Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588

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

Noticeboard archives



Resolved: CoW 2009 blocked indef by PeterSymonds -FASTILY (TALK) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Hagger on Wheels for Christmas I42 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Was quickly nipped in the bud. Nothing to see here now. I42 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reblock request

I am requesting editor DriveMySol be reblocked. The editor was originally blocked for persistently ignoring warnings against using uncited claims and original research. After the block was lifted the editor used some sources but still added a lot of uncited originally researched material to the New Wave Music article. Also the editor favors making large revisions to articles. After the block is lifted it would be a good idea if possible to prohibit the editor from making more then one or two sentence edits for a period of time. Edkollin (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. -FASTILY (TALK) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

IP with a long history of disruptive edits (talk · contribs) seems to attract complaints and conduct warnings from a great many users, as one can't help notice perusing the IP's talk page history and contribution history. There doesn't seem to be one specific problem, just the general pattern of being utterly uninterested in anyone pointing out his behavior runs afoul of various Wikipedia policies and community norms.

My encounter with the IP is on Talk:Mel Ignatow where they are continually adding their personal opinions on the trial the subject of the article was involved in, and reverting myself and another editor who mention that this really isn't what talk pages are for, per WP:NOTAFORUM. The IP claims their opinion on prosecutor actions will somehow improve the article, but it's a very thin and self-serving claim, they showed up to discuss their opinion on the trial, not the article, and have continued doing just that.

This should not be a big deal... but the IP continues in the face of objections to the point of being belligerent. As this is not even close to being the first time this has happened, I am submitting it here. Perhaps a block is in order, or perhaps someone with more tact can step in and resolve things through discussion. Ultimately I do think it looks bad for the talk page of a relatively controversial person to be filled with newspaper-forum style opinions.

I will notify the IP of this thread but their talk page indicates they will just remove the notice. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pretty much forum talk, I collapsed the discussion. It's not appropriate for any editor, much less an IP to have an entire section on their personal opinion of the trial, complete with saying the participants dressed like tramps and were hicks. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The IPs userpage was tagged as a sock of an indefinitely blocked serial sockmaster until the IP came along and blanked it [1]. Perhaps this merits an SPI investigation (without Checkuser obviously, as the main account is too old). The IP is clearly a sockpuppet per this [2] [3] -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Page should reverted and indefed by an admin. Also the IP who blanked it should be blocked as well. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not a sock and it's offensive to have to deny it. Also, the logic of these sock accusations is amazing - make edits that are well loved, no one accuses you, make edits that some don't like, get accused. FYI: I think I've done a good job of confining any controversy-generating edits to the talk page part of articles, so as to avoid disrupting the editorial flow of an article with a dispute. How about a little leeway here? The legal point I raised on Mel Ignatow talk page is absolutely correct, but difficult to find a source for - this is why I posted my reasoning, so as to seek help from other editors. Did anyone even READ the appeals court rulings I posted? The double jeopardy did not attach to the perjury and it would not have attached to the robbery - if those charges were not filed initially. The legal principles behind the failure of that case would be of certain interest to many who are puzzled as to how he got off so easily. It's a notable case -one that was recently shown on TV again- with a unique set of facts. It's worth team collaboration to improve the article. Accusing me and trying to chase we away is silly. I'm not causing trouble - No 3RR, no edit warring. Also, my talk page is indeed mine - it's a leased IP and only I edit from it. Why such hostility towards me as an IP editor? What's up with that? I think my statement on my talk page is polite and clear - there's no trouble here and it's not fair that I should be accused. (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


Hello. I'm new-ish to the Wiki so I don't even know if this is the correct place to post these concerns, but I have some worries about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond, which I started today. It appears that users who regularly contribute to related articles are !voting under what appears to be the influence of their personal preferences and claims that any article related to the topic is notable. Due to the holidays, I fear that a lack of traffic to said pages will cause the consensus to be swayed in a biased light due to these unruly practices. What can be done? WossOccurring (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't come and run to the administrators just because you don't like the way an AfD is going. There are plenty of sources for that article, just because you didn't do your homework and don't like it doesn't excuse dashing here and pleading for help. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTagstannary parliament─╢ 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that I don't like the article? Please read WP:CIVIL or you may find yourself blocked from Wikipedia. WossOccurring (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, for starters you nominated it for deletion, so it's reasonable to assume you don't like it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Also, be careful about throwing block threats around. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:N does not equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
But it's a reasonable assumption to make, and claiming that to be a blockable offense is arguably a civility violation also. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
That wasn't the issue; the problem was clearly TreasuryTag's short, snappy attitude. WossOccurring (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
You being a newbie, if you stick with it, over time you will find out what real incivility is. Or, if you're lucky, maybe you won't. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that a lot of advice on that arguments to avoid essay those shortcuts link to are indeed valid, especially WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, these are in the end arguments that are considered "weak" or "frowned up", but not actually "violations." A violation requiring admin help would be an argument that is not WP:CIVIL or perhaps one that is blatantly dishonest (such as saying that an article is only sourced by a website if all of the references are actually books). Weak arguments should be discouraged, but are not technically forbidden. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues are best addressed within the context of the AfD itself. The closing administrator will weigh all the views and arguments presented. In this instance, the worst thing that might happen is that we keep an article that was arguably created a couple of months too early, which in all honesty is completely harmless. I'd be more concerned if poor arguments were being used to retain a negative, dubiously sourced BLP article or the like, but absent that, the normal AfD process can be allowed to run its course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3???) WossOccurring, AfD can often become quite confrontational at times due to its very nature. Interpretation of guidelines on those along the margins of notability can be quite variable too. Spending alot of time there can get frustrating but to each his (or her) own :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only evil Daleks and Cybermen want to delete things. :( Cirt (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ec's) WossOccurring, I've not bothered to look into your history, but am WP:AGF that you are new-ish. There is no problem with a good faith AfD nomination. Let the AfD run it's course, if it is kept accept the fact with good grace. As said above, don't throw block threats around, these can have a nasty habit of backfiring. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, especially memory blocks, those are very sad. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be the second complaint over an AfD the user nominated that wasn't going the way he hoped. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#WP:CANVAS_and_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_YouTube_celebrities_.284th_nomination.29. It might be worth considering Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. This way, you can have an experienced editor as a mentor who should be able to help with knowing when it is worthwhile starting an ANI thread? Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note—this editor is still threatening to block me, and insisting on the rather extreme {{not a ballot}} template, but is refusing to give a reason for its use. Could someone look into the behavioural issues here, please? Ta :) ╟─TreasuryTagUK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
    So far we're assuming that he's making newbie mistakes. The facts of that template are understood; it doesn't need to be there. The nominator needs to understand that point. He also needs to curb his enthusiasm for blocking anyone who disagrees with him. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I've given WossOccurring some friendly advice, and pointed out a relevant fact re who can block and who can't. Hopefully the advice will be taken. Suggest a short block if there are further occurrences of threats to block editors. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Mjroots (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may just but in here (without wishing to re-open the can of worms) I'd suggest we could perhaps be a little less bitey and a little more willing to assume good faith on the part of WossOccurring who, according to popups has been editing for less than a month. I'm confident that both the AfD and this thread were initiated in good faith (if, with hindsight, perhaps mistaken) so perhaps it would do more good to point out, as Mjroots seems to have, ways for WossOccurring to improve his editing rather than pointing out his mistakes. HJMitchell You rang? 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this devolves into an edit skirmish, I'd like to hear an admin's opinion whether the "not a vote" template is needed on that AFD page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to but back in here but may I ask a simple question: does it really matter? There is no harm that could come from having it there and its removal would neither add to nor detract from the debate. HJMitchell You rang? 23:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
This specific item is now moot, since an admin has closed it with "keep". However, I would still like to hear something about the circumstances under which that template is supposed to be used. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
My preference would be that a variant of that template, tempered to be informative rather than challenging, be part of the default boilerplate on AfD nominations. It should be clear from the outset that it's not an election. PhGustaf (talk)

