Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563

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

Noticeboard archives


Warning from Moderator[edit]

For the first time today I noticed this old edit. I was under the impression that no one was suppose to be in charge of a topic which to me this section implies. SunCreator (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not anything "official", just a strange comment by a new user. Evil saltine (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The recommendation to archive is technically accurate. It's couched in very strange terms. No, this person is not an official moderator (we don't have 'em) and this isn't the sort of thing that merits any warning. Suggest you tell the poster to WP:SOFIXIT or archive the page. No administrative action is needed. Durova314 21:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That diff is nearly two months old, no need to deal with it now. — neuro(talk) 06:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Request Block of JeffBillman[edit]

Resolved: no admin action needed. JeffBillman is aware of the proper use of Rollback, and has agreed to pull it back a bit. --Jayron32 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like administrator help with ongoing vandalism at Kevin Coughlin. I have recently added a section about Coughlin's lawsuit, which has been well-documented in reliable daily newspapers in NE Ohio. I have provided the sources to back up the info but Coughlin's friend JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism. JeffBillman continues to misrepresent the situation in the discussion. As you can see from reading the sourced material, Coughlin was dismissed from the lawsuit after admitting an article was not defamatory and that he does not have any intention to sue over the alleged extra-marital affair that was reported. I understand the material may not be especially flattering to Coughlin, but as it is factual and can be supported.

Please block JeffBillman from any further revisions to this page. Thank you. "JamesRenner (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)"

  • Assuming you are the same James Renner that is suing Kevin Coughlin, and you are trying to add information about this lawsuit to the article, this is a huge conflict of interest. You should not be edit warring with someone over a legal issue that you are directly involved with. Peacock (talk) 23:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • For the record, I have no present association with any of the parties to the lawsuit. It matters not to me the nature of the edit in question, only that it is poorly sourced and apparently offered by a person with a clear conflict of interest. Thank you, JeffBillman (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • JeffBillman certainly hasn't helped things. Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by rejecting good advice not to use vandalism rollback tools (as xe did three times 1, 2, 3) to revert edits that are not vandalism, however disputed they are. As other administrators here know, the tools are not to be used in that way. They only serve to cause exactly what has happened in this case: bad feeling and escalation of the dispute. JeffBillman isn't an administrator, and clearly hasn't learned this aspect of rollback tools. I've pointed xem in the direction of Wikipedia:Vandalism but xe is now, alas, wikilawyering that and constructing straw men. A pointer to Wikipedia:Rollback is probably next.

    Xe isn't doing xyrself any favours by goading xyr disputant with uncivil statements such as "More silliness from Akron-area residents with too much time on their hands", either.

    Xe further isn't doing xyrself any favours by misrepresenting the dispute, here. This isn't a dispute about poorly sourced content. The content is as well sourced, from independent reporters in newspapers that are used for other sources in the article, as any other in the article. The problem isn't that the sourcing is poor. The problem is that the content doesn't reflect what the sources say. This has been mentioned on the talk page, albeit that it took a third opinion from Shell Kinney to actually point this out exlpicitly and focus upon it as the issue. I've raised the protection level on the article from semi-protection to full protection, and PCock has removed the disputed content. Further attempts to settle this, with good wording that does not misrepresent the sources, should be made on the talk page.

    I repeat my advice to JeffBillman a third time: Do not not use vandalism rollback tools to revert edits that are not vandalism and do not go around calling other editors vandals simply because they have a conflict of interest, as I see you've now done on some other editors' user talk pages too. Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    • It has been my position from the start that this is about WP:BLP concerns regarding poorly sourced content, made by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest. I have noted this at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. It is my position that we cannot allow the edit to stand as is, per policy. Now, as for the matter at hand, this is a spurious allegation made by the editor who caused the initial controversy in an attempt at retaliation. I will let my record as an active editor on a number of articles speak for itself. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Except that most of what you just said is incorrect. The material is not poorly sourced, it simply doesn't accurately represent the sources. Perhaps instead of engaging in edit warring and calling another editor a vandal (which was not the case here), you could try editing the article yourself to make sure the statement accurately reflects what is said in the sources. Since the subject of the article asked you to remove the material, your reverts are just as conflicted and ill thought out as the other editors additions. This has been handled poorly by both parties. Shell babelfish 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Shell, if a user with the same name as a person who is suing the subject of an article edits about that lawsuit, and then persists in making that edit after it has been reported to the BLP Noticeboard, I call that vandalism. If that's wrong, I do honestly apologize, but what I'm trying to say here is that I was earnestly trying to follow policy, not circumvent it. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          • It is wrong. Vandalism, as defined at WP:VAN must be willfully disruptive. That means that it must be blatantly obvious that the editor meant to harm the article. Your use of the term is against policy.

            I will point out that the COI claims are warranted and JamesRenner has had problems with this before (see his talk page) but that still doesn't equate to vandalism. -- Atama 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

            • As you are the third person to tell me this, I will recant. I really don't think this warrants a block against me, though. Again, I was sincerely attempting to adhere to policy. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Vandalism is not defined as "stuff I decide it is, so I can use my rollback tool to revert it". Insofar as the edits are not made with the intent to vandalize Wikipedia, as described at WP:VANDALISM, then the rollback tool should not be used to revert them. This is clear, and was part of the stipulations that you agreed to when you asked for the tool. Since these edits are not vandalism, you are required to make a good-faith attempt to explain (in edit summaries, and also probably at the article talk page) WHY you are reverting them. Since the rollback tool does not use edit summaries, it should NOT be used to revert these types of edits. If you continue to use the rollback tool inappropriately, it can be taken away at any time by any administrator. --Jayron32 01:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
            • Jayron, you're not going to believe this... but I didn't realize I had this special tool. To be more specific, I had thought this was a tool available to all editors. I don't recall asking for it. If we can resolve this simply by my agreeing to give up the tool, I will gladly do so. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
              • Don't sweat it. No blocks will be handed out today. We appreciate your desire to hold BLPs to a high standard of referencing. But in doing so, please take care to assume good faith and to carefully explain exactly what the problem is; which in this case appears to be that the sources are not accurately being represented. I am certain everyone is now aware of the problem. Your intent was good here, its just that your execution was stirring up some unneccessary drama. Please continue to enforce our WP:BLP policies, but also please try to do so in as clear, and non-antigonistic manner as possible. I'm marking this as resolved. --Jayron32 01:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                • In Jeff's defence, the rollback tool is not exclusively for vandalism, but for edits that are clearly inappropriate, including vandalism. This was a serious BLP violation, where the sources did not support what was being added. We are meant to react immediately to those, so in that sense Jeff did the right thing. What I would say is that he shouldn't have rolled back so often, but should have approached others for help sooner, rather than trying to handle it alone. But JamesRenner's edit was clearly inappropriate as sourced — not to mention that, as one of the parties (assuming it's really him), he should not be editing that article at all. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
                  • You haven't read what the edit summaries on the diffs actually said. Go and read them. There's no but-it-might-have-been-reversion-for-something-else wriggle room here. After you've read the edit summaries, consider the point made in the advice originally given, that calling someone a vandal in edit summaries for 2 hours escalates a situation. I've pointed out already, in other discussion that you've also missed, that JeffBillman had previously been reverting without using vandalism rollback tools, a week ago. And — Lo! — there wasn't a single "JeffBillman continues to undo them and claim it is vandalism" complaint on this page at the time. No repeatedly calling someone a vandal in edit summaries and goading disputants on xyr user talk pages ⇒ no escalation of the dispute and no tempers flared. Uncle G (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that using whatever tool called it vandalism wasn't the best idea; though the rollback tool doesn't do that, and I thought it was his use of rollback that was the issue. Anyway, as Jayron had closed the thread, I probably shouldn't have commented. I just wanted to make a point in Jeff's favour that, BLP-wise, he did the right thing, but I'll say no more about it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent sock drawer at TFA[edit]

