Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595

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

Noticeboard archives


The Eyeopener: Vandalistic vandals vandalize[edit]

Some folks from "The Eyeopener" decided to vandalize the wiki:

Since they freely admit in their piece that they already know wikipedia policy, and are flaunting it anyway, I guess that's a near no-brainer sanction.

If we're feeling particularly nice we could tell them the have 24 hours to fix their own mistakes? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit has been reverted, and was the only one carried out by that IP. If anybody feels the need to comment on the article, feel free to do so. Interestingly, all of the comments on their page are vetted by their editors. Hmmmm... Throwaway85 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sigh That article irked me. I wrote the following to their editor-in-chief in response:
As an editor of Wikipedia, let me begin by expressing my disappointment in you. There is nothing clever or noble about vandalizing something that countless thousands of people put countless thousands of hours into making. You are in no way providing a service to your readers. You are behaving like bored teenagers, plain and simple. You changed a single digit in an article about your institution. Congratulations. For three days visitors might have thought your library to be slightly taller than it is. Are you fulfilled now? Is there some aching pit within you that has been filled by your miscreancy?
Your actions are not only rude, but unethical. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, built entirely by volunteers, and offered free to the world. We don't ask anything in return for this bevy of information, save a modicum of respect. Many of your readers refer to us daily, and are quickly able to find free, reliable information on any topic under the sun. Does Wikipedia get vandalized? Of course it does. We have hundreds of editors patrolling recent changes 24/7 just to repair the damage vandals do. Misguided and thoughtless actions such as yours do not help. Are there problems with allowing anyone to edit? Undoubtedly. Without that credo, however, the project would not exist. Take a look at Citizendium to see what a closed model produces.
Wikipedia is at the forefront of ushering in a new age of information, instantly accessible and free to all. You wrote a hack piece on a tired subject to fill whitespace in a college newspaper, and damaged the project to do so. Is this the "award-winning journalism" of which you boast? Are these the investigative journalists who will be breaking the Watergates of tomorrow? Shall you hold a mass rally before all of Ryerson's students and proudly proclaim, "Look! Look at what we have done in your name! Aren't we clever? Aren't we pithy? Are we not deserving of your praise?"
Grow up.
Proud Wikipedian.
Think I went too far? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, you probably didn't go far enough. Should have included that hypocrisy bit... Tan | 39 14:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Not the first time the media has done this:
Stay in Touch (January 16, 2007), "Scandals, but it's true, surely". Sydney Morning Herald.
Hypocrisy, indeed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy war (sort of)[edit]

An anonymous editor is visiting various articles and changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" (example). While it is generally true that the term preferred by the Vatican is simply "Catholic" (presumably a matter of primacy for their brand of Catholicism), in most instances these changes have been made despite sourcing explicitly stating "Roman Catholic". Various editors have tried to explain this problem to the anonymous editor (who was blocked for this behavior at one point), but the editor continues this "crusade". To complicate matters, 3 separate IP addresses have thus far been involved:

I am not sure what action can be taken (if any), but I would appreciate some advice about how to approach this problem. Up until now, I have been reverting the anonymous edits in instances where the sourcing specifically says "Roman Catholic" and leaving the others. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also been involved, reverting more than User:Scjessey. I am in agreement with his concerns. Note that the edit histories of this user include wildly incorrect statements. It may seem persuasive to say "just call them what they call themselves", but he makes up falsehoods about what they call themselves. See a long list at User talk: of cases that I tracked down. Tb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Also note that many of the anon user's edits are entirely careless search-and-replace edits which break wikilinks, categories, and other such things. Tb (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Note as well that User: was blocked a few days ago in connection with this. Tb (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm a little disappointed by the lack of administrator interest here, even if it's just to tell me it's no big deal and I shouldn't worry about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge about rangeblocks to do one without risking collateral damage. I'd suggest semiprotecting the articles but the scope is too wide. Hopefully an admin with skills I lack will come along. I don't think that it's not a big deal. -- Atama 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a range of, which would block up to 16,384 IPs. I don't think we'd block that many potential users for long, but perhaps an anon softblock for 3 days might concentrate the mind. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed:

and I'm sure many others. Unfortunately, this range is shared by many editors. I've blocked the most recently used one for 31 hours. Jayjg (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was wretchedly tedious, but I've gone through all those. How can I find others? Tb (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD closer needed[edit]

Resolved: RfD closed. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved administrator close the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Wikipedia Watch. It's been open about a fortnight and hasn't attracted any new comments since the 31st and that last contribution by someone who hadn't previously expressed an opinion was at midnight on the 28th, so it seems likely that the debate has run its course.

Full disclosure: I am one of the people who has been strongly advocating an opinion regarding this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Evading block[edit]

User: 190fordhouse was blocked for 2 weeks concerning sockpuppeting and making controversial edits, but I believe that the user is using this IP address to make edits I thought that editing while blocked isn't legal.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this investgatied before the IP adress is blocked. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
At a glance I don't see it. If you're really convinced, go to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I would pray that Beeblebrox is correct. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, at first glance I see nothing either. They haven't even edited any of the same articles, and the IP seems to be enditing English music articles, whereas fordhouse seemed to be editing Spanish ones at the time of their block. In addition, the IP was editing at the same time as fordhouse, while the latter was unblocked. Carmaker, is there any specific edits you feel are particularly ducky? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Drama over then? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The drama might not be over. I left this comment on the blocking admin's talk page, User talk:MuZemike with no response and just noticed this thread:

"I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family."

