Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Slovaks in Hungary[edit]

Could an admin take a look at this please. Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) unilaterally decided to userify it (it's now at User:Samofi/Slovaks in Hungary), and this to my mind amounts to an out of process speedy deletion and as far as I can see it meets no speedy delete criteria anyway. I notice that the page creater (Samofi (talk · contribs) has now been blocked but given the input by Baxter9 (talk · contribs) I'd suggest the page needs to moved back to main space and proper deletion procedures followed if someone wants to go down that route - the mess with speedy deletions and moving the page more than once means I can't revert things. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • It's a monograph with sourcing and WP:SYN issues (plus the user's English is not great), userfying is the best way of helping the user to develop the article while avoiding an otherwise inevitable deletion debate. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you point me to a policy or guideline on userfication? While I accept that userfication may be the way to go this should not be done without the user's permission as otherwise it's a speedy delete in all but name and a user should have the option of following the normal deletion process if they so desire. It is my opinion that involuntary userfication should only occur in lieu of a proper deletion (either by speedy or AfD) and then done by an admin. I am also of the view that this is the only course of action in keeping with current policy. In this case the page was not a speedy candidate, nor had an AfD been completed and the userfication was not done by an admin. This case is also complicated by the fact that another editor has edited this page and they may wish it to be kept. Dpmuk (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
How about WP:BRD?

Loook, I don't see the problem here. The article was a mess, clearly not ready for prime time. There were empty sections, poor writing, lots of bad formatting, eerything about it said "work in progress." I could have deleted everything in it that was wrong, or spent an inordinate amount of time trying to fix it up, but instead I went with B and userfied it. If people think that's a mistake, they should R my action and the D can begin -- I'm certainly not going to edit war to put it back in userspace. I do think that the creator should be aware, though, that if it's moved back into mainspace, there's every probability that it will be AfDed and deleted. (That's not a threat, I wouldn't nominate it, but given the condition of the article, it's almost a certainty that someone will.)

