Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive626

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

Noticeboard archives


Problematic user: ChaosMaster16 (Again)[edit]

Resolved: ChaosMaster16 will remove problematically sourced material, and everyone concerned will play nicely in future.

ChaosMaster16 is refusing to acknowledge an obvious consensus at WP:RSN and edit-warring at List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, although not in a way that would justify reporting at WP:AIV or WP:3RRN. Some time ago, in the process of rebuilding List of Ghost Whisperer episodes, I removed several ratings figures because they were sourced from, an internet forum. ChaosMaster16 reverted not only my edits, but all of the changes made by four different editors.[1] Eventually ChaosMaster16 allowed most of our changes to remain, but challenged the removal of the information. Neither the RSN discussion in May or WP:SPS was ufficient proof for him that is not reliable, so I initiated another RSN discussion.[2] The response of five editors still wasn't sufficient so he spammed several user talk pages, resulting in the recent ANI discussion linked at the top of this section. Now, a total of 19 editors have been involved with 13 editors declaring either that shouldn't be used or that it is definitely unreliable. That still is not good enough for ChaosMaster16.

When it became clear that consensus was that was not reliable, I removed the information from the article.[3] My edits were reverted, as were the edits of another editor who tried to remove the information.[4][5] In my case, I was accused of vandalism.[6] He then claimed that four editors said the figures should be included with citation tags.[7] In reality, a single editor suggested the possibility,[8] and ChaosMaster16 took that as consensus. I challenged his claim and, when he hadn't responded in two days, I removed the information. However, it's back again, having been restored for reasons that aren't entirely clear from edit summaries. He now claims that the "for and "against" sides are even at 6 people each, despite a tally that I did so as to hopefully resolve this debacle, shows a somewhat different story. (13 not reliable - 3 reliable)[9] This may seem like a content dispute but when one editor is ignoring the opinions of many others, or twisting their opinions unrealistically so that they support his arguments and just making stuff up, it's beyond mediation.

It's really not just this issue. His whole attitude to the project needs adjustment. Edit-warring, reverting significant edits by others, improperly warning users and deliberate addition of false information[10] is not showing respect to the project. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment on this particular incident, but I did feel his final question in the previous discussion indicated, shall we say, a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue. To wrap up an ANI discussion by trying to get clarification on just how far you can push in future seems a little problematic. Is there any future in counselling here, in case it's a case of good intentions, but not understanding? To elaborate, what I'm suggesting is that sometimes a user gets pulled into conflict without understanding there's another way - and maybe this has happened here. Just a thought. Although I guess he's been here a while now - maybe he should already have "got it" - just trying to see a painless way forward.  Begoontalk 20:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
"a tendency to wish to push the boundaries, rather than understand the point at issue." - This was something that I observed about him elsewhere. He applied for rollback permission and when told he needed more vandal fighting experience, with a suggestion of at least 50 vandal reverts, rather than getting some general experience he rushed out, did 50 reverts then came back and said OK, I'm done.[11] As for counselling, I think it would have to be forced. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok - take your points, and you obviously have far more of the history here than I do. I would always just rather see us be able to reform a user than lose a user, especially one with a long contribution history. I haven't fully reviewed that history yet - my comments were based on my default to "fix" rather than "abandon". I see from your initial comment that's your preference too. I'll comment fully later.  Begoontalk 20:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Initially, I mainly see this one dispute over as the main point of contention. That certainly seems to be the focus of recent problems. Is there more than that, or should we, in reality, concentrate on that as being the nexus of this complaint?  Begoontalk 21:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
His unwillingness to acknowledge consensus the he himself help to create is certainly a major issue. If we can address that, hopefully the result will be positive for all. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that posts such as this are appropriate. This one seems like he's forgotten the other ANI discussion already. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok - you got me there - my good faith is stretched remarkably now. I hoped he'd absorbed the advice given - seems not really. I just find it sad when seemingly a single issue can end up this way. It's like we've all failed to stop an accident. Sorry for seeming so insistent initially - now I've read some more diffs I agree this isn't really tenable as it is.  Begoontalk 23:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How in the world is asking Mike Allen, who was already in the discussion and obviously has some interest in the issue, and adding a notice on top of an entertainment notice not appropraite? I admit the entertainment board is pushing the limits, but you are seriously going to pick out Mike Allen's and use that against me? And let me remind you Aussie, that this is an ongoign discussion, it doesn't exactly have a consensus yet, as we are still discussing the issue, which you seem to be in complete denial of discussing. Coming here before the discussion is over is proof enough. And, Begoon, I don't exactly see how my question in that discussion was "pushing boundries". I mentioned it in my previous response, and Aussie responded, a few times on two discussions, blatantly ignoring the question. I honestly just wanted to hear his opinion on that, and certainly wasn't intentionally trying to "push boundries". I do apoligize for sounding mean?, I don't mean to. ChaosMasterChat 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't sound mean. I just think it's time this was put to bed. It isn't going to be seen as constructive after an ANI thread here regarding spamming a request, where you agreed to be more circumspect,to then "piggyback" that request on another template. That's certainly pushing boundaries in my book. If this was a schoolyard, I'd ask you to all go behind the bikesheds and settle your differences. It's starting to look a bit silly  Begoontalk 01:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
So what should we (or I rather) do? I am opened to anything, as this is getting rediculous. I think that the discussion is getting under both Aussie and I's skin, but I do think that it has progressed and improved. The point I was trying to to make was heard and I hope with that, it will turn the tables so we can do whats best for wikipedia, not just simply obide by five or six rules that prevent us from using common sense. ChaosMasterChat 01:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think what I linked above (after the edit conflict) might be a start if you genuinely can't just discuss it and reach a compromise independently on your talk pages. You both want to contribute positively, but there is a difference of opinion. Certainly couldn't hurt to try  Begoontalk 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
suggestion, Has anyone ever heard of WP:SNOW? That's exactly what this issue is. So far this is quite strong consensus (key word being so far) that the source provided is not appropriate. Don't forget WP:Consensus isn't decided on the number of votes, its the quality and merit of the points made. Instead of fighting over it here's a suggestion. Chaosmaster16 should remove the information to his personal user page or a sandbox/whatever to preserve it and search for more appropriate sources. You should really accept the evidence before you about why the source is not acceptable. Once that it does maybe you and 'Aussie' can work together on the rest of the article/project amicably. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed - that was the kind of agreement I hoped they would reach independently - I agree, though, some nudging may help :)  Begoontalk 01:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't intend to start an arguement, but I did already try to provide other sources, as well as another user (I guess, from the edits he has made), but I haven't come up with anything better than that source. I don't see any reason to use my sandboxes for this if I alread basically went through the notion. Now what? ChaosMasterChat 01:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you're "open to anything", ChaosMaster, how about we start there - with Lil-unique's proposal. It works for me, and hopefully makes some sense to you too. At some point, the stick will need to be dropped.  Begoontalk 01:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The thing is you cant leave poorly sourced or unsourcable information in an article in the hope that one day it might be sourceable from reliable sites. The whole point of using a sandbox is to preserve the information if you are intent on adding it to the article. Whilst your determination is admirable, I've scanned the discussions and have to agree that there isn't currently a good source for the info. You and 'Aussie' are obviously both passionate about this so why not focus on other aspects of the project/article. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Because it would seem a shame if this got further prolonged into more tit for tat and ended in some kind of sanction - that's avoidable at the moment, but I suspect this audience has limits to its tolerance.  Begoontalk 01:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Begoon would agree with me if I said that if you drop ChaosMaster16 drops the issue then this report can end here without sanctions right? Both you and 'Aussie' should agree discuss things more. I'm sure you'll find that the project/article will make more progress this way. After all wikipedia is about the community not the interests of individual. I'm sure both of you would love to see the project make progress (y) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Its fine with me. But what worries me when that happens is that since I have used that source on other pages that I edit, I fear the same situation happening. But for Ghost Whisperer's page, I will do that. ChaosMasterChat 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, lets eat the elephant one piece at a time. First you can tidy this up, then if you need to, you can worry about other places you've used the source - how does that sound?  Begoontalk 01:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, should I do this now, or wait for his or another comment? ChaosMasterChat 01
57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're in agreement to it then the situation is resolved. Go ahead and removed from the original article which 'Aussie' bought you here for. Then I think its a case for you and Aussie to agree to be more civil to each other and please discuss things more! --Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and thanks for talking it through with us. Do that, shake hands,and get on with the stuff you enjoy!  Begoontalk 02:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you two for helping me! :) ChaosMasterChat 02:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Though it should be noted for future reference, I'm a completely neutral editor with no interest in the subject at question. Nor am I an admin. I simply saw the discussion and having been through a similar situation myself offered some neutral advice. Glad there has been a calm resolution. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome - I hate to see conflicts escalate, when they can be avoided. Very glad this seems to have been resolved.  Begoontalk 19:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another sock of Ocean Mystic Researcher?[edit]