Could some helpful checkuser have a look at Jdfngkjfnd (talk · contribs) please? There appears to be a fairly substantial sock drawer vandalizing today's featured article plus some talk pages of people reverting. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPI. There is a special section there for "quick requests" although this sounds like a full investigation type situation to me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks, I didn't realize they did quick requests there. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


I'm getting tired of dealing with Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), who seems intent, despite all the good advice he's got from other editors, on introducing into WP inappropriate articles about various aspects and institutions of his hometown. His most recent creation is Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings, which I've nominated at AfD; but previous articles of his have been speedied, AfD'd, speedied after recreation, and deleted as copyvio. There's also the problem that he uploads numerous nonfree logos to place in his articles, which then have to be tagged for deletion after the articles themselves are deleted. I think the kid is editing in good faith; but he seems unwilling to comply with WP policies and procedures, and I think the time has come for a block until he agrees to so comply and shows an understanding of what he's agreeing to. (If anyone thinks he hasn't been sufficiently warned or that other editors have not made an effort to educate him, trawl through the history of his talk page, most of the messages on which he's blanked at various times.) Deor (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, he's moved Pittsboro Businesses and Buildings back into his user space in an attempt to short-circuit the deletion discussion. (He did this before with Frank and Mary's Restaurant and Lounge.) He seems to think that if he can only store everything in his user space until no one's looking, he can slip it back into article space without addressing any of the material's deficiencies. I've undone the move (not sure whether that was the right thing to do, but I'm rapidly losing what little patience I had left). Deor (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The AfD notice says, "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Moving the article into userspace is de facto blanking the article. It needs to be evaluated on its merits, not userfied and restored to article space when the danger is past. I think moving it back was right.
My message to him is among those which has been blanked in the past; I informed him of some copyright concerns, including with images here. His only response was to remove the {{npd}} tag from the images, File:2nd building.jpg & File:Frank and mary's.JPG, with his IP. (No guesswork or outing there; see [1]. That & contribs make this a gimme.) This does seem to reflect a history of hoping problems will go away without addressing them directly. Not sure if a block is necessary (it may be, but I haven't looked extensively at recent edits), but if this kind of tag removal to preserve content out of process continues, it certainly will be. I believe he's working in good faith, but communication is essential. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
One obvious problem is that there is more than one city in America called "Pittsboro", so even if the article were notable (as opposed to being an advertising tool of the chamber of commerce), its title would need to specify which Pittsboro it's referring to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

←I've left him a fairly detailed note about how to interact with the community. Hopefully, he will be responsive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not looking good, no response as of yet tho the editor has had some fun updating their userpage. Syrthiss (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
He's left me a note at my talk page. There may be hope. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

IP personal attacks & WP:BLP violations[edit]

Resolved: Soapboxing reverted, attempted outing oversighted, IP blocked, suspicion of additional sock proven unnecessary (for now). Nothing left to do here. Tim Song (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to personally address this because this IP has turned his attention to attacking editors that have reverted his talk page posts and hope someone else will please revert/remove his personal attack upon me from the IP talk page and also address the overriding issue of his attack posts on actor article talk pages. IP has posted a barely changed rant about actor salaries to Talk:Brad Pitt [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9], then moved to Talk:Angelina Jolie [10] [11], then on to Talk:Reese Witherspoon [12] [13]. When the IP was warned about such postings, he responded by posting on talk pages, basically accusing myself and another editor of working for these actors to keep their salaries secret. See User talk:ThinkBlue postings [14] [15] [16] and my talk page posting [17] and postings on his own talk page [18]. This died down for a few days, then the IP returned to again post the rant, this time on Talk:Nicolas Cage [19], at which time I posted a final warning about the posts [20]. Today, he posted this rant on his talk page, which included a link to image shack with a screenshot of my contributions page and his added allegations that I work for various persons as a publicity agent [21]. I am contacting image shack about removing the screenshot, but I would appreciate administrator intervention at this point based on the personal attacks made againt myself and User:ThinkBlue, the many WP:BLP violations which were all addressed by removing the rants and the attempt at outing with the content about me personally on the IP talk page. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the remaining unreverted soapboxing and revoked the editor's editing privileges for a period that is double the length of time that this has been continuing up until now. Checking the contributions history shows nothing but soapboxing and harrassment of other editors, with no actual contributions towards this project's goals, since 2009-08-11. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Forwarded the attempted outing to oversight. Evil saltine (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • See this edit. Quack quack? Tim Song (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw. It didn't seem worth any action. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Looks like an isolated occurence. Though how that IP manages to find this one IP talk page of all pages is beyond me. Tim Song (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: No need for admin intervention here, users directed to WP:RFC. --Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Eb500 (talk · contribs) User keeps vandalising religious data from a trusted source in the Albania article, and refuses do discuss the issue despite being reverted by numerous editors and told to discuss in talk page. --I Pakapshem (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user about this thread. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think he needs a strong warning from an admin.--I Pakapshem (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

4 edits since Sept 1 ... an attempt to explain his side/reference on the article talkpage. I fail to see this as vandalism, let alone repeated vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Apart from Eb500 failing to add upon his edits with a reference, I don't see any wrongdoing here neither. Also, from looking at the article talk page it seems that there are other users who disagree with I Pakapshem. I think in this case a Request for Comment is in order - there's no need for admin intervention here. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Look carefully, he is vandalising the data from a sourced survey and is not merely adding new data alongside the survey. Changing the data from a source is vandalising.--I Pakapshem (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear users, please check this page on wikipedia about muslims in Albania: , muslims are from 65% to 70%, and check the U.S department of state website: , the same percentage, the information which is usually written by some users don't have reference. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb500 (talkcontribs) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear user, see talk page for explanation of this 65% -70% obselete numbers the US department, SOMETIMES uses mistakingly. See CIA factbook as well. Also see that the numbers posted there are clearly referenced to a survey conducted by three universities and they should not be vandalised. --I Pakapshem (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

persistent vandal of population figures[edit]

It's obvious that C filev (talk · contribs) is the same guy as the population vandal that was discussed in Croats article, and the same as,, and many many other IPs, probably also He was told unambiguosly to use only population figures from reliable sources, and he he has been reverted literally dozens of times, but he keeps making smaller any population figures that he doesn't believe to be correct, even if it contradicts the cited source [22][23][24][25][26] and he changes the numbers that are obtained from adding up the figures found in RS if he doesn't agree with them [27][28]. Putting together the edits of the account and his IPs he has gone 3RR on some articles, and he has been slow edit-warring for months over many articles.(for example in Croats he reverted 9 times in 7 days [29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]) He keeps coming back to articles and creating messes that multiple editors keep having to clean up. I already warned him a couple of times in IP talk pages[38]

Please indef-block him as it's obvious by now that he is not interested in respecting WP:V, and he had plenty of time to improve his behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog)[edit]

I'm asking for input from uninvolved administrators on some of my actions. Months ago, there was a bitter edit war at Maltese (dog) between User:Imbris and User:Pietru. Mainly the edit war was a nationalistic pride one. The Maltese dog breed sounds like it's named for Malta but actually there's a lot in the sources that show it may be named for Mljet, an island currently in Croatia. Imbris was largely pushing too hard for the Croatian viewpoint, and Pietru was pushing too hard against it. The article is relatively balanced now, thanks in part to Pietru leaving shortly after a final warning from User:Tanthalas39 and block over reverts at the article [39] [40]. See Pietru's contribs: [41] - apart from a handful of edits, he stopped editing in April.

