Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive740

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

Noticeboard archives


Account threatened to be blocked by someone who doesn't appear to be an administrator nor has any idea what they're talking about[edit]

misunderstanding: no sock, renamed account Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:29, 18 February 2012 (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.

User Neuroticguru left a message on my talk page (User talk:LF#Multiple accounts notification) accusing me of using multiple accounts in order to sway the deletion of an article, and also writing that it is my "last warning" when I don't recall ever receiving any prior warnings. I have NOT been using multiple accounts, they have got their facts wrong. I'm not sure if this user is an administrator or pretending to be. LF (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An editor is not required to be an administrator to post appropriate warnings. If it's not appropriate, just ignore it. It's fine to remove it from you talk page if you'd like. Note the policy is to notify other editors of postings initiated here using the {{subst:ANI-notice}} template; I've done so for you this time but please do so in the future. Nobody Ent 00:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
warned Neuroticguru for template-abuse. watchlisted. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If it is of any reinforcement to you, this user is not an administrator and does not possess any right other than auto-confirmed which means he cannot block you. The best he can do is report you to WP:AVI or WP:SPI but if what you say is true, this will quickly die out and you should be fine. This user was here since 1 July 2007 at 01:04. Thought this might help.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,372,033) 00:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: In my defense and to clarify my actions by adding the rest of the story, I never stated nor pretended that I was in an administrative role of any fashion. I felt that I was following Wikipedia protocol as regarding multiple accounts. Obviously, I see and understand the error of my decision. I realize now that this alleged infraction (performed by LF) did not need to be escalated to a "Level 4 vandalism" template. I was not going to personally block the user in question. I was just trying to flag their account for what I believed were actions taken against the integrity of Wikipedia and an article The Black Album/Come On Feel the Dandy Warhols which I had created. I will gladly remove said template from LF's user page. I sincerely apologize to LF for that rash action on my part and to all involved as regarding the aforementioned matter. However, I do feel that LF is in violation of creating multiple accounts in order to renominate the aforementioned article for deletion. LF nominated the article for deletion back in November of 2011 under Lachlanusername, which now redirects to LF's user page. The article ultimately passed with a "Keep" vote at that time. Presently, LF is the user who has nominated the same article for deletion again, not but three months later. This is my reasoning for believing that LF and Lachlanusername are the same person. If I am wrong, then again, I apologize. Perhaps Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 and Cyberpower678 can look into that matter, if they feel so inclined. Thank you for your attention as regarding this matter. Neuroticguru (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Lachlanusername was his former username. He renamed his account to LF on 16:04, 18 December 2011 according to the logs of that account. Renaming your account moves all content from your old userspace to the new one leaving a redirect behind. That is my observation on it. As I am not a checkuser, I cannot analyze if he is using another account or not and therefore cannot contribute more to this matter.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,389,346) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've closed the AfD. It was nominated before by the same editor--why that editor would expect a different result this time is a mystery to me. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2012 (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.

Kumioko resignation[edit]

This was probably not a good thing to bring to ANI; you're pretty much guaranteed to get more snark than help on this page. There's nothing requiring admin action here, and if anything further comments are going to make things worse. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2012 (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.

Kumioko has announced his intent to resign. He's in a lot of pain. He's been through a lot. I know a cry for help when I see one. I think it would be detrimental to the pedia. We need administrator intervention asap. – Lionel (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A number of editors have encouraged him to stay. I'm not sure what more we can do. 28bytes (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The two resignation posts (15 and 17 February) remind me of the GoodBye page at MeatballWiki: "...the GoodBye message is seen [by] the author as a means to punish the rest of the community for failing him". The connection seems perfectly apt, since Kumioko has pushed the drama button rather than quietly slipping away. Per MeatballWiki, if Kumioko is given enough positive feedback as a result of his threats to leave, he will subsequently feel as if he has gained privileges as a vested contributor, one who can get away with breaking the rules.
Frankly, I think Kumioko already feels as if he is a vested contributor. He told me that I should not have questioned him because of his "6 years... 320,000 edits" seniority. This vested seniority apparently allows him to declare the intent to engage in edit warring, and to then engage in edit warring. I think the best way forward is to ignore his plea for attention and let him move away from the project. In time, I imagine he will return to positive contributions, but without the attitude that his anti-collegial actions are above reproach. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Binksternet for your "understanding" and "sensitivity." You're definitely the guy to goto in a crisis.

