Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive559

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

Noticeboard archives


Printing out old article[edit]

Resolved: Well, not really, but it isn't exactly an AN/I topic, either. HalfShadow 18:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I print out an article from its history, the pink banner which is visible on screen ("This is an old version of the page, as edited by xxx on xxx etc etc") does not print out (I've tried several pages). I'm sure it used to. Is this a deliberate change? If so, why? I found the printed banner just as useful as the one on screen.

Thanks for any info and help (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not an incident requiring administrator attention. Try WP:VPT instead. Algebraist 15:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads concern[edit]

Hi all. Today I chanced upon a logo for a university in the Philippines, and noticed it was tagged with a GFDL license. I changed it to fair use and added the requisite rationale. However, I noticed the uploader had also added a number of other images to Wikipedia, all tagged with free licenses. [1] I suspect they are all also copyvios: I only looked at a couple others but they don't have sources and some of them appear to be a bit too good for a 17 year old to create. Someone may want to check out his uploads and resolve the issues. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Many of the images in that gallery are on commons, so you might want to drop a note there too. Deleted one here as a copyvio, tagged the version at commons, and tagged one here as lacking proper permission. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I tagged another logo copyvio over there and left a note on their admin noticeboard to have someone check his other contributions. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism on LGBT parenting article[edit]

There has been an issue on the LGBT parenting article with User:Destinero adding plagiarized text. The LGBT parenting talk page details the most recent incident (see section called Plagiarism Again) which led to a shutdown of the article and a 2nd warning being issued to Destinero. You can find information concerning the first warning here: and both warnings on Destinero's Talk Page under the sections "editing warring on LGBT parenting" and "Please read this discussion and result carefully."

Fast foward to today. Recently, after the last incident calmed down, I attempted to repair the plagiarized text. Nevertheless, today, Destinero added it back, reverting the edit. Here is the diff:

The plagiarized phrase in question is, "...documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment," giving us 21 words lifted verbatim from a source. Additionally, the article provides four sources for this statement although it has been lifted from one. The last admin to help out was Virtual Steve. Thank you. Tobit2 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Russavia again[edit]

I'd appreciate if an admin either close or make a call on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Russavia. the disruptive editing has continued again today. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If it's an archived thread, I would expect that the matter is closed/resolved. Please detail what "disruptive editing" by this user continued again. -- llywrch (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
doesn't it get automatically archived? appears no action was taken by any admin. Russavia (talk · contribs) has been disrupting plenty of Kosovo related articles and tagging them with a POV tag in retaliation for another user questioning South ossetia articles. despite many users trying to ask him to stop, he continues tagging and adding copy and pasted text to article talk pages. this is a breach of WP:POINT. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I sugges Libstar that you read WP:TALK and stop removing talk page comments placed by others. In other words, get a grip and stop being a monumental WP:DICK. --Russavia Dialogue 08:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and if what is good for the goose (A&SO) then one can only expect in an NPOV environment that it is good for the gander (Kosovo) too. If A&SO articles have to be full of information on how they are not internationally recognised as sovereign states, and how Georgia still considers it part of its territory, then so too will Kosovo articles. Why shouldn't the Australia-Kosovo relations article contain information in it, that Serbia considers the recognition an illegality and also contain further information on the Serbian POV of this; particularly as others are demanding it on A&SO articles.

I highly doubt that a WP:NPOV response will be forthcoming, which is hardly surprising --Russavia Dialogue 08:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

why is it that a number of editors have raised your disruptive editing on your talk page [2] yet you still continue to disrupt. WP:NPOV refers to content in articles not comments in ANIs. does everyone else see the mounting personal attacks of Russavia? LibStar (talk) 08:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else see your mass removal of other peoples' comments from article talk pages as disruptive and a clear violation of WP:TALK? Please stop. Offliner (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have noticed and agree with Offliner.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

you might want to see Russavia's motivations for this. as per my comment in the original ANI: nominations like this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovan–Serbian relations seem to be consistent with WP:POINT. Russavia's motivation seems revenge [3] and disrupting Wikipedia to achieve this is not good. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC) you speak it? What part of WP:TALK do you not understand? Oh, and when an editor is removing talk page comments as you have in the way that you have, I have a little bit of a right to be pissed, particularly when you have been told NOT TO REMOVE OTHERS TALK PAGE COMMENTS on no less than 3 occasions, and you have chosen to ignore it. Oh, and the editors were who? You and a Kosovan-nationalist? I'm not surprised that the Kosovan-nationalist would be removing the POV dispute tags from the articles. But removal of talk page comments as you have now done on 3-4 occasions per article is absolutely disruptive, particularly when it is clear that there is a dispute -- does one think that by removing traces of it, the dispute disappears? Not on your f'ing life. --Russavia Dialogue 08:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's refrain from profanity/vulgarities in this discussion. Not because I'm offended (I'm not), or that someone might be, but for a very pragmatic reason. Back when I worked in retail, & a customer had a complaint, they effectively lost all persuasiveness the moment the customer started to swear -- & we were allowed to hang up on them. Don't lose a discussion here because you resorted to vulgarity, even if it was lightly veiled. -- llywrch (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld[edit]

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.

Resolved: This is not a place to discuss whether stubs created by Dr. Blofeld are useful or not. And we don't block people for creating stubs. AdjustShift (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
wonderful, and good-buy to you all, Huldra (talk)

For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to him, but he just removes my comments on his Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please! Huldra (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to dispute resolution. This is not the place to discuss disagreements over content (which is what this boils down to). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As a better idea, try talking with the guy first. I noticed that you haven't. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
See [4]. –xenotalk 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
As I have said above: he just removed my comments. Huldra (talk)