Vandalism and personal attacks by user user:Rahm Kota

The editor is engaging in edit warring in the articles Jediism and Tatooine. He is refusing to discuss the changes and leaving edit summaries like "Didn't mark it as minor, idiot, and it's a source. I FU-KING SAW IT IN THE NOVEL" [4] and "WHAT IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING A LINK THAT LEADS DIRECTLY TO THAT SECTION? HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THATM SMART GUY?" [5]. He has improperly tagged 2 edits at being done by a non-autoconfirmed user. And then the user has vandalized the users pages of those he disagreed with. He blanked user:EEMIV's user page and replaced it with "'FU-K OFF, JACKASS". [6]. Then he went to my user page and added "Hello, I am a retarded and condescending faggot." to the top of my page. [7]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In Rahm's defense (and as I wrote on his talk page), I did make a mistake in thinking he tagged a non-minor edit as minor. Also, I am a jackass. He's receiving both some helping hands and some template warnings/links to guide him. I don't think this necessitates an ANI response; if the editor persists in personal attacks, vandalism, 3RR and/or deliberate MOS violations, it can be handled through ARV. --EEMIV (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem, as I see it, and the reason I brought it here, is that he is completely ignoring the help he is being offered and just edit warring. I considered taking this to WQA instead, but the user page vandalism isn't the sole issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was drunk. I will try not to edit drunk in the future. Rahm Kota (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You were drunk for this and 4.5 hours later for this, and making a bunch of minute edits to hyphens, piped linking and undoing vandalilsm in between? Suuuuure. How about instead you simply offer, "I'll make a sincere effort to abide by policy and guidelines from here on out." --EEMIV (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes this hilarious is that you were editing an article on alcohol intoxication while intoxicated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I know I'm supposed to AGF, but that doesn't mean I have to believe everything I'm told. 2 hours between a personal attack on my user page to "Oops, I was drunk." Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have gone away, and has had plenty of time to sober up. I think this can be marked as stale/resolved and archived. --EEMIV (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes Needed at BLP AfD

WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Isaac Fine

This AFD has been open for a few days and most of the input so far has been by SPAs and meatpuppets. I haven't investigated the sources so I don't have an opinion on deletion either way, but it definitely needs some more eyes from neutral Wikipedians. (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And to make sure there are no BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

File renaming question

Not calling anyone out here, but numerous files were recently tagged as requiring a rename (see CAT:RENAME). See this example. The change requested is trivial and doesn't have much of an effect on the information given in the title. Should the renames be carried out? Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Has this been discussed anywhere? I can understanding moving articles but it seems really anal to shift hundreds of images just to change to an endash. If it has been discussed and there's consensus to do it then that's fine but my personal view is that it's not worth flooding the joint with image changes just to change to an endash. I mean, really, what's the benefit? It seems like something that should be at the bottom of our priorities. If it has to be done, maybe someone with a bot could do it so at least the RC and watchlists don't all have to be flooded. Sarah 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm not certain if it's been discussed before, which is why I brought it here. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say no just because it would drastically decrease usability to not be able to type out the image name. Prodego talk 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:DASH specifically excepts filenames from dash guidelines. The renames should not be carried out. ÷seresin 06:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the addition of the taggings, and they all seem to be out of the category. I'm not sure this user should be able to use AWB, given this flagrant error and the other problems he has had with mass-edits noted on his talk page. ÷seresin 07:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't aware of the exception for filenames on dashes. I'll not request such renames in future. I would have removed my own rename requests had I been asked first. Rjwilmsi 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While there′s certainly no rush I hope somebody eventually will make these changes (you know, after we fix all the article and category titles). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 09:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't hope so. We don't require filenames to be running English text (it is always nice, but not required), we don't want them to be so long that style issues matter, and we do want them to be accessible for use by actual editors - most of whom do not have an en dash key on their keyboard, but do have a hyphen. For article titles, one can simply use redirects for the hyphenated version, so there's no problem. For categories, redirection is profoundly obnoxious, but there seems to be a consensus that style issues are important for category titles. For filenames, redirection is profoundly obnoxious and there's no point in policing the style of something not widely displayed to readers. Gavia immer (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Salomon Isacovici Autobiography - Man of Ashes, an old dispute wants to use this forum to revive falce claims.