And since that message Runaway (Janet Jackson song), (You Drive Me) Crazy, Ghetto Love (Da Brat song) and Sittin' on Top of the World (Da Brat song) could be added to that list. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Launch a investigation. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. I'm 100% sure. I.P.'s starting with 67.85.17 should be monitored closely, as most of the I.P.'s starting with that made such edits. User: Hammond1993 is a creation of User: 190fordhouse. They need to be reported for that reason. I am very thankful that User: Throwaway85 and User: Aspects have noticed this new profile and I won't need to do this alone. However, I would appreciate it if some users would not approach this matter in such a sarcastic manner, as if we feel that there is a problem we should be able to contact administrators without feeling like a bother. That is better, than us personally going against guidelines to blast a troublesome user. Other than that, thank you all who have been helpful.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Carmaker1 I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have realized the problem is bigger and also older unfortunately--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered something today that proves this is a bit bigger than I thought. User: 190fordhouse(and their skpts) and User: Hammond1993 come from a long line of sock puppets first originated by User: 995Star. This user was blocked for holding over 10 sock puppets: here's proof. This needs to be handled.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Carmaker1 you are the best man for the job and therefore should handle the case from this point on. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96 and sock[edit]

Resolved: Blocks and warnings handed out. GedUK  15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May an admin please look at

The userpage is inappropriate and linked to various articles. I have patiently warned the kid and undone the linking, but since they have now created a sock, and did not redact their page and instead copied it to their sock account and to mainspace (Musculion) and continued linking, it seems like time for administrative action. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the contributions of both accounts and they have both participated in the TKO article at least; So if you think the other account is disruptive, should we block both of them? I'm not an admin so I can't block users yet I'm afraid. Minimac94 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
User:Musculion looks like another sock. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks and deletion requested[edit]

The editor has not yielded or responded to my friendly words [1], and is still active generating and expanding WP:FAKEARTICLEs on all of his accounts:

Can an admin please delete the userpages per WP:FAKEARTICLE, indef the socks, and block/issue a final warning to the puppeteer. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

—sure looks like a sock to me...maybe the person should just have one account and they can make a link to their myspace or something. not sure about what the message they are communicating, obviously advertising personal affiliation with illegal gangs or numbers of dead is a contraindication to Wikipedia's way...without getting into what they (can or cannot) have on their personal page, the puppets have to go. --Avé 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 66truekillerobituaries99 (talk · contribs) and Musculion (talk · contribs), and warned Tko96 (talk · contribs). GedUK  15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How many Y's in Bobby?[edit]

Resolved: The two recent VOAs were blocked by User:Syrthiss. –xenotalk 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody look into

Some of them are old, some recent, some blocked, some aren't -- but something's weird... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if any action is required here. Nothing to say these are related... –xenotalk 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suspect that people called Bobby wanted to create an account, so kept adding Ys till they found an available one, then moved on. GedUK  15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The two I blocked were related, imo, since 5ys was making userpages for 4ys and then replied on my talkpage when I warned 4ys for vandalism. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. –xenotalk 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
But did they ask you Y they were blocked? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 15:03, 5 February 2010

Vandalism to Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-Lot article[edit]

Resolved: User warned. --Taelus (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday I reverted Two edits by, however, I had to revert them manually, by going into the article and removing the vandalism, I couldn't undo the edits, since the user made two edits, and since the Second one was made, I couldn't revert the First One. I can't use Twinkle or anything like that, since I am using Internet Explorer, and it is only available for Firefox. Now today, sometime earlier, the user went on and vandalized it again. This time only one edit was made, and I reverted it, telling them to stop it. The edit is vandalism since the user keeps changing the title to "Adventurez in Care-a-lot",and putting in false characters, like someone from X-Men. Also, the user had made edits calling characters drunk (such as Bedtime Bear), and did other things, like putting in fake episodes. I would report it to the Vandalism board, but since the edit was made a few hours before I came on, I don't think that would be appropriate,since I didn't get the edit right away. Could someone please do something about this, maybe block the user or something? I would appreciate it if something was to be done. Abby 92 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI you can view an old revision of the page (before the vandalism), edit it, and hit save to effectively roll back to that version. –xenotalk 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
User has been warned, no more action really required here. --Taelus (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I warned them, but if they do it again, can someone please do something when I report it? I doubt any vandal listens to warnings. Abby 92 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If they continue to vandalise, then you may continue to warn them, increasing the level of warning each time. If they continue past their final warning, report them to WP:AIV for quick attention from an admin. For more in-depth information about the warning system, check out WP:WARN. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)



User talk:Charlycrs--->lots to fix --and talk page deleted--> Not sure what to do here..he/she has been asked many time to stop the odd capitalizing. No response to talk pages by this user. I am here to find out how we can stop this..without loosing the editor. ANY help would be appreciated...this user is causing lots of work for other editors! ...............Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked.. Seven attempts were made to discuss the situation, a block will either stop them or force them to at least discuss matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You are right is upto that user to talk to us at this point!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Checkuser confirms the ip and Srwm are the same user, named account indef blocked, WP:RTV denied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after (talk · contribs) is blocked, Srwm4 (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in like 3 years, turns up defending the IP. They also have a common interest in Massachusetts subjects, and the IP geolocates to Mass. I'll be posting this on Srwm4's page shortly in case he wants to defend himself. But it looks like "quacks" to me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some 6,593,587 people living in Massachusetts. How many page views come from the Commonwealth each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talkcontribs) 07:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Of those, you're the only one that turned up 4 minutes after the IP was blocked, to pick up where he left off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
By that logic, it is safe, then, to assume that you are in fact User:Mike Searson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talkcontribs) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
If you've got concerns with the way Searson addressed that IP (and you might have a point), then you could take it to WP:WQA. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the "common interest in Massachusetts subjects" that you alluded to in your initial complain, please? I do not seem to see any such history.

