Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

EL:Ffestiniog Railway[edit]

Resolved: content dispute, on 2 other boards & talk pages. No admin action needed

I am involved in both an external wiki covering the subject header and monitoring related pages online that are connected with the Festiniog Railway. This has been "on the go" for somw 5 years now. It is a very specific and narrow interest wiki covering the railway company and the area it operates in. It has access to the company files, and photos, which are not available under GFDL etc. Being specific, it only has a handful of active editors who are usually directly connected with the railway.

As an aide to any researchers from this wiki, I, and other editors, had placed links from Wikipedia to our own, which until recently was on a subsite of our voluntary Heritage Group. It has recently changed to its own site, [www.festipedia.org.uk], although the old links were still working.

We have now been accused by one "edit filter manager, administrator" of breaking Wikipedia policy in doing what has been done over the past years. Admittedly there may have been individual references within a subject, usually where our wiki is able to clarify. However, generally we had inserted a template within either the "See also", or "External Links" sections which gave option to direct to either the generic link within wikipedia, or the generic link within Festipedia. This template was specifically only used in articles which we have connection with (i.e. the railway - it was not used on basic location articles).

First of all the article was marked "Spam" in edit notice, although this was retracted later, and replaced with "promotional". I contend, "promoting" another information source is not only beneficial to Wikipedia researchers, but it is likely to be more use to them as it is a narrow band wiki.

It was then stated that external links are not allowed within the text of the articles. If they are also not allowed at the end, where the template resided, then where are external links allowed??

At various times, comments have referred to various "WP policy" pages, which I have duly read, and found them headed by comments of only guidlines and common sense". I do not find any block on the use of a template as such. There is also ref to WP:ELNO which I find is not "policy", but seems only to air administrators views, and not policy.

It is my contention that this editor has misinterpreted the policy, and by removing the external links from articles, has removed a valuable resource from researchers.

The initial page is Template:Festiniog Railway Company , and subsequently many pages (43 articles), to which this is used have also been amended to remove links.

I note that following his attentions, the links have now appeared on COIBoT reports for some reason.

There is relevant discussion on his home talk page, and at WP:RSN, WP:ELN

Per anonimity, I have not detailed any names, but if you follow this link, it becomes obvious. The other personage involved has been involved by Subst:ANI-notice. Keith (talk)14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a content issue but since you asked... 1) external links should not be placed within an article and 2) Although I'm not sure if templates strictly prohibit the use of external links, I'm sure that accepted practice is that they should only be used for internal links - to create consistency for readers and so they know that clicking on a template will not take them to some strange external site. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Your original comment was noted, and point 1 was agreed. Entries under that would need to be edited - no problem. The link would be moved to the external links section. This has not been done. The links have been removed completly,without an alternative being used. Point 2, as said, it is not specifically excluded in policy, and what is "accepted practice" is not policy. Given an external link has an indicator for being such, I dont see a problem. --15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I've raised this at WT:UKRail. The issue may be better off by being disussed at WikiProject level rather than here. The talk page of the Festiniog Railway article may also be a better place for discussion. It may be possible to include a link to Festipedia in the External Links section of the Festioniog Railway article, subject to consensus being obtained for this. Mjroots (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read your [[WT:UKRail comment, and feel that you have misunderstood. The template (as was) linked generally to 20 different pages, internal and external. These covered a lot of material. It has now been reduced to linking to 10 active articles all internally. A lot of information has been lost.

To place such, on the Ffestiniog page only, would be unreasonable. Having found details of a particular station, or engine, under the old template the researcher could find the relavent Festipedia article by 2 depressions. Under the one page only link, it would require pre-knowledge and a lot more work.--15:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You've started this discussion in four or five places; you seem to be forum shopping since you're not getting the answer you want in your content dispute. Is there anything here that needs administrative attention? Kuru (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Kuru, you have made my point entirely - please recheck your facts. "I" have raised this point in "2" locations only, this location being the second. The first was a notice board, and as such is not for disputes. The resaon for raising it here, is, I think the removals have been done without substantive reason. --16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Keith - you've raised it on at least three places now. Noticeboards are exactly the place to raise this. It is a content dispute and AN/I is for items needing admin action. There appears nothing needing admin attention here; marking resolved - take it to the noticeboards. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I should have said 3, the first being the talk page at the time - not by any means a general discussion, only to state what and why it was done. This is still less than the 4 or 5 that Kuru accused me of. --Keith 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I don't think Keith should have raised the matter here, to accuse him of forum shopping since he isn't getting the answer he wants appears to be wide of the mark. In the original noticeboard discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard the vote by my count currently stands at 5 to 2 in Keith's favour. Prh47bridge (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Israel Palestine articles should be watchlisted[edit]

Israel Palestine articles should be watchlisted as there seems to be a coming Palestinian offensive ("calling on Palestinian institutions to make Wikipedia pages more pro-Palestinian.") [1] --Galactic Traveller (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I sense an expansion of pending changes coverage soon....   Thorncrag  06:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps place an editnotice on the Israel Palestine pages saying don't edit to make a WP:POINT. --Stickee (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
It wouldn't do any good. The Zionist groups are aware that what they are doing is considered disruptive, but are helping people learn how to game the system to get away with it. Their primary goal is to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see Al-Nasser's statement, rather than Haaretz's (probably misleading) interpretation of it. The quotes from Al-Nasser that I saw said things like "guard the facts in the Internet encyclopedia", which is rather different from Haaretz's paraphrasing of "make it more pro-Palestinian". It seems like he might just be pushing for people to protect Wikipedia from the large number of organized Israeli propaganda groups that are targeting Wikipedia, saying that it would be smart to make sure that people stick to a neutral presentation of the facts, instead of allowing Zionist groups to censor certain viewpoints, and push a Zionist point of view. This doesn't seem any different from what most of the editors have said here -- i.e. that we need to guard the articles against groups like the JIDF, and make sure we stick to neutral presentation of facts. This seems like it might be damage control by the Israeli propaganda groups who probably realized how completely stupid they were for running their misinformation campaign in the open. Anyhow, does anyone have an English-language translation of Al-Nasser's comments, so we can get a balanced and accurate idea of what he said? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, your comments really aren't constructive. Unfortunately, human behavior being what it is, regardless of the initial good intentions that any group might have in agenda-driven editing of Wikipedia, what will always result is that each side entrenches and ultimately it is Wikipedia's articles which are harmed. This certainly is not the forum for arguing who is right and who is wrong, and I don't think that was the purpose of this thread.   Thorncrag  07:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Good god. I'll try to keep an eye on it though. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Please explain to me how my comments were not constructive. And you misunderstood what I was saying -- I'm not saying that agenda-driven groups are acceptable. I'm saying that it's very possible that this is not an "agenda-driven editing" group, in the same sense as the JIDF/CAMERA. (i.e. their only "agenda" might be to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:V) Would you classify all editors here who are working to make sure that neutrality and sourcing guidelines are followed in Israel-Palestine articles as "agenda-driven"? Because it seems very possible that this is all that's being said here. That is, it sounds like we might have a person saying what dozens of people here have said, namely "We've got several Zionist groups running a propaganda campaign on Wikipedia. We need to guard Israel/Palestine articles and make sure they remain factual, instead of letting them devolve into a Israeli propaganda medium." I don't know until I see what the man actually said, rather than how some journalist from an Israeli paper paraphrased him. I don't see how this is at all off-topic, or inappropriate for this thread, as you suggested. This directly pertains to the original post, and is attempting to clarify how to deal with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There's a related thread here. PhilKnight (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Jrtayloriv, to be fair to Haaretz, it's difficult to think of a single newspaper more consistently, coherently and eloquently critical of various Israeli policies than Haaretz. I'm just saying. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough -- stricken. That was not really the main focus of what I was saying anyway. What I'm saying is that I'd like to see the full text of what he said, rather than someone's interpretation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hold on a minute. A guy went on the radio and said "my organization is important for society and regarding the current situation, we're looking into it." And for good measure he noted that their action is dependent on government support.[2] I don't think we should be losing sleep over this just yet. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please help[edit]