I created this page to honor the memory of my father who was a Holocaust survivor. There was an authorship dispute created by Mr. Juan Manuel Rodriguez who was hired to edit the work and I have the documents, cancelled checks and other documents that prove that this individual was hired as a paid writer do his work. He has been recognized as co-author. The work was published by University of Nebraska in spite of his threats and arguments. At this point he wants to bring his controversy to Wikipedia and use it as a forum, something that I will not allow even if it means a new legal war. I would prefer that the page be deleted altogether that to start an editing war that will only end up at the courts. Please let me put an end to this as I want my father to rest in peace.


Ricardo Isacovici —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the articles on your father and Rodriguez, as well as leaving a stern warning. Moving on, please refrain from anything that could be construed of as a legal threat. Users who use such threats, especially to influence Wikipedia content, are blocked with extreme prejudice. We have no problem if you want to seek legal remedies, but you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia while you do so. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This turns out to be somewhat complicated, as while the repeated additions by User:Hoolio9690 of original research about the dispute were completely inappropriate, it almost appears that the version of the Salomon Isacovici bio was not of neutral point of view, as it made various assertions that are disputed. Isacovici's book and the controversy over authorship surrounding it has been discussed in several scholarly sources, which I have added to the article. Thank you, Ricardo, for bringing the problem here; I hope you understand that while you are absolutely right that his article cannot and will not be used by Rodriguez (or his supporters) to pursue the dispute, neither can the bio only put forward your father's and your version of the events, as we are not a forum to honour people.
The article Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), is similarly problematic, as it lists the The Man of Ashes as a novel, which is precisely the hotly disputed (and critiqued) contention. [8][9] It is currently up for deletion, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) --Slp1 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sources by User:Erik

User:Erik has three times removed all the sources I added to Jagernaut (diffs: [10], [11], and [12]). The last time he did so after I had posted a very clear warning on his talk page in this edit. He refuses to discuss this on the article's talk page and seek consensus. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I notified User:Erik of this discussion in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eriks edit summary that states that the secondary sources provided are superflous because "all this information is basically found in the primary source" is not acceptable, as Wikipedia policy specifically states that "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Saddhiyama, Debresser fails to address why I remove the secondary sources. WP:WAF#Secondary information outlines how the sources should be used. Debresser does not use them in this way; he uses them to make it seem like the article is notable to save it from deletion. Erik (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I do not need to address this. You should not remove sources. Period. Now if these sources were quotes, that would be another issue. But I didn't see any quotation marks. Did you? Debresser (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
What is wrong with saving an article by providing sources? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a question: Are secondary sources supposed to be used to provide a real-world perspective of the fictional topic? (Hint: WP:WAF.) Follow-up question: Are they being used for that purpose in the article? If not, what are they being used for? Erik (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Jagernaut is posted for deletion as seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Before the AFD, this was the state of the article. Before I got involved, Debresser (talk · contribs) added secondary sources to the article as seen here. He basically cites secondary sources for passages of in-universe information. This is already easily done with the primary source, the book itself. Secondary sources, per WP:WAF, are meant to provide a real-world perspective about the fictional topic. I removed the secondary sources because they had no analytic purpose and added the primary source at the bottom as the reference in use; see here. Debresser complained about my removal of the sources without ever actually addressing my underlying concerns, as if the mere removal of references, inappropriately applied to pad the article to save it from deletion, was a notorious act on my part. I tried again and cited all passages with the one primary source here, because this is basically the same thing as the secondary sources and just boiled down to the essence. There is no point in citing a secondary source for basic information available in the primary source. I ask other editors to revert to my version away from these secondary sources that Debresser added to give the article the highly false appearance of being notable and well-cited. Erik (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
You should have raised your concern on the article's talk page. You refused to do so even after I told you this explicitely on your talk page. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The article is under AFD. Your misapplied secondary sources made it look like the article was notable and well-cited. They needed to be removed ASAP as not to mislead people involved at AFD. Erik (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Erik, secondary sources are always preferred to primary ones. Primary sources can also be used, e.g. for additional detailed information. There is no need to remove reliable secondary sources unless they have no relevance to the text, or are exact duplicates or translations of other sources. Whether an article is up for AfD or not is irrelevant. Crum375 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand that secondary sources are preferred, but consider the circumstances where they are being added. Before any references existed, the information came from the primary source. When the article was threatened, Debresser looked for any secondary source that made a passing mention of the fictional topic and added them to the relevant passage. Here is an example, the first book review: "Tensions escalate between the Skolians and their enemies, the Aristo Traders, in Nebula-winner Asaro's dizzying yet accessible SF soap opera, the 10th installment in her Skolian Empire saga and the first in a sequence exploring the childhoods of some of the earlier books' major players. Young Soz secretly applies to become a Jagernaut, a member of the Skolian elite fighting force, against the wishes of her father, Eldrinson. Soz's high scores and powerful psychic abilities guarantee her entry, but when her brother Althor comes to collect her, Eldrinson disowns them both. Soz's brother Shannon runs away, and when Eldrinson sets after him, Eldrinson is kidnapped and tortured by nasty Aristo Trader Vitarex, an event that presages war. Meanwhile, Soz, brilliant and difficult, excels at school, driven by her hatred of the Aristos and what they did to her father. There are plenty of exciting firefights, but the novel's focus on emotional connections, forgiveness, love and growing up will appeal more to a female than a male sensibility. YA readers will identify with the mostly teenage protagonists." "Jagernaut" in the review is only part of a summary. My bolded part is the only real application that the secondary source can have, at the book's article itself. Erik (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That is according to which Wikipedia guideline? Please do not make up policies to justify yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:WAF, which I advise you to read. Secondary sources about the original work need to provide the author or creator, other key figures of the creation process, e.g., the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels, the film or software company or publishing house, the design, the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative, real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element, for a fictional character in a dramatic production, the actor who portrayed the role and their approach to playing that character, foreign translations, its popularity among the public, its sales figures (for commercial offerings), its reception by critics, a critical analysis of the subject, and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. Now what do primary sources provide? The following: the birth and death dates of fictional characters, performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices, history of fictional locations or organizations, background information on fictional creatures, and the plot itself. Reviewing Jagernaut, it is overwhelming clear that this is information from the primary source, only reiterated by secondary sources. The secondary sources in the article do not provide any of the information outlined above for its kind. Erik (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that both parties cool off a bit. As the original nominator of Jagernaut for deletion, I am confused by Debresser's fervent defense of this article, while s/he acquiesced to the merger or deletion of a number of other topics drawn from the Saga of the Skolian Empire, topics which were much broader in scope than Jagernauts. Debresser even merged Saga of the Skolian Empire itself to the author's page, a move which I think should be reversed to allow these scattered articles a decent merge target. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
At that time Saga of the Skolian Empire was no more than a list of titles of books. Now I agree, and have proposed so myself, that all these articles be merged into one article. But not deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Erik has opened a talk page discussion now on the article's talk page, and has also apologised for being combative about this on his talk page, I propose to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy

Closing the discussion as it's going off topic and increasing tensions. Please create an RfC to discuss this further. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note after closure: Comment by de facto banned user struck. — BQZip01 — talk 08:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I got logged out

From time to time I experience getting logged out right in the middle of my editing work. I simply log in again, and that's it. But today, as I experienced it I wondered what could be the cause of this. I'd take this to the Village Pump if it wasn't because I got the idea that perhaps someone had logged into my account without my knowledge or consent. To check out that someone with checkuser would have to check out my login IP, and that's why I figure I'll make this post here instead of VP. __meco (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If no edits have been made that you didn't make I wouldn't worry about it. Why would someone compromise your account and log in, but not edit? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If they thought they had gotten hold of my password and wanted to check it out, perhaps. __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be pretty difficult unless someone knew your password, or if you regularly use public computers (like at a library or internet cafe) and don't log out when done, or someone is using malware to hack your sessions or something. Is your firewall and antivirus software current and working correctly? Have you told anyone your password or written it down someplace? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I do regularly use library and other communal computers. __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply logging into your account from another computer will not disconnect you or invalidate your cookies. That would only happen if the intruder has changed the password. It would also leave you unable to log in and ask the preceding question. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 09:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely, a user cannot be logged in from two IPs at the same time? Is that what you are stating? (Now, if someone with checkuser, with my explicit permission, would just take a peek at the logs, that would clarify the actual situation.) __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Checkusers can only see the IP address that edits arise from. If someone were to log in and not edit (which seems unlikely), there wouldn't be a log entry, as far as I know. ╟─TreasuryTagdraftsman─╢ 10:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I see, well then checkuser wouldn't be of any help obviously. __meco (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Surely a user can be logged in from two IPs at the same time. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. I thought that any previously existing session would be ended if I logged in from another IP. __meco (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That is what happens to me. However, a lot of users have two userids for this purpose: one that they use from "safe" locations, and a second they use from "public" locations. For example, you could have "Meco" and "Meco public" - this is allowed under our multiple accounts policy. The best piece of advice is if you use ANY account (bank, wikipedia, Facebook, etc) from a public location like a library or internet cafe, you should change the password for it immediately after getting home. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this happen to everyone? I thought the system automatically expired everybody's login once a month. In fact I would have thought that someone would reply with that answer right away, but since they haven't I'm wondering if maybe there's an option to turn that behavior off that I'm not aware of. In any case, it happens to me exactly once a month. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a possible explanation for why it happens to me and Meco but not most other people is that perhaps some people log out manually after a session, and others don't, in which case only the "don't" people will be forcibly logged out every 30 days. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that logging in somewhere else does not log you out elsewhere. I've certainly left myself logged in at home, then logged in at work, then still been logged in when I got back home again. I don't think you have anything to worry about - this is likely to just be a temporary cookie malfunction. I know that occasionally if my connection gets interrupted while accessing a Wikipedia page I find myself logged out when I reload. ~ mazca talk 14:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this is just the vagaries of cookies or MediaWiki. I can go 30 days without a logout quite easily, then have to log in three times in an hour. There's a monobook css hack somewhere (Wikipedia:Tools?) that changes the colour of the edit window when you're logged in, so you can spot if you've been logged out accidentally (coz it goes back to white). REDVERS 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm using that. I wouldn't even call it a hack; it's just a skin. Just add #content { background: [your favorite color];} anywhere in monobook.css and delete any other lines that begin with #content { background: if there are any. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Or of course if you routinely use another skin, it will revert to monobook. What is wierd though, is when it logs you out while you are in the edit window, because you don't see the change until you hit >save. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That′s why one effective hack is a simple Greasemonkey script which adds “&assert=user” to the edit-form. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Barack Obama article on a one-revert lockdown?

[17] - User:Jzyehoshua is threatening to edit war until he gets his way in the article. Woogee (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Please take it to arbitration enforcement. I also think he should be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Link to probation enforcement page.  Frank  |  talk  23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User constantly crediting themselves in photo captions

Resolved: User was blocked, now unblocked. This doesn't need any more attention. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Barrie Hughes has been constantly reverting me when I remove photo credits from captions (Wikipedia:Captions#Credits is perfectly clear on this matter. He has been in contact with me via email telling me not to delete his captions, I tried to explain that its against WP policy, to no avail. Could someone step in here, I don't think this user has any intent of stopping his disruption.

