Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive719

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

Noticeboard archives


Pussy Sher ( Music Band )[edit]

Could someone please speedily delete this. It is a complete fake Google search] named to include a rude word in Farsi. Arjayay (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Prioryman (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
And gone. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Digirami (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) This user seems to have made it a point to vandalize any and all pages that I significantly contribute and it is getting to the point where I am being forced to do one of this (personally ridiculous) reports since I think wikipedia is to contribute. As crazy as this sounds, check the logs three days ago on my block and you will notice that he and a user named PeeJay used a double-team tactic to get me blocked. Since I am not too experienced in wikipedia, I fell for it. However, I did study up on it and it seems this user feels the need to create an edit war on anything I heavily contribute to, even those pages which are far from Digirami's interest (as I could see on the contribution's list on Santos FC, Template:Santos FC, etc. Sincerily, this is getting detrimental and purely disruptive.

I have tried at first talking and discussing. When that didn't work, I merely ignore him. There is nothing else I can do. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. This is a content dispute, plain and simple (more or less). User:Strawberry on Vanilla seems to think any edits I make to the Santos FC and related pages and templates is considered vandalism, even though it is clearly not vandalism. I think some pieces of information should be displayed differently and some information should not be placed in templates (current squad and honors, for example). Truth be told, Strawberry on Vanilla is displaying a high degree of ownership when it comes to this subject and related pages to the point where a user like myself, or another, cannot even edit it to correct from minor mistakes (for lack of a better word) in the article. Secondly, he has never contacted me directly except for a minor comment in his edit summaries (and they have never been constructive; always claiming "vandalism"). My talkpage history will clearly show that. In fact, in two previous instances over content dispute, it is I who reached out with him and to others to help resolve it. Digirami (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Even articles I create at the spur of the moment come under his attack as shown here. I have spent a lot of time turning, for example, this into what it is now. Also, this into that. I have created many more articles and his tactics of disrupting, regressing, edit warring, etc. just to spite are simply detrimental. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me explain this: you don't own any article, no matter how much effort you put into it. No ones any article. Very simple. Your first example (the Brazil football template) was deemed redundant not just by myself, but by other editors. That's consensus.
But on the whole, what I do is not disruptive. I don't want to play the "experience card", but I do have more experience editing football related articles and am involved with the related WikiProject. As a results, I may know things about what is expected from an article or template that you may not know. So if I see something off (like a template being used for one article, even when it is not needed), I will be bold and fix that. That's the beauty of community editing we got going on on this site. Digirami (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I have been looking at his history and, to be honest, I was apalled that I got a ban 3 days ago and Digirami obviously should have had one also. Looking at this, this...I have to ask how does he never get block or anything as such. Gaming the system to continue this is no excuse for regressing and destroying pregress. I have noted several FA (that I have taken for reference) and he doesn't mess with any of those. Mainly, anything I touch. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
That bears no relevance to this. But, the other editor (MLitH) had no basis for his complaints against myself or the other editor. He was petty that consensus was not in his favor and I was one of the louder voices in that consensus Digirami (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the Santos F.C. article to its pre-edit war state and protected it. I suggest you both discuss your points of view on the talk page and involve other editors from the football Wikiproject to try to achieve a consensus. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have put this back because I was hoping for a neutral administrator to take a look at this instead. The admin The Rambling Man is currently on process for a request on conduct with evidence of promoting tag-teaming, gaming the system and basic conducts such as double-standards. I am simply structuring my case now. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I did not remove the case from this page. I undid both your and Digrami's edits to a pre-edit war state and have encouraged you both to discuss the article on the talk page. I have also asked you to not remove deletion templates from articles which you are involved in. This is disruptive. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

coordinated attack from Dragoncon[edit]

Per this and this, there seems to be some effort at organizing an attack by blocked sockpuppet FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) and his sock/meatpuppets. Additional eyes would be appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect a bit of a hit now that I've declined one of the unblock requests ... childishness, really. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Context: This is related to the thread above on Elizium. Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Affected articles are The Dating Guy, Least I Could Do, and Teletoon (Canadian TV channel). Evidence of coordinated meatpuppetry, plus an attempt at WP:OUTING me, is this forum thread and this earlier thread (ironically the very citation they are campaigning to insert). Elizium23 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Revdel is requested at the following WP:OUTING attempts: [1] and [2], [3], [4]; reverts [5],[6], [7], [8], [9]. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone who is cleverder than me with the tool should have a look. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Another attempt from right here at ANI: [10], reverted [11]. Elizium23 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The sad little fellows are stalking my recent contributions as well. Too bad they don't have anything better to do. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Outing attempt in edit summary here: [12]. Elizium23 (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It looks like MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has issued a few range blocks to deal with this. Toddst1 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Unprotected pages related to this need to have an eye kept on them. I've reverted a couple of edits to The Dating Guy and RevDel'd a couple more to the talk page. More eyes are appreciated. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently being targeted on my userpage[edit]

By User:Dodger. diff1 diff2 diff3 diff4 Serendipodous 09:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Get real Dodger (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have inserted a colon in front of Dodger's comment two word comment above, and Dougweller has reverted Dodger's misguided edits to User:Serendipodous, and I have reverted Dodger's inappropriate restoration (diff) of rants at Talk:Pluto, so this could be considered resolved if Dodger now understands proper procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see:
I note that: Dodger is exhibiting some very disruptive behaviour - he is now given a warning to stop. Failure to do so, including but not limited to harassment of Serendipodous and reverting edits introducing abusive material, may result in a temporary or indefinite block. — Kudu ~I/O~ 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor mass-producing unsourced BLPs[edit]

Bad good dragosh98 (talk · contribs) is mass-producing dozens of unsourced BLPs about obscure Romanian footballers, consisting of articles with no content other than an infobox. He has been advised that he should not do this [13] but has continued regardless. Some have already been deleted; others are awaiting PRODding and CSD (A7). He is also re-creating previously deleted articles, complete with the speedy deletion nomination templates (!) [14]. Given that he is continuing to churn out these infobox-only articles, I suggest a short block of a few hours and a note from an administrator. I think a block of at least 24 hours would be advisable so that the mess can be cleaned up. He's not responding to any talk page messages including notification of this discussion or previous warnings. Prioryman (talk) 09:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on his talk page I'd say he has trouble contributing in English, which probably explains the lack of text next to the infobox in most articles. His last one Sergiu Negruţ doesn't have this problem though. Deeper WP:BITE please. (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I declined all the speedy deletion requests (that were pedning), as importance was asserted in the infobox, and replaced them all with BLPPROD, left a nice list and explanation on the user's talk page (rather than 20 templated messages).--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well done, Kelapstick. BITE is indeed an issue here, and Prioryman should have done a bit more than simply slap all those templates there, in my opinion. We should encourage good-faith contributions, even if they are not immediately up to par--this is part and parcel of the editor education process, which we all went through though maybe in different degrees. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