I think the only real question here is whether the article, as is, is an improvement and benefit to the encyclopedia. I think the answer is clear that it is not. It certainly can be, with some amount of work. If it's not beneficial, it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and I don't believe it takes an admin to make that determination. In general, we don't insist on process for the sake of process, so if (as you seem to agree) userfication is the best course of action, it's rather irrelevant how it was arrived at. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I feel your actions were wrong as they amounted to a speedy deletion and speedy deletions which don't fall under any of the criteria are generally frowned upon and additionally I've never heard of BRD being applied to deletions. In the case of deletions I do think we should insist on process. It's also clear precedence at AfD that the bad state of an article is not a reason to delete. That said that's just my personal view - as there is currently no policy on userfication I am happy to accept others will have a different point of view. I would not have brought this here if it wasn't for the fact that I couldn't revert myself. (As an aside I've now started a RfC on whether the current userfication essay should become a policy or guideline). Dpmuk (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not a deletion, it's right there in userspace, in exactly the same condition it was, ready and available to be worked on. If the creator wishes other editors to help in developing it, a note dropped on the appropriate WikiProject's talk page will surely bring some. As I said, if you disagree strongly, get an admin to move it back. (You could have moved it back yourself if you hadn't prevented the speedy deletion of the cross-namespace redirect I requested.) I don't think that's in the best interests of the article or the encyclopedia, but YMMV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Unless I've missed understood WP:MOR I could not revert as your addition of the speedy delete tag meant there was more than one line in the page history. I generally take very complex deletion requests (such as this) here rather than speedy delete tag them so that I can explain things properly and discuss if need be. As I say it was not meant to be a complaint about your conduct as at the moment there is no policy or guideline on this so we're all free to do what we think best.
(As an aside it is my view that userfication should be treated the same as deletion as it removes the page from the view of normal readers although I accept views may differ on this. Although only (currently) an essay WP:Userification states "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article" so I'm not the only person that holds that view. I may have been more willing to let this one slip by if it wasn't for the fact that two editors appeared to be working on it.) Dpmuk (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to state the obvious, userfication is not the same as deletion because with deletion the article is no longer available to anyone except administrators, while with userfication it's off the beaten path, but it's still around and available for development. It is, in fact, no more "deleted" than any category, template or image, which all exist outside of mainspace in their own namespaces. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Beyond My Ken is correct; this isn't a deletion, so there's no problem with BRD. I've deleted the cross-namespace redirect; if you want to move it back to mainspace, go for it. If someone wants to nom it for speedy/PROD/AFD, they can. This userfication was a polite way to try to fix things, IMHO; BMK should realize by now that no good deed goes unpunished. (struck by request) --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Most certainly. (Nothing to respond to.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I disagree that it shouldn't be treated the same as a deletion and from the essay I am not the only one, so I don't like the tone of Floquenbeam final comment, we obviously disagree but that's no need to accuse me of "punishing" Beyong My Ken. As I've said I brought this here to get the move reversed not to attack a user's conduct - we may disagree on the correctness of his move but I understand their point of view and can't fault them for doing it. Dpmuk (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Move reversed and AfD started here. Dpmuk (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is pure process wonkery. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
BTW, you've AfDed an article while the creator is indeffed and will not be able to speak for it. The only real reason to insist on the strict application of process is in the interest of fairness to all parties -- In what way is that fair? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hang on a minute, so I haven't got round to notifying people a whole five minutes after I started the AfD, give me a chance! Now notified along with the other user that had made significant contributions. Given the creator's banned status I'll keep an eye on his talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
That was a badly misjudged action. The article fails core policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V since the sources are mainly unacceptable) and against the weight of those policies you are erecting some pettifogging objection about process. The result is that the user gets a WP:BITE for his pains, since the article cannot possibly remain as it is in mainspace. Instead of allowing a period for the user to fix the several issues, you have placed a thoroughly non-compliant article back in main space where an AfD is an inevitability. I really cannot see how that is a good result for the user or the project. Guy (Help!) 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well sorry, although I respect your view and can understand it, I completely disagree with it for two reasons. The first is I think new users would find it more bitey if an article is userified without any discussion or indeed explanation on their talk page. I also think it would make them wonder how wikipedia is run if a single editor, who doesn't even have to be, and in this case isn't, an admin, can unilaterally removed their article from the encylopedia. Personally I think newbies would prefer to see an article end up at AfD where there can be some feedback and they can properly understand the process. If delete and userification is the result of the AfD at least they'll know why and understand that it's been done by WP:CONSENSUS, another one of wikipedia's core policies. Secondly I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent if we allowed anyone to userify page just because they want to. There is currently no consensus on userfication and so I think it should only happen when a page would otherwise be deleted (i.e. after an AfD or if it's eligible for speedy). Dpmuk (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You are correct, it really doesn't aid any editor to have their work removed from the encyclopedia without informing them of how they might make it better. At least a deletion review will have participants, discussion, points and suggestions and things. Allowing users to get around the deletion process and establish a consensus all on their own to userfy, but at the same time not help with the improvement of the article, is just wrong. No-one has mentioned the third option that someone might come across the article in mainspace, if it were there, and decide to help make it encyclopedic, if possible. Not everyone rushes to delete. Userfying without discussion gives no room for improvement, allowing random people to userfy things they don't like just gives them free reign to bypass normal procedures of improvement or deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(out)So let's sum up here: 12 hours after I userfied it, an obviously deletable article is again userfied, at the cost of the time and energy of a number of editors. I'd call that a complete waste of resources, and exactly the kind of thing that WP:IAR – a frequently miscited policy – was designed to prevent. Sure, we've had Process (with a bold capital "P"), all the eyes are crossed and the tees are spotted, and a fun time was had by all as we walked our big Circle of Liff right back to our starting point ... and I guess that's what's most important, right? (sheesh) Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was userfied to someone else (User:Nuujinn/Slovaks_in_Hungary), and after the consensus for that formed at the AfD. Had it been userified to its creator, it would not have improved, regardless whether its creator were indeff'd or not. The article might have gotten longer in Samofi's unser space, but that's about it. So, the AfD did have an positive effect. Pcap ping 21:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The same people - meaning everybody - who can edit it now in the userspace it's currently in could have edited it in the userspace I put it in, so that's pretty irrelevant. Instead of dancing around 360 degrees, we danced 359.999 degrees. It was still a waste of time, and process for the sake of process, which I see went on even more, as the same editor took the AfD result to DRV. Damned if I know what's going on here, because it seems someone's going through a lot of bother for the sake of ... what? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Except User:Nuujinn might have never found it, or dared to work on it in somebody else's user space. Pcap ping 10:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. It seems that some people are being process wonks and asserting that userfication equals deletion therefore this is out of process deletion. It's not. I really cannot see how leaving a grossly noncompliant article in article space for a week and then deleting it is better by any objective measure than moving it to user space to be made compliant and potentially moved back. If the subject is good then userfication will yield a compliant article rather than a week with a noncompliant article followed by deletion. If the subject is not good then userfication is a speedy removal from article space of an obviously biased treatment of it. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
See below for an explanation of how none of that actually happened - the article wasn't left for a week or deleted, it was moved to somewhere where it might get improved, along with suggestions, comments and the like, none of which was accomplished by BMKs taking process into his own hands. Weakopedia (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually your summing up is not quite as comprehensive as it could be.
An editor created an article, which over the space of three days was edited several dozen times by up to four different editors. On the fourth day you removed that article from mainspace to the creators talk, and left a note telling them "it is not yet in good enough shape to be in the encyclopedia proper. Please work on it here, and when it is ready, move it back into mainspace."
In short, you didn't attempt to improve the article, nor express any specific concerns you may have had about the article. You didn't assist the creator in understanding what they had done wrong, you didn't attempt to show the creator how they might improve the article.
Wikipedia:Userfication says "Userfication of an article will effectively amount to deletion of an article, as in general, the redirect left behind will be speedily deleted. Userfication should not be used as a substitute for regular deletion processes. Except for self-userfying and obvious non articles such as accidentally-created user pages in the main namespace, it generally is inappropriate to userfy an article without a deletion process.".
Since this page was worked on my several editors, was not created by accident, and simply didn't meet your quality standards, you had no basis for userfication. The deletion process is there to stop editors from making out-of-process deletions based on views they have which are incompatible with the views of Wikipedia.
Note that Wiki policy says that there are alternatives to deletion. Specifically about userfication it says "Articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, should be moved to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator, where they can continue to be collaboratively edited before either "graduating" to mainspace or ultimately being deleted. The incubator provides several benefits over the previous practice of moving such articles into user space. Primarily, the incubator makes these proto-articles easier to find and edit."
The "easier to find and edit" bit is important. By userfying you placed the article in a hard-to-find place, and at the same time left no indication about your concerns or what the creator could do to address them. You placed responsibility for improving the encyclopedia squarely on the article creator, in violation of Ownership.
The founding principles state that we should use "discussion with other editors as the final decision-making mechanism by consensus for all content.". IAR wasn't designed to overcome the founding principles. Userfication without discussion is not helpful to the encyclopedia, it does not promote discussion, it does not aid article improvement. Userfication is not reccommended by policy, and in fact is discouraged.
The deletion process is there to stop editors moving content out of mainspace that they simply don't like and don't wish to assist in improving. In this case the deletion process resulted in a discussion and eventually an editor agreeing to work on the article in their talkspace, an editor with a fair idea of how to improve articles. That is an example of consensus, an example of collaboration in improving the encyclopedia. By undertaking the deletion the process the articles problems have been partially identified and are being worked on. Your method of deletion/userfication did none of these things, and put the article in the place least likely to aid in it's improvement.
Reccommend reminding BMK that the deletion process is there for a reason, that userfication is specifically discouraged, and that IAR does not extend to acting on a personal consensus that the community had no say in, nor ultimately felt able to uphold. Weakopedia (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Recommend reminding Weakopedia that non-neutral articles by people banned for tendentious editing are not really an asset to the project and placing them somewhere out of the article space while they are remediated is better than waiting a week and then deleting them. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You were the closing admin for that deletion review, and your close was not to wait a week and delete it. After discussion about what was wrong with the article you closed with "Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework.". Discussion, consensus, suggestion, improvement. That is in stark contrast to a non-admin userfying content they don't like without discussion, consensus, or suggestion, and with little hope of improvement. You seem to be arguing that the end justifies the means, and no discussion was necessary, but firstly that creates an awful precedent for everyone to randomly remove from the encyclopedia what they don't like, and secondly is against the principles of Wikipedia, in this case both in letter and in spirit. Weakopedia (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not close the deletion review. The article fails core policies. It is now placed in user space for rework. This may result in an article which, unlike the current one, is compliant. End of. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't close it?
"The result was Moved to User:Nuujinn/Slovaks in Hungary for rework. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)"
Then someone is impersonating you, and they have the sourgrapes bit perfect. Weakopedia (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Guy closed the AfD, not the DRV. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To everyone involved - I'm looking for feedback (good or bad) on my actions in this case. I'd appreciated your comments here. Dpmuk (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My first response is that it would have been better to move it to the Article Incubator. What sort of articles should be placed in userspace rather than the Incubator? Too many articles in userspace still show up in Google, which is not a good thing IMHO. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free, I won't object. I have no real opinion on the merit of the subject, only the content. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