If you care to look, I live in Ohio, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talkcontribs) 07:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What user ID have you been editing under during most of the last 3 years? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have edited an article about Xavier University (Cincinnati) numerous times if you care to look, including substantial expansions of the article. Has Cincinnati been annexed to Massachusetts without my knowledge?

And as a point of fact, I do not frequent Wikipedia. I simply was on the Glock page because I had a question relation to .45GAP.Srwm4 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can see that I made edits as recently as last year. I don't bother to edit much, because when I do it is often deleted. See my user page, and compare what I had worked hard to contribute to the Sloshball and US Energy Independence articles, and how I have wasted my time with each major revision. It's amazing how experiences like that (AND THIS!!!) will drive a user away, don't you think?Srwm4 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, 4 edits, a year ago; the previous being June of 2007 (to the Mass Mutual article). There's only one way I can tell if you're from Ohio, though: You could log out and make an entry here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, I must be from Massachusetts because I corrected a typo on the page of a Fortune 100 financial company that happens to have that state in it's name! HA!Srwm4 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The main point is that you showed up 4 minutes after an IP was blocked and picked up where he left off. Maybe it's an unhappy coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you of anything. And the fact is that it's 3am in Ohio/Massachusetts and I have class tomorrow at 8:30 am at Xavier University (Cincinnati), so I'm going to bed. Do what you will. I could honestly care less about a community that feels the need to attack others, and then attack their defenders!Srwm4 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The stuff Searson said to the IP was uncivil. If you want to defend the IP, take Searson to WP:WQA. I'm beginning to think your taking up where he left off, 4 minutes later, might be just a coincidence. But it's also unusual to see someone get upset about someone else being abused if they don't "know" each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was uncivil, I'll admit it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP has been BANNED. That means (I think) that he can't make edits to pages like this to defend himself. And I'm not even defending him anymore! I'm defending myself!
That IP is only blocked, stop making stuff up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


I think we have a match. Unless there is a direct copy-paste involved, it's pretty obvious that Srwm4 and the IP are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • So, um, does this mean that Cincinnati has moved to Massachussetts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He had mentioned something about editing the Xavier article, but that was 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
      • He has put me an Searson on an attack list on his page. Maybe an SPI is needed, to figure out who needs to apologize to who. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So I get put on a hit list:[2] and can now expect retribution[3], unless I withdraw the Sock complaint.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's as good a place as any I suppose[edit]

Duplicate discussion Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson was attacking the above IP user (talk · contribs) for an extended period of time, after the IP user updated some figures on Glock. Mike repeatedly resorted to name calling (verified by the Glock article's own history page, as well as the history pages of both users) and insults. There were repeated attempts to revert a legitimate edit by Mike, who apparently took umbrage to the IP user making what appears to be a light-hearted joke after reversing an Undo by Mike.

Insults directed by User:Mike Searson at the IP user include name calling on at least 3 occasions ("Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank" - an openly homosexual member of the US Congress).

I believe User:Mike Searson should be disciplined for his actions. Srwm4 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by the IP over a week ago, [4] which appeared to be vandalism and found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page this morning[5]. I am a US Marine and have worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life. I took umbrage with this individual's insults as they were libelous, could impact my career and reverted her [6], realized the reversion was incorrect by 2 model numbers and gave back to it [7]. Was it the best course of action, maybe not. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day[8]. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material.[9] It refused, it was blocked for vandalism. Four minutes later, this other user shows up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edit, etc. He/she had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings":[10] I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate. The whole thing is ridiculous and now it appears this blocked IP Address is making a mockery of things by resuming his/her sockpuppet account. I probably should have ignored his/her personal attacks, but I wasn't raised to run from a bully. The only thing I did wrong was outright call this IP address a few four-letter words as opposed to making thinly-veiled childlike snarky attacks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is duplicated at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson WQA Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm confused...what was libelous and could impact your career? None of the diffs I looked at showed anything like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I was speaking of this one[11], saying I get my info from movies and such nonsense. I've been involved in this since before he was an itch in his daddy's pants, like I said somewhere else, I initially overreacted. but I took it as a personal attack, whether he was being a child or berating my knowledge, I have no idea. I said I reacted badly and should have just ignored it. So now I get attacked and delete his crap from my talk page repeatedly and am now on a "hit list" on his page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this notion is absurd. Someone reverting your edit on Wikipedia directly leading to damage to your career? Your comments to this IP are FAR beyond the line. He was belligerent- you sprinted right past him into WP:NPA. --King Öomie 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry Mike, that isn't even close to libelous. Not even remotely close. And I'd have a very difficult time accepting that your career could be impacted by the comment of an anonymous person on here. Truthfully, if I were your employer, your reactions to him would be more of an issue than that very innocuous comment and that still wouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If I understand the situation correctly, we've got one user who fully admits and has owned up to being uncivil to another user. So, no issue there because we don't "discipline" users, we only act to prevent further harm and Mike has made it clear he doesn't intend to make the same mistake again. We've got another user who is still apparently mad about it, but is also invoking the right to vanish, which means that they, the person, under any identity, will never edit Wikipedia ever again, so we're done there. And this whole post is a copy of a thread at WQA for some obscure reason. Are we done here? I don't see any need for admin action if one user acknowledges there mistake and the other is going away forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
You're correct. I read too much into something the anon IP said to me and overreacted, I admit it. I have a fairly long history on wikipedia and have never been involved in something like this before. I had a bad day, I'm human and lost my temper. I was nothing but congenial to SWRM4, he was the one who bombarded me with personal attacks, threats, etc. I think that speaks volumes about his identity.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We all have those kind of days from time to time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The SPI needs to be carried out, so that we can see if we had that guy pegged correctly, or if we've done him an injustice. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Has an SPI even been filed? I don't see it. In any event, I think the main issue here is resolved, and a checkuser can figure the rest out if someone files a report. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought I did it here, as I normally don't mess with these things I suppose I could have done something wrong: [12] srwm4 wants me to delete it and he'll remove me from his "hit list". That tells me there's more to it than he's letting on.-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/srwm4. I don't know if it's "correctly" set up or not. Maybe Beeblebrox could review that for you? One thing I know is that you need a letter-code or they won't do anything with it. In general, the user might be innocent, but unfortunately his behavior fits the pattern of socks. I do think it was not appropriate to mention his name, however he owned up to it being his name - so I don't know if he's really a sock or just doesn't understand. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The case has been endorsed. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The IP resumed editing after his block was done, and Srwm4 is now silent; which doesn't prove anything as such. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Checkuser confirmed they are socks of each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Srwm4 indef blocked since they stated they don't want to use it again anyway, I can only assume that means the ip is now autoblocked. No RTV will be granted in that the account is "under a cloud" but they may get their wish on the talk page being eventually deleted as it is now in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks ThinkEnemies[edit]