Can an admin please look at the contributions of Raggi2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - not a single constructive edit, including some blatant false information, as well as creating numerous non-notable articles, and no attempt at discussion when numerous editors have raised issues with him. Cheers, GiantSnowman 20:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I just issued a COI notice, considering the content of the user's sandbox. WikiPuppies! (bark) 21:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Of 147 edits, 72 have been deleted. A 1:1 ratio--that's pretty impressive. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
And a lot of those were reverted. There's a WP:CIR issue here. Any mentors around with an interest in underage football of the English and Icelandic variety? Drmies (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
One issue here is that underage football isn't generally considered notable - in fact, even senior players in Iceland's top league aren't notable! I'd be willing to mentor (never done it before formally, though have previously assisted individual editors over a period of time) but the editor seems unwilling to discuss or accept our notability guidelines and concerns. GiantSnowman 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Snowman, that is very nice of you. I left them a note on their talk page and I hope they will follow up. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
No problems. If we don't get a response, or we get a negative one, what is our future plan? GiantSnowman 11:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, if the behavior continues, if more of these articles are created or, worse, the same stuff is recreated, we block temporarily. Feel free to report that on ANI, with reference to this discussion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I will continue to monitor, and in the meantime, I have also reiterated the offer of help that you gave him on my behalf. Thanks for the help, GiantSnowman 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Yep, despite a number of editors posting on his talk page offering help/advice, he continues to vandalise Wikipedia. I believe a block would be suitable at this point now. GiantSnowman 21:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Aw shucks. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Some people just don't get it, unfortunately. GiantSnowman 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki-Stalking, Battleground mentality and incivility[edit]

User:Artacoana has twice removed my referenced information in the "Region" section of the templates from two different articles, Avicenna[15] and Rumi[16]. Replacing the referenced information with place of birth and place of death which already exist within the template. Calling said edits on the talk page(of Avicenna) as "I'm going to add more precise information regarding the regions the Avicenna resided, including the ruling dynasties of those regions. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica and will serve as a reliable and academic source. The previous regions were incomplete and did not really make any sense."

When I asked for an explanation on his talk page as to why he was removing my references from Rumi and Avicenna, he contradicts what he had said on the Avicenna talk page, "I am still against adding region within the templates, however they are still there. So, I took more specific details about the regions they resided, including the ruling dynasties. These information are taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica. It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran). You are free to report me, my friend! I'm an old Wikipedia user, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

I find this response insulting and damaging to the building of an encyclopedia. IF as he said, "they are still there", then why remove the reference? If you check User:Artacoana edit list[17] he last edited Aug 28th on Herat, just after editing Rumi, then when he started editing again on Sept 4th on Avicenna. He has edited nothing else in between. These edits appear to be more personal than any concern for historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

And now he has broken 3RR.[18] While preaching rule and regulations on Avicenna talk page.[19] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Note. You're supposed to notify any user who is the subject of a discussion; however, I've done so for you. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

On 27 July 2011, User:Kansas Bear asked my opinion as to whether the "Region" section should remain in the template. When I came back from summer holidays, I left this comment in the discussion page of Rumi, saying that addition of REGION is not needed in the template, as it can create confusion (in favour of Iranians!). I've waited for a week and noticed that the section REGION was still there with incomplete and biased information, that had previously invoked many objections in the discussion pages from Afghans and Tajiks who inhabit the same regions Rumi and Avicenna were born, educated and resided. I decided to edit it with information taken from Encyclopaedia Iranica as can be seen here. And I did the same for the article about Avicenna., after I explained the reason for changing the template. What I did was adding details about the regions, cities and ruling dynasties associated with. Lets have a look at the previous version. There were the following regions: Greater Khorasan with no details of the cities and ruling dynasties associated with! Perhaps because today those cities (Bukhara and Urganj) are not located in present-day Iran? And suddenly we have Persia, with Buyid dynasty, and Iranian cities like Hamadan, Ray and Qazvin all mentioned in the template. Why ignoring non-Iranian cities, like Urgenj (nowhere mentioned in the template) where Avicenna resided for long period? Because they are not part of Iran? Is this what we want to see in a free and fair encyclopaedia?
However, without any explanation, The User:Kansas Bear started reverting the whole template here, and here. I asked him instead of reverting the whole template, stating where is incorrect? If he is disagreed with the addition of dates, fine, he can remove them, but why removing some cities and leaving other in favour of a country?! His accusation of my violation of 3RR rule is baseless, I did not change the entire template; I just added cities and ruling dynasties to Greater Khorasan, without removing the region and cities, already mentioned in the template. His unfair placing of warning templates in my talk page is harassment. He had similar unfair accusations towards other non-Iranian user (mostly Afghans and Tajiks), like his aggressive behaviour against the Afghan User:Yamaweiss as can be seen here. This is an example of their impolite behaviour towards Afghans and Tajiks.
My contribution to Wikipedia is clear to the administrators; they have access to users' contribution statistics. I admit I'm not as active on the English Wikipedia as I'm on the Persian Wikipedia. But his accusation of my disruptive contribution is totally unacceptable! My major activities are focussed on the history and the culture of Central Asia. As a small example of my contributions in English Wikipedia is the Template:Chronological Chart for the historical periods of Afghanistan, and the article Ariana, of which the latter initiated by myself. I spend most of my time on Persian Wikipedia, and here is an overview of my daily contributions. One can see the quality of my work in these articles: [20] (Provinces of Afghanistan), [21] (History of Afghanistan) and [22] (template: Archaeological sites in Afghanistan). I have also added many images in Wikipedia commons, the pictures of historical places I have visited. Wikipedia is open for everyone and we are advised to be bold, trying to reach a compromise and avoid edit waring, instead of unnecessarily reporting regular users. Contributions from all skilled and regular users are needed to expand this encyclopaedia.--Artacoana (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
As seen here[23][24], User:Artacoana edited Avicenna twice on Jan 12th 2011, yet did not appear to have any problem with the Region section that stated, Greater Khorasan, Persia. Yet once I added[25];>"Buyid dynasty(Hamadan)/(Rayy)/(Qazvin)<ref-Before and after Avicenna, Ed. David C. Reisman and Ahmed H. Al-Rahim, (Brill, 2003), 93.-ref>", this becomes an ethnic issue?? As User:Artacoana has plainly stated, "It is obvious that your reverts indicate that you are one of those who want to steal the cultural heritage of the region and label as the native Iranian (of today's Iran).". This has more to do with some personal animosity against me, thus harassment, than historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
As seen here[26] User:Artacoana, adds "during the Samanids" to the Region section of the Rumi article. No references. Rumi was born 1207, yet the Samanid dynasty ended in 999! Another indication this has nothing to do with historical accuracy. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Sir! Why would I have animosity against you. I don't know you. You asked me about my opinion. This is a simple dispute and is supposed be reacted to in the first instance by approaching, in good faith. Adding Iranian cities of Ray, Qazvin and Hamadan to the template, and ignoring non-Iranian cities of Urgenj and Bukhara, as you did here is obviously not a good faith, and when you do this, you should expect objections from your opponents. You reference to my addition of Samanid dynasty to the template of Rumi doesn't really make any sense. As can be seen here I added the correct dynasties of his time, which I took from Encyclopaedia Iranica. I've been active on English Wikipedia sice Oct 07, 2006, earlier than you, and I'm more or less familiar with most of the rules. The historical accuracy of my articles can be judged from the most academic and reliable sources I'm using. I'm not cherry-picking sources in favour of my country!--Artacoana (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Action required against poster of fake photo[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: Exidor is blocked for being mean-spirited, and Schyler needs a better camera