Well, as I have said on his talk-page: *You have just managed to do what no fanatical pro-Israeli editor has managed in 4 years: made me stop contributing to Wp. Congratulation, you #%//(&$%##$%. You must be proud. Huldra (talk)
It makes cleaning up lots and lots more difficult. I am going to ask for Adf for every single one of these stubs. I just cannot believe that anyone can be allowed to make such massive disruption! I feel I run against a tank, or something... jeeez. Huldra (talk)
Would you like a list of those articles that have not been edited by Blofeld? –xenotalk 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A case of WP:OWN. He puts an article on the main page, adds a list of red links revealing a lot of missing content and then he starts crying at ANI, what a baby. All of these starter stubs are referenced with your pea soup colored Palestinian infobox ready for expansion. You have no right to order people what or what they should create. If you didn't want the missing articles started then common sense don't red link them or make them appear in the template. We should have articles on these, a starter stub is a step in the right direction. There is only a set amount of articles, you are overreacting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. if tanks are so offensive, don't mention them. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all: I am a *she* (read Huldra....) ...and the "articles" you have created are absolutely useless, as anyone can see. If you had done *any* work at all, with anyone of them, it would have been great! I have always *strongly* welcomed other editors to work with the 1948-villages. But you are, it looks to me, on some silly game of creating as many "articles" as possible(?), with no regard as to the *extra* work you create for others. As I have said above: now we cannot see which needs work, and which does not. Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Here is a list of articles appearing on that template that do not appear in Blofeld's last 1000 edits. This should help you to sort the ones requiring cleanup from the ones requiring expansion: [5]. And here [6] filters out articles not edited by Huldra in last 1000. –xenotalk 18:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Xeno. I´m not very tecknical; can this help us with "undoing" the articles? Huldra (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That would require AFD. –xenotalk 18:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
From what I can see; I should template them with {db-a3}? Huldra (talk)
I think these just barely scrape by the A3 criteria. –xenotalk 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deal with the new articles and move on. Just because something is not to your own liking you ar eillustrating a very selfish outlook on wikipedia Huldra. You don't WP:OWN these articles or set of articles. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time: I almost jumping up and down with joy each time a new (or old!) editor helps us with the -48-villages, so to be accused of "owning" is strange, to say the least. But I would appriciate "help" that is actually "helpful"..that is: which reduce the work-load for the rest of us...And not the opposite.Huldra (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is the source he is using. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Expressing dissatisfaction with your shotgun approach to editing doesn't mean one has ownership issues with articles, why don't we drop the heated rhetoric here. It would also help the situation if you did not treat users who leave messages on your talk page with dismissive contempt all the time, i.e. what a baby and oh do go away , which was a just simple request for you to recosndier some words here. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an expression of contempt towards the belligerent souls that hang out here and think they are in a position to judge and order other editors what to do on a daily basis. You rock ANI! What an awesome place. Dr. Blofeld White cat 19:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Following your logic above, why didn't you also create articles for the redlinked districts? Nathan T 19:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with these stubs? Short, but a good start for expansion. For example it allows IP editors to edit and has the article name, infobox, categories etc. in place. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It makes absolutely no sense to me as to what the hubbub is all about. These are valid subjects for articles, why someone would leave Wikipedia because they're here just amazes me. If you don't like them, ignore them, there's no way they should be AFD'd, and if they were, you'd need better reasoning than "there are too many of them", or "they're not sourced". AfD is not for cleanup. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Huldra has begun adding specious speedy delete tags on the Palestinian village articles she's upset about. I have removed the tags, as there is no speedy deletion criterion for places. I've also warned her that if she puts PROD tags on them, I'll remove those, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A3 could apply to a place. Whether it does or not in these instances is up for debate. (Probably not as it has some context) –xenotalk 20:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It would absolutely not in this instance. There is clearly content and context for the aforementioned places. --Smashvilletalk 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an absurd report. We don't block people for creating stubs! Huldra should be warned for making this inappropriate report, and wasting the time of admins. AdjustShift (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I've posted this comment at Huldra's talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

P.s. my apologies to the guys above. There "are" decent guys here who don't spend all their time watching the wikidrama unfold on here, I was referring purely to those who seem to relish the drama and then scold editors who are trying to improve the encylopedia and make them feel like a vandal. I've expanded nearly ten of these article already like Arab al-Safa, I have never know anybody to cause so much fuss. This group of articles is manageable. All were started anyway with the appropriate infobox and reference to be expanded. I'm sorry but I'm not sure how I can apologise for doing what I thought was a good thing to help wikipedia. Dr. Blofeld White cat 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, please ignore this report. This is an absurd report; no admin is silly enough to block you for creating stubs!!! You've ameliorated WP for a long time, and please keep on ameliorating WP! AdjustShift (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that adding permastubs by bot-like insertions from some external list of things "improves" the encyclopedia, although it does inflate the count of articles created for those who value such statistics. Edison (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld has also developed multiple other "non-stub" articles. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. How can blocking someone for creating stubs is going to reduce the likelihood of future problems? Acceptable stubs may not add great value to the encyclopedia, but it is better to have acceptable stubs than nothing. I don't like red links; it is far better to have an acceptable stub than a red link. AdjustShift (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice assumption of good faith, there, Edison. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: blocked 24 hours[7] Ikip (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

... and then unblocked after an apology and commitment to redact the statement, which is now done. –xenotalk 21:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
was: Cursing

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch."

At the bottom by user Dr.Blofeld.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's wholly untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
He appears to be responding to an off-wiki attack (though I haven't looked at it). I agree it's not acceptable -- somebody should maybe go there and tell folks to cool it down. IronDuke 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd block him for the unbelievably over the top personal attack/harangue, but I don't want the drama, honestly. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's refocus this. It's not the use of naughty words. Its the personal attack that is the problem. Using words like bitch or fuck or shit is no problem. Calling someone a bitch IS a problem, and must not be allowed to persist. --Jayron32 20:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No, calling someone a bitch isn't necessarily a problem, and I can show you at least one example of an editor who would agree that she's a bitch. The problem is that in a statement like "Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" the use of the word "bitch is almost incidental, and certainly irrelevant to the issue at hand. Which is the "Never come back you stinking nasty little ..." bit. It really wouldn't matter what word ended that sentence, it would still be unnacceptable. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I was about to say what Jayron said - it's the serious violation of WP:NPA that is the issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I have notified Blofeld of this discussion and left him the sternest of possible warnings regarding personal attacks. If he continues, he will be blocked. If he lets it drop, I think we can chalk this up to momentary lapse of reason. But the attacks of this nature will not persist. --Jayron32 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I pointed out a few other examples of blofeld's incivility in the previous section. This is becoming a rather nasty pattern, and the "I was provoked off-wiki" bit is really no excuse. Tarc (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no personal attack that I see off wiki:

Until yesterday. Blofeld comes along and find he does not like red links, and decides that he will start all the red-linked villages...and turn the whole template into on huuuge green soup. And does just that.[8]

Here is Blofields original response:

I've already notched up well over 500 edits expanding these stubs. Meanwhile you sit around being lazy, weeping in the shadows. Ironically it is me who is now doing all the work, not you. You are very silly people if you think these articles will be left by me. I am working my arse off expanding these, the least you can do is do the decent thing and return and join the party. Take a day or two away if needs be, when you return you'll see you've been wasting your time by leaving. You must enjoy editing these articles, you are losing out if you don't return.[9]

And his later response:

On second thoughts, she can rot in hell. Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch. One thing I hate is people who talk about other people behind their backs because they are too gutless to confront them in person. You go bad mouthing people like me and Slim Virgin and others off behind our backs. Really honorable behaviour. You are a weak person.[10]

Ikip (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"Never come back you stinking nasty little bitch" should result in an immediate two week block without warning. There's no excuse for that behavior, especially if you know better according to the policies. Calling someone such names is a problem. I am proposing a block that is a minimum of two weeks. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 21:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So is this a kangaroo court or a lynch mob? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well...I may have jumped the gun then...I didn't see this thread yet and just blocked him for 24 hours. If anyone feels like extending it...feel free. --Smashvilletalk 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The 24 hour block is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
If I were an administrator, Dr. Biofeld would be blocked immediately for a very long time. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who sees fault only on one side will hopefully never be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have also warned Nableezy for his inappropriate response to Blofelds attack. Just because someone personally attacks another user does not give everyone else free liscence to personally attack them in return. This entire pattern of behavior needs to cease. --Jayron32 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • @Ikip, to be fair, she also said Blofeld "has added nothing to the 'public knowledge'" and that he should "clean up his own diarrhoea, eh, poo" [sic]. Though off-wiki, she has linked it from her userpage. (I have no dog in this fight, and find it unfortunate that both contributors who share common ground in that they feel these articles are notable are coming to such violent disagreements) –xenotalk 21:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would have much preferred Jayron's approach; not everything is solved with a block. I suppose I can resist getting worked up over a 24 hour cooldown block, and hope it actually has its intended effect. A two week block is a silly idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I've actually unblocked him after the apology on his talkpage, which appears sincere, so that he may refactor or simply delete the comment. Preventative, not punitive. --Smashvilletalk 21:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Although after noticing that he had posted the same thing twice and in the first one mentions that he was going to "report", quite honestly, I probably would have left it up if I had seen that first, as that makes it appear he doesn't understand what he did. Well...we'll find out soon. --Smashvilletalk 21:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I would go so far as to say that unblocking them was rash. But what's done is done. We don't need a third turn of the wheel, as it were. Protonk (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


Dr.Blofled was blocked for incivility and unblocked for the pledge to remove the problematic comment, but then why this personal attacks by nableezy (talk · contribs) are not noted on the same ground?

Is it possible for you not to be a complete asshole? Fuck off if your whole purpose here is to antagonize a user who has done incredible work in this area. You keep spouting this bullshit about "the sum of all human knowledge" but your recent additions have added nothing to that goal while chasing off a user who had been working her ass off trying to create an actual reference on the topic.[11]

In addition, this and that show that he would not refrain from such behaviors.--Caspian blue 21:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I just hadn't gotten to that yet. I had blocked Dr. Blofled but then come here to ask about Nableezy when I saw there was already the discussion about him and I got sidetracked. --Smashvilletalk 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nableezy was already warned by Nishkid. –xenotalk 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Warned several times.--Caspian blue 21:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
At least I can understand why Dr. Blofelds reacted so harshly given the nasty and personal off-wiki attacks and the ANI complaints by her. Not a reason for him to call Huldra whatever, but somewhat understandable, and judging from his talk page he now understands this and apologized. But for Nableezy's attacks I have a hard time seeing the rationale, and there is not even an apology forthcoming, in fact he even confirms his attacks on Dr. Blofeld. Pantherskin (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think everyone has said a few things in anger that upon reflection they will find were better left unsaid. Knowing Nableezy and Huldra well, I'd say that the rationale would be that Nableezy, as someone who has worked with and appreciated Huldra's work, is upset at losing her and doesn't take well to women he respects being called bitches. For Dr. Blofeld, he's upset at not having his efforts appreciated and discussed in less than favourable terms in off-wiki forums. For Huldra, she's upset at having something she was working on reorganized in a way that makes it hard for her to pick where she left out. Anyway, I think its best to just unblock or not block anyone. We need to retain editors, not chase them away. Tiamuttalk 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tiamut, this is out of respect?[12]----Caspian blue 22:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Users don't get punished here for off-wiki comments. You know that, so please, enough with your usual rabble rousing. Tarc (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Tarc, no thanks for your typical appearance to make such personal attacks. Since the matter is related to off-Wiki, I linked it. Besides, it is happening that some ArbCom case uses off-Wiki evidences to punish users, so you're wrong 'again as always.:-)--Caspian blue 23:18, 18 August 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.

Disrupted AfD for Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

  • I've speedy-closed the above AfD on grounds of canvassing, and invited the nominator to start a fresh nomination in a day or so. I invite comments about whether that was appropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As the nominator, my preference would be to keep the AfD open and to note the canvassed comments so that the closing admin can discount them. There is really no need to discard the good-faith comments (both delete and keep) made prior to the canvassing.  Sandstein  20:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • AfD's should not be closed early due to canvassing except in incredibly extreme circumstances; and even in those cases, the decision to do so should be left to an administrator. Disruption (excepting a disruptive nomination) is not a valid reason to speedily close a discussion, and therefore is not a valid reason for a non-admin to close the discussion. This should be re-opened, and comments left as a result of canvassing properly tagged. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 21:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep. Anything else is pretty much an invitation for disruption. Amalthea 21:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of the comments on both sides look sensible, and even the socks turned out to be a pair of panty-hose. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I may live to regret this, but I have undone the close, figuring that if it is done quickly now, the drama will be kept to a minimum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think that was a mistake, Elen. The outcome of this canvassing-tainted discussion is open to reasonable doubt because of procedural irregularities, so I do not now expect any closure to survive DRV.