174.140.102.231[edit]

Over a period of ten days, this person (i.e. static IP) has blanked and/or repeatedly inserted unsourced material. Requests for reliable sourcing via discussion, revision history page and user talk page have mostly, if not all, been ignored. Differences: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Akerans (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

user (talk) has insisted on stating that this man is alive, when he has clearly passed on. His company's own website announced his death: http://yellowmanblog.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/peter-mui-founder-of-yellowman-1953—2009/ and footage of his memorial service is easily available through a simple google search. Respect the man, and either delete or fix his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.140.102.231 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do you insist on deleting most of the article whether than just change the tense? raseaCtalk to me 21:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) They've insisted on retaining the current text until a source is provided so that readers and other editors can confirm what you claim. You need to discuss sourcing with them until you've found a good source.
You need to continue the discussions this editor has attempted to have with you in the past, specifically at the article's talk page.
Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 21:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Simply removing material is considered vandalism. You need to use a reliable source to cite your changes/edits, instead of just making the change. MC10 (TCGBL) 03:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Appears the page has been edited again, without sources.([1]) Even after attempts for further discussion. Akerans (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
If they do it again, I'd suggest (by which I mean: I will request) semi-protection. If that doesn't work we can try full protection. Hopefully, one or other of those approaches will drive the IP to discuss first. TFOWRpropaganda 14:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm a little concerned about the article and WP:BLP. I've been googling for "Tungtex" and "Yellow river": Tungtex doesn't mention Mr. Mui at all, though he's supposed to be a co-founder. finance.google.com returns nothing relevant for "Yellow river". I'm becoming increasingly sceptical about the accuracy of the article. TFOWRpropaganda 15:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I did find information about that here. I'm guessing that Peter Kan Mui is his full name, as there is also a redirect page here on WP. I'm not sure who are Investor Relations Asia Pacific, or if the information is reliable. Akerans (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another chance?[edit]

A new account, STAND-UP-2-P (talk · contribs) has come to my talk page and apologized and is taking responsibility for their past actions. They have self admitted that they are a sock of a blocked user Force101 (talk · contribs) and I don't have any doubts that they are lying. He is asking for another chance and I would like to know what everyone else thinks. As a note, the main account Force101 is currently blocked with talk page privileges disabled and the account hasn't been directed to alternatives of getting unblocked. Elockid (Talk) 12:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Elockid (Talk) 12:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a wee bit concerned that Force101 was last blocked only 8 days ago, but they appear to be open, honest, and genuine. Worse case scenario is an unblock, trouble, re-block (and remember this event if the editor requests a fresh start in the future). Best case scenario is that they're genuine, and we gain a good editor. TFOWRpropaganda 12:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not an admin, yada yada.
Force 101 is indeffed for block evasion, presumable there is another account behind this. Per TFOWR, it may be worth entering dialogue with the editor. It may also be worth restoring talk page access to Force 101 to allow an unblock request. The editor should be under no doubt that should they be granted an appeal, their editing will be under scrutiny and further problems will lead to a block being reimposed. If the editor wishes to become a constructive contributor, that is to be encouraged. Mjroots (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I would unblock talk page access and begin a dialogue. Easy enough to reblock talk if needed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Force101 granted talk page access, STAND-UP-2-P requested not to use that account for time being. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a good indicator of their intentions… VernoWhitney (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
On second thoughts, that comment on the end on the diff does not look like constructive editor material. Elockid (Talk) 20:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, Chance given, chance blown. Mjroots (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I looked at this briefly yesterday, but I didn't have enough time to comment. Ever since he's been allowed to his talk page, I haven't seen a slight indication of competence. He maintains that he will make constructive edits, but I have not seen him demonstrate that anywhere in his past accounts. As Mjroots mentioned above, the user is not using this opportunity wisely. I'll keep watch on the further development on his talk page, and if his attitude changes, I may reconsider. Goodvac (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering he did that in his request to be unblockled, I think I'm more likely to find pirate gold buried in my garden. Troll account is trolling; wash your hands of him and continue. HalfShadow 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latham & Watkins[edit]

The periodic edit war on this page has flared up again. I have no clue which side is "right", but one keeps adding some stuff and another keeps deleting. Probably several 3RR violations by now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of 24 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. NW (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Per tradition, can I suggest that you may have protected it at The Wrong Version? It looks to me like several editors were reverting one Special:Contributions/Lawgazer SPA. No objection to protection, but I suspect right now one editor is thinking "brilliant!" - and it's possibly that editor that should be encouraged to talk... TFOWRpropaganda 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The subject now is the same as it was a year ago - some dispute over that firm having laid some people off. There's someone with an axe to grind, and someone else who doesn't like it. But I don't know which one is "right". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I've fixed some of the links in your post, TFOWR. MC10 (TCGBL) 15:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
No worries! TFOWRpropaganda 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Trouble is, we've got dueling SPA's. A one-shot redlink added this stuff on April 7, then today another SPA redlink started deleting it, while some bluelinks kept restoring it. But who's "right"? My recollection is that the stuff about layoffs was considered POV-pushing a year ago, so leaving it out (as it stands right now) could be the "right" version after all. But I'm not 100 percent certain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
This does indeed go back to a feud that was running through much of last year, particularly through the summer months, as one can tell from the history. It centered on the now-indef'd user Lathaminfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s efforts to make the article a coatrack about layoffs (it would be reasonable to assume he was personally affected by those layoffs). There were various apparent socks and other redlinks that got their mitts into it. It quieted down fairly much, once Lathaminfo was sent to the Phantom Zone, but it was apparently still simmering and has now boiled over again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued[edit]

I restored this from archives as I spoke too soon - the edit war has resumed, with a redlink posting the layoff stuff again, coatracking the article to be mostly about that particular event. That stuff needs to be deleted and the page protected again. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nycbl1y (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is on some sort of crusade regarding law firm layoffs. I've informed him to come here and talk about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The edits made are both noteworthy (largest law firm layoff in US history) and well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycbl1y (talkcontribs) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, not everyone agrees, so you need to take it to the article talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
173.16.14.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is apparently the IP that user was working under before creating his user ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I see the admin has put the article on ice for 3 days. My guess is that the guy will wait out the protection and start up again. We'll see on Friday. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have been chuckling at the contents of WP:ROUGE and felt duly inclined to thwack it with the icy hammer. I'll have a look at some of the contributions in the mean time. SGGH ping! 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Do the rouge admins watch cabal TV? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Their favorite film is Moulin Rouge!. –MuZemike 17:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
And,of course, their favorite videgame is Red Dead Redemption. Booyah, bitches HalfShadow 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
All the TV programs in fact feature them. I have taken a look. This seems to have gone on at least as far back as September 2009, with User talk:Masslayoffs. There's clearly a lot of SPAs being created, and some meaty socks I have no doubt. I have, as a first measure, ramped up the protection to 2 weeks in the hope that they will have a change in life circumstances between now and then. SGGH ping! 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Dude. "Meaty socks"? That needs to be on WP:PLEASEDONTEVERSAYTHATAGAIN. Barf-o-rama. GJC 17:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact I have been even rougier, if you try to edit the page... SGGH ping! 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw. Good job. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The user in question is now discussing on the article talk page, so hopefully this will all work out well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor[edit]