Resolved: Sockpuppet blocked by MuZemike. LK (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Melanesian obsession (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a new account involved in article deletions and targeting Richard Arthur Norton's articles. The MO is uncannily similar to that of Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Any ideas? Or should I just go to SPI instead? Thanks. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 03:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In either venue, you'd have to expand on "uncannily similar". I can see some grounds for suspicion, but only weak suspicion.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, both accounts concentrate on AfDs as soon as they register, both have maritime related names and both start targeting RAN's articles soon after they register. Maybe a duck case but it is your word against mine at the moment. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just ban the asshat already, its clear what he's doing.--Milowent (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
    • He even prodded an article by RAN before without providing a reason. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 04:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yup, same user as User:Drawn Some and User:Torkmann, same pattern of right into AFDs and right into nominate my articles, and usually there is another account voting that is also him, look and see if there are any other delete votes for an obvious keep article and that will be another sleeper account. He usually has ones that are used for a short burst then quiet for a year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Lots of fowl play I see. Great work Richard. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 05:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. –MuZemike 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much MuZemike. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 14:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Boldly closed this AFD a little early. Obvious keep. Left the rest open as they haven't been open for very long and/or have delete !votes aside from the nom. Perhaps an admin can look them over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape[edit]

Unless I have misread the discussions badly, the consensus is clear on the article’s talk page and at RS/N: racial designations are hearsay in respect of the specific cited sources, and that race was not a factor in the crime. (This is the very short form of the discussions. There is no single diff that will help.) Richmondian, the more vocal of the only two dissenting points of view, keeps restoring racial designations to the lede. Richmondian also leaves edit summaries in misleading support of his idiosyncratic viewpoint. See here and here. (I will notify Richmondian of this discussion as soon as I finish this post. Disclaimer: I am “involved”.) I solicit suggestions as to the least disruptive way to stabilize the article at the consensus version. Bielle (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Posted [12] Bielle (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have also just left this user Richmondian a warning template here on his talkpage for unnecessarily striking through one of my comments on the Richmond High School gang rape talkpage in this edit with some note of, duplicate vote stricken, which was news to me as it wasn't an AFD and was the first time I had bolded support in that way. This user has massive ownership issues with the article and is insisting of inserting content that gives weight to a claim that is unreflected in quality citations, namely that the rape was racially motivated. Off2riorob (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This editor put a "support" comment twice. Once without bold, once with bold. Could confuse people. Seems reasonable to strike out one. This will sound petty, but the editor seems to have some sort of grudge, against the article for some time. Not clear why but he's tried to remove info, tried to delete it, tried to damage the article to make an AfD more likely to succeed. Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted on the talkpage regarding reliable sources and requested a list of the sources being used to support the edit, I'll then evaluate and comment. Exxolon (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Commented. I'm for leaving the information out at this time. Exxolon (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the time and effort taken by Exxolon to evaluate the sources cited. He has added his voice to the many who have already reached the same conclusion, as linked above at talk page and at RS/N. Off2riorob has reverted Richmodian's most recent revert as a consequence. Perhaps Richmondian will now accept that the weight of policy and opinion is against the point of view he espouses. These actions seems just to continue the edit war, though, albeit with another voice involved. Is this the best way to handle the problem? Or are we just waiting now to see what Richmondian does next? Bielle (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
415plya, a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to this article and on this issue, has returned to revert Off 2riorob here which was promptly flipped back by Drmies here. The skirmishes in the war continue. Bielle (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No idea who that is. Seems like an editor that has a difference of opinion that should be considered (and probably an editor with other accounts...strange that they'd pop in to edit this article out of the blue) Richmondian (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan kirkpatrick back again?[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place, but while sitting on newpage patrol just now I came across an article written by User:Ryan Kirky. Username similarity aside, it looks very similar to User:Ryan kirkpatrick's air accident articles. Just thought it should be brought to your attention; I'm not sure what the best course of action is here. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If there are no users with knowledge of Ryan to concur with any WP:DUCK-tests (I find that unlikely, he is well known) then I suspect an SPI will be in order. I suspect users with said knowledge will materialise soon. S.G.(GH) ping! 16:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've templated his new articles as copyvio - they could be, as at least one other was, just turned into redirects to articles that mention the incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image inappropriately cute for PKK article[edit]

