ultimately show notability from independent reliable sources, an admin can userfy a copy (that is, provide a copy in your user space) for you to work on - ask the deleting admin. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One more thought has occurred to me. Morning277, you accuse me of deleting everything you created that I could "within what [I] probably [think I] can defend". How does that fit in with the fact that I restored a deleted article to give you a chance to improve it? I suggest you reconsider your view that I am out to get you. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated on your talk page, you are an expert contributor. As such, I feel that you know the guidelines of nobility and know the process for when an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability. The first is to contact the article creator or an expert on advice where to look for sources. The second is to use a notability tag. The article could also have been nominated for deletion instead of simply being deleted (I am referring to TravelFox at this point). That is why the immediate deletion of an article that has been online for a month without leaving any comment on my talk page (which I did to yours before coming here and not getting a response) led me to conclude that you were trying to prove a point.
    Again........I have no issues with you. What is done is done and it is only wasting time talking about something that obviously will not be undone. I will do what I can to find more sources for TravelFox to show its notability. This may take more time but I will make sure it meets your definition before re posting it (and according to Wiki guidelines, will even let you know before I re post it). I appreciate what you are doing by protecting Wikipedia from vandalism, spam, and un-notable articles. I get upset when the process is not followed as I am a good contributor on Wikipedia and not someone who is just spamming information. I do give credibility to my edits (even if others do not always agree with them). With that being said, you can close this discussion unless you have something else you want to get in. I will hopefully run into you again in the future under better circumstances. --Morning277 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Morning277, you're really not correct about the process here. If an article doesn't make any credible claims of importance, then it is not required to discuss it with the creator first - we get so many thousands of A7 articles that we'd never have time to deal with them if we did that. And it is not necessary to go to AfD either. If an article on a topic that fits the conditions in A7 does not make a credible claim of importance (and in my view, TravelFox did not), then it is perfectly proper to nominate it for Speedy Deletion, and if an admin reviews the nomination and agrees with it, it is perfectly proper for them to delete it. I understand this is frustrating, but please don't see it as criticism of you. When an article is tagged, you can contested the deletion - but if it is deleted before you get the chance, you can still have a word with the deleting admin and ask if it can be restored, or possibly userfied. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I copmletely agree. I have reverted hundreds of vandalism edits so I understand that there is no time to go through the entire process with every article. The issue here is that the TravelFox article was not tagged. It is important to look at an editors credentials as most A7 articles are created by people who only have minor edits. I am an experienced editor and we simply disagree about the notability. Unfortunately, I am an editor and not an admin so your interpretation is what sticks. I accept that fact. When editing content made by another editor, I always look at their contribution history as their experience also gives weight to the information they edit (this does not mean that it is correct, but it would lead me to contact them as opposed to someone who only has a few minor edits). Again, it is no longer a big deal. I will either find the information (if it is available) or wait for it to become more notable and re-post the articles at a later date when they will meet the requirements. Thanks for the comments. --Morning277 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, what I should also have said is that is that if an admin sees an article that is a valid A7 candidate, they can actually opt to delete it without tagging it first. But one other thing - I don't get to be right just because I'm an admin, and you have just as much right to opine on policy decisions as I do. Anyway, the first thing to do if you have an article deleted is have a word with the deleting admin - so what I'd suggest is that you just ask if he'll userfy the article for you - then you can try to produce a version that is properly supported etc. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I know what you are saying about not getting to be right. I am an attorney by profession (not quite starving yet) and my opinions do not always agree with the judge's opinion (some of my clients will tell you so). That was my point. Although I do not necessarily agree with the notability as discussed, I honor the fact that you and JamesB are admins and that the final say is left to you. As such, I will do what is necessary according to you in order to have the article included. Also, I have a copy of the template that I used to post the original article so I will just use that when it is posted in the future. And yes, I am experienced and know the editing process. Although he probably will not speak with me, I will contact JamesB prior to re posting the article as he is the one who deleted it. Hopefully, it will satisfy his opinion on the notability requirement. If not, I will just keep doing what I have to until it does. Thanks for the advice. --Morning277 (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we put a "resolved" tag on this thing or what??? --Morning277 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Anatomist90 image spam