LedRush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has come into this discussion from out of the blue, and instead of taking it to talk as I advised him, he reverted and accused me of "edit warring". I advised him to come here and give his side of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I made one edit based on a consensus of the talk page. Baseball reverted. I looked to see what his previous edits were, and he seems to revert a lot of edits which were sourced. So I reverted and put a note on the talk page. I don't see how this rises to the need to be discussed here. And this certainly doesn't make me an "edit warrior".LedRush (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. (Bugs, would you consider striking or renaming this section?) I reverted LedRush and we've been discussing over at the article's talk page. TFOWRpropaganda 19:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Struck part of comment. TFOWRpropaganda 00:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Superiorname23 - good cop needed[edit]

Superiorname23 (talk · contribs) is a new editor who doesn't seem to understand copyright, or notability, or verifiability, or (possibly) COI. They've created a couple of articles, had them deleted (one by me) and re-created them both. They haven't communicated with anyone or responded to the messages/templates on their user page. If an experienced editor or admin is willing to play good cop, assuming good faith, Superiorname23 might become a good contributor. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah... Good cop, bad cop is no fun. I prefer bad cop, worse cop. –xenotalk 18:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that there's an arbcom decision that "threatening to set annoying user on fire" and "setting annoying user on fire" are excessively WP:BITEey admin responses even in extreme cases. Even if you bring marshmallows. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I understand that the user is having problems and you've been cleaning up after them, but is it necessary to revert an unsourced change when nothing in the article has ever been sourced? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced numerical alterations are a common form of vandalism and, as such, are revertable without making a commitment to improving the article as a whole. Otherwise many admins - and most RC patrollers - would never get anything done. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

admin responsibility blocking and warning vandals[edit]

Resolved: Several helpful comments were added. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Would a few admins weigh in at the discussion at WT:VANDAL#.22Welcome_to_Wikipedia.....22? Someone wrote that they are uncomfortable with admins witnessing vandalism and directly blocking vandals. He or she expects instead a witnessing admin to make an entry at WP:AIV, presumably so another admin will issue the block. If that's true, I've completely misunderstood one of my admin responsibilities (and probably need corrective action). —EncMstr (talk) 00:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Xeno and NW state it well. Basically it's a case-by-case situation. When in doubt, be cautious. When certain, be bold. If it's clearly a sock, they don't need any more warnings, as their previous incarnation has already been warned in some way or another. Vandals inherently violate policy, so they have no grounds to be holding admins hostage by demanding a "reset" of their warnings-count. The admins' primary duty is to serve the best interests of wikipedia, not the best interests of a vandal or troll. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated WP:COPYVIO issue[edit]

I've just deleted yet more WP:COPYVIO from www.muslimheritage.com on the Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti page. I've previously deleted a large amount of such COPYVIO from various pages that has been taken from that website and a few others (for example, Al-Muqtadir, Ahmad ibn Fadlan, Al-Andalus etc.). This particular material was added by an anonymous editor but I believe that it is the same person that edits as Kaka Mughal (talk · contribs). There is one copyvio notice on their talk page now and I have asked them about this on an IP talk page also (while they was actively editing from that IP address). I'm unclear what is the best thing to do at this point, as (assuming it is this editor) they have never responded to any thing I've put on their talk pages (or the talk pages of articles they have been editing).
I don't understand at this point quite what to do. I'm reluctant to put another COPYVIO notice on this user's talk page, since the edits were done anonymously. On that basis I have not put a {{ANI-notice}} on that editor's talk page either, as this is more a request for advice than a complaint against them.
All the best and thanks in advance. –Syncategoremata (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It might not be them but it's a reasonable presumption at this point; I recommend putting the ANI notice on both pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Have done so (User talk:Kaka Mughal#Maslamah Ibn Ahmad al-Majriti) — the anon. edits were from a wide range of IP address (all from the same ISP) so I've not notified them, as I doubt the original editor would ever see that. Many thanks. –Syncategoremata (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot going haywire.[edit]

Resolved: Bot operator notified, bot temporarily blocked. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody please block WildBot again if possible? It's currently making edits like this on Mariah Carey in which I highly doubt that it is constructive in any way. After the administrator Kww reverted its edit, WildBot came up with the same edit here too. Minimac (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like it's just correcting links to other article section titles that have been vandalized. I'm betting if you undue the vandalism at the target page, WildBot will correct itself. Torchiest talk/contribs 18:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea for WildBot to delay updating section links for half an hour or so, so this kind of thing doesn't happen. –xenotalk 18:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea which would probably cut the occurrence of this type of mistake down drastically. Torchiest talk/contribs 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • And in this episode of 'Bots Gone Wild...Theeeeeee WildBot!: OH...YEAH...BABY. COME...GET...SOME...OF...THIS. HalfShadow 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WildBot's operator has been notified of this thread. Personally, I would rather keep it unblocked unless it is leaving the vandalized versions up permanently. WP:BAG might be a better place to discuss putting in a time delay. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked and halted the bot before seeing this thread. It was a case of reflected vandalism. I undid the vandalism in the song article and reverted WildBot. It didn't recognize the change in the other article, and continued to edit-war at Mariah Carey to reinsert the vandalism from the other article.—Kww(talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a cache refresh issue. Ah well, thanks Kww. I am marking this resolved unless there is anything further. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

G.-M. Cupertino block review[edit]