I am involved in possibly the most curious episode of reverting I have ever witnessed, let alone participated in. I find that the image I reverted with this edit (with summary) entirely inappropriate for the article - most of the time I spend adminning the article is in removing gratuitous ethnic, cultural, and nationalistic insults and attempts to vandalise the other protagonists viewpoints. I have explained on the ip editors talkpage that I consider placing the image on the article page as vandalism, as I believe it is placed there to irritate editors whose view of the PKK is somewhat caustic. I am beginning to believe, however, that it may be simple propoganda, but regardless I would like a few other opinions on this - I don't really want to be warning an editor for placing "nice pictures" in articles unless it is agreed that it is inappropriate. Please note, viewing the image may not be suitable for those of a fragile disposition. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes the "PKK guerilla nurses an orphaned bear cub" picture is innapropriate for this article. I shudder to think what a nightmare of propagandaists that article must be.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't find the image in itself objectionable, altough I would move it lower down in the article. The image of a guerrilla in non-combat situations is not erroneous, in fact most time spent by guerrillas is not in the battle-front (although nursing orphaned bear cubs isn't the most mundane chore at hand). However, the image is likely to get deleted anyway, due to lack of proper licensing. --Soman (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
As Soman says, we try to keep reuse of news service photos to a minimum due to fair use being very hard to justify in those cases unless the image is in itself "iconic". So if you need an argument other than "it's too cute", there's that. --erachima talk 18:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
ahhhh..bless. Yes the image doesn't have a valid license, it's on commons and according to this it's one of Andrea Bruce's and was in the Washington Post. So, I guess we shouldn't have it unless someone can make a valid fair use case for the small furry chap. Also leaning an AK47 against something like that is quite a serious a health and safety violation and we shouldn't be encouraging those... Someone might get hurt. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It's definitely inappropriate as the first, principal image of what a PKK member is, unless they are principally armed bear-nursers. It's also taken from [13] with insufficient credit and no fair-use rationale, and fails NFCC#1 ("no free equivalent exists or could be created"), since there are free equivalents in the article already. Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, do not delete picture. Picture is allowed for sharing and that gun in picture will not hurt anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santakari (talkcontribs) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

What is really funny is that the uploader lifted the image from a commentary about the original use of the image in which the commentary is stating the use of the image in regards to discussions about the PKK is completely inappropriate propoganda! Active Banana (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I've tagged it as a copyvio on commons. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Apparently not the first time S has uploaded that image there, claiming to be the author! LeadSongDog come howl! 19:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: 3 users blocked

Apki.ammi.chodu (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) user:Apki.ammi.chodu has been blocked Yet another WP:DUCK sock of Shshsh stalker: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#User:Shshsh_ki_mako Active Banana (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Group all sixty (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) - here's another one. ShahidTalk2me 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
And another one: Still strong.still (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). ShahidTalk2me 22:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV backlogged[edit]

Can someone take a look at it please? Falcon8765 (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies[edit]

Resolved: poppycock Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This was archived before I even had a chance to respond! Not only are Drmies actions were pretty blatantly wikihounding, he's clearly pushing a POV. Far from "anyone who knows anything about human trafficking", there's substantial evidence that most claims of human trafficking are wildly exaggerated, particularly those related to sexual trafficking. Here's a couple of examples from a quick google search: [14] [15]. I will be updating Human Trafficking to be more balanced when I have time to do more research. But a first step in improving wikipedia is to remove/reduce the undue weight given to the topic. We can't have editors who believe everything the hear on the 11pm news during sweeps week blocking constructive edits. And to follow another user around and revert other edits with the clear intent to annoy and push POV? Unacceptable. I suggest Drmies stick to topics he's more knowledgeable about and contribute constructively to wikipedia there.

For example: Template:Violence against women was blanked and stayed that way for nearly a week before I fixed it here. Are we really to believe that it's better to have the template be blank than exist without a link to human trafficking? Even though Sexual Slavery and Forced Prostitution are already there? That may just be sloppy editing, but given his other actions it's unlikely. TJ Black (talk) 04:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He does seem to have stopped for now, so yes, I agree it's kind of a dead issue. It's not clear why the discussion was archived before I had a chance to reply though. TJ Black (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not "poppycock" by any means, but apparently resolved through the other editor deciding to refrain from disruptive behavior. TJ Black (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I refrained from disruptive behavior? I guess I should take that as a compliment, haha. Drmies (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Defamation and copyright complaint on Talk:Yolanda Soares[edit]

An anonymous IP address that previously vandalized the article is now claiming to be a publisher and on the article talk page and two other user talk pages claims to have made a report to the Swiss Authors Society. Please see Talk:Yolanda Soares#Copyrights and defamation relating to song writer Alex fan Moniz - this Wikipedia entry has been reported the the Swiss Authors Society. (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jameslwoodward, against whom this IP has complained, asked me if I'd block the IP per WP:NLT. While blocking seems to me to be warranted in this situation, I hesitate to do it, because I'm rather inexperienced with this situation. Some time ago, I blocked someone for making legal threats; soon afterward, I brought the issue here for advice and was kindly told that blocking wasn't necessary. Since I don't want to block unless it's necessary, I don't want to block without getting input first. That all being said, I think the IP should be blocked until/unless the threats are retracted. Nyttend (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The IP address can be temporarily blocked for WP:NLT. As well, the apparent latest sockpuppet account User:Simongad (which appears to be related to the long list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Montreux69/Archive). The basis for this disruption dates back to the Helen Anne Petrie hoax -- info and links are provided at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I don't want to get into a discussion of public identities and locations here. If any administrator wants further clarification, they can e-mail me. CactusWriter (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Inflammation Diet[edit]

I can't locate a diet or nutrition Wikiproject, and I would like to ask someone familiar with those types of articles to review Anti-Inflammation Diet before trying to prune it down to size. The article has some well-referenced sections and some encyclopedic content; but a large chunk of it seems to flip between being better suited for either marketing materials or in a magazine/journal.

Can someone please help point me towards an apporpriate forum where people more familiar with articles on diets and/or nutrition could be contacted to help review this one? Thanks. -- (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Try WT:HEALTH --erachima talk 22:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Distributed element filter[edit]


Move Prtected.