    Nevertheless, mistake though that was, the least disruptive course now is to run with it and see what happens. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can say, I think you are making a great deal more fuss about this canvassing than it warrants. This isn't an AfD full of disruptive socks, everyone is making very sound comments on both sides. I've learned stuff about the German ex-nobility, just from the discussion. And, since these are real Wikipedians with independent views (and as several have pointed out, they are entitled to share their view even if they were canvassed), and not a bunch of Sockenpuppen, I think there is a good chance that the outcome of the debate will be accepted by all. Except perhaps yourself, given that you felt compelled to close the AfD rather than report the canvassing here and await a consensus on further action. But then, I don't know what outcome would satisfy you. Incidentally, I note that other than your note, no-one has really said anything much to the canvasser - no threats of blocking etc. Was that something you would be looking for? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, we'll see whether anyone challenges it. (I shall, if the outcome is "delete", since I think it's simple common sense that the outcome should be some variant of "keep"; and I explained my reasoning at the AfD.)

    I agree that I'm taking the canvassing more seriously than most, but then, I do think it matters. AfDs should not be tainted by canvassing lest the conclusion be unsafe.

    I'm quite satisfied that I acted correctly in (a) notifying the nominator and the canvasser, (b) closing the tainted AfD, and then (c) bringing the matter here for discussion. Editors aren't helpless slaves to AN/I; we're told to be bold for a reason. Equally, I think your reversion of my close was in good faith. You made a judgment call in a matter for which there appears to be no policy or guideline, so again WP:BRD applies. So I'll just note that I think the AfD probably should have been left closed and recommend further discussion so we can reach consensus on what to do with canvassing-tainted AfDs at a later date (i.e. when it's about the procedure in general; if we discussed it now, it would be about this AfD).

    I think my note on the canvassing editor's talk page is sufficient and no further sanctions should be imposed in this case. You should assume the canvassing editor was unaware of the policy rather than deliberately being disruptive unless there's evidence to the contrary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the canvassers - I do think it was done without intent to disrupt and in ignorance of the rules. Indeed, if they had worded it just a little differently it would have been legitimate. As it is, a few people have expressed an opinion that might not other wise have seen the AfD, both as a result of the canvassing and as a result of this ANI filing. I do not in this case see it as 'tainted', but I understand and accept your broader concern. In terms of closing the AfD, I think it could be argued that it did not fall into the category of discussions suitable for non-admin close, but I recognise your good faith, and there may be grounds to have discussion in another place regarding AfD's where canvassing has taken place, and if specific guidelines need to be written.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Szląchski articles from user drafts[edit]

There are ~16 articles which Dr. Szląchski has copy-pasted from userspace drafts. I'm not sure if it's best to do a history merge on all of them, or to go through and ask the original authors first, or what. Frankly I'd like for this to be someone else's problem -- volunteers welcome! :-) Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 04:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the trouble and I will not create anymore articles in this fashion. I will now try to make articles the right way. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal Request for Assistance[edit]

Hello, I am aware that the administrator Alison is no longer active on wikipedia. Could someone possibly give me contact information for her? If that is not okay, I would be happy to provide a message to be passed on to her, but I would prefer if that happened through email rather than a public forum. Thank you for your assistance. --Xj754 (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

On the user page of any Wikipedian who has enabled this option (and Alison is one of them) you can find a link on the left side labelled "E-mail this user". It looks like Alison still has hers up; you can click that link to email her. For privacy reasons, we cannot give out the email addresses of any of our editors. (Your email address will be visible to her when you send the message; you will not see her address unless she chooses to reply.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

disruptive user[edit]

Resolved: Editor had been blocked, and unblock request declined (by me). LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aradic-es stubbornly continues to breach the consensus reached and continues returning unconstitutional names and symbols to infobox although it was agreed to only have them under a section explaining them. Refers to my edits as vandalism for trying to keep the consensus and marks his edits as minor so as not to see them. [13] [14] Adds ridiculous propaganda such as this [15] and this [16] WP:OR WP:RS. Removes information from lead simply because he does not like it. [17] PRODUCER (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins[edit]

The page for Latham & Watkins was on my watch list for some reason, maybe having to do with an edit war from last May that was on this page - a war that appears to be resuming. I don't know who's right, if either one - there seems to be a POV-push-pull going on. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A cursory glance suggests that one editor might be the main problem, pushing a pretty strong POV (compare the current version to a recent one, just a quick read of the lead shows what the problem is). I'll take a look over there, but it might just be a matter of warning one editor away from POV pushing. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It is one editor that is the problem and a glance at his talk page indicates that he's been blocked for this very behavior previously. What we have is an unresponsive SPA dedicated to turning an article into a bashfest. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, and accordingly I've indefinitely blocked User:Lathaminfo (see their talk page for my block message). This is clearly a POV-pushing SPA out to defame a particular law firm (and individual people), as evidenced by this edit, among others. A series of edits to Kilpatrick Stockton back in May were just as problematic but basically went unnoticed. [18][19][20][21]
I think an indef was a pretty obvious call here, but other admins are welcome to review and/or consider any unblock request. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Heal the World Foundation (moving discussion from wrong forum)[edit]

Moved from WT:OTRS.···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, forgive me if I don't know how to use this forum yet. I received mail about revising the heal the world foundation page from an administrator who is threatening to ban me if I dont stop changing the erroneous reporting on HTWF.

The Jackson estate did not say HTWF has nothing to do with Michael Jackson as reported on this site, but rather that HTWF has nothing to do with the estate currently. This error is causing damage to the charity and I want it removed for good and I don't know how to email him directly. please advise me.

Further, Our charity needs a bit of help from you volunteers as people trying to discredit the charity are going to make changes to the site, to harm them. Please do not let people change the HTWF listing. HTWF will save lives and one media report does not make something fact.