Anyway... We have an Article Rescue Squadron (ARS). What about an Editor Rescue Squadron? We could use the acronym "ERS" (pron. erse). It could be staffed by touchy-feely editors who do whatever it takes to show a disgruntled editor how much they are valued, how wonderful they are, that it gets better, you know, crap like that. Who supports formation of an Editor Rescue Squadron (ERS) to work on editor retention?– Lionel (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: great idea. Whoever came up with this gets a barnstar! – Lionel (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What are you supporting and what administrator intervention are you seeking? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to form one, but that's not an administrator issue. You want the Wikipedia:Village pump or something. --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • NO – His last edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6] ) are tantamount to WP:REVOKE and should be restored immediately. Otherwise, ignore the troll. --MuZemike 08:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, we are not a psychological service, and we should not be expected to act as such. --MuZemike 08:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, seeing as all those diffs are sandboxes in his userspace, he's perfectly within his rights to have them deleted per WP:U1, I believe. Beyond that, though, I completely agree. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Textbook case of WP:DIVA. Ignore. Tigerboy1966  11:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of options:
A. Kumioko is perfectly capable of sticking around and doing good, undramatic edits that quietly improve the encyclopædia. If they chose to do that I would support it very strongly, and I doubt others would stand in their way.
B. If, instead, the editor chooses highly-strung rhetoric and resignation threats, the best thing for wikipedia - and for kumioko - is that they follow through on their threat sooner rather than later. Of course, if at a later date they decided to come back for option A, that would be OK too. bobrayner (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
His continual "we have too many admins already" votes on RFA are becoming both tiresome, and reminiscent of a past, indeffed editor (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed those also. We shouldn't put up with that sort of vote, they should be removed immediately. RFA is bad enough without editor's opposing candidates to make a point/emote whatever. Dougweller (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Please drop the sticks. If the editor has resigned, let them go in peace. If they return, their failings can be discussed then. Rfa is not going to be changed via discussion on ANI, so if you want to change it, please make a proposal at WT:RFA. Nobody Ent 16:13, 18 February 2012 (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.

Andrew Mitrovic[edit]

Offending editor blocked for 31. If they return to old habits, more action can be taken, until then, we're done here. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:04, 18 February 2012 (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.

Continuously suppresses admin and recreates page, also moved User:DGG to User:DG47685484. Special:Contributions/Andrija987. (Offending user is Andrija987) --J (t) 04:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Materialscientist has blocked him/her but I want him/her blocked indefinitely. --J (t) 04:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why?--Shirt58 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
DGG was the admin who did an A7 deletion of the article he wanted. Retribution against an admin carrying out policy, by virtue of inappropriate page moves with an entirely untrue rationale, does not bode well for the user's long term suitability for the project. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I was following that. Someone bobs up, makes an article with all evidence pointing to it being about themself (enough with the spell-check, Firefox, I know it's non-standard) that gets A7'd, makes clumsy attack against deleting admin, creates the article twice again, it gets A7'd twice again. User rightly gets blocked for this disruption. I don't think they'll try that again too quickly. Minor matter that has already been resolved. Is further action really needed?--Shirt58 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No. If they disrupt again then escalate. - Sitush (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (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.

Long term disruptive edits, sockpuppetry, vandalism[edit]

I'd like to propose an investigation of User:, who was also warned here: and here:, has been reported here:, comments to article here: Coronerreport (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't really poke around on the offchance we'll find some misbehaviour, and neither do we control or take much note of what happens on other sites.'s edit history doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, and I can find no mention of that IP address on the sock puppet investigation you linked. If you're proposing that is SCFilm29 and that SCFilm29 is evading their indefblock, you'll need to provide evidence. If it's something else you want administrator assistance with, you'll need to be more specific. EyeSerenetalk 13:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It would appear this user:, appears "suddenly," here:, with same article edits as this user:, who is this user:, and this user:, all with comments to article here:, and same article and subject-related topic mentioned here:, as well as this user:, who makes User:Griot/User:SCFilm29-identical and -related edits here:, along with same IP range:, with identical User:SCFilm29 edits, as here: "23:57, 21 June 2010 (diff | hist) Happy Hairston ‎ (Hap!)" and stance, as here:, who was blocked for evasions, here: like this: and with the same IP range, and the same position on Julie Dash as this user: and who was also blocked, here: is pretty much the same person, who is engaging in sockpuppetry, vandalism and disruptive editing. Clearly the same person, who uses Wikipedia to harass. Coronerreport (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:The Fresh Beat Band[edit]