    This user seems to be doing one single thing on Wikipedia: Rapid-fire posting of his own photos of cadaver dissections with no regard for policy or guidelines and no communication. Images are usually added to a gallery rather than integrated within the text. There are often minor variations of the same image. Some images are only tangentially related to the article and there is usually only a simple title for a caption rather than an explanation. He has 1,075 live edits after 141 deletions, and a quick scan of his history suggests that nearly all of his edits represent this problem. He has never once edited an article talk page and has made only two edits in user talkspace.[65] He often makes 20-40, sometimes as many as 70 (April 11), of these edits per day, typically with only one or two minutes between each one. He has had numerous warnings and one block related to image posting, with four warnings[66][67][68][69] closely related to the problem I describe here. He has not responded to these warnings, neither by communication nor by change in behavior.--Taylornate (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    With respect to "he has not responded to these warnings". Let look at this one [70]. The user in question has responded here [71] and appears to be a "she" not "he".
    A couple of these are not "warning" but rather guidance. This [72] is some advice and looking at one of the pages in question we do need a better image to replace this [73]. The other one starts with "I am very pleased to see you contributing" [74]
    The user in question also is from Romania and there might be a bit of a language barrier. I think we need to assume good faith at this point.
    I have send the user in question a well deserved barnstar! And will provide a little further guidance. I make at least 70 edits a day. Hardly a judge of a bad editor. In fact if you look at the number of images they have uploaded it is greater than 1000. So they are not adding the same image to every page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In Romania the given name "Adrian" is normally male.  --Lambiam 22:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question: Where is the multiple attempts to discuss this problem with this user that the OP has surely attempted before coming to "the court of last resort"? All I see is one message 7 days ago but no further attempts at resolving this with the user or attempting to get people involved with pictures (or anatomy articles) to help weigh in. Can you go back and try to work with the user? Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said I don't think she is doing this in bad faith, but I don't know what to do if she won't communicate and I'm frustrated. I think we can agree there is a communication problem and I don't understand how I am to go back and work with her. I guess there is no harm in posting a couple more messages even though I don't expect a response. If this is not the right place to post, then I think the welcome message at the top could be more clear. Help from administrators and experienced editors sounds like what I want and I don't see anything about "court of last resort" or multiple attempts to discuss. I did consider posting to the anatomy project page instead, maybe that would have been better.--Taylornate (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    DeFacto's sock's sock

    WP:SPI is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Resolved

    Recently, User:DeFacto's sock User:6 foot 6 was blocked. As stated on the talk page of 6 foot 6, he created a new account, User:6feet6.  megaphone Can someone block 6feet6? Thanks. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - File an SPI case next time though please. It helps to create a better paper trail. Cheers, Tiptoety talk 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    RFO Backlog?

    Hello, I put an RFO request in early this morning and have not gotten a response. It could be that it got lost in the system, but is it possible there is a backlog at RFO? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    SPA rv warrior sock?