Melissa Johnson and HTWF is connected to Michael Jackson and will prove that in the near future, in the mean time, please help the charity ward off these attacks by people trying to harm them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjkid (talkcontribs) 22:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

response to the above statement[edit]

No one is trying to "discredit the charity", as 'Mjkid' alleges above. The edits to the Heal The World Foundation article say that there is no known connection between Michael Jackson and the current Heal The World Foundation.

That is the truth.

Melissa Johnson has been repeatedly asked to provide any evidence or proof of her purported connection to Michael Jackson during his life. Her members have asked her to provide this. CBS News has asked her for proof that she knew Michael Jackson and had his endorsement. She has consistently failed to provide any evidence of this at all.

She cannot get "credibility" for her foundation by deleting facts from Wikipedia.

'Mjkid' is Melissa Johnson's user name on her own Heal The World Foundation website. That is the user name of the editor who made the above post. That is also the user name Melissa Johnson uses on many other sites, including (see link below). 'Mjkid' is the Wikipedia editor who continues to edit and/or delete the fact that there is no known connection between Melissa Johnson's foundation and Michael Jackson personally.

Look at the Heal The World Foundation article history. The misleading information about Heal The World Foundation being connected to Michael Jackson has historically been provided by editor 'Mjkid'--who is Melissa Johnson, the founder and President of the current HTWF foundation. She is not an unbiased or independent source.

CBS News calls her foundation "fake" because no evidence of her connection to Michael Jackson has ever been produced by her, nor could CBS find any proof of a connection through independent investigation:

Many former members of her site are now posting all over the net that they have been banned from her site and all of their posts deleted for asking her for proof of legitimate connection to Jackson: (entire thread is interesting) and are two of the most complete sources.

Providing unsourced, misleading, deceitful and possibly false information in a Wikipedia article is not OK. The Heal The World Article now states: "A different organization, with no known relationship to Michael Jackson's foundation, incorporated in the state of California under the same name and applied for new tax exempt status in 2008." This is a fact.

I do not think Melissa Johnson, aka 'Mjkid', can claim a known connection to Michael Jackson, or change the article again, unless she provides independent, verifiable proof of her foundation's connection to Jackson, and correctly cites the source.

I apologize to the forum for taking up space for this topic, in this fashion. 'Mjkid' brought the topic here and, because of intense global interest in Michael Jackson, I addressed it here. I am learning, but am not an experienced editor. Again, apologies.

All41and14all (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The reliable source says they are unconnected so that's what we go with (and what I have edited the article to say). --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Stormfront (website)[edit]

Resolved: Page protected, parties discussing amicably on talk.  Skomorokh  13:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This article has been rather volatile over the past month, and the participants don't show much indication of abating. Requesting an uninvolved administrator to intercede to discourage further reverting. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

IP repeatdly posting link to miscellaneous script.[edit]

Hope this is the right place. IP has been adding a link (See diff) on the Neopets article to adding ?guild_bgcolor=[with code that links to an external script]. It does work so I'm not going to link it here. Make sure you turn off JavaScript before you follow it. Should this user be blocked? Should the address be blocked? RP9 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Nemonoman (talk · contribs) While looking at Parapsychology, I found some surprising claims, and checked them against the sources, and discovered that the sources directly conflicted with the claims being made. Further research discovered a pattern of abuse of sources, and I nominated the article for FAR:


As can be seen, I provided detailed analysis of an entire section, line by line, showing that almost every claim was distorted or actively went against the source. For instance, here's the first bit of the analysis.

Claim Evidence
"The practice of randomization and associated techniques such as "blind" administration of conditions were principally developed in the conduct of early psychical research, and have since become standard practice in scientific experiments." Claims about blinding actively contradicted by citation; randomisation claims overstated: The Bulletin of the History of Medicine does not say any such thing. Its discussion of blinding begins in the late 18th century, and, several pages of chronologically-organised examples later discusses that the first use of blinding in psychic research began after 1884. It does say "From this point [after Richet befgan using blinding sometime after 1884], blinding quickly became an essential feature of psychical research, as did Richet's random selection methods (au hasard), which he used as an additional precaution to ensure concealment. 71 When university-sanctioned psychical and parapsychology research centers were opened in the early twentieth century, blind assessment and early forms of randomization were also an integral component of their research protocols." - However, it does not credit this work with any innovation in the protocols, randomisation, or any other blinding technique.[1]

The Isis source's main statement on the matter is that Richet's randomisation methods were groundbreaking, but also credits various other fields as well, such as the later work of R. A. Fisher, and Pierce's earlier work with using playing cards to randomise a study on the perception of small differences in weights. Hence, "principally developed" is somewhat of an overstatement.[2]

I and others subsequently removed some parts of the article that had such sourcing issues.

This has caused Nemonoman to launch constant, evidence-free attacks against me, complaining at a variety of fora, and acting as if I provided no reasons for my actions. For instance, from the FAR:


Having found no support there, he jumped to my talk page, heightening his rhetoric:

Then, when I deleted his comment (somewhat poorly chosen edit summary for removal: "Removed fairly trollish comment" - silence would have been better on my behalf), decided to attack me on Talk:Parapsychology [22]:

This is, as you can imagine, getting very old, very fast. I suppose I should link Nemonoman to this after closing this edit window, and will do so, but I would appreciate a little help here soon. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 195 FCs served 17:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

ETA: the behaviour continues unabated. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 195 FCs served 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a case of ownership on the part of Nemonoman, who is slinging around accusations of POV because someone is messing with his article, hoping that something will stick. This is backed up by his absence of reply to Shoemaker's Holiday's points, merely claiming that he should have been consulted first. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

weird stalker[edit]