Action is required against user User:Schyler for posting this blatantly fake Moon photo onto this page. This is vandalism of the worst kind. --Exidor (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Firsty, what is "blatantly fake" about it? Secondly, your section heading here is NOT appropriate. GiantSnowman 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Can't you see the Moon is under the fucking clouds?!?!--Exidor (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not. GiantSnowman 22:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)As well as being a featureless circle. This is pretty flagrant. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
What exactly makes this photo "blatantly fake"? An overexposed moon? I wouldn't call it fake, as much as not helpful in explaining what a Harvest Moon is. -- Avanu (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)As Exidor pointed out, the "moon" is below the cloud layer, which is roughly 238,000 miles below its regular orbit. The "moon" is also a featureless white circle, showing no signs of craters, mare, mountains, or any of its other easily discernible surface features. And it's a sharp, perfect circle as well, with no sign of atmospheric softening of the circumference. If this isn't a pure fake, it's been doctored to the extent that it's unusable here.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. This is not the correct place for this incident. That being said, I'm sorry for any confusion. I remember vividly this night. Exidor may not be familiar with some aspects of photography. With certain values in the ISO a bright object may engulf other similarly colored objects. I assure you the photo is legitimate. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Another example: -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Note the "softer" boundary in that photo, as well as the haloing (whose absence from the disputed photo would seem inexplicable). If you grayscale that image, you'll see significant differences from the one being questioned. That's simply not what the moon looks like, however the image was generated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to see more editors AGFing here... GiantSnowman 22:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, that picture could easily be seen as "dubious". A easy assumption - something also with the circle of the moon, not quite round or at least with some not normal anomalies.Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it could be. But the photographer has explained the circumstances, which is enough for me - and there was no need for such a rude ANI report. GiantSnowman 22:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep the image. Remove it from the Harvest moon article on the grounds that it's a lousy photo. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is only a lousy photo of the moon, its a cool photo of those clouds. Monty845 22:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be rash to call this a fake. I see artifacts on the limbs of the moon which hint that the image has been heavily tweaked for brightness/gamma, which brightened and washed out the underlapping clouds. I think it comes down to whether editors like the snap or not. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps not "fake" but " digitally manipulated" might be a more correct expression. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it is perfectly legitimate, and not manipulated at all - the moon is simply so overexposed it bleaches out everything in front. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I do think it's a photo of the moon that has been manipulated, one way or another. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not look even remotely realistic to my eyes. Perhaps this can be explained by an overeager post-image touchup, but either way, it does not add much of value to the article. Tarc (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I've taken lots of photographs of the moon. The overexposed versions look just like the photo posted. I doubt it's a fake - but it is a lousy photo, and that's really the relevant point. Rklawton (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes and by the way, at full res there is a halo. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Download the photo, load it to Paint, and hit the paintbucket icon in the middle. Amazingly uniformly white. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Use a full photo editing suite, and play with the levels, you will see that the white is in fact not uniform, and is entirely consistent with over exposure. Monty845 22:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, or try Gimp. It definitely has some haloing at the edges. Paint converts it to a 256-colour scale, and thus will lose the detail. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean haloing at the edges of the moon, like the "ring around the moon"? I put the image through some serious maniputation in PS and couldn't detect a natural halo. Incidentally, halo comes from halation which occurs around any subject which has a light behind it. In this case, any halation should be on the edges of the clouds. Couldn't detect any. Moriori (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This site, with a similar photo, suggests that such a picture could be for real. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is an example of what happens when you over expose a photo of a bright object File:Lightbulb Exposure Demonstration.jpg. Not exactly the same effect, but it demonstrates the basic idea. Monty845 23:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll just note that one important factor contributing to my skepticism is that while the image is dated to 2010 (and the uploader "vividly remembers" the night), the file data says the photo was taken in 2008 with software applied (which could simply be file transfer, of course) in 2010. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have never taken the initiative to set the date on the camera. It alwaysvreset when the batter is removed. All other comments, although losing some semblance of tact, are appciated. I am not a very good photographer, but do enjoy it. Since this misplaced discussion has taken off, I think the matter to be discussed is the photo's presence in the article. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 23:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
This is a pretty perfect example of what an overexposed photograph of the Moon looks like. There are visible markings on the right-hand limb, and the lighting on the cloud drops away in just the manner you'd expect from central moonlight. The EXIF data records 400 ISO, 1/10 of a second at f/5.6 - which is guaranteed to overexpose. This photo is 200 ISO, 1/30 of a second at f/3.7, EV -2.0 - if my back of the envelope calculation is right, it's about 50 times darker than the original image was, and yet the moon is looking perceptibly washed out by the light! If the moon was over the horizon just now, I'd be tempted to fiddle with some camera settings and try to explicitly replicate it...
I don't think this image is worth including in the article - it's hard to have an "informative" image for an article like this, and the one above is vastly prettier - but wild accusations that it's "blatantly fake" seem to have very little justification and really don't seem to be appropriate, reasonable or helpful. Shimgray | talk | 23:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Shimgray, please don't make me cite you for displaying a disruptive amount of technical competence. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
This one needs to be removed too, something tells me this isn't real. -- Avanu (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Pretty mediocre photographic fakery
The full moon is in full sunlight. The "sunny 16 rule" in photography says that a proper exposure of an object in full sun is 1/ASA and f.16. In this case, that would 1/400 of a second at f.16, not 1/10 at f.5.6, which is about seven stops overexposed.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
(ec) The image is an interesting picture of clouds, and a very badly overexposed picture of the moon. When you have a smallish, bright object (the surface of the Moon is in full sunlight, remember) surrounded by a dark background (space, moonlit clouds), the camera's light meter will set the exposure based on what is technically known as a "wild-assed guess". Since the clouds are visible, we know that the Moon will be incredibly, brutally overexposed; it will be completely blown out white all the way across. The fact that the circle is pretty sharp just means he's got a camera with good optics. There's a bit of chromatic aberration visible if you look at the Moon full-sized (it's a bit magenta around the lower left, and a bit blue in the upper right); this is to be expected in a real picture taken with a real camera. The fact that the moon can be seen through the clouds is a red herring; the clouds may be quite thin and only visible at all because of the image's overexposure. I've taken sharp pictures of stars through thin clouds. The time and date reset thing, meanwhile, is a known issue with the D5000: [27].
It's probably not a good picture to illustrate the article, but those of you who are screaming "fake" should be ashamed of yourselves, and even those shouting "it must be manipulated" should probably be giving yourselves a shake. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I always thought it wasn't fake and only so y'all know, now and then I forget that some folks hear the words "manipulation" and "photo" together as meaning something has been done to mislead in a harmful or unfair way. As many know, lots of commercial-level photos are "manipulated" in image software. Shoulda stuck to how I said it the first time, "tweaked" (and maybe with the camera settings alone). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

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


Persistent vandalism across various language Wikipedia projects (ru, pl, it, en). Fayerman (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