    Veidaknyge (talk · contribs) looks like a SPA engaging in disruptive revert warring. I don't indent to fight it out with a SPA, but I'd suggest an admin review of his edits, and, admin/community-consensus-pending, a block and revert of his edits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is a little unusual. 14 contribs and they are all reverts of one editor. I've looked at a couple of pages, and there seems to be some back and forth reverting going on between the same few editors. I also notice that one admin has been previously into some of these articles, and I will drop him a note. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I notified Drmies since he has made edits on several of these, and did a little digging of my own. While I see some back and forth reverting, it is usually two edits a day, every couple of months. Not exactly warrior efforts. Veidaknyge just started today and while his edits have been narrow in scope, having a single purpose account isn't against policy, it is what you do with it that counts. In this case, his edits *appear* to be consistent with previous consensus, but feel free to provide a diff if a consensus was formed and I'm mistaken, as there is nothing on the talk pages recently, except a couple of editors talking about how it shouldn't have that same info on one of the articles. Otherwise, it seems a part of WP:BRD with a lack of D. The more steady state of the articles appears to be without the material. I also didn't see anyone actually approach the editor on his talk page, except for a notice for this ANI, which might have been the better place to start. As to the merits of including or not, I would leave that up to the editors of the articles as that is a content dispute. Regardless, I just don't see any evidence of what I would call warring, vandalism, sockpuppeting or abuse, and only a content dispute. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add, that if you feel this is a case of sockpuppeting, and have more info than you have provided here at ANI, the proper place to go would be WP:SPI. Without a name to compare contribs to, or more specific information of some kind, I don't see an obvious connection to another editor. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 00:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Orionus (talk · contribs) went around reverting the changes of Mathiasrex (talk · contribs) to just about all these articles back in Feb. The reporting party reverted all of Orionus' changes, months later, quickly followed by Veidaknyge reverting those reverts. Orionus (recently inactive) and Veidaknyge (fresh off the boat) may be unrelated, but there are systematic reverts happening between a relatively few editors. Doc talk 02:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I noticed the edits (including Drmies reversions that deleted the info on some) and checked other contribs, but what makes me hesitant to jump to conclusions is the amount of time between reversion, two months. There is no advantage that I am aware of to using a sock when you wait 2 months between edits. Without more evidence, it looks more like a group dispute happening in slow motion, which isn't particularly troubling yet. Attempting to talk to Veidaknyge directly on this talk page would have been the best first step, however. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 02:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps. I personally think Veidaknyge may not respond, but you are certainly correct that it's best to attempt to talk it out before running to AN/I. SPI seems to move about as quickly as a glacier, even for the duckiest of cases, as of late. All the editors have been notified, and with any luck they can explain why they are methodically reverting each other across several articles. Doc talk 03:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removing/adding of Polish names to some Lithuanian settlements has been a slow edit war for half a decade. I stopped caring about it years ago, but don't like seeing reverts w/out any explanation, as Orionus was doing. And the sudden appearance of a SPA to quickly revert me, which ignored my request to discuss thing, is a worrisome sign, and harks back to the battleground days where editors in this area would edit war much more actively. I'd hope that the community has not forgotten enough about this issue to tolerate a revert-dedicated SPA. I am all for AGF and such, but I bet you all of my 150k wikiedits experience this SPA is not there for the D part of BRD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, it is late and I may be dense or otherwise incapacitated, but is there any reason not to slap Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jacurek/Archive in the edit summary that reverts those edits? Dennis, consider adding it to the SPI and mass-nuke their edits (and then tell me how to do it). An obvious sock is obvious: blocked indefinitely. If I'm wrong, I'm terrifically sorry and will apologize to the brand-new nameless editor with their boilerplate summaries. Piotrus, can you stick the appropriate template on their user page? Drmies (talk) 05:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I think you're a little confused. Jacurek would've been on the other side. This *might* be one of the Lithuanian-side users that got banned along with Jacurek.VolunteerMarek 05:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe Western-Europeans shouldn't be asked to dance the polka then. Go ahead and change my indef-block explanation to "indef block for boilerplate and thus unexplained reverts by an obvious though at this moment unidentified sock of whichever persuasion." Marek, don't insult me by calling me a "little" confused. I may well be utterly confused. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't mean to insult you - ok, you were utterly confused. But it's ok, even I get confused with these things sometimes.VolunteerMarek 05:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense taken. I'll file my desysop with my power bill and the Costco leaflet. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I should have checked the block log, rm comments from a few minutes ago. I see you already blocked. It did look duckish, but didn't have a name to tie him to so I didn't want to start templating editors, and knew you would have the answer. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 10:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Urgent need for admin support

    All a misunderstanding due to a class project creating too many accounts at once. Amicably resolved, cookies to all Blackmane (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    ADMIN MuZemike has blocked JSeroff and our project creating accounts for 64 new student users. We need immediate action, I am teaching classes tomorrow, and students need access.