Hi admins I have been working in my native language wiki project. And recently I started an account on English Wikipedia. I got a message in my talk page from another user about a socket puppet issue. Is he an administrator? But I don't have any connections with some blocked accounts he specified. What should I do? why he is suspecting me? please help. --  Logical Thinker  05:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The editor who placed that notice is not an admin. You don't need to do anything, as no report has been filed at WP:SPI. Mjroots (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
That helped me. He was wrong then. Most users in my country are using the same government run DSL ISP(BSNL Broadband). It allocates dynamic IP addresses for all users in a region. He may have misunderstood my connection with a JW user's talk page and the similarity in geographical location to be a sock puppet of recently blocked user. Thank you --  Logical Thinker  07:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not file a formal CheckUser request at this stage because there is insufficient evidence at this stage. However it is unusual that three people from Kerala have all started editing JW-related articles in quick succession (though the latest has thus far only provided 'encouragement' to other pro-JW editors at their Talk pages, which would be fine in itself without the religious rhetoric). It is statistically improbable that the third account is unrelated (either sockpuppet or meatpuppet) to the other two that were confirmed as socking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
In India there is over 30,000 witnesses and about more than half are concentrated in Kerala. No wonder if another user edits JW articles from the same location. But in this case it made you doubtful as the date I joined and other socks blocked was nearby. I coped with all user interfaces here easily because I have experience in another local wiki project. The first two users are already proved to be the same. So all chances can be only two persons. Anyway Meat or sock puppet are Issues that should be considered seriously. --  Logical Thinker  08:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The other recent editor(s) (who claimed to know each other[3] and were since confirmed as socks) from Kerala also claimed to be involved in the Malayalam Wikipedia[4], and being tech-savvy ("Because I am not a fool,I know how Internet IP works.-:)", implying convenient awareness of the ambiguity)[5]. They also commented about not wanting to communicate with an "Ex-JW"[6] as did Logicalthinker33 in his 'warning' to User:Naturalpsychology. This suggests meat puppetry if not a sock. In any case, it seems unusual that just after 'two' (sock or meat puppet) JW editors from Kerala were blocked for sockpuppetting, that another JW from Kerala would provide 'encouragement' (actually religious rhetoric)[7] for other JW editors as their very first edits. That is not the action of an entirely uninvolved editor who just started editing a specific language wiki project.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(The user has since revised their comments at User:Naturalpsychology's Talk page. The beginning of the comment has been altered to say, "I am a new comer in English wikipedia project and I went through some old talk pages in JW articles. I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's bias free. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement." This in an obvious attempt to redress the original statement as if coming from a previously uninvolved editor, whereas it originally started with, "I appreciate your good contributions to make JW article's better. I know Ex.Jw's here are doing so much discouragement to you.") To be clear, I am not requesting that User talk:Logicalthinker33 be blocked or any other specific admin action at this time. However, I am indicating that I am rightly suspicious of the sequence of events.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Jeffro that the sudden appearance of another user from Kerala, following the blocking of three sockpuppet accounts from that region in quick succession, is highly suspicious. The number of editors at the JW pages has remained relatively stable for some time and it is unusual, to say the least, that so many edits have suddenly come from that part of the world. User:Logicalthinker33 seems remarkably confident as a novice user and has been very quick to hand out barnstars to other JW editors, whose editing has been rather low-key lately. The Indian individual who has used the sequence of usernames in a deceptive manner on the JW pages has so far been consistently dishonest and evasive and shown no embarrassment about blatantly lying, so it shouldn't be a surprise that if ... if ... Logical Thinker is the same individual, he continues to deny it. I'll watch developments with interest. BlackCab (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(Though I indicated two previous socks from Kerala, BlackCab is correct here in that there were three other recent Kerala editors identified as socks of User:Jehonathan (including himself); the other editor was User:Flowerman75.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
What did I do? My edit history shows among 104 corrections I did nothing in any JW article. I only made 6 motivating corrections in two JW editor's discussion. Are you making all these things here because I just encouraged two good editors with a barnstar? I made small sentence correction in my comments here not to avoid suspicion but to make my idea clear. Also its notable all the blocked user's have always worked only with JW articles. I have been worried about this issue as the acquisitions are multiplying. Time will show then.--  Logical Thinker  14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Possible but improbable. Either User:Logicalthinker33 is a sock/meat puppet of the previous 3 recent users and has learned from previous behaviour to 'motivate' other JW editors and then make unrelated minor edits, instead of immediately making the same kinds of edits in JW articles as his previous psuedonyms. Or, it is entirely coincidental that he happened to immediately 'motivate' JW editors as his first edits without any prompting and without any knowledge, even though the other previous Kerala JW pseudonyms are also involved at the Malayalam Wikipedia project. If Logicalthinker33's edits are good (unlike the previous recent socks), it won't matter. Time will tell.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am afraid to edit in any JW articles, because I feel I don't have enough professional English knowledge needed for editing top importance JW article. It doesn't mean I could not contribute some basic help or raise issues at talk if possible in Jw articles. That's why I encouraged other JW editors to give good contribution. If I am a tech-savy or sock why sould I mention my location in my profile ? (because recently three users are blocked from kerala for sock puppet).Also you said I motivated user:natural to be careful in talking to Ex-Jw's. But as you know its a general behavior of all JW's to keep silence with Ex-Jw's and hence doesn't shows any similarity with the socks. I went through the previous three blocked editors, I did not find any evidence that all those three are involved together in Malayalam Wikipedia. Only the one of them had mentioned it. Else they all will be the same person(becuase they have obvious similarity) but not me.--  Logical Thinker  05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You stated earlier that "The first two users are already proved to be the same", but now you claim that not all three "are involved together in Malayalam Wikipedia". So which is it? Do you concede that the other editors are socks, or that that not all three are from the other project? It can't be both. I remain unconvinced. But as stated earlier, if you make good edits, it will not matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure about that. But I assure good edits.--  Logical Thinker  18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

New administrator Amatulic possibly needs some mentoring[edit]

Both IPs blocked as sockpuppets. -- Atama 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Religious articles are notoriously subject to POV pushing. Jc3s5h has a long history of editing Gregorian calendar and an equally long history of refusing to reveal his religious affiliation. So when he edited this article and a few minutes later went to RfPP requesting permanent protection claiming the previous editor was a sockpuppet the fact that no SPI had been started should have set alarm bells ringing. Amatulic should have told him to start an SPI, saying why he thinks Doradus is a sockpuppet and who he thinks Doradus is a sockpuppet of, and provide diffs linking him to the alleged sockmaster. (no tilde on this keyboard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.177.205 (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is TFOWR unaware of WP:COI? (S)he contributes regularly to religious project pages. 109.154.236.72 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK sock of Vote (x) For change 109.154.236.72 (talk · contribs). Can someone ban it. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

tmorton166 edits on a platform that "religions can be harmful". TFOWR's platform is that if a Catholic bishop removes explanations of the doctrine of other denominations, deliberately destroying the neutrality of the article, he is under no obligation to disclose his position in the hierarchy. It's always the people with extreme positions who make the most noise. 109.154.236.72 (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Apparently I have a position on Catholic bishops. Live and learn. Anyhoo... I've just blocked and reverted another IP as an obvious sock. TFOWR 11:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP concern[edit]

{{resolved|IP blocked for 48 hours by Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)}} Careful: young readers avert your eyes.