That specific IP has exactly 1 edit. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And it doesnt' look like vandalism. However, the user may be causing problems on several projects. If that is the case, m:Steward requests/Global is the correct place to request it. --Jayron32 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Geolocate for this user's IP: Fayerman (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Fayerman, there's not much we can do here about problems on other projects. The Stewards at Meta can help, however. Try m:Steward requests/Global and make your case there. They can help you out. --Jayron32 01:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Fayerman (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats at Talk:Nick Clegg[edit]

Merrows2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has issued legal threats at Talk:Nick Clegg: permalink. They have been removed by another editor. Action is requested. Thank you. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Merrows2 has been indefinately blocked. --Jayron32 01:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Jayron. Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 01:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A seriously disruptive case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - Again[edit]

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

  • User:Adam4267 is topic banned for three months from editing articles and article talk pages related to Celtic F.C. supporters, Green Brigade among them, broadly construed. If he doesn't heed this topic ban, he will be blocked from editing and if he breaches the ban more than once, the blocks will get longer each time. There is an overwhelming consensus that outside this quite narrow topic area, Adam's contributions are very helpful to the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that a previous ANI case, namely this one [28] has resurfaced.

A read of the above and the talk page at Celtic F.C. supporters should give you a good idea of the problem. Essentially Adam has been insisting on adding information that is not neutral into the page, one from the Celtic FC web page, one from a footballing agent dealing with a Celtic player, and one from a marketing company that works with Celtic. All with no secondary sources. See Talk page here [[29]] He was also advised to change his behaviour and received warnings on his talk page from a number of fellow editors, including some he works closely with [30].

When this came to the ANI board before, the suggestion from various adims was a topic ban, but this never materialised, which I think was fair enough as it was worth giving Adam a chance to take stock and change his editing behaviour. Unfortunately this hasn't happened, so what do we do now? Mattun0211 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there was consensus for a topic ban before but the thread was archived without being closed properly. I think we could now enact the topic ban if there is still a problem. --John (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I cant believe this is still an issue. I have repeatedly tried to find a middle ground to meet on with this issue normally relating to supporters groups and where large fan bases have developed (normally due to certain players signing for the club). All it would require from my perspective is for adam to agree to tweak his wording on these issues. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • In light of this, I now think that a topic ban would be helpful. Adam is making valid contributions, but on Celtic-related pages I think he is being led astray (from guidelines, policies, and even common sense). John, do you agree? Drmies (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree. That's a terrible edit and summary. --John (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
  • For crying outloud. We had settled on a 3-month ban before, had we not? And yet the user is continuing his disruptive edits. Make it a 1-year ban this time, and please someone give him an official notice on his page. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe my question has just been answered, but what is the next step?Mattun0211 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, considering that we seem to have a consensus, I think we wait for someone who is not as involved as I am to lay down the law here in formal terms. Honestly, I've never written up or enforced a topic ban, so I don't know the ins and outs. Someone help us out here? Drmies (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
        • It just needs an uninvolved admin to drop a note to User talk:Adam4267 and log it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Anybody? --John (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't understand this, why have I been blocked and why is it for a year. No reason has been provided and there has been absolutely no evidence provided to back up any supposed reason, in what way are my edits more disruptive than other users. Especially considering that there has been no consensus established on these pages and that on the Green Brigade page Mattun refuses to listen to User:Oldelpaso's comment (I can see why Adam2467 is unhappy with the text as written) and continually re-adds this WP:OR to back up his POV [31]. He has a clear POV and agenda on this page, [32], [33], [34] and has admitted to this on the talk page [35]. He has also edit-warred on the Celtic F.C. [36] page and threatened to edit-war on the Green Brigade page [37]. He also said he would use "spellgate" (Green Brigade's misspelling of a banner) as a "WMD" (Weapon of mass destruction presumably) and continually tries to add information to that effect, [38], [39], this only stopped when other users, including Drmies, warned him on his talk page [40]. Also he may have been Wikipedia:Canvassing when he opened this thread as he did not post a message to User:LonelyBeacon, User:Oldelpaso or User:Warburton1368. Although it could just be an honest mistke. Adam4267 (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Although its sad that it has come to this i cant really argue about the topic ban given what was said at the previous ANI. However given that no last warning or ban or topic ban was ever given to adam regarding this i strongly disagree with the length of it. Given that a 3 month was proposed but never given last time. This should of been the starting point not a year. As i wasn't advised i couldn't reply before now. Warburton1368 (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I also agree with warburton that if a 3 month topic ban was proposed but not enforced per say, then why has this automatically risen to a one year ban? Monkeymanman (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Weeks after that last ANI thread, along with all the pleas and warnings, he started up again. If, through editing other articles, he can show some understanding about careful neutrality and the need for reliable sources and discussion in this topic area, I see no reason why the topic ban couldn't be greatly lessened. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand that and im sure he will do what you suggest, but if no warning or ban was actually given from the ANI then is a longer ban not excessive. I just felt that a warning should have been given originally as to say he never learnt from the original one we are giving a longer ban dosent make sense if no punishment was given. I mean you wouldn't do that with a full ban. In the previous ANI a offer of mentorship was given. Would a shorter ban with the help of a mentor to negotiate further problems be of help. Warburton1368 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
As I've long said, on en.WP, mentors wontedly learn a lot more from mentoring than the mentored. It can become a trying time sink for the mentor, with the outcome being even longer blocks and bans for the mentored. However, now and then, the outcome of mentoring is a happy one. Given Adam's contribution history which so far as I can tell has been broadly helpful outside the Celtic F.C. supporters topic area, other editors may indeed agree to mentoring as worthwhile (they often do here), instead of a topic ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, this topic ban isn't punishment for a wrong done, as such. It's only preventative, a way to stop something which other editors see as harmful from carrying on. Hence, if by some means it comes to be that there is little or no likelihood of it happening again, something like a ban or block can be lifted straight off. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that you made the decision with no consensus to make the ban 1 year instead of 3 months, as originally proposed and which consensus was reached. Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Could be. I've begun a sub-thread below where editors can comment on the length. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed wording[edit]

User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed. This includes talk pages. --John (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggest one sentence format: User:Adam4267 is banned for one year from editing articles related to Celtic F.C., broadly construed, including talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done and logged. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you all, and thanks, Gwen, for showing how it's done. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Please mark this incident as resolved. Glrx (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is resolved. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I thought it was resolved when you imposed the ban. Apparently we are now into a debate on the appropriateness of the length. Glrx (talk) 00:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Length of ban[edit]

