Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive525

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives




I don't know if it is the right forum but I have a demand : I had a somewhat hot debate with Srobak (talk · contribs). I might have been a bit fast in removing the term "sled" from the intro in the Snowmobile article, as it was put many times by an IP without reference, but Srobak (who has not even filled up his User page) threatens me right off the bat with sanctions, multiple times, and even write it in my own Talk page, as he was an administrator.

He goes even so far as to reverse my erasing of his comment in my own Talk page. He denies being a bully but you can make your own idea by reading the Snowmobile Discussion. He even have threaten Threeafterthree (talk · contribs) who was just trying to defend my right to use my Talk page as I want and reverse his editing two times. I feel this user is harassing me and has a bad attitude. Could anyone calm him down and tell him he is not WP's ultimate judge ? Pierre cb (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see my responses and accounts of the situation at User_talk:CIreland#Another_3RR_violation_by_Threeafterthree.2C_as_well_as_editing_users_talk_pages and User_talk:CIreland#User:Srobak. No further reversions to his deletion of my comment will be conducted by me, however administrators need to be fully aware of the entire situation. Thanks. EDIT: No threats were made, contrary to above. Srobak (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
After reviewing all of the relevant postings in the past few days, I must say that this is a tempest in a very small teapot. Both Srobak and Pierre cb were edit warring on Snomobile, but I only see two reverts apiece in one day there. Srobak's actions on Pierre cb's talk page were out of line. Both editors need to walk away from this. -- Donald Albury 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I was walking away from the whole thing, and I would not have pursued further, when Srobak kept melding with my own Talk page. I don't mind the Snowmobile article, but accusing me of an edition war on my own page is a bit too much. As for the threats, I consider beginning a section by a warning as a threats and a very impolite behavior. I consider too that warning of blocking every user that is not of your opinion as a threat. I've just seen the user CIreland has talked to Srobak about this case, telling him to back away but his reply was definitively harassement :
{{... I will keep tabs individually for further violations and act upon them accordingly without violating, or harassing. If you continue to conduct yourself in the fashion in which you were warned however, I will assist those who comment and warn for it in having you sanctioned, so please mind your edits and always discuss prior to conducting destructive edits. My issue with Tom is separate and is addressed below, as he has a long history of editing talk pages. Thanks Srobak (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC) }}.
He plan to follow all my editions and according to his superior knowledge of the rules slap me with warnings after warnings. If this is not harrassement, I don't know what it is ? I'm not vindicative and I don't want to pursue further but Srobak should be reminded how to live in the WP society. Pierre cb (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to read (and edit the above) better. You are making false statements about what I say, mean, and will do. Relevant links have already been posted. Those notes were made prior to both Donald Albury's message here, and CIreland's on my page, but thanks. Read for effect, not bias. This issue was dropped after both of their posts, leave it as such. End of line. Srobak (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just to be clear here. Everbody is going to leave everybody else alone here and play nice? Keep talk on the appropriate article talk page and yadda, yadda?? Sounds good to all? --Tom (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Tom, this discussion is not only already over, but it does not pertain to you. Please immediately stop following me around, and acting as a 3rd party cop, or I will put forth a note regarding your continued harassment and seek sanction. As mentioned before - your talk page clearly demonstrates a lengthy history in an extremely short period of time of acting in such a role and receiving warnings and sanctions to that effect (the deletion of which from your talk page are in bad faith) - mostly on talk pages. Your contribution above serves absolutely no potential gain or purpose to anyone already involved in the conversation, and you needlessly inserted yourself into it. Administrators have already stepped in and put the issue to rest at both points. Enough. Srobak (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And pay attention to who you're messaging, Srobak. You just warned me and I have nothing to do with this. HalfShadow 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not issue you a warning, I sent you a request to refrain from making minor edits in talk pages per WP guidelines - namely the ones in this discussion, which I agree - you have nothing to do with. Please do not confuse a warning with a polite request. Had I sent a warning, it would be quite clear. Srobak (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in this case that's allowed; using wikicode in topic titles messes up the 'goto' arrow. The standard [[]] links should be used, and I and others tend to clean those up as we see them. Also the rule in question only applies to physically changing the text of the comment; fixing links is allowed.HalfShadow 18:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I was also looking at where he moved a comment by you down with an edit summary of "... and fixing poor formatting by halfshadow". Looking again, he was swapping the order of his comment and yours, and it looks like he was moving his comment up as a reply to the comment before yours, which is not a problem, but the edit summary was. -- Donald Albury 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh marvy, now he's blaming me for his changes, too... HalfShadow

Everyone please cool it! Srobak, please do not edit or otherwise modify other users' postings on talk pages; that is disruptive to discussions. Srobak and Pierre cb, I am asking you both to stop responding to, otherwise interacting with or making comments about each other or anyone else involved in this incident for 24 hours. If I think this interaction is becoming too disrupting to Wikipedia, I am willing to hand out blocks to stop it. -- Donald Albury 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

BatterBean again with his Jake Gyllenhaal fetish[edit]

Resolved: Article deleted, sockpuppet investigation started. Papa November (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Paparazzixox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has once again created an elaborate hoax article about an imaginary Jake Gyllenhaal tour. We've been through this before [1][2] [3]Kww(talk) 19:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, the user's search'n'replace only got as far as the "Critical response" section. After that, it's all about a Madonna tour. Nice try though. And it's nice to see a proper fetish on ANI. Last one I can remember was feet - without socks, ironically. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Kww, can you write up a long term abuse incidents page on this one? You seem to be the person spotting these most clearly. we should identify a root account, set up sockpuppeteer / sockpuppet links, etc.
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A hoax article like that is, in my opinion, a clear and deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, i.e. vandalism. I have... what is the term now... summary execution? - anyway, it's a G3. Also, the account is blocked indef as vandalism-only. This seemed like a better approach than saying IAR everywhere. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's speedy execution again ;-) SoWhy 20:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paparazzixox created.—Kww(talk) 20:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll spend some time tonight trying to tie additional info in. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User: Bigweeboy removing redlinks[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. Please seek dispute resolution instead - Papa November (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bigweeboy has been persistently removing redlinks despite warnings against doing so. I've been told this doesn't qualify as vandalism, so I expect it needs to be dealt with here. Here are some examples from after I started giving personal and templated warnings: 1 2 3. I started out assuming good faith (see here and here), and behavior didn't stop or even change. tedder (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Content dispute. No admin action needed. Please consider dispute resolution instead. Papa November (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page Spam[edit]