G.-M. Cupertino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year by Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/G.-M. Cupertino), basic for chronic incivility and edit warring. Reviewing his edits since his return, I note edit warring with four editors on five articles, replete with edit summaries describing things as "idiotic" and "stupid". I've blocked him again due to his apparent utter lack of comprehension of the reason he was banned previously, pending an agreement to agree to a 0RR restriction. His edit summaries are a step up from a previous one, but that edit may be construed as "previous involvement", so I'm bringing my block here to be reviewed.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse indef. If a one year arbitral ban wasn't enough to get the point across, nothing short of an indef block can help.  Sandstein  20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef. (nb. I was asked for an opinion on this editor at my talkpage in relation of an unblock request they made in respect of an ip address they had previously used; I wondered if such an ip being blocked for over a year would mean it to be a proxy, but the discussion lapsed at that point). It appears they have waited out the year, and then resumed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason why he is requesting unblock on his userpage as opposed to his user talk page? Or why he is treating his userpage like his user talk page? –MuZemike 05:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case, I propose that the ban be indefinitely reinstated. –MuZemike 05:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request on the user page that he is treating like a talk page is for a block that didn't actually exist. I'll deny that unblock with instructions to do any further unblocking requests on his talk page.—Kww(talk) 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Block indef, ban for one year. Let him ask nicely in a year's time and we'll assess whether he's grown up yet. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm about as rouge as they come, but the fact that G. M. Cupertino apparently respected his/her 1-year arbitration ban before coming back was itself a somewhat positive sign. While the new indef was probably inevitable I'd have preferred to see a little more engagement and/or a shorter block before it happened, to decrease the likelihood of a subsequent sock rampage if for no other reason. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse ban proposed by MuZemike (enacted by Kww). Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by Hittit[edit]

User:Hittit has recently been canvassing to a wide number of editors to "participate" in an ADF, as well as a merge, discussion regarding the article Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922, which now has been merged. He has been very selective on who exactly to inform, presumably believing that they would be more sympathetic to vote his way rather than the opposition's. This is not the first time that he is doing this and not the first time that he was warned to stop. Just last month, he was politely warned by another editor on why canvassing was unacceptable and yet earlier this month, he started doing it again (see his comments on users' talk pages from May 2 onwards). This is now the third time that he is doing this and I feel some stern measure must be taken to discourage some activity. Please note that just last week, he was formally placed under the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 restrictions and his actions are highly undesirable in light of the punishments that can be imposed for disruptive behavior. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no sign of disruptive behaviour, people have right to ask for an opinion and thus seek for balanced views. In what miraculous way MarshallBagramyan, Sardur, Aregakn, Davo88 end up editing the same articles like a government agency…something for you to think about Marshal before you go around fishing for admin warning on other editors...cheap shots. --Hittit (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Knock off the bad faith, will you? You only dig a deeper hole when you hurl insults at me and other users. You're not asking people to simply give their opinion - you're selectively choosing who to inform and obviously courting those editors who you think will be sympathetic to your views. You are well aware that that fits the definition of canvassing given the number of warnings that have been issued to you. This is an actionable offense and since you are a repeat offender, I am more than justified to seek intervention from the administrators.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep fishing, you have been topic banned last year it seems, for a reason...please consult WP:FOOTSHOT. Pointless for you to spam my talk page as well. What are you trying to achieve? --Hittit (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Nationalist warriors, I recommend one stern warning then escalating blocks, applied without fear or favour. There are few things which have toxic potential greater than ethnic disputes, the lamer they are the more toxic they become. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree. At least until things calm down (if they ever do), blocking for those reasons should be on a hair-trigger, and to all parties involved. I haven't done an actual count, but my impression is that at least a quarter of all activity on AN/I at any one time is connected to nationalist or ethnic warring. If that can be cut down on by some preventative (not punitive) blocking, that's a lot of time and energy that can be put to something more productive. I personally think that nationalist or ethnic warring is a lot more of a long-term danger to the project than unsourced BLPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • 'xcuse me, but have I missed anything? What is reported here are those. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. I personally have no problem with canvassing, since if it's not on the open it will probably be backdoor. But replying Nationalist warriors is not very civil and this for a simple canvassing case. There are more conflict than acceptable, you don't need to poor fluel in the fire or presenting it worst than it actually is. A warning against Hittit who possibly did not know canvassing was not allowed will suffice, no need to come up with user bashing by calling them warriors. Ionidasz (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • My appologies, I didn't pay much attention to the report in full. He was already warned to not canvass. Then a restriction to not canvass is probably in order. Ionidasz (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, a restriction is definitely warranted, but probably a block for the duration of the AfDs he's canvassed for to ensure there is no further disruption to them.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Guy, I am really not intersted in having these type of discussions, however it seems some people have found a way to supress other editors by instigating Arbitration Enforcements, Notice Boards what have you...if it works for them, they will resort to it. --Hittit (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Gentlemen, before you deliberate you final decision, please keep in mind that I was seeking a balanced opinion to the proposed AfD. The fact that a third and uninvolved party has used similar arguments to propose the merge of this fork case shows my actions have been in line. Please also deliberate how was the result of the AfD a keeper and with whose votes. I am only trying to achieve a balance of opinion otherwise this becomes a show for “co-ordinated-voters”, there are also certain accounts that come to life when voting is on. I simply do not agree with this type of editing where the same people vote in groups on the same articles and often impose their views on the same articles. There must be a WP rule against this.
That's your idea of a balance of opinion. You deliberately went out and canvassed. If another user did the same that's for another discussion about their behaviour, but doesn't excuse yours.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the word "suppression" to describe legitimate efforts to control behaviour identified by multiple others as problematic, is a red flag. It is not "suppression" to require you to play nice or spend time in the sin bin. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

AIVhelperbots missing in action[edit]

Resolved: AIV Helperbots up and down like the proverbial yo-yo at the moment. Wouldn't worry too much, blocked reportees will eventually be removed manually or when the bot reawakens. Ironically, at busy times trying to clear them down manually can result in more problems with edit conflicts. – B.hoteptalk• 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Working through the backlog at WP:AIV, and I notice that the AIVHelperbots - HBC AIV helperbot7 (talk · contribs) and HBC AIV helperbot5 (talk · contribs) - haven't edited in over 30 minute. While this isn't unusual if things are slow, several entries at AIV have been blocked, but not removed. No additional bot-added entries have been posted, either. Since it's multiple bots, and since Wildbot seems to be flipping out as well, do we perhaps have a toolserver issue? Some eyes are requested, both at AIV and on the bot situation. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Helperbot 7 is back online and handling business - thanks to everyone who helped keep things moving during the 100 or so minutes of downtime. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Account appears to be used for storing code[edit]

Resolved: Seems to be dealt with. I suppose it's inevitable that some people will try to use Wikipedia as a portable hard drive. You never know, there may be a user page out there with the mathematical formula for time travel... – B.hoteptalk• 08:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This user's only contribs were to place a mass of some kind of programming code on their userpage. Following that, various IPs, who I'm assuming are the same user only logged out, have been updating the code. I recently blanked the page and an IP restored it. I would leave warnings, but as the user doesn't seem to log in anymore, and their IP changes with each edit, it probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'd delete the page and indef the user; they can always post an unblock request if they really want to edit. Leaving it up to you guys. Equazcion (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe clear the page and fully protect it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
User:Toddst1 appears to have deleted and protected the userpage. I would've blocked too, since it seems clear the user isn't here to collaborate on the encyclopedia, rather than wait for more trouble. But, whatever. Equazcion (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Why not fully protect it and let admins make random changes when they have an idle moment? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That'd be an innovative approach. I like it :) Equazcion (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be a devilish thing to do. Just be careful your change to the program doesn't trigger Global Thermonuclear War. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?[edit]