I notified Adam that the topic ban was for one year, owing to a comment in the main thread above by KillerChihuahua, along with the proposed wording above, which at the time, seemed as though it had, or would have consensus. Since then, some editors have said they think the ban may be too long. How long shall it be? I'm wholly neutral as to both the length and the ban (editors who think the ban is uncalled for are also welcome to comment on that below.) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • The three month ban was never implemented, so I view the year-long ban as unfair. GiantSnowman 22:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Considering the original ban, reached through consensus was 3 months that is what should be implemented now. It is not the fault of the editor that the ban was never formally enacted and notification given.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • As i stated above i feel a year is unfair as no topic ban or final warning was ever given. The original 3 month ban is more appropriate. This would give adam time to edit constructively and work with other editors on other football related projects which he has shown to be good at and hopefully return to celtic related edits if he wishes to in better shape. Warburton1368 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Three months is fine with me as well, for various reasons given above. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is really only on two pages, Celtic F.C. supporters and Green Brigade. I would even say no ban at all except for a year ban on these two pages. The previous ANI gave Adam a choice I think - either take it as a warning, take stock and change or think I've got a way with it and carry on the same behaviour. Adam has taken the latter option. But the problem is very focussed on those two pages in general. For the record, I only notified the admins involved last time and monkeyman as no one else was directly involved this time round. also for the record, I did reply to Oldpaseo's point, directly below. I think adam should take this time to let bygones be bygones - that's the second time he's brought up some of my edits from my early Wiki editing to this board months (or is it years) since they were written, at a time when I had no idea what even basic terms like original research meant in Wiki terms. There is even one which I deleted soon after I wrote it oncd I realised how wiki works, and Adam has gone about reinstating after I delete it. It's this sort of behaviour and attitude he has to move away from. I think he's someone who finds it very difficult to let go of a situation, which is why I suspect we haven't heard the last of this one. But clearly he does some good work on the football pages with the editors who have responded here, so maybe a lengthy ban on just the main problem pages is worth a try. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • A year ban is fine with me. This user was told weeks ago in his talk that he had had a close escape when the original proposal was archived without being enacted, and warned to be careful. They ignored this and continued with the behavior they had been told was problematic. The escalation of the topic ban was made with this in mind. --John (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Just a thought: if Adam is smart, he'll treat this subject ban as a permanent one, regardless of just how long we officially say it's for. Because if he resumes editting these articles the moment the ban ends, he's going to eventually end up getting into the same trouble once again & his time on Wikipedia will come to an unhappy, although probably not quick, end. From what I've read here, he's shown that (1) he can contribute good content in many areas, but (2) F.C. Celtic is a hot-button issue for him. All Wikipedians have hot-button issues; the smart ones stay away from them, don't get into trouble over them, & become established & respected Wikipedians. (Which means there is hope for me.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • With reference to what i said above, because the original 3 month ban was agreed upon but not imposed, i think this should mean that any ban given at this moment should be 3 months. Although John has correctly reminded us about the strongly worded warning given to Adam about this situation the last time it was raised at ANI. In that respect the one year topic ban could be justifiable. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I understand where john is coming from with him being told by dmries that he was lucky and giving advice which was correct but as it wasn't official or a really a warning i feel to escalate is inappropriate. Given three months was the initial decision thats where i feel it should go as i have said aboveWarburton1368 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We need to get this over with: things that drag are things that get archived. I see a consensus here for a three-month ban on Celtic-related articles, and barring any further revelations, I am going to ask Gwen if she can adjust the time period at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Would agree with that. Mattun0211 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


I have just happened upon this discussion and am wondering who on earth you all think you are. How can you "topic ban" someone in this manner? Let alone make some arbitrary decision on it's length. How do you intend to impose and enforce such a ban? Who is the judge and who is the jury here? This discussion seems a little unfair on the user and I can't see how it is justified. Has this user actually ever been blocked from editing wikipedia for disruptive behaviour? If not then how on earth is a 3 month topic ban even worthy of discussion, let alone a 1 year ban. This isn't the way to treat valuable wikipedia users. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

That's why they call it a kangaroo court. Seriously though, we are all amateurs and we simply don't have the manpower or level of organization to maintain a consistent infrastructure for the myriad cases of this and similar caliber. This isn't "RfAr material", but a decision needs to be made. -- (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
So there have been some edit wars, but it takes two (or more) to edit war. Have there been any blocks? Come on this is a case for mediation in the first instance. Has an WP:RFM even been considered? Diplomacy is the answer! Not punishment.Polyamorph (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
A topic-ban isn't "punishment", it simply prevents further damage until the underlying conflicts can be addressed and hopefully resolved. In that sense, it may actually facilitate mediation since it gives the user a real incentive to develop insight into why the community regards his edits in that particular area as problematic. -- (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course it's punishment, at least in the manner that it has been imposed here it is. This seems pretty much like a lynch mob to me, and I feel very sorry for the user. I'm a completely uninvolved editor but from what I can see the user has been editing in good faith. Polyamorph (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Nobody doubts the user's good intentions, but they don't change the fact that his edits are problematic and that he has so far resisted all attempts at actually communicating with him about his editing in that area.
If a topic-ban is what it takes (1) for the community to prevent further damage and (2) for the user to start listening to the community's concerns, then that's on the user, not on the community who isn't interested in "punishing" anyone but merely in doing what's best for the project.
Again, I agree with you in principle that all this isn't "proper" (i.e. formalized) proceedings, but we simply have to look at each individual case and try to determine the best course of action. In this particular case, consensus appears to be that a three-month topic ban is required. It is a rather strong measure, but please consider the user's behavior in and around those articles. -- (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I for one object to a three month topic ban because I cannot see any evidence that appropriate action has been taken by all users involved and univolved to resolve this issue more amicably. Be nice to the user and you may start seeing some results. Don't drive another valued editor away from wikipedia. To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about. Sure I'm not football expert but I haven't seen anything remotely worth a topic ban, unless of course someone could actually provide some real evidence here that it is actually justified. There are disagreements on wikipedia all the time, that doesn't mean we should gang up on those whom we disagree with the most and eventually drive them away from articles where they actually may be able to make a real difference to. What's best for this project is diplomacy. The user has replied in this discussion and has been completely ignored! Has any form of dispute resolution actually been attempted? Polyamorph (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The topic ban was decided at the previous ANI [[41]. I was against it at the time however it wasn't given as the ani was archived before issued. The issues appear to have continued and the ban was given by admins set at a year 9 months more than discussed at previous ani. That is why its being questioned to return to previously discussed time length 3 months. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I read the previous ANI and am not convinced by the arguments there, certainly very little evidence of disruptive behaviour has been provided. I'm not disputing that there is a problem but I think the problem is on both sides and needs to be resolved by diplomacy and following the correct dispute resolution procedure. This does not appear to have been followed. Therefore, as the IP user above notes, this is a kangaroo court and is not fair on the user. The user is being ignored and people are pushing their own point of view on the users actions and behaviour instead of concentrating on content and real dispute resolution. Polyamorph (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you missed the part where the editor in question refuses to abide by consensus, engages in edit-warring, appears to be interested in making their favorite soccer team look as good as possible, and makes no indication of accepting various guidelines such as WP:RS. I don't think you can accuse the other editors here of that. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Can we see evidence of this? Adam4267 (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. This, this, and this show the need for a topic ban. At this stage we are just haggling about the length. How long do you think it should be for? --John (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Poly. A few points - firstly, with reference with a point you made on your talk page [[42]] that "Admins are just normal editors with some additional tools". I would disagree. For one thing, admins have far more experience of disputes like this than you or I, have more experience of the likely outcomes and more experience of how to achieve the best results for everyone concerned. A good example of this is Gwen Gale's comment that mentoring tends not to work, for instance - the value of experience. Take away this "kangaroo court" if you will - the result will the break down of wikipedia.
Admins, in my experience (and most editors come to that) always reference any allegations against other editors. You make accusations, presumably agianst the main editors involved which include myself, monkeyman and drmies, of bullying and disruption [[43]]. Can you show where this has happened? I hope you won't be resorting to episodes in our early wikiering career years ago which we have put down to experience and moved on from.
above you say "To be fair I've looked at a couple of the edits that seem to be at issue here and can't really see what all the fuss is about." I presume you're referring to the three main issues on Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters that Adam continuingly insisted on trying to include, which are that:
1/ Celtic shirts outsell Man Utd & Arsenal shirts in Nairobi - sourced from someone associated with Celtic and published by Celtic.
2/ A marketing company that works with Celtic claims that Celtic have 7 million Japanese fans
3/ A broker arranging a deal to take a Honduran player to Celtic claims teh deal has sparked "Celtic mania" in Honduras.
You presumably don't see anything wrong with these. I would argue that these edits all come from people associated with Celtic, so are not neutral under WP:NPOV. To reiterate WP:IS says "An independent source is a source that has no significant connection to the subject and therefore describes it from a disinterested perspective." But you presumably disagree or have found some secondary sources to back those claims up? Can you show them to us?
As for your comment that dispute resolution hasn't been sought - this leads me to doubt you've read through the talk pages concerned properly. To save you the trouble - here's a list:
1/ I have left a post on the RS noticeboard here. Monkeymanman (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
2/ I have put some points on the reliable sources noticeboard 1. Feel free to add to it/comment, I just put a few queries up there. Mattun0211 (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
3/ Cptnono, in his American way ;, has shown us a way forward I think; "There should be no question that Celtic have a global fan base. Screw the sources used and delete them for not meeting WP:V. But instead of spending the few minutes to post here go and Google News Archive it to find a better source. And then laugh at Celtic for sucking" Mattun0211 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Celtic F.C. supporters
4/ Hi Adam, I've reverted your edits as I think ideally you need to take this to the reliable source discussion page as fanzines are undoubtedly a questionable source.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
5/ Adam please, please, please, please take your two sources to the reliable sources noticeboard if you disagree and if you think they can be regarded as reliable references. Until then i cannot accept them as such. I have learned from past experience that sources such as those have no weight in their reliability.Monkeymanman (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)Talk:Green Brigade
6/No, I will not be forced to clear every single addition I want to make to this page with the pair of you and/or the reliable sources board.Adam4267 (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
7/ it's probably time for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Drmies (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
8/ I have left a question on the RS noticeboard about these sources here Monkeymanman (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
9/ Adam - rather than go through this for the upteenth time, why not take it to one of the noticeboards. You have been very reluctant to do that on a number of occassions, for some reason. Inclusion of Youtube has already received advice from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard here [6] Mattun0211 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Talk:Green Brigade
In short myslef, monkeyman and drmies have all tried this approach. Part of the problem is that some of the noticeboards seem to receive little traffic, but in any case adam has consistently decided to ignore tham and the advice given.
As regards the idea that he hasn't recived any warning, he clearly came within a whisker of a three month ban, escaped without punishment and decided to continue exactly as he was before. How much warning do you want? Mattun0211 (talk) 03:00, 5 September 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.