I left a warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Another one! :) I agree he doesn't deserve a block, but I don't want it to seem like I'm just picking on him. Thanks! --Yankees76 (talk) 13:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
They're probably good faith edits, but you're probably in safe territory just removing these sorts of postings from the page, and quoting WP:NOTFORUM or something in the edit summary. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
The worry isn't whether the edits have been in good faith, but all the bygone warnings. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but if the user keeps getting their comments removed, then they'll hopefully give up. They can always be blocked if it becomes disruptive, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
Given the string of pleas and warnings on the user's page, along with it showing up here, I'd say the edits have wended their way into the outskirts of disruption, hence my warning. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this guy just doesn't get it. Even after your warning, he's reinserted the material [4], and left you a nice message on your talk page too [5]--Yankees76 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That material is fine, since it is something the article could benefit from. He wishes to add it, but doesn't know how to make the wording proper, so he left the information on the talk page. If you looked up information about this subject, you are most likely seeking a way to treat the problem. Dream Focus 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible death threat?[edit]

Resolved: Not a death threat. User warned about vandalism - Papa November (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[6] Dyl@n620 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism. Rklawton (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That's just silly. Everyone knows nannerpusses can only be summoned by a tenth-level hypercaster. HalfShadow 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. -Jeremy (v-.-v Cardmaker) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Fred Eisenberger and Hammer2009[edit]

I'm handing this off to someone else before someone blasts me for 3RR - Hammer2009 (talk · contribs) seems to have a thing for fluffing up Fred Eisenberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see the history), including removing cites, referring to the subject by first name, and removing a sourced section describing violations this particular mayor has had while in office [7]. Could I get some eyes on this?

(DISCLAIMER: I am American and could give a care less about Canadian politics, but I do not wish to have my political preference for American politics known on WP.)-Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 22:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Block needed[edit]

Resolved: reported to WP:AIV and blocked

IP has been spending quite some time today continually removing content from the Shining Time Station article. I believe that a block is warranted. (Regarding Jeremy's comment above; if you were telling me to stop posting at ANI, I apologize, as I did not understand the basis of your argument.) Dyl@n620 23:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please post vandals to WP:AIV. Majorly talk 23:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.

Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.

The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.

My issues with him include:

  • Profanity
  • Accusatory tone
  • Personal attacks on myself and others
  • Making threats on my talk page
  • Overt hostility
  • Abusive language
  • Rude and offensive comments

Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.

I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.

I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.

I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my side: I'll summarize my side of the argument, since it's been a pretty long discussion on the talk pages. Someone tried to add something to an article that is obviously and definitely true. No one is disputing that it's obviously and definitely true, but some people (like Jeremy here) are saying that it shouldn't be added anyway, since it's OR and doesn't have a RS. I said that the rules against OR and requiring a RS are intended to prevent people from adding things that are false. But since this addition is obviously and definitely true, those rules weren't intended to prevent it from being added, and it can be added to the article per the IAR rule and the Use Common Sense policy. But Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense. I have asked him, on several occasions, which part of my argument he's disputing, as you can see here. But he refuses to respond. That is, he refuses to follow Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. Instead he just wants to have an edit war, repeatedly deleting the edit without discussing why he thinks it should be disputed.
And now, in addition to refusing to discuss his problems with my reasoning, he's started deleting my comments, claiming that they're in violation of the policy on civility. They are not. I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else, or been hostile, or used abusive language, and it's not surprising to me that he didn't give any examples of those allegations. He's also claiming that I'm making "threats." The only threat I made is to ask an administrator to block him if he continued to violate Wikipedia's policies. That's hardly a threat that warrants me being blocked. And I've only accused him of things he actually did, or been as rude and offensive as was warranted based on his conduct.
The latest development is our discussion on our own talk pages, rather than the talkpage of the relevant article. I invite you to read it here. I think it speaks for itself.
Finally, he's claimed above that I deleted one of my own remarks and left another in its place. If you look closely, you'll see that I didn't delete anything, I merely merged the comments from both of our talk pages by inserting his first comment in between my first and second comment. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm disputing something. Essentially, we don't know whether it's the same ship, or a different ship that was made to look the same. I've posted on the Talk page to this effect. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, putting "I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else" in the same post as "Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense." is just too obvious. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you alleging it was profane, or a personal attack, or both? If the former, then which part? And if the latter, then that's not what personal attack means. If you're attacking someone on the substance of the issue at hand, that's not considered a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I attacked his looks, for example. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're on the subject of wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours? Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else". SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested[edit]

  • Declined, for obvious reasons. Black Kite 01:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Despite the continuing personal attacks against blocking/reviewing admins, and admitted abuse of the unblock template, I think it might be best for admins not to further sanction this editor. The ideal outcome is Shaheenjim seeing that their conduct was outside the bounds of what we want in a collegial editing environment... but for now, I'll gladly settle for no further damage being done to their standing. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree in view of [8] and have indef-blocked the user (see rationale at [9]). I do not object to this block being removed or shortened by any admin who believes this user is ready to contribute productively.  Sandstein  23:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I unfortunately have to agree with your decision. It seemed that the discussion at User_talk:Shaheenjim was incapable of reaching any other conclusion. I also agree with the unblock provision. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed about recreation of deleted material[edit]