I'm not sure what can be done about this but this guy, an IP with an illustrious trolling career going back to January 2008 (with such informative edits as this and this, suddenly bounced into the discussion on Talk:Nurse Nayirah earlier this month. He has specifically targeted me and while I first was engaging his arguments and even editing the article in response to them, I excused myself from the conversation as he got more and more incoherent and began personally attacking me. In his most recent attack he made reference to events that took place on Wikipedia several years ago, indicating that he has been watching my account for a long time. I normally would not think the earlier vandalism entries were from the same person -- since August 09 he has been editing exclusively on the Nayirah article talk page -- except that a couple of the earlier edits suggest that indeed it is the same person. Since August he has only made two edits outside of the Nayirah talk page -- that was to contact two editors I had disputes with in the very distant past to ask for help on Nurse Nayirah -- including one who has long since been permanently banned for constant violations of Wikipedia policies but who recently returned as a sockpuppet and argued with me on The Spitting Image. It's possible the IP user is TDC, though I doubt it -- the IP address locates to South Africa -- but I find it really strange that he's making reference to disputes that happened years ago in order to personally attack me. Strangely, for all the argument he has produced on the Nurse Nayirah talk page, he hasn't once tried to actually edit the article. csloat (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Almost nothing here that happened since the latest block - and that was over two months ago. Wknight94 talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I want to draw the attention of the community to the behavior of this editor—please, see this RFC. I obviously do not like to be called "dumb", but it is not what concerns me the most. While I am relatively thick-skinned, other editors may be much more sensitive. Such manner of conducting discussions creates toxic atmosphere in the project and may forces editors to leave Wikipedia.

I have to say that that this RFC is not an isolated incident, and HarryAlffa habitually engages in such behavior. Just two months ago he was blocked (and in fact nearly banned) for a week for insulting others editors, however, apparently learned nothing from his block (see discussion, see also this and this). Below are some diffs from the past:

[23] (Nazi comparison),
[24] (others are incompetent),
[25] (comments of others are bogus),
[26] (shutting your face),
[27] (calling others imbeciles)
and the most recent one [28].

This editors seems absolutely incapable of conducting a civil discussion, without assumptions of bad faith, insults and disruption. WP:Banning policy states If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point .... I want only to say that my patience is exhausted.

So, I propose to ban HarryAlffa from the project. Thanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I notified HarryAlffa of this thread. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First problem for me - and it's a biggie - all those links except the last were from before his latest block. You want him banned now for prior bad acts he has already "served time" for? Granted some of the rhetoric in those links and discussions are quite uncivil, but most of what I saw was before the last block. Anything else more recent? Wknight94 talk 19:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I was about to make the same comment. I'm no fan, being one of the editors Harry has implied are stupid or clueless, but that last diff is the only objectionable one I see in his history since his block. It is his behavior when someone disagrees with him that needs to be examined. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
His behavior have not changed much and it is only a matter of time before past incidents are repeated. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believes he simply lives in a strange world of his own, making Wikipedia an even more stressful experience for him than it is for most. Recently I have experienced him as surprisingly relaxed. See his behaviour in his thread at WP:VPP#Artificial Intelligence User Accounts. But overall I am getting the impression that while he is clearly here to improve the encyclopedia, that's not the effect he is having. He is often absent over several months, which is probably why he is not banned yet. But I am not sure how proper it is to have this discussion, especially at ANI, rather than, say, AN, without a concrete recent cause. Hans Adler 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to distinguish where he is serious and where he is just joking. Ruslik_Zero 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am exhausted with Ruslik and his "playing dumb" as I quoth in the link he provided. I was seriously considering raising a WikiAlert on HIM for this, but thought I'd give him one more chance.

The discussion actually started here[29], but Ruslik refused to take part.

Is it really believable that he doesn't understand that you cannot use a comparative measure for significance of an alternative article title? How many times would I have had to re-explain this point, beyond the number of times I did already? Can you really believe that he genuinely believes a reference he provided using a "best option" search is insignificant? Can you intelligently call an in-print book an insignificant source? Can you intelligently conclude that a term used by scientists at conferences is not significant?

So how honest is Ruslik?

Calling my deconstruction of a straw man a Nazi comparison[30]?
Describing my polite appeal to reason, "Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence"[31] as calling others incompetent?
After someone created a heading "Suggest silence" aimed at me on the talk page, which was incivil in itself, and which Ruslik endorsed (his bold)[32], I asked a question "I thought you were shutting your face?"[33] when the originator chimed in again.
I said a comment was imbecillic[34], of one person, not "others imbeciles", note Ruslik's dishonest plural as well. AND I withdrew the comment - at Ruslik's suggestion.
I did not say comments of others are bogus, I said (in the third week of a debate) "Your claims of fact and your conclusions are equally bogus."[35], again to one person, not numerous.

This is propaganda, on Ruslik's part.

But back to "the most recent one [36]".

Is Ruslik playing dumb, or not? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've boldly marked this as resolved. One barely-problematic edit in the last two months is not worthy of taking up people's time here. Wknight94 talk 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. With your last edit you just confirmed what I stated above. Ruslik_Zero 20:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Moving Salford Docks to Manchester Docks while content exists on destination page.[edit]

Resolved: Wrong venue. — neuro(talk) 20:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to have the Salford Docks page renamed to Manchester Docks to more accurately reflect the naming used for the area, but as there is content (disambiguation) on the Manchester Docks page, I cannot. Could this be looked into, as I'm not sure of the next move. Roobarb! (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed first on the talk page. — neuro(talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:Requested moves is your best bet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock this URL so I can create a new page[edit]

Resolved: Page was never protected; Buckheit was given instructions on how to proceed and has managed to create to article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Admin, I am trying to create a wiki page for a well-known tech company in New Jersey: I don't work for them, but I am associated with them for some communications related projects. I thought it would be cool to create a wiki info stub for the company, but unfortunately the page is blocked. Could you please unblock it? Thanks in advance. buckheit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckheit (talkcontribs) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a matter for ANI. Take to Deletion Review. --Smashvilletalk 21:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) I have given you a nice welcome with a whole load of great links about editing/creating articles on Wikipedia. I don't think the article you noted is blocked, it's merely that you're too new to create an article. I believe that one of the links I gave you is for your sandbox. Feel free to create an article in your own sandbox space, make sure it's referenced with reliable sources, and that the company is indeed notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Or what the Canadian said...sorry, didn't realize 'twas a noob. --Smashvilletalk 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's ok ... you admins have so much on your plate, you sometimes forget to check :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
??Since when are newly signed in accounts prohibited from creating articles? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
They aren't, nor were any of the plausible titles for this article ever protected. Buckheit seems to have merely been mistaken. In any case, Critical Links is up now. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