    KSRolph (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Extended log
    (del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jseroff (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked Jolejolejole (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17calder (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17nbarch (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17bcachay (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mcarter (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:03, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17ccho (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17uchoudhury (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17ccontreras (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17gcusing (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17kdreyfus (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17fforstall (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:01, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17hdyson (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mfrick (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17gfrome (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17egarreau (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17sgerber (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgoetz (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 23:00, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgoldberg (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 22:57, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17mgray (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)
(del/undel) 22:57, 18 April 2012 MuZemike (talk | contribs | block) blocked 17kgreatwood (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Abusing multiple accounts) (unblock | change block)

    Is this what you are referring to? I'll go notify MuZemike (talk · contribs) of this thread. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very sorry for what has occurred above, as I was seeing many, many accounts being created off mobile ISPs and not what we would normally expect - which is off of school IPs. I have gone ahead and unblocked all of them. --MuZemike 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Colleagues-

    Yes, this is it. We still need to create 6 more accounts - hope they can be generated at the same IP? We understand, of course, that there can be problems and vandalism. High schools are targets, so no worries as long as we can push ahead and introduce students as newbies to contributing! KSRolph (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Normally instructors investigate WP:SUP beforehand. Good luck (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:ACC to create accounts. MBisanz talk 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    URGENT - Please suspend Autoblock - is blocking multiple accesses from this IP address and tomorrow all students will use same IP due to school's internet service provider set up. Please unblock librarian JSeroff and IP address. Thank you all for responses. KSRolph (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Karen, the students who were unblocked above (and Jseroff) can now edit normally using their user accounts. If any additional students need to create accounts who don't have one, please e-mail me their desired usernames and e-mail addresses and I will create accounts for them immediately. I'll also e-mail you this information. Dcoetzee 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not currently seeing any autoblocks at the moment. If there are any, they should expire by tomorrow. --MuZemike 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Friday, April 20 are the Wikipedia contributing classes, beginning 15:30 UTC. New users will be in Simple English. Sorry for complications and thanks to all. KSRolph (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There are security issues, for this reason, usernames were not posted, working with school's regulations and protocols - not my own plan, otherwise would have utilized resources. Thank you kindly, KSRolph (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Administrators, please update your applicable administrative process checklist or best practices page with what occurred here so that the same mistake won't happen again. Thanks. Cla68 (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't classify this as a "mistake" on the part of Muzemike. 9 times out of 10, someone creating a bevy of new accounts is up to no good. That's why we have a limit of 5. I think his actions were entirely reasonable and any number of admins may have made the same judgement. I think a misunderstanding is a better way to characterize it.

    For the record, nobody *needs* anything on Wikipedia. Editing here is not a right. However, I'm glad this was able to be worked out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a right in the penumbra of the First Amendment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but if I catch anyone emanating in the penumbras I'll revert him faster than you can say open and gross lewdness. EEng (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no First Amendment right to edit Wikipedia anymore than there's a First Amendment right to have the New York Times publish someone's article. It doesn't apply to private organisations but to states and the Federal government. "the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion." but that doesn't seem relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:FREESPEECH might be relevant. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm impressed with the rapid response of admins and our ambassador. Cool. High fünf to Alles. KSRolph (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    COI tag usage for Wikipedia articles used as educational assignments