Recently, User:Notpietru has made a few edits to Maltese (dog). Notpietru is Pietru, though I had to go digging to confirm this -- Notpietru added a note on User:Pietru about his new identity. I redirected Pietru's user and user talk pages and added a note on User:Notpietru about his old identity but he reverted it. Not a big deal, but Pietru had a substantial block record and given that his username denies the link that is true, I thought a note would be prudent.

Much more concerning to me is that Pietru has been leveling accusations against Imbris on Maltese (dog), undeservedly, out of the blue. He added an unnecessary Wikilink for one of the uses of "Malta" in the article, with a very inappropriate, baiting edit summary: [42]. I told him I thought this was unfair and inflammatory (since Imbris hadn't made any substantially new edits for a long time): [43]. Imbris ended up reverting the link, which is appropriate considering that Malta is mentioned many times in the article and there is no need to link it every time; the MOS backs him up, and we all know this because it's one of the old issues from before. Notpietru reverted the revert, calling it "vandalism" [44]. I warned him not to make unfounded accusations of vandalism. [45]. Notpietru has now deleted my warnings, including my note about his old user name, and has insinuated that he thinks I'm bullying him User talk:Mangojuice#Maltese dog.

Notpietru is clearly trying to bait Imbris into responding, and I don't want to see the article degenerate into another war. I am not asking for a block, but I think Notpietru needs to hear this from someone other than me. Mangojuicetalk 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've not edited the article since: Imbris' nationalistic slant on editing is evident, just go through their talkpage. I have no interest in "baiting" Imbris, or causing upset over the dog article. Nice to see that there's nothing more important you've got to be dealing with than this, Mango. The project's in safe hands! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Why bring up this claim that Imbris has a nationalistic slant on editing? All you are doing is trying to resurrect an old personal conflict. Please just stop it. Mangojuicetalk 16:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not intend to continue. Please read my comment above (again, comprehension). Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh I think there's little doubt User:Imbris has a "nationalistic slant" on editing, and this is from another Croat. :) In fact, I'd go as far as to say that's something of an understatement in my opinion. Virtually all his edits are tied to conflicts involving Croatian nationalism. I myself am getting worn down just trying to keep-up with his disputes, particularly the five-month edit-war on Hey, Slavs instigated by his edits. To be honest when I noticed edits on Maltese (dog) in his contribs I actually thought he does some real editing. Turns-out that's just another one of his many disputes.
As Imbris shall surely soon point out, I am among the group of users plagued by his attentions (among others User:Ivan Štambuk, User:No such user and myself). However, reducing this to "they're all the same, these are personal grudges" does not appear to be the proper and objective way to view all sides of this dispute. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
(1) I got involved to the issue about Maltese (dog) because the unreferenced claims that Malta Island was the acknowledged Country of origin. The Patronage over the breed "belongs" to Italy. (2) Personaly I have not any POV against Malta, and can say that Pietru made fantastic editing on all Malta issues. (3) Mangojuice helped the article greatly, anyone working with him can say he is among the best editors. (4) Even if Mangojuice portrays the issues differently, Pietru and I had not edit-warred on Malta/Mljet, because Pietru agreed that both should be mentioned. At that point in time Pietru WP:OWNED the article, and I had to list numerous sources to prove to him that the Fédération Cynologique Internationale source was reliable by going deep as searching for the sources from Ancient Greek and Roman times. Namely the FCI lists all three locations it the specific order (that is sadly not the order of listing those three places on Wiki), the FCI also gives only the Patronage to Italy. (5) I do not know how my editing on the issue of the Maltese Dog could be characterized as nationalist because of the simple reason that I wanted to include Italy as the country responsible for the breed, and portray the sources honestly and authentically. (6) The only thing I tryed out of the ordinary was to indulge Pietru and list all three names of the dog in the Croatian, Maltese and Italian language (the order of listing was a problem at first). Then it was established that there is no specific name for the breed in the Maltese language, so the issue was put to rest by not including any local names, which is in reality sad because the other two variants are not listed. (7) Also in the article where Malta is linked to its Republic of Malta article, Italy is linked to its Republic of Italy article, I wanted to put the word Croatia (wikilinked) in context of the island Mljet, but that attempt was characterized as POV by some users. (8) I belive that in such sittuations when we all know that Melita on Sicily has least evidence (reliable sources), Malta has some, and Mljet has a majority of sources, that it should be acceptable to list in brackets the country in which that island is placed. Pietru at first was reluctant to list Melita on Sicily and Mljet in the Adriatic near Dalmatia, then he allowed the entry but demanded we do not include as much of the historical section in the article, in order to cover-up. (9) I was "pushing" for inclusion of all reliable sources that shed light on how the breed was developed and perceived at different times in history, but the inclusion of some viable data like the fact that the dog was called botoli in Italy, and Fisting hound, which were descriptions of the dog like the Bichon, the Shock Dog, the Ladies Dog. (10) The article before I came along spoke of cuddling creatures, and glorified the breed by "specific verses", it spoke only of Malta as the centre of attention. Etc...
As for the accusations made by DIREKTOR, he should be warned not to slander and to realize that my editing in the field of former Yugoslavia is purely benevolent. I belive that DIREKTOR is concerned because that field is no longer his own, and only his. I have edited in a number of fields and never met a user who is so poisoned with hatred like Mr. DIREKTOR. Mr. DIREKTOR once wrote that Serbs and Croats are one nation speaking one language, this view is not supported anymore both by Serbs and Croats as well. On his user page Mr. DIREKTOR speaks of his Italian ancestry and Slavic ancestry. The fact that he was born in Split, Yugoslavia (now Croatia) has nothing to do with his POV. I hope that the admins of this great Wiki realize that one can be a nationalist of a defunct state, like in this case Yugoslavia. One can still push Yugoslav POV, by this I do not mean that someone is automatically a communist (even a socialist) because Yugoslavia was more than its socio-political system.
The remark made by Mr. DIREKTOR is completely unfounded, it is null and void and he should really reconsider his own record in attaining NPOV and cordial contributory techniques. For instance I edited on Auja al-Hafir, where is the POV he so blatantly argues.
Everything Mr. DIREKTOR said is out of pure spite, I have asked for ANI only once, when Pietru offended me, but Mr. DIREKTOR push for ANI interventions all the time, even without just cause.
However this thread is not about Mr. DIREKTOR and myself, it is about Pietru.
As for the advice on Pietru, this is simply wrong, the tone and disrespect towards Mangojuice, if Pietru would stop making insinuations about other users that would be great.
Imbris (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Blabla. Imbris, I shan't hide my disdain for you (justified as I may feel it to be); hence, I shall not involve myself in anything you do here, in hopes of keeping some sort of civil peace. If our paths cross again, we'll have to work something out in a clear and controlled manner. Until then, I feel it is fairly obvious that your editing "style" on this project flies in the face of any civilized approach (ahem...not that mine's always been above reproach) and I shudder to think what this may mean for your attitudes in life generally. Luckily, I don't much care.
DIREKTOR... it seems that Imbris makes a habit of fighting with various editors here, because his edits are by their very nature contentious. Good luck; if I may offer one piece of advice, I'd suggest distancing yourself from that individual and getting along with other things. There is plenty of time for others to correct errors made... vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur.
That's all folks. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:KJTRGKL repeatedly recreating an article deleted by AfD[edit]