Resolved: Deletion review has been started. Further discussion should take place there. Aleta Sing 02:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhism and the body, Buddhism and the body was deleted. Prior to the close, User:Spasemunki had begun a reworking of the article in his userspace. After the article deletion, he moved his work back into the main space. I am concerned that this may be a violation of GFDL as well as recreation of deleted material. I wanted another opinion before speedy deletion though, as I am involved. Aleta Sing 14:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on whether it's a rewrite, or substantially the same (but corrected to address the failings at the AfD). If it's the latter, then a simple history merge will fix all ills. — Coren (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
A history merge would be good but the result of the AFD should then be recorded as Keep or No consensus. Note that the recreating user User:Spasemunki !voted delete in the discussion and this influenced other !voters but, given events, this should now be understood as keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
If the material is substantially rewritten with respect to the problems, it does not violate the AfD close. The AfD close--unless the decision was to salt the article--does not prevent re-creation of an article on the topic. 15:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I nominated the original article. As far as I can see substantial portions of the re-created article are the same or closely similar. Note the clumsy English in some sections, e.g. "...the Buddha words were not stated on what he thought about this topic...". There is definitely some new material, but what concerns me most is that an important issue that emerged in the AfD was that the entire notion of the article was flawed, and this re-creation seems to be simply a better quality version of something that shouldn't exist in the first place - a rewrite of someone else's OR. andy (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of what emerged in AfD is that 1) the current focus of the article was flawed, but that 2) there were a very small number of elements in the article worth keeping (I did deleted 80-90% of the old article), and 3) that an article that was re-focused would be an appropriate topic. I attempted to do this by creating a new intro and creating essentially a 'sample' outline structure based on the topics discussed in the article 'Body, Buddhist Perspectives on the' in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. But please see my comments below for a more complete explanation. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I 'voted' delete, however I think Spasemunki's actions are ok. Obviously, the new article could be listed at AfD, but I don't think a speedy would be appropriate. If the new article isn't going to be zapped, then I guess a note should be appended to the AfD close explaining what's happened. PhilKnight (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I idsagree - just got an edit conflict, and what I was posting under Andyjsmith's edit was that I was about to say the same thing. A number of things that people said should not be in the article are in the recreated article. This still reads like a personal reflection on the subject, not an encyclopedic article. I'd amend Andyjsmith's comment to say a "slightly better quality version" and that may be generous. It is basically a recreation of a deleted article. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
IMO the easiest course of action is to take the new article by User:Spasemunki to WP:DRV and ask the community if this new version brings enough new information to the table to overturn the old AFD. MBisanz talk 20:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So here is what happened: I created the 'new' version of the article as an exercise to see how much of the old article could be saved if it were cut down to fit the rubric of an article on the same topic in an academic encyclopedia. I intentionally avoided doing things like rewording the awkward wording that User:Andyjsmith mentions and left almost nothing but the referenced material. The 'Suicide' section still contains some essay-like material because I was undecided at the time about how much of it other editors would want to move into the 'Religious views of suicide' article. I also omitted the references for the new material I was adding (most of them from the MacMillan article) for expediency. My aim was to quickly put something together that the editors involved in the AfD could discuss to make clear that the article in its form as taken to AfD was inappropriate, but that there was potential for a proper article covering the topic, in which a few elements of the current article might still exist. It was an attempted compromise. My hope was that we would get some more feedback on the article I created, replace the content of the article with it, and then close the AfD. Unfortunately, the AfD was closed before more than a couple of other editors had commented, so I wasn't sure what to make of it. Thus the move last night, which I realized later probably needed a history merge or other solution to preserve proper attribution for the portions of the old article that survived. My personal suggestion for a remedy is to restore the old article and re-open the AfD, and see if the involved editors are open to the 'rescue' option that I floated above. If most editors think that even in the new form, the information from the old article makes this one unrescue-able, then we create a completely new article covering the topic at some later date, otherwise we just preserve the history of the old article and replace it with the new version. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That would be a bad precedent. And it doesn't really address Aleta's question which started this discussion. Your re-created article should be considered on its merits which are, IMHO and unfortunately (despite your good faith), that it's a rewrite of OR. andy (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with deletion review if that's the procedurally correct thing to do. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(EC) MBisanz's suggestion makes a good bit of sense. Taking Clay's current version to DRV, either the deletion will be upheld and his version will go too, or the deletion decision wil be overturned, and Clay's version can be the next edit after the last version that was deleted. Any merits and faults of the version Clay has produced can be evaluated there. Aleta Sing 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and requested a history-only deletion review of the article here. Please add feedback there. --Clay Collier (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User Wikidemon[edit]

Resolved: What administrator action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 05:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This isn’t the first time that Wikidemon has stooped to removing other editors comments from article's talk pages [10], but Wikidemon's attempt to cover up criticism of his persistent Biting of new users should be addressed [11].

There are 69 ANI threads involving Wikidemon, clearly he's not the innocent editor that he has portrayed himself to be. CENSEI (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Note to admins who are reading this thread as much as some other editors would like to make this ANI thread about CENSEI this is about Wikidemon his BITING of newbies, rudeness on talk pages and his repeated drama here at ANI.

:That's a deceptive retributive report by a problem editor - I'll describe the problem in a moment. Wikidemon (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC) Removing the comment now that I've posted my account. 69, huh? Wow. Think of me as Baseball Bugs' more polite cousin. But really, I do a lot of article patrol and wikignoming... those threads have resulted in dozens of blocked sockpuppets, a bunch of indef. banned vandals, etc. The majority of complaints about me were from a single puppet master, and the second-biggest issue is procedural game playing.Wikidemon (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. "69 threads involving wikidemon" verges on outright lying, if the intent was to imply that there were 69 threads "complaining" about wikidemon or "opened to discuss wikidemon's disruptive behavior." Instead, these 69 threads appear to be ones he contributed to that ended in the indef blocks and bans of a handful (maybe just one or two) abusive sockpuppeteers, and otherwise commenting on disruption by others. To be clear: Censei -- you should be ashamed for trying to take the good, productive efforts of an editor to stop disruption, and spinning it into a false accusation of disruption against that editor himself. The real pity of all this is the pup axmann got blocked (a racist, to be sure, but much less disruptive to editing here than censei) while the far more disruptive Censei is to be allowed to carry on because he will, now that the heat is on and hackles have been raised to satisfy his need for drama, back away for a few hours or a few days.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI for a little background. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • No interest in this dispute, but Wikidemon, why did you alter CENSEI's title?[12] Since you're the subject of the thread and he is not a vandal, do not change other's comments unless they are yours.--Caspian blue 02:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please change it back? AN/I titles should fairly and neutrally reflect the subject of the dispute. This is a behavior problem involving CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) at the Drudge Report article - CENSEI, after being warned, filed this report preemptively against me. I'm not going to defend my actions - I get dragged here too often by disruptive editors, and my work here speaks for itself. Wikidemon (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I did not change it. CENSEI did--Caspian blue 02:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You're funny, CENSEI. Do you remember when you changed the title of the last dispute you were involved in here? [13]Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There are 68 ANI threads involving Wikidemon Methinks somebody doesn't know how to read very well. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Not by a long shot. My experience with you at Martin Luther King, Jr. showed me that you're just as sloppy in citing sources, sometimes not even bothering to read them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks like another attempt by CENSEI to attack WD again after he got banned from Obama articles. Remember, this was his sole purpose for editing. Why do we still deal with this, again? Grsz11 03:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

  • CENSEI had no recent activity at that talk page until he began harrassing WD and opened this discussion. His wikistalking needs dealt with. Grsz11 03:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is supposed to mean something relevant, I presume? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, CENSEI, but there's a growing consensus that your behavior is disruptive (see here) and so, yes, this is about you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I would just ask that Wikidemon give a little more leeway to new editors who are often misguided and unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Wikipedia procedure. He should also try to show more respect and consideration of other good faith editors who express viewpoints and perspectives he doesn't agree with. Especially on political subjects, people can be a bit emotional and passionate, but a gentle nudge is a better response than to attack them. My opinion is that Wikidemon comes on VERY strong and is a bit aggresive with his comments and templates etc. On the other hand I know he thinks I act inappropriately (although I rarely template anyone except to respond in kind), so there you go. I don't really see the need for any administrative action here, even though I'm a target of Wikidemon's unhappiness. Hopefully we can all do a better job of cooperating and getting along in the future and commit to diligently avoiding comments that aren't content and article related. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking for leeway, or thinking Censei needs leeway? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Between CENSEI, Wikidemon, and User:Chipdouglas whose Talk:Drudge Report comments started this, I have a hard time avoiding a conclusion that 3 disruption blocks are appropriate at the moment.

(CofM appears blameless so far...)