ThinkEnemies has continued with personal attacks after being warned on his user page. Would appreciate some attention to this matter.

I am here to answer all complaints. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's true. I've convinced myself that your nonsensical arguments are due to... Something I cannot pinpoint. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner has been engaging in edit warring on Sarah Palin. And he has also engaged in uncivil behavior on Sarah Palin talk page [13]. He is now edit warring by placing the tag on the Sarah Palin article.[14] Scribner has been blocked before for this exact type of behavior on Sarah Palin.[15] ThinkEnemies was simply attempting to remove Scribner's POV pushing. Earlier, Scribner removed an edit there, without using the talk page, regarding Palin's book sales which was sourced. [16] He then came back sometime later and put in the comment of the PAC buying copies of the book.[17] It appears to be WP:SYN to imply that Palin's book sales were a product of her PAC buying the book. ThinkEnemies moved the section to the separate article [18] and rendered the sentence left on the Palin article within WP:NPOV. Scribner does not come here with clean hands.Malke2010 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Clean hands or no, ThinkEnemies is making things quite personal. Warned again. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Another warning? What's the purpose of warning him the first time? At what point do you start enforcing policy? Scribner (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning, Johnny. I hope Scribner has also been warned, to keep it evenhanded. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Warnings are policy. Basically, when an editor misbehaves they are given a proportionate response; some forms of disruption merit an immediate block, others will bring a warning, which if ignored brings a stronger warning, and if that is ignored then we block. An initial warning lets the editor know that what they're doing is wrong which is often enough to stop the behavior, further warnings let the editor know that they can actually be blocked which itself can stop the behavior. Only after those warnings fail do we block, to prevent the behavior from continuing. -- Atama 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The user was already warned. Why are we warning him again? Scribner (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't engage in WP:IDHT. I've already explained why we give multiple warnings.
To ThinkEnemies, I'll agree that this edit by Scribner was uncalled for. Calling another editor an ass is wrong no matter how poorly they are treating you. Consider that a mild warning to Scribner that responding in kind to personal attacks is still a personal attack. -- Atama 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just an addendum, for Scribner's sake, to avoid giving the wrong impression. These aren't toothless warnings, further incivility can and will result in a block. The hope is that ThinkEnemies will take these warnings seriously and moderate their tone. If that doesn't happen then the only way to prevent further problems is a block. -- Atama 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I do take the warnings seriously, and have engaged Scribner in a more civil tone on the Sarah Palin talk page. I admit to becoming frustrated with POV editors, especially after they attack my motives. That's a problem I will work on. Thanks for your time. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No warning should be a "toothless warning". You've wasted a lot of time here establishing moral hazard for a user that's violated policy. Scribner (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It is a matter of established, written Wikipedia policy and longstanding precedent that we issue escalating warnings culminating in short and then increasingly long blocks, rather than jump straight to blocking or banning people. This is short circuited for certain particularly bad behavior, but this does not seem to rise to that level based on presented evidence. If ThinkEnemies behaves in the future as he has in the past there will be a block, without too many further warnings, but we also do not dwell on prior bad behavior if someone acknowledges the issue and reforms. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Given the constant Obama brouhahas, it's ironic that right-winger Palin's article also stands accused of being "scrubbed clean". Maybe that's POV-speak for "neutral and encyclopedic". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by an admin (for 72 hours, subject to renewal if he tries it again) (talk · contribs) left a note at the content noticeboard with what may be interpreted as a legal threat.[19] Warning left but figured admin attention would also be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