List of Khatri Gotras and clans and List of Khatri Surnames were deleted by AfD recently (here and here). Since then KJTRGKL (talk · contribs) has been recreating those under different titles. I'd brought this to the attention of User:JForget who salted titles as they were created, but every day one or two new titles come up. KJTRGKL doesn't respond to messages or templated warnings on their talk page. JForget suggested I bring this up either here or AIV. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Blocked until the user begins to communicate about the issue. ↪REDVERS The internet is for porn 14:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks, hopefully it helps. -SpacemanSpiffCalvinHobbes 16:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre, related articles and socks[edit]

Resolved: IPs blocked, socks laundered. Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By coincidence I just noticed this request] at the NPOV board for a close look at this particular article. I had just spent the last few minutes looking at related articles where pov editing is taking place. Wichita massacre is being edited by Birdbath 10 (talk · contribs) and Smithicrnm (talk · contribs). Related articles are being edited by Ptho (talk · contribs) and WVBN8 (talk · contribs) -- all four of these accounts are making similar edits to similar articles, none of them have made more than 5 edits -- they look like throwaway sock accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm off to bed by the way. I know I should notify them, but I've been up since well before the birds and given their edits... Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh no, have the birds been editing again? I thought I had closed the window. My bad :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I see Birdbath 10 is blocked as a sock of Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs); these editors all seem to have similar agendas, the edits made by both Birdbath 10 and Smithicrnm to media blackout were pretty much identical; and the two newer editors are reverting to each others' versions. This looks like some sockpuppetry - anyone hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me, quack quack -- Darth Mike (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked them all, but as they are clearly throwaway accounts I expect the editor back. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another quack.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I got that one. Anyone have the time to get a SPI going here? I don't right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And Reedpk (talk · contribs). Is there any point to an SPI? I've protected some of the articles. Why let the vandal have fun? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A checkuser could deal with the flurry at the source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Socks blocked, IPs blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal continues after final warning[edit]

IP User: has repeatedly posted false info on List of DirecTV channels after several warnings to stop. I looked at their history at it also posts often on List of Dish Network channels and List of Verizon FiOS channels as well as some children's channel articles. They always change PBS, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel listings on the lineups so I'm guessing the user is a minor. All of the correct channel lineups can be found at each service's website and they have no source for the lineups changing. Please block them. AIV refused to act thinking they were "good faith edits". Clearly they are NOT, just immature edits by a child. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to this discussion. Please remember, as a courtesy, to notify users when you report them here.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops I forgot to put user so you sent it the wrong person. I'll notify them. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I actually sent it to the talk page for the "article" Haha!--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I guess that can be speedy deleted if it hasn't already. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait---there's a known vandal who does this. What was dude's name again??? It's not MascotGuy, is it? or Bambifan? There was one user who used to get reported a lot by a younger user, til somebody told him to stop..Yeah, I know, this is real helpful--but I do recall there being a vandal who was focused largely on TV stations. If anyone remembers, please jump in.... GJC 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, MascotGuy likes Disney, I believe. But he edits with registered usernames, not IP adresses.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't someone just block the IP? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting opportunity for junior admin squad member to use their amazing powers of rollback![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.

A user has been adding spurious "references" to articles which appears to be nothing more than typical spamming. Please see Special:Contributions/Traciodea. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Junior admin squad...? I take it you didn't actually mean your apology the other day. → ROUX  14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do I have to apologise again? Is there a preferred mode of address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Given how obviously meaningless the previous apology was, there's little point in wasting everyone's time with another. In the future, refrain from this sort of snide behaviour. Instead just say "Here's a problem, can someone address it?" But of course you knew that, didn't you? Which rather makes one wonder what point you were attempting to make here. → ROUX  15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly a lot less WP:POINTy than this. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Roux, I wonder what point you are attempting to make here? I saw a problem and I brought it here for attention. Rather than addressing the problem, you immediately posted a message critical of how I phrased the title. I think "wannabe admins" is insulting and inaccurate since many of those will never be admins. When I asked you to suggest another name, you called into question first my apology of yesterday and now my intentions for posting here. Did you even look at the issue I was trying to get addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So you posted this here for the attention of "wannabe admins"? You are actually accepting that accusation with your comment :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I thought one of the non-admin ANI regulars would appreciate the chance to flex their rollback muscles. They are usually the first ones to comment on any new postings here, so I know they are watching. It wasn't meant to be insulting (that's why I didn't say "wanna-be admins"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the edits look ok and seem to contain the material cited to. There may be a COI issue but that's it. Can we mark this as resolved? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delicious carbuncle. You need edit diffs delicious and no silly titles. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Change the title of this section, add edit diffs, before this is closed. Ikip (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Ah. Have I been too hasty? I reverted them all. Those I looked at did have some relevance, but such a huge number of links (well over 30) to his two books, articles about both of which have been speedy-tagged, looked like unacceptable spamming. I also gave him uw-spam3, though he seemed to have stopped before Delicious carbuncle's post here. Would somebody please have a look and see if I have been too quick off the mark? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
well the certainly seemed to violate WP:EL at the very least. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, JohnCD. I spot-checked the links before I brought this here. While they are tangentially relevant, they definitely aren't appropriate as references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This one seems a really desperate attempt to get a link plugged in anywhere regardless of relevance. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like they are a mix of relevant and not relevant. For example this one seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No one bothered to contact the editor that this conversation is going on, I am doing that now. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please correct me if I am wrong. Being a complete outsider to this argument. This appears to be the background which Delicious carbuncle, didn't do, and refuses to do.[46]

Traciodea begins to add references from a nonnotable website on several pages. He also creates Smartish Pace and BVI Yacht Guide. Which User:JohnCD and Delicious_carbuncle put up for deletion, adding deletion templates on Traciodea's talk page.