This user has started to insert random spamlinks since December 2011. Now, the user has continue to spam on various pages and the user has been indef blocked now and has a global account locked by the steward, Trijnstel. Some of them were trying to edit, but the abuse filters has disallowed them, all links used were blacklisted. When the current link has been blacklisted, the user keep change links, mostly are the rugby equipment shopping website. Also, User:Группа "Свежий ритм" (Russian name for The Fresh Beat Band), has spammed to the flag shopping website, including the addition of spam images (deleted on Commons) which it is World Rugby Shop logo. Before the long-term protection on The Fresh Beat Band, the page has been a long-term favorite target which indef-semi protection is better and more positive. Many sockpuppets since December now. The IP used is currently blocked. For more information, see WP:LTA/FBB or if you found this user's sock(s), please submit at WP:SPI/FBB, Thanks. --Il223334234 (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • TFBB is already indefblocked for abuse. If they continue I'd suggest a one year ban. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The user proposing the ban may be a sockpuppet of the blocked user according to a checkuser comment in the sockpuppet investigation. Peter E. James (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I've asked MuZemike to comment here; I at least am not sure whether he said that based on general behavioral observation or based on the Checkuser findings. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a  Possible connection between Il223334234 and all the Fresh Beat Band socks, on both behavioral and technical evidence. --MuZemike 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1728 English cricket season[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.
Seems to have been resolved. Of note WP:RfPP seems like a better place to have raised this.

Any chance of page protection being renewed here as the article has again been attacked by the same troll as in November with consequent necessary reverts. ----Jack | talk page 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a broken clock is right twice a day the "troll" does have a point. Why is there a "retired" tag on your page and why is your talk page redirected to your userpage? If you are going to be actively editing then you shouldn't be discouraging others from discussing your edits with you. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Redirect is not consistent with policy guideline Wikipedia:User_talk_page#Categories.2C_templates.2C_and_redirects, and active contributions makes a "retired" banner misleading. Nobody Ent 14:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection not required at this moment in time I would say. Only two edits since 15th. No edits since last evening. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. It's in a few watchlists so someone will spot the troll when he comes back. By the way, I've sorted the talk page problem and thanks for letting me know the policy on that. ----Jack | talk page 17:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

User WhiteWriter[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.
No admin action required. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

User User:WhiteWriter removed a POV tag that read "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved", before the dispute was resolved. [7] Majuru (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

They did, and provided a really good edit summary explaining the removal. If you think it's POV explain why here. Nobody Ent 18:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

An outbreak of template-hacking racist vandalism[edit]

There's an ongoing outbreak of racist vandalism using a rather tricky hack involving templates that click-hijacks users to an antisemitic website. Some measures have been taken, but I suspect the perpetrators may intensify their attack if this isn't nipped in the bud fairly quickly. Could people with the relevant skills take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), and see if they can help with the issue there? -- The Anome (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter 453 now created to temporarily prevent all but old/experienced users from editing templates[edit]

There are reports that the pages being linked may also contain malware. It's time to put a stop to this. before it spreads to higher-risk templates and presents a major threat to readers. Accordingly I've just created and enabled filter 453, which should temporarily stop all recently-created editors from editing templates at all.

I'll disable it in a few hours, when this has blown over, and all the affected templates tracked down and fixed, but I think it will be a good idea to keep it around for the time being so that it can be re-enabled at a moment's notice if this starts up again.

There will undoubtedly be some blowback from this, but I think at the moment this is the least disruptive of all the possible short-term options, until this either goes away of its own accord, or more thorough precautions can be taken against this sort of vandalism. -- The Anome (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I added a limitation to #453 that should still stop the hacking links but should allow normal template editing. Other filter people, please see if you can refine this. Thanks Anome! NawlinWiki (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have a sinking feeling that coming technical "improvements" to the template system are going to make this type of problem a lot worse. Sigh. (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter 453 now disabled[edit]

On review, there don't seem to be any bad edits among those caught by filter 453, and no new reports of racist vandalism on the help page, so I've now disabled it. I hope filter 139, which is similar but more specific, should be able to handle things from here on. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Filter help, please?[edit]