I would like someone else to look at Lori Douglas. An IP keeps inserting salacious details into an already troubled biography (see Hans Adler's comments at Lori Douglas--I sought community input, and I further paraphrased the statement based on Hans's justified copyvio concern). They have finally relented on inserting details that seem to come from their own imagination ... details not verified by the source, though the IP editor seems to have (had) access to, ahem, the primary materials. But their latest installment came with a ridiculous edit summary, even an ironic one, since their previous details were clearly not verified by the source to which they pointed again and again. Besides, they added a hearty "fuck you" on their talk page, right below my final warning to them for vandalism: here, and they haven't even kissed me yet.

I don't know my own R-status exactly, though I do know that they went well past 3R yesterday. Moreover, there are issues here of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, and even the current amount of detail is, in my opinion, excessive--we are not a newspaper, and the lady hasn't been convicted in a trial or anything. But I'm tired of this, and should probably leave it alone (which is why I haven't reported them for vandalism; I may be wrong in calling this vandalism)--so here you have it. Enjoy, and thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: Apart from the very unfortunate hobby of the lady and her husband, there is a former convicted criminal in the story who is being discussed in detail in at least one news story but for some reason never found his way in the article, while, as Drmies noted, certain insider information did. Reading between the line, this appears to be a blackmail story. I can't help wondering if the Wikipedia side of things is also a COI story. Hans Adler 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked the IP for 48 hours for disruptive editing and violating the three-revert rule. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the article for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Douglas. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note I have trimmed this article to the essential facts required for a biography of a judge and semi-protected the article. I have also redacted a good number of the old revisions as they all contained material copied and paste from the CBC. –xenotalk 00:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of protection[edit]

  • Please note I have twice reverted the insertion of the words 'sex scandal' into the BLP and fully protected it. As I have been involved in editing the article in light of the ongoing BLP concerns, I invite review of this action and give permission in advance for this action to be modified if anyone feels I have erred in judgment in this instance. –xenotalk 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when did Wikipedia appoint xeno to be the censorship board of Wikipedia? The reason that I think that the wording should be "alleged sex scandal incident" is because when the censored article reads "alleged incident" it leads the reader to jump to the conclusion that the Judge has stepped down due to possibly illegal activities or judge misconduct or otherwise serious professional misconduct; incidents which would be much more serious and harmful than labeling the incident for what it is - an alleged sex scandal. This characterization is accurate and verifiable by many reliable sources including Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and I could go on and on as this is a huge story in Canada. Verifiable information is what Wikipedia is all about, and in this case the censored content is more damaging by not stating what the "alleged incident" involved (being alleged nude pictures and alleged consensual sex - i.e. a "sex scandal"). Larkspurs (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"alleged incident" is suitably neutral and immediately followed by a citation for the reader to review and draw their own conclusions. At the present time, we should be extremely cautious and not allow Wikipedia to become a vehicle for the spread of titillating claims which are unproven allegations at this early stage. This can be revisited when the 24-hour news cycle has finished with the story and the Canadian Judicial Council is finished hearing the complaint. –xenotalk 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have edited this article several times in the last few days to add information about the individual - but nothing about the current news story. It is a major over-reaction for an administrator to fully-protect this article for an entire month. Administrators shouldn't use their administrative authority when they are already involved in an editing conflict. Noel S McFerran (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    According to WP:BLP, "Administrators may enforce the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection or blocking the violator(s), even if they have been editing the article themselves or are in some other way involved." My only involvement in this article is promoting compliance with the BLP policy, however I do still invite review of my actions as interpretations may vary. –xenotalk 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    There is a huge difference between a BLP violation and an editing conflict. I don't like the use of the phrase "sex scandal" either, but it's not a BLP violation particularly when the phrase is being used by a number of reputable news sources. Two editors disagreed about a particular phrase. One of those editors used his administrator powers to silence the other editor (and everybody else). Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't silence anyone. Blocking would have silenced someone. I used protection, to err on the side of caution and eliminate what seemed to be a clear BLP violation and I have invited review of my action and given explicit license to any administrator who feels I have erred to reverse my action. –xenotalk 20:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Inserting verifiable information from reliable sources are not "clear BLP violations". I am requesting xeno to please back off. What you are doing is censorship, and that is in violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. The article can be, and will be, cleaned-up after the 24-hour news cycle has passed. Larkspurs (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
How exactly are you verifying that it is a "sex scandal"? That is clearly a heavily negative phrase and isn't appropriate for the article per WP:NPOV, at the very least (see also WP:LABEL) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"Sex Scandal" is verified by these sources: Financial Post, Winnipeg Sun, Ottawa Citizen, CBC Canada, and others. Larkspurs (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I said, I'm entirely willing to have another administrator review and modify my action if they feel I have erred in judgment. The essential facts for a biography of a judge are present: 1) that a complaint was filed with a judicial oversight body and 2) that the judge temporarily stepped down while the complaint was heard. Anything more affords undue weight to this emerging news story that consists entirely of unproven allegations. –xenotalk 18:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Inserting verifiable information from reliable sources are not "clear BLP violations" that an admin has authority to delete. So long as the information is verifiable and from a reliable source then it should stay; albeit in a concise form so as to not violate WP:UNDUE. A single, well-referenced paragraph is all that is needed here. When an admin enforces what information will be included (and not included) in an article - that is censorship; and that is in violation of everything that Wikipedia stands for. The article can be, and will be, cleaned-up after the 24-hour news cycle has passed. It is important to bear in mind that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So long as the information is verifiable and from reliable sources we have gotten it right and the information should stay in the article. xeno has said several times that he is willing to have his judgment questioned. So then why is he so defensive? Please let others get involved in these discussions. The very defensive posture of the involved admin is impeding the discussion. Larkspurs (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
"Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" As I indicated to you at the article talk page, I will stop responding at this point (since you feel that I am somehow impeding discussion) and allow others to clarify relevant policies and guidelines. –xenotalk 20:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