There is no real discusion beyond the warning templates before it is, in my opinion, inappropriately escalated here. I will attept to talk to the editor, if the editor continues to add these nonnotable sites, he probalby should be blocked. Could this have been handled better? Yes. There is some major WP:BITE in how this was handled. I strongly agree with JoshuaZ, please close this discussion or move to WP:COI. Ikip (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor ignored the level one warning I left for them when I came across their first bit of spam. I looked at their contributions and noticed an article created by them. I tagged it for CSD and left them a templated message. I also took the time to leave them a handwritten message about COI (which was obvious from the content of the deleted article and the username). They ignored these and subsequently created another article, also speedied. I spot-checked the other links they had added as "references", saw that it was simply spam and brought the matter here so that someone with rollback could correct it. I saw no point in telling an overt spammer that they were being discussed here, after they had ignored earlier messages. I do think that Ikip leaving them a message saying "Delicious carbuncle is discussing you..." and giving barnstars to spammers is, at the very least, odd. JohnCD, rather than spending time picking apart words here, took action and fixed the problem. The matter is resolved as far as I am concerned and it would be nice not to have to defend myself against these petty attacks here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
First, disinegnuousness--your 'explanation' for the ridiculous title--is insulting to our intelligence. Second, advising users you have brought them up on ANI is not optional. See the header of this page. While the initial issue has been dealt with, it seems like an excellent time to discuss your behaviour, which is problematic in the extreme, particularly in light of your attacks yesterday and the subsequent empty apology. → ROUX  16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong the title. Of course I don't know what happened yesterday but I don't see a problem with calling rollbackers junior admins when so many of them have that ambition. I have rollback rights myself. He's just trying to be funny.--Patton123 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For f!c!s sake would you lot give it a rest. Nja247 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers are truly awesome. They are roughly on the same level of awesomeness as parking in the visitors' spaces. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like parking in vistor's spaces...except people run up to you, tell you that you are corrupt and abusing your parking privileges, get mad when you move their bicycle out of the handicapped space, "UR GAY LOLOLOLOLOL", and threaten to write the company you are visiting to remove your visitor privileges because you happened to pick up a dog turd and throw it away. --Smashvilletalk 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke any sleeping dogs -- or flog any dead horses, either -- but I find Roux's comments about my sincerity hurtful and personally insulting. I don't even know the meaning of the word "disinegnuousness" and I reject the idea that my apology of yesterday was "empty", particularly as it included the word "sincere" right in it. I hope we can all just try to get along, since we're all working on the same project here. Thanks, and please let this thread die it's natural death now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it ingenous for you then: stop being disruptive. Your comments make it abundantly clear that that is what you intend. — neuro(talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Folks - archive. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:40, 10 September 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.


This anonymous user has been active since Oct 2008 and blanks their user talk page countless times shortly after anybody including administrators post comments or warnings on their behavior which has included vandalism on many occasions. They simply do not seem to understand how good faith works works on Wikipedia and I believe they deserve at least a temporary ban. Kiwisoup (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with blanking one's own talkpage, see WP:BLANKING. The editor's recent article contributions look to be productive or at least in good-faith.  Skomorokh  20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: King of ♠ 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly introduced unsourced claims into the (BLP) article regarding musician Angelo Moore, in particular identifying/naming his wife/ex-wife, minor child, and supposed current girlfriend. After I removed these claims as unsourced -- as WP:BLP not only allows but pretty much requires, since the individuals named are not public figures, and both the names and claimed relationships are unsourced in the article and unverifiable by Google searching, User:Trubarbie reinserted the text. She then posted to my talk page claiming to be Moore's ex-wife and demanding that her unsourced contributions be left in place. I gave what I hope is an appropriate boilerplate response; she's ignored it, and I've put a warning on her talk page.

Trubarbie has since reinserted the unsourced content twice more, and I've removed it twice more. On balance, I see no particular benefit from including the information about these three private people -- about whom virtually nothing else relevant is online, aside from a minimal imdb reference and the expected mirrorsites. If the claims turn out to be true, the delay in waiting for verification is harmless, If the claims are false, allowing them to stand in Wikipedia for any length of time might mean that the claims will linger on in mirrorsites and such indefinitely, to the potential embarassment/discomfiture of private people, if not worse.

Usually the opposite situation arises: an article subject wants material removed. Here, the article subject/a claimed representative wants unsourced material inserted. I'm more than a little dubious when someone claiming to be an ex-spouse wants her ex's new girlfriend named in the article . . . So have I handled this approprately, and can somebody else with more clout than me keep an eye on this to keep it fro getting out. Trubarbie's ignored my responses so far, and though I've tried to keep my comments low-key, there's no way to give her the carte blanche she seems to want regarding the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I handed her a 12-hour block for 3RR, and let her know not to insert that again unless she's got sources for it. Hopefully that'll be the end of it. Blueboy96 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


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

What does this come under and how do we get rid of it? RaseaC (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically it hasn't done anything yet, except to create a user page that looks like it was written by someone who just started studying English yesterday. But until it actually edits something, there's no apparent grounds for a block, if that's what you're getting at. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily a block but can we remove the content/talk page? It's not really a biggie, he's not hurting anyone, was just curious really. RaseaC (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Does it violate policy in some way, other than being in broken English? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, they've made it clear that they're only here for social networking and have no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia. (There should be a policy for this. And there will be one, buried under thousands of Wikipedia essays, that I never will have noticed. Sad.) A little insignificant (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem quite that way to me, but we'll see what the admins have to say, if anything. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would oppose any disciplinary action, we don't bite the newbies. Perhaps someone who speaks Spanish could simply explain the purpose of Wikipedia, and express out hope that he participates, in very nice terms. Also that he may feel more comfortable at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: indef DMacks (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UNBANNABLE143125134 (talk · contribs)'s User name gives me pause to begin with, and their personal attack as their third edit just seals it. Blockable, or do they have to be given more warnings? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And now their fourth edit - [47]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, they've been blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello I am being stalked by Users IJA and Kedadi both of whom are reverting any changes I made with regards to Kosovo related articles. I'm trying to promote neutrality here but both of these fellows (whom I assume to be Albanian) are trying to undermine that. I would appreciate help from an Admin on how to deal with this matter. If there is a way to hide my contributions page from their view or if there is some other way to deal with stalkers which you know of in the past, please contact me. Thank you! Jenga3 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • It's more correct to say that you are in a content dispute with those editors, which is the subject of discussion at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo#All Tables Need Numbering. This does not make them stalkers. That is not an appellation that one should throw around lightly. Indeed, you haven't any edits outside of that subject area in the past week to actually be stalked. And at Talk:Kosovo, your edit actually followed that of Kedadi.