TFA without move protection, I usually go to RFPP, nut it is backlogged. TbhotchTalk C. 01:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Move protected for the day. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: chicken/penis uploader indeffed by CIreland. Me, I'm just waiting for the White Rabbit--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Christopherfisherington (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Vandalism under pretext of "challenging convention" I'm sure. Current problem is with inclusion of a "hawkstrider" picture with a definite phallus for a head (funny sure, but inappropriate) in the Orc page. A cursory viewing of his short history and especially his User talk page will show his attitude towards wiki. --Out of Phase User (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a chicken to me? (Albeit badly drawn.) a_man_alone (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his contribs, the user seems to be purely disruptive and an obvious troll. I am amazed that he hasn't been indeffed earlier. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not making a comment on whether he should be or not, just noting (for clarity) that he hasn't been indeffed now either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I mean, he titled a picture after me of some weird chicken. I didn't catch it, someone else did and pulled it for copyright stuff. It's harassment, I guess, if it helps the case. --Out of Phase User (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This image, File:Outofphaseuser.jpg, may be CSD G10able. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Image deleted. Please don't delink the image, by the way; I've remarked about the ANI discussion in my deletion summary, and including a link to the page will enable someone to find the discussion easily. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the account. CIreland (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I realise this is all moot, there was a lack of assumed good faith there:
  • User uploaded badly drawn image of an orc on a chicken
  • Another user saw not a chicken, but a penis, and complained
  • Original user uploaded another badly drawn image of a chicken to show that it was a chicken, not a penis. Original uploader called second image that of second user, so second user would know that the image was an example of a badly drawn chicken, not a badly drawn penis.
For the record, I see a chicken.

a_man_alone (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicken, penis, whatever. The user's other contribs (especially deleted contribs) were more than enough justification for an indef-block. CIreland (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Also regardless of it being a chicken or penis (coul dn't care less), childrens drawings are usually not accepted as informative illustrations on Wikipedia (unless it is to illustrate what children's drawings look like). --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Once I saw Ron Ritzman's comment, I agreed with it: the picture and the file name together amount to calling Out of Phase User a chicken, which seems to be attack-ish enough for G10. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that what you got? Because I just thought he was being super weird, childish, and annoying. --Out of Phase User (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
What base prudery. It's a moot point, but that was obviously a penis. This isn't some sort of Rorschach test-like ambiguity. Skinwalker (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think we have better things to worry about than whether the drawing was of a dick or a cock. --erachima talk 04:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive sneaky vandalism of Robert Watson (scientist)[edit]

Resolved: Article protected Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A series of loosely organized "skeptics" are attempting to put false, defamatory content in Robert Watson (scientist). Dr. Watson said that Mars' thin atmosphere causes it not to have a greenhouse effect (while Venus' thick atmosphere causes it to have a huge greenhouse effect). This is in line with standard scientific thinking. An IP vandal attempted to insert the false inormation that this is not in line with standard scientific thinking into the article - this was reverted, but that reversion was questioned as a vandalism or not-vandalism revert.

However, users are now reinserting the false, defamatory information into the article, in violation of BLP. Please assist. Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The material may or may not be a WP:BLP violation, that is certainly a topic for debate, but to call it "vandalism" and “defamatory”? Methinks the lady doth protest too much. WVBluefield (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The material is a blatant synthesis to make defamatory accusations against a living person. Failure to understand something is no excuse for edit warring to re-add obviously poorly supported material, and a look at the article talk page would have shown you that the material was false. Not good behaviour. . dave souza, talk 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Blatant is a judgment not neccesarraly supported by the talk page material. Given the past inconsistent treatment of "blatant" material in BLP's by editors far more experienced than myself, you can understand my skepticsim when I hear cires of "blatant" violations. Oh well, at least no one is calling it "vandlaism" anymore.WVBluefield (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No, your edit wasn't vandalism, it was just disruptive. The IP edit was vandalism - it was intentionally disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
My intent was to insert relevant material into an article. WVBluefield (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Is`nt this forum shopping? As hipocrite has already brought an enforcement request against me? [16] mark nutley (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
No, Mark, this is to get a bunch of admins looking at the article to block the next person who feels like defamaing a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather, Jr.[edit]

Resolved: Done by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

I need an admin. an user moved the page Floyd Mayweather, Jr. to a nonsense target. I reverted it, but I added a dot (Floyd Mayweather, Jr..) at the end. I copy-pated (yes, my error) the content, I tried to revert it but an admin only can do it. Please revert all back, thanks. TbhotchTalk C. 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Show text[edit]

I think these speedy's with CSD-T3 are due. Template:Show text and related (see Category:Category:Templates for speedy deletion). IMO uncontroversial. -DePiep (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Eva Grossjean[edit]

Eva Grossjean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

New User:Eva Grossjean is repeatedly being abusive towards Spanish people and towards anyone whose English isn't perfect (even though hers isn't either). She is also edit-warring with a pro-Catalan and anti-Spanish POV on Catalonia, including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening to warnings. See WQA alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Eva Grossjean, and check our her Talk page at User talk:Eva Grossjean. I don't think anything short of admin action is going to stop this abuse. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and she's also been abusive and condescending at Talk:Catalonia#Catalonia is not a nation (at least legally) but a historical nationality. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned for edit warring, as nobody seems to have pointed that problem out to her yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Ah yes, good point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It would seem reverting Jimbo as a vandal is either an action that rather lacks WP:CLUE, or is an attention-seeking device. Jusdafax 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd guess that, as a new user, she doesn't know who Jimbo is. But she ought to know the difference between 'vandal' and 'person who disagrees with me' already. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, especially as Jimbo explained himself very clearly in his edit summary. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys, are in a sect, in a cult or what???? "including going as far as to revert even Jimbo as a vandal. She is not listening" Of course!!!! FYI, your Jimbo is not Moses: he's just another human being...

On POV, I'm not anti-Spanish at all: I'm anti-anti-Catalan, which is waaaaay different.

As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything (just imagine no reference to Congress in the United States' entry--would that be allowed?).