    Is it appropriate to tag Wikipedia articles whose development is part of an educational assignment under the Wikipedia:United States Education Program with {{COI}}? User:LauraHale has tagged Dimensional models of personality disorders with COI stating that the article is being used to assess student work. As she has accused participants of the Online Ambassador program of WP:MEATPUPPETRY, I'd like for non-involved admins to comment. See Talk:Dimensional_models_of_personality_disorders#Conflict_of_Interest_not_resolved as well as the article's AFD and Wikipedia_talk:Ambassadors#DYKs_and_students. Smallman12q (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it's not. There is about as much COI there as between any random editor and article. Educational projects and editing have been an accepted part of Wikipedia for many years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 03:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That tagging is just silly. The COI tag is there to warn of potential spam, sneaky neutrality problems &c. Just how severe is the threat that students might gain marks on their assignment by, err, making a better article? bobrayner (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be one of the most rediculous and boneheaded things I have ever heard. Wikipedia, with direct Foundation guidance and support, has long been involved in actively helping educators use the editing of Wikipedia, including creation and improvement of articles, as educational tools in their classrooms, per WP:SUP and the Online Ambassadors Program, among other initiatives. There have been probably hundreds of projects that have happened, and what this tagging does is the equivalent of giving these good-faith contributors the middle finger. No, no, and no. This needs to stop yesterday. Seriously, this cannot be allowed to go on. --Jayron32 04:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Folks, perhaps you would be willing to take your comments to the talk page of the article, where there is a post insisting that the lack of demonstrated consensus for removing the tag means that the tag must remain. So far, I'm seeing a pretty clear consensus in *this* discussion that the tag should go, but... Risker (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Facepalm Facepalm . I agree with Jayron's assessment of the situation exactly, and I've delivered the seafood express forwith. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh dear me. Firstly, do editors not get informed that they're being hauled to ANI these days? Secondly, while the COI tagging of the article is plainly silly, there's still the matter of the alleged vote-stacking at DYK: is that something that we actually care about? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I had informed the user (rev).Smallman12q (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. Right: there seems to be consensus that the tag was inappropriate, and the editor who placed it has been informed of this discussion and declined to comment on it. Are we done here, or is the issue with DYK getting overloaded with a student project a) an issue at all and b) something which needs immediate action? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This tagging is one of the silliest things I have ever seen done by an established user. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Pureobjectivetruth possible sockpuppet

    Not an AN/I matter. There's a Twinkle tab for warning regarding removal of speedy deletion tags, and if that doesn't work, WP:AIV is thataway ←, while WP:SPI is thataway →. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User talk:Pureobjectivetruth is disrupting by removing speedy deletion tag from Horrification. That alone doesn't warrant bringing to ANI, but the username suggests he might be a sockpuppet, so I was wondering if anyone could go fishing for possible matches to other accounts this person may have used. Chutznik (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ● Outlook not so good. Doc talk 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No indication of socking, and it wouldn't be an issue for this board anyway. Also, Chutznik, "We are watching what you do on Wikipedia"? Please put your big brother back in your pocket. This is a simple case of some vandalism, that's all. Someone, please close. Nothing here for ANI to begin with.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Is Pumpie back?

    Could some people who are more familiar with the sad old case of Pumpie (talk · contribs) have a look to see if Chuckles260 (talk · contribs) might be a sock of his? I'm not familiar enough with the old case to be certain enough to file an SPI, but some of his behaviour rings a bell (like, very poor English, posting machine translations from el-wp, stubborn unresponsive behaviour). See User talk:Chuckles260#Warning for a summary of problems. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Chuckles260 (talk · contribs) used to be Chuckles250 (talk · contribs), until this user got a 48 hours block for disruptive editing. After the expiry of the block, he/she decided to start with a new account. If both were accounts of Pumpie, this would be a case of full-fledged sock puppetry. --RJFF (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info, I had missed that earlier account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Having had a look at the contribs of all three, which is thankfully very short, I see there are commonalities among them. The lack of edit summaries, marking every edit as minor, the focus on Greek topics. However, I don't really see any connection between Pumpie and these two. The two Chuckles accounts do a lot of gnomish edits with a few mistakes with their edits removing refs, but otherwise they don't use the talk page so it's impossible to tell if they communicate in the same distinctive style that Pumpie did, which led to a lot of facepalming. The two Chuckles accounts are obviously connected but I don't see enough evidence that Pumpie is connected with the two. Blackmane (talk) 09:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The 250 block is still in force, so shouldn't 260 be blocked for block evasion?  --Lambiam 13:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He was blocked in March, not April. If I read 250's block log correctly, 260 was started a few hours before the block expired. I personally don't think it's such a big deal, but starting a new account is needless and certainly smacks of some kind of evasion. If it is any kind of clean start Chuckles should indicate such, but given the lack of communicative efforts they may have to be strongly urged to do so. Can we simply block 250 permanently? All of this says nothing about the Pumpie matter, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request community ban for Nangparbat