Diffs: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Thanks Jeni (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

reported as Promotion only account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently admin consider this a small issue[[26]]...Who knew you could reinsert promotional info eight times and it is only a few disruptive edits? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
To be fair you can hardly call the user a promotional account only, as only a very small percentage of the users collective edits are promotional, the rest seems quite constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Considering he was unaware of the guideline and they were his own pictures, which improve wikipedia, plus the rest of his edits, then yes, I wouldn't say its a promotion only account or that he should be blocked--Jac16888Talk 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet he still continues [27] despite being reverted by multiple people with multiple messages on his talk page. He is not unaware of the guideline, it has been pointed out to him more than enough times. Jeni (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've also left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok folks, what in the consensus is considered to be the level for promotion? Myself I think that eight times is escessive but I am also aware my opinion isn't policy here so let's hash this one out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
He most likely doesn't think of it as self-promotion, but acknowledgement of where the snaps came from, not knowing many editors here do see it as such and that acknowledgement belongs only on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I see he's been blocked for 12 hours. Note that he was also outing in edit summaries. He may not be aware of our policy on that. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As the user refused to listen, talk or stop adding his name, I've blocked him for 12 hrs (with much regret). He had provided useful content for years and appears disoriented in WP copyright and credit policies. This is where the talks should go. Materialscientist (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think just one mention of a credit name can be deemed promotional... many thousands of people [myself included] upload their own photographs to Wikipedia without crediting them on the article just isn't required. TeapotgeorgeTalk 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist has unblocked him, but he's very angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That did get a bit messy, but the root of the issue was actually his not communicating , lets let him alone.. hopefully he should calm down in a while. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Good faith editors can be very startled and upset when en.Wikipedia doesn't work the way they think it does/should from their outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If I could just ask, why was my comment removed, twice! Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
MS was trying to make the thread easier to follow, the posts are restored now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my sincere apologies to everybody - did not mean to offend, just tried to get to the user through edit conflicts. It seems over now. Materialscientist (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I can understand why Barrie would think it perfectly acceptable to be giving himself image credits. If you search for articles containing "image credit" or something similar, you'll see that it's something that seems to be becoming a problem. I can understand Barrie thinking he's been treated very unfairly when he looks around and sees heaps of other people having image credits in articles. We should really get these credits cleaned up. Sarah 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario and ownership issues

I recently came across StevenMario after I saw him edit warring on an article I had watchlisted - this user appears to have severe ownership issues on multiple cartoon and media related articles, inserting unreferenced opinions based on his own observations or unreliable sources (blogs and fansites), and constantly reverting anyone's contributions other than his own, and even going so far as to mislabel others removal of his unreferenced additions and speculation as vandalism. He also frequently edits without logging in (possible attempt to game the 3RR violations?) from a variety of IP addresses that all appear to be coming from one location. This editor apparently feels his actions are above question, and has threatened to report anyone who tells him otherwise. The user appears to be very young, and now appears to be publicizing an "enemies list" of those editors who have rightly taken issue with his "contributions". I'm frankly at a loss how to deal with him, as he doesn't appear to want to productively discuss things with anyone. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd just boldly remove the "enemy-list" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
NB: I'm not sure I'd have done that. First, Seb isn't an administrator and his suggestion has no binding force! And secondly, the idea has never really taken off the ground before. Still, we'll see what happens ;) ╟─TreasuryTagprorogation─╢ 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm - I thought he was an admin - his user page claims that he is on the Navajo one... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I am. But that has nothing to do with the English wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should assdd (funny typo) a note under the box for that. I was simply giving my opinion. Also chimed in on his "commands" warning on his talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Seb, I think you need to change that box even more. You're basically using the en Wikipedia administrator userbox but just linking to the nv userlog for verification, and most people will see the colour and layout of the box and assume you're an admin here (as people here have been) without actually reading it or the thing below. Also, you're linking to the en WP administrator policy which is a policy that doesn't apply to you or cover your actions on this Wikipedia. I think it's too misleading and you should consider either removing it or using a box that's different to the en admin box and much clearer because I can pretty much guarantee that people are going to glance at your userpage and see that box and assume you have admin rights here and are speaking/acting as an admin. Specially when you're commenting frequently on admin matters and ANI reports etc. You could use one of the white background admin boxes, like Daniel's (User:Daniel/Userboxes) which aren't specifically known as en admin boxes and are much more multipurpose. Sarah 08:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
An enemies list is kind of uncivil. On the other hand, a couple of the editors on that list are deletionists obsessed with deleting "trivia", so they have their own "ownership" issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd say an "enemies list" could be construed as a personal attack on those editors, though, of course, he is free to disagree with them within the bound of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the 3RR. That said, minus the possible attack, it's not really an ANI issue. HJMitchell You rang? 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
It's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I'd suggest WP:ANEW or some form of dispute resolution would be a more prudent venue for the complaint. Although I would say that someone (probably an administrator) should offer a few words of warning on that "enemies list". HJMitchell You rang? 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought about filing a 3RR report, but this editor has been bouncing back and forth from editing his username and IP addresses, and over so many articles, that filing a proper report would be damn near impossible - at the moment. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any credible evidence of that? If so, it's sockpuppetry and you should file an SPI. However, that's a little extreme and I'm sure you have better things to do, so why don't you try to engage this person in conversation and explain the relevant policies if need be. Also, for the record, making less than four reverts in a day does not necessarily exclude a situation from being an edit war, so, if your attempts at discussion are unsuccessful, you may still wish to take it to WP:ANEW. HJMitchell You rang? 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't have any outright proof - however, there's an entire series of anon IPs, all from Bellsouth in or around Atlanta, who also revert to StevenMario's versions - he's never edited either his user or talk pages from the IPs, however, so there's no direct connection - but these IPs (such as,,,,,, or follow his edit contributions almost exclusively. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
If the various IP's are consistently aiding and abetting the skirting of 3RR, then filing an SPI would seem to be in order. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll go do it since there is nothing to do right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)



I placed a final vandalism warning on the talk page for AlyciaBellamyMediaInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) several days ago, and the cycle of edits has begun again. It's always false and unsupported things buried in a surrounding of reasonable seeming edits. Today, reasonable looking edits for formatting included an apparently bogus reference to Romanian ancestry. Before that, it was false information in Mariah Carey articles. Previously, it was an elaborate set of edits about a "Chantelle Beyince" that was purported to be a French-Canadian relation of Beyonce Knowles. None of those edits checked out as being factual. Her talk page also contains accusations of vandalism relating to Keshia Chanté, but I haven't been able to evaluate those. I note that the vandalism of the Beyonce Knowles articles included obliterating references to Keshia Chanté.