People born in French Algeria : Nationalistic edits by Dzlinker[edit]


The user Dzlinker is processing a wave of nationalistic edits by replacing French Algeria by Algeria in biography pages of French people born in pré-1962 Algeria, here are some examples:

On each article he was reverted by many users, but he keeps pushing his nationalistic edits.

I'm not asking to block him, but to explain to him that he can't push his PoV this way, but that he has to start a global discussion about people born in French Algeria to seek for a new consensus.

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

  • While I don't agree with their edits, I do not see where in this content discussion there is any kind of talk going on, on their talk page or on the articles' talk pages, about why their edits are (supposedly) wrong. No discussion from your side, no discussion from their side--I think you know where this might lead to, after the edit war at Template:History of Morocco. Omar, engage in discussion before you come to ask for the stick. To put it in other words: there is nothing actionable here for an admin right now. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay then, I'll try to discuss that with him, even if, I think, the one supposed to start the discussion is him, since he's one who breaks "stabilized versions" and who is reverted by many users, but no prob' ; I hope that it will work this time (since discussion is never easy with him).
      Thx for the answer.
      Omar-Toons (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Omar, we've met before, I believe, and I hope you understood this in the spirit in which it was offered. Yes, perhaps they should initiate discussion, for the two reasons you cite, but they don't. At that moment it becomes incumbent on you (in my opinion) to at least make an effort. If you make that effort, and it's beyond reproach, and they fail to respond and/or modify their behavior, you can claim without doubt that you're dealing with a disruptive/incommunicative/whatever editor. It will take more time, but the end result is more likely to be a. changed editing behavior or b. forcible behavior modification. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
        • This is better suited for a request for comment since a private discussion between you two is unlikely to yield anything or get attention from uninvolved editors. The standard practice is to put the constituent country at the time of birth; however when you look around this is not the case everywhere (e.g: People born in ex-soviet union or People born in Al-Andalus). Tachfin (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
          Tachfin, I never said such a conversation should be private--it shouldn't be. It should be out in the open, but an RfC is a bit heavy-handed at this point, in my opinion. And such conversations, on talk pages etc., often are useful--and if they're not, they provide evidence of engagement or disruption. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
          Drmies, I agree with you; I was referring to a discussion that would be between user:Omar-Toons and user:Dzlinker on their talk page. As there have been some attempts here for exmaple. Regards.--Tachfin (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
          • I notified user:Dzlinker Tachfin (talk) 04:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
            • My standard approach in these situations is to revert the change, make a post on the article's talk page explaining the reason for the revert, then make a post at the editor's talk page notifying them of both the revert, the concern, and the talk page discussion, ending with a request for their input at the article's talk page. This seems to work in the majority of cases. N419BH 05:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

this is really totally non human. I asked to discuss the matter with this reverter 2 months ago [44]!!! i suggest a block on him since he refused the talk imposing his PoV. Dzlinker (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk may go on the same page (tp). Dzlinker (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
So... I see that it will not be easier than before.
Maybe we can find a solution through WP:CCN?
Omar-Toons (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Ahem. "non human"? The 'proposal' linked to by Dzlinker starts with "stop defending your false useless point of view". That's nonsense, and we don't have to take that seriously. It is also written in a grammatically challenged way, raising issues of English competency--a fair point, given that this is the English wiki. I note also that they do not address the perceived problems with their edits, noted here by a couple of editors--instead they call for a block on Omar. That's ridiculous.