  • A definate legal threat. For a band that could use the publicity, you'd think they'd appreciate the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. The best I can figure from the IP's post is that he's claiming the band, The Drums is committing some kind of "trademark and domain name infringement" and he's not quite, well, bright enough to realize that that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Maybe he thinks someone else owns the right to use "The Drums" as the name of their band? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yep, that's the way I read it too. Apparently not meant as a legal threat against us. Though his demand of deletion is confused enough that keeping him confined to his own talkpage for the moment might still be wise. Fut.Perf. 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You're right, he's saying they're doing it. Still a legal threat though. When you start talking about lawyers and demanding immediate removal, you're in the threat territory. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Let him explain himself on his talk page if he has anything to say that's worth listening to. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor evading something - page needs semi[edit]

Resolved: Protected

Please save the well meaning people who were finally working together on a climate change article some headache and protect the talk page Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎ asap - the IP I am constantly reverting is evading a block/ban. This is at RFPP, but I consider it more urgent. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone do something to help Hipocrite. See [20]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protected for 24h. ~ mazca talk 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually protected for a week, 2over0 protected at pretty much the same time for the longer duration. I've got no problem with that (24h was just an arbitrary length of time) so we'll leave it there. No worries. ~ mazca talk 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin Assistance: WP:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force article assessment table not working[edit]

Hi -- I've been working on setting up the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology task force, and I'm just about done, but am having a problem with the article assessment statistics table. Please see the project home page, in the section "Tagging/Assessment" ... for some reason, the table of statistics will not show up. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (your table was missing the pipe to start the cell in which the template was residing), though it's pointing to a page which doesn't exist. Is that what you needed? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Nihonjoe -- it should be showing a table with article assessment statistics in it. See for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force statistics -- it should look like the tables for all of those other task forces. I've totally bungled my attempts at getting the table working. The table displays now, but it isn't working properly. Please see my notes on the project home page about what I did wrong for the table (the notes are in the "Tasks/Todo" section)
Thanks for fixing the other problem though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks to be fixed except for redlinks, but I assume those redlinks are just categories and pages that haven't been created yet. -- Atama 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The table shows up, but the numbers are not correct. Please see my notes on this at the project home page. There have only been a handful of articles (less than 10) assessed, yet the table is showing thousands of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple 3RR case offered for possible action by Some Other Admin[edit]

User:DuKu has broken the WP:3RR rule at Global warming. His four reverts were at 08:02, 10:24, 10:30 and 16:55 UTC on 4 February. His claim to be reverting vandalism does not appear valid. (This case does not require any review of the article probation, it's a plain 3RR violation). A request to have him undo his last change at User talk:DuKu led nowhere. Since I had previously blocked DuKu on 31 January per this archived 3RR report I'd prefer that a different admin look at the case this time. That admin might also want to look at the actions of DuKu's opponent, User:AbbaIkea2010, who has only reverted three times. I will notify DuKu of this report. I filed here instead of at WP:AN3 so we could get quick action, before the glaciers melt. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked EdJohnston here [21] about his claim that i broke the 3RR rule, but he did not provide any info or would listen to my arguments - beside writing about the 3RR violation. If he had looked add the reverts, talk page and the reported user he could have spared many wikipedia contributors some time. But i guess this is not in everybodys intention. Though the user User:AbbaIkea2010 got reported for vandalism, after i reverted his first edits in a very short time - one of those has lead to an edit conflict. I stopped than and after warning him, filled a report on vandalism. The admin materialscientist took action and cleaned up a long line on edits of this user. Later i reverted the wiki back to the state before the vandalism took place - AFTER the user Snowman asked me why i reverted the wiki. Than in consensus with the talk page here [22] i reverted to the version before the vandalism of user User:AbbaIkea2010. Beside this you will find a few more user who seem apparently concerned about especialy these reverts, if you visit my talk page.
About EdJohnston When i started on wiki a few days ago i was not aware of the 3RR rule, when the user Finell reported me (after we reached consensus!) and filled a report, which you can read here [23], EdJohnston banned me for 31h - beside the accusation of Finell where not correct. I have to belive that EdJohnston is not acting in good faith because he just focus on the 3RR rule and reporting me. --DuKu (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked for 48 hours, since this comes not long after a previous 31 hour block for violating 3RR. This is a very straight-forward case; clearly the edits you reverted weren't vandalism (the editor in question even explained their actions to you), there was a refusal to acknowledge that the reverts were wrong, and a refusal to self-revert. I'm an uninvolved admin, I wouldn't touch global warming articles with a 10 foot pole and have no previous interactions with DuKu. -- Atama 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the follow-up. Just so the record is complete, DuKu did file a vandalism complaint at WP:AIV about User:AbbaIkea2010. This complaint was closed by User:LessHeard vanU per this edit, saying that the matter was being dealt with at a different venue. I assume that the different venue was RFPP. A protection request filed by a third party about Global warming was declined here. I do observe that Materialscientist reverted three edits elsewhere by Abbalkea2010, but he did not communicate with Abbalkea or DuKu about that, That must explain DuKu's claim that "The admin materialscientist took action and cleaned up a long line on edits of this user." Unclear why that would give DuKu the right to undo Abbalkea's actions at Global warming as 'vandalism'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), a very new editor who is not fluent in English, would benefit from some guidance (I don't mean blocks) by administrators. This editor's entire talk page shows that, in a very short time here, DuKu has been engaged in multiple edit wars (already blocked twice for 3RR), edits and reverts in disregard of consensus, repeatedly accuses other editors of vandalism when they revert DuKu's edits and reverts, is uncivil to other editors, repeatedly threatens to "report" other editors who express their concerns (DuKu also accused me of "spamming" DuKu's talk page when I used it to discuss DuKu's behavior), does not assume good faith, and overall takes a combative stance. Aside from DuKu's talk page, here are some other examples of this behavior: User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3, User talk:Finell#Civility,Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond, User talk:Novangelis#Euclid Vandalism, User talk:Clovis Sangrail#Civility. Isolated blocks for 3RR are not going to educate this editor (if education is possible). Thank you.—Finell 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu is is now posting false accusations of vandalism at User talk:DuKu#VANDALISM which needs ACTION.—Finell 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not sure that this editor is a good fit for this project. Exhibit A: the link at the bottom of their talkpage describing this edit as vandalism. They give every indication of intending to return to exactly the same behaviours in two days. Several users have already reached out to DuKu, and been rebuffed. Is there any reason we should not take this block to indefinite? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, DuKu's serial unblock requests and continuing accusations of vandalism show that the user either can't or won't understand policy. My hope that guidance from administrators might help was overly optimistic: DuKu insists that he or she understands the policies better than the administrator, and even accused on admin of vandalizing DuKu's talk page (!). Escalating to indef may be the only solution for this editor's disruption.—Finell 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It may be a moot point, as the editor has claimed that they intend to leave Wikipedia. -- Atama 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive editor User talk:Allyoueverwanted[edit]