(Oh, by the way, sorry for violating California's three strikes' rule... Now I know that next time I'll be sent to the electric chair)

Eva Grossjean (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"As I argued before, anti-Catalan bigotry had taken over Catalonia's article to the point of deleting any reference to Catalonia's Parliament from Catalonia's article. And nobody did anything" - That is not what this ANI report is about. It is about your abuse, of other editors personally, and of the Spanish in general. If you see anti-Catalan bias, you are welcome to replace it with neutral POV text (see WP:NPOV), suitably referenced - but you must not be abusive to other editors in the process. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • While the points you raise, Eva Grossjean, may well be valid (I have not looked into it), your manner is highly unsuited to both the forum you have been brought to and the project as a whole. You seem to be on a disruptive, name-calling binge. Since blocks are meant to be preventative, and you are insulting as many people as you can manage, I propose that, without a rapid apology and promise to maintain basic civility, a block at this point would be a good idea for all concerned. And I speak as a longtime fan of Patrick O'Brian's fictional part-Catalan Stephen Maturin. Jusdafax 16:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse I agree with Jusdafax. Eva must understand that it is his/her tone towards other editors that is the problem. It is about decorum not content. He/she can either play nice or we will ask her to move along.--Adam in MO Talk 19:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse They've received way too many warnings already and a WQA. There's no reason to allow this behavior to continue further. There's been no progress that I can see, therefore I think we're at the point where a block is needed. Wikipedia can be friendly and fun, or it can be serious and focused, but it should never be hostile and mean. The community shouldn't have to put up with it. SwarmTalk 06:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Perhaps a block will convince the user to play nice. LK (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional. She's still edit-warring and re-inserting a claim that Catalunia is a "nationality". That's blatantly incorrect even in simple grammatical terms - "Catalunia" can't be a nationality any more than can "England" or "Spain" ("Catalan" perhaps, but not "Catalunia".) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - A look at Eva's edit history confirms that this is a WP:SPA. The user is disruptive, proudly defiant even when commenting on this page in the face of unanimous community concerns, and shows no intention of changing an agenda-driven edit campaign. This is as clear-cut a case for a preventative block as I have ever seen, and I suggest per the above that an administrator do so after reviewing this material. Jusdafax 12:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've indefinitely blocked the account because it's only been used for disruption. Should they wish to edit again, they need not apologize. They need to state with sufficient details what articles they propose to edit and what improvements they'd like to make. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and impeccable work on the conditions for an unblock. Agree that my call for an apology and promise lacks precision. Jusdafax 12:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
But, no blocking (or even a warning) for Jimbo for his blatant vandalism?!? WTF? Admin bias... Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Assuming you are not joking, Jimbo was not the direct subject of this ANI section. You are free to open one, of course. Jusdafax 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Note that there is also an open SPI case involving this user, see here. Not sure of the validity of the claim, but the two accounts are making pretty much the same edits, from a Catalan nationalist perspective, and often use similar phrasings in edit summaries. Although there are also subtle differences in style as well. More broadly, the Catalonia page is a disaster currently. Constant edit warring between two or three different versions, all with their own issues from a neutral bystander's point of view, not least in terms of English language and style issues. The dispute between Spanish centralists and regional nationalists is a long standing issue of course, but the latest round was sparked off mainly by a recent Spanish Constitutional Court decision on Catalonia's bid to assert more autonomy within Spain. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I have noted this action (the indef block by Jehocman) at the SPI page. If Eva Grossjean is a sock, that raises the stakes again, and we should start thinking community ban. I'd ask that we not close this as resolved just yet while we await further information, thanks. Jusdafax 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
It was a joke (see edit summary). Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not a good subject to joke about. People who claim Jimmy Wales has vandalized a Wikimedia project almost always fall into one of the following groups: (1) totally clueless editors who don't know who he is; (2) editors who know who he is, but are here to cause trouble; & (3) established editors who are alarmed or angry over something Wales has done. In none of these cases is anyone involved in the mood for a joke about Wales being a vandal. (Note: this is simply an explanation, not a warning or a talking-to. The way Wikipedia works has gotten so complex that I doubt anyone has a full & accurate knowledge of every part of it, & misunderstandings like this are inevitable.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Even though they apparently know who he is, Eva Grossjean, with a very bizarre justification, reverted Jimbo as a vandal. Jauerback simply made a lighthearted, sarcastic jest about this. This doesn't place Jauerback into any of the above categories. Lighten up. Jeez. SwarmTalk 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Did you happen to notice my words "almost always", & my qualification at the end "this is simply an explanation"? If I wanted to rip Jauerback a fresh one, I'm perfectly capable of doing that. My intent was only to explain why this topic's not a good topic for "lighthearted, sarcastic jests" -- which has nothing to do with how anyone feels about Wales at any given time, or whether or not it's funny. Or are you of the mindset which believes city kids should learn first-hand why they shouldn't throw rocks at hornet's nests? -- llywrch (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Andreas Balart, whom it appears that the result of the SPI investigation shows to be the same user as Eva Grossjean, has resumed editing the Catalonia page today. A look at the user's edit history reveals the exact same M.O. - A single purpose account with an agenda and snide comments for those who oppose it. Suggest indef blocking there as well. I am ready to consider a community ban since the user appears intractable. I have placed notification on the Andreas Balart talk page re: this thread. Jusdafax 22:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE: I have also asked for clarification at SPI. It is not confirmed the Andreas Balart account is related, though there is substantial circumstancial evidence. Jusdafax 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Sockpuppet blocked by Courcelles. LK (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at User:JeffpwIsaac, a reference to departed User:Jeffpw and Isaac. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 16[edit]


Requested Short Summary for User Huey45 acting in "bad faith"[edit]

As evidence that huey45 is acting in bad faith, user: huey45 makes this statement that he is aware is a blatant lie.

He says… “I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. The fact is that Huey45 has been repeatedly lying with the purpose of mutilating the content of this article.

He even continued to lie in the above thread. What's worse, other users are claiming that Huey45 didn't lie, when it is clear to someone with only moderate familiarity with the previous and/or current sources that he is deliberately lying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy's behavior might need to be examined further now. this and this could be considered canvasing and Preciseaccuracy has already been asked not to refer to other editors as liars.Cptnono (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page of which seeming user collusion occurred.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not involved in the articles for deletion page. (Huey45 (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I know you were not involved in the articles for deletion page.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

...but just then, you said "Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page", presumably referring to myself and User:Mbz1. (Huey45 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