CENSEI and Wikidemon - please calm down and stop pushing each others buttons for a while. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to tango into a mess this deep. A report could have been made, by you or another editor, which didn't exacerbate the problem. A dozen of your edits in this thread exceed the threshold for disruption, however.
The report's made - the topic's visible. The edit history of what started this is in people's review thresholds. Step back and let us review. Further disruption is not acceptable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, GWH, although usually there is plenty of blame to spread around, sometimes there really is one aggressor and one innocent party. I have seen no evidence Wikidemon has done anything at all wrong. I'm not saying he hasn't, mind you - merely that its not true that it "takes two to tango" - and that I have yet to see a dif which shows Wikidemon acting inappropriately. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
From the second diff posted by CENSEI as an example of biting the newcomer: I'm aware of the rules; I've been a user for several years now with [limited] contributions and discussion on controversial and non-controversial topics This is the poster child newbie that Wikidemon is supposed to have bitten? I must be missing something. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Georgewilliamherbert's assessment. I would add that taunting, baiting and the pursuit of vendettas is a wholly inappropriate use of this noticeboard and far more likely to be cause of sanctions than the original storm in a teacup that begun this nonsense. CIreland (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: The edit summary Wikidemon left was "taking it to the editor's talk page" and in his very next edit he did just that[14]. This is completely acceptable and appropriate when the topic is an editor (Wikidemon) and not the article. There is no validity to this complaint. CENSEI, you're stirring the pot here. KillerChihuahua?!? 03:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I am on article patrol, acting in good faith to help calm disruption. I am not one of the parties to the long-term edit warring on that article. I have not caused, and will not cause, disruption. Please do not equate me with CENSEI. I have no vendettas and bear no grudges, and do not taunt other editors. I would appreciate a retraction of any warnings on the subject. Also, please give me time to post a description of what's really gone on. Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
It is at the very least highly controversial to remove someone else's talk page comments - even if they're disruptive in some way. Taking it up on their talk page is great - removing it and taking it up on their talk page is stretching the rules. Asking them to strike it is fine.
If people don't object there's no harm or foul - but people objected. I agree that the comments you removed were misuse of a talk page for advocacy etc - but removing them, as opposed to asking the poster to strike or remove them themselves, is a high drama and high disruption probabilty response.
IAR has experienced users doing stuff like that at times, yes. But none of us experienced users have any excuse if we do something like that and it blows up in our faces...
When that happens, we really have no choice but to take our lumps. Getting aggressive in response to it blowing up is not a reasonable or acceptable response. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Now I strongly disagree with you - moving a comment is not the same as deleting it, and you know it. Its not that different from moving a comment from a user page to a talk page, or from an article to a talk page. It was in the wrong place; it got moved. And where is this "aggressive in response" of which you speak? I don't see it. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That practice is not well supported, no. And nor is changing someone else's ANI filing name.
I don't want to beat up on Wikidemon - I see why he did that in the first place. But he's taken several steps that were polite but escalated drama rather than calming things down, and that needs to stop.
It would be easy to point at CENSEI and say "Disruptive" here because of the tone and demeanor and volume, but it wasn't just him, and he's made a couple of good points. I AGF about Wikidemon, but he muddied the waters. That's gotta stop while we sort it out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
While I take your point about changing the title, I still disagree on the post move. I'm not sure what you mean by "point at CENSEI and say "Disruptive""; I'm not certain to whom you're addressing that comment. I myself have only said that Censei is stirring the pot by his post here, which is surely true. His "bite" is not a bite, and the talk page move is at the very least debatable, and is between Wikidemon and CoM anyway. Censei bringing it here is also pot-stirring. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
If i understand -- in one case Wikidemon removed a talk page post of childofmidnights without permission. It looks to me like that was uneccessary, and has had the effect of disruption. However, Wikidemon is one of the more even keeled editors I know, and the description of his actions here by CENSEI is ridiculously over the top (and designed to cause disruption and distraction by Censei). Wikidemon would have been more than happy to discuss this, and avoid potentially upsetting behavior per such discussion. What i'm quite sure of was that disruption and drama were not Wikidemon's intent, and that he is almost always amenable to discussion and efforts to calm situations (in fact, in my opinion, too amenable; he often suffers fools by extending good faith farther than it should be stretched). I'm also quite sure that disruption and drama were the sole intent behind CENSEI's posting here. He's a relentless game player seeking relentless drama. I believe wikidemon may have made a small procedural error, and CENSEI has sought to make a federal case out of it as a way to strike out at a responsible editor who does lots of good work here, but in the process thwarts the efforts of POV pushers whose intentions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. If any admin action is needed, it isn't in Wikidemon's direction.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
He did not remove he moved - to Childofmidnight's talk page, where he responded. Otherwise I concur with Bali ultimate's succinct summation and statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Drudge Report[edit]

I was going to call it "the long and short of it" but anyway...

There's been long-term trouble at Drudge Report and Matt Drudge over whether to call them "conservative" in the article leads: revert warring, IP-hopping block evading WP:SOCKs, and two page protections in the last 1+ months.[15][16] I've made 18 talk page edits this year to offer my $0.02, none on the main page. The most active editors are probably Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), CENSEI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and a bunch of IPs. There were at least 7 talk discussions about "conservative" this month alone and the discussion continues.

Tonight Chipdouglas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), made his first edit there to start a new section about "MOB RULE", "liberal editors wearing the thinnest facade of concern for truth--RATEL, this one is apparently your baby--really feel good about this, or about the self-aggrandizing comments, or about BANNING conservative editors?"..."liberal editors who revel in asserting their INTERNET TRUTH..."). The only substance in the post was that it was unbalanced to call it "conservative" if articles about liberal-leaning news sources did not follow suit.

I've dealt for some time with similar threads at Talk:Barack Obama and after some trial and error found the best thing to do is collapse them with {{hat}}...{{hab}}. It avoids deleting anything or declaring it resolved, lets people who really want to carry on do so by uncollapsing it in their browser, and cleans the page of distraction and incitement. You may or may not agree with the approach but it's a fair call, and a standard practice on some high-volume contentious Wikipedia pages. There's an Arbcomm case at the moment on how this applies vis-a-vis Obama article probation.

This time I think it worked! After I collapsed his new thread[WP:TALK|drudge report]][17] Chipdouglas left an initial sarcastic message on my page accusing me of censorship and something about dishonesty,[18] for which I issued a caution.[19] Chipdouglas toned it down[20] and was friendly and polite thereafter[21] while sticking firm to his opinion. So, disruption avoided, no chilling effect, and that should be the end of it.

But not so fast. ChildofMidnight[22] and then Chipdouglas[23] re-opened the discussion. When I asked that it be closed[24] ChildofMidnight scolded me on the article talk page.[25] I took the matter to ChildofMidnight's talk page and left a demand there,[26] (which ChildofMidnight deleted as "trolling")[27] because we really needed to avoid behavioral complaints on the article talk page.