No edit summaries[edit]

Resolved: No admin action required. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GAThrawnIGF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Thousands of edits since 2007, no edit summaries that I can see. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk to the user. This isn't an issue that admin tools are needed for. lifebaka++ 21:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Editors are not required to use edit summaries, though they are advised to. I don't think this is an issue for the administrators to look, so I urge them not to look at it. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 21:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
All collegial editors use edit summaries :-) I have dropped them a friendly note. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
While most (virtually all?) of us prefer that edit summaries be used, there are no policies or guidelines requiring their use. — Kralizec! (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Loop created for Louise-Marie of Orléans: totall mess[edit]

Help. Me and others have created a loop in directs and redirects that makes moving to a correct name impossible. The name should be Louise-Marie of Orléans, as is also stated in the genealogy of the Belgian Royals themselves: For further references: The title in the Dutch Wikipedia: The title in the French Wikipedia: As translation: van=d'=of and may be translated

I could only make Louise-Marie de Orléans. Try Louise-Marie of Orléans or even Louise-Marie d'Orléans and you get redirects, and I cannot change of remove those pages. Furthermore there is a wrongQueen Louise-Marie d'Orléans. A very good redirect page Louise-Marie, but here she is only mentioned as Louise-Marie of France (1812-1850), French princess. There is also a redirect Marie-Louise of France that is unnecessary, and can be removed.

For short: it is a mess. And a good administrator is needed to change it to the correct namen/ sort it out/ stop the loop. --Eezie (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Louise-Marie is a disambiguation page, and it's fine (I did correct de Orléans' name there, though). I think I've sorted all of them to point at the right places, but I'm unsure if the proper title should be at "d'Orléans" or "de Orléans"... Let me know if I got it wrong, and I'll fix it presently. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I thought he said correct name was Louise-Marie of Orléans so that's what I just did. Sorry if I just compounded the problem. Hopefully not. Wknight94 talk 21:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In English, that name would be correct. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's Fault but Mine‎ and talk pages[edit]


An anonymous user continues to make uncommented changes of both the article and talk page. I have attempted to leave comments, but the editor's IP address keeps changing. The talk page vandalism consists of removing discussions aimed at getting the editor to explain the changes that were made. The page was locked down for a week about a week ago, but when that ban was lifted, the editor went back to hacking the article. The talk page hacking never stopped. This is far beyond the three revert rule as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

King of Hearts has semi-protected both the article & talk page for 1 week. In the future, please use WP:RPP for this type of issue. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Long term" vandal, short term solution[edit]

Today, I saw this edit from (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I recalled seeing similar edits in the past, and it turns out that they showed up on a different IP in mid June and before that in October 2008 on (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). None of the IPs have ever been blocked. All have been warned, and nothing came about because the user disappeared shortly afterward, only to appear months later on a different IP address.

As far as I can tell (from the gadget that allows one to search IP ranges), nearly every single edit from the range has been from this individual. All have added [[Category:[Decade] animated television series]] to articles that are 99% of the time not cartoons. I have not found any IPs outside of the /24 that match the MO. Blocking this range from editing Wikipedia would probably solve any problems that may arise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 31 hours as I noticed the similarity to edits made almost exactly a year previously. I considered that this may be a vacationing vandal, but not so sure - despite a familiar range of articles being targeted - to place a longer block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 months. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Does that cover all of the other deleterious edits from the same individual that is only found in the /24?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


Levinstein (talk · contribs · count) There are a couple of other admins keeping an eye on this, but I'd like to get more eyes on this (and I don't personally have the time today to do it). User Levinstein keeps creating pages regarding an alleged / convicted pedophile. Originally he did it in mainspace, and when it was deleted for being a wall o' text attack page, he recreated it in his userspace and usertalk. Those were deleted last night as attack pages, and user has reinstated it on his talk page.

He claims that the article is sourced, and from the searches I've done I can only find the first paragraph of one of the cited stories. Otherwise, its almost a cut and paste from a headline clearing house (which says its GFDL, so they aren't copyvio).

He's also jumped IMO immediately to bad faith land, accusing one of the original deleters Closedmouth of trying to cover up the person's crimes.

Thoughts? I'm going to go inform the editor of this discussion now. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, bollocks to him. He clearly isn't here to write an encyclopedia, just to push this stuff. So I've permablocked him. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • One day your meek manners and lack of decisiveness is going to be your undoing... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
My boy, you may take it from me
That of all the afflictions accurs't
With which a man's saddled
And hampered and addled
A diffident nature's the worst. -- Gilbert & Sullivan 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've tracked down two of the sources. One can be found on pages 261–262 of ISBN 9788170247913, and the other here. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE still applies. The wall-o-text could have been summarized as "This man is a pedophile! And he's still working at [X]! Something must be done! Here's a bunch of 18-year-old newspaper clippings!" --Calton | Talk 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)



Ripper404 (talk · contribs) has been warned several times about BLP violations, and was, in fact, blocked in February for repeated BLP violations. Today I was looking at edits he had made to Mark Wahlberg, an article he's edited in the past, and found a violation again. I warned him on his Talk page that he should stop the practice, since he's been blocked for it before, and This was his reply. I had not planned on taking any further action unless he continued the behavior after my warning, but his reply shows he has no interest in playing nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • 3 day holiday. Black Kite 22:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


This user continues to vandalize the fentanyl article by replacing information with unsupported material, and figures that are absolutely ridiculous. I attempted to inform this user in the article history, as well as this user's talk page to cease with the vandalizing, or else he/she would be reported. No Avail. This user ignores warnings, (I see he/she was already reported earlier for deleting information) and continues to vandalize the page. This user does NOT provide any impeccable references to support his/her claims. Please deal with this accordingly. Thank you. --Mishi4 (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
He's making drug information claims citing a specific source that has other numbers in them (the source contains the values he's replacing, not the ones he's replacing them with...). This could be citing the wrong source mistakenly and somewhat stubbornly - or it could be intentional vandalism.
I am not assuming bad faith but I have full protected the article for 24 hrs and asked him to clarify what source he's getting the 0.83 mg and 80 times relative efficiency number from. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon and Arbitration[edit]