    The way to deal with this matter is this: Stop leaping to the conclusion that everyone you deal with who disagrees with you is a stalker, against whom you must use technical measures to get your own way in content disputes, and start regarding your fellow editors as ordinary human beings, that you talk to. They have extended you that courtesy, on your talk page at User talk:Jenga3#numbered table. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stalking this user. I reverted one of his/her edits and made an explanation on his talk page after he/ she contacted me first. Also Jenga3 is the only user which supports his/her edits, around 8 users including myself disagree with his/ her edits. He/she has failed to make a consensus. I also find it rather weird that I have been accused of stalking. Regards IJA (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
If these people are not stalking me, then how did IJN just find this post? Again, just tell me how to hide my contributions page so these people can't "follow" me (for lack of a better term), if you can't deal with this matter then give me the tools to do so myself Jenga3 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Here you've got mine and IJA's kedadial 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
No thanks, I don't stalk people. Jenga3 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Then, don't know what else to say, welcome to WP and happy editing. kedadial 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You could say that you won't stalk me or revert any changes I make simply because you disagree with me.... Jenga3 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I will never ever revert you (as I have never reverted you in the past) IF you reach a WP:Consensus. kedadial 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
But you will still stalk me and revert every change I make without reaching a consensus first, even if I have valid sources and reasoning? Nice Jenga3 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That would be the "D" portion of the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, it was reverted, you're then not allowed to re-add it unless you have discussed it and it has consensus. Simply keeping an eye on someone's contributions, and fixing things that are not done following policy is not "stalking" or even Wikihounding or Wikipoodling, so stop calling it that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that it is perfectly legal to "follow" these two individuals and revert each of their edits until a thourough consensus was reached in the discussion page? Again, this is not about just one article, IJA has reverted other edits I made for no reason. I can't be expected to discuss every spelling/grammar edit, every edit with a source or every neutrality edit because that would take weeks or months for a single edit. Jenga3 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, I am discussing the article the two of them feel strongly about, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people following me and reverting decisions I make without contacting me or engaging in any sort of discourse. Jenga3 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Jenga3, you're actually supposed to have told IJA and Kedadi that you had reported them here. So you shouldn't have been surprised when they turned up. There is no way of keeping your contribution list hidden - this is a public encyclopaedia with an open history trail. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenga3...I have reviewed your contributions. Of all of your edits since Aug 2009, only 3 have edit summaries. If you expect your contributions to be readily identifiable (and less likely to be auto-reverted) then please use an edit summary. Simple things like "fix spelling" or "fix grammar" obviously do not need discussion, and will make great edit summaries. Warning: saying "fix spelling" in an edit summary, and actually changing the content instead will raise great ire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is my duty as a wikipedian to view Jengar3's edits encase he/she maskes any more disruptive edits. Besides, if Jengar3 has nothing to hide, Jengar3 should have nothing to fear. There is a reason why everyone can view our contributions... I'll let you figure that out? IJA (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I feel it is my duty as a human being to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is right now the only reason I'm not going through IJA history and reverting all his changes until he has discussed them thoroughly. It should be noted that today my friends, you have lost another neutral person. Sure, it probably does not matter if one guy leaves wikipedia over the unchecked and biased individuals who have been allowed to roam here, but I suspect I am not the first to leave over this, or the last. Jenga3 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale non-consensual and unreferenced changes to musical genre[edit]

Resolved: blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sublimefan97 is busily changing genres in a lot of articles--more than I can list here, but see his contributions. He has been asked and warned a number of times; a couple of editors, myself included, see these changes as vandalism. Sublimefan does not provide edit summaries, let alone references, for any of these changes, and on occasion makes a mockery out of the idea of referencing: in this edit, he cites a 1991 remark by Les Claypool as justification to change the band's genre to [[Polka|Psychedelic polka]] and remove all the other genres. Claypool might appreciate the joke, but those editors who spent a lot of time reversing all these changes don't think it's so funny. I consider this vandalism, but an IP at AIV disagreed, and suggested I go here--so here I am. Your advice is kindly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such edits are vandalism.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Utter bollocks. Of course it isn't vandalism. Please read the vandalism policy. Vandalism isn't to be confused with editing against consensus or policy or guidelines (all of which may be disruptive), it's a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. --TS 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, call us dumb, but also call these practices "disruptive editing"; ANI is still the right place. Note the warnings on the user's talk page and the complete lack of communication. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sublimefan97 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Badger Drink[edit]

Resolved: Sent to the bullpen for a suitable interval

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

The user is making pointy and absurd category additions to existing baseball teams, such as the San Francisco Giants, labeling them "defunct". He's already been warned and won't stop. I'm hopeful that one of the admin umpires here can either issue him a warning he'll pay attention to, or failing that, send him to the showers for awhile. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's more fun to scream in their faces, throw tantrums, and kick dirt at them :) MuZemike 03:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked for three hours. I'll inform Badger Drink that the disruptive behavior is the only problem, and that ceasing that behavior will open up opportunities for more effective and more collegial discourse. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure of requested move[edit]

Resolved: Withdrawn --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin rule on the requested move at Talk:Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard#Move_Back? The discussion has run for 5 days, and now seems to have descended into snippyness rather than productive debate. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move discussions usually last seven days. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod is an improperly formatted AFD (started by an IP) which appears to be attracting a lot of newbies and SPA accounts. I would say "sockpuppets" but I don't want to upset anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the discussion; see my closing rationale for details. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Someone might want to protect the AfD page... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this on Julian's page - the article should be at AFD - closing after one day because of off-site activity is only a short-term solution. Once I've had a response off Julian I plan to AFD it again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: indef'd by User:Dreadstar. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly added WP:BLP violations to Mark Wahlberg and I've reverted them a couple times, taking time to explain in the edit summary why the changes were inappropriate. Besides the BLP issues, the edits leave fragmented sentences and poor grammar. When I looked at his talk page to leave a warning about this, I saw that he had just been blocked in February 2009 and again last month for the same issues on the same page and for gross incivility, so I left a final warning regarding the defamatory edits, here. This was the response. I don't believe this person has any intention of editing cooperatively or productively. This is unacceptable behavior and editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeat offender. After this edit, I am shocked that he was given another chance. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
After examining Ripper404's block log and latest edits, I've indef blocked the account. Dreadstar 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I issued a snappy comeback to Ripper404's violations of WP:CIVIL. I think his violations are silly anyhow. (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto[edit]

Resolved:  Done--Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Think we could get a semi protect of Hernando de Soto? It's that part of history class at the beginning of the year, and the IP users have a field day vandalizing it, if it could be semi-ed for a week or 2, it would sure cut down on the vandal reverts. I've made 4 in the last 12 hrs or so. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In the future, the correct place to report this for quick action is WP:RFPP. Happy editing! --Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch. Didn't really need quick action, lol, so this was fine. I just had to revert it so many times over the last week, and remembered how it seemed non stop on this article at this same time last year. This shoul,d slow'em down, and in a month they should be moved on to something else.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edit-warring IP[edit]

Resolved: 1 x blocked proxy -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please have a good hard look at (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's an IP in China, which was blocked in February for having been abused for sockpuppetry by one user, appeared again in May self-identifying as another, banned user ("General Tojo"), and is now edit-warring on Macedonia, breaking the Arbcom-installed 1RR restriction. Probably some open proxy with again some banned user on it? Fut.Perf. 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who's been using it today, but it's now a blocked proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I like it when blocked proxies post their block notices themselves ;-) Fut.Perf. 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker[edit]