Finally, CENSEI moves ChildofMidnight's comments back to the talk page,[28]. I tell CENSEI to revert or I will bring the matter here,[29] and he files a preemptive report against me.[30] The rest you can see here.

That's what happened. Wikidemon (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chipdouglas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is not a newcomer, he's an obvious sock or sleeper account with the same "chip" on his shoulder attitude displayed by users such as CENSEI and Axman. His last edit was in 2006, then he suddenly pops up here, a day after Axman's indef-block, spouting the same rants as those two. That situation suggests some need for some admin attention, at least. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, after thinking this over I know I can do a couple things better. First, although I think I was correct in closing the discussion I could have been more proactively friendly with Chipdouglas. I assumed the worst based on his liberal-bashing on the talk page, and (unles Baseball Bugs is right) he exceeded my expectations and was the one who reached out to me. And I should have moved ChildofMidnight's complaint to my talk page rather than his. I'm not sure how much more or less firm one should be in cautioning editors over inappropriate talk page edits. The incident was brief and harmless. I think ChildofMidnight and Chipdouglas have shown good sense and restraint here, and whatever CENSEI is doing right now is not in itself a cause for action. So... exactly what are we talking about now? Wikidemon (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC) oops - didn't see the discussion was closed. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not necessarily claiming he's a sock of either of those two, it's just odd that a user who registered 4 years ago and has been dormant since 2006 suddenly turns up. During the siege against the Obama article by the WND mushrooms a few Sundays ago, a lot of sleeper accounts starting turning up, although most of them hadn't been dormant for 2 1/2 years like this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


User:Montaj13 has been warned about copyright violations multiple times (see User talk:Montaj13) but just today has created three articles by lifting text from other websites.— TAnthonyTalk 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor has also been blocked multiple times previously for this behavior.— TAnthonyTalk 02:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
That's enough of that. Blocked indefinitely. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shiham K[edit]

Resolved: Already at WQA. 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

(cur) (prev) 17:01, 27 March 2009 Shiham K (talk | contribs) (55,658 bytes) (Every hamam needs a tellak) (undo)

Shiham K is doing vandalism and personal attack.


This is another Greek vs Turkish dispute -- they are arguing about whether sources justify calling Turkey a developed country. The offensive edit summary seems to mean something like "every Turkish bath needs a sex worker". Looie496 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, this was already raised at WP:WQA and the user was already warned about the edit. Nothing new, so why the new thread? The Seeker 4 Talk 03:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What Seeker4 said. If there's any recurrence of this, let us know. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 03:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott5307 evading a block/recreating deleted material?[edit]

Resolved: Gogo Dodo indef blocked them. Pretty poor effort at a sock really. --GedUK  12:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect Scott5307 (talk · contribs) is actually Scott5306 (talk · contribs) who is evading a block and recreating material deleted via discussion. See Feces Bandits (created by Scott5307) and Feces bandit (created by Scott5306) which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feces bandit. Since I'm a brand new admin, I want a second opinion on this before doing anything. (I'm not even sure I'm posting this in the right place.) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  07:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Blu83fir3 repeatedly deletes "speedy deletion" templates[edit]

Resolved: Article now deleted.  Sandstein  14:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Blu83fir3 has been repeatedly deleting the "speedy deletion" template at Shed loose the armor. He has been warned numerous times by multiple editors, but continues to do it. He has also been told that he needs to place a hangon tag instead, but he deletes that as well as the deletion template.WackoJackO 09:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:CSGV[edit]

A few nice cups of tea needed here.

Incident regarding Coalition to Stop Gun Violence article and a conflict of interest and legal threats by editor

CSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

who has disclosed being Director of Communications for CSGV (here).

Editor CSGV was then notified of the WP:COI policy here.

Editor CSGV has now threatened legal action against Wikimedia staff and Wikipedia editors here.