Resolved: no Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Is what GeorgeNotaras (talk · contribs) said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TinyIDS about me incivil? From his phrasing, I can't tell if it or not and if it's worth a warning. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to let it pass. It's not particularly egregious, and he was obviously a bit emotional when he wrote the thing. I think leaving a warning would most likely inflame matters further. Perhaps that wouldn't be the case if an uninvolved party left one, but I see he's already been asked to calm down and assume good faith, so I doubt there's anything to be gained. Better to focus on the issue at hand, I think. Shimeru (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the message that the other user left did well. Thanks for your advice. Joe Chill (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
A good rule of thumb is that if you're not certain whether someone was trying to insult you, you're better off not pushing it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a good rule of thumb, but I liked the way you phrased it the first time better. (; --Nuujinn (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I originally said "...knowing for sure" instead of "...pushing it" and I had almost typed "...pursuing it", but it's all the same idea - if you're not sure if you've been insulted, then why would you want to find out? What's the benefit? Why go out of the way to try and get upset about something, when there are plenty of other "opportunities" to get upset. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a classic case of a COI editor being defensive when his/her article is up for deletion. No personal attack, but definitely too close to the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That's quite generous of you considering that he also said The user Toddst1 is absolutely clueless about how the internet works and I consider him dangerous for the Wikipedia community. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Also, questions like this are better raised at WP:WQA. It's unlikely someone will be blocked for saying something like that when even the reporter isn't sure it is a personal attack. Pcap ping 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet soup[edit]

I may or may not have the time or patience to sort this out. I only got involved due to participating in this category discussion:

I got involved in that due to similar efforts on the Commons to remove commons:Category:Less-lethal weapons. See diff. On the Commons the admins there are less tolerant of such POV games, and the category was replenished after a bot had moved everything out without discussion first.

I followed it all back to Talk:Non-lethal weapon where a few weeks ago a small group of users and sockpuppets outvoted others, and convinced an admin to follow the votes (in my opinion), and move Less-lethal weapons to Non-lethal weapons. I believe there are several sockpuppets involved.

Good luck trying to sort it out. It is way too easy on Wikipedia to create sockpuppets.

I went ahead and started this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harmonia1. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Varlaam[edit]

Two editors have told this editor that using {{italictitle}} on the pagenames of articles about books, plays, etc. is against consensus, but he or she continues to do it, probably a couple of hundred of articles by now (and their own talk page). I've told them the same thing, and he or she has done two titles since then, though that may just be timing. Could someone take a look and have a word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor has now done 15 or 16 articles since I dropped my comment on his talk page, and is clearly ignoring three editors who have point out that the edits go against consensus. An attention-getting block would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Attention-getting block enacted; user may be unblocked by anyone if they acknowledge the problem. I'm going to work now, but will rollback his edits later if no-one's done it in the meantime. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've started, don't know how far I'll get. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe I've gotten almost all of them - I may have missed a few with intermediate edits, but not many. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
An appropriate edit summary on the revert would have been useful - perhaps pointing to where the consensus against the practice could be found. I'll go back an revert my revert of your revert that I did. (John User:Jwy talk) 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but I don't believe there's an option to provide an edit summary other then the default when using Rollback to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Understood, but it still would be useful to have an edit summary! (John User:Jwy talk) 16:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The Catholic Knight[edit]

The Catholic Knight (talk · contribs) has a history of repeatedly making huge reverts with no discussion. Could we have some admin attention on his contributions? It might be block time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Started it up again at Catholic Church. Three hour block to prevent disruption and edit warring as a first measure. Watch out for 93.172.31.21 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) from which he block-evaded last time. SGGH ping! 16:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Just left a comment on your talk page, I was still reviewing this situation when you blocked. I don't think a three hour block is particularly likely to send the intended message. This user clearly refuses to discuss anything, as they have never edited an article talk page in the nine months they have been editing here, and have never responded to messages on their own talk page except to blank them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparent block evasion by 93.172.121.164 (talk · contribs).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
As I answered there, it's not to dissuade him, it's to prevent disruption while we gather another admin's thoughts here. I could have just as well indef'd him and unblocked him if consensus dictated, but still. SGGH ping! 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I get you. We should be trying to dissuade him from continuing in this manner. Repeatedly reverting to one's preferred version of an article and utterly refusing to discuss anything are attitudes that are directly contrary to Wikipedia,s fundamental model of consensus based editing and decision making. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm an involved editor on the Catholic Church page. The version that The Catholic Knight likes was presented at an RfC held from March 26 through April 9 on the article [16]; this version was overwhelmingly rejected. The Catholic Knight did not participate in the RfC. He has never participated on the article talk page. In the last three months, he's edited on 7 different days; on 4 of these days he has reverted this article to his preferred version. In the last three months he has made a total of 53 edits. 6 (11%) have been revisions of the Catholic Church article to his preferred version

  • 11:31, 20 May 2010 [17]
  • 11:21, 20 May 2010 [18]
  • 20:25, 17 May 2010 [19]
  • 12:49, 26 Mar 2010 [20]
  • 09:51, 17 March 2010 as IP 93.172.31.21 [21]
  • 09:15, 17 March 2010 [22]
  • 08:48, 17 March 2010 [23]

I'm not sure how to get his attention - being blocked previously did not appear to work, and his editing pattern shows that he is generally only on Wikipedia towards the middle of the month, so he may not even notice/care about most short blocks. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The initial block expired in about ten minutes, and the time it has given other editors to post here has provided evidence illustrating the user's previous for wholesale changes against consensus (and RfC it seems). I have extended the block. SGGH ping! 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Emegt[edit]