It's clear to me that this is an editor motivated by a desire to place false information into Wikipedia. To date, she has made no attempt to justify her edits on any talk page, despite several warnings from multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. User has only introduced factual errors and has taken no time to discuss any of the matters. — ξxplicit 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry and Happy Christmas!

Is there any chance of a Christmas truce on Wikipedia?—Finell 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Between whom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Mission impossible. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Well that might be true, we could always move the Dramaout to around Christmas next year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of us were too busy with our off-Wiki lives to notice whether a Christmas truce actually happened. Then again, some of us had really crappy Xmasses off-Wiki (in this or previous years) that a truly lame edit war would have been preferable to Real Life (tm). (In other words, Wikipedia doesn't suck as badly as it actually could suck.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Editors who are willing to help out with a Christmas / New Years truce are cordially invited to take a Mediation Cabal case or six, as there's something of a backlog at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking blocked User:Breathing Dead

Hi, I think that it was a mistake to have blocked User:Breathing Dead. I was looking over his edits, and the edit that seems to have gotten him blocked looks to me like it was in good faith. I disagree with the decision made by User:Gwen Gale in blocking this user, and think that in the dispute between this user and User:Gwen Gale, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides. In general, I think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they participate in. This user made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, this is certainly not a vandal account, the "sockpuppetry" seems to be due to the use of multiple proxy servers and is not clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to appear to be multiple users (since even when posting from other IP addresses this user identified himself as User:Breathing Dead). I think this user should be unblocked so that they can continue their positive contribution which have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this came to your attention, since it happened before you ever edited Wikipedia? In any event, I have just changed their block parameters so they can request unblock themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, a photograph uploaded by this user. School vacation = time to spend looking at random wikipedia pages :) CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S I wonder if it's possible to automatically unblock/leave a nice note for this user? I don't know if he is still on wikipedia, but it seems to me that the pictures that this user uploaded were really positive contributions to the site. Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral here, but all but one of the socks are suspected. Should we e-mail him since he might not check back here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd suggest a note for GwenGale as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(re notification: Gwen Gale has been notified, but the ANI mention is far down in the text.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think socking is the main reason this editor was blocked. This editor was a POV warrior, refused to listen to multiple editors who tried to discuss matters with him, and basically accused anyone who disagreed with him of being a terrorist [28] [29]. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
(Disclosure/COI: I am [in] dispute with Gwen Gale in another matter).

I mention this only because of the serendipity of timing. See WP:Thou shalt not block for being mocked recently created (by an admin, not me, following a topic at AN). And I see that the discussion where exchanges took place was also (by happenstance^^) happening during a discussion I was having with Gwen Gale at the time. (A different matter than current dispute, I mention only due to coincidence of timing — which for the holidays sounds like a good enough reason. Hopefully most folks are busy creating delightful holiday memories, rather than scrutinizing diffs at ANI. -)

There is a broader issue (Admin/editor interaction) of WP:CIVILITY here about administrators treating the comments of editors who are frustrated by the administrators actions as "personal attacks," and blocking for that. IE., Perhaps, e.g., the Ahmadinejad comments might be considered in the realm of hyperbole (mockery?).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Ahmadinejad comments are indeed hyperbole, and I don't think that the other editors involved in that dispute were particularly civil either. Here are a couple of more edits from this user--all of the edits that this user made to actual articles seem to me to be good-faith edits | 1, | 2, | 3. Also, this user made a couple of comments | 1, | 2to other users that suggest that he was under particular stress at the time that he was blocked.
I also found an archived version of this user's userpage, | 1. Actually, I am concernced for the real-life wellbeing of this editor, given his admirable adherance to the WP:BOLD policy and the political views that he expressed on his user page. I think his userpage should be restored--I really hope this person is ok and able to resume his bold wikipedia editing. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I don't hope he's able to resume his "bold editing". His "bold editing" was extremely rude and aggressive and not acceptable. If he is to be given a second chance - and if he even wants one - then he's going to have to agree to some pretty strict terms. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I think that my comment about "bold editing" was unclear. I'm not talking about the talk-page edits, but about the excellent photographs and article edits added by this user.
While there's only one in the confirmed sock category, if you look at some of the suspected ones, they're blatantly obviously him. Thirsty for Truth (talk · contribs) pretty much admits who he is. I've only had a pretty cursory look at the accounts but he seems to have been a very disruptive and unCIVIL user. Taking good photos is all very well but people don't contribute in a vacuum and they have to be able to work with and collaborate reasonably with other people and if they can't, they're obviously not in the right place. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of diffs like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the point you're trying to make with this diff. The commment that User:Breathing Dead blanked with the apology "Sorry, sounds like you have no interest in humanitarian things!" is a request that Jimbo write to human rights organizations to ask that an Iranian film director, Mitra Farahan, be freed. The information in this talk page note is accurate by the way; see | this Guardian article. The first paragraph of the blanked comment ("Dear Sir, I know this website is an Encyclopedia and not a forum or whatever and this page is a talk page to resolve the problems within Wiki. But this problem is a matter of life and death...") sounds like an exaggeration if you haven't been following what's happening in Iran (which I hadn't, as of a month ago). But actually, User:Breathing Dead's concern for Mitra Farahan's life is quite reasonable; see Zahra Kazemi. Of course, as User:Breathing Dead himself pointed out, the letter doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. But given that the note is on a talk page, not an article, that it's factually accurate, that it really did pertain to a life and death issue, and that he blanked it himself with an apology, it really doesn't seem like something to block him over. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This individual edit didn't result in this editor getting blocked, however, it shows the mindset the editor brought to any attempt at communication. You can check the diffs above, or on his contribs page (or those of his socks) for more easily-found evidence. He had some good edits, however, he seemed to treat wikipedia as a battleground. Whatever may (or may not) have been going on in his personal life doesn't excuse him from civility and the basic rules of wikipedia. His tendency to take everything as a personal attack and return in kind didn't endear him to other editors who were extending good faith, and his socking to continue the attacks after being blocked bears that out.
If he wishes to appeal the block, that'll be another matter. I'd support his return if he can keep a lid on the incivility, but until he asks, there's no point in discussing it. Beeblebrox has been nice enough to unlock his talk page, if he returns, we can deal with that when it happens. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Breathing Dead's edits to actual articles are all good faith, and many are very useful and continue to greatly improve articles articles. For example, see File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, which is used to illustrate two articles, Iran_student_protests,_July_1999 and Timeline_of_the_2009_Iranian_election_protests. Also see File:Grave_of_Neda.jpg, which is used in the article Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan. It's true that User:Breathing Dead posted some comments that violate WP:CIVIL (possibly due | the real-life stress that this user was experiencing that the time he was blocked. But, our goal is to make as good an encyclopedia as possible. An editor who takes great photographs (especially on topics that it may be otherwise difficult to obtain appropriately licensed photographs) is an invaluable contributor to wikipedia, and in my opinion blocking this user was a really unfortunate mistake which probably resulted in some articles currently being not as good as they would otherwise have been. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith editors stray from policy and get blocked for edit warring and personal attacks all the time here. The block had nothing to do with any lack of good faith. If after all this time, the editor asks for an unblock whilst trying in any way to acknowledge the worries they stirred up, it's highly likely they'll be unblocked. They may even already be editing much more peacefully through another account and if so, I think very few editors would mind that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Undo Page Move