-- Yaf (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the full text of that 'legal threat':
We very much look forward to taking the matter up with Wikimedia staff, and to offering primary source evidence--including public statements, testimony, and documents--for every revision we have made to this page in order to ensure its accuracy. We also greatly look forward to reviewing the activity of Wiki Firearms Project members on this page and on the pages of other organizations that advocate for strengthening gun laws to prevent gun violence in order to see if their activity has reflected a "conflict of interest" or not. And since you have been involved in defending content on this page (and others relating to gun issues) that is clearly biased, it would be an appropriate point to review your activity as well. CSGV (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks like they want to strengthen gun control laws--which is their stated mission after all. He or she is offering to discuss sources, which is what we encourage new editors to do. No legal threat there. Is there another statement that contstitutes one? DurovaCharge! 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not a legal threat. —bbatsell ¿? 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Does anyone think that This page has been overrun by individuals from the Wiki Firearms Project that vehemently oppose the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's mission (and gun control in general). Is painting a broad brush a little bit? Looks like user will keep fighting until his editing privileges are taken from his cold dead hands. MuZemike 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. But, "public statements, testimony, and documents" are all what is usually requested/required in a subpoena, as part of litigating a legal case. "Primary source evidence" is more of a legal term than a preferred method of documenting on Wikipedia. But, if no legal threats are seen here, that is certainly one interpretation. It is not the interpretation that I read, though. Yaf (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:NLT exists for very specific reasons, which are outlined clearly on that page. This instance does not come close to matching those reasons and there's really no alternate interpretation. That's not to say there isn't a problem with the user's editing (I have no idea if there is or not). I'll be honest, though: throwing around baseless claims of legal threats to try to get an instablock is very bothersome to me. —bbatsell ¿? 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is a case of WP:NPLT, based upon the litany of items expressed in somewhat rather precise legal terms. Having been subpoenaed for precisely these type of documents previously, in real life, perhaps I have a lower threshold of sensitivity to these specific terms. Yaf (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
User:CSGV also accuses other editors of "slander", another precise legal issue, here, which causes further perceptions of legal threats. Libel, slander, and similar terms carry definite legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Many people who are new to Wikipedia misunderstand our site standards and policies. How about a referral to WP:ADOPT? If this person is interested in contributing collaboratively that should help, and if improvements don't occur then this board could review developments at a later time. DurovaCharge! 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI is not a policy, but a guideline, not intended to revert people's edits out of hand. I suggest that you help the user contribute rather than get into a back and forth, constantly escalating, edit war. Bastique demandez 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
By WP:COI wording here, though, "This section of the guideline is aimed at editors who may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits in mainspace where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict can be reasonably assumed, are strongly discouraged. Significantly biased edits in mainspace are forbidden." All content cited from other sources that was the least bit critical of the organization was removed by User:CSGV editor. Are significantly biased edits in mainspace forbidden or are such edits simply discouraged? Forbidden doesn't sound like a guideline. Yaf (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:COI states it's a guideline. You're citing it as a revert reason, as if it were a policy. Why don't you cite the policy that discusses biased edits, rather than the guideline that talks about conflicts of interest? And why don't you address my last comment, about helping the user rather than getting into a constant edit war? Bastique demandez 18:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That policy is applicable, too, but clear violation of the "forbidden" act of making significantly biased edits with a self-admitted COI through removing all content that, although cited, is the least bit critical of the organization, while adding copyvio content from the website of the organization, all without engaging in discussions on the talk page other than to make veiled legal threats involving accusations of slander and mentioning other legal terms common in acquiring evidence through subpoenas, does make working with the self-described Director of Communications for CSGV difficult. His admitted phone calls to the San Francisco office of the Wikimedia Foundation to complain also don't help, but sound instead like more veiled legal threats. Yaf (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
CoI is a guideline, not a policy. You can edit an article in which you have a vested interest, but it's best to a) disclose that interest and b) not be obnoxious about it. DS (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Suppose for a moment that this person means well. He or she has disclosed the conflict of interest, as recommended in the guideline. Other statements express either misunderstanding or confusion about our site standards. This is normal for any new editor. How about slowing down and perhaps opening mediation? DurovaCharge! 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Not under that username, though. That username has been blocked as a spamusername, for obvious reasons. I take no position on the COI edits, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Fair call regarding the username. DurovaCharge! 19:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:USERNAME states "Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended, and depending on the circumstances may be seen as a problem." It is not a broad call to block a user based on the name. The reasons for blocking are not "obvious" to me, and doing so in the middle of this discussion was not a very good call. Bastique demandez 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think they're fairly obvious - I left a message for them recommending that they provide us an alternate individual account name and we can unblock and name change.
For a normal user they're on the margin of advocating a bit much - there's a back and forth, that needs neutral input, and I think the pro- and anti- people are oscillating around something that has a neutral enough center. But using organization named accounts for that is something I would block for and I've seen a lot of other people block for... We probably should tighten up the username policy going forwards, it seems to lead to far too many cases like this where people think they should do this for their organization under its name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, Cary makes a strong point. Let's try to work with this individual rather than taking a punitive approach. Let's all pause for WP:TEA DurovaCharge! 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Given the sequence, they would probably perceive it as unfair. The name issue isn't blatant enough to hardblock. We can be flexible... Unblock with a note that they need to change username fairly promptly and ask them to do so as soon as possible? That lets them continue to contribute while we sort out the name. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I see no 'legal threat' here. I encourage Yaf to strike out, <S>Legal threat</S>, his false accusation against another editor. This looks more like a behavior and content dispute and I see bad behavior by both of the involved editors. One editor with a couple dozen total edits needs help learning how things work around here, the other editor with many thousands of edits should know better. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(deindent) I don't see the legal threat either. A look at the way the discussion went on the talk page of the article in question is kind of disappointing; while I'm strongly against anyone with a COI editing related pages personally, this editor seems to have been leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his/her concerns. The username thing needs to be done, for sure - Georgewilliamherbert's suggestion above looks good. Unblock for a username change, and encourage the editor - and the others on that page - to work on the talk page collegially to clarify any of the issues being raised. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
editor CSGV was certainly not shy in being uncivil, not assuming good faith, slinging personal attacks, and expressing sentiments consistent with believing he owned the article. while i became mildly heated after multiple verbal harangues by this user, i hardly think CSGV was 'leaped on with little in the way of actual discussion of his concerns'. he was advised politely (for the most part) that he was way out of line in scrubbing material from the article that was not favorable to his organization. he also violated 3RR it should be noted, and was quite adamant that he would continue reverting and removing material that was not favorable to his organization. this was hardly a case of an innocent newcomer being lept upon by experienced editors, i think. Anastrophe (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a message for OrangeMike, but lacking response after a decent waiting interval I have gone ahead and unblocked with a request that they change usernames. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The "threat" was a statement of his intention to contact "Wikipedia staff". As someone not familiar with Wp, he may not realise the extent to which Wikipedia staff is a rather vague term. He may use legal terminology because he's familiar with that, not with our unusual nomenclature. Since he is making accusations of COI, the Wikipedia staff I will charitably assume he has in mind are the Wikipedia administrators. The appropriate place for this would be the COI Noticeboard. If it gets there, I'll look at it. People are encouraged to complain here. If he would prefer, there is OTRS, but I think they'll refer it back to us. DGG (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

MuZemike: please avoid phrases like "are taken from his cold dead hands", as they may be construed as a violation of WP:NPA. Coppertwig (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

*blink* Huh? When it links directly to the originator of the phrase, Charlton Heston, there's really no way this can be even half-heartedly considered against WP:NPA...unless his hands are cold. Or their hands are dead. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre deletion of talk page comments[edit]

Resolved: blocked for 24 hours

-- Donald Albury 15:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is consistently deleting a comment on the talk page of an article despite numerous reversions and warnings (example diff). Protecting talk pages seems kind of silly, but this appears to be a WP:SPA and blocking it may not be very productive. SDY (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I gave a level 3 warning, then he blanked his talk page. He appears to have gotten the message for now anyway, but will still keep watch. Momusufan (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well that was short lived, he is still up to no good. Momusufan (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential death threat[edit]

I'm not taking it too seriously at this point, but this could be of concern. Thoughts? –Juliancolton Talk · Review 14:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Hm, we could call the FBI, or the CIA, or CTU. But perhaps calling CVU might be more apt.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It's almost certainly nothing, but it couldn't hurt to drop a note to the relevant authorities. The IP in question seems to enjoy vandalising Harding Charter Preparatory High School. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC).
I agree with Lankiveil. I scanned some of the contribs too and it seems to be a vandal account but it is concerning that the edit names people so maybe contacting the school to inform might be a good idea and/or the local officials just to be on the safe side. Obviously the editor should be indefinitely blocked to stop the disruptions. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
An indef block would be fairly impractical, as the vandalism originated from an IP address. –Juliancolton Talk · Review 16:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't think of that when I suggested it. Has anyone contacted anyone about the threat though just to be in the safe side of things? I'm just curious as I know that usually someone makes contacts to make sure it's not a serious threat though I agree it's probably just a vandal edit. I am just concerned with the use of specific names in the threat which might be RL. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive523#Officeworks123 from March 24; it is probably best to contact the local authorities and WMF (info at wikimedia dot org). This is probably good protocol, and then there is not much need to follow up once the contacts have been sent. -- (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Above stuff is good, but I'd also suggest a Checkuser. It can't hurt to see if the account is a sock. Ceranthor 20:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Other eyes please[edit]

Ks64q2 (talk · contribs) recently returned after a recent 3RR block and a sockpuppet investigation which was closed and archive with the conclusion:

9Nak (talk · contribs) who initiated the 3RR, "welcomed" Ks64q2 back with what I see as disingenuous interest and went about reviving a sock search and prodding Ks64q2 to essentially confess beyond what has already occurred. Without excusing inappropriate use of socks, I feel this is essentially intimidating another user who has already been through the ringer. Perhaps this is borderline but to me it really feels uncivil. I would feel the same about any editor who had conflicts with another posting similar messages. Essentially I'd like to invite 9Nak to leave Ks64q2 alone since there does seem to be some animosity there. Any suggestions on what course to take would be appreciated, I'd like to nip this in the bud and if a second sock case needs to happen then so be it; all of this can be accomplished while remaining civil to one another. -- Banjeboi 08:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like intimidation to me. If the sockpuppet case has been properly and acceptably closed as settled by an admin (which it seems it has) then 9Nak has no business stirring up trouble or browbeating Ks64 like that. I'd suggest a firm message on his talkpage to that effect. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 08:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, looking at the exchange on 9Nak's talkpage (section "Socks and leggings"), he is being very passive-agressive, with comments such as again, a lack of ambiguity would be of considerable help here - seemingly portraying himself as some sort of official investigator. ╟─TreasuryTagcontribs─╢ 08:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Sheesh. Now I stand accused of intimidation, bullying *and* pretexting – without a single word of complaint from Ks64q2, the other party a two-party conversation. If Ks64q2 asks to be left alone I would honour that request without thinking twice. But outside of that, and absent a broach of policy, what exactly are we discussing here? 9Nak (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Intimidation is bullying. Three times now, twice by myself and previously on your talkpage, you've been encouraged to drop this and move on yet here you are defending your right to essentially broach WP:Civility. Really, I see little good coming out of this. If the user opens the sock drawer again then post here for an uninvolved admin to sort it out - if you're wrong it's a mistake but made in an effort to stop abuse, if you're right then an admin can suss out how to adjust the user accordingly. -- Banjeboi 21:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
In short: Drop it. You may appreciate closure but others don't appreciate kicking when a person is down. x42bn6 Talk Mess 21:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I have this burning desire to protest, but clearly I'm on the wrong side of the consensus. So, without conceding a civility breach, I'm topic-banning myself from everything Ks64q2-related, just to be on the safe side. Though I can't promise not not gloat (just a little) when the sockpocalypse hits ;-). 9Nak (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious AfD'er[edit]

Resolved: Blocked. — Coren (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Deletion Mutation is a new account who just joined today. Given his username, I think it's awfully funky that all of his contributions so far have been to AfD or have been about the deletion tag on articles. Looking through, I don't know if he !voted to keep anything yet and he doesn't scream n00b like most new users at AfD in that he argues notability and original research instead of his opinion. Anybody else smell a sock/meat puppet here? At the very least he's trying to make some sort of point. ThemFromSpace 16:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably sock of User:Juvenile Deletionist, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive524#Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist. -- (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense. It would also explain the animosity towards black kite regarding the deletion tags. ThemFromSpace 16:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
No animosity there. The articles are still discussed, so why remove the tags? James Burns did the same with some other articles. Deletion Mutation 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going through Category:AfD debates (Media and music) at the moment, as I went through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 28 before. What's wrong with this? Deletion Mutation 16:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the patterns are very suspicious. I've started an SPI, with a request for Checkuser evidence. Blueboy96 16:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser  Confirmed. Still unblocked, though. — neuro(talk)(review) 18:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All the AfDs this user participated in should be revisited and checked for validity. — Becksguy (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been through all his contributions and struck out any !vote that have not already been struck through or reverted. Unfortunately, two AfDs[31][32] have already been closed but I don't think it's worth taking any action on these. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The two closed AfDs are not worth reopening since no one argued to keep and both were re-listed for a more thorough discussion. Case closed. — Becksguy (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Somebody please block User:DavHam and delete his Talk page?[edit]


Could somebody please block DavHam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) and delete his Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, by multiple people at once. Grandmasterka 01:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And now tagged with {{uw-voablock}} to add it to Category:Temporary_Wikipedian_userpages so the botfairy can delete it in a month. Tonywalton Talk 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag on Homeopathy article[edit]

Resolved: Not an admin issue.  Sandstein  14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

We need a POV tag on the Homeopathy article, but some people are against it. There presently is no consensus on the contents of the article, but it is policed by the skeptical critics. I hope y'all can insert the POV tag and keep it till a consensus is reached. Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue does not need admin intervention.  Sandstein  14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Homeopathy is quackery, so putting a POV tag on it seems a tad redundant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible merge discussion canvassing?[edit]

Resolved: Disengage, boys. The requirements of WP:CANVASS have been met, nothing here requiring administrative action. —bbatsell ¿? 23:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this, but a user has posted a message on various users who participated in a recent AfD's talk pages of a merge discussion. See [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], and [38]. As of the time that I am typing up this message, ONLY those who expressed an interest for the merge in the AfD were notified of the merge discussion and not those who argued to outright keep the article, i.e. DGG, Jclemens, Peregrine Fisher, and Dream Focus were not notified. Isn't per WP:CANVASS an editor required to notify potentially dissenting opinions as well? I am also somewhat concerned that the same user in question may be approaching AfDs as jokes and possibly insulting inclusionists in the process. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 21:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was directed by closing admin to start a merge discussion,[39] which you yourself agreed with: "A merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page". As you evidently oppose this merge and decided to "report me to ANI" instead of just informing the parties you may feel are interested, I can only assume you're attempting to slur my character in attempt to oppose an editorial decision. Hence the linking to a comment I made in a completely unrelated AFD over a absolutely rubbish article. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Starting a merge discussion is perfectly fine; however, canvassing support for the merge by notifying only those who are likely to agree with you is usually frowned upon here. Now, if you notified everyone who participated in the AfD of the merge discussion, that would be totally acceptable. Seeing the comment in the other AfD about notifying inclusionists for "lulz" is needlessly mocking of your fellow editors and only raises tensions. One can say, "Delete due to verifiability concerns" without having to make a dig at your colleagues. Now seeing such a comment and also noticing what appears to be canvassing as well, my concern is that these may reflect a larger pattern of disregarding or not seeing any value in what inclusionists have to say. Another example is having an "lol" in an edit summary and in another comment and in still another comment. I may disagree with deletionists, but I certainly wouldn't say to keep an article and then toss in a comment about how if we notify deletionists it would be funny and similarly if I only contacted those who argued to keep an article on their talk pages of a discussion, beleieve me, someone would take issue with it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow just read those links you put up, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the comments I made and I urge any "concerned" parties to read the entire AFD themselves. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Everyone who commented on the AFD has now been notified, also I'd like to point out that I also add the usual merge tags to both the article and intended merge destination (hardly a secret way of pushing through a merge).
Also I highly recommend to anyone reading this to check the edit history of "A Nobody's" Editor review and also find out his previous username, it's not well hidden and will allow you more insight. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that you have now notified the other editors in question, althought it really should not have taken a thread here for that to have happened. Please be sure in the future to not exclude those with whom you may disagree and I again urge you to refrain from these Encyclopedia Dramatica-style mocking of those with whom you disagree in AFDs. We are here to edit in a constructive and collegial fashion. Take care! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I obviously was not attempting to canvass a discussion as I put up merge tags for all of Wikipedia to see. Yes it is a pity that you attempt to use slur tactics such as "reporting to ANI" and linking to unrelated comments, to try an achieve your goals. Anyone who looks at my edit history when compared with your "colourful" past will see what you're like, I really regret giving you such a nice review now. I'm not going to comment on this matter anymore as I know you also happen to enjoy long threads. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you put up the tag, but then only contacted those of a like mind from the AfD with talk page announcements and only contacted the other participants in the AfD after this thread was started here. Please just keep in mind as well with AfDs to avoid escalating tensions by laughing at fellow editors or making irrelevant references to an off-wiki attack site that seriously slurs many of your fellow editors. Anyway, please just keep all this in mind and yeah, since you did subsequently contact everyone, no need to beat a dead horse here. Have an enjoyable weekend! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the original notifications were a clear violation of WP:Canvassing#Votestacking, rectified by Ryan4314's subsequent notifications of the remaining editors. A Nobody, was there a particular reason why you immediately escalated to AN/I without contacting Ryan4314 first? Flatscan (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The first merges by User:Ryan4314 were around: 19:50, 28 March 2009, conviently all to one side.
A Nobody posts this ANI at: 21:55, 28 March 2009.
User:Ryan4314 only starts posting to those who probably will oppose the merge at 22:40, 28 March 2009.
User:Ryan4314 then tells everyone that everyone is notified here at 22:46, 28 March 2009.
Let me get this straight: Editors can canvas one supporting side, and only when they are caught, they then must notify everyone else? Ikip (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care if he was "caught" or not, all that matters is that the situation was rectified, which could have happened with a simple note on his talk page. (If it becomes a habit rather than a simple mistake or unfamiliarity with WP:CANVASS, then that is a different story.) There's no reason at all that I can see for the merge discussion to be closed. This situation is resolved. Step away from the horse. [edit conflicted, but I see you've removed that request. good.] —bbatsell ¿? 06:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Could an administrator block some socks real quick?[edit]