    Dzlinker, if you wish to help your case, help it. If you don't see what the problem is (and it seems like you don't--perhaps also a linguistic issue) then it is fair to ask whether you have the competence to operate here. Omar, I'm not sure if that board is the best option since Dzlinker's commentary hardly rises to the level of political discourse; it is little more than knee-jerk responses which can be dealt with by successively warning for what is really vandalism: disruptive and unsourced edits with an ethnic slant. Drmies (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, if this is a clue of the "discussion" we are supposed to start (even the previous one was more meaningful), I don't think that we will find a solution through Dialog... Correct me I'm wrong. -- Omar-Toons (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I am of the opinion that this might not be a only a "user issue". I think Dzlinker can be reasonably convinced; normally constituent country of birth -which still have to be defined according to each case- is indicated, which in this case would be French Algeria. But I can't find a policy or a clear a consensus on this and thus this is not applied with scrutiny and random searches indicate that it boils down to the main contributors preferences. A centralized discussion about country of birth has taken place here back in 2008, result: no body could agree on anything. Also keep in mind that sometimes users come from other wikis which had adopted other standards which of course do not apply here; this should be clarified for users who might not know it. Tachfin (talk) 04:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
french algeria is not a country it's a colony an historic entity imposed by blood and fire!
like british america or any thing else,
i took a look here it says he was born in present-day virginia.
if instead of french algeria we say in present-day algiers or oran or any other city, it's more correct than algeria or french algeria,
this's a good overture, hope w'll get threw
Dzlinker (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Freedoms of IP editors[edit]


I do not know if this is the appropriate place within wikipedia for this or even if such can be dealt with but here goes. (talk), has perform two acts which may not be permitted by IP users vs. registered accounts:

  1. the user has put Proposed deletion/dated template on an article Metadefinition I created and
  2. has voter on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art).

If IP users are allowed to do these two acts, please advise. If not could someone either remove these or take whatever appropriate action is needed.

Thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

IP editors are permitted to WP:PROD articles, and are permitted to participate in AfD discussions. Monty845 03:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears it is actually two IPs, (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Monty845 03:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
They can do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yup, no problems there. IP editors are "allowed" to do anything which they are technically able to do, such as edit existing articles and comment in discussions. Anything IP editors are NOT allowed to do has already been prevented at the software level. --Jayron32 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is a problem. Why are two separate IPs on Australian cellular networks making such edits to the same article within a 24 hour span? N419BH 05:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd think the cellular provider, more than likely, automatically assigned another IP address to the phone for the second session. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of this being a potential WP:DUCK situation. N419BH 06:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Lacking a block on either IP I can't see why they'd be trying to sock behind another IP. Likewise if it were an editing dispute (I'm not aware of one) they'd more likely try coming back through an open proxy or something, to make it look like someone else. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I also don't see a motive to WP:DUCK because the AfD looks one-sided. Marshallsumter hasn't suggested a potential sock. I'm more concerned about Marshallsumter creating a large number of dubious Dominant group (X) articles similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art). My read is MS is looking to suppress opposition. Glrx (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes - that seems to be the real problem. Marshallsumter is synthesising dubious articles, and the IP (if it is a single person) has merely noted this, and acted accordingly. Entirely right and proper behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be a WP:BOOMERANG thread about Marshallsumter's (re)creation of another article that fails WP:OR policies rather than what IPs are allowed to say. (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

An examination of User:Marshallsumter's contribs identifies several articles:

All of these articles are currently in AfD with the exception of metadefinition (which is proposed delete). Glrx (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW I am the proposer of most of those, and that is not my IP - I will say however any mentors who want to approach Marshallsumter and explain why all of these articles are being deleted are invited to do so. WP:SYNTH and even WP:FRINGE issues abound...--Cerejota (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Drrll disruptive behavior at WQA[edit]

User:Drrll insists on refactoring the closing commentary on the report at WQA he opened against User:Hrafn (which included spurious allegations against an admin and a report here at ANI). He did it twice already. I have reverted him twice and placed escalating templates (and a comment in between) explaining why this is unacceptable. Diffs on request.--Cerejota (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, tactfulness comes in handy in these situations. Drrll probably reads your close as a violation of WP:CIVIL. It is my opinion, Cerejota, that you often fan the flames of these disputes rather than helping to extinguish them. Drrll and I don't see eye to eye on much of anything, but I can empathize with his refactoring and reversion. Message to Drrll: try to ignore Cerejota. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I can understand your point, but there is nothing uncivil in what I wrote - unless you consider pointing out that there was a consensus that there was no merit to the report of personal attacks as "uncivil". --Cerejota (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Read closer: your close could be perceived by Drrll as uncivil and as an attack on his character. When you close a report, try to put yourself into his shoes, no matter how hard you might find it. If you had, you would have closed it with a short message simply stating that no action was required. Instead, you launched into an editorial that only served to upset Drrll. We're not here to pour gasoline on the fire. Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe competence is required and the rules tell us to assume good faith and no competent person assuming good faith can see my closing as WP:UNCIVIL:

So I think your comment is more about the beef you have with me, than some deeper insight into Drrll's psyche. I would prefer to hear his reasoning, and of course opinions of people who do not patronize me at every opportunity :) --Cerejota (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Your close violated WP:CIVIL when you edit warred and deleted Drrll's final statement from the WQA report, not once but twice.[45][46] It remains deleted at this time. You should not have closed the report due to your heavy involvement in the discussion and your obvious "beef" with Drrll and the fact that Drrll himself objected to the close in the comments you deleted. When faced with such a situation, you revert your close and request the help of an uninvolved party. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
By this definition, pretty much the entirety of wikipedia is uncivil! I have no beef with Drrll, at all (in fact, I do not recall ever being in an edit conflict with him) - do have a beef with false reporting and false claims of personal attacks against admins and editors in good standing. I do find interesting in your logic you support his refactoring of my closing comment, yet not my reversion of his borderline vandalism - you seem to think my behavior was uncivil but not his. That's ok, it only solidifies my opinion of you.--Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and no need to repeat I reverted him twice. I mentioned it at the very top of the report. :)--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Why did you fail to report that you, not once, but twice deleted the 182 word, 1049 character closing response from Drrll that commented on and questioned your close? Per WP:CIVIL, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." Are you ignoring the concerns raised by Drrll, Cerejota? Based on these concerns, why did you not revert your close and ask an uninvolved user to do it instead? To summarize, you violated CIVIL and you edit warred over the closing of a WQA. WP:BOOMERANG? Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Possibly. Yet you are hardly in the position to opine, calling me a troll, and instructing editors to engage in meatpuppetry:[47] zoooooooooom - thats the sound of WP:BOOMERANG!--Cerejota (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you going to 1) restore Drrll's comments that you deleted 2) revert your closure, and 3) request someone uninvolved to close the WQA? Viriditas (talk) 07:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Not upon your request, for obvious reasons. And even then, I do not see the reason why, so I would need to hear a persuasive argument from a non-patronizing, uninvolved editor or admin whose judgement I trust, and who doesn't have a proclivity to poison the well when he doesn't like what is being said.--Cerejota (talk) 07:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Cerejota, I would strongly urge you to avoid accusing every editor you're in a dispute with of being incompetent. That you link these accusations to WP:CIR when you make them does not make it OK. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for not making clear that my use here was rhetorical (ie explaining myself) and not intended to be part of the report. I think Drrll is very competent and so is, obviously, Viriditas.--Cerejota (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would never have dreamed of closing that WQA, because after commenting on the situation in a way that one party wasn't happy with, it would not have been helpful. Cerejota has already pointed to the rule "competence is required". As a corollary, a certain minimum amount of good sense is also required, and this applies to Cerejota as well as everybody else. Hans Adler 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Cerejota: Except perhaps for Hrafn, I am the editor that has had the the most heated disagreements with Drrll in the past month or so. Quite honestly, I strongly dislike his editing style, fillibustering, forum shopping and general unwillingness to listen and accept consensus, and find it hard to empathize with him. Nevertheless, I was taken aback by your closing summary, and can certainly see why Drrll could interpret it as antagonistic, inflammatory and taunting (telling a forum shopper to continue forum shopping was especially questionable). All the more so in that it came from you, who has had a mano a mano with Drrll resulting from this WQA. I generally support you in your battle with Lionelt et al., but here I think you overstepped the bounds, and ended up pouring gasoline on the fire. Furthermore, I think your responses to Viriditas above were out of line. In my opinion, it would be best if your took a breather, refactor the closing comment to be as terse and matter-of-fact as possible, and withdraw this ANI. I don't see anything constructive coming out of it, or in any further discussion of the matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your insight, and thank you for taking the time. However, who is this Lionelt you speak of and why I am in a battle with him? This is news to me...--Cerejota (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that. My mistake. I confused you with another editor who was in a dispute with Lionelt. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikihounding and harrassment[edit]