User talk:Allyoueverwanted has used abusive language ... here and has broken the WP:3RR rule. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Crude language, to be sure, but not aimed at you or any other editor, unless you are referring to the nickname comment. They have also not broken 3RR with their 2 reverts, but you are close with your 3 reverts. I also see that you have not notified the other editor about this report as required, so I will do so now. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
the pprsonal attack is in a edit description (can be seen at [[24]] "14:37, February 4, 2010 Allyoueverwanted (talk | contribs) (8,485 bytes) (→Chart performance: you should change your nickname to Lil ANNOYING)". Though mild, I did warn the user on their talk page about personal attacks Alan - talk 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, saw that. I also note that both editors are up to 3 reverts. In either case, there's nothing for an admin to do at this point. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
the reverting is minor, the reported user is new to all this , comes from a fan-forum, and thinks wikipedia is simular (like so many others), it's the language and attacks (whether minor or major) that need an eye kept on. I don't think any of it's that big of a deal, i've dealt with a lot worse on wikipedia Alan - talk 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Collectonian ‎[edit]

Resolved: No admin action needed. --Smashvilletalk 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
No action taken

The user:Collectonian has made some uncivil and rude comments towards me just for the simple fact that I have created some templates and articles that he disagrees with.

The first example: [25] I really dont understand why he had to talk with that tone. "Chill with all the damn templates" is not how you try to get someone to stop doing something.

The second example: [26] There doesn't apear to be a good reasoning for the reversion.

The third example:[27] ‎Instead of responding he continued with rude comments and no explanation.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried dispute resolution? Or the Wikiquette alert noticeboard? While Collectonian probably should have been more calm and civil doing those edits, there is no need for administrative intervention in this case, is there? Regards SoWhy 22:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Said editor has created dozens of templates for unnotable and barely notable director, then created single line articles for all of their films, most of which are completely unnotable. I can remove conversations from my talk page at will per WP:TALK and my own talk page header. Also, it should be noted that TheMovieBuff appears to be canvassing for the current AfDs on many of his one line film articles[28][29] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
None of those are reasons to be rude and uncivil.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, Collectonian. Was the edit summary " remove - tired of dealing with people who think creating a one line article is somehow "helpful" and has already been asked by other people to slow down and actually create content instead of pointless crap for others to clean up" really necessary?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but it was not particularly uncivil either, considering the number of one line articles he has made of late. His continued canvassing after an admin warning isn't really necessary either[30] (he was just given a short five minute block). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian is not a he. --Smashvilletalk 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And TheMovieBuff just got a 5-minute "didn't I just tell you to read WP:CANVASS" block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I had so many posts on my talk page, I didnt see the one with the canvassing. Just because I have made a lot of one line articles gives you no right to be uncivil.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, that would be a more convincing argument if you hadn't come over to my talkpage to respond to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
DUHN-DUHN-DUHNNNNN...HalfShadow 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's the actual admin action requested here? Collectonian wanted him to get lost off of her talkpage. There really isn't a nice way to say that, but she wasn't really uncivil about it. (That would be along the lines of, "Get the fuck off my talkpage, troll!" or something of that nature.) --Smashvilletalk 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not complaining about her reverting my post on her talk page, its the uncivil comments she has made.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
She's allowed to revert posts on her talkpage. So again, what admin action are you requesting here? What are you hoping to accomplish that you couldn't accomplish through dispute resolution? --Smashvilletalk 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, that is not what I am complaining about. Look at the links at the top of this post to see why I brought this here.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
And again, what sort of admin action are you requesting here that could not be accomplished through WP:DR? --Smashvilletalk 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I just didnt want the user to get away with being uncivil and I wanted to make admins aware of it.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mission accomplished, then. We are aware of it. Polite discussion would probably yield more positive results, but if you're happy with admin awareness, I'm happy to give it to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Can I call your attention to recent bad faith edits by User:Collectonian on the following page Bandido_(2004_film). He's reverting information like the film's writer and claiming it is vandalism and deleting sources (like IMDB) claiming they don't meet WP:RS while there's an active AFD. I took the time to at least expand the article into a stub and he's systematically trying to delete more or less everything that makes the article obviously meet WP:N and WP:RS to support his nomination. Nefariousski (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The same editor had just vandalized the article four times in a row. Anyone would have auto reverted again. And no, IMDB is NOT a reliable source per overwhelming community consensus, and MPAA ratings do not go in film articles, again per overwhelming community consensus. Take five minutes to read the links you were pointed to or learn something about editing film articles before claiming anyone is acting incorrectly. Being in an AfD does NOT mean you can just throw anything you want in the article. Nothing that was removed does anything to establish notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, while it is not against policy, it is very bad form for the nominator of an article for deletion to be actively engaged in reverting the efforts of other editors to improve the article while the AfD is underway; this is especially so when a number of editors have raised question about the quality of the nominations. If the adds are as bad as you seem to think they are, someone will certainly take care of deleting them in due time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Request KolibriOS to be restored to User:The Last Exlixe/KolibriOS[edit]