Users of user pages this and this referred to in links by cptnono. in the statement directly above my comment "'Both of these users were involved in the articlesfordeletion page" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talkcontribs) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The way it was worded is why it was a potential canvasing issue. And you really need to strike out your comments calling other editors liars before you find yourself blocked by an admin for repeated incivility (although some admins do not think that incivility is blockable)Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Please consider this and close this thread. Preciseaccuracy already submitted an AN/I about the same issue which was opened for two days or more about 36 hours and then closed without anyone found his complaints just. I think that this additional complaint is by itslef violation, considering that he also called the user against whice he complaint "liar" (see the diff provided by me) and repeated that even after was told to stop, taken together with his general pattern of behavior, there is a place to ban him from editing in this article. --Gilisa (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Would go to WP:SPI for this but I have no idea who the sockmaster is. He's clearly not new though. Soxwon (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed sock Can I get that edit deleted? Soxwon (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Can a Checkuser please look into this? -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
No useful results. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Spam Attack Page[edit]

User:SlimVirgin deleted another page being used by a group of trolls from groklaw and scox to harrass Jeff Merkey. My name is Gaylynn Mitchell and you can call my cell phone to verify. I would like for someone to delete this other page as well -- it is being used as an attack page to spam google search results for "Jeff Merkey" on google. These trolls link pages on wikipedia into a "link farm" somewhere then use them to post insults and harass. Please delete the following page per WP:BLP - the article it refers to no longer exists. Page is: [17] (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this page shouldn't be blanked as a courtesy, so I have done so. An old discussion about a deleted article isn't terribly important and can be blanked without harm to Wikipedia. If anyone is really interested, the content is still in the history. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Ed, the page should probably be protected in its courtesy-blanked state. I have come to see this portion of the IP sock's argument about the page: the article to which it points has been deleted. The history of the page shows that it has been blanked (by various socks) and reverted (per "edits by a banned user" policy, and I did one of those rv's) multiple times. Protection would be appropriate to maintain the courtesy blank, as a few of the IP's in the revert history seem likely to undo the courtesy blank. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the history of the article, I agree that protection seems warranted so I have indefinitely semi-protected that page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Is semi-protection enough? Look at RhodiumArmpit (talk · contribs) and MeffJerkey (talk · contribs). I don't know the identity of the people (or person) behind these accounts, and I can't prove a definite connection between the IP's that were in the revert history of the page in question here. The point is that keeping IP's off the page will probably not be enough. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The page is on my watchlist now, so I will keep an eye on it. Semi-protection seems reasonable to me at this point, but if any admin wants to switch it full protection, I have no objection. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for your attention to the matter. Pfagerburg (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IP Sock / Jeff Merkey[edit]

There seems to be a long running problem going on with blocked / banned users returning for more action. I first noticed this reversion by MrOllie then followed the trail from there. I found an AN/I report for (talk · contribs) who was blocked for one week. That block expired today.

Now it seems the same person (talk · contribs) is back performing the same kind of edits (similar edit summary when blanking Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jeff V. Merkey/1. made this edit saying "orphan page that points to a non-existent article" on July 9 and now we have making the same edit saying "remove search engine attack page per WP:BLP".

Dawnseeker2000 15:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I AM TIRED OF BEING ACCOSTED BY TROLLS AND CLAIMED TO BE SOMEONE ELSE. FOR ONE THING I AM A DIFFERENT SEX FROM JEFF AND WHETHER OR NOT I KNOW JEFF IS NONE OF YOU PEOPLES BUSINESS. GROW UP!!! (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC) blocked for 2 weeks. This is the widest block I could find on the known range that had no apparent collateral damage. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention[edit]

Could an administrator please take a mop to WP:UAA as there is a substantial backlog at this time. Many thanks. Jusdafax 16:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7[edit]

Resolved: Moved and protected by User:Nyttend. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Would an admin please move this MfD, which is now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7/Subpagetostopbickingovervenue/respectculturalrightsofreligion back to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Weaponbb7 where it belongs, and change permissions to "move=sysop". Together with it's talk page. This MfD had been moved three times and changing the title of a MfD during an ongoing discussion isn't helping; it's a distraction. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Eyeroll* now its back to being about my user page than about the subpage the template was on. It was orignally about the userpage. Then people start arguing so took the userbox and put it on a subpage (instead of hardcoded on the userpage) and made the MFD about the userbox as it was intended. another user moved it back becuase he thought i was being "disruptive" and then we agreed that the sub page worked better as it the MFD about the userbox instead of the whole page. However i accdiently moved only the "talk page" for it so then had to fix it again. So can we focus on the userbox instead of my userpage! Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, closed as delete but in fact merged with Moses[edit]

I and at least one other editor believe that the material added on June 13th here and today reverted [373962259=1&oldid=373582615 here], restored by cluebot and then reverted by me, is basically the recreation of a deleted article by the creator of the deleted article, Wikiwatcher1 (talk · contribs). The Administrator who closed the AfD isn't around or else I would have asked him first. I'd appreciate comments on this. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just ensure it stays out of the article, that's a clear end run around a deletion discussion. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The topic was discussed last month on the article's talk page], with suggestions and comments, along with support, to add the material after a condensation and refocus of the subject. It should be discussed on the talk page as many comments imply the material fits well within the article and should remain, especially without clear opposition. In addition, the first discussion for revising and adding a new section was opened months ago and remained open for many weeks before added. It is not some kind of "high drama" Administrator's Incident, and is clearly not an example of WP:AGF.
Today, User talk:AussieGreen&Gold deleted the material, and quickly gained support by others for the deletion and this ANI, thereby skipping the discussion. Giving a justifiction for excluding the subject, he wrote last month: "Africa was regarded as the "promised land" for African American slaves who fled racial discrimination in the US and were settled in east Africa in the early 19th century via the American Colonization Society. Regards any America-centric input from Wikiwatcher, wikipedia is meant to represent 'a worldwide view of the subject and prevent systematic bias', otherwise the content becomes skewed/unbalanced and distorted." Is this "worldwide view" of a subject a new WP requirement for articles?
As it appears now, User talk:Dougweller has only provided one rationale for repeatedly wanting this material excluded - that it is merely a merger of an earlier article. However, he chose not to respond much beyond that in the discussions a few months ago, and should not be allowed to again summarily remove the section and avoid discussing. Likewise, comments by User_talk:Black Kite, that the text is a "clear end run around of a deletion discussion" is obviously false and also violates WP:AGF. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I only had limited Internet connectivity during the June discussion and didn't see it. Looking at it now, there is you wanting to do it, another editor giving it limited support but unclear whether this was the kind of text that was deleted at AfD, and AussieGreen&Gold objecting to it. I don't see any substantial difference between what you added to the article and what was deleted at AfD. The June discussion at the Moses talk page can't override an AfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The original admin who deleted the article in February 2010, User:JohnCD, wrote: material here is considerably cut down from that article - maybe one third the length. I'm sorry you didn't notice any "substantial difference," but the condensation was a major revision made to comply with some of the objections to the deleted article, and included a widespread RfC. It was posted for discussion to avoid edit warring and is not an override of the AfD as you insist. User:JohnCD also stated that it should not be re-inserted unless a consensus to do so is achieved on this talk page, and this RFC is the right way to go about deciding that. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