Doesn't seem to be working too well (17:09 [8] and 17:51 [9]) - CharlieEchoTango (contact) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh crap. What's preventing 139 from working? Can someone please take a look at filter 139, and find out why it's not finding these edits? In the meantime, I've re-enabled 453, which is simpler, and surely has a better chance of blocking this. Please be very careful viewing the diffs given above: they cover the article content, and parts of the rest of the user interface, with an invisible image that clickjacks every link to racist sites which may well also contain malware, even in preview mode.-- The Anome (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The diffs have been suppressed by administrators.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,571,926) 00:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and I think that's what was stopping the filter evaluation code from testing things properly, and that was confusing me even more: I had to go and dig up some actual vandalism, de-fang it, and move it into template space, to try to fix this. -- The Anome (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there was a small error in one part of the regex, which I've tried to fix. Can you look again and see if that makes sense to you? Fut.Perf. 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi: was that the addition of the backslashes before the closing square brackets? Unfortunately, I've been editing round and round in circles, and I may well have overwritten your change: can you check both 139 and 453 for sanity, please? -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For some (de-fanged: it just clickjacks to Google) actual test template vandal content, please see the deleted revisions of Template:The Anome/sandbox (admins only, of course). -- The Anome (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've figured out how it's done, and I've blacklisted the mechanism for doing it. Hopefully, this will result in the template vandalism being stopped. Email me if you want details. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation. That was driving me crazy for a bit. Well, there's one more technique I've learnt. It might be a good idea for the long term to expand the filter's capabilities to take that into account. -- The Anome (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


Hey guys, please contact me if you see any more if this. Elockid (Talk) 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to disable talk page and e-mail access. Elockid (Talk) 03:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Assistance needed with User:[edit]

I was going through the the backlog at WP:AIV when I came across the report of this anon user. He/she had been doing a LOT of editing of talk pages, generally changing links, some correcting of spelling. Thing is... the anon user is correcting other people's work. Wiki link changes (such as this) are POV pushing.

The editor had not been sufficiently warned enough for a block, so I have added a warning. But there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Not all edits have been reverted. Rollback is great - but this anon-user has been VERY prolific over the last few days, and because a lot of the edits have been in archives they have not been noticed. So, can anyone help with reverting a tonne of edits, please?

I've stepped back from reverting the edits, as I am (a) going cross-eyed from staring at the screen and (b) more importantly starting to have doubts as to whether or not all the edits are good/bad faith or even need to be reverted. A lot of the earlier ones seem to be clearing up disambig, and not all are in talk pages. I have, as far as I can tell, reverted all the talk page edits, but I would appreciate someone else double checking the rest of the edits.
Thanks, Stephen! Coming... 20:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone apparently recently changed Conservative Christianity from an article into a disambig page, meaning that links there need to be disambiguated. I don't see that doing so is POV pushing or needs to be reverted. I've reverted your reversion of 90.214's edit to my userpage, because it was a useful edit, not vandalism. Pais (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Duck with megaphone blocked. Pages attacked by socks semi'd to head off further socks at the pass. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 19 February 2012 (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.

I blocked Wataana (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet account of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). He/she has requested a review of the block. Can someone please review? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You can file an SPI, but based on This edit from the last checkuser confirmed DavidYork71 sock compared to this edit from Wataana I'd say its ducks in spades. This seems open and shut. --Jayron32 21:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree - reblocked w/talk page access off... Duck, duck... Skier Dude (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (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.

Unblock request[edit]

Maintained the block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2012 (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.

I want to know is this a normal custom that unblock requests are not reviewed or put on hold by admins till block expires? My question is related to User:TopGun's current block and the one before this. His last block of 72 hours was put on hold before it expired. At least an editor with some good contribution to the project should not be dealt like this. --SMS Talk 22:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a normal custom? No. — madman 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok! what I mean to say here is why is his request ignored? --SMS Talk 23:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Except it's not being ignored; an admin is currently discussing things with him. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And yes, if no admin is willing to unblock, but at the same time they're unwilling to decline, they do often last. I can guarantee dozens of admins have reviewed it, but decided not to act. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Bwilkins. The block is confusing, though, and I spent at least 10 minutes trying to figure it out. It's a 1RR violation, but the editor (a) claims admins can't decree 1RR, and (b) seems to assume it's only for his interactions with User:Darkness Shines, since that's what set it off. I'm currently looking over this to see if he gets some WP:CLUE, at which point I presume BWilkins will unblock; otherwise, I'd keep the block. Someone else can do it, of course; I'm only posting this summary to save others the trouble of going through the diffs. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
On second though, I might as well maintain the block. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2012 (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.