    user:Nangparbat is a long term sockpuppeter, edit warrior with those socks and major POV pusher. I believe the time has come for a total community ban on Wikipedia rather than just an indefinite the block he is currently under. For all his sockpuppets seeThe SPI archive For his latest see The case page for other see Here. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: Not that I'd oppose this, of course, but why do we have this recent fashion that every de-facto-banned sockpuppeter needs to have their ban formally confirmed in this way? Why is the old habitual rule no longer good enough that indef-blocked users who then continue into a career of habitual sockpuppetry are treated as banned as a matter of course? (It's actually still written in WP:BAN: "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned.") Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because, as is pointed out every time it is questioned, even a de facto ban is just that - de facto - and could, conceivably, be overturned by a single admin at any time should the user in question provide what they, but not necessarily the community, believes to be succificently convincing arguments - and, in addition, there is the possibility of somebody WP:WIKILAWYERING that they're not really banned and, thus, reverting on sight isn't kosher. A formal community ban, on the other hand, requires the consensus of the community to overturn, and allows for {{BannedMeansBanned}} reverting and hammering of sockpuppets on sight without any ambiguity in the least. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am requesting it as an editor has seen fit to replace the banned tag from Nangparbat's talk page[75]. A prolific sockpuppeter like this needs to be community banned. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Darkness Shrines, the reason i removed the banned tag is because Nangparbat hasn't been banned and from all the ANI discussion i've seen in the old archives, there aren't any, and putting a banned tag without a discussion/conformation that he was doesn't make any sense to put it up there. True the guy is a socker. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  13:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Soviet King's response shows exactly why "De Facto Ban" is pointless. "De Facto Ban" is no different from a regular block. And if someone decides someone else is De Facto Banned there's nothing to stop anyone from saying "no he's not" and removing the tag. Community Ban discussions eliminate edit warring over whether someone is banned or not, among many other things. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:173.163.76.157

    User at IP address 173.163.76.157 seems to have a pattern of vandalism. Many revisions are small and easily overlooked (Special:Contributions/173.163.76.157. I'm going to go through some of those changes and double-check that they're legit. Just bringing this to someone else's attention. — OranL (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • WHOIS shows that this may be a business class broadband customer, so the odds are reasonably high that the IP is static. The history does seem to be one of vandalism, some more obvious than others. The edits are a little stale for WP:AIV, but a softblock might be in order here. There could be several good editors behind that IP but there is obviously at least one petty and somewhat persistent vandal who likes to edit in a rather narrow time window. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 12:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC) [non-admin][reply]
     Done Blocked. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Feline1 again

    Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745#Vandalism by long-term user Feline1 which resulted in a one week block, we now have this from Feline1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a blatant BLP violation. 2 lines of K303 13:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it? I'm not sure I even know what a "BLP violation" is, but edit I made was supported by the existing references, so I felt I didn't need to add any additional ones. It's quite a notable fact. I think it merits being in the article. In fact, I don't really understand why this is on this Admin noticeboard, rather than the article talk page. Although doubtless I'll find out soon enough.--feline1 (talk) 13:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to tell us where in the supporting reference the wording is that supports the claim "whom she had been grooming since his adolescence" is then? Since I, and doubtless 99.99% of other people, can't see it. 2 lines of K303 13:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, again, I don't see why we're not having this discussion on Talk:Iris Robinson rather than here. Having just read WP:BLP, I think you're quibbling about the legal definition of "grooming"? In most jurisdiction, it's taken as inappropriate fraternizing of an adult with a minor, with the intent for having a sexual relationship with them. The article and sources already explain that she did exactly that with a teenage orphan. --feline1 (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to say the same thing. Nowhere does it say or suggest that phrase. As such, it's a violation of our biography of living persons policy. Do not add your own commentary or synthesis like that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add for the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with the term due to cultural difference, grooming refers to child grooming, especially due to the addition of the "since his adolescence" part. 2 lines of K303 13:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    precisely! I thought it was a matter of public record? It's quite clear from the references already in the article (and is mentioned in the Iris Robinson Scandal article) that her 19 year old lover had been a family friend since his early teens. I don't really see what's controversial here, but you've already reverted my edit and I don't propose to get into an edit war about it.--feline1 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) That you don't see what the problem is precisely the problem, and why action is needed to prevent similar disruption to other articles. It says nothing of the sort in the Iris Robinson scandal article, the closest it gets is "Billy was a close friend of Iris Robinson and she had known Kirk from childhood" (which is sourced) and neither that nor the source suggest there had been any grooming going on. 2 lines of K303 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect, the fact that they embarked upon a sexual relationship as soon as Kirk reached the age of consent clearly does suggest there had been grooming going on.--feline1 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not yours to interpret. At least not here. if you're not able to understand that then it would indicate that this isn't the project for you. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "A matter of public record" must still be reliably sourced, especially one with such deeply negative implications on a living subject. Given this account's history, I think it;s worth considering whether we're beyond cluebat time here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the ANI archive linked at the top, this is a recurring problem that a one week block has failed to solve. Struck due to amended comment during edit conflict 2 lines of K303 14:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There has not been a 'recurring problem' of me violating WP:BLP on the Iris Robinson article, I've made constructive edits to it and contributed to its talk page several times over the years. I do, however, remember User:One Night In Hackney being rather unreasonably hostile towards me in the past. I doesn't seem their behaviour has changed at all in the intervening years.--feline1 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just violating BLP on other articles. Obviously I missed the part in policy that says you're allowed to BLP with impunity on other articles. 2 lines of K303 14:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully disagree. The edit you refer to on Kenny Everett was a deliberate silly joke. The edit you are complaining about today was not, it was made in good faith, and simply seemed to me to be an accurate way to succinctly label a highly notable aspect of the subject matter. This has been characterised above by BWilkins as "synthesis" and by User:Thumperward are "interpretation". Perhaps as I'm more used to editing scientific articles, if I see something in an article which appears to fit an established definition/term/label, but isn't stated as such, then I'll generally add said term. --feline1 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Silly joke"? 50.22.206.179 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Silly joke" indeed. Feline1, you should have been blocked for that "joke". This is an encyclopedia, and we take biographies of living persons seriously. Your inappropriate comment about O'Connor runs afoul of WP:BLP, even though that article is not about her (you might want to see here for unblock requests we won't action - including jokes). I cannot fathom that you would entertain such writing on scientific journals either. Please understand this to be a final warning against such jokes, synthesis, and other similar improper editing on this project (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I *was* blocked for it!--feline1 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    {ec}Such editing not only falls under not only WP:SYNTHESIS but also WP:OR. Although, I don't edit scientific articles on Wiki, I do write engineering papers and reports where I'm expected to synthesise my results. This is exactly the wrong approach to writing on Wiki and you should think about being more liberal in the use of the Preview button prior to submitting. Also, your "silly joke" has gotten many an editor blocked in the past and it was rightly reverted as vandalism. Blackmane (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading some of the exchanges on feline1's talk page just made my brain melt.Chillllls (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User page issue

    Deleted due to BLP concerns. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hey guys. Just stumbled across User:Chaddy youngmoney. It was created last September and that revision feels a bit promotional in tone (and includes a minor's DOB), and a few days ago it was vandalised to become an attack page about the young rapper. The kid whose userpage it is hasn't edited since last September (and only made two edits total). I've blanked the page for the moment, but I reckon the best bet would probably just be to delete the thing. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've deleted the page. If the user wishes to recreate their userpage later on, they may do so, but it seems wise to delete it if the history contains a promotional page with the DOB of a minor, and then an attack page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick response. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users still autoblocked

    Hi there. This is in reference to the above discussion about 64 or so students and teachers being blocked from editing. I received an email from editor User:KSRolph stating that she is still unable to edit Wikipedia or work on her project with her students because "A user of this IP address was blocked by MuZemike for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "17ccho". The reason given for 17ccho's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts"." The screen shot she sent me says it's set to expire at 22:40 20 April 2012. KS is requesting that this autoblock be removed sooner for educational purposes. I'm merely a messenger (and not an admin!), so there ya go! SarahStierch (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see anything there currently. Don't these autoblocks sometimes take a little while to "wear off"? or are any of the other accounts still blocked? I'll try and have a look, but I'm not good at this fancy footwork. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone. I'm sure I'll (or we!) will hear from KS of there are any other problems. SarahStierch (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    There should be something called an Autoblock ID in the screenshot she sent you. We would need that to clear the autoblock if it has not been already cleared. MBisanz talk 16:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Accusations of sockpuppet and meatpuppet solicitation by User:129.215.149.96