I've blocked user:DrRevXyzzy. From just their last 50 edits we have edit summaries like this and edits like that which leaves me thinking that this user wasn't entirely joking on their now deleted user page. ϢereSpielChequers 09:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Endorse warranted indef just from the userpage and the first edit you evidenced. S.G.(GH) ping! 14:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse No place for that here. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Talk page access needs revoked. We now have this absolutely lovely rant there. Endorse indefinite block by the way. N419BH 04:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Weatherextremes blocked for 24h. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Weatherextremes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I am under countinuos threats by this user Weatherextremes . He is continuosly changing my wikiuser page Maxcrc and in the Talk Page he is using inflamate language, insults and threats of further vandalism in my page, if i don't change my pages with the changes he would like to see. This is unaceppatble,it has been going on for long time and i am really tired to stay 24 hours reverting its changes and read his threats and insults. Would you please tell me what I have to do ?

User talk:Maxcrc

He cannot threat me that way. This is my wiki user page and my short documents are all referenced. Please block this user or tell me how i can protect my wikipage. This user has no right to destroy and vandalise this page in this way. Should i leave wikipedia because the threats of vandalism of another user ? I don't think this is fair. Please do something. Maxcrc (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Notified Weatherextremes. For future reference, you should notify editors when raising issues here. TFOWR 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking into it. TFOWR 10:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Scratch that, it looks like I'm going to have to be offline for a while. TFOWR 10:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
This just seems to be taking place on your userpage? You can't have a content dispute on a userpage, it's not an article - as long as it doesn't violate the WP:USERPAGE or WP:BLP policy you can have whatever correct/incorrect facts on there that you want. Unless there is something else to this (please let me know) I'm going to give the user a unambiguous warning to stay off your userpage. A little tip though, try to indent your subsequent comments rather than using the horizontal lines. Cheers, S.G.(GH) ping! 10:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I have done so, also, do you want me to delete User talk:Maxcrc/Europe which he created? S.G.(GH) ping! 10:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
See also:EAR. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank to intervene in this case. This user #Weatherextreme KEEPS VANDALISING my userpage,despite being warned !

He is now editing my userpage again without his username. Please, WOULD YOU STOP HIM once at all ?

Vandals have more protection than good users, that's amazing ! I have notified editors already, this is the 5th time I notify the case, but the vandals seem over-protected and all-powerful here I cannot believe my eyes. Do I have to shut my userpage and close my account ??? Just tell me. I will delete my user if vandals are given green light to destroy userpages.

Thank to intervene in this case. This user #Weatherextreme KEEPS VANDALISING my userpage,despite being warned !

He is now editing my userpage again without his username. Please, WOULD YOU STOP HIM once at all ? Do I have to shut my userpage and close my account ??? Vandals have more protection than good users, that's amazing ! Maxcrc (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Weatherextremes for continued disruption despite a final warning to stop. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, here we have a problem. I am not entering any of these discussions cited above. I virtually had not edited anything with the exception of few articles and my userpage for years. So please stop accusing me of issues i don't even know about. I just have a small wikiuser page and that's it. Just check the IPs. Besides being threated and vandalized, now you want to tell me it is my fault. Really nice. Why you don't check the IPs of these peoples ? I have no issues in the pages you are talking about. Identity forgery is a serious issue and your accusations too. Who has used these words :"son of..." ,? I never used such an expression and i have had disputes nor been warned or blocked. Tell me the IP and the date of these words and i will send you the immigration movements to see if i was where this people was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talkcontribs) 16:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Maxcrc (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If the user is messing with your user page, you could go to WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection, to keep the IP's and new user ID's away from it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Reading the diffs Uncle G provided, I have some serious concerns about Maxcrc's behaviour. Most of it is entirely unacceptable, and much of it is blockable. Maxcrc, you need to cool it. Behaviour such as Uncle G listed is completely unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement[edit]

Xenophrenic is acting in a very un-civil manner on the Tea party movement article. There is a poll of limited scope (state of Washington) which I have removed from the article as not representative of the movement as a whole and Washington is not considered a bellweather state either. I started a talk section to discuss this poll to which Xenophrenic has joined, yet instead of waiting for any kind of resolution he has returned the information with several disingenous comments.

[18] Claims my edit was POV [19] Claims material was deleted without any explanation [20] Again claims material was deleted without explanation and also claims he has authority per talk, when it is still under discussion.

I find it very hard to work with editors that make such non-good-faith edit comments within their edits. He knows that this is under discussion. Arzel (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Arzel, there is a long standing doctrine in equity that "those seeking equity must come with clean hands." Prior to the edits you complain of above, you reverted Xenophrenics edit here and referred to it in your edit comments as an "NPOV Violation" and "boarderline vandilism" [sic]. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier I said "boarderline" since he claimed there was no reason when their clearly was. I view disengenious edit comments like those that he frequently makes to be vandalism in nature. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My very own AN/I header? (I tweaked it.) I'm not going to dignify this posting with a detailed response. Arzel's three links above provide all the evidence necessary to show that he is repeatedly removing (without a single word of explanation) the "after receiving sharp criticism from other tea party leaders" content, just as my edit summaries indicate. As noted by others, perhaps Arzel is channeling Plaxico. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

BS again. So you added a small change into the big revert which had not comments? That is even more disingenious than simply reverting claiming there was no reason. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Your edit summary indicates that you referred to the addition of those 9 words as a "copyedit" here [21]. In that same edit, you referred to the contested poll as "sourced content," which you were re-inserting. I don't have to tell you during the onset of an edit war, it's best to separate your controversial edits from copyedits, do I? Also, this is not the first time an editor has questioned the accuracy, honesty, or civility of your edit summaries. Perhaps it's intentional, perhaps not. It has been a problem, nonetheless. TETalk 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User user:Tbma former user user:YMB29 is vandalising the article Battle of Tali-Ihantala[edit]

Tbma (talk · contribs)

YMB29 (talk · contribs)

Battle of Tali-Ihantala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

First: the user is using NPOV and DF to vandalise the article claming it battle is a hox and that it never took place. Despite the fact that the article uses sources from Finland, Sweden, Russia and US/Uk.