Emegt (talk · contribs) has been adding the word bisexual (he started adding homosexual) as the first definition to the article Marcial Maciel.12345 He has been warned 3 times123. Several user has left several edit summaries.1234567. I also left 2 notes on his talk page: "I noticed that you still adding "Bisexual" to the lead of Marcial Maciel- Please stop, see WP:MOSBIO, also WP:LEAD, everything that is on the lead text have to be on the article, not only in the lead. Also, "bisexual" is not proper for the first definition of the subject. As I said please stop" and "You are not reading. Please stop or you will be reported", and one on the article note. His last edit summary this was for me like "OMG! I'M GIVING SEVERAL REASONS and you are not listening". I'm reporting him, he's not listen that are rules (WP:MOSBIO WP:LEAD) here. TbhotchTalk C. 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that you and he need to talk about this on the article talk page; based on what the article says, there seem to be substantiated allegations of that conduct. Whether it belongs in the intro or not is probably best worked out cooperatively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem it's that he is not cooperating. He still adding it. TbhotchTalk C. 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I've left a warning. If necessary I'll block for edit warring. I agree with GWH that discussion would be preferable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I do agree that them adding it repeatedly and not cooperating or talking about it is a problem. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, was warned and if he re-add it again (high probably due he still adding it throughout the month) I'll ask him discussion on the talkpage, if he refuse, I'll be back. TbhotchTalk C. 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
He appears to be an SPA as well. No other edits since he started earlier this month. Dougweller (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:LordGorval's conduct in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Biblical names[edit]

I am not sure how to handle this. I nominated List of Biblical names for deletion because it is merely a copy of a public domain list, which has been noted in numerous talk page discussions to be unreliable, and because User:LordGorval reverted the removal of the unreliable definitions. Apparently because I have continued editing the article while awaiting the outcome of the deletion debate, User:LordGorval has repeatedly falsely stated in the discussion and the edit summaries of the discussion that I (the nominator) have withdrawn the deletion nomination. He persists in this conduct despite my clearly stating in response that I have not withdrawn my nomination, and despite my having asked him not to continue making this false assertion. I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to take action, as it would at least appear to be related to our obvious disagreement over the inclusion of the article under discussion. The diffs for the edit summaries are here, here, here, and here. bd2412 T 21:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't a copy of a public domain source supposed to be re-written with original content, rather than deleted. I didn't realise that was a valid criteria for deletion... SGGH ping! 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
However I should not speak before looking at your other reasons for opening the AfD. SGGH ping! 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I readily concede that a good-faith argument could be made for keeping the page; however, repeatedly making false claims that the nomination for deletion has been withdrawn is not such an argument. bd2412 T 22:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
While the editor is obviously mischaracterising your arguments, this isn't really something which requires administrative intervention. Were the closing admin to suggest that your having "withdrawn" were a reason for the close then there would be a problem. You can ask the user not to mischaracterise your arguments yourself; despite having registered some time ago, the account has only really become active this month, so might as well treat it as a new user. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

6056slusser sockpupperty admission in RL[edit]

Resolved: WFWW? has been socking still, after speaking to a admin on IRC, all socks blocked and tagged. Placing summary at User:Sk8er5000/WFWW. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know how to deal with this. WFWW? was blocked a few months ago as vandal-only. I know this person in RL. However, yesterday the person who edited as WFWW? came up to me, stating he vandalised Iron Man 2 as 6056slusser, which contains part of his real name. Should I just tag him as a sock as usual or is there other steps I need to take, given that this evidence is from RL? -- sk8er5000 yeah? 23:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I would take it to WP:SPI, and present your evidence for consideration from a checkuser, seeing as it can't be verified by any other evidence other than your testimony. My two cents. SGGH ping! 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as both accounts have been blocked there's no need for either CU or SPI. Just leave them as is. We don't have to tag every single sock. Tim Song (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Libel and legal threats posted by anon[edit]

For the past few days an anon in the 95.79.0.0/18 range has been adding libelous information against an Israeli Prof.[24][25] The anon has now escalated the disruption with legal threats: "the editors of the Wikipedia are asked not to remove it; if nevertheless they do, special legal procedures will be taken, including international lawsuits"[26][27] I believe blocks or page protections are in order. Rami R 07:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you don't get a response from an admin here, take it to WP:RFPP to ask for semi-protection for a couple of weeks or so, and hopefully that will cool the IPs' jets. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Page protected, ips who made legal threats blocked for one year or until they retract said threats, and I used revision delete for the first time to remove the libelous content they were aggressively reposting. Not yet marking as resolved because I would like other admins to review my use of revision deletion since it's such a new thing. I'm pretty sure I used it correctly here but feedback is always good when you are not used to a new tool. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it worked. That also explains the acceleration I've seen in rubbing out questionable edits from the visible part of the edit history. Hopefully that will discourage the trolls, as they won't be able to see their "handiwork". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Roll on flagged revisions! Mjroots (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The revdel looks appropriate to me. Just a comment on the blocks - for the same reason we don't block them indef, there's no sense in blocking dynamic IPs for a year if they've stopped being used and are dynamically reassigned every day. I'll shorten them to something more sensible. You might want to blacklist the link; it's been spammed into quite a few articles for a couple of months[28]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
What's an international lawsuit? Would we be tried by the UN? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect he means a lawsuit between two people of different nationalities, but he may mean the International Court of Justice or perhaps Nuremberg. SGGH ping! 11:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought that court was in Trenton, New Jersey? Fut.Perf. 11:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I think that's where my cousin Vito buries the bodies of, shall we say, people who were a disappointment to management. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:REVDEL is still new to me, but I'm pretty sure this is exactly the sort of thing it ought to be used for. Allegations of defamation and extortion, sourced to arbitrary websites, do not belong here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Not quite "flagged revisions", but a useful step in that direction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I suspect he's talking bollocks - for this kind of issue there is no such thing as an "international lawsuit". Why yes, IAAL. – ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I have yet to see a legal threat here that had any merit whatsoever but that one was especially weak, more so when you consider that they were the ones posting libelous content. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Gee, Ukexpat, for a moment I thought you were sharing with us where we could file an international lawsuit. So if I find myself in Bullocks, Ontario, I can't simply start an international lawsuit against someone on Wikipedia for pain & suffering? Aw shucks, another life-long dream turned to bitter ashes! -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite Personal Attacks and Removing edits from Article Talk Page[edit]

Resolved: Forum shopping - dealt with on user's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

This editor has made repeated personal attacks against me on my talk page and in edit summaries and has removed my edits from an article talk page.Malke2010 22:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not forum shopping. This is wrong to mark this resolved. I have done nothing to engender these egregious comments and this behavior must be addressed. Please remove the 'resolved' tag.Malke2010 23:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeping task[edit]

On new pages patrol, I just noticed this Steve G. Jones (Clinical Hypnotherapist, Writer), where someone's asking that the text be undeleted and userfied for him. Of course clearly what's there now does need to be deleted, but not before someone retrieves the previously deleted text. Can someone handle? Thanks. — e. ripley\talk 22:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert only newly created account[edit]

Resolved

This user Vindaloo_Bfast has only made reverts, first to Roland's edits and I reverted one and the account has now continued off reverting my edits. Sock, account appears to be a quacking disruptive sock, please block. Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked before you posted here, courtesy of Zzuuzz. Amalthea 23:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

User Kww[edit]

