Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Dewar210[edit]

Resolved: No admin action needed. Tim Song (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

My HG screen is indicating that this editor is blocked. How are they able to edit this, this, this, etc. Is HG giving me unreliable info? Thanks Tiderolls 03:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Those edits seem to have been made prior to the block. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julian. Tiderolls 03:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) However, Dewar210 was not blocked until 3:45 UTC according to the block log, but Tide rolls' report was made at 3:42 UTC. Interesting... Tim Song (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My HG indicated they were blocked on their first edit. Weird. Tiderolls 03:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you saw the "reported" icon and not the "blocked" icon (see here – no. 22 and 23). I think this may have been the case, since he was reported to AIV at 03:32. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
That's possible, Chamal. The disruption has ceased which was my main concern. That and not getting in a 3RR situation. I'm gonna stop beating the dead horse and move along. Thanks to all that responded. Tiderolls 04:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"The left thy"[edit]

Resolved

User blocked. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

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

This editor repeatedly created the page The left thy (or The Left Thy) which I believe is silly vandalism (WP:CSD#G3). Before the most recent recreation, the editor was warned with {{uw-create3}} and I'm a little confused about how to proceed. I asked the editor to not create the article again. Should I have left a final warning? Would you folks block for this? EnviroboyTalkCs 05:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left the editor a final stern warning; a final warning from you would've been fine as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
If he/she/it continues after final warning, report user to WP:AIV, and request the page be salted... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) New editors who just treat WP as a webhost or don't understand standards for inclusion ought not to be blocked unless they repeatedly ignore clear warnings or attempts at communication. This editor is making vanilla WP:NFT violations; I don't see any indication of malice or serious disruption. If the automated warnings aren't working out, try leaving a very clear personal message. If they persist after that, then there may be no other option than a short block.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I hesitated to call this a vandalism-only account because of the previous edits. If not for those, this would not have been an issue. Thanks for the advice. EnviroboyTalkCs 05:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I've salted both titles. Mjroots (talk) 09:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The page was recreated yet again, despite multiple warnings and lots of good advice. I've blocked indef, with a note as to how to appeal if necessary. I don't think this person is here to improve the encyclopedia. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent posting of copyrighted lyrics to Tera hone laga hoon[edit]

Resolved

This article about a Bollywood song got posted last week. I'm not Bollywood expert so I don't know whether this song is sufficiently notable to warrant its own article. What is definitely not allowed, however, it posted the (presumably) copyrighted lyrics to a song without any explanation as to why this is permissible. The original poster ignored my talk page message and removed the copyvio tag without comment, and now a new user (very strong suspect sockpuppet) has done the same. How do we deal with people persistently removing copyvio tags? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

If it happens again, take it to WP:RFPP. Tan | 39 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Since it fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS anyway, I've redirected it to the film. Black Kite 19:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Three Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Urgent call for applications[edit]

The process to appoint the three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. If you are suitably qualified, please see the election pages for the job specification and application arrangements. Applications close 22 October 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Dingdong12[edit]

Dingdong12 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sock; brand new user whose first edit was to AFD Railfan in a most pointy fashion: "Pointless article which I imagine is read by no-one and is a waste of Wikipedia server space." Another user has suspected that this is a sock of someone; to quote, "New users don't just find AFD." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To be pedantic, the first edit was to AFD Status Quo, and then moved on to Railfan. Now that those two AFDs have been speedy kept, editor is annoying User:Daedalus969 and calling him 'dad', presumably a shortening of 'Daed'. tedder (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone: I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to see the excellent work you all do. Thanks for your comments Tedder and Ten Pound Chisel. Can I get your thoughts on moving this section nearer to the top of the page - I think that most people might just skip this section otherwise? Anyway, let me know what you think.

Thanks

Dingdong12 (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Okay, now you're just trolling. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocked indef for such (although I am mildly interested in anyone advancing an argument for which of any of their contributions was not trolling). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dupledreux unblock request[edit]

Resolved: my mistake. Equazcion (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I received a lengthy distraught email from this user. He's been accused by User:The Four Deuces of being a sockpuppet of User:Introman, who was blocked for puppeteering. He was then blocked by User:MuZemike as a result of the accusation. A two-day-old unblock request sits on his talk page, along with a conversation with The Four Deuces.

The evidence seems a bit shakey, being based on a couple of Dupledreux's talk page comments that seemed to agree with the blocked sock's POV. Could someone please have a look at this? I'm not well-versed in checkuser procedures, but perhaps Dupledreux could be added to the sock investigation so we can confirm whether or not he really is a sock. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The case is awaiting checkuser for RJII.[1] The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I missed that, sorry. Thanks. Equazcion (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal_(person) in translation[edit]

Resolved: Userfied Guy (Help!) 23:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Verbal_(person) is a new article that is being translated from the Japanese Wikipedia, created by User_talk:Sabeerkibria. Since the article is in Japanese, wouldn't it be more reasonable for the article to be written in the user's namespace and then moved to the main namespace? The majority of the article is still in Japanese. Thanks. Netalarmtalk 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

perhaps it would be a superior option to do it in user space, but there is no administrator action required after declining a speedy delete. It is an active translation, so no need to delete it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor on a vandalism spree[edit]

Resolved: Rickymonitor (talk · contribs) indef'd for harassment.

Can someone help? This editor keeps on deleting content and leaving nasty comments. See [2][3] and this uncivil comment. -- Rickymonitor (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like vandalism to me. PS. That user is an administrator. Equazcion (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Given the username and this diff, I have some suspicions...... Tim Song (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indef as abuse of alternate account (harassing another contributor - too familiar with WP policy and process not to have prior experience). Per Equazcion, I don't see any vandalism either of the target of the complaint. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the user requested unblocking, which I declined. TNXMan 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Fteds[edit]

Somebody may want to initiate a checkuser request on this one with an eye towards blocking the underlying IP range. The creation of articles is consistent with several other vandalism-only accounts over the last week. Of particular note is the inclusion of how to create a new article info as the text with the vandalism being in the article name. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That IP range is too busy to make such a rangeblock feasible - while many of the editors on that range already have IP block exemptions, there's still several dozen that don't. Good suggestion, but unfortunately it's not practical in this case. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunate. I wondered if anybody else had noticed this trend. So the only solution is to wait for them to strike again and delete the pages as they appear? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointy, contentious editing by IP at List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates[edit]

64.252.139.2 (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS) made a semi-protected edit request to update the page with 2009 totals and claiming that the totals for 2008 were incorrect. Chzz (talk · contribs) serviced the request and asked for sources.[4] I assume that was because of the claim that the existing totals were wrong. The user launched into a lengthy argument of why sources weren't needed, which was answered by Thesevenseas (talk · contribs) who updated the totals but pointed out that the IP was mistaken.[5] The IP continued his lengthy proof, ignoring Debresser (talk · contribs) request for sources, until finally Thesevenseas determined the source of the IP's confusion and explained it to him.[6] (I didn't include links to the IP's 23 posts.) A few days later, as 64.252.124.238 (talkcontribsinfoWHOIS), the IP started haranguing the other editors again and asking for edits on the now unprotected page. I serviced that SPER and let him know that the page was unprotected and suggested that he learn from the mistake and move on.[7]. He didn't take my advice and continued to abuse the other editors.[8]. Rrius (talk · contribs) chimed in[9] to no avail.[10] Finally, today, I left a last response, pointed out again that the article was unprotected and that the discussion was no longer about improving the article.[11]

All of that was preface. After my response today, the IP changed the article away from the correct 2009 totals,[12] which was quickly reverted and explained.[13] He again inserted what he knew to be incorrect,[14] then asked Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) to change it back.[15] Can we block this user to discourage repeat performances? Celestra (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What a kerfuffle! In servicing the original request, Celestra, I asked for sources so that I would not have to add unsourced information to the article, and because from a bit of a Google, it was not clear how the IP had arrived at their stated totals. I didn't go back to the page, so this is the first I've seen of the dispute. I did not look at the 2008 figures, because that wasn't the request - if the request had been 'please remove this incorrectly sourced information', then I expect I would have done so; the request was to add info, therefore I needed to "say where I got it".  Chzz  ►  22:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Same difference; I felt your request for a source was reasonable for a different reason. When I service a request to remove something that doesn't match the source, I generally check the source before I remove it, but I also try to avoid second guessing the requester when it's well away from the reason the page was protected. In this case, the tone of the request would have made me double check the accuracy. Celestra (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hammersoft[edit]

I am requesting the intervention of an administrator with regards to the behavior of User:Hammersoft. Lately his actions have been quite insulting, dismissive, and belligerent. I admire his passion for his point of view and respect it, however, it has become quite difficult to have a reasonable discussion with him with edits like these: [16][17][18][19] and has attempted to sanitize such antagonization [20]. He is also demanding that people do things that are not Wikipedia policy, such as mandating a written release of a copyright that does not exist and mandating that we contact every entity with an uncopyrightable logo to get a legal assessment of its copyright status (also on the UCLA logo too). While these are certainly possible ideas on how we could run Wikipedia, they are not policy and he has no reason to demand such actions. Furthermore, he pejoratively accuses me of wikilawyering when I answer his questions with regard to policy/guidelines: [21][22][23]

He is antagonizing other editors through sarcasm [24] (I can provide LOTS of other examples) and taunting them [25] (again, more examples upon request)

He also seems to pride himself on pissing off other users and then publicly displaying their reactions on his user page: User:Hammersoft.

I request up to a block of this user for prolonged incivility (clarification added) . — BQZip01 — talk 05:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me also be clear that I have a disagreement with him, but the only problem I request remediation for is this one. — BQZip01 — talk 06:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Without getting into the rightness or wrongness of Hammersoft's arguments, the tone that he has used and removing other people's comments from the VP certainly seems to be extremely problematic. He's also made some odd comments about other matters too, which are probably not actionable on their own, but I think point to a pattern in the editing behaviour of this particular user. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
Lankiveil, my point exactly. I am not saying his basic points are right or wrong, but the tone is the problem. I would also like to point out/defend Hammersoft in that I do not believe he has deleted any comments on WP:VPP; IMHO he improperly moved them, but I have since corrected that. — BQZip01 — talk 07:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I concur with that assessment.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You want him to be blocked because he disagrees with you? And is usually right? Ooooo-kay.... 86.20.191.239 (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I stated the opposite. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant. This IP's behavior is consistent with User:TomPhan's sockpuppetry behavior. — BQZip01 — talk 16:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am deeply involved in the disputes between BQZip01 and Hammersoft, and in terms of those disputes (non-free image policy and the like) would be taking the same side as Hammersoft.
That said, Hammersoft has done some actions that aren't appropriate such as removing his own comments from the middle of a discussion, leaving a discussion thread that is very difficult to follow, and certainly attitude is not positive in these edits. But I've seen a lot worse before any admin action for incivility is taken. It needs to be understood that Hammersoft is a long-time committed upholder of WP's non-free content policy and is aggressive about making sure that it is kept (the reason BQZip became involved was Hammersoft removing what he felt was excessive non-free logo use on college sports pages that BQZip was involved with, and has been at least a 6-month discussion/debate between them. I can tell you that its obvious Hammersoft is getting frustrated by the perceived lack of respect that the non-free content policy gets and how those that attempt to uphold it are often treated poorly by editors that are affected by those actions; this exacerbation of one's good-faith intentions is likely the cause for Hammersoft's sarcasm and negative behavior in the above report.
No admin action is necessary, I believe, those a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line. --MASEM (t) 12:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Clearly Hammersoft refuses to understand BQZip01's point. I am not sure where it started, but at VP(P) for example BQ explained his point ~35 times to him. This includes [26], [27] ,[28],[29], [30] these edits just to get everyone to agree on his format preference for the discussion. There is no reason for Hammersoft to be so stubborn, and if he is not going to submit to BQ's view, he should either keep quiet or at least not respond back in the way he does. BQZip01 clearly knows what he is doing and it is a shame that he is forced to bring these issues here. Hammersoft should be blocked, topic banned and be forced to avoid any articles or discussions that BQ is steering. Erector Euphonious (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
One thing has been acted on: the account calling itself "Erector Euphonious" is a sock, and has been indef'd and deleted. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 15:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Anybody who can come up with this sort of nonsense needs to step back and regain their perspective. Its proper time that he be called to some sort of account for his demeaning and non-constructive approach. Wiggy! (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the issue with what appears to be a comment on what actually happens on Wikipedia. Care to explain? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, if anything, that section of his userpage would seem to be against the use of personal attacks. That's nonsense? kmccoy (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Read the thing. Its full of logical fallacies and is little more than excuse to avoid trying to remain part of a rational debate by conducting oneself in a civil and non-provocative manner. Picking a fight and then pointing back at your own little custom written "law" is hardly a sign of a well-intentioned editor acting in good faith. Being provoked to anger doesn't automatically negate any earlier valid points one might make. You can be right, angry and uncivil all at once. Its a state of being sort of thing (not necessarily a good one I'll grant you). That section of the user page is superficially against personal attacks and is just self-serving. Wiggy! (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, we must have different versions of English and/or logic instruction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently so. But let's work an example. If I was a flatearther and despite your cogent arguments about the earth's true spherical character, badgered you to the point of your cursing me out, your incivility wouldn't suddenly flatten out the planet, which is what the first corollary of Hammersoft's Law would have. You're just dismissed because you've been driven to the breaking point. What kind of approach is that? This is guy just sitting around sharpening sticks to poke in your eye.
By the way, this discussion is moot in any case. Your suggestion that my grasp of English and logic is lacking is uncivil. I invoke the Law and thereby win this argument. Anything you've said to this point is meaningless. Enjoy your day.
Get it now? Wiggy! (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't find anything to act on here. While Hammersoft isn't always the most civil editor (which makes having your own law about personal attacks ironic, at worst), I agree with Masem above. Tan | 39 15:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the point.That is why we have that policy right?--Crossmr (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • BQZip has taken it upon himself to be the final arbiter of all decisions fair use. Whenever people disagree with him he is quite willing to edit war to have his way. He refuses to acknowledge that we must confirm the copyright free nature of things or else consider them to be non-free. Even now, he continues to edit war at File:UCLA Bruins Logo.png to mark it as free [31] when he knows damn well that the discussion on this issue at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:UCLA_Bruins_Logo.png concluded with no consensus that it was free. He also feels it entirely inappropriate for us to contact copyright holders to verify that a particular work is free of copyright. I fail to understand why he is incapable of doing so. On multiple occasions I have provided him contact information to do so, and he routinely refuse to do this work. Over and over and over again his arguments in support of marking just about everything he wants as free have been refuted. Yet over and over and over again on new similar situations, he keeps dragging the same arguments up and insisting that if we don't refute him, our opposition is without basis. To say that he is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is a gross understatement. I'm picking at the tip of the iceberg here. BQZ's behaviors have been absolutely against the spirit of the Wikipedia, full of edit warring, and more. I am far from being the only one who is fed up with his behavior. I give him kudos for one thing; he has done a lot of work to find free versions of school sports logos, indisputably free versions. But when there is a dispute that something is free, he is absolutely tenacious and refuses to acknowledge anything but his own answer as having any merit. A good piece of advice in this situation would be for me to ignore him and move away from things he edits. The problem is I'd have to give up on NFCC issues to move away from his edits, and I have evidence he is routinely following my edits so separation is impossible unless I just give up NFCC patrolling. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    I'm going to HS's comments once and only once.
    1. I am not the final arbiter of anything.
    2. I agree that we must confirm that something is non-free, but I disagree with Hammersoft's beliefs as to what is required for confirmation. I've never said it was inappropriate to contact copyright holders. I've stated that it is inappropriate to demand that users contact trademark holders to determine whether an image is free of copyright. Most, if not all, of the people you'd contact are not lawyers and would have no idea about copyright law. It would also be a significant burden to contact the owner of every such image (currently 3,300+ images if an owner could even be found.
    3. The UCLA logo discussion was indeed inconclusive, however, a user pointed out that the institution in question considers it "script" and that seems pretty conclusive to me. Accordingly, I changed the status.
    4. Insinuating that I'm WP:WIKIHOUNDing you is absurd. Any time I've posted somewhere where you are, especially recently, it's because I posted there before or you diverted the discussion there.
    5. The last point to make is about wikilawyering, a pejorative and derisive term. It is the kind of behavior I am most concerned about. I've pointed out things in policy, guidelines, law, legal verdicts, etc. His sole response is, "that's wikilawyering" or "you're wrong" with no rationale. This kind of interaction isn't a discussion, but simply one side putting out reasoned comments and another offering nothing in return but contradiction and name-calling followed by a refusal to discuss.
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is not about our disagreement, but HS's behavior. — BQZip01 — talk 17:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • After analyzing this case, my conclusion is there is no need to take any admin action against Hammersoft. I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; like Tan, I can't find anything to act on here. AdjustShift (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    So swearing, belittling those with whom you disagree, continuous sarcasm, insults, etc. are all acceptable behavior? — BQZip01 — talk 17:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    Dear BQZip01, I basically agree with what Masem pointed out above; you have a right to disagree with me. I'm erasing "resolved" tag. Two admin, Tan and I, agree with Masem; other admins can analyze this case, and let's see what they will say. AdjustShift (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Civility issues are taken care of at WP:WQA - but you brought it here instead. Long-term pattern issues are dealt with via an WP:RFC/U. Nothing that Hammersoft has done is directly actionable, but warnings were likely required. As he has been advised of, and has commented in this thread, he is aware of the feelings of the community/administrators in this case, and will adjust accordingly. Again, nothing he has said is blockable by any stretch of the imagination. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...a word of caution and possibly a temporary Wikibreak to calm tempers is certain within line." is what Masem suggested and I see no reason that shouldn't be implemented. — BQZip01 — talk 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
A Wikibreak is self-implemented; Masem - from what I can see - was not suggesting a block. Your calling for Hammersoft's head is getting tiresome here. If you have a civility issue you want to discuss in depth, take it to WP:WQA. There is nothing that can be done from an admin incident standpoint. Tan | 39 17:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a block. I'm not "calling for Hammersoft's head here". A simple warning from an admin with respect to this discussion is fine. If you feel it is appropriate, I would be happy to take this to WP:WQA and repeat it, but I think that is an unnecessary duplication in this case.
To quote "I request a block of this user for prolonged incivility". Looks to me you were asking for a block. Garion96 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
My mistake. I have hopefully clarified this as that was the max I was looking for; I'm open to other solutions. — BQZip01 — talk 03:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and you're right, in retrospect, WP:WQA probably would have been more appropriate in this case. I had some doubts that it would have been the correct forum and just defaulted to here instead. — BQZip01 — talk 17:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I apologize then; I misunderstood your intentions above. Tan | 39 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite, but as noted, he happens to be correct, and has been engaged in a debate with BQZ for some time now. BQZ's interpretation of policy is incorrect, and essentially relies on being lazy and hoping the world doesn't take notice. We have some pretty annoying policies around here, BQZ, but that doesn't mean we can just ignore them, or ignore someone who is rightly trying to enforce those policies. I think most of us wish we could do things your way, but the reasons for which we can't are sound and must be respected. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    "Hammersoft could certainly stand to be a bit more polite..." is all I heard from this and is the only thing I'm trying to address. I'll be happy to discuss the other issues you brought up elsewhere. My talk page is open. — BQZip01 — talk 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You would do well to hear more of it. Your misinterpreations are at the root of Hammersoft's frustration, not the other way around. More to the point, none of the difs you cite really make me flinch when read in context. He could be nicer, but I see no reason why he has to be nicer given your persistence in being wrong. Either follow the policies, or take an active role in exploring whether you can reform those policies you find tedious, but don't waste everyone's time raising calling the Wikiquette Police if someone starts to lose their composure with your behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be a tempest in a teapot. Hammersoft has some sharp sarcasm, but hardly seems that serious. That, coupled with his frankly correct interpretation of most of the issues, makes it seem like we could just call this closed and get back to something productive. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CONTENT REMOVED by — BQZip01 — talk (taunting of an indef blocked sockpuppeteer)

Ouch, DRIVEBY, that sounds like a threat of some sort. With 3 whole contributions, shall we do an WP:SPI?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Already blocked. Nothing to see here... Wknight94 talk 19:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins[edit]

Lots of POV-pushing going on at this article, which is a lightning rod for some reason. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved viewpoint: A quick look at the history of this article reveals that User:Masslayoffs is repeatedly and persistently inserting a link to a blog site about a person who was laid off. This may be reason to suspect personal agenda pushing. Further, Masslayoffs is a WP:SPA, apparently created to insert this layoff blog link. The situation is, at the least, somewhat peculiar. Appropriate encouragement to avoid POV-pushing may be appropriate. —Finn Casey * * * 02:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This is also not a new problem. This ended up on my watch list sometime last summer, for similar reasons. But there's been so much activity there I'm not sure how to weed it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 05:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I had previously brought this up in late August [32] and the link says there was an edit war going on there in May. So somebody's persistent. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots← 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

JDC808's image uploads[edit]

After coming across JDC808 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and a handful of image uploads that were either high resolution non-free images or untagged non-free images (none of which were necessary for the articles he added them to), I notified him of the issues with the images and that they would probably be deleted.

Then I came across the fact that nearly every single image he has uploaded that he has uploaded as non-free has no non-free image tag on it. There were maybe only four images that have proper licensing, and those were added after JDC808 had uploaded them and someone else saw that they had a proper use on Wikipedia and added the tag.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is true. See JDC808's uploads. Ryulong is correct, only about four of the images JDC808 has uploaded have valid lic tags. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well where in the world do I put the "proper licensing tag". I mean, when I upload the image, I try to put all the information that is being asked for and apparently, that's not enough information needed. So what else do I do? JDC808 (talk) 03:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There should be a drop down menu below the "Summary" portion of the Upload page labelled "Licensing" (seen here) that you choose the proper licensing information for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've figured this out somewhat. This is still a bit new to me, so I may not get it right every time. I've added the licensing tag for images that I was able to. Some, like a picture of a building, I wasn't sure which tag to use. JDC808 (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you cannot find a proper tag, the image will be deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

Resolved

Topic has been moved to the venue Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)—Strange things happening with a template. If you have any clue to what could be happening, please help there.... Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, uh, if anybodies out there, I do believe that the "De Leonism" template has been tampered with. You press the view or discussion letter and it brings you to Template:DeLeonismterrorists. And you can't seem to get to the edit or discussion pages of the real template. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just checked it and it seems fine...can you be more specific (and maybe provide some examples) about what is going on? Template:DeLeonism Frmatt (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, that's weird.... I can't seem to make heads or tails of what's going on. Maybe WP:Village Pump (technical) would be useful to consult too. To Frmatt, The links for (v) and (d) on the bottom of the template go somewhere completely different (that doesn't exist) with "terrorism" in the title.
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha now, I'm still learning Templates...is there any way to edit that? Frmatt (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Just checked the (e) link, and it too goes somewhere with "terrorism" in the title...lets send this over to the village pump! Frmatt (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Sidebar with dividers}} got vandalized, so any template that transcluded it had the same issue. I fixed it, but articles that still show the vandalism might need to be purged. Meanwhile, can someone please semiprotect {{Sidebar with dividers}}? It is a big fucking target that ought to be protected already. Thanks. Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Semi-Protection request has been put in...hopefully will happen shortly. Frmatt (talk) 03:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Done by Tedder. TNXMan 04:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at User talk:12.42.5.195 by 216.246.164.118 (talk)[edit]

This IP address keeps removing content from User talk:12.42.5.195. I have already given him 3 warnings, but I am not willing to revert again and get blocked temporarily for an edit war, so I am bringing it here. He keeps removing content saying that it's illegal data, but there is no illegal data in there. Like I told him, those templates are supposed to be placed on there for public computers, such as schools and libraries. The same person isn't always editing from said IP address. He keeps accusing me of vandalism. Well, while I was typing this, it looks like User:5 albert square has gotten into the situation, so that makes me feel a little better, but I need some comments on what should be done. Thanks. - Zhang He (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent to WP:AIV for vandalism after level 4 warning. Frmatt (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Also informed the ip of this thread. Frmatt (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags in infoboxes[edit]

Tonight, I discovered that if a {{fact}} or {{citation needed}} tag is used in an infobox for a parameter that uses {{formatnum}}, the category produced by the date parameter for some reason automatically parses a comma in the year. For whatever reason Category:Articles with unsourced statements from October 2,009 and Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,008 were showing up. It might be worth it to see if there are similar categories showing up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal[edit]

Resolved: user blocked. –Katerenka (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Already reported at AIV, but would somebody please deal with this quick User:12345 ya99....

Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 05:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PS He's not actually blocked: he just put those on his userpage and continues to vandalize because people look at it and think he's blocked.

I've left a note for him on his talk page that he's not blocked. It appears he's experimenting with the templates. However, he has made a series of vandalistic edits to WP:AIV. I'll drop him a note hoping he'll shape up. Basket of Puppies 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I warned him here after his edit on AIV --NotedGrant Talk 05:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are you guys bothering with this warning stuff? It's a blatant vandalism-only account. Just block it already. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Admin Cirt blocked the account --NotedGrant Talk 06:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

IP warning needed[edit]

warn this IP [33]. I don´t want to argue at 5 am.--Die4Dixie (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You could surely just drop them a template? ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 08:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean like [34]these?--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
OK; then, you can list him to be blocked at WP:AIV. ╟─TreasuryTagSpeaker─╢ 09:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...[edit]

Unresolved

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{Unreferenced}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[35] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


Misuse of talk page[edit]

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy is the site of a long-simmering, sometimes boiling edit war that's brushing the WP:3RR line but hasn't yet crossed over. It's currently and primarily a dispute between myself and one other editor. The issues are being gradually resolved and I'm not bringing them up here. What I am irked about is the misuse of the article talk page. I left a note on Riverpa's talk page, followed by another note and 3rr warning (we're both on our 3rd, next edit should go to WP:3RRN). Riverpa then noted on talk:Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy his issues with my recent edits but also pasted a copy of my 3RR warning with a statement that I not address him on his talk page. I posted a comment on his talk page my reasons for my edits, the notes on his talk page and how the use of article talk pages was inappropriate. Riverpa then deleted my comments from his talk page (which is his right) but subsequently posted the deleted comments on talk:BHRT. On talk:BHRT I replied to the "don't use my talk page" comment, hid the initial posting and my reply, and deleted the reposting of my message on his talk page as tangential to the page. I then informed Riverpa that removing my comments essentially means he has read them and should act accordingly. That's (as far as I can tell and barring any errors) the guts of it. I am not seeking input on any content issues, all I want is a comment on the use of article talk pages - they shouldn't be used to propagate a personal dispute and no editor can demand to only be addressed on article talk pages (for one thing it's inappropriate when the issue is editorial behaviour, for another thing it hijacks the page away from its initial purpose). I think my actions were correct and as a new editor Riverpa doesn't appreciate the different purposes and practices for the different types of pages. Mostly I don't want my postings on his talk page being reposted on an article talk page unnecessarily. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would beg to differ that the problems are being gradually resolved. WLU has persisted in this long-simmering dispute with a series of editors previous to me, who have basically given up in the face of his tenditious editing. He has escalated his pettifoggery against me as I attempt to bring some semblance of NPOV to the article, and I prefer that his WP:wikilawyering be visible to everyone who has to deal with him. He makes accusations without concrete citations. The issue is content, WLU's ownership of the article, and his repeated contention that he is more experienced in WP, and therefore knows best. Riverpa (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem to know an amazing amount about wikipedia for not even being here a month. So what do you know about this "series of editors previous"? Auntie E. 17:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There were a variety of more involved editors previously:
I don't know if there's socking and I have urged Riverpa repeatedly to review talk page history (because the same ground is being re-run repeatedly) so I read that comment as innocuous and reasonable. There's lots of sources, they're reasonably convergent, but it's the interpreting that's mucking up the actual editing.
But I see this as tangential - mostly I don't want user talk page posts moved back to article talk pages, and I don't want to get into a friggin' edit war over something so stupid. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There were also a couple of very minor edits by Ndaren (talk · contribs), notable for similarity in name to an editor with a conflict of interest, for focusing on BHRT, and for making corrections to talk page comments by Hillinpa (talk · contribs) [36][37][38]. Debv (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Auntie E - I will repeat my entire comment that appears on WLU's Talk page, as I replied to him previously when he implied that I was a sock puppet and made much the same comments: ""We" includes the other 3 or more editors who weighed in previously on the discussion (which you referred me to who share much the same opinion as my own (SandyGeorgia, Hillenpa, and QuizzicalBee, as well as unsigned IP). I don't believe that any of us are espousing any particular POV (...well maybe not all...), but all of us seem to think that there are two valid definitions of the term BHRT, one of which you believe in wholeheartedly, the other which the rest of us seem to believe is older, and less inflammatory, and should be a significant part of this article, while you wish to ignore it.

I have never had a Wikipedia account before. I just know how to read instructions and distill information: a good quality in an editor, yes?

I have read most of the preceding discussion in Talk. Yes, this has been discussed before, and the consensus view seems to be more in line with my view, which is why I am mystified as to why you cannot see that this is not an attempt to slant the POV, we are trying to disambiguate the marketing scheme definition and the pharmaceutical definition of this term.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain from the personal comments and accusations. You have so far accused me of touting WP:the truth, of violating copyright, of WP:original research, and violating WP:reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverpa (talk • contribs) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)". -end quote-

WLU has repeatedly (3 or 4 times now) removed text that I have added to the Talk page that indicates that I consider this conflict to be related to content. I was under the impression that editors should not remove content from Talk pages, ever, unless it was clear vandalism or libel.

Sorry to be so able to read for content and utilize that content: I can see that WLU comes to radically different conclusions than I do when reviewing the same sources.Riverpa (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

So just to be 100% clear, Hillinpa is not a former account of yours? Because there are 4 reasons to suspect that they are:
  1. Similarity of name.
  2. Similarity of edits; Hillinpa almost exclusively edited Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy, which you've also edited.
  3. Hillinpa's last edit was on September 18, your earliest was September 28, which looks like a switch from one account to another.
  4. You show a lot of knowledge for someone who has only been around a month, as was said before, but if you were Hillinpa previously then you would have over 6 months experience.
I only ask this for your benefit so that nobody can later say "Aha, gotcha!" if a Checkuser confirms it or someone else does somehow. Hillinpa seems to have a clean history so if you are the same person, I don't see why you'd hide the fact. If you are the same person you haven't broken any rules to my knowledge, but it would be better to acknowledge it. Anyway, not meaning to badger you or doubt your word, if you say you're a different person then it must just be an odd coincidence. -- Atama 22:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an odd coincidence only. I repeat (though I should not have to), this is the first time I have been on WP, first account, if I wanted to create a sock puppet name I certainly would not have created one with any similarity to a previous one. Riverpa (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, you'd be surprised - we have some tremendously brilliant socks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Great! So I am either a brilliant sock puppet or I'm being maligned by the accusations. I cannot prove a negative. Please, do whatever investigations that you do, and you will find out whatever - but it will not indicate that I am a sock puppet. I simply look at the situation as indicating that there is one POV dominating this topic, and it will not budge, even resorting to unfounded accusations in order to keep other POV's away. Riverpa (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I consider this tangential - Riverpa may be a sock. I've contemplated the idea myself. But if a sock, he would be an oddly pointless sock - there has been no !vote stacking, Hillinpa was never blocked or even warned, multiple accounts haven't been used to run around 3RR, etc. So I'm not really interested in this question. All I really want is confirmation that this is not a proper way to use an article talk page. If socking comes up, I'll pursue that appropriately but all I really am interested in here is a "stop posting and re-posting tangents on the talk page", or "shut the eff up WLU, that's a totally appropriate use of an article talk page. Content disputes, socking, neither require intervention in my mind. Talk page shenanigans do. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's an interesting question if socks are being used to circumvent WP:COI. See my comment above, but to elaborate: Nraden is the husband of one of the most notable purveyors of BHRT, T. S. Wiley, and arguably has a conflict of interest with the subject of BHRT in general. Ndaren (similar spelling, different account) is a barely used account that's mostly made BHRT-related edits including corrections to talk page comments by Hillinpa, in one case minutes after they were posted, and without offering an explanation. There's clearly reason to wonder whether Hillinpa and Riverpa might be the same person. If it were to turn out that all these accounts are used by a person with COI, it certainly wouldn't be pointless. Debv (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I see absolutely no reason to suspect socking, certainly no abuse that resulted in system gaming. I believe I've asked Nraden about both accounts, the less used one he forgot the password for. Neil has acknowledged his COI and edited only through intermediary (generally me) and talk pages - appropriate for a COI. Even if they are all the same account, they're not being used abusively - there's no 3RR issues circumvented through tag-teaming. Hillinpa has not been blocked. Sometimes weird coincidences do happen, and until there's evidence of abuse I see no reason to pursue this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/disruption from User:Off2riorob[edit]

Following a disagreement concerning article categorisation (see [39]) where he proceeded to remove a categorisation without consensus, this user began to message me on my talk page, making accusations of meat-puppetry. Dismissing him simply as antagonistic, I told him that if he felt that was the case then he can go ahead and file a report, but warned him about edit-warring. I then asked him to stop contacting me, but he persisted in doing so, even after I warned him that I would report him for harrassment. Normally, I would tend to ignore a user who behaves in this way in the hopes that they will go and find something better to do with their time, but looking into his edit history, there is a large amount of previous violations. He has apparently been blocked at least 7 times this year alone for disruptive editing and general incivility towards other users ([40],[41],[42],[43]). The most recent case was concluded less than 3 weeks ago and at present he is the subject of a 1RR per day limitation because of his disruptive tendencies. This guy obviously just won't learn, and here he is again making a nuisance out of himself. Obviously its all just a bit of a giggle to him, but given his history and blatant contempt for other editors and Wikipedia rules, his account needs to be blocked for a lengthier period to send a clear message that his behaviour is unacceptable. Kookoo Star (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Kookoo Star, do you think you can provide some diffs of what you feel is harassment on Off's part? You've provided a detailed history, but we'll need to see what the current issues are. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Puppies. It's all on my talk page as the user kept messaging me with baseless accusations and threats when I asked him to stop doing so (there's only that conversation there at present and its pretty self-explanatory). He made 15 edits/diffs to the page in less than an hour which became quite annoying. Like I said above, had it been almost anybody else I would have just left it, but this guy has a history of disruptive and antisocial behaviour. Do you want me to list all the diffs or just the ones he made after I told him to stop messaging me? Kookoo Star (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not involved in the issues, and have, in fact, never interacted with either of these editors. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of all editors involved. However, when I checked the link to User talk:Kookoo Star, I was rather disappointed at the lack of genial atmosphere there. User:Off2riorob appears to have disregarded WP:AGF as well as basic civility standards. The accusations by Off2riorob are very odd and lack tact, even if they were true. Encouragement to act in a more becoming manner would be appropriate. Best wishes to all! —Finn Casey * * * 02:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Look in the history of the talk page. User:Off2riorob screwed around with the ordering of his comments after he started posting them just to make Kookoo Star look foolish.
Peace and Passion   ("I'm listening....") 02:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
PS Here's the diff.
It appears that there may have been some inquiries of sock or meatpuppetry from Off2riorob. While this is not necessarily wrong to inquire, there seems to have been some forgetfulness of WP:AGF on behalf of the same. Off2riorob, please remember to assume good faith. If there is a significant concern of puppetry then I highly suggest you file it with the appropriate folks. Basket of Puppies 04:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
And if he's going to file a report he should just get on and do so, rather than baiting an editor who has asked him to stop posting on their talk page. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CSD-G7[edit]

I nominated an article for deletion here. I just found that the album was deleted in AFD here. Does this meet CSD-G7? Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone has nominated it for G4 which it would meet as it hasn't substantially addressed the original reasons for deletion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It was originally deleted in April 2009, but a second nomination after it was overturned at DRV closed with no consensus in May 2009. G7 is for "Author requests deletion", so I don't see how this would apply here. G4 could have applied if not for the DRV and second AFD. This isn't really an incident, either - WP:AN would be a more appropriate forum, I would have thought. I have removed the G4. The AFD should give the correct outcome here.--Michig (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I meant G4. I'm not the one that added the tag. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I did. And it's gone Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
My mistake - latest previous AFD here.--Michig (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

It's vandalism, but 76.191.148.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just done this: [44] on the article for Cyd Zeigler, Jr.. I'm under the impression that all death threats have to be reported; please let me know if this is correct, and if this is the right place. Thanks. --NellieBly (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I don't think it's serious but on the other hand I'm not qualified to decide which death threats are serious. --NellieBly (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP address. Thanks for reporting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Edward McMillan-Scott, Michał Kamiński and the Observer[edit]

I was reading the papers this morning over breakfast with my wife, and read the article in today's Observer.

Given the article in today's Observer: [45], might I suggest that an admin looks into the following accounts:

Special:Contributions/John_of_Gaunt23

Special:Contributions/Xerxes23

Special:Contributions/EPP_fanatic

Special:Contributions/Yorkshire_Bumblebee

Special:Contributions/Saer1957

All of whom seem to solely edit McMillan-Scott's page, in a similar manner to Special:Contributions/Strasburg who is named in the article. They also seem to show evidence of some POV pushing, and may all be the same account. I was talking to my wife about this and she said it was important to let you know. Thank you for your time, Mr Hands. Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. I have raised a report at WP:COI/N quoting the original Observer article. Stephen! Coming... 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The edits of User:Strasburg, User:194.60.38.198 (which comes from the British Parliament) and User:136.173.162.144 (which comes from the European Parliament) should be looked at, as well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
A sockpuppetry case has been opened here but it's waiting for clerk review. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed 136.173.162.144 (talk · contribs) wasn't listed in that investigation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Galassi[edit]

Galassi (talk · contribs) is behaving irritatingly immature on Talk:Cantonist. See comments like "That goes for you as well."[46] and "Ehrlich's success being irritating to someone."[47] And his unfounded reverts, as explained in that talk discussion. To the reverts I have replied, and in all cases he has had to conceed to my arguments. To the childish remarks quoted above I have not found fit to reply. But somebody should have a talk with him.

And then there are his insulting remarks. Like when he supposed I hadn't read the source he quoted.[48] (in edit summary) And his reminder to me that a rabbi should have scruples.[49] Or when he was accusing me of deliberately misusing a template.[50] And he is also stalking me, insolently mixing in my request to a friend-editor for a second opinion.[51] Debresser (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All the above copied from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Decided to come here after this insolent edit. How dare he mix into my personal talk with a friend-editor? With the veiled claim of doing things secretly. And that after he was warned not to mix in,[52] and after he was reminded to start applying Wikipedia:Assume good faith.[53] Debresser (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've chimed in on his talk page, but characterizing his edit as "insolent" isn't helpful. Also, "how dare he mix into my personal talk" doesn't really apply. If he was concerned about WP:CANVASSing, then it's not improper to chime in -- though he could have done it much more politely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
First of all, thank you.
It may not be helpfull, but can not think of a more correct description.
How could he have thought I was canvassing when I wrote to only one editor and asked for his advise in neutral terms after notifying that I was going to ask for advise. Very hard to believe.
Notice that he disagrees with you.[54] Debresser (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Add: accusing me of canvassing,[55] after I had stated explicitely that I had asked for a second opinion.[56] and [57]

  • These are both good, experienced editors. They both should know better. I suggest they just drop the dispute and move on, avoiding each other if necessary.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment you made to me, but I beg to differ as to your opinion about User:Galassi. He has made some childish edits here, at best. And according to recent discussions on his talkpage that is definitely a pattern with him. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Note also that he has not participated in the discussion here, and has discarded the posts made by SarekOfVulcan on his talkpage. Definitely not trying to cooperate in Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sukkah[edit]

Resolved

Revived from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Sukkah

Some IP user is adding the text {{for|the board game|chess}} to the article sukkah, about a certain Jewish custom. Today/yesterday he has done so as few times already. He has done so in the past as well, operating from the same range of IP adresses. I don't know what to ask for: semiprotection, a block of his current IP, of a range of IP's. So I throw it into the group. Preferably do not refer me to other venues, but take the relevant action yourself. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I posted this, I wasn't aware that the user had replied to the inquiry on his talkpage. I noticed this only when I came there to inform him of this discussion. I hope we will be able to convince him of his error. Sorry for bothering. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

today

He is back again as User talk:88.78.2.178. I have reverted him, even more than 3 times as unambiguous vandalism. Debresser (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, there is no way that is unambiguous vandalism. It's a content dispute. I have semi-protected the page, because it is clear the IP is being reverted by more than one editor, but I'd suggest if you're going to revert six times in future you're probably likely to find yourself on the wrong end of a block. Indeed, I was tempted to do so this time. You should be reporting to WP:AN3 rather than violating 3RR. Black Kite 18:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I think that it is unambiguous vandalism. Revert-warring drivel across multiple IPs, as many times of this, and refusing to engage in discussion about it, is clearly in the worst of faith. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 18:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well if it is vandalism, report it to AIV then. If it's an IP spamming, report it to RFPP. There's no reason for 6RR for something so trivial. Black Kite 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Was there a reason for the IP to 6RR for something so trivial and, in their case, rubbish? I think that as Debresser acted in the best of faith, and the best interests of Wikipedia, unlike the anon, his/her conduct was fine. ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
The semiprotection was a good idea, that is for sure. Please notice that his edit has been labeled vandalism before (e.g. [58]). Apart from that, and purely theoretically, I'd say that after several editors have pointed out that another editor is wrong, and have explained why he is wrong, then his continuing to make a certain edit becomes vandalism. Would you care to share your opinion about that? Debresser (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I would point to WP:NOTVAND - "Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such." Black Kite 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Duely noted for future reference. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea for somebody, preferably User:Black Kite, to leave a message on User talk:88.78.2.178. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It might not be my place to say this, but it seems BlackKite assumes the absolute worst in people. The three revert rule has a specific exclusion for reverting vandalism, and trust me on this, chess and sukkahs have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Personal attack redacted I wouldn't worry too much Debresser.   Nezzadar    19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not worried at all. I was rather favorably impressed with his swift and serious action in this matter. Debresser (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I would note that I have asked User:Nezzadar on his talk page to either back up or strike this unfounded assertion. If he does not do so, I will remove it myself per WP:NPA. I will not be accused of partiality in my admin dealings. Black Kite 20:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps now that the subject of this section is resolved, it would be wiser to close this discussion? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Black Kite 22:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Dbowiepic.jpg and African-American 'members'[edit]

Is it just me, or is File:Dbowiepic.jpg vandalism? Uploaded and inserted by a user with no other edits. I'll quote a recent OTRS ticket (2009101810030603) on the picture:

The man who wrote in is a photographer by trade who has offered to provide us with a new photo - and a rather good one at that - if we want one. As it stands, the current photo is clearly inappropriate, even if it is just his belt. Not being well-versed with commons, could someone 'do the needful' and alert the authorities there? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Metadata indicated it has been shopped. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd go ahead and accept the new image and replace it on the article. –xenotalk 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Metadata only indicate that it has been used in Adobe Photoshop. This could have been for simple colour correction, etc...but having looked at the picture, I'd agree with User:xeno and lets get the new photo into the article. Frmatt (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Dbowiepic.jpgxenotalk 19:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Matt57 crossing several lines in smear campaign against CAIR[edit]

A few days ago a new editor showed up at Council on American-Islamic Relations and inserted highly POV fringe material into the entry. I brought the matter up at the WP:FTN because I was myself quickly nearing 3RR. Soon after other editors showed up to assist in the matter, User:Matt57 made an appearance on the talk page to announce that everyone should "get ready for adding stuff" from this same fringe source. Ever since then he has engaged in tendentious and disruptive editing. Problems include:

  1. [59], [60], [61], [62] - edit warring over the inclusion of undue POV material in the lead
  2. [63] - making veiled and possibly threatening insinuations in an edit summary
  3. [64] - making false accusations about my religious identity which even if true is inappropriate, while also incorrectly claiming that his version is the "established" version of the entry
  4. [65] - deleting talk page comments with the same inappropriate commentary on the supposed religious identity of the IP who posted them
  5. [66] - taunting me with the same insinuation about my identity while expressing ownership issues with the article (since he "told" me not to delete something already)

The POV Matt57 is pushing is that of FrontPage Magazine, WorldNetDaily, and a variety of other anti-Muslim fringe sources. I understand that people have different perspectives on various current topics but fighting for one's POV should not include this type of uncivil behavior and disruptive editing practices. Matt57 has been around for years and clearly understands policy, guideline and convention here at Wikipedia. We should have zero tolerance for this type of behavior from our regulars.PelleSmith (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, this user was blocked several times in 2006 and 2007 for this same behavior. He's skated on the margins since then, based on the number of noticeboard complaints. I'm blocking this user for one month, with a warning that any further behavior along these lines will mean indef. Blueboy96 19:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems like a mix of reasonable and unreasonable edits. For example, I have trouble seeing how an image of a check from an allegedly terrorist organization should be in the article. FrontPage is probably more reliable than WorldNetDaily but not by much. I'd feel much better not using either as source unless their claims have been covered elsewhere. Even then, they should be used with explicit attribution. Given the past problematic behavior a block isn't unreasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking before I block[edit]

I almost blocked an account based on these contributions, but I thought I should get a second opinion first. Thoughts? TNXMan 20:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{test3}} warning. One more edit like this, and it's blocking time. -- The Anome (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocking immediately would've been fine. –xenotalk 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Go right ahead and block; I'll not disagree with that. -- The Anome (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, they kept right on going, so they get sent to the corner. TNXMan 20:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Dreamdesignernow and List of Mensans[edit]

The user Dreamdesignernow (talk · contribs) keeps adding the same NN to List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with WP:LINKSPAM to the subject's site, like this … they have been warned, but have added the same name 3 times in spite of a warning about WP:3RR. Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the warnings on the talk page are 100% clear to this user, so I left a clearly stated final warning and added the article in question to my watchlist- I'll be happy to block if she continues. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thnx … for an alleged member of Mensa, they're not very bright … re-test? :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

GA reviews[edit]

Hello, not sure if I'm in the right place, however please review the edits of User:Mayor of Gotham City. It appears that this user passed several WP:GA articles without being properly reviewed. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I undid Alamogordo, New Mexico as that was was clearly inappropriate given that another review was already working on it. The others should probably be undone as well, given that teh claims to have reviewed 5 articles in 13 minutes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 Done, all reviews undone. Can I have an admin's help in deleting Talk:Hong Kong/GA1, Talk:Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford/GA1, Talk:The Apartment (Seinfeld)/GA1 and Talk:James T. Kirk/GA1? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations[edit]

Resolved: Nothing for admins to do here, and the discussion is just going in circles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have been accused of a sockpuppet but no case has been filed and I consider this a slur on my wiki-name. I have never been blocked or involved in sockpuppetry and I am concerned with how this will impact on my reputation. If no case is filed, can I remove it or ask for it to be removed?

What I also find disturbing about this is the editor who has added the report names two other editors who they say it could be - surely, editors cannot accuse multiple editors of being a sockpuppet and hope that one sticks? It looks like they wish to run a fish-tripping on multiple editors.

In addition, they deleted a reply of mine to that page where I noted that I had received an email about this matter to make it look like it was something I was trying to hide rather than someone I noted myself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. You're BOTH (you and Benjiboi) admonished to put up or shut up regarding sockpuppet accusations and WP:BITEing. I totally agree that its likely that user is not a new user, but you have no basis for who they could possibly be a sock of. If they are a new user, you both bit them in an attempt to bully the other. If you can establish who they might be, you're free to bring a CU request but until then neither of you should reinstate those sock notices. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah - I hold my hand up on that - and will offer my apologies to the user about that - my anger at the false accusation got the better of me and I should have known better. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It's clear this is - yet another - attempt at WP:Baiting me and it's unfortunate that Cameron Scott invests sooo much energy in following me around. I guess I should be honoured they are obsessed with me. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly like having my good name thrown around by User:Benjiboi in all this as well. - Schrandit (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record both you and Cameron Scott have continued to heap piles of bad faith on me and this claimed concern about your wiki-reputations rings quite hollow, actually. If you didn't support banned editors using anon socks, blanketing articles with {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags with apparently no interest but in deleting material you apparently don't approve and, possibly most chilling - defending attackers and murderers as unjustly accused of hate crimes against LGBT people - none of this would likely be going on. Instead, bolstered by Wikipedia Review you nip at my heels and throw muck at my work until you hope something sticks. Essentially you're playing the worst sort of game and playing the community for fools. If you don't approve/like/condone LGBT people and culture than work on some of the other three million articles. If you don't care for another editor? Then avoid them, don't continually target articles they work on when you obviously have little to no interest in them. In short, move on. Your actions are disruptive and are counter to building good content. You work will make or break your reputations. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for more of the same vague accusations of bad faith that you have made previously and started this section. If you have a problem with my edits, I invite you to start a RFC and I'll be happy to stand on my record.Other well respected editors in the LGBT project have stated previously that they are happy with my edits and therefore I feel there is no case to answer. Otherwise I have no further comment to make here (as it only seems to encourage you in your accusations) unless invited to do so by an administrator or anyone else who is seeking answers. Otherwise I consider this matter resolved. --Cameron Scott (