Second He impose as an administrator in a debate he is heavily engaged in, send personal warnings on user talk page.Posse72 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just had a quick look, so apologies if I've missed something.
Tbma is adding "POV" and "Disputed" tags - they've done that three times recently (their previous edits I've not looked at in detail). On the face of it, that appears reasonable, as there's currently a discussion about POV on the talkpage. Whether Tbma is correct when they claim that the article suffers from POV is another matter, and not one we can settle here. I'd recommend raising the issue at the POV noticeboard - they should be able to resolve the dispute. In the meantime, however, I'd recommend leaving the {{POV}} and {{Disputed}} tags in place. TFOWR 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
As regards impersonating an admin, I can't see where they've done that. They left warnings for you, which is fine, and they also replaced the warnings when you removed them - that's not fine (it's perfectly acceptable to remove warnings, and it's not OK to reinstate them). However, they have now been warned about that, so I would only be concerned if they did this again. TFOWR 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second, Posse72, are you claiming Tbma (talk · contribs) is a reincarnation of YMB29 (talk · contribs)? Because if that's the case, he's been breaking his Arbcom-imposed topic ban on Soviet Union articles. Can you clarify if this is what you're saying, and what evidence you have for it? Fut.Perf. 18:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO Posse72 just dislikes my edits and tries to silence me either with personal attacks, or with questioning my identity. I assure that I have nothing to do with YMB29. --Tbma (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They are the one and same, same argumentation and language, same anti-Finnish neofascist propaganda, just look on when Tmba registered just after YMB29 left, and look in witch area of subject they argue in. And suddenly we have a new member who act and speaks the same, and despite not being member for a month know EXACTLY how WP works.Posse72 (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you file a case at WP:SPI please? We'll probably need a WP:Checkuser to look into this. Fut.Perf. 20:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

-I also want him banned for 3RR violation on Battle of Tali-Ihantala puntingPosse72 (talk) 20:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC) back tags on NPOV and dispute.Posse72 (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC) If there is a discussion on whether the event actually happened, shouldn't the concerned user start an AfD instead? --Soman (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Tried to file a WP:SPI but its only for administrators.Posse72 (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Try again - WP:SPI is open to everyone. TFOWR 23:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Wolfpussy[edit]

Resolved: NLT explained, not a legal threat, see here for username issue. GregJackP Boomer! 03:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the problematic username for the moment, this editor has also issued what amounts to a legal threat at User talk:GlassCobra.[22] Have fun! (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a specific legal threat there (though I could be missing it). But the username could be a problem. Prodego talk 20:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the phrasing, "I'll be forced to subsequently act on behalf of my own legal interests toward content protection" rises to the level of a legal threat. (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but what does that even mean? :) He isn't threatening to take any legal action there, and since he is trying have us host content (not saying we can't), "content protection" doesn't make sense. Prodego talk 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
(after ec w/Prodego) It's not directed at GlassCobra- it's directed at hypothetical people who have hypothetically breached his copyright elsewhere/ I think what he meant was something along the lines of "have you seen this image elsewhere, and if so, please let me know because they would be breaching my copyright". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a veiled legal threat too. There's a fair amount of talk about the username on his talk page. RlevseTalk 20:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so. It's just a misunderstanding- he interpreted being asked for a source as if his work was available elsewhere, which concerned him- it wasn't specifically directed at any individual, editor or the WMF so it's not really an issue. The username is a much bigger issue imho and if it weren't for the ongoing discussion, I'd be inclined to block for it given both the unsavoury connotations of "pussy" and the urban definition of the term. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is educational! I never heard of the term Wolfpussy before! An article to write? (just kidding!) Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, I'm inclined to agree with HJ Mitchell's explanation, it seems to make quite a bit of sense. It also wouldn't be a NLT problem if that is correct. Prodego talk 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all. (!)
Firstly, I am a lady, thank you...not a sir. (smile)
Secondly, many, many thanks to HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? for correctly interpreting my exact meaning.
In layman's terms...if I EXPRESSLY, EXCLUSIVELY, and EXPLICITLY chose to post my owned content to Wiki commons, and a user therein questions the merit of my ownership with the clause that it is a "media/press" photo - to which I propose to defend my GNU Free Documentation License agreement with proof of ancillary misrepresentation/false accreditation provided by said user; who by virtue of their questioning has proposed that there is, indeed, some usage elsewhere which I've not agreed to...why would that be a threat to our collective and not the party guilty of misrepresentation of content I gave to Wiki?
My image seems to have now been removed, unfortunately. Why?
Per my name, visit: Wolfpussy (talk) Regards. Wolfpussy (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I have no problem with the name. LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
You cannot "exclusively" give rights to Wikipedia. Images uploaded for Wikipedia use need to be under the CC or other free use licensing. Active Banana (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is an issue. Released for "wikipedia only" can't actually be used on Wikipedia. S.G.(GH) ping! 22:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Pardon me, but I'm quite clear that the image is not for "wikipedia only" which I agreed to in the terms of use upon posting.
My issue is if the user who questioned the validity of my ownership with the point that it was a "press/media" release has been made aware of an entity claiming ownership beyond the free usage of Wiki space...if that is the case, then very clearly, my decision to upload to commons is unjustly being adulterated. (!)
No press or media entity has the right to present my content given to Wiki as their own.
Thank you, Bill the Cat 7 (talk) for your support in my title debacle. (meow)
Wolfpussy (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded a nonwatermarked version of my owned image to Wiki commons...but I'm having difficulty posting to Yung Berg page: Some assistance would be much appreciated. (!) The original file which was nominated for deletion:
Hopefully, this will clear the confusion as to my ownership of said image, finally. Wolfpussy (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Resolved: Rollbacked by Salvio NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP was reported over at AIV; seems this may have been an unauthorized bot. Would someone with Twinkle please roll back the edits? Too many to do one at a time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Doing.... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 Done. I'm about to drop a note on his talk page; however, I'm not certain he was operating an illegal bot. What's certain is that he kept on removing budgets from infoboxes without an explanation and introducing unsourced material. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 00:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


This guy has been acting in a disruptive manner, [23], including comparing Wikipedia editors to the Gestapo: [24]. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So why didn't you warn them for making personal attacks? I have now. This seems like a simple content dispute otherwise. Fences&Windows 04:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


Somebody just overwrote the file with a clear copyvio. I reverted. Will the revision that contains the copyvio (22:57, 17 July 2010) have to be oversighted/revdel-ed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. The first version looks a lot like