Resolved: The boomerang came back. –xenotalk 20:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why Kww is semi-protecting pages such as "List of Italian-Americans", "Kimi Raikkonen", "Fernando Alonso" and "Celebration"? These pages rarely contribute to vandalism, so I don't see why they have to be semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could clear this up. Thanks 21:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.17.241 (talkcontribs)

Why not ask them? –xenotalk 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I semi-protect any pages that they edit. These articles were protected due to CharlieJS13. Given geographic location, there's somewhere around a 99% chance that 86.136.17.241 is also CharlieJS13.—Kww(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Apparently because someone is IP-Hopping to target articles? [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/CharlieJS13/Archive] for more. (he put that as the semi-protect reason, that's how I know) Have you brought this up with Kww? (I sense the footgun being used, an IP complaining about someone semi-protecting an article to prevent an IP hopper from disrupting....) SirFozzie (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
And both the socking IP and the reporting IP here both resolve to British Telecom DSL in London, England. What a shock. — Satori Son 20:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
He certainly has a good gun-sight on his footgun. IP blocked 72 hours, Vogue (Madonna song) semi-protected for a month. It's come to my attention that this is probably Dance-pop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and that CharlieJS13 is just a sock, not a new master. Can't be proven at this point, but seems likely.—Kww(talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the "Plaxico" metaphor is a bit overdone and becoming old news, the "boomerang" metaphor works pretty well. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You know, we really need to put something back at WP:PLAXICO so new people get the reference. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
At least make it a redirect. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. DONE. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I support that, mostly, but wasn't a previous redirect at that location BLPed?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know, but there's no valid reason to do so. He sits in prison, convicted of illegal usage of a gun. We didn't put him there, the government did. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
No, he copped to it. He wasn't tried for it. —Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 17:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
So he confessed to it. So there's no BLP issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. We need to actively discourage the public ridicule of a living person. Deleted and salted. –xenotalk 17:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It makes fun of the poster mostly. I knew awhile back that the article (despite sourcing) had been deleted, but I was unaware that a redirect was also forbidden. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
This is discussed in more detail at my talk page [34], I have not much more to add. –xenotalk 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of all the history of this thing, and it's not important enough to argue over. It's old news, like Dan Quayle and the "potatoe" incident. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
If we had a WP:QUAYLE which pointed to WP:ILLITERACY that would be exactly as inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be a bit different- Dan Quayle had a card with the wrong spelling on it, as I remember reading. However, the football player in question was the one who shot his own leg. I personally think there's no BLP violation, but hey, I've only been here for a little while. Let's not beat this to death. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Well I disagree with that sentiment: there are certain instances where in reciting the simple & verifiable facts of an event cannot avoid showing that someone is undeniably stupid. Like managing to get oneself arrested for shooting herself/himself in the foot. Or telling a child that she/he misspelled a word & insisted that the child add an erroneous "e" at the end. Or being described by an anonymous source to Spy magazine as being so stupid that "You don't expect to encounter guys this dumb pumping gas." (Damn, I gotta add the information from that Spy article about the 10 dumbest congressmen.) If someone doesn't want to be the object of ridicule, don't do something something inexcusably stupid -- which can be verified. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I still don't think it's a BLP violation, or not much of one, but when it becomes increasingly necessary to explain the joke, it kind of loses its oomph. Xeno's boomerang metaphor is much more broadly recognizable. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Remember that BLP is more than just a set of hard rules. Wikipedia is not Private Eye, and lampooning people is not really in our remit. Where a point can be made perfectly well without having to negatively refer to a living person, it's sensible to do so. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Which is why boomerang is a much safer and better understood metaphor. And truth to tell, once Plaxico went to prison the joke wasn't so funny anymore. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey player[edit]

The {{Infobox ice hockey player}} RfC has just been closed (by a bot). An uninvolved admin is needed, please, to make the necessary change. Code from the last time this was done may be found near the top of the talk page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Jzyehoshua, again[edit]

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jzyehoshua to centralize discussion and to save space on this page. Please do not add timestamp until this reaches the top of the page and discussion has concluded.MuZemike

Jzyehoshua (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to Barack Obama or Abortion. Ban logged at WP:RESTRICT. - 2/0 (cont.)

I reimposed the topic ban to make it clear this was not done by an involved editor. I also discussed this on his talk page, making sure that he understood that this was due to his behavior, not wanting to work cooperatively with anyone else here, and not his viewpoint. He outright stated he didn't care to work collaboratively with anyone else here anymore and that he intended to leave in some form or another. Shortly afterwards, knowing he would be violating the topic ban, he edited Talk:Barack Obama twice: [35] [36]. I have imposed an indefinite block on him editing, for which he then thanked me [37].
I find it unfortunate that he chose to flame out and burn the bridge behind him in this manner, but I think it was predictable from a couple of days ago given the thread here.
I guess this is resolved now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk)
His definition of "involved" seems to include anyone who expresses an opinion about his editing. But since he's now indefinitely blocked for a WP:POINTy violation of the restriction and claims he doesn't want to come back I guess there is nothing more to say. Guy (Help!) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nerve Recordings[edit]

I'd like to tell User:NawlinWiki that he shouldn't have deleted that page: there are many of these record labels around the wiki and nobody has complained about them. TylerDurdenn (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it notable? Because if it isn't it gets deleted no matter what else seems to exist on Wikipedia. And why haven't you asked NawlinWiki himself why he deleted it? SGGH ping! 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I guess you missed the big orange box telling you to notify the other user. Anyway, why didn't you just ask him directly?DoRD (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't ask him because his page is protected. Anyway, there are many other labels like this one, so... TylerDurdenn (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, my apologies, I saw that you have plenty of edits, but haven't been registered long enough. —DoRD (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, the argument that "other stuff like this exists" is not a valid one when it comes to article deletion. I have asked the user to comment, seeing as his page is protected. SGGH ping! 16:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I'm the second person to do so! I suspect the user will answer you here or on your talk. SGGH ping! 16:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Tangent - is it appropriate for NawlinWiki's talkpage to be semi-protected if he's doing administrative actions that can affect unregistered/unconfirmed users? Exxolon (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I try to keep it un-semi'd as much as I can, but the page has been a pretty heavy target for 4chan /b/ attacks lately. If I leave it unprotected, it causes a lot of unnecessary work for other administrators. As far as Nerve Recordings, the article didn't assert any notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comppro: signature without link[edit]

As I'm sure we're all aware, WP:SIGLINK requires a signature to link to at least one part of the editor's userspace. I noticed that Comppro (talk · contribs) was not following this standard, so I politely asked him to change it, and told him that he was free to ask me for help if he wasn't sure how to.

However, he has seemingly