    User::129.215.149.96 has accused me of soliciting sockpuppets and meatpuppets to join the discussion at Talk:Touré on whether to include Touré's surname in his article. This user also has commented, "This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears." For the most part, 129.215.149.96 has failed to show any substantiation for these remarks. 129.215.149.96 has shown, however, that User:Halaqah is Touré, pointing to the numerous posts on Halaqah's talk page in which Halaqah indicates that he is Touré. I was not aware of this, as I certainly did not read Halaqah's talk page; I merely contacted editors who has previously expressed in an interest in the topic of including Touré's surname in the discussion we had last November, to inform them that a new one had developed this April, nothing more.

    It should be noted that 129.215.149.96's upon me come on the heels of a series of exchanges I had with User:DracoEssentialis on the Touré talk page, in which I criticized DracoEssentialis for reacting to the developing consensus in that discussion by lashing out at those who had argued against her position (most established editors there favored including Touré's surname in his article, whereas Draco is one of the few who did not). I pointed out that Draco attacked other editors, cast aspersions on their edit counts and edit histories, and used ad hominem comments to smear them, which I thought was "slimy". This exchange, in which I falsified most of the statements and claims that she made, began with a post by Draco on April 14, and concluded with my 00:34, 16 April 16 post. This is important, not only because the low number of editors who favored omitting his surname in the article makes the number of people with a motive to attack me low, but because of the language that 129.215.149.96 used in their attack:

    This isn't surprising considering nightscream's slimy debating tactics and ad hominem smears

    The fact that 129.215.149.96 employs wording that I used in my statements to DracoEssentialis: "slimy", "ad hominem" and "smears", would seem to imply that 129.215.149.96 is making a deliberate reference to my own past statements to DracoEssentialis as some type of jab at me, perhaps by DracoEssentialis herself, a confederate, or like-minded individual. (I do not know if it is DracoEssentialis, and do not wish to falsely accuse or malign anyone, so if someone would like to perform an IP checkuser, it might be a good idea.) It certainly can't be because 129.215.149.96 genuinely believes that I have engaged in any ad hominem remarks or smears against other editors, since 129.215.149.96 never bothers to offer any diffs or any type of elaboration on this. This is also illustrated by 129.215.149.96's attempt to join another ANI discussion above with this comment, in which she references the Touré talk page matter in a completely unrelated and irrelevant discussion about edit warring and 3RR at the Cash for Gold (South Park) article.

    Unless 129.215.149.96 can illustrate validity to these accusations or remarks, he/she should be politely informed that this behavior is not permitted on Wikipedia. Nightscream (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Somali disambiguation

    I wanted to move the article 'Somali' to Somali (disambiguation), because that page is a disambiguation. But there is already a page existing as Somali Disambiguation but that one is redirecting to the Somali article. My purpose was to rename the Somali article to Somali disambiguation, and redirect the Somali article to the Somali people article. But this issue is standing in the way. Is there a way to swap the title of those to articles? Thank you. Runehelmet (talk) 17:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If I'm not quite mistaken, current guidelines actually favour leaving such pages at the simple title, unless there is one clearly most prominent "primary topic", i.e. an actual article that should be at the simple title Somali instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I wanted to move the Somali article to Somali people article. And make the current Somali article a disambiguation page. For example if you search Arab it will refer you to the Arab people but it will notice you too for the disambiguation page. Runehelmet (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Racist vandalism by Sherepunjab

    [76] Call me old fashioned, and many do, but I believe this is racist vandalism. The user has just come off a one week block for personal attacks and then does this. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuck you Darkness Shines, Go ahead and delete my account permanently.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=488369835"