SarekOfVulcan removes question on talk[edit]

user:SarekOfVulcan removed my question and quote from a newspaper about James O'Keefe. I provided several media citations and asked why it wasn't mentioned in the article on the talk page. Then user:SarekOfVulcan's action/response was to remove all mention from the talk page. This seems very aggressive nor does it explain why wikipedia should ignore the event-- or even ignore my question about it. Apajj89 (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Also SarekOfVulcan's summary "rm per BLP -- some of those aren't even the same person" is FALSE. All those articles are referring to the same person/case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

TRUE, actually. And the accusations were dismissed by a judge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The "more sources" Apajj89 posted are repeats of The Record source. The one that wasn't a repeat was about Jeffrey O'Keefe, a completely different person. Apajj89 is wrong and Sarek is right that they are about completely different people. The sources that actually are about the right O'Keefe are about the case being dismissed, but you present it as though they were not. Apajj89 was violating WP:BLP, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate summary of his sources, Apajj89 presented an inaccurate description of his sources (he really only had two, The Record and one completely irrelevant one), and Apajj89 has presented an inaccurate picture of SarekOfVulcan's actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ian where did I present it falsely? THIS WAS THE ENTIRE POST:

O'Keefe harassment isn't included:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apajj89 (talkcontribs)

But even so, Kumioko felt the need to run over and tell Apajj89 that he had no chance of getting an accusation to stick against me. Guess I know why he nominated WP:Don't feed the divas for deletion... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the sources 1 2 3 4 5 talk about the issue and some mention its status as dismissed. I never implied otherwise. The issue got a lot of press and curious readers, like myself, may wonder why its not in the article (the question I asked on the talk).
Who gave you the power to remove the discussion about cases mentioned in the media as "poorly sourced"? Apajj89 (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Here you only present the accusations, nothing about their dismissal. Don't act like Glenn Beck, you were downplaying the dismissal of the charges.
And again, the source, the source are repeats of The Report. You're only repeating sources that just repeat The Report as if they are different sources with those. The and sources are blogs, which do not meet the reliable source guidelines. The Salon source was a good source when it came out but it is soddy work to present now (as things have changed and the charges have been dismissed).
WP:BLP gives any editor the right to remove potentially libellous material, and talk pages are for article improvement instead of POV-pushing for trying to advocating BLP violations. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yep, because asking why an issue mention in several media articles is so POV. Anyway, I'd done with wikipedia. I'll go write on sand, seems more productive. Apajj89 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not it at all. What you presented completely ignored that the charges were dismissed. You took the one source, repetitions of it, and a source about someone else, and presented only the accusations. You asked for the accusations to be included, but did not mention at all that the charges were dismissed. THAT was POV on your part.
Your sheer inability to grasp that is probably a good indication you should leave. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Really Ian? I agree that the edits weren't without problems but I hardly think this is the kind of statement that helps us attract and keep new users. Perhaps, since this is a new editor with no experience with the dozens of policies here, it would have been more useful to show the user an example of how the edit should be written and present it as an example rather than drive the user off. --Kumioko (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I don't see you trying to explain to this user what he did wrong. And "you only present the accusations, nothing about their dismissal" doesn't explain what what wrong and what would have been right? I'll apologize for bitey remarks when you apologize to Sarek for hounding him. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I'll give you credit that your partially right there. I didn't but no one else did either. Not one as far as I can tell from the talk page. Lots of criticism about what rules were violated, what they did wrong and what could happen if they continue. Not one statement of let me know if you have questions about doing this, nothing about you got some good info and usable references but we have to make the statement POV. It still may not have worked but no one tried. That is why the world is turning away from Wikipedia, more than 8 years of insulting new users, running off potentially useful editors. Because the majority of our messages have a bitey, unhelpful undertone and our most senior editors lack the patience or desire to help groom the new users. But your right, I was so focused over the last years of building an encyclopedia that I was blind to this cultural degradation. We are losing editors aster than we can recruit the because the word of mouth is spreading the news that Wikipedia, for all its uses as a place to find information, is not a friendly place to edit. And just for the record, that you even made the ultimatum indicates that a part of you, somewhere deep inside, sees that the situation could have been handled better. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - I just wanted to drop a note that I asked Sarek, yet again, to please follow the directions on the big orange banner to notify editors when e drops their names at ANI. I realize I am about as wanted as a leper these days but I still shouldn't have to find out by watching the page. --Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Would that be the big orange banner that says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion"? Because I don't see any text that says "any user whose name you drop"... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, that's the one. Especially since you seemed to do it only to call attention to try and get me into trouble. --Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • It seems to me that your posting on Apajj89's page was quite sufficient evidence that you knew about this discussion - and you appear to be trying to get yourself into trouble. I suggest you stop... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I made a comment to an editor on my opinion of how I thought of the situation. It turns out I was correct. Whoda guessed. Perhaps you are correct though that I should stop. I have been considering doing just that myself and have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. I even deleted most of my sandbox projects and 99% of the code I wrote for my bots and scripts, not that it matters. Certainly there would have been strong words for an editor not notifying another editor if there name was mentioned here. Irregardless, I don't expect that anyone has a problem with Admins not notifying users of discussions so I would suggest modifying the orange banner message slightly to say that notifying the user is not required if there is a reasonable assumption that the users would know about it. --Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No modification of banner is required per not a bureauracy. Nobody Ent 03:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah that's as good of an excuse as any I suppose. Certainly I didn't really think anything would be done about it, especially since he is a highly respected admin and I am a barely functioning editor but it would still be nice if the Admins actually followed the rules on occasion instead of just enforcing them when it doesn't apply to them. Thankfully I have 22, 000+ pages on my watchlist including this one so it gives me a wide breadth of visibility. --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
[I] have hardly made any non discussion related edits since my ridiculous block. Have you considered that that might be part of the problem? That maybe instead of making comments almost exclusively to discussion pages you should, instead, work on content that you enjoy writing about for awhile? - The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Kumioko, I say this with all interest in you still being around WP and editing, WP:DROPIT. Involving yourself dramatically and disruptively in a conflict is a very quick way to burn up whatever good faith the community has with you at this point. Please stop using loaded language to generate a specific response (Victim language, pejorative phrases, evasive assertions, etc). I would immagine (though I don't have the clairvoyant understanding of) the admins who blocked you considered your actions in addition to the way that you were communicating when determining if blocking would prevent further disruption to the community. Hasteur (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
First let me clarify I simply asked Sarek to notify me when he called me out like the big orange banner says. Thats it. All this extra banter is just a petty way to say that admins don't have to follow the rules unless they want too. In response to your comments on the other issues though and we are really really off topic but I did what I thought to be good edits for the last 6 years (over 300, 000 of them) and that seemed to cause problems too. So it seems I'm screwed either way. I would give some examples but undoubtedly someone would sight Diva or something. Additionally, actual editing and improvements seem passé these days from everything I have seen lately so I am just doing what seems to be important here these days and participating in discussions. I will likely make some edits to other stuff again, but for now I am just doing what all the good Wikipedians seem to be doing. I'm not perfect and never claimed to be but maybe its also possible that admins are not above reproach and occassionally its appropriate to point that out and risk getting blocked or banned by their fellow cabalists. This isn't about my block so I'm not going to dignify that comment with a response that you appear to be trying to provoke. --Kumioko (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And its clear to me that the community is more interested in protecting its admins from well earned criticism than to actual problems such as Ian's comment above telling a user that its better they didn't edit here anymore. I remember a time when that sorta comment woulda received a flurry of severely worded responses, but I guess this is the new Wikipedia and things like that are now acceptable. --Kumioko (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What's the weather like on the lofty heights of your soapbox, Kumioko? ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Lol, actually its snowing but I'm done commenting on this discussion. We have strayed way too far from the original topic and no one wants to discuss/do anything about it anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko is hounding me[edit]