───────────────────────── For the record, this uninvolved admin sees no problem with xeno's actions here. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • For the record, with no subjects found guilty of anything, the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, and as a minimum WP:BLP, xeno's actions are commendably polite in this case: additional blocks would have clearly been warranted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • <<EC>>>Concur w/ Toddst. First priority is to protect the subject and the encyclopedia. Concur with Xeno in seeking neutral language rather than "titillation". Dlohcierekim 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with both sides. It would be nice to have a better description of what is going on in the article (along with a general expansion of her overall biography), but simply calling it a "sex scandal" without context leaves the reader to assume far too much about what is going on. Agree with full protection so as to prevent an inevitable BLP edit war, and suggest interested parties discuss proper wording and expansion on the talk page. Resolute 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTSCANDAL applies here. Note that the policy for avoiding scandal mongering specifically states, "Articles about living people are required to meet an especially high standard". Xeno's actions enforced that policy well. -- Atama 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Approve Xeno's actions. --John (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The Paris Hilton article's current form contains the following referenced sentence: On August 28, 2010 she was arrested on suspicion of cocaine possession in Las Vegas. Following the logic of this discussion, that line in the Hilton article should read: On August 28, 2010 she was arrested in Las Vegas. I hope that example demonstrates that removing the context from the sentence is a detriment to the article. Please allow the "alleged incident" to be given some context. Larkspurs (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Two problems: 1) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2) "suspicion of cocaine possession" is stating a neutral fact, that she was suspected of cocaine possession. "Sex scandal" is a negative spin, and in no way factual. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I suppose if the article read, "alleged incident involving nude photos" that it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The reference in the article itself is titled "Nude photos of judge emerge in complaint" so it wouldn't be any more harmful than what's already being presented in the article. -- Atama 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree . Similarly, if Paris Hilton said that she was involved in a "drug scandal", similar issues would arise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ giftiger wunsch. crystal clear. Dlohcierekim 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Commment. While I generally support the action here, is there any reason it couldn't be eased down to PC2 (or whatever the admin-only version is called)? I'm not a big fan of fully protected articles at AfD, though at the moment this one appears to be headed towards keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruption and incivility at Spitsbergen[edit]

There has traditionally been trouble at this article and it's talkpage - that is now calming down since a consensus has been reached among almost all the editors involved. The problem is now Jonas Poole - he has been repeatedly warned and blocked for his foul language and disruption regarding this article. The article in question is just coming off protection, and while it was protected several of us have worked towards a compromise solution - Jonas however has stated he plans to disrupt any attempt at reaching a compromise[8] by edit warring to retain his preferred version of the article.

In addition his rants on the talkpage of the article are now beyond extreme - I've already read everything you two dipshits having been saying on your talk page you fucking moron. It hasn't added anything new. Just more talking out of your asses, as usual.[9], Yes, you're completely fucking wrong asshole.[10]. As well as being disruptive and foul-mouthed this kind of rant now litters the talkpages of articles he has edited waiting for the average Wikipedia reader to stumble upon.

This is beyond the scope of civility or edit warring and should be dealt with here. Reccommend an extended block for Mr Poole (shorter ones have had less than no effect) and the removal of his comments from the Spitsbergen talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Jonas has been informed of this thread (User talk:Jonas Poole#Civility) Weakopedia (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I just blocked this account for a month with a warning that this is his last chance. I did consider that he is trolling as he surely could not expect no consequences to arise from his statements - but he seems to be making legitimate edits elsewhere. CIreland (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate AfD closure[edit]

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:DRV

Kinu (talk · contribs) has closed this Afd as delete ([11], log), after he voted for the deletion of the article. According to WP:NotEarly AfDs should be closed by "uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor". And he was cleary involved. Other concern is that this Afd was open for just 92 minutes and was snowed after just 3 delete votes (without the nomination). Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, that close should be overturned. Three delete results and a closure by an involved party does not SNOW make. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Why has this not been discussed with Kinu, and why is it here rather than DRV? Quantpole (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
That, however, is a good question. This should be taken to DRV. After discussing with the closing admin. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have no objection to overturning this and taking to DRV, relisting, etc. It seemed like a reasonable case of WP:IAR to me, but I suppose my own delete !vote in the discussion sours the situation a little. I'm willing to let the deletion go through process. --Kinu t/c 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Since I can't see the previous content I can't see if it would have been valid as an IAR close, a speedy delete, or something similar, but the justification you gave for its deletion in the AfD didn't seem valid: 3 deletes and a listing of less than a couple of hours is hardly a valid WP:SNOW close, especially when one of those !votes was your own. DRV will be better equipped to decide if the article should remain deleted, whether the close was correct or not. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair to Kinu, WP:MADEUP is cited. The content was blatant self promotion for the author. Promotion for the author. Not the book, but the author. Because the book does not exist. Its not in google shopping nor amazon. Its not in any literary database, its not found searching the library catalog at the college. Process was correctly sidestepped here. -- ۩ Mask 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it should be left deleted per WP:NOTBUR and WP:CHILD, and the contributor should be counseled not to post their full name on wiki again. It was an unsourced (and likely unsourceable) short introduction and lengthy plot summary about a book published by a vanity press [12]. –xenotalk 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor war and arbitrary movements before discussion.[edit]

Having started an article September 2010 Oil Rig explosion and go on with my day, when I go back to see if some information was added that I saw on the news, I noticed it was redirected to Mariner Energy by Weaponbb7. Forgive me, but since the history is a bit scattered I had to use through the user's contributions and my first time doing it.

  • [13]
  • [14] I ask him to talk about it first.

He changes it reverts it once again and I revert:

  • [15] and since I was having a relatively busy day, war the revision rules slipped my mind.
  • [16] It was at this point he basically shut the door, was notified and tried to carry on a discussion on his terms, trying to reason with him on Talk:Mariner Energy, but saw no reason in it.

Looking at his pesonal history, he did the same thing with Vermilion 380.

  • [17], which MIGHT have been the basis a ship article, once we found out the proper name of the ship.

Looking at his history, I see that he has spent some time here, so it is uncertain what outcome can attained here. My main issue is that such heavy handed and unilateral decisions made by a relatively small number of people might actually be contributing to the loss of editors. [18] The AFD request for 2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis after only a day [19] and the discussion that followed is an example of some editors just don't try to build a consensus.--Hourick (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute, no administration attention needed IMHO. I am currently engaging in disuccsion. An article on the Explosion is violation is WP:NOTNEWS, While i redirected the RIg's name earlier yesterday because there where three different names in news reports and until reports clarified which rig I redirected it to the company article. (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
We can open a content dispute if you wish, but this discussion isn't about that. I can open one up on that if you wish. --Hourick (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I fail to follow what you mean. This issue you have brought here is a content dispute which is NOT an incident that requires Admin attention. When two editors disagree we go WP:3O or something simliar. If you feel my behavior is the source of the alleged mass exodus from wikipedia than you need to take it to WP:ARBCOM and the WP:CABAL and have them block me. I have explained myself both on the talk page and here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The issue at hand is that you simply moved an article that was a current event without discussing it first. You agreed to discuss it AFTER you had moved the page, yet again. In fact, you berated a user on the talk page for putting his too cents in! [20] This is not simply a case of you wishing every news event to be put in Wikinews, but rather satisfying your own set of rules to apply to everyone whether its agreed upon or not. --Hourick (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I dont follow your accusation, there were two lines of discussions on the page at that point talking about two different topics. Thus I pointed out that out I clarified the discticntion between the two threads. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Help - Afd Twinkle fluff[edit]

Resolved: fixed nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My markup sucks. I definitely nominated this article via Twinkle [21] but I cannot get it to appear on the page (tried purging server cache, forced reload of page etc). Could someone fix it for me. Eternal thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it for you.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior by User:Degmarshall and User:4Beauties[edit]

While on my usual new pages patrol a month back, I discovered an article, David E.G. Marshall, that might not have met WP guidelines. The article was made by Degmarshall (talk · contribs), making this apparently a clear autobiography. My speedy deletion, and then a PROD, was contested by 4Beauties (talk · contribs) who has been extensively editing the article in the previous user's place.

However, after looking through both users' contributions, I discovered something very fishy is going on.