Resolved: User:Ruairí Óg's identified and blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Vintagekits.

User:Ruairí Óg's despite me having already warned them here about it along with examples, has recently decided to plow through my edit contributions to either revert changes or make changes where something doesn't suit them.

Proof that they have been stalking my edit contributions is the fact that from 21:15, 31 August 2011 to 21:58, 31 August 2011 (here is their contribution list) they edited at least 18 articles where they had never made a contribution, but where i just had. You could argue that they were going through people articles to make changes, however when every single one is an article that i had just edited shows that that is not the case.

Not all instances of his edits are reverts, however Ruairí Óg's is clearly trawling my edit contributions despite being told that it is harrassment.

Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule [[48]], where he simply removed it calling it vandalism.

Regardless of the 3RR and any content disputes - stalking and harrassment is very uncivil.

Mabuska (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that Ruairí Óg's is definitely following Mabuska's contributions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that regardless of stalking etc. their edits on Luke Wilton seem not neutral, and their edit-warring is certainly not acceptable. The talk page discussion indicates that they are not even willing to engage in reasonable discussion on sometimes tricky issues. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Which of my edits on the article's talk page indicate an unwillingness to engage in reasonable discussion? I'm curious. JonChappleTalk 10:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I think Drmies is using "their" to refer to Ruiari, as in their edits, not everyone. Maybe i'm wrong, clarification please? Mabuska (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Ruiari's edits are under scrutiny here, and I use singular 'they' to refer to Ruiari. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to all of us with a plural "they". My mistake. A most troublesome word indeed... JonChappleTalk 15:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Mabuska is a biased and distruptive editor who crusades across wikipedia pushing a pro-British, anti-Irish agenda. That is a given and recognised and acknowleged be multiple editors in discussions with him. He is also backed up on every page by Jonchapple and the pair have been inolved in canvassing with each other to ensure articles remain skewed to their POV.
Yesterday I noticed a number of dubious POV edits carried out by Mabuska on articles on my watchlist, most of which were undertaken against policy and towards his POV.
Unless I am a complete idiot then I am of course going to look at the rest of his recent edits to see if he was up to the same mischief on those articles as well. If that is "harrassment" or "hounding" then this is a mad house. I would call it conscientious editing.
This is not stalking or hounding this keepin an eye on a disruptive editor, am I supposed to ignore edits which are against policy because they are made to articles not on my watchlist.
I will come back to the reasons that made reverts in a moment but I would like to deal with Mabuskas other claim first.
Mabuska states that "Also other than making continued groundless accusations against myself and another editor of allegded "bias" without any proof whatsoever because he doesn't agree with certain edits, he was also recently warned of violating the 3RR rule 45, where he simply removed it calling it vandalism."
Who was I warned by? Mabuska. Forgive me if I take what Mabuska says with a pinch of salt. Mabuska warned me about edit warring on the Luke Wilton article page. You wont need to think to long about the reason that Mabuska was in conflict with regards this article.
As I said Mabuska has an agenda and a strong pro-British POV. That is to remove any reference to any person or body being 'Irish' and to push a 'British' and 'Northern Irish' identity on all pages. This is highlghted in this exact article.
Mabuska removed refereced material which described Wilton as Irish. Simply removed it, no discussion, no alternative source, nothing. Just removal. The removal of sourced information without disussion is vandalism.
Now Mabuska had been on this article before. Have a guess what the edit was? A very revealling one and one he makes on literally 100's of pages, a pattern I will explain and provide evdence for. He changes the nationality in the infobox from Irish to British. Cloaked under the wonderful edit summary "per WP:MOSFLAG, also adding actual nationality". No discusson, no source to say why the current nationality is not the 'actual nationality' and no source to prove the altered natioality, pure POV and agenda. Now am I living on this planet or is this the type of dsruptive trouble making editing that needs to be stamped out.
I later changed it back, this time adding a source (how quaint) here.
But Mabuska did not like that and reverted back to British, removing the source and replacing it with his POV and NO SOURCE. Is this how wikipedia works?
Then after some edit warring his friend who has been engaged in canvassing with him, User:Jonchapple turns up to help him (like he has done here) in his edit war, with one of the most fantasic edits I have ever seen. Again removing sourced information with a quite frankly ludacris edit summary stating "and here's one calling him an Ulsterman: See how it could get messy without self-identification? Newspapers can print what they want". Ulster is a province not a country or nationality and obvious he thinks his opinion carries more weight than "newspapers" so we obviously dont need WP:RS anymore because we have Mabuska and Jonchapple, brilliant.
Above, Drmies states that I am unwilling to enter into a discussion. That is funny because I am the one that said the edit warring should end and the matter should be taken to the talk page. Maybe Drmies can also count my edits on the count page as well.
For example here is another article where this same pair are arguing that a boxer who's nickname is 'Ireland John Duddy, who is referenced to by multiple reliable soures as Irish and even is pictured with an Irish tricolor drapped around his shoulders is 'not Irish'. This is the level of the agenda that we are dealing with. This pair thinks they have make edits without needing a source and ignore sources that do not suit them.
Going back to the edits from last night. I will go through a few to show you the reason I edited them. Please note I did not revert all of his edits just he ones that were blatantly POV pushing. Again, as always the edits will be to push a pro-Brtish anti-Irish POV across wikipedia.
  • Bronagh Gallagher, Mabuska's edit is to remove the nationality in the info box from stating that she is Irish. He includes the spurious edit summary "and as far it appears, she has no connection to the RoI, so best to avoid a potentially problematic marker". The editor knows full well that you do not have to be from ROI to be Irish and that those from NI are equally entitled to be Irish or British. Again no fact tag added, no discussion, just removal. If even the quickest of searches had of been undertaken then sources of a high calibre would show that she is Irish. But that des not suit his POV.
  • Stephen McGonagle, Mabuska's edit is to add a Northern Irish identify. There has been a long understanding that the term 'Northern Irish' should never be used to desribe someones natoionality because it is technially not a nationality unlike Welsh or English. Whereas Mabuska crows and immediately reverts even