Kumioko only get involved because of a past feud with Sarek, and after provided no correction to Apajj89, called me pointing out what Apajj89 did was bitey, and insisted that I should have pointed out what a good post would have done (which I did, and as if that's what he was doing). No other editor went after me about this, but then again, no other editor got involved because of a prior grudge. When it became clear that Kumioko wasn't going to win any fights at ANI, he came onto my talk page. Before I removed the thread, he repeatedly misread a number of my statements in whatever way was possible to make me out to be the bad guy (which makes his complaints about other editors not assuming good faith all the more ridiculous).

He then claimed that Sarek is hounding him, not the other way around (because the above thread is about Kumioko and Sarek was the one who butted in because of an old grudge, right? Oh, wait, no, that's the opposite of what happened). I pointed out that if he wasn't into drama, he'd quit bothering me, but he accused me of being the dramatic one. I removed the discussion, and he continues to come back (claiming I left a talkback template to let him know I deleted the discussion, which I didn't), even insulting me on a page which contains pretty good proof I'm not bitey, even claiming that WP:HOUND needs to be deleted because he's apparently not harassing me by following me about.

He has no reason to interact with me, and he seems prepared for a block on this. At the very least, an interaction ban is needed.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Then stop interacting with him. It's not reasonable to get in a talk page tussle with another editor and then register a hounding complaint on ANI. Nobody Ent 21:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)I only got involved because Ian was being uncivil to a new user (telling them that they shouldn't edit anymore) and I told him to not be so bitey. Then he left me some defensive and rude comments and left a talk back just to show me he deleted the discussion and and called me a Diva. I just told him I left my last message so as far as I am concerned the matter is closed. Just because he can't take a little constructive criticism doesn't mean I am hounding him. --Kumioko (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I removed the discussion, signalling that it was over, and he kept coming. He had no reason to ever come onto my talk page to begin with, and no reason to stay, and no reason to start things back up. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Removing the edit with WP:DFTD was an escalatory move, not a de-escalatory one. I'd suggest Don't wish to discuss further or the like if you wish to end an own talk discussion. Nobody Ent 11:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by User:Redslider[edit]

Resolved: Legal threat struck and retracted. Attempting to guide further, but no additional admin action needed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Redslider (talk · contribs) has been making a variety of accusations about editors at DRN, RSN, Talk:Charles R. Pellegrino etc. On his talk page today he writes ", Wikipedia is protected by law from suits arising out of defamation or malicious intent to harm the reputation of a person, as I understand it, individuals are not so protected. It would, of course be up to the subject to decide if and how to pursue such matters. But I think some of your "several editors" ought to consider the matter. We're not just talking about "blocking" somebody from Wikipedia, anymore." Could someone uninvolved have a look? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the whole context of the remarks is significant (as referenced by Dougweller) and my response to his subsequent caution was,
"no legal threat was made, nor do I have any legal threat to make. What i did say was simply to advise people that they should be aware of what they do and use common sense. Especially when it comes to things that may cause personal or professional injury to others. That, I believe is in the best tradition of Wikipedia. Nothing more than that. Redslider (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"

If any uninvolved individual here (and I mean any single individual) thinks that I have crossed the line, I will immediately remove the offending sentences. No threat, whatsoever was intended. Redslider (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said in your talkpage: Yes, the statement made clearly is intended to "chill" a discussion, and suggests to others that they should behave differently, or else legal action can be taken against them. Indeed, the majority of your interactions on Wikipedia appear to contain faux legalese, which if you truly believed in the community nature of this project, would not be necessary. You would be best to read WP:NLT very carefully, and consider your next steps extremely carefully (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Remarks in question have been removed. Not intended to 'chill' anyone. My apologies. I shall exercise more care in the future. Redslider (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: I immediately removed the offending remarks, as I said I would. Then some editor reverted them as "strikeouts". But this leaves the offending material still readable and still a potential for chilling others. I restored my deletion, but I don't want to get into some edit war over this. What am I supposed to do? Thank you. (there was an edit conflict. I put this where it would have normally occurred) Redslider (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Other editors should note that the removal rather than striking of the remarks has rendered subsequent discussion confusing. I tried to help Redslider by striking them in the usual way (per WP:REDACT), but he insists on removal. Even so, as Bwilkins says the same basic mindset pervades his other contributions in other locations, even if they are less explicit in these terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Being taken care of one-on-one. No more to see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Redslider is not required to require to strike comments on their own talk page -- Redslider can simply remove the entire section if they'd like. Nobody Ent 12:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Other threats from User:Redslider[edit]

Having shopped the issue of the controversy of Charles R. Pellegrino's (lack) of a PhD to BLP/N (twice), RS/N, and DRN, and having been rebuffed at all of these, User:Redslider is now laying out threats on the article talk page, such as this. The raw facts, as investigations have uncovered, are that Pellegrino made the news, worldwide, when it was discovered that the PhD he claimed to have was denied by the supposed granting institution; this was in connection with the withdrawal of one of his books by the publisher on the grounds of spurious sourcing, so it hardly lacks notability. We can take that issue to RFC/U, but if he's going to threaten that we "may face disciplinary actions", well, it seems to me that his slow motion edit-warring and combative, threatening approach are problem enough. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mangoe, I've notified RedSlider of the new thread; in the future please do so yourself when starting new ANIs. Nobody Ent 15:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I left the notification on the article talk page which I beleived he was reading at the time. Mangoe (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Certainly possible -- I've been wrong many times -- but user talk page is probably best place. Nobody Ent 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

New header proposal[edit]

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#New_header Nobody Ent 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Misfiled statement[edit]

I believe that the material at Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse#help please is probably misfiled, and that the subject is more appropriate to this page. It is on that basis that I am leaving this message here. I have no objections to seeing any uninvolved admin act in any way they deem appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved ↓ Nobody Ent 20:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edits at Josephus on Jesus[edit]

I have been, marginally, involved in the discussion at the above article, in which one editor, User:Lung salad, seems to be insisting on adding material against consensus of the other editors on the topic. It is their apparent belief/understanding that the material LS has been restoring relates to fringe theories as per WP:FT. LS himself had recently been subject to a short block for tendentious editing on the same article - that block has now been lifted. I believe it is reasonable to ask admins who have not been involved in the discussion to review the recent history and make such actions, if any, that they deem appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Need some help with a new user, including guidance on WP:NPA[edit]

Cabbynet (talk · contribs)

Dracu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've been trying to work with a new user after I PROD'd the user's new article, Dracu. After the PROD was disputed and I nominated the article for AfD, the editor made some personal attacks: [10], [11]. I thought I had properly cautioned the editor, but the editor then posted this, essentially accusing editors that want the article deleted to be communists and racist against Romanians.