Resolved: The committee has stated they would prefer additional community-imposed restrictions not be enacted as this would simply complicate and confuse matters. –xenotalk 13:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mythdon (talk · contribs) has been asked many times to refrain from making pointless requests and comments on Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages. Despite this, he has filed the 5th request for clarification on the same case, 2 weeks after he made the 4th request for clarification. This is really becoming a tiresome exercise. Understandably, ArbCom are reluctant to themselves restrict Mythdon from continuing this pattern of interactions with ArbCom. Reluctantly, I find that we're in a position where there is no other option than to propose that a community sanction be imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanction proposals[edit]


I will be notifying the Arbitration Committee. I think that the Arbitration Committee has to make this decision. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I do take note however that Risker and Newyorkbrad are recused. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom notified. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Isn't that the very reason this discussion is taking place? –túrianpatois 05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
No. Also, ArbCom should be notified because it has stated it's lack of being pleased with my requests. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I'd already notified ArbCom of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
And I've done so on their talk pages. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe the community does have the authority to enact sanctions themselves if there is a strong enough consensus for it, without having to go to ArbCom and making it official. Whether they or the community make the decision, it will make little difference. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the community has no authority to impose this sanction as it is a decision for ArbCom to make. I have this feeling that they will decline to let the community impose it, and have the community leave the discussion to themselves. I wonder what they'll say when they see this. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I made this proposal, only after doing all the research. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
But wouldn't ArbCom have to decide on this? Jimbo Wales founded the committee. Doesn't he retain jurisdiction over it? Would he have to approve of the community making such a decision? Would he take back to ArbCom? Would ArbCom take it back to themselves? Mythdon (talkcontribs) 05:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
On the second thought, it does make sense for ArbCom to have the final say in this, given that we're discussion Mythdon's ability to post requests for amendments/clarifications where they are the ultimate authority. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom requests everyone to try steps short of ArbCom intervention; I'm merely complying with that request. If I did not, there would be no difference between me and Mythdon, who would not with that request Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That is actually to try prior steps in dispute resolution before requesting arbitration cases. It's not applicable here. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
It was this approach that led to the sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't bar an editor from access to dispute resolution. If the Committee doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on their pages, all they have to do is ignore it. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you can put yourself in the above section to state your opposition. Mythdon (talkcontribs) 06:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not what's happening here. Merely, Mythdon's access to dispute resolution is being limited until such a time he can use it appropriately. Unless you don't want the Committee to give timely responses, perhaps going back to the old ways of a previous Committee, ignoring it is not an option. It isn't merely the Committee who doesn't like what Mythdon is doing on those pages, as some statements would've indicated already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • considering supporting this, and agree with the proposal in principle. My concerns are the wording of:

(a) Mythdon [...] is hereby prohibited from editing any Wikipedia:Arbitration and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration pages and subpages, broadly construed. This restriction shall expire after 1 month. (emphasis mine)

  • I agree that much of this ongoing disruption should be addressed, but I am hesitant to support due to the phrasing which I bolded above. It would likely be more prudent to confine the restriction to only the existing sanctions as far as "topic". — Ched :  ?  06:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That's ironically the same concern I initially had. But the rationale behind it is that this effectively gives Mythdon an opportunity to at least listen to what ArbCom was saying in the 5th request for clarification - which means that there should be no need for Mythdon to edit the pages himself. Carcharoth's comments may be helpful in this regard. I was also given the impression that the same problem would just move to any available on-wiki pages not covered by the restriction, if you get what I mean. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Mythdon has posted on all the arb's talk pages about this. I think it good the community discuss this issue. The mere fact that someone filed this shows how problematic his behavior has become. Right now the consensus seems to be that is is not a good idea for the community to ban someone from DR pages; that this should be left to arbcom. RlevseTalk 10:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As I've already stated here, ArbCom reserves the right to apply any necessary sanction/restriction (topic ban/ban) especially that ignoring excessive and unnecessary requests and questions is not appropriate. The Arbitration Enforcement is enough for now. It is up to Mythdon to understand and assess the consequences of his actions. However, any further question about the nature of these consequences would lead to an automatic ArbCom action in order to put an end to this story. It should be noted that Mythdon should be held responsible as he refused mentorship and still doesn't show any improvement in communicating with others. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 11:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I admit that I'm not particularly knowledgeable on "ArbCom" matters, so I guess my question would be: To what degree do the arbs consider WP:INVOLVED to be a consideration here? (either collectively or individually). There certainly have been numerous threads at various talk pages, AN, AN/I in regards to Mythdon/Ryloung, Power Rangers, and the ArbCom sanctions, many of which I tend to just "scroll on by", but I can envision that some of the community may be finding it rather tiresome. I certainly don't want to step on the committee's toes if they are fully willing to handle it. (see SoWhy, mazca, Viridae, and AdjustShift comments above). If however the committe is desirous of community action, then I'm not opposed to a bit of "restrictions" being handed out. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally believe that WP:INVOLVED is quite explicit. I must just add that the criteria of the involvement of an admin differ from a case to another. I believe that the criteria for a case concerning general behavioral guidelines are less stricter than for a case involving complicated issues (POV pushing, etc...).
  • I believe that this case can still be handled by ArbCom not because the community is not able to deal with it but it is rather a matter of continuity and avoidance of the establishment of interrelated and confusing or contradictory restrictions in complex ways which would require consequent unnecessary requests for clarifications.
  • The main issue here is not merely a question of excessive requests by Mythdon but his inability to correct the mistakes which led to sanctions and restrictions. For this reason, ArbCom may expect further problematic behavior by Mythdon and it would be better if the community avoids any further complication by imposing new restrictions that aren't really necessary. Mythdon is free to request clarifications but there'd be no guarantee about the consequences of such exaggerated behavior. ArbCom has assumed good faith since the start of the case and it still does but for everything in life there are limits. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm content with what's been said. The arbs have read between the lines of this, and in their responses, have addressed a number of questions/concerns posed on this vexing problem. Pending any last questions/concerns that members of the community may desire responses to from the arbs, we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
    Likewise. –xenotalk 14:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Alternate proposal[edit]