  • Degmarshall has existed on Wikipedia since 2006. His edits have been nearly entirely focused on either the article about him or his band, Staggered Crossing.
  • With exception to a few edits to Canadian English, 4Beauties' edit history has been devoted to either Staggered Crossing or David E.G. Marshall.
  • 4Beauties had his first edit in late July, where he created a userspace draft. Here's what the page looked like: [22].
  • Less than two weeks later, Degmarshall created the autobiography. Here's what that initial page looked like: [23] (Notice how the userspace draft created by 4Beauties is nearly identical to this page.)
  • Degmarshall and 4Beauties have never edited at the same time. Notice Degmarshall's edit on July 2nd, and 4Beauties' first edit less than a two hours later. Most of 4Beauties' edits occured on August 4th, with exception to one which occurred today. Likewise, note how Degmarshall didn't edit from August 2 until the 12th. He also hasn't edited since the 26th of August. But 4Beauties has, as I said earlier.

Perhaps this is all a list of coincidences, but nonetheless, something fishy is going on. I don't want to open a case at WP:SPI right away as I want some feedback from other editors, as well as a reply from the editors themselves (or himself, as the case may be.) In any case, User:Degmarshall has been engaging in clear violations of WP:COI for four years, and it concerns me that no one else picked up on this until me a month ago. elektrikSHOOS 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a pretty clear case of socking, yeah. I'll go let the users know about this thread, and let them know that if they are the same person, they should only be using one account to edit with unless they have a legitimate reason to do otherwise. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I see you've already informed them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I see some pretty clear quacking here, though I'll give the editor in question some time to reply before doing anything as yet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
If these articles are not notable, deleting them may be the best option. That would remove any incentive for COI editing, inviting close colleagues to edit, or similar violations of WP policy. Jehochman Talk 04:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an existing Afd discussion for David E.G. Marshall which you can find here. Commenting would be lovely. elektrikSHOOS 04:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
As for Staggered Crossing, I don't see any particular reason to immediately open an Afd for it as it appears to satisfy WP:BAND in terms of notability. However, note there is only one source on the article as of right now, and given the extensive editing by the above user I'd say the article definitely is in need of cleanup work. elektrikSHOOS 20:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Commenting here to temporarily stay autoarchiving while we wait for either of the above users to comment on this thread. If a response is not forthcoming, I'd recommend an admin to indef block 4Beauties as a WP:DUCK sock, and a very strong warning to Degmarshall about socking and WP:COI. And I'm definitely going to keep an eye on him. elektrikSHOOS 15:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, given the two days this has been up without comment from either (or just one) editor... per what I said above. elektrikSHOOS 20:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by B-Machine[edit]

There has been a discussion over at WP:MILHIST about what constitutes a war; one editor, B-Machine (talk · contribs), has insisted that his interpretation is correct, while a half-dozen or so other editors (including myself) have argued that he is committing OR and editing disruptively. He has become increasingly uncivil, culminating in this post, which is quite over the line. Frankly, I'd have blocked him on the spot, but I'm obviously involved. Can someone deal with this? Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Parsecboy (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
And cue attack on me personally. This is far too predictable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Was heading to block but was beaten to it by Tnxman307. --Golbez (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Over the line! Mark it zero! </lebowski> TNXMan 16:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a real, long-term behaviour pattern for B-Machine; completely unjustified bouts of truly excessive incivility. See [24] and [25] for instance... ╟─TreasuryTagvoice vote─╢ 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    Not quite as bad, but something I've just had cause to caution B-Machine for is "what's your problem?" addressed to an admin who had deleted a fairly blatant copy-vio. TFOWR 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
    It would probably be a wise idea to keep an eye on him for the next time this behavior presents itself. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Malcolm Schosha[edit]

This banned user (nee User:Kwork and beloved by all for his meritless accusations of antisemitism etc..) has been active again in the last few days. His particular interest has been taking the side of banned user User:DavidAppletree in an ugly dispute that has involved about 10 socks so far, forged posts seeking to make an admin who enforced policy look like a raging antisemite, impassioned emails to Jimbo on high and all sorts of related fun. The current sock IP is User:173.52.126.77. Identical editing interests and rhetorical style as Malcolm/Kwork. The last sock ip was User:173.52.182.160 which is the same range, same precise geographic location, etc... That IP is currently on a one year block (after Malcolm finally got caught he admitted he was socking through that IP [26]). Ban enforcement requested.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malcolm Schosha or WP:SPI?  Frank  |  talk  17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that submitting this case to SPI would be worthwhile. There seems to be a nearly-endless supply of IP socks who are energized by the recent debates on Wikipedia. I think that 173.52.126.77 may not be the last one, and I could not find an appropriate rangeblock. There are probably some socks of Einsteindonut as well as Shosha still contributing on Jimbo's talk page. The best way to restore peace to this issue may be to put back the full protection on the Jewish Internet Defense Force that was in effect from 15 March to 15 June of this year. The JIDF are a group who describe Mohammed on their website as a '..genocidal pedophile false prophet..'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Without going into the bigger issues... the IP is blocked for 3 months. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody discussed this with Jimbo? He has injected himself into the David Appletree case and is editing the JIDF article. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring by Iqinn (talk)[edit]

I feel a little silly coming here with what started out as a petty dispute over a tag, but it seems to be escalating. The section War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)#Kunduz_Province_campaign contains 0 references, and I tagged it as such using template:Unreferenced section.

I added [27], he removed [28], I added [29], he removed [30]. At that point I went to his talk page to further discuss the issue [31]. He also removed that [32], claiming to be moving the discussion to Talk:War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present) but omitting part of what I wrote.

Since then, he has posted a notice on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring. Well it's true, but he made the first revert, and nobody else is involved. So I added the same notice to his page, along with some new problems I had with his behavior. He has deleted all of it [33] [34].

At this point I consider this to be a personal dispute. It's not about the content of the article, except for that one tag, and I don't want to garbage-up the article's talk page with it. I have explained my position, that sources must be posted in the article (readers shouldn't have to go to a different page for WP:Verifiability). I am not currently challenging any of the material, just requesting that he and other editors add sources, using the tag as a request mechanism.

Looking through his talk page history, it appears he has had at least one similar dispute in the recent past, which he tried to solve by removing User:Geo Swan's complaint.

I'm requesting:

  1. Clarification that I'm right about the tag.
  2. Somebody other than me resurrect the issues I raised on his talk page, either here or there.
  3. Some minor sanction, at least a fish-slap.

Thanks for your consideration. Thundermaker (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also consider this to be a personal dispute, one that doesn't require any administrator intervention at this point. Get a third opinion or take it to dispute resolution. A couple of side notes: per WP:OWNTALK, the owner of a user talk page is explicitly permitted to remove comments at their own discretion; administrators have no power to enact sanctions against any editor, only the community at large or ARBCOM can do that. Oh, also, anybody can wield the {{trout}}. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User Toekneebe[edit]

Repeatedly restores unreferenced content such as [35]; looks like ad copy, and this account has no interest in other articles. No dialog. ANI notice posted to talk page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No dialog is an AN/I issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Dialog had started by the time I placed the wrong venue notice, which is why I placed it. See [36]. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Rmv'd wrong venue notice. This does require administrator intervention, user is clearly editing on behalf of a company [37] --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the user was, but now the user is engaging in dialog maybe we can change that. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully a productive result. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Wakey82 again[edit]