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for ([48]). This is not the first time; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell Talk 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, the block evasion was the posting of a single comment that mastcell simply deleted (Which is also against our policies, blocked or not). Please review the discussion for which he has been blocked for and see for yourself how threatening DHawker is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd certainly welcome additional input at Talk:Colloidal silver. The above "dialog" is actually par for the course there. I seem to be in the minority with my view that blocks are blocks, and not optional suggestions to be circumvented at will, so more eyes might be useful. MastCell Talk 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I may be confused about what Floydian is saying, but it was my understanding that the removal of edits made by someone evading a block is generally approved by policy, not against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That edit is certainly consistent with DHawker's style. The IP GeoLocates to Adelaide, as does this one, where the user acknowleges a (presumably accidentally - I think that was before my tenure at that page) logged out edit. Should I file a SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Go ahead, and find out that this user is just someone who feels that this article is treated unfairly (As are many of the fringe theory articles, which are often stonewalled by a group of experienced editors that attack anyone with a different point of view, and then ban them as soon as the possibility arises). What a warm welcoming message we send out at wikipedia now. "You don't agree with our view, then shut up or get out!"
Despite the accusations against him of being an account dedicated to edit warring, he has fairly discussed his edits on the talk page of the article. He has provided completely valid research and several references to backup his revisions, and the reverts by other users have all fallen back on a single reference which they use to undo all revisions that shine some light on the reality. The revisions have often ignored the point and picked out an insignificant error in order to justify the revision (For example, see this rediculous revision and the following revision which I made because Aunt Entropy's revision was completely uncalled for). This is not a vandalous user, and should not be treated as such. Period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker is a single purpose editor and has a record of editwarring to promote a fringe view. Now he/she appears to be guilty of block evasion. I'd say the user needs either a long term block or preferably a ban from editing alternative medicine topics and should be encouraged to edit/improve other non-fringe articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to try to force the citation of the non-PubMed journal Scientific Research and Essay (journal website) and now block evasion, all in order to push a fringe point of view, are not suggestive of a constructive editor. I'd certainly support a topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with the ban also. This sort of editing is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Considering this is not the first time, I'm moving towards an indef block, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker - same behavior and the same article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Pubmed isn't what makes a journal reliable or not, the way the research is conducted determines reliability, so just pushing that on it makes it clear where your bias lay. This is of course, as opposed to the study that bought a product off the internet, tested it, and then concluded that the results from that apply to every instance of colloidal silver (ooooh. Reliable, pubmed says so). I'm sorry, but when it comes to fringe theories, editors are dicks. Especially since, being concluded as a fringe theory, all the admins jump straight to the "if you see it as anything but fringe, you are just promoting it" argument. At best, a ban from the article is warranted. DHawker is not causing issues on the talk page, and his input is valid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
@2/0: No need to file an SPI report. Note that DHawker signed the edit. I suppose it is possible that someone went to Adelaide, Australia and posted in exactly DHawker's style, pushing one of DHawker's talking points, solely to get DHawker in trouble on Wikipedia... but William of Ockham would roll over in his grave at that explanation.
@Floydian: This isn't the place to argue sources, but virtually every meaningful and remotely valid medical journal is indexed on MEDLINE. People generally don't want to publish good stuff in non-indexed journals, because other researchers won't find it and won't cite their work or build on it. MEDLINE indexing is not a guarantee of quality - a lot of crappy journals are indexed - but the absence of MEDLINE indexing suggests strongly that we shouldn't assign too much weight to the source.
@Everyone: I would be fine with a ban for DHawker from the article; I can put up with the repetitious agenda-driven talk page abuse as par for the course on these sorts of articles, so if the edit-warring were taken off the table, that would be sufficient from my perspective. MastCell Talk 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by block-evading editor removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask for some closure on this? MastCell Talk 00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal[edit]

In light of the fact that he engaged in sockpuppetry post-block, and other disruptive conduct including edit-warring prior to the block, I make the following proposals (please make clear which you support/oppose - note that #1 #2 #3 and #4 are alternatives; should there be equal preference, the more restrictive restriction will be enacted):

  1. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Colloidal silver, broadly construed.
  2. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver-related articles. This topic ban does not include talk pages and related discussions.
  3. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver and its talk page.
  4. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the Colloidal silver article. This page ban does not include the talk page.
  5. [This remedy has been enacted] DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s current block is increased to two weeks for attempting to evade his original block.
  6. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is limited to editing with a single account. Should DHawker edit with any other account, he will be considered banned from Wikipedia for 6 months for the first incident, 1 year for the second incident, and indefinitely thereafter.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)changed a bit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver, but not its talk page

In all reality, he has not edited anything but colloidal silver (With one or two edits to Argyria). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I've added your proposal above to avoid confusion - please fix your comment accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Based on the fact that he has been very civil and his reverts are often not the same material being reverted, but different aspects in the article. Yes, occasionally it can escalate into a 3 revert match... Rarely 4... Certainly not 20 like many see before making it here. The point is, these sort of things should be worked out between editors to keep things civil. DHawker has been civil, if not cooperative often with mastcell. I see no reason why any sort of intervention is required, and so I vote the status quo first:
  • Support 6, 5 (This he did do). Running down from there it would be 4, 2, 3, 1. I oppose those four choices though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree completely with your assertion that DHawker has been "very civil", and with your excuses for his constant edit-warring. I'm also not clear on why I, or anyone, should be expected to go out of our way to work with someone who shows such consistent disregard for this site's most basic behavioral policies. But I will leave this for uninvolved input, since I think both of our positions are fairly clear. MastCell Talk 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading just the current talk page was journey enough for me. Whew! What strikes me most there is that if you took out all of DHawker's comments, the outcome wouldn't be substantially different. They also unnecessarily personalize the discussion (not the only one, I'm looking at you MastCell, just not as hawkishly) and indulge in conspiracy theories. OTOH, they raise legitimate concerns - but these have largely been dealt with by other editors who have more of a spirit of discussion and compromise (MastCell being one of those too). The article edits are more of a concern, especially the recent ones. Edit warring happens long before 3RR gets breached, it starts with a determination that your own personal version must be the one reflected. On balance, I'd say that DHawker's contributions have not been helpful. If they were the only one advocating for "balance", I'd be concerned about shutting them down, but there are other reasonable voices on both "sides". And of course, editing past a block is a no-go zone and indicates an intention to cause further disruption. So:
  • Support 3, 5 and 6 right off the bat. 4 as 2nd choice, but this won't end the combat on the talk page. 1 and 2 I would wait to see how they deal with the page ban. I'd also suggest that they be given a timeframe to edit other non-related articles and come back here for a possible appeal if they show that they can be a productive editor. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Before the axe finally drops please consider this. Mastcell is continually claiming I'm a 'dedicated promoter'. That assertion is probably coloring the decision making here. I challenge Mastcell to actually provide an example of this so-called promotion in the last 12 months. If he has no evidence his entire submission should be questioned.DHawker (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Your concern over the "dedicated promoter" terminology is warranted. When I reviewed the disussion and edits, I kept in mind that labels don't always describe the contents. What I found though would best be described by the hackneyed phrase "subtle POV-pushing". Possibly not your intent, but you insist on rewording things to be just that tiny bit more favourable to the fringe viewpoint. I was very attentive to checking if alternate views were being adequately discussed and represented in the article. That is already being done by less confrontational editors than yourself. One big error I saw was your conflation of ionic silver with colloidal silver, also the conflation of topical versus internal dosage. It's very important to properly separate topics which can be easily confused by our readership. My impression is that you do seek proper balance in the article, but you aren't aware of what proper balance is, i.e. you want more in the article than is warranted, to "support the case". That might be OK, but your aggressiveness on the talk page and edit-warring on the article tip the balance for me. Other editors than you are getting the job done. Franamax (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment also keep in mind that the reporting user, Mastcell, has himself said he has no problem with the talk page "abuse", so I do not see why being banned from talk pages are even an option to chose from? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    I think this question becomes one I need to answer as the proposer. My interpretation of MastCell's comment was quite different - something to the effect of personally being ready to tolerate the "talk page abuse" if at least the main article disruption is dealt with. I do not wish to needlessly dissuade other editors from editing the concerned pages though, given that few other users would be ready to tolerate it in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    I'm intentionally staying out of this in order to hear some uninvolved opinion, but I will clarify this. I initially felt that I personally could put up with the talk-page abuse - it's not unusual for these sorts of subjects - but I agree with Ncm that it probably dissuades other editors and creates an environment which is not conducive to compromise or consensus. Furthermore, what I've seen since starting this thread has convinced me that a complete topic ban is warranted.