Resolved: WP:AGF userification first completed, then reversed when user was blocked for cross-wiki vandalism. MLauba (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy this deleted article and move it into my userspace? The Last Exlixe (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done This should normally be requested at WP:REFUND. Once the article overcomes the objections of the previous AfDs, I would suggest that you submit it to Deletion Review. Also mind that you will need to move the article once the deletion review allows recreation instead of copy / pasting the text, as the attribution to previous contributors must be preserved. MLauba (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone find it weird that this entirely new user sends an article to AFD 7 minutes after registering and then about ten minutes later requests the userfication by using "userfy" considering the article he has requested was deleted AFD 3 years ago?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found it rather odd...particularly when that seems to be a competitor's article that was nominated...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know the rules and regulations for userfying, but I do know that this is definitely a single purpose account and probably a sockpuppet. I don't know if it violates any sockpuppet policies though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any rule preventing userification based on account age, unless other violations can be demonstrated. Userified per WP:AGF, but the article name has been salted to ensure this goes through DRV so that we have no premature recreation. Any objections? MLauba (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Pickbothmanlol sock? Has a thing for AfD's. Jarkeld (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If this is confirmed, I have of course no objections that the userification be reverted. It can be plenty of other things, though, among others the kind of newbie who reads part of our policies but misses the fact that a deletion of topic A doesn't mean topic B has to be deleted (if the latter is referenced). MLauba (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, the AFD was deleted with the claim that this was a "crosswiki vandal", which seems plausible, however I see no evidence of this yet and for now no direct action has been taken against the editor. -- Atama 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The editor has been blocked, and the userification reverted. I guess we're done here. MLauba (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode and BLP content deletions[edit]