This person has been warned several times about disruptive editing, refusing to recognise consensus and being abusive to other editors. Despite all of that, he has again reverted a consensus-accepted edit in a way that amounts to edit-warring and he has produced this missive in response to complaints about his abusive comments which proves he has no intention of being civil to other editors. I had already recommended an indefinite block but the view at the time, perhaps rightly, was that a new editor should be given due warning first and a second chance. Okay, I accept that, but his attitude is now clear for all to see. He is saying that he is right, everyone else is wrong and he will report anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but several experienced editors have tried to reason with this person to no avail and you must now call time. ----Jack | talk page 19:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what we have dispute resolution for. There's nothing actionable at this time. In particular, I think the dispute at the Airedale General Hospital article is silly all-around; that article has no sources so everything that everyone is arguing about is original research. -- Atama 20:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point. This person resorts to ABUSE instead of trying to achieve consensus. To say that the article is original research just because no one has previously bothered to provide a source is nonsense: original research is what it says it is. I have provided a citation which shows that the hospital is in Steeton parish and another one in the Steeton with Eastburn article itself which confirms its status. Can we start again, please, and consider the question of abuse and refusal to accept the warnings of several editors? ----Jack | talk page 21:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
...And? What's so awful about mentioning "abuse" that an administrator needs to take action? I know that this editor has had problems in the recent past with personal attacks, particularly targeting you and a perceived grudge you have against Keighley. Since the last warning was given I don't see a resumption of those personal attacks. The most recent edit you've complained about, while dismissive and certainly not congenial, is a far cry from the previous attacks that accuse you of hatred and "in need of medical attention". So that could possibly be seen as improvement. Unfortunately you will run into disagreeable people from time to time, people reluctant to change their mind about a subject, and there's no easy fix for such situations. We don't block people for acting in such a way, instead we employ various methods to try to get people to come to a compromise. The dispute resolution link I posted above can help guide you through that process somewhat. -- Atama 21:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I see, you're not alleging that they claimed abuse, you're claiming that the editor has performed abuse. No, this is a run-of-the-mill disagreement. And contrary to what you stated before, the lack of personal attacks in the last few days suggests that they didn't ignore the warnings after all. -- Atama 21:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Your first sentence in the last post doesn't make sense. I think I'm wasting my time. We shall see what happens next time the person edits one of the articles he is targeting. ----Jack | talk page 21:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've commented on the talk page of Cross Hills and I've put that article and Airedale General Hospital on my watchlist for a time. If they start to resort to their prior behavior I'll issue warnings and/or blocks as needed. I can also help facilitate some mediation if necessary. I'm not ignoring you, I just don't think there's much that has to be done right now. :) -- Atama 21:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Image Removal in Huguette M. Clark and William A. Clark[edit]

Resolved: Edit war blocks issued Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Page: Huguette M. Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) William A. Clark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being discussed: BlackberryHacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I am looking for some help with a disruptive editor. In an effort to bolster an article about Huguette M. Clark a 104-year old heiress who has been in the news recently I cleaned up the text and went out in search of a free image to include in the article. I found a 1917 photograph of the subject and her father William A. Clark. After including the image, I have faced repeated removal by User:BlackberryHacks. His contention is that the image is not in the public domain - while I am sympathetic to the issue of copyright status it was my feeling that this new user cannot simply remove the image without going through a WP:FFD and establishing consensus. I feel very comfortable that a photograph published in 1917 will survive this discussion and that the. However, the user has not done this instead he just keeps removing the image from the article and is not at all considerate of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. This has now progressed to the verge of an edit war with 1-2 reversions every 24 hours. Please see the following edits to Huguette M. Clark:[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] and William A. Clark: [46],[47],[48],[49]. I have also received a number of frustrating responses to my attempts to resolve the issue civilly or propose an appropriate course of action to develop consensus. I posted on the Wikipedia:Content noticeboard but have as yet not gotten any guidance on an appropriate course of action for dealing with this editor. I would hate to propose a block but I am struggling with a better solution as this editor seems very determined to remove this image unilaterally |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓTALK ◄| 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If the image these two were edit warring over is a copyright violation, then the image itself should be deleted under WP:CSD#G12. Edit warring over inserting the image is completely inappropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, according to the MSNBC source one of the three people in the photograph died in 1919, so it was clearly taken prior to 1923, however I haven't been able to establish when it was published. As there is a credible claim of being public domain, this isn't a speedy, and WP:FFD is a possible venue. In my humble opinion, blocking Urbanrenewal seems a little harsh. PhilKnight (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Shortened block. Fair point. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

/* Protection please? */[edit]

Resolved

Someone protect Brian Posehn quickly please. Thanks. (And yes, I posted this on RPP already!) Drmies (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Dabomb, you are indeed da bomb. Thanks. Close thread! Drmies (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Overzealous Warnings by Dripping Flame[edit]

Resolved

Dripping Flame slapped me with a level 2 warning for vandalism to the talk page of User:123pizza due to 123's vandal edits on the article Minimum wage. Dripping Flame correctly reverted my revert on the page due to lag on huggle which accidentally undid Dashbot's removal of the vandalism with a 1 second difference in the edit history. Instead of noticing this issue and just undoing the mistake, Dripping flame warned me for vandalism (honest mistake) but then continued to revert my edits to the vandal's talk page. Can I have a third party discuss this overzealous reversion / warning with Dripping Flame please.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried engaging the user yourself? This doesn't look like it requires any administrator action.  Frank  |  talk  14:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)It looks like his last edit was a couple of minutes before you posted on his talk page. It's very possible you just missed him. I'd consider waiting to see if he comes back on line and see if the two of you can come to an understanding.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) What Cube lurker said.  Frank  |  talk  14:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
K. Consider it closed for now. IDK, I do have an issue with getting vandal warnings on my talk, considering the bulk of my project time is vandal fighting and I always try to take the time to double-research my edits and preemptively apologize for false positives. I also agree that the first revert was a gap, but the following me to warn me for issuing warnings on the known vandal's talk page is what disturbs me about the case. Either way, as I said, I'm over my freak out and I'll consider it closed out until they respond in talk. Sorry for being hasty. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Vandal fighters make mistakes and if the mistake is made with Huggle or Igloo, it's entirely possible that the editor has no idea of the mistake until it's brought to their attention, but bringing it to ANI is completely unnecessary at this stage. DF (an alternative account of mono (talk · contribs)) has a dedicated page for editors to report bad reverts, so i suggest you try there first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Why is this an issue? Just ignore the warnings. No one cares about them. No one notices them except for those folks a bit too obsessed with RC patrolling. I never saw why some folks talk it up like its gods own gift that they RC patrol. I mean, its needed and all and we should all do a bit of it, but its by far the least-effort job on the encyclopedia. No content is added, no sections carefully pruned, its just mindless clicking. Hell, you can even see it on your talk page, he used one of those horrible canned vandal warnings instead of typing you out a note. This is the behavior that gets laughed at by most of us. Just ignore it. -- ۩ Mask 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Think of it as a friendly fire incident. Of course, no fire is friendly when it hits you. Considering the speed with which the automatic tools work, it's something that can easily happen. The thing to do when I do it is to revert myself and apologize. Dlohcierekim 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I've responded at the talk page, and I must clarify. I did not choose to use a warning; it is automatic (just like Huggle, except it's smart enough not to revert a revert).  ono  15:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I have also responded on the talk page. Your tool is obviously not smart enough to know when to revert a valid warning on a vandal's page and not warn an editor for placing it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
To Mono: Huggle allows you to revert an edit without leaving a templated warning; I'm not familiar with Igloo but if Igloo has that option I think you should have used it there, and if not just do it manually. Soap 17:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Igloo doesn't have such an option. This was the revert in question. It appears that Torchwoodwho reverted vandalism, but reverted back to a version that was also vandalised. It's entirely possible that Mono/DF didn't see the username or edit summary and just focused on the diff and, of course, reverted it, os confusion all round it seems. I've made similar mistakes myself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I use Twinkle. I also go back and verify manually that I haven't made a mistake. I also read the user page before laying on a warning. But then, what do I know? Dlohcierekim 17:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Igloo doesn't work like Twinkle does. It opens up in a new window and just presents you with diff after diff for you to check. If you opt to revert the edit, there's no way to stop it issuing a warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
"No way to stop it"? Then don't use it. You must remain in control of anything you post. I hate seeing that IIAD, the It Is Automatic Defence, put forward, as if it was impossible to write in your own voice. You sign the message, you take responsibility for what it says. Mask, the canned warnings may get laughed at by us clever people, but newer users may reasonably get the impression that a message left for them is a message for them. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC).
I thought at first that this was a reference to "IIED" as in "Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress" but I can see that we're actually talking about "Intentional Infliction of Automated Distress," a situation that is bound to occur when one insists on using automated software that drops warning templates designed for gross vandals. Eventually, the user will run across edits that were made in good faith, and drop an automated "go away, vandal" on someone who doesn't deserve that. Tools really should not allow those who use them to ignore the effect that their chosen mode of communication can cause, and those who choose to use such tools really should better consider their intentions. Steveozone (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I know that this thread will be archived without any real result and that therefore this comment is useless, but I have to say that I agree with Bishonen. I've chosen to edit without any scripted or automated aids—mainly because I think rather slowly, and I don't want to make any edits faster than I can think—and there's no reason to automatically post templated warnings on user's talk pages unless you really mean to (and unless you're a bot). Igloo, whatever that is, seems to need a revision. Deor (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Igloo is a work in progress. In the next revision, a "self-revert" feature will be added, along with custom warnings and other stuff.  ono  13:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson's attacks[edit]

Chrisjnelson has made many personal attacks against me in the past few weeks. He has been warned twice, but won't quit. He's been told that it's against WP:NPA, but he still won't stop. Here are a few examples. 1, 2, 3 and 4. RevanFan (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty straightforward personal attacks, and frankly pretty childish. I'd suggest a short block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
User notified. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
See also: [50], [51]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The tone of some of the communications is not acceptable. He/she may disagree with someone's edits, but should do it civilly. I'd warn first, then see where it goes from there. Connormah (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
He was warned a few days ago. [52]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, User:RevanFan isn't entirely faultless either; this is not acceptable behaviour. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point, although I can understand his/her frustration (provided that this is the only diff) - nobody likes to be responded to in the snappy tone that Chrisjnelson is using. Connormah (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree , but I would urge RevanFan to rise above it and take the matter here or WP:WQA rather than responding in kind, next time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have told him that I will stop. I admit that I was being childish. If he attacks me again, I will just ignore him, or leave a warning (if only I knew how to.) RevanFan (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See {{uw-npa1}}, {{uw-npa2}}, etc. Or simply use a handwritten warning, but keep it civil. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't think leaving a warning as an involved editor is a good idea - it tends to inflame the conflict. Have an outside admin look at the situation - you are welcome to contact me if it continues.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
In my defense, he deserve it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The nature of the comments is just not acceptable, no matter how much you think someone "deserves" it. Please read up on WP:NPA. Connormah (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Meh.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are not going to comply with the policies, then a block may be in order - please don't continue the behavior in the diffs above. Connormah (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
"He deserved it" is no defence. If you continue to be incivil and to make personal attacks, you will be blocked. Fences&Windows 15:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that you take this discussion seriously. If the behavior continues we'll see whether this edit summary holds true. —DoRD (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Might I just jump in here and point out that I am slightly concerned about Chris's "Great moments in vandalism history" section on his userpage. In any other situation, I would AGF and think that it is just a collection of humorous vandal edits, but with the context of this discussion added in and with Chris's responses on here...I am suddenly doubtful. SilverserenC 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeffpw and Isaac[edit]

Resolved: User blocked

Could somebody please block Jeffpw and Isaac (talk · contribs)? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, but the next time go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. TbhotchTalk C. 04:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the lecture. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
To be fair, AIV's kinda strict, and generally is for the "I warned them 4 times and they keep doing this obvious vandalism" kind of reports. Reporting something less clear than that often will just earn someone a request to bring it to this board. I don't think it was inappropriate. -- Atama 07:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
This is not vandalism alone; the user should have been hardblocked under a username block; the hardblock would also catch the underlying IP as well. This is a long-term issue witb someone who has a disturbing fixation on an editor who has died. Horologium (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnj stevenson uploading copyrighted images after multiple warnings (2nd relisting)[edit]

(relisting)

Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 6 copyrighted images for use at Susana Martinez, all of which he claimed as his own work even though they really came from professional sources such as the Associated Press. All images were speedily deleted. He has been warned (warning, warning, warning) but has again uploaded after these warnings. He also removes the deletion tags from his images without explanation, and has also been warned about this but persists in this behavior. How about a block on this user? Thanks. --75.211.134.137 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try something different on this one. If he uploads another copyvio after this, then I would recommend a block. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1 week block imposed. Any administrator may unblock if Johnj stevenson indicates convincingly that they understand the policy and will abide by it in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Good block but lenient as they've never responded on their talk page or elsewhere. If they continue, I'd suggest an indefinite block, which, like the week block, can be unblocked just as quickly as they can convince an Admin about their good intentions in the future. Any block like this can generally be as short as the editor wants it to be, all they have to do is comply and communicate. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for another week. Perma-blocks are frowned upon. We can only hope he'll get it at some point. --Selket Talk 01:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Since when are perma-blocks for serial copyright violators frowned on? And why wasn't the block at least longer than the first one? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have to echo Dougweller (and Everard Proudfoot) above. This is a good block, but really, really lenient. He has not once responded to any of the warnings he has received, and we'll likely find ourselves here again. An indefinite block isn't a "perma-block". Once the user agrees to follow our rules on copyright it can be lifted. AniMate 01:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. The block should be indef. Or, to put it another way, they should be blocked until and unless they understand policy and realise that their actions could potentially result in legal problems for the WMF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: I have removed the Resolved tag from this section because of the concerns raised by multiple users. As a non-admin, if this was the wrong thing to do, please feel free to revert me. SilverserenC 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • That's all fine. I'm open to a block review from another admin on this one. I'm not going to extend it myself just so it doesn't look like I'm extending because lots of people said I should. If another admin thinks it should be longer, go ahead and extend it. --Selket Talk 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to extend to one month; I have done that twice recently for serial copyright violators. Neither of those blocks met with any criticism, so I'm going to assume people approve of that length; please do correct me if I'm wrong. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't approve, Blood Red Sandman and have blocked you for 6 weeks. Please dont object, per WHEEL. Ceoil (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for intervention against vandalism[edit]

On 29 August 2010, User: Wikiwatcher1 violated the rule posted in boldface at the top of this page,
Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page
and launched a complaint Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive635#Spam bombardment? against my accurate, relevant and informative citations of movie reviews on pages about those movies. User: Wikiwatcher1 concocted a linkspam theory that those citations link to pages about the multi-volume reprints of Variety Film Reviews and Variety Obituaries, both of which have been discontinued and are out of print. Those pages were created by me, as I happen to own one of the world’s most complete privately-held collections of movie reference books, most of which have material not available online. My citations are the first step in adding information from the reprints to pages about movies and celebrities.

The complaint was quickly “Resolved” (with a large green check mark) against the suggestion of User: Wikiwatcher1 that my citations be deleted, at which point User: Wikiwatcher1 took it upon himself to begin systematically deleting most, not all, of my citations. These deletions are unconscionable and indefensible, with User: Wikiwatcher1 rationalizing his vandalism with excuses such as “obit already cited” or “already has valid source.”

Sometimes instead of deleting, User: Wikiwatcher1 moves my citations from a relevant place in the article to an irrelevant one. For example, User: Wikiwatcher1, moved my citation for the obituary of Charles Laughton from next to Laughton’s death date and occupation (information given in the obituary) to the statement about where Laughton was buried, even though the obituary says nothing about Laughton’s resting place.

At User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Cease your vandalism, I warned that further such meddling and/or vandalism would result in a complaint by me against such activity, and I politely explained my motives and intentions. User: Wikiwatcher1 replied in a manner that appeared conciliatory, as if the matter was settled.

But now User: Wikiwatcher1 has deleted another of my citations (the Variety obituary of Paul Muni), and has demanded User talk:Aardvarkzz#Explantion requested for wikilinking I explain why there is a link on each citation to the pages about the reprints. I do not owe User: Wikiwatcher1 such an explanation. However, I am informing Wikipedia that the links (which were the basis of the complaint by User: Wikiwatcher1 rejected by Wikipedia) take the interested user to a page explaining where the citations come from and where they are most likely to find the facsimile reprint text of the articles and reviews if one has the inclination to go to a library that has those series. Because the articles I have cited are not online, there is no better link than the ones I provide. The citations could link to Variety magazine, but the Variety website is not free and it does not have reviews and obituaries as far back as the ones I have cited.

User: Wikiwatcher1 at least needs to be informed that citations confirming information already cited is legitimate; i.e., sometimes several citations side-by-side refer to the same fact. Often my citations are the only ones about a movie or celebrity.

Please advise User: Wikiwatcher1 against further deleting or meddling with my citations.Aardvarkzz (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs which indicate where you feel inappropriate removal / relocation of citations out of context has occured? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikiwatcher1 seems to not understand that a reference does not need to directly link to the source used. Linking to a relevant Wikipedia page about the source is quite common. Whether these references are necessary is another matter: if the article already has references to these details, why persist in adding further references, simply because you happen to have the book? That's somewhat perverse. Fences&Windows 15:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I politely requested a "rationale" on Aardvarkzz's talk page, so I think this ANI is unnecessary. The simple solution is to just give the rationale. In any case, there was absolutely nothing resembling vandalism involved. I did move his article links where no other RS was given for an obituary, as for Ernst Lubitsch and Nunnally Johnson, and accept that something is better than nothing. If someone simply asked me for a "rationale," however, I doubt if I'd use the fact that I'm near "one of the major film reference services in the country, with more than 8,000 books and 150 journal titles," as a reason why such rationale is thereby not needed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some diffs which indicate where you feel inappropriate removal / relocation of citations out of context has occured?
Yes. Please see Special:Contributions/Wikiwatcher1. Following your resolution (29 August 2010) against the suggestion of User: Wikiwatcher1 that my citations be deleted, User: Wikiwatcher1 on 30 August 2010 from 03:18 to 04:15 deleted (in most cases) or moved (in a few cases approximately forty of my Variety obituary citations. This destructive and disruptive activity temporarily ceased when I started a dialog at User talk:Wikiwatcher1#Cease your vandalism. However, User: Wikiwatcher1 demanded further explanation from me at User talk:Aardvarkzz#Explantion requested for wikilinking, and attempted to prod me into making such explanation by deleting (19:25, 3 September 2010) my accurate and relevant Variety citation for the obituary of Paul Muni.

When the “polite request” by User: Wikiwatcher1 is accompanied by vandalizing a citation, it is NOT polite, and amounts to vandalism. I have already wasted several hours attempting to be polite with User: Wikiwatcher1, as well as several more hours undoing his vandalism and requesting intervention against it. Whether or not User: Wikiwatcher1 personally finds my citations informative is beside the point. There is nothing deceptive or misleading about the citations, and I ask you to instruct User: Wikiwatcher1 to tolerate their presence in articles about movies and celebrities, and that User: Wikiwatcher1 cease further communication with me.Aardvarkzz (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Justa Punk[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked by User:Hersfold GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Special:Contributions/Justa_Punk last day's edits are supposed to mean... It's pretty clear it's related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Justa Punk/Archive - does this warrant an extended block or just revert them? - I'm really not sure on this one :? Skier Dude (talk 01:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral in the matter, as I was the admin who blocked him 1 month for socking, which that block just expired. IMO, those redirects he created should be reverted, as we need to know that be abused with sock puppets and with what. –MuZemike 02:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The user pages of the "socks" make that clear. The talk pages make no difference to this. Besides, they are all in effect mine according to Wikipedia, so under WP:NAMESPACE I can do what I want with them. And that's been done, and it should be left that way because there's nothing being hidden. Now if I'd done the same to the user pages that indicate the "sock" issue, that would be another matter. I'm done. !! Justa Punk !! 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I am going to recommend that it all be reverted, the standard {{sock}} template be added to those pages and the main account blocked indef for sockpuppetry, along with a new checkuser ran just to play it safe. - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Under which rules are you making this recommendation? !! Justa Punk !! 10:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Correction to comment further up - I should have referenced WP:UP#OWN and not Namespace. Note again that the sock stuff on the socks is on the user page and not on the user talk page and they have not been touched. I have done nothing wrong in this instance. !! Justa Punk !! 10:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what Justa's intentions are, but I think it's pretty misleading to redirect all his socks. They are socks, they are not alternate accounts. Shouldn't the sock template be put on every of the userpages confirmed to be socks in the SPI? Bejinhan talks 13:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
They already are. !! Justa Punk !! 14:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So wouldn't redirecting your socks' talk pages to your userpage hide stuff like this? Bejinhan talks 14:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
No - because of this, along with this, this, this.....need I go on? So what's hidden? !! Justa Punk !! 22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that I just reverted a personal attack directed at the community as a whole from this user's user page. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
    I also reverted the redirection of the user's talk page to his user page and issued him a npa-4im notice, as I felt this was a pretty serious breach of WP:NPA. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please delete these images and handle this vandal?[edit]

At Dago dazzler this edit [53] added two images that are a BLP violation against a professor (Michael E. Mann) who's been in the news in relation to climate change. The images need to be deleted, the account (no doubt a sock of some editor involved in Wikipedia's climate-change controversies) should be blocked. The images were put up as a joke because I created the article and I've been involved in the current ArbCom case on climate change. In about 10 minutes I'll be offline for probably the rest of the day, but I think this is all pretty straightforward and should be dealt with immediately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The images are actually rather funny and not nasty personal attacks, as far as I can tell, but they do need to go. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The images were on Commons, so it might have been better to post there. I deleted the image and blocked the user. I think a checkuser would be useful in this case, but I don't have any idea who this might be. NW (Talk) 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, NW. The account name violates WP:USERNAME policy, since it's an offensive, derogatory term, another reason to keep it blocked. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Meher Baba[edit]

Resolved: It didn't stop; further steps were taken. Blocked 24h Rodhullandemu 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see recent history of Meher Baba. I think page protection may be needed. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a {{uw-3rr}} and directed the editor to the Talk page. If it doesn't stop, further steps will be taken. Rodhullandemu 18:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for this prompt review. --Nemonoman (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Page TFA Error[edit]