Can an admin undo the mess made by cutting and pasting Kesha (singer) to Ke$ha? The undiscussed move was done here against the consensus achieved last month and has lost page history. --NeilN talk to me 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The diff of the cut-and-paste move was actually here; note that the newer edit of those two was previously at the title "Ke$ha". Graham87 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to stir up drama, but...

resolved Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

...I think this needs some attention. I nominated 2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii for deletion.

  • Original author, after seeing more delete than keep-votes first changed my nomination and added two other articles about attempted Obama assassinations.
  • After that failed he put up his own AfD for all three articles. (resolved)

I'm only bringing this up since I don't know what other stunts he's planning on... (notified)
Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems a good faith editor, even if probably a bit new to the thing. Have you tried to discuss with him before bringing the matter at AN/I? --Cyclopiatalk 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) is to stick to the AfD-discussion and argue your point. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The new article, being copy and paste without attribution, breaks our licences, let alone any other problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Yepp, that's just one of the problems... is there a deletion-cat for this? I tried A10, but that was removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I've speedy closed the AfD he put up for all three articles, as one is undergoing AfD, it was malformed, and pointy. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Good. So what are we doing about the lumped one with respect to attribution licensing? As it stands, it has to go. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) - I am not talking of the AfD, I am talking of the AN/I you presented. What is the point of an AN/I if you don't want people to comment on it? I found the AN/I notice on the author talk page. About the new article, I didn't think about copyright problems when I removed the CSD -my fault. Put the appropriate CSD tag if copyright is the reason, and let's delete it, in this case. --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

the line you quoted was w/ respect to him, not you, your comments are welcome.
I'm just at a loss right now. Is there a category to delete this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I would have deleted it as an A10 duplicate article if you hadn't removed the template. Are you happy about me deleting it? I'm a bit worried about 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan - I'd say it belongs in Kevin Rudd's own article, not as a separate one. I've put some welcome cookies on this guy's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
So we'll make it A10? I can do that, but I'm not gonna edit-war on this. Cyclopia what say ye? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan: you know that something's rotten in the land of Wikipedia when an article about an event spends more time discussing why it is supposed to be notable, rather than discussing the event itself. Just look at the current version. So many more efforts were spent to convince us that this event is notable than to describe the actual visit. The second sentence in the lead: "It was notable, like the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China, as an important visit." [Why? Was there a comparison between these two visits in reliable sources?] Following sections: "The visit was covered by the foreign press, not just Australia and Japan." "Even the press in India, covered the trip demonstrating notability." "It was also covered in other countries besides India." I don't dispute these facts; but, apparently, anything is notable as long as the actual main-space article goes "it is notable... it is notable... it is notable..." -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


Could somebody please explain to him now what AfDs are for? He put up the next one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Emergency disruption help needed

No reason to keep this expanded since the situation has been resolved. ArcAngel (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved: No action is necessary here. JB50000 is a new editor and is overreacting to a non-situation. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Seb az86556 is redirecting the page. If she/he opposes the article simply discuss it and, if that is not successful, file an AFD. Do not edit war. Consider warning the user and advise her/him that if she/he hates the article, just file an AFD JB50000 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The artile is

I don't believe it. Somebody tell him. And explain to him [[what AfDs are for. See earlier post above... I am at a loss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You may want to look at this edit here (in particular, the edit summary), where a different, experienced editor redirected the page with valid reasoning. As such, there is no issue here as the article is now being redirected appropriately. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

reopened and logical way to solve it

Resolved: editor informed about legal situation Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
This editor is not uninvolved and an uninvolved administrator should give fair advice. Please stop closing this, Choyool because you are the one in dispute. You are not the judge! Please just be patient!

Proposed article:

ArcAngel has made an error because he cites that he is following the logic of editer Hunter Kahn. However, Hunter is not an uninvolved editor. Hunter has spent a lot of time creating 2 articles about 2 minor assassination scares. After careful study, I (and not only me but a few others) think that they should be merged into one article about scares. I created an article to do that. But Hunter probably fears that his articles will be merged into it and wants his own articles. He should get a pat on the back for effort in writing but not for his logic against merging. But ArcAngel should not condone blanking out an article and redirecting it since there has been no discussion about the redirect or even an AFD.