I'm trying to assume good faith here, and I think this editor may get some benefit from someone other than me (they probably see me as too involved) to give them some advice about editing in Wikipedia. Singularity42 (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This comes in as a response to user Singularity42's previous message.
Hello everybody. As we all know, there are plenty of haters among us. This guy that has previously posted a message is nothing but an individual of bad intentions. With under no circumstances I have broughts any of the aformentioned accuses. Moreover, I have tried to ask for help, but he kept on deleting my messages and destroying my valuable work on my article. Instead, he could very easily tell me what to improve. It seems that he is just trying to be ambitious in deleting other's work using racial judgement. Well, we are one race and we are all the same and this is my own statement. Why is he insulting me then? I therefore make a humanist call to all you guys around here and ask you to please this guy and give him the right answer. I am a friendly citisen and will ever be. I don't want to fight or argue with anyone, but hey, haters is what I don't understand. How can I protect my articles from such egoistic and outrageous attackers? Thank you guys and the best of luck in your lives. User:Cabbynet (regarding the article Dracu) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabbynet (talkcontribs) 21:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
All this over a Romanian word? If people flip out over stuff like this, then... never mind, this is typical of how everybody else here reacts over relatively minor stuff. --MuZemike 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)To be blunt: they aren't "your articles" once you've posted them into Wikipedia, which is why the edit page warns "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. " What you can do is create your article in your userspace, e.g. create it here: User:Cabbynet/Dracu, and then work on finding sufficient sources to support it. Then put in in what we call "mainspace:" Dracu. The folks responding are just trying to maintain Wikipedia standards not attacking you personally. Nobody Ent 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours after he removed the AfD notice from the article for the second time. Coming on top of the other problems, it was necessary to give him time to think. Favonian (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • A troll? On Wikipedia? What an original idea! (I feel sorry for the so-called girlfriend -- trolling Wikipedia, what a way to show a girl a good time). Nobody Ent 22:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, that made my day. "You dare ask for a source? No wonder academia considers Wikipedia a non-referenceable trash." Oh my. Huon (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am generally on the minority side of consensus, rather consistently; This serves participants of this discussion rather well. For if I were asked, these very recent developments pursuant to this thread receive my first D- grade. (almost failing) It is only for deleted contributions unaware to me that preclude my ability to say you actually failed; being esteemed by me. The rest becomes tl;dr, while remaining irrelevant; so feel free to disregard me now. My76Strat (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
" mistakes were on purpose:" [13]. Personal attack in response to source request: [14]. 'Nuff said. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering the account was registered in 2006, could it be a sleeper sock of User:Bonaparte? Anonimu (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it wasn't so much a hoax as simply trite and a synthesis under a non-English title. "dracu" is simply the Romanian for devil — at least according to Angelo de Gubernatis' Zoological Mythology (volume 2 page 389). Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Flag Institute && Template:Flag Institute[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.

Nobody Ent 01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to bring this up on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, not here. Number 57 00:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
ah ok.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2012 (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.

User Kkm010[edit]

I have some concerns about the editing behaviour of Kkm010 (talk · contribs), specifically about their use/non-use of edit summaries and their addition/updating of factual information in articles whilst either not adding or updating citations. These concerns are magnified by the very large number of edits which this editor is currently making.

In about half to two-thirds of their edits they do not use edit summaries at all, but when they do they are frequently meaningless (such as 'ok' or 'done'), or more worryingly, completely misleading, e.g. [15], [16] and [17], [18], [19] and [20].

I am also concerned about the way in which this editor updates factual information in articles without updating citations e.g. [21], [22], [23].

I have also noticed that, if reverted, this editor will also bounce back with IP edits, which then often reflect the issues above e.g. [24] and [25].

Looking at this editors' talk page it is clear that a number of other editors have recently expressed concerns about odd editing by this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rangoon11 (talkcontribs)

I don't see a big problem here. Unfortunately, many experienced