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

Compromise and cooperation has saved the day, no need for admin action.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was recently asked here, and agreed, to stop adding WP:PROD tags to BLP articles for lack of citations, continues to delete verifiable uncontentious content from BLP articles simply for lack of sourcing.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] UnitAnode is stubbifying articles at a rate exceeds any single editor's ability to clean up after. No doubt that some of the information deleted is indeed contentious, or inaccurate, ur unverifiable, but plenty of it is good content. Just reviewing these deletions is a major time sink, much less improving the articles as fast as this one editor can mess them up. When the content is restored UnitAnode simply edit wars it back out. When asked to stop and wait for consensus UnitAnode announces that no consensus is necessary because BLP policy is on their side. As a content policy matter that is simply untrue - this specific issue has been considered and rejected at BLP. As a behavioral matter this is yet another case of edit warring mass deletions in support of either a misreading of, or a proposed change in, BLP policy. I've offered a truce, that we keep the status quo and file a content-focused RfC to decide this once and for all, but the editor has rejected the notion and tried to imply that I'm the one who is in trouble for adding unsourced content (see here). My only recourse, other than edit warring or allowing our content to suffer, is to ask for help convincing UnitAnode to stop until the community has spoken on the matter. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • This is more pointless drama-stirring by Wikidemon, simply because he doesn't seem to understand that removing unsourced information from BLPs is good, while readding such information is bad. I'm in the process of examining the efficacy of my PRODs, and at first blush, it appears they were very effective. Wikidemon needs to stop with the drama-stirring. UnitAnode 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Was the personal attack really necessary? How about taking it on face value when I say why I am concerned about this? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Was this not just recently settled by ArbCom? JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree here with JBsupreme (talk · contribs). Quite simply, unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in BLPS. That's policy. If you'd like to expand/restore content an editor must, at minimum, source it (a source of some kind is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of course). There is no such thing as good unsourced and unverified content. Good on ya unit.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Please don't egg on an editor for edit warring. That's a respectable opinion, but in my opinion it is a mistaken one that would cause untold damage. More to the point it's not what policy says. BLP policy addresses "unsourced or poorly sourced contentius material" (emphasis added). The idea that it applies to uncontentious material was recently considered and rejected - see here. We can and should talk about this further at an RfC if people want to change policy, but meanwhile, the way to enact a policy change after the community rejects it is not by engaging in mass deletion campaigns, or resorting to edit warring and incivility when people object. I'm not asking to settle the issue here, just asking that we encourage UnitAnode to hold off until the community is clear. Reverting a bad deletion is not the same as endorsing content. There's nothing that requires bringing all restored content to featured status. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
All of the above is just, like, your opinion, man. The policy is clear in the other direction.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What part of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" clearly applies to uncontentious material? Is it your opinion that it is okay for one party to edit war to enforce a minority opinion about content policy? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not only is it policy, but any such content removed can easily be retrieved from the edit history provided that it is useful. I'm not sure why we are still going around in circles on this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in WP:BLPS. That's policy. Arbcom did in fact recently reaffirm that. Wikidemon needs to internalize that and stop stirring things up. Or, better, work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff like User_talk:Unitanode#BLP_stubbification. This report is baseless and should be closed with no action. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    Why isn't that reflected in the policy?xenotalk 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    He's made it clear that his goal is -- having failed to get me acquiesce to his demands at my talkpage -- to have an administrator force me to do so. UnitAnode 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unsourced material has no place in BLP's Unitode is quite right to remove it. ViridaeTalk 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed, with no action taken. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After all of 25 minutes, by a party who sided with the named party? –xenotalk 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
unclosed. Ecx4! Rd232 talk 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No objections to it being unclosed. :) Cirt (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (currently paused; cf Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II) Jclemens' view that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." was passed by a large majority. On this evidence the view of the community is that uncontentious content should not be deleted. More broadly a clear view emerging from the RFC is that deleting content faster than it can reasonably be reviewed is not acceptable, unless an argument specific to that content is made as to why it should be removed - and "unsourced" is not sufficient argument. It may be that the extreme deletionists who started the recent hooha jump in more quickly here; but they are not representative of the wider community. Rd232 talk 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • It's not even "deleting" content, it's simply removing unsourced content. It's not a violation of any policy, and is done specifically in support of our WP:BLP policy. I'm not going to stop removing this unsourced content, so I don't see the point of continuing this thread. I've done nothing blockable, and further discussion is little more than navel-gazing. UnitAnode 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Unilateral declarations to ignore well-established community views in favour of personal interpretation of policy were quite clearly rejected by Arbcom, after initially seeming to endorse that. I won't do so (signing off now) but if you continue whilst this discussion is unresolved, someone should block you. Rd232 talk 21:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It would not go well for you if you were to press the block button on me right now. I'm just imagining the block summary now, Blocked for removing unsourced information from BLPs ... UnitAnode 21:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
UnitAnode has made similar veiled threats against other administrators before. That's all I'm asking for, really, that UnitAnode stop until the community decides. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
e/c - There are many different opinions at that RFC page, it is not policy and it is not supported by the community to encourage having wholly unsourced material in BLPs. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Does it really need to be explained that A not deleting unsourced content without specific reason and B "encourage having wholly unsourced material" are very different things? Rd232 talk 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(ec)You're conflating a few issues. Nobody is proposing that we drop our WP:RS guideline. The question, specifically, is whether it's okay to engage in mass editing campaigns and edit war against those who object. Even if the original deletion is allowable it's also allowable to revert it and then the consensus process applies. I very carefully and selectively reversed a couple of the deletions after checking to make sure there was no content that appeared unverifiable or contentious. This editor is deleting a lot of content without first making any attempt to improve it. It's pretty indiscriminate, because most BLP content is not adequately sourced, and I don't think the community wants to drop most of the encyclopedia's BLP content right now. In a few minutes one can carelessly destroy hours worth of work, which could have been brought up to standards in a few more minutes. Multiply that by the prospect of a dozen editors doing it ten times a day if it's allowed and you've got a major trashing of the encyclopedia. If the material stays deleted for long there will be intervening edits and it becomes harder and harder to restore, with or without sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting (in view of JBsupreme's remark about Arbcom) is Sandstein's overwhelmingly approved view: "The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." Rd232 talk 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • I second Wikidemon's comments. Its unfortunate that Unitanode is denuding articles instead of working to source them (and I've sourced a view of his prods recently so I have seen this, and I can't recall any iota of contentious untrue material being found). As rd232 notes, a majority of editors agree that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." I've gotten cross-wise with Unitanode recently so I should hold my tongue beyond that, but from my limited dealings with Unitanode and seeing some of the comments on his talk page, he has drawn ire from a number of editors recently.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The deletions are continuing during this discussion. I believe I checked every single fact in this one,[45] which is one of the easiest to figure out. This[46] took me about 20 minutes. It would have taken me another hour to tidy up the article but I was edit conflicted with XenoUnitanode edit conflicted me with an edit war[47] when I tried to edit the article itself. I consider his/her tone and manner very rude here - it does not make for collaborative editing. I can't tell the exact rate of these edits but I think it's safe to say we would require several full-time mop carriers to clean up the trail of these deletions. I don't know what point we're trying to prove here by slashing content from the encyclopedia. Cutting out career higlights of a major academic, and the two prominent books she's written, creates far more of a misrepresentation of who she is for the reader than leaving them in. If BLP is to avoid harm to living people, we're harming them a lot more by creating partial biographies. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Ask Xeno how "difficult" it is to work with me, when you approach me and say, "Could you wait a second, I'm going to add some sources there shortly" instead of just wholesale reverting unsourced information into a BLP, and leaving orders on my talkpage. UnitAnode 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
UnitAnode, I have asked this of you before and suggested that we avoid AN/I on it by gathering a consensus beore acting, but will you kindly stop or greatly slow down your removal uncontentious information from articles unless you take the time to check for sources to see whether it's verifiable, pending the outcome of the current RfC on the topic? Many editors including myself think it is a bad idea unsupported by policy, and the collaborative nature of working together to edit an encyclopedia suggests that you wait until you have consensus before engaging in large scale edits like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Among the material Unitanode‎ has removed unilaterally and without notice from articles are movies and films which actors have been in. In at least one article, while not specifically referenced the information is fairly well known to people who go to the cinema or watch U.S. television, had been in the article for about 5 years, and was easily verifiable by looking at imdb or a couple minutes of googling. I've suggested to Unitanode‎ that adding {{cn}} or something similar first might be more appropriate. I also wish to draw attention to the word contentious in Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. -- Infrogmation (