Requested action: an administrator says "this issue should be settled by not redirecting it without discussion, instead, restore the article and discuss an AFD or merge". This is the calm way to deal with it. I accept a deleted article or a redirect if calmly discussed, not heavy handed redirect. JB50000 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The way you created this thing by copy-paste is in conflict with wikipedia's attribution-licensing and cannot remain lest we face copyright and/or creative-commons violations. The redirect is a quick-fix solution to avoid such calamities. Mergers such as the one you propose are not done by copying and pasting into a new page, but by performing a page-history merger after consensus to perform one has been established. You have been informed about this earlier on your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
It was put up for AFD and the consensus was Speedy Keep, so there was discussion on it. ArcAngel (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Just a railroaded discussion, why the rush to speedy it? JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
GFDL says we can copy anything in Wikipedia. There was no discussion on the redirect. The speedily keep did not reject merging. The speedy mistook the request for a pointy request when it was really an attempt for fairness and uniformity. The merge is an even better neutral handling and logical move. ArcAngel, the best way to handle this is to just let some others chime in. You can see that I'm not serially reverting but calling for some discussion, not just 5 minutes then shutting discussion down. JB50000 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolution: Chooy, ArcAngel, and JB5000 will stop adding comments for 12 hours. Other administrators will not close this. Others will just add useful comments and opinions. Muzzling people or closing down discussions is just disruptive and pours fuel on the fire! JB50000 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, you did not perform a merger, you did a copy-paste. Our current license is CreativeCommons3 which calls for attribution. (GFDL cannot be applied to content that was added after November 2008.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to avoid spreading misinformation, our current license for most content is the disjunction of CC-BY-SA-3 and GFDL; that is, most new textual material is still licensed under the GFDL, but since November 2008 all such material is also licensed under CC-BY-SA-3. See foundation:Terms of Use, linked on the bottom of every page of every WMF wiki, for more on this. Gavia immer (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more precise. Thank you. The attribution-question still applies though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, both licenses do require attribution, and in practice that means that we must have an intact and traceable article history, since that is our primary method of attribution. Gavia immer (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

12 hour block of disruptive editor

User:Seb_az86556, aka Choyooliihi, should be blocked for disruption. She/he keeps marking the above section as resolved when she/he is an involved party and cannot shut down discussions like this. Just be an adult, state your opinions, and let others chime in. Don't just muzzle discussions. If I did that, I could mark all of ANI as resolved. This user has been told of this but persist in this very disruptive stunt. JB50000 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Look -- the legal question is settled, and thus resolved. Your copy-paste cannot stand. If you want a merger, you can start a merger discussion, and we have templates for that: {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, and {{mergefrom}}. You are welcome to use them.

In the meantime, I have gone ahead and fixed the second AfD you started since it was incomplete.

Where there any other concerns? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

JB50000 (again) and reopening of AfD hours after I closed it

JB50000 requested closure of this section, so be it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

JB50000 (talk · contribs) is new but also being very disruptive. Unhappy with the progress of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii he opened what I saw as a pointy AfD for that article and two others under the heading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee which I speedy closed as an attempt to make a WP:POINT and as it was a duplicate AfD for the Hawaii article. Within hours, instead of going to DRV, he opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/2 which didn't include the Hawaii article. Part of his nomination statement says "Since another article has significant delete support, the same standard should apply. That's like speeding, you don't execute one driver but give a medal to another speeder. I think the best compromise would be to merge all 3 assassination plots so we can see and compare the 3." And he doesn't actually want anything deleted, he !votes for 'Merge all 3 articles'. Would someone else please deal with this so he doesn't see it as personal? Of course my original close is open for review, but I think it was correct. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see I am being very helpful and not disruptive by not reverting back, unlike Choyool. I also see that there is a merge process. Unless there are objections, I will close this as there is nothing for administrators to do unless someone wants to help fix any merge proposals that I might make. JB50000 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly what several people have been trying to tell you since... yesterday. Go ahead with your merger-proposal, that's the way to do it. Excellent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a nicer tone of message. Let's close this section and the one above. JB50000 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping

There is a pattern emerging with at least three (I suspect more) accounts. A new account is created, an existing user's userpage is copied to the new user's talk page and user page, then the same spam link is added to a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone here has seen this before and knows who is behind it (i.e. who the original sock is) or whether this is simply a spammer abusing multiple accounts. Either way I suspect someone here has the time/skill to stop it.

--Biker Biker (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same case discussed below and also previously. Whoever the puppetmaster is, they are very intent on placing their links. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User Off2riorob: Bad faith

Archiving as clearly nothing to answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal

There's an active IP-hopping block-evading vandal vandalising articles, often (but not always) making references to Dakota Fanning in their edit summaries. They seem to particularly like editing the Ron Guenther and Iron Man (film) articles, although they have also edited many others. They are very actively evading blocks at the moment.

Some sample IPs:

The address ranges 201.13/16, 201.42/15 and 201.92/15 are all listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP"

-- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is in violation of 3RR at Iron Man, everything else aside, IMO that and the personal attack in the edit summary are blockworthy. I'll check the rest out unless an admin beats me to it and blocks them. HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad case. It appears that the IP originally tried to discuss this issue with Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) but was so frustrated by COM's rude response, has reverted to uncivil interaction, block evasion and WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
He was banned long before he and I had ever interacted. Learn the facts before wasting our time. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo; and also note that 200.158.192/18 is also listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP" -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Their edits are getting more and more aggressive: see the edits of (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), and they've range-hopped again to (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), on the same ISP, address range 189.46/15. -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: reverse DNS addresses are of the form:

It looks like are either giving out very short address leases, or this user has access to a large number of DSL lines. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs •