Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive717

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

CoolKoon[edit]

Hi.

From Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Some types of comments are never acceptable:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

User Coolkoon wrote [[1]]:

And have no doubts about it, over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims CoolKoon (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC) --LastLion (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've just moved this from WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, another Slovak nationalist sockpuppet?! When I said in the last discussion about this that it won't be long before another Slovak nationalist will appear out of the blue to give me a hard time, I never would've thought that that'd happen within a DAY! BTW thanks for notifying me, Nick-D (after the blatant sock with malevolent intentions has failed to do so).

And as for my statement, anyone can read the translation of the Slovak note posted by the user I've referred to and make up his own opinion. My opinion was that the user's psychotic (evidenced e.g. by the fact that he's referred to Hungarian as the "language of the barking dogs", that I'm warmongering etc.) and my assertion's been supported by at least one of the admins as well (the guy's been indef blocked). The second part of my statement is supported by all the representative polls in Slovakia whose long-time winner and leader (with over 50% approval rate) is a party called SMER. Now this party was the ruling power of the 2006-2010 governing coalition. During this time Slovak-Hungarian relations have rapidly deteriorated (to the point of freezing). Then in 2010 election the party's campaign was heavily based on anti-Hungrian sentiments (e.g. they've indirectly accused the right-wing parties of "treason" by entering into a coalition with the then only Hungarian party of Slovakia). Therefore I fear that the whole electorate of SMER (over 50% of the voters) agrees with/endorses the heavy anti-Hungarian propaganda they've been pursuing back then and ever since. Therefore I have to conclude that many in Slovakia DO identify themselves with anti-Hungarian sentiments (such as the ones written on my talk page). -- CoolKoon (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hobartimus[edit]

[text inserted by block evasion removed]

--LastLion (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've just moved this from WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not the only inadequate action done by Hobartimus these days. At 1848–1849 massacres in Transylvania he is trying ([2] [3]) to remove a text supported by a reliable source ([4]) and to reinsert 2 sources that were considered by an administrator and 2 other neutral users to be unreliable (WP:SPS) - see [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.46.251 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that the reporter was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Bizovne. Bizovne a user from Slovakia was communicating with the banned user:Iaaasi in email, and acting as a meatpuppet / proxy for user:Iaaasi. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Another Plautus Satire is born[edit]

I've had it with the Wikipedia. You work hard to make an article good and someone reverts it or deletes your work over some minor oversight without giving any notice. EVEN WHEN MY PERSONAL EMAIL IS DISPLAYED ON MY TALK PAGE. Then, even though it is clear that some mistake was made, it is damned difficult to get it fixed as most admins will automatically side with another admin on principle alone regardless of the merits of my argument, regardless of the rules and policies in place. Then, I realized, it is way more fun to vandalize and troll the wiki

Congratulations Guys, you just created a super troll / super vandal

Joey Eads (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The primary form of communication between users here is by talk pages, not email. That's why you see a big honking orange bar that says "you have new messages" when somebody posts to your talk page. It's not reasonable to stick an email address on your user or talk page and expect users to open up an external email client to communicate with you about your on-wiki activities because that's what your talk page is for. On your images, they weren't deleted due to a "minor technicality". Wikipedia is a "free encyclopedia" and aside from some very strict exceptions we can only use images with a "free license" and the vast majority of images found on Panoramio don't qualify. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations Joey, you just made it insanely easy for the admins to indef you. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Joey, you're overreacting. I see Hut 8.5 suggested it, so why didn't you look at the logs for the file (or files) that were deleted, speak with the admin who deleted them, and then start up a WP:DRV if you weren't able to get things sorted out with them? lifebaka++ 13:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. This person vandalized WP:AN the other day with the same garbage via IPs. –MuZemike 14:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, this nuclear meltdown resulted over one image deletion: File:Johnson Beach west view.jpg. –MuZemike 14:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It should be noted that some panoramio photos can be used here if the uploader chooses a free license such as this one I recently uploaded there. You just have to check the license before putting it on Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It's taken from [6] where it is marked as copyrighted with all rights reserved, though it appears to have been uploaded to panoramio by the same person who uploaded it here (at least the name is the same). Hut 8.5 16:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Won't somebody please think of the turtles? - If I remember correctly, it was more than 1 image, though still a very small number. If copyright questions are an issue, I would hope it would still be possible to restore them long enough to get copies back to him. Can admins see a log for uploaded images that have since been deleted in contributions? --OnoremDil 14:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I only see the one image in there that was deleted recently. I could download it and email a copy to him, if he would like. Oddly, he seems to have had a similar reaction to something back in February 2008 and came back sometime in the interim. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 14:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just posted this to his talk page. Let's see if he responds and how. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And as a bonus I sent him an email telling him about it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Legolas, on another incivility[edit]

The user in question dropped by on my talk page, asking me to delete a particular GAR page that is deemed superfluous. A reply of mine is this:

IMO, the community reassessment page must be deleted. Based on the guidelines, GAR (community) must be used when there was no consensus reached by the involved editors. Seeing that it was only created yesterday, the second copy-and-paste move must be deleted. Also, Peter had a comment there (history page). I suggest you tag the other one. Thanks Lego. --Efe (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

We almost had reached decision which one to delete, but then I saw this diff which was an attack against the nominator, User:Paul75. Since I am involved in a discussion with the user, I decided not to delete the page (to preserve the diff for other user's reference, until there's a decision to delete the page). My writing here is about the gross incivility of Legolas, which precluded me from using the broom to execute the requested action. I believe he has been reported on this noticeboard more than once. --Efe (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am I supposed to do? I don't understand the CSD rules here. Did I do something wrong in the page? About that comment, I sincerely apologize to the community as well to Paul, if he feels perturbed by it in any way. I guess I was trying to call him "smart" but I see how it was wrong. I will abide by any hold placed by the community as and what they decide. Thank you for bringing this here Efe. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
To other admins. Please review the deletion as requested by Legolas. --Efe (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to thank Efe for reporting Legolas for incivility. Unfortunately I cannot see in what way he was rude to me as the link has been deleted. I was searching how to report him for incivility myself,as I find his constant bullying, belittling and humilattion tactics distressing and not at all in line with Wikipedia conventions. Everyone is human and can make mistakes, and if I made mistakes in my GOOD FAITH nomination for a GAR reassessment of Like A Virgin I do not deserve to be made look like a fool by someone who constantly breaches Wikiquette. I would personally like some form of block or 'punishment' on Legolas as this is not his first warning. Tellingly, I was not given a personal apology - if I hadn't searched for reporting incivility and following link after link after link I would not have found the apology above. --218.185.58.34 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of userpage[edit]

User:InfinitelyWhipped has, since his arrival on Wikipedia, been using his talkpage as a sort of personal weblog, posting his favourite YouTube videos, lustful thoughts on Avril Lavigne and various other inappropriate content. I warned InfinitelyWhipped about this a couple of weeks ago, and with his permission refactored the page to remove the offending material with this diff (here's what it looked like previously). Today, I noticed that the page is still being used as a personal web page, with no other edits to the user's name save two minor adjustments to the Abomination of Desolation article.

I'm not exactly sure where to go with this - there doesn't seem to be an obvious process to deal with repeated violations of WP:UP - but have been advised that ANI may be the right place to turn. It's a piddly thing to complain about, since the user isn't exactly harming anyone, but guidelines are there for a reason, and there are perfectly servicable webhosts out there that can fulfill InfinitelyWhipped's requirements instead. Yunshui (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the duff content and posted what I hope is a concise summary of 'what not to post'. Hopefully he'll take the hint this time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sandeep999 mass tagging for speedy deletion[edit]

I have come across a user who I think recently had an article of theirs deleted, TURF Insight[7], they are now mass nominating articles on competitors to that company for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11 [8][9][10][11][12] (only linking to a small proportion of diffs, see user's contibutions), these are mostly spurious, but I believe that Inbenta, Attivio, and Brainware have actually been deleted after being nominated by them (that is speculation, I can't know for sure as I am not an admin and the user has informed none of the creators). I am in the process of removing all of the db tags as disruptive, but could an admin look into whether a block is in order, and perhaps restore the deleted articles if necessary. Thanks, Quasihuman | Talk 16:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a relevant statement by this user on my talk page 'I am not prepared to be excluded from a place where every one of our peers has one.' - MrOllie (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Quasi for this tag. In fact it was my objective to land up in a discussion like this. Otherwise, it would have been obvious stupidity to do so many tags and even tag the Google Search Appliance in a single day. My point is simple. Most of what I have tagged today had pure promotional content with most of them having references to their own website or a website like KMWorld that is so easy to get mentioned in. When I had pointed this out to Mr Ollie who made an obvious attack on TURF immediately after TURF was added on to the vendors list, he pointed me out to the "Other Stuff Exists" page. I had removed any content that could be considered promotional and even made genuine product promises as "claimed by the company". Yet, without going for a "promo"tag, it was put for speedy deletion. I would welcome Quasi's suggestion to restore all the deleted pages, along with the deleted TURF page. When contributions are made to the wiki, the intention is to share information. If some of the sentences, as you can see in almost all these tagged pages, are considered promotional the sensible and responsible thing to do is to suggest that it sounds like promotional and that it may need a few more references and not to push for a deletion at the earliest. Such suggestions were there in all the articles I had placed the spam on. I know that I took a rash step to get attention. But sometimes you just have to do something drastic to get attention and the right parties also out onto the same platform. Eager to hear more.

Sandeep999 (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Quasihuman, Attivio probably isn't worth our time to restore. Brainware had issues and would've benefited from being copyedited with a chainsaw, but wasn't perfectly G11 material; it's probably not worth worrying about unless someone wants to work on it, though. Inbenta currently exists.
Sandeep999, what you have been doing is disruptive. Don't do it again. We'll talk here, but if you do it again expect to find yourself blocked.
Most likely the best way forward, if you want TURF to have an article, is to create a sandbox version at User:Sandeep999/TURF Insight and work on the page's issues there. To save you some trouble, I can userfy the previous content there for you. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka, I understand your point and respect your opinion. I have no intention to vandalize or disrupt a great institution like wikipedia from where all of us have benefited immensely. Last year, I contributed 10 percent of my personal earnings to the foundation. My intention is to encourage the foundation, not disrupt it. I wanted the unfairness to be noticed and an option provided to correct a wrong. I have achieved my purpose. I will prepare the article in the sandbox. It would be great if you could verify it once it is ready so that next time I move it to public domain and someone like Ollie strolls in, the same calamity would not happen again. Thanks again.

Sandeep999 (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka. can I just note that the authors were not informed. As a matter of courtesy would it possible to inform the authors after the event, and point them towards WP:DRV if they want to appeal. Having never seen the articles, I would leave it in the hands of the admins to decide what to do with them. Quasihuman | Talk 18:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A note for Sandeep999 - please take a look at WP:POINT. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I have provided some additional detailed advice and analysis for Sandeep at User_talk:Sandeep999#Gaming_the_system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Need a page move[edit]

Here for a Good Time (album) needs to be moved to Here for a Good Time, and Here for a Good Time needs to be moved to Here for a Good Time (song). There is a precedent that albums are superior to title tracks in the naming schemes. Can someone please do this move? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RM is the place to ask. While the 'precedent' you quote may be common, it is not always the case. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive comments, threats to disparage, and borderline legal threats from UrbanTerrorist[edit]

Resolved

UrbanTerrorist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

UrbanTerrorist has been participating in various debates about the status of Heroes in Hell-- here at AN/I, at the Dispute Resolution page regarding those issues, on the Heroes in Hell talk page, as well as on my talk page. The debate is far too exhausting to explain and is not directly relevant to the problematic behavior of the user. The following are a sample of the user's conduct:

Overall, we see threats, two comments that imply legal implications to Wikipedia or its editors, and general disruption. I am not alone in these observations:

These have been scattered across the several discussions that UrbanTerrorist has engaged in, and it seems obvious to me that UrbanTerrorist's goals and conduct are not compatible with improving Wikipedia. Because we do not condone legal threats and because the editor's behavior has been grossly disruptive, I request immediate discussion regarding blocking the user, as this has gone on far too long. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw this earlier, and had no time to act. Since then, I've been trying to decide if I wanted to take the risk of blocking UrbanTerrorist due to the danger of getting involved in some sort of ugly off-wiki drama. And then I realized that that's exactly why I needed to block xyr. I don't believe that there is any reasonable way to read the nexus of comments, including the indirect legal threat on I Jethrobot's talk page, the intentional announcement to involved editors of the book writing, and the "two degrees" name dropping as anything other than an attempt to compel others to be fearful and act accordingly. Add in the book plug, the pointy addition of 11 {{fact}} templates (7 in one sentence that really aren't at all challengeable) in this edit, and the overall attitude, I see a severe incompatibility with Wikipedia norms.
I may not be around much over the next 12-24 hours; if and only if a consensus should arise here to unblock (particularly in light of any redeeming comments made by UrbanTerrorist), feel free to unblock without consulting me. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Classic wiki-lawyering NOTTHEM unblock request, BTW. Claims that "I should warn you that all of you will star in the book" was actually not a threat "..to "publicize" the behavior of editors." Groan... Doc talk 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
And.... declined ublock. --Errant (chat!) 16:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I see why people are upset, but this was not a drama-reducing way to address the behavior, IMHO. Overreaction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, several other more neutral methods were attempted by other editors (notably Lifebaka and Doc9871) during the course of discussion, on my talk page, or on the editor's own talk page. The editor's behavior did not change. I feel this was an appropriate next step. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there was an overreaction either. If in an unblock request one states, "...if anyone feels threatened, they should consider their own actions. Nothing that happened was initiated by me.", they have clearly not read WP:GAB. Really standard stuff. He can always try again since his block is not "infinite". Hopefully he'll get it, but personally I'm not optimistic that he will considering all the diffs provided above. There are far too many veiled threats coming from him to wait and see if he makes a "concrete" legal threat. And we all know what happens then. Doc talk 21:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, yes, this was escalated a little quickly. But I think we should stamp on potential harassment, or the attempt to chill discussion using threats, fairly quickly. It's not collegial, and totally unfair to the other editors in a discussion. I think this can be recovered, although the onus on him now to buck his ideas up. --Errant (chat!) 00:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that I was "quick" to judge. Because I felt I had to be. If I'm feeling threatened about possible consequences of taking admin actions, then the threat is surely going to effect regular editing as well. I have left a long message on xyr talk page pointing out that I myself will unblock so long as xe can explain and accept the problems in prior behavior, and promise not to repeat them in the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I know this is serious and all that, but am I the only one that finds "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." absolutely hilarious? Also, more seriously, this user should be indef banned until he decides to take back and never again uses the words "lawyer" or "law" in any way that can be construed as a threat. These comments singly are borderline, but taken together they are either a serious lack of judgement - in which case we need to protect the project from recklessness, or they are a conscious flaunting of the rules by going as far as the border, but never quite crossing it - in which case we need to protect the project from a gamer that is toying with WP:NLT to disrupt. --Cerejota (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism?[edit]

90.201.251.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) persistently adds unsourced information or makes unsourced changes [13] [14] [15] (generally fairly trivial-looking such as residences). Stopped completely after 3rd August then started again yesterday. Some of what they're adding proves correct but a few edits have introduced information that is demonstrably wrong, eg [16] (contradicts the source) and [17][18] (captions contradicting the image descriptions), which makes me think they're mixing good-faith looking edits (such as adding wikilinks) with subtle vandalism.

81.136.183.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) who edited just before the 90 IP started up again looks to be the same user, as the 90 IP has reinstated two of their edits that were reverted [19][20], [21][22], that IP also made a false change to a caption [23]. January (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent catch. I don't think the 81 address is a persistent one... it's probably a mobile address... although the links you provide seem to be linked. The primary IP though is clearly an issue. A few of the links you noted have very similar IPs (same range) making similar edits in a timeframe that suggests they are linked (same IP, contiguous edits). This is a pernicious and difficult sort of subtle vandalism to track. At the moment User:90.201.251.28 has a number of edits outstanding, although what I've reviewed aren't a problem.
I'd say a block would be immediately in order for the diffs you provided, but this individual is hopping IPs, albeit on a predictable range. This is something to keep an eye on for sure... see if there's a broader pattern. I don't have the time atm to delve into it, but this is something worth looking into. Similar ranges and similar edits types might reveal a pattern that could fix a lot of subtle vandalism.
In any case, this work is amazing January... we need more people looking out for stuff like this, and that you found a rather sophisticated version of it is a really great thing. I hope you continue doing this, as this is the most potent wiki threat at the moment. Shadowjams (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Hearfourmewesique[edit]

User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on removing the fact that smooth jazz is descended from older jazz styles to suit his/her POV. That is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OWN. It is an ABSOULTE FACT that smooth jazz is descended from jazz, but User:Hearfourmewesique keeps on removing it from the article, caling it a "false statement". It is only a" false statement" according to jazz purists, which everyone should know have a bias against smooth jazz.

Looking at the user's edit history, it looks like he/she has a history of edit warring and POV pushing. ANDROS1337TALK 19:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hearfourmewesique has been known to be extremely argumentative and too stubborn for his own good really. He doesn't like to see much reason most of the time and has been blocked for it multiple times. Edit warring is sort of his vice I guess. Suggest the user be warned and told to desist and if he doesn't; block for edit warring. Atomician (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Do we have sources to support this absolute fact that everyone knows? If not, he's entitled to remove it. Also, we shouldn't be refering to his edits as vandalism, now should we. This appears to have been an ongoing debate for yearsElen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, let me begin by heartwarmingly thanking Atomician for his incredible WP:AGF... but seriously, folks. Everyone here is more than welcome to check out the ongoing debate, in which Andros1337 has not yet come up with a single WP:RS that supports his "ABSOULTE [sic] FACT", which is further supported by the template on the article page. Until such a source can be found, there is as much similarity between smooth jazz and jazz as there is between black pudding and bread pudding – sure, they're both food products called pudding, but that's all there is to it. Note to Andros1337: before accusing an editor of POV pushing, look at what you've been doing here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
In reply to Elen of the Roads, there is an ongoing discussion, since 2008, about the verifiability of the whole genre itself. I have drawn up a couple of references but as per usual, they've been disputed. Now, I don't think anyone would actively suggest that smooth jazz does not exist (and if you think it can't be verified and therefore meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia itself, articles for deletion is that way...), because it's formed a part of the US (and to a smaller degree, an international) radio landscape. But there is a greater issue with the whole article itself for years now beyond just the edits of Heartfourmewesique, where numerous solutions such as a draft article or calls for article clean-up from the wider community have not been successful. I've hit a brick wall as to where to take this and it appears others have too. As I reliterate, the problem is not necesarily with Heartfourmewesique, it's with the article, and in particular, the inclusion of verifiable references which can be agreed on by the whole community to meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines for an article's inclusion in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The fact is, all of the early smooth jazz artists (such as George Benson) root their influences to musicians of older styles of jazz. There is no disputing that. ANDROS1337TALK 15:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now that may well be the case, but is it sourced? One of the main problems I have seen with the article is that people are putting things into the article without citing any sources or where the source is added but it is of dubious or suspicious origin, which then leads to conflicts and arguments as we are seeing here. The way forward as I see it is to a) first strengthen existing citations within the article, b) remove dubious parts of the article which cannot gather consensus and then c) rebuild the article with multiple verifiable citations. We may just then prevent the problems as has been seen here. --tgheretford (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is a source for George Benson (see "Influenced By" section): [24] and Grover Washington Jr: [25]. That was easy. ANDROS1337TALK 18:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
The leap from "the artist is influenced by jazz" to "the style is a subgenre of jazz" is the issue here. But then again, it has all been said more than once, hasn't it, Andros? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, the fact that these artists were influenced by jazz artists obviously implies that smooth jazz is an evolution in jazz history. While there is some R&B influence, it doesn't overshadow the primary origins of smooth jazz. ANDROS1337TALK 23:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, what consensus is there besides yourself? Sounds like clear WP:OWN to me. ANDROS1337TALK 23:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
No, no WP:OWN on my end, but a clear WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT on yours, not to mention WP:SYNTH – quote – "the fact that[...]obviously implies that[...]". Every editor here (besides Atomician, who had not contributed a single word to the issue in question), as well as on the good ol' debate, agrees that your "absolute fact" lacks reliable sources, yet you keep trying to portray me as the bad guy here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • LOL. @ Andros1337 - Dave Brock's earliest musical influence was New Orleans trad jazz. Does this make Hawkwind a jazz band? Seriously, discuss this on the talkpage, provide sources before anything is added, and don't drag people to ANI if you are in a content dispute with them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Boderline harassment by andreasegde[edit]

andreasegde (talk · contribs) has been a less than constructive influence in the article Swarcliffe for some time now, as the talk page shows (here and here in specific). Chzz has stepped in a few times to try and keep the page from bursting into flames, and as a result, andreasegde is now going after Chzz on his talk page (here).

Can someone uninvolved please intervene. Ideally, I'm not sure this has reached the level of a block, but a stern warning regarding the thread on Chzz's talkpage and a one or two month ban from Swarcliffe and its talk page would help alleviate the situation. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll agree this editor has got a gob on them - like about half of all our editors - but hasn't descended to the sublevels of abuse, at least not yet. Other than mistaking Chzz for an admin, I can't see what they are actually doing on the article that is sufficiently problematic to warrant a ban for any length of time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

"Yellow-billed pintail" article has a serious problem[edit]

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This vandalism and outright hack of the article's redirection may also be related to the incidents with the Dodo article mentioned further above. Epf (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

That's related to this edit (now revdeleted). I've semiprotected the template that got vandalized, though perhaps full protection is necessary. Ucucha (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Recent socks have been registered in 2008 and autoconfirmed, so semi-prtection is useless. I've fully protected it. Some form of cascading protection may be advisable: I'll leave that to those who understand it better than I. FWIW, malware insertion should be a WMF matter. I'm going to see what it might take to get action. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
The malware insertion on a linked page, not on the actual Wikipedia page. There's little we can do about that short of blacklisting the offending links (and encouraging people to install stuff like NoScript). Ucucha (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought the procedure, if a convenience link is compromised, is
A. Delink the convenience link (remove "http://") so it's not clickable and hidden comment the reason why.
B. Hidden comment the convenience link, and note the reason why.
Deletion of the convenience link should only occur if the reference is otherwise complete(title, pub, date, etc). I thought. --Lexein (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat from new user[edit]

New user KevinScintilla's fifth edit on Wikipedia was this legal threat delivered to my talk page. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin opinion) User has been warned. But I agree that the comment is unquestionably a legal threat, and should result in an indefinite block. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the article's edit history, a fairly compelling case can be made for KevinScintilla being a SPA. It's difficult to definitively say yes or no based on a single edit, but I think AlbertHalftown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making some faint quacking noises as well. KevinScintilla is also likely the IP editor 109.111.133.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), again based on the editing history. So there's also a slow-burning edit war ongoing, and I see absolutely NO discussion between the parties on the article's Talk page. My 2p would be to throw the WP:NLT hammer at KevinScintilla, then semi the article for three days to get the principals to talk about what is and isn't reliable and neutral. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review: Protection on WP:CSD[edit]

I fully-protected WP:CSD because a number of people were revert-warring over the addition of a certain proposal from the talk page. Since I had commented on the discussion that lead to the proposal, I might be considered involved, which is why I would like to request the review of my action here. Regards SoWhy 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that all parties are experienced editors, and I would say what we were seeing was more WP:BRD than WP:3RR..... I wouldn't have taken that step yet, but I think your action was intended honorably, and I expect they will thrash it out on the talkpage and agree a version, which is always preferable for policy pages anyway. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Jackie d. alarcón (talk · contribs)...[edit]

Resolved: (thanks, Elen Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

...has been on a campaign to edit-war the Category:Discrimination into Compulsory voting despite numerous warnings, previous blocks, and his being the only one who is in favor of this. At what point would an indef-block be appropriate? User is determined to continue. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Round about now would be my opinion. I don't know whether there's a language issue, some POV arising from the editor's unknown home state, or he's just a disruptive troll, but there's no way Compulsory voting is a universal form of discrimination, and the user's refusal to add anything coherent to the debate suggests at minimum a WP:COMPETENCE issue. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD assistance request[edit]

Resolved: - thanks Joseph Fox

I'm the OP for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Smith (prisoner) which has now been up for slightly more than 7 days. I now think it clear that the article will be kept, and would be grateful if an admin familiar with closing AfDs would take a look through it and consider closing it. There seems to be a consenses forming as to what the notable issues are to be taken forwards, and a willingness from a number of involved people (on both sides of the AfD argument) to continue work going forwards. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As one of the delete !voters, I'm not sure there is a consensus yet. We just had a very productive debate, and I think we've narrowed the options to two possibilities: 1) keep with a page move to an agreed new name, or 2) delete with a new article being created later under the agreed new name when there has been more information. Since this debate has only happened recently in the AfD, I think it should be re-listed at least one time. Singularity42 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Extremely inappropriate personal attack directly at User:Ebe123's user page.[edit]

Joey Eads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has just attacked user Ebe123, and I doubt this attacker will stop. I need some help reverting those attacks. I also reinforced the message at AIV, and will watch his page in case of another attacker. StormContent (talk) 14:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked (indefinitely) per above. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Should I watch Ebe123's user page in case of another attack? StormContent (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
If you want to spend your time volunteering for Wikipedia by doing that, no one's going to stop you. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that's a tricky question, Fetchcomms. I can't do that. However, I can also revert any personal attack that gets in my way. Trust me; I looking out for vandalism. StormContent (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone? StormContent (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think you can drop this matter unless the problem occurs again. If it does, you can report it for appropriate action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi page protection[edit]

Why has this page been protected. Two or three editors are involved in dispute with everyone and they go about getting the page protected by raising useless issues such as sockpuppetery. Can someone tell me who was the sock they caught. Just because they have suspisions doesn't justify protecting this page.

Anyways user:Qwyrxian is not working as an admin for this page, and has been involved in this page as an editor before he or she became an admin.

Please have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#Kurmi_PP

"but since the last IP editor is obviously a sock of someone (don't know if it's a blocked editor or just someone trying to dodge 3RR), I requested semi-protection" based on what evidence was the sock issue raised. This is getting seriously a big headache. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


can't it be someone who forgot to log? Why is someone who has been made an admin fails to understand such a simple thing. Anyways, this issue is not related to reporting an user behavior and I have nothing against User- Qwyrxian, but this report is related to getting the Page protection off. This page protection was not based on any merits. Please remove it. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC) --

Because if you (for example) were to revert twice logged in, and then decided to log out and started reverting, that would be avoiding 3RR. If you don't want the page to be protected, don't edit war on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Elen, thanks for jumping in and declaring that I am edit warring. Was this sock puppet case proved, or was the page protected just on whims? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Qwyrxian is an involved admin. I would imagine that is why they did not protect the page themselves. There is something odd going on across several of these caste articles. Whether it is socking or meatpuppetry or just off-wiki canvassing, things are not right somewhere. Semi-protection is not massively onerous & if it causes people to raise the points on the talk page rather than war thens surely that is a good thing? Every time these articles have ended up here at NPOV, DRN etc in recent months the decision has always tended towards the contributions of myself, MatthewVanitas and one or two others. - Sitush (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Qwyrxian was involved before they became an admin & therefore the involvement persists/is inherited. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Let's not bring in matters that have nothing to do with the discussion here. The page was protected saying that this is a socket puppet case. Was this proved??? Even if you editwar or do 6RR or 7RR no one is going to report you due to obvious reasons. Let's stick to the main point here, how certain group of people are acting to propogate a certain point. Even for no reasons some guys are able to get page protected, etc. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure what the "obvious reasons" are to which you refer. The evidence of disruptive editing is clear from the article history. If you want to call it that rather than socking then feel free. It doesn't actually make much difference from the point of view of applying semi-protection. - Sitush (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Ditto. If you wish, I can amend the protection log, so that it reads "disruptive edits by IPs" instead of sockpuppetry, but, as far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to lift semi-protection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Given that semi protection would not affect a logged in user, I'm wondering exactly why Nameisnotimportant is getting quite so aerated here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason is: for reasons that have no merits someone asks for page protection, and the page is protected. That's what is irritating. What's more frustrating is people ignoring to look into the reasons given for justifying page protection. What was the reason page was protected this time? Sock puppet case was said, but my simple point is: did you catch a sock puppet . Elen, what's your point? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The reasons above sound like: no matter what, if I am an admin, I can do whatever I want and I can justify that action for one reason or the other. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comment If you want the page unprotected, there's always WP:RFPP available to make such a request. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mjroots, thanks for the suggestion. There are a few reasons why I came to ANI and not RFPP:

  • a user who happens to be an admin makes a bogus claim. Though the user is involved in edit war raises allegations such as sock puppets without merits. A person who is an admin must know better, or can anyone be an admin?
  • Someone shows up and blocks the page, taking the statement on face value.

I have no reason to ask for page protection, but the above reasons are serious enough and need to be looked into. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, maybe that person just forgot to log in. I doubt it, but I'm willing to extend that good faith. But if that's the case, then the page protection solves the problem--the person who forgot will simply get a message saying they can't edit the page, and thus will log in. Is there any harm here? Semi-protecting keeps everyone honest and helps them avoid a mistake. It's not like the page has had a lot of constructive IP editing anyway. Note that I have no intention of pursuing any sort of SPI (since CU can't connect IPs and named accounts anyway), because I don't have any desire to punish anyone--all I care is that the edit warring stops, and that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, gets to have "extra" reverts by editing while logged out. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Mjroots' point was that you can request unprotection at RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, going by your logic, each and every page needs the same level of protection on Wikipedia. This is not a valid reason to protect the page till November, isn't it? Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

So take it to WP:RFPP. That is the appropriate forum, surely? Or is your point here to query the competence of Salvio? - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
EdJohnston has declined the unprotection request at WP:RFPP; as I pointed out, and EdJohnston agreed, all edits by IP editors since at least April on that page have been reverted as being not in accord with either policy, consensus, or both. As always, IP editors are more than welcome to suggest changes on talk, using the "edit semi-protected template", all suggested edits will be evaluated per our policies and guidelines, and any issues resolved unsatisfactorily may be taken through the dispute resolution process . Given the unprotection decline, I believe that an uninvolved user is justified in marking this discussion as resolved. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User Msu2006[edit]

User Msu2006 has spent several hours removing the wikilinks to years for the Miss USA pages (had done so for every state). I have spent the last half hour or so reverting these edits and have warned the user 3 times on their talk page, but they dont seem to understand. Msu2006 is now doing the same thing to the Miss Teen USA pages. I am requesting an admin block this user as they have been warned and continue to make these unexplained edits. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I've left Msu2006 a note that their editing has been mentioned here. I've also explained how their edits appear disruptive and attempted to open a dialog. They have not edited in a couple of hours, so a block would not be preventitive at this point. Tiderolls 00:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Update: After spending a couple of hours with Msu2006 I've formed the opinion that this individual is not serious with regard to editing here. Nothing blockable, but if they contiue in their current mode it shouldn't be long in coming. Tiderolls 02:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Ireland references from articles[edit]

I bring this here because I think I've gotten too close on this one and would like an oversight review. The editor User:John6547 has been editing articles related to the band Crubeen (also Crubeen (band), The Longkesh Ramblers and Eagle's Whistle.) Some were created by the user. The articles themselves are fine, and the user has come into the creation and editing well. There is just one small problem which is why I'm bringing the issue here. The articles all originally said the bands were from Newry, County Down, Ireland. On my searches I recently changed them to correct the country of the bands from Ireland to Northern Ireland and this is where the problems have arisen. John6547 originally changed the edits back to read Ireland instead of Northern Ireland, and when reinstated has now taken to completely removing the origin completely. There does seem to be a slight ownership issue here with claims of "details corrected by original author" 1 (also removing referenced information) and "origin neutral" 2 or "origin unknown" 3when this isn't the case. I'm now too close, so I bring it here to ask for another opinion. I also admit I may have come on a bit strong, but that's from years of combating Irish nationalist vandalism dealing with the attempted removal of Northern Ireland from the project. I shall inform the editor of this discussion. I look for any response, no matter the side it ends up on. Canterbury Tail talk 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Does either WP:TROUBLES or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names or other cases apply here? Do we have discretionary sanctions over these sorts of disputes? --Jayron32 00:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It's possible, it could be construed a nationalist editing, but the rules around the sanction are not well understood to be honest. Could be a bit heavy handed in this case anyway. In my opinion this isn't a user that deserves to be blocked for this as to be honest they're editing in good faith and maybe don't realise the results of their actions in this area, and maybe I could have been clearer in that respect. This is why I brought it here. Canterbury Tail talk 00:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Not directly as they currently stand. One could try to come up with a very broad interpretation of one of them, or propose a request for amendment or clarification that would pick it up ... but it is possible that the issue can be addressed on its own, and if so, that would likely be preferable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems like another user has weighed in and they're continuing massive edit warring link seems like a block may be required here after all. I don't think I should be the one to do it. Canterbury Tail talk 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
It took some time, but I think he finally got the message. See: User talk:Night of the Big Wind/Archives/2011/August#Crubeen updates Night of the Big Wind talk 01:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Permanent tags[edit]

An editor has, since September 2010, insisted that an {{update}} tag go at the top of a section of an article. He states that there are sources that have been missed in the section, and has even specified which sources he thinks should be used. He has, however, refused to actually update the article himself, or state what specific material he thinks should be added. I've tried to remove the tag, but he insists that it must stay, despite the fact that he refuses to fix the problem which apparently only he sees. At this point I'm at a loss as to what to do, and the issue is behavioral, so I've brought it here. The article page discussion is here. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other editors (including at least one previously-uninvolved admin) have joined the conversation on the article Talk page. I don't think there's anything for an admin to do right now, other than maybe keep a weather eye on the discussion.. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest closing this ANI case. It is clear that the user who wants the tag there is a good-faith editor who engages in discussion. Therefore, no outside action is required, although more comments are welcome. —Ynhockey (Talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If he was a "good-faith editor", he would have actually put in whatever he insists belongs there, rather than tagging the article for 10 months, while refusing to both remove the tag or add the material. This needs to be resolved one way or the other; or should we just leave the tag there for another 10 months? Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd say remove the tags - the article looks well-developed. If we had tags on an equivalent level elsewhere we'd be drowning in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
This isn't really about cleanup tags IMO. The issue is that ליאור apparently thinks that the section is light on opposing viewpoints. However, that's more of a dispute than a simple cleanup job, and dispute tags are only supposed to be kept in place while there's ongoing discussion. The onus is on ליאור to make his case for adding opposing viewpoints. If that doesn't happen, or there's no consensus to do so, then the tag should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────This appears to be a case of one or two disruptive editors who have no intention of actually attempting to fix the alleged problem with the article. Their stated goal in using the tag is that of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." That has never been what we use temporary cleanup tags for, and continuing to edit war over it violates WP:POINT and WP:TE. I can’t take any action now because I’m “involved”, but other administrators need to take a look at the tagteam editing behavior of accounts ליאור (talk · contribs) and אדעולם (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's strange to be summoned to ANI merely two weeks after volunteering at Wikimania... As explained in the relevant talk page, the very existence of this section has been disputed by at least seven different editors since 2005, with Jayjg insisting on keeping it as is. We all agree that tags are temporary, but so is the incorrect content that they are meant to flag. Composing faulty sections and then enforcing others to clean up after you is an excellent way to keep Wikipedia with obsolete content, and grumpy editors.
Anyways, constructive suggestions on how to deal with this section have been made in the talk page, so I suggest we direct our efforts there. Shabbat Shalom, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you're hardly a newbie: You've been editing here since April, 2010. And I understand you would prefer to have this issue characterized as a content dispute that does not require admin attention, but your "constructive suggestions" are to either delete the section entirely or keep a permanent tag "warning our readers of its incorrect content." Neither of those two options are "constructive", nor are they "suggestions" since you keep edit warring over the latter. Much of the existing grumpiness here at English Wikipedia is caused by editors such as yourself who refuse to follow our guidelines and edit collaboratively. — Satori Son 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Lior may have a point that the section is contrary to WP:MEDRS. He's objecting to some genetic studies that failed to be replicated, according to him. I suggest posting at WT:MED about this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
When are genetic studies ever "replicated"? These are genetic studies, not medical studies. Meanwhile, he's reverted in the tag again. Jayjg (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how Satori reached the strange conclusion that I'm an editor since April 2010. If it makes any difference, and I believe it shouldn't, I'm a registered editor since 2003 and my first contribution dates back to November 2004, a year and a half before his. Over the past 4.5 years, most of my contributions to Wikipedia revolved around Beta Israel Wikiproject, especially in Hebrew. I've made thousands of related edits, contributed hundreds of related images, and coordinated a successful writing competition that lead to the collaborative composition of eighty new articles on Beta Israeli Heritage and Ethiopian Culture. Moreover, I've detailed in the talk page how the genetic section could be rewritten to conform with our articles about other Jewish ethnic groups. I agree with FuFoFuEd that a professional eye on the subject could be helpful. I suggust either Jayjg or I leave a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics and let the issue be settled down more calmly. ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
That's great. So you won't have any objection to removing the tag, now that the issue you see (whatever it is) is getting attention? I'll assume you agree with removing it now, unless you state otherwise. Jayjg (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll certainly support the removal of the tag once the section is improved, and I suppose the same holds for the other participants in the discussion who opposed the removal of the tag while the section is faulty. As I suggested at your talk page, I'll put aside other pressing assignments I took upon myself, to get this section fixed within the next couple of weeks, under the supervision of you and others. So in two weeks time there will be no tags over the Beta Israel article, and the concern about permanent tagging could be directed elsewhere. ליאור • Lior (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Peculiar Activity at Joseph Marinaccio AfD[edit]

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Marinaccio Lots of keep recommendations with like-formatting from new user IDs. Suspect individual with multiple IDs and IP addresses.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added the "not a ballot" template, marked several of the !voters as SPA, and even struck the !vote of someone who !voted twice (and commented a third time). The AfD's on my watchlist now; if it gets really disruptive, further action can be taken, but the closing admin will eventually evaluate the discussion not by the number of people that vote one way or the other, but by the quality of the arguments and how they relate to our policies/guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks Qwyrxian.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 10:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

94.65.56.95[edit]

Hello, The user User talk:94.65.56.95 is continuing to add spam links to articles. I can no longer revert, as this would violate the 3RR (unless spam is vandalism, could someone tell me if this is so). Thank you --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, user has been blocked now. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:VANDTYPES, under heading of "Spam external linking", defines adding external spam links as vandalism. You are exempt from 3RR in such situations and need not worry of even a warning, much less a block. Peace. --64.85.217.39 (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Cush 3RR violation[edit]

There's no call for what's this editor been doing. It's mendacious fighting, edit-warring, POV, bias, and false accusations. And he just violated 3RR. I'm writing here because I see that he won't be reasoned with or talked to. He has a history, from what I can see, of POV-pushing, false accusations, projection, bias, bullying, hostility, and blatant edit-warring.

I know that he already has a pro-"Yahweh" bias. He reverted three times now the edit on erroneous grounds. (On the "Crossing the Red Sea" article) In his one of his edit comments he said "weirdest possible transliteration" when that is blatant POV, and simply not true. "Jehovah" is not a weird transliteration, and saying that it is is just a matter of opinion. It's an established rendering, and in major Bible translations. And is already in many WP articles. It's true that most WP articles have "Yahweh", but not all. He seems to accuse others of what he himself more guilty of. The POV and bias here is all his. And it's obvious. His bias against the rendering "Jehovah" is clear. And is on faulty and just POV grounds, nothing more. There are scholars on both sides of that rendering. There's no valid reason to remove that simply because of "WP:I Don't Like It". (And there was no "vandalism" on my part, so that's a false accusation.) I told him to please stop edit warring...or take it to this article talk. Instead he just reverted again, and wrongly accused me of "vandalism".

I only reverted twice, not three times. There was one "edit" there I did that was NOT an actual "edit". If you click here here you'll see that it was just a non-edit, simply to make an edit comment in the revision history. There was no "reversion" (or anything) in that specific one. So I only reverted twice, not three times...like he did.

Cush reverted clearly three times in a 24 hour period.
here...
22:33, 21 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,504 bytes) (there was no need to change the deity's name to the weirdest of all possible transliterations.)
here...
09:27, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446121644 by Hashem sfarim there is no need for the renaming. please do not unnecessarily change the article to promote some POV. if you want a change please discuss it first.)
and here...
09:42, 22 August 2011 Cush (talk | contribs) (12,505 bytes) (Undid revision 446124503 by Hashem sfarim you changed the article without discussion. stop your vandalism!)

So you see there. That's three reverts in less than a day. That's a bright line, and he's in violation. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/3RR? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Bwilkins. I'm not used to doing this. I really wasn't sure where to go. Thanks for the app. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to note that not only did Cush not breach 3RR (although he's at it), it was Hashem who first made the change to Jehovah. He was then reverted by RossNixon who has an entirely different pov to Cush. Hashem reverted to his version, then Cush reverted to what I think was the original (Yahweh). There's been no attempt to discuss this at the talk page, which I think is Hashem's responsibility as he wants the change and has been reverted by two editors. Dougweller (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vile anti-Semitic email[edit]

Ttwtchr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has emailed me, How surprising to read that you are jewish. Constantly moaning that everyone is out to get you, completely unaware of your belittling of others. And how surprising that your user name contains a monetary refernce whilst we're on the subject, what a nasty little shit!

Please could someone block and revoke email + talkpage access? Ta. ╟─TreasuryTagRegional Counting Officer─╢ 13:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have done so, but you should probably forward someone the e-mail as proof ... I don't mind taking your word for it right now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how forwarding the email would prove anything (it could be easily fabricated) but if a Checkuser emails me, I'm happy to forward it in reply. ╟─TreasuryTagco-prince─╢ 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
TTWatcher? Sounds like a SPA, specifically one meant for hounding TreasuryTag. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this the fourth or the fifth one now? Has anyone done a checkuser? --Errant (chat!) 13:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but there's not much to see at the moment. TNXMan 15:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Bwilkins is asking for an email copy so you don't give these TT watchers ammunition like "he made that up". Knowing the history of TT watchers - as they are now categorized! - you don't want to give them ammo. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Repeating the call for an admin to step up as a private contact for these in future. TT, it seems unlikely this is going to stop if you proceed to repeat the contents of every such mail at ANI, where the sender presumably gets his jollies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 18:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If anyone imagines this is doing "TT watchers" (which I will take to mean people involved in the MfD) a favour they must be nuts. I also cannot believe that it would be made up - at least not by Treasury Tag. No doubt there are some users who would make that sort of thing up. I will admit at first I thought the emails may be being exaggerated but now that we've been given the content of two of them (and I agree that any more shouldn't be posted as well - it's very much up to TT but doing so is highly likely to feed trolls, which this probably is rather than a lunatic, although that can't be ruled out) that's enough to know they're completely unacceptable.
No one should have to put up with this.Egg Centric 19:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Can't like community sanctions be raised in this respect? Seems like every time I look at ANI there is some drama around TT... I have no idea why this is happening, but this stuff needs wider attention. --Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm that Ttwtchr (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) sent an e-mail through wikipedia, but as recipients are listed as hashes in the checkuser results, I cannot confirm to whom it was sent. There are no obvious socks, either. -- Avi (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ten bucks says that the accounts are in... England. Just a stab in the dark. Doc talk 21:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User: Agallob[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Tnxman307, and copyvio articles deleted. Singularity42 (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Agallob (talk · contribs)

Not sure if this belonged to AIV, CCI, or somewhere else, so I have brought it here for now. Agallob is a new user who's only contributions is to add content by copy/pasting content from another webiste. He has been warned multiple times. After I left him this final, personalized warning, he created another copyvio article. At this point, I have no choice but to request a block. Singularity42 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, although I'm fine with anyone shortening/lifting the block if they promise to behave. TNXMan 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh god I screwed up[edit]

Resolved

I tried to be helpful moving a misleadingly titled "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (3rd nomination)" to "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashkenazi intelligence (4th nomination)" but it's all gone wrong. Can someone fix please? Won't do it again! Egg Centric 22:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Egg Centric 23:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Joshua the Independent[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Kinu. CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody take care of Joshua the Independent (talk · contribs)? At Esperanza Spalding, he is creating copyright violations, MOS violations, BLP violations (including the removal of living people category). I am not at home and I don't have time of this. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 23:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I've gone ahead and blocked for 24 hours... the edits appear disruptive in the manner that Tbhotch has indicated and, if nothing else, Joshua the Independent has broken 3RR. --Kinu t/c 00:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Grerr[edit]

Resolved: Blocked by Kinu. CycloneGU (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Account created solely to insult another editor. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Obvious troll is obvious. Blocked indefinitely. --Kinu t/c 00:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Abusive Emails 3: Return of the Abusive Emails[edit]

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Abusive emails and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive716#Abusive email: the sequel, I have received yet another lovely message, this time from Ttslyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – this one was rather more explicit than the others: YOU HORRID LITTLE SHIT. YOU THINK THOSE LAST EMAILS WERE ABUSIVE??? YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE MEANING OF ABUSIVE YOU FUCKING LITTLE TWAT!!! is just an excerpt. Pleases could someone block this so-called person and revoke talkpage access, as per the previous occasions? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTagconsulate─╢ 11:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And blocked. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Someone seriously needs to get a fucking life, Jesus. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
  • There was a recent thread... err... somewhere... about Capchas and our email system. Last I checked, it was pretty heavily supported. Can we resolve and implement that please? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    To be fair, CAPTCHAs wouldn't solve the problem of abusive emails, because the culprit of the material above is (just about) literate. What would be useful would be to ban 'disposable' email addresses such as those from Mailinator – two of the three messages I've received from this guy have used the service. ╟─TreasuryTagcondominium─╢ 19:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
    To comment on this part of the discussion: one idea brought up in the discussion in question was having a requirement for users to have to make a certain number of contributions before removing a captcha requirement. I would go a step further and perhaps disallow new users to use the e-mail function until a certain number of edits has been met. Thoughts? CycloneGU (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
A fair idea, although if that is implemented it should be optional (and perhaps a default setting - have no view on that) as there are good reasons to allow a user with no edits to email another user. It would also be trivial for the recipient to choose whether anyone could email them or just autoconfirmed users. In fact, I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible for someone to permit anonymous editors (i.e. non logged in users acting as IPs) to email them - again that could be useful. There may also be some utility in adding more sophisticated filtering functions (e.g. allowing a user to ban specific IPs or users from emailing them) Egg Centric 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Where would you suggest raising such a proposal? CycloneGU (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) - naturally I'll support it if it resembles the one outline above Face-wink.svg Egg Centric 21:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an admin that TT trusts perhaps nominate himself as a future private contact for these things? Taking it to ANI every time just seems to be giving TT's harrassers the attention they're looking for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would second this comment. The person sending these e-mails is presumably hoping to see precisely the type of reaction he or she is seeing. In addition, information about incidents of persistent and serious off-wiki abuse should be brought via e-mail to the attention of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Forward it to the Foundation. It's a pretty clear threat, and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to contact the authorities in that area. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Or maybe we should be disabling our email ability, as someone suggested during a similar email problem not too long ago. –MuZemike 06:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
With respect to all involved, I'm closing this section. I have already closed one thread at the talk page as it proved to be little more than bickering back and forth between editors who don't understand copyvio and people who have been accused of lumping the former editors into the body of one editor, and I'm sitting in the middle helping keep everything peaceful. Additionally, there is no administrative action needed here; to suggest there is is just plain silly. Whatever needs to be done will be done at the copyvio board; nothing here can override that. I've posted at the article talk page in that close that it's time to move on to fixing the problem, which RobertMfromLI had posted a new thread to begin doing before I conducted the close of the prior one. Since article discussion should take place there, there's nothing to discuss here for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a copyright violation issue at Female genital mutilation but the {{copyvio}} template has been removed and there is an issue with edit warring. Not my area of editing and I've no particular wish to get involved but given the issues, some oversight by an admin is probably warranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the copyvio notice for now. I am also going to do a quick scan myself. CycloneGU (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See [26] for info. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Consider me to be that article's uninvolved-admin-in-residence until these issues are resolved; I've made clear that people continuing to mess around with the tags will result in me pulling out the ol' administrative banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
    Duly noted. I have no intention of crossing paths in that fashion, but a copyvio concern is serious and if non-admins. are removing the claim then those users might also need further investigation. Also, Wee Curry, I found that on my own and have already commented there. =) CycloneGU (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello iam the user who removed the template because there has been no discussion, hint or information concerning copyright violation or plagiarism on the talk page before the template. Therefor i treated the issue as an unnecessary and dubious edit, due to one user was allowed to simply claim a copyright violence wich immediately blankened the page, even if no other discussion about copyright ever happened before. This issue is already been discussed at the talk page. My intention was not to break rules of removing a template, i simply treated this edit as dubious because a lot of persons are involved and as far as i remember there has never been mentioned a violation of copyright before. I hope this matter will be solved soon. For the case that i broke policy i appologize.--Santiago84 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  • That's fine; as you see above, discussion has gone on (although Henrietta should probably have linked to it) so the template is kosher. Ironholds (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the template because Henrietta's conclusions were completely unfounded. She put up this tag out of frustration with people not agreeing with her and she did it while discussion on potential issues were still ongoing. In short, she completely sidestepped the proper process for initiating the action she did. Feel free to review the article, I'm sure you'll find no copyright violations are present and that this is just a distraction from improving the article. Vietminh (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, if there is general agreement that a copyvio is not present I'll be happy to revert myself with a link to this discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am fairly confident (see comments from Ironholds on the article talk page) that anyone removing the copyvio tag without due process being followed will be blocked. We don't resolve copyvio issues by a quick vote at ANI (particularly when no one has presented any evidence for or against here). Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I concur, but if it can be proven that there was no case for placing a copyvio in the first place, as noted, I'd be happy to revert myself. I don't see any reason to do so unless the case is dismissed there. CycloneGU (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
@Vietminh: There is no urgent need to fix the article now. The plausible report of a copyvio will be assessed by independent editors, and making claims about the person who lodged the copyvio report is unwise. In case it's not obvious, Ironholds has been very helpful by assuring editors at the article that any further edit warring regarding the copyvio tag will result in blocks, and there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I did not place this tag because I have some sort of personal vendetta for the other editors or due to my bias. You can also note on the talk page that while I get frustrated with some of the people there, I have never had some sort of "demands." I placed the notice because I saw that the plagiarism that I corrected was removed. I took a lot of time to do the research write it correctly to remove this plagiarism. I felt like if I edited this again, it would turn into an edit war. I noted in the comments that there was plagiarism. After reading the COPYVIO convos on the talk page, it seems that some people don't even know what plagiarism is. This is not about blaming any of you guys or getting anyone into trouble, or seeking a out some sort of revenge. (It's wikipedia, people.) It's about giving due credit to the researchers who did a lot of work. I find that an important issue, okay? And considering I wrote in the comments that I corrected the plagiarism, I'm not sure what I could do to prevent another edit war when two editors were talking on another page about my "problematic" edits that they didn't agree with, then decided to revert them.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I will find the specific instances and show them in a bit, unless people are frantically editing it now. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You can still get the diffs. in the history. Meanwhile, the talk page is rather interesting right now. CycloneGU (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia text: "Support for the term female genital mutilation grew in the late 1970s. The word "mutilation" not only established a clear linguistic distinction from male circumcision, but also emphasized the putative gravity of the act. In 1990 the term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa. In 1991, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended that the UN adopt this terminology, which it did."
Original Text: The expression “female genital mutilation” (FGM) gained growing support in the late 1970s. The word “mutilation” not only establishes a clear linguistic distinction with male circumcision, but also, due to its strong negative connotations, emphasizes the gravity of the act. In 1990, this term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children (IAC) in Addis Ababa.4 In 1991, WHO recommended that the United Nations adopt this terminology and subsequently, it has been widely used in UN documents."
The article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes (with a word or two moved).
Wikipedia Text: "In 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of "demonizing" certain cultures, religions, and communities. As a result, the term "cutting" has come to be used when trying to avoid alienating communities."
Original Text: In this spirit, in 1999, the UN Special Rapporteur on Traditional Practices called for tact and patience regarding activities in this area and drew attention to the risk of “demonizing” certain cultures, religions and communities. As a result, the term “cutting” has increasingly come to be used to avoid alienating communities."
Again the article only cites it as a reference, and makes no move to mention these are direct quotes.
Wikipedia Text:"The UN uses "FGM" in official documents, while some of its agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both the terms "FGM" and "FGC""
Original Text:"Official UN documents use FGM, the earlier term, while some UN agencies, such as the UN Population Fund, use both FGM and female genital cutting."
Source is cited, but plagiarized.
I was incorrect about the Shell-Duncan plagarism, but I was posting that in the morning when I had somewhere to go, and didn't have time to look at each instance.--Henriettapussycat (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
For the record, seeing what you have posted here I don't dispute that there was copyright problems with this article Henrietta, and I was perfectly willing to support the edits you made. My dispute was only that you had made the changes without giving anyone beside Jakew time to weigh in, and for what its worth, Jakew has a serious problem with misquoting sources so I don't trust his judgment at all. The situation I was in was one with a lack of information, when I did the revert you had yet to actually indicate what specific problems there were, so I thought it best to go back to the old version while we addressed these issues. To put it another way, if you had specifically noted the problems on the talk page instead of just saying there was a copyvio problem I wouldn't have reverted. Vietminh (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
In comments I said "fixed plagiarism" or something of that sort. Also I'm not really sure why this has to be a discussion anyway. No one owns the page. Even as a group, this is not any one group's page. If an editor sees problems and fixes it, then they fix it. I don't have to go and discuss with someone that it will be fixed. Although you might consider that a great procedure, Wikipedia doesn't necessarily work that way. Reverting when an editor specifically says in comments there is plagiarism is good enough discussion, so a copyright notice must be put up. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That's true but given that the page is contentious its best practice to notify people of what's going on. The problem here is I couldn't distinguish between a heated argument and a legitimate copyright violation claim. When I looked at the discussion all I saw was you and Jakew going back and forth and no one actually saying what the copyvio was, I assumed (incorrectly) that you were just pissed off and put the notice up without merit. Vietminh (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Incidents over at Village Pump (Policy)[edit]

I require more community input at WP:VPP#AfD_nominations_and_de_jure_WP:Banning_Policy, as somehow the discussion has resulted in me being asked by User:Unscintillating to cease and desist in advocating 'undermining or sabotage', which I consider as personal attack against me. Relevant diff here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Page creation in apparent violation of NOTPROMOTION and possible compromised account[edit]

Please see Infopulse Ukraine LLC which appears to violate WP:NOTPROMOTION. This article was posted by User:ALEF7 after a series of what appear to be responsible edits, possibly indicating a compromised account. An administrator said to post this in ANI for another administrator to review. Pinetalk 09:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can't find the diff where another admin said that this must be brought to to ANI. Personally I don't see any evidence of a compromised account. Misguided maybe? Have you addressed the NOTPROMION concerns with the author and/or tagged the article? Agathoclea (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I've taken a look at his contributions and I think WP:GOTHACKED is unlikely. He has been working on a userspace draft I've merged the histories of the article in question since late last month. On the outside this looks like a wikignome who finally decided to create his first article though it is strange that he would "take note of" a B2B subject for his first article and at first glance it does look borderline promotional. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
This incident is not "compromised account" at least. And about promotion - give me some time. I'll review WP:NOTPROMOTION and try to fix article. English is not my native language so it will take a time. May be it is better to turn article back to userspace? ALEF7 (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. The immediate concern was the possible account compromise, which was the primary reason for bringing this to ANI. ALEF7, yes moving to userspace would be good while you revise. If you re-draft the article and would like me to review it before moving to article space, please leave me a note on my talk page. Thank you! Pinetalk 07:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

List of Metalocalypse episodes[edit]

page protected for a week. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of the most interesting/senseless edit wars I've ever seen is currently taking place at this article. May need a warning or several. OlYellerTalktome 01:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Protected for a week. "interesting/senseless" indeed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Is Cyberconfidence, now up for AFD, eligible for speedy deletion as obviously promotional?[edit]

In the process of dealing with a vandalising IP I came across the article, now up for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyberconfidence . The article's title, 'cyberconfidence', is a trademark of the company that owns the IP address, and was evidently created by someone working for the company (not sure which employee, it may be a family company, but a Google search shows up several possible editors at the company). What reliable sources there are do not mention 'cyberconfidence'. The AfD has two delete !votes, both agreeing that this is just promotional. An article using a trademark as a title and created by someone working for the company seems eligible for G11. What do others think? Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Does it really matter? With the exception of serious policy violations like copyvio or attack pages, we don't typically bother overriding AfDs to speedy pages if they're already running. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd second that; unless there's content which must be removed urgently, it's probably easier to let the AfD run its course. bobrayner (talk) 10:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I was just wondering if I would have been correct to speedy it if it wasn't at AfD, it's pretty clearly going to be deleted so that's not a problem. Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure; it's not directly promotional in the usual sense - rather, it's about a neologism in the area that the author presumably works in (and "neologism" is not a CSD criterion). I work in that field too, and although I have concerns about the content I wouldn't see it as unambiguous advertising for one particular rival organisation (or perspective).
However, that's just my opinion, and plenty of other people around here will have other opinions...bobrayner (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If I'd have seen this at CAT:CSD, I'd have declined it, as much because it isn't clearly about a product, which makes it inherently less spammy. FWIW. GedUK  12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, these are the sort of opinions I was after. I actually do think it's pretty promotional but I can see why some people might have declined it. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Indef requested[edit]

Resolved

For IP: 31.96.126.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). For legal threats, not to mention PAs. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

IPs aren't indef'd. It's registered to a UK ISP, probably a mobile provider, so it's dynamic. WP:RBI. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
If it is a dynamic IP, you've got a point. But if it can be determined otherwise, a temporary block may be in order, given that their editing stance is not very encouraging at least for the near-term. Thank you for the clarification. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 13:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
They're certainly up to no good, but have so far edited only the Nicosia article. I have reinstated the semi-protection that was in effect prior to the recent rounds of full protection. Wish I could feign optimism regarding the chances of Wiki-peace on this article :( Favonian (