User:Stezie2 has gone and created a bunch of accounts in numerical sequence. Likely a sockpuppeteer. Could somebody look into this? Inferno, Lord of Penguins 03:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

No evidence of misuse, and WP editors are not actually prohibited from using multiple accounts. However, based on the username he could be related to User:Stezie. Somebody to keep an eye on his contributions page and look for any edits that look off, maybe? Ironholds (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)



This user has been repeatedly removing a reasonable dablink from sleeved blanket with snarky comments (example). I've made an attempt to explain why it's there, but the user seems determined to remove it. May I ask for some help?--Father Goose (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest if I'd seen the diff that added this "reasonable" dablink I'd have reverted it. It looks mad as a box of frogs to me. I can see Google hits on "Snuggie wedgie", but a number of them are merely commenting on the fact that "Wikipedia thinks a snuggie is a wedgie". This gives an alternative (though I suspect it's at best a neologism, more likely a protologism). Rather than simply reverting this removal it might be very advantageous to discuss it on the talkpage; I agree on the snarky reply but the removal itself does seem to be in good faith. Tonywalton Talk 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
As it happens the point's moot, as the IP was blocked for a month for NPA earlier today. Tonywalton Talk 21:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, didn't even spot that, in the absence of a block template. Works for me!.
As regards the dablink, I should've gone with more reliable sources to prove the point; Google Books substantiates it better.--Father Goose (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Ghobchuq loDnI'pu'[edit]

Can someone please indef block this user PRONTO? He's only been creating malicious racist redirects to Barack Obama. Check out his contributions. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Screw it, he was blocked as I was typing this report. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 02:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a persistent vandal that is creating BLP violating redirects to Barack Obama like this. Is it possible to add something to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or some other filter to block this? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe the WP:ABUSEFILTER? 02:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I remembered that that after I made my post. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It appears that Deskanna is using the CU bit to preemptively block accounts... LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Someone should give Deskanna a cookie for that useful bit of mopping up then! 03:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
This guy is one of his socks, you can't tell me that it's pure coincidence that two separate users are creating racist redirects to Barack Obama. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 05:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Who knew? (Sizable percentage of WP editors raise hands...) At least there is another potential sheath for The Sword of Kahless, if it is ever found. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

IP abuse on British Isles by User:[edit]

We have a problem with the above user and other IPs on British Isles. As can be seen here] it is a case of 3RR from a single purpose IP, however we are also getting abusive (possibly racist) edits such as this. Similar edits were made by another IP address here and here. For these reasons we also need semi-protection for a period of time and possibly a range block. It has been a persistent problem for some time. --Snowded (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Deal with them per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Greatdivine[edit]

Resolved: contributions blocked indef for WP:NLT violations. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 07:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Greatdivine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user got so mad because i tagged his page for deletion and it got deleted he left death threats, he threated to "sue" me, and saying that i am a racist and other thing as you see with this edit. I have removed the personal attack and have given him a warning, but i really think it will just get him more mad and indouse more personal attacks i would be greatful if some one could look in this. The page that got deleted was Ruic productions. Cheers Kyle1278 07:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

He has also sent the same message to my e-mail.Cheers Kyle1278 07:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Done - and e-mail privilege removed. Rklawton (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Ryan Moats[edit]

I'm bringing this one here because the report has been untouched at the edit war board for an hour and a half, and the editor is still very active. On the Ryan Moats article, IP (talk · contribs) has removed the section on Moats' well-publicized (and properly sourced) encounter with the Dallas Police Department now fourteen times over the last two days. I've reverted him twice, but he continues to revert and since he doesn't care about 3RR, he's just outlasting the other editors. He's finally talking on the article page, but not productively. Will someone please either block the IP for the edit war, or semi the page to force consensus? Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

A Texas IP, probably the officer himself, lol. Needs taken care of though, yes. Grsz11 23:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Nah, it can't be Texan; he spells coherently. (ZING!) HalfShadow 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Face-crying.svgbbatsell ¿? 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's a colleague or friend of the officer involved. And why do they always come here? EPSN ran the story,why not take it up with them? We're simply reporting it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page questioning the value of even including the name of the officer at this point, per WP:BLP. -- (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

New vandal team?[edit]

I've just deleted this, it contains a few words that might be worth looking out for. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm! They picked a name for themselves that is already taken on the Internet for a legitimate project. -- Donald Albury 12:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Slow edit warring and vandalism by User:Macromonkey[edit]


User:Macromonkey has now turned to vandalism of my user page and talk page using deceptive edit summaries, (and has been warned about it). After being blocked for 48 hours he has returned and vandalized the talk page of the Cold reading article by first removing a comment of mine and then removing a large part of the page's contents.

The history that precedes these activities is one of a new user