    Seriously: what characteristic of a disruptive editor is missing here? Single-purpose dedication to pushing an agenda at the expense of content policies? Check. Lack of any demonstrable interest in the encyclopedia beyond promoting that narrow agenda? Check. Abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to argue personal opinions while consistently failing to produce any usable sources? Check. Multiple blocks for edit-warring? Check. Multiple blocks for block evasion? Check. This is a hundred times more damaging to the project than simple vandalism, but we're a hundred times less effective in dealing with it. MastCell Talk 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to my previous suggestion perhaps you can also provide an example of this 'talk page abuse' apart from the recent occasion when, out of frustration, I suggested he grow up. I've complained on numerous occasions that he's a biased editor. Is that abuse?DHawker (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to deal with your frustration more effectively - telling an editor to grow up is not at all helpful. Where was the need to begin one of your sentences with "what are you raving about MastCell?" Light is what is required - no extra heat please. And certainly, unjustifiably calling an editor biased is another issue in itself. But MastCell specified what was being alluded to in terms of talk page abuse, and examples of it sadly tend to require going through entire discussions - it's not as easy to see as what you consider as one-off comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll second this. I did read the entire current talk page, and no DHawker, you're out of line. You question the motives of the editor rather than the substance of the edit. You question the motives of entire institutions rather than find your own reliable sources, That's just not on here, not because we need to hew to the status quo, rather because if we discard our pillars we're left in a swamp. I could likely dig up more examples than what Ncm has shown, maybe I'll try that tomorrow. It's a long slog through that talk page. Just for now, I'd suggest you aim for a compromise here. Franamax (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Per support for remedy 5, blocked for an additional week for block evasion; if he wants to edit and converse, he can go through the channels rather than using IPs. --Golbez (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. If he makes a reasonable request, and does not evade his block any further, we'll transclude a separate section to/from his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added after archival[edit]

Can I have some clarity on this issue. When my block ended today I found I was able to make a comment on the Colloidal Silver Talk page regarding a proposed correction. (A pretty straight forward correction I think). I signed it and made no attempt to evade a block. Mastcell removed my comment from the talk page and said I was a 'topic banned user.' I thought if I really was was 'topic banned' I would not have even been able to make the comment.DHawker (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Secret Harbour, Western Australia[edit]

A newbie POV pusher (the latest of many) who has arrived on this article and its talk page, removing talk page edits and coming within a whisker of violating 3RR. His general standard of behaviour and communication in his less-than-one-hour-here has been unsatisfactory at best. Can someone please attend to this, as I'm sick (I have gastric flu :() and am going to bed. Orderinchaos 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I thought the editor in question was a medical doctor. Ask him for help, perhaps? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the info he is adding is good but he's not very good at writing neutrally.--Patton123 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I left a final warning of sorts on his talk page regarding his removal (several times now) of talk page comments by Orderinchaos. Completely out of line behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

  • He now has two unblock requests on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Essentially what happened (and why I couldn't involve myself in anything beyond simply warning him) was that the page was a gushy POV mess which was no doubt written by an employee of the development company responsible for the suburb. I removed the bulk of the article on 4 September 2009. An IP with substantially similar word use to the current editor reverted me and added in more cruft. I then rewrote the article on the 5th, broadly based on the formatting of other C-class or higher articles about Perth suburbs (some bits were direct pastes from those with the details changed). This is a "bare bones" format with the ability to be expanded by other editors, hence why I settled on it. (Balga, Western Australia is an example of where I settled a POV situation similarly, and where good faith editors have built on my efforts.)
All was fine until this new account was created and started loudly reverting and blasting me on both the talk page and edit summaries on the main page. The funny thing is unless he is using a nom de plume, there is no GP called Moodie in Western Australia, and "Hon.Sc.D" is an honorary doctorate (i.e. not in medicine). My guess is therefore he is the same person as the 203. address and probably, if not works for the development company, has a strong commonality of interest with them. Orderinchaos 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern[edit]

Received this comment from an editor requesting {{adminhelp}}, moving it here as I don't edit in the copyright area. Appreciate any input.  Skomorokh  22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the speedy response. I'm concerned about User:Sayedalam76. I think the guy means well, but I don't think he understands the copyright proceedure. I could be wrong, but it seems that he copies much, if not all, of his source info straight from other websites. I suppose he could be author of those pages, but he makes no effort to claim so or cite any of his sources. I can usually find most of the copied text (regarding a freshly created wiki page, one not yet mirrored to a different site) off a quick google search. See page Hazarth Sayed Hashimpeer Dastegir for an example.

I'm not trying to do anything punitive against the guy, I think his subjects do have notability, but he needs to actually write the articles. Please tell me if I'm out of line on this. Thanks!Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not punitive, but he's been indefinitely blocked. Several admins left him notes yesterday. His response was to come in today and do it again, at the now-deleted JAMIA HASHIMPEER ,BIJAPUR. He needs to address this issue if he is to continue, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it, Moonriddengirl.  Skomorokh  16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) is engaging in subtle POV pushing and plagiarizing material from news sources like The Vancouver Sun and adding it into Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. He recently copied this material into the speech section[49]. It virtually duplicates the first paragraph of a news article in the Vancouver Sun, almost verbatim.[50] I used the talk page and explained to him that the material needed to be written in his own words and must adhere to our NPOV policy. I removed the material[51] and explained my reason on the talk page.[52] Wikireader41 then added the same plagiarized material back into the article with a revert.[53] And this continues. The user does not appear to understand NPOV or how to write content for Wikipedia. Could I get some help here? Looking at his edit history and block log, this is not the first time the user has had POV issues raised here. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this editor is falsely accussing me. it is clear we have a content dispute. he is not willing to debate or reason and achieve consensus and some very fascinating original ideas about what WP should or should not be. we need some help with this article I agree. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't look like a false accusation to me; it looks like direct copying. Even if it's only a paragraph, adding such material is not allowed. Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikireader41 wrote the following sourced to the Vancouver Sun:
Obama accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for reform of the American health care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatened the legislation
In the Vancouver Sun, Sheldon Alberts wrote:
U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday night accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for sweeping reform of the U.S. health-care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatens legislation to provide near-universal medical coverage to Americans.
The highlighted words are the ones added to the article by Wikireader41, and they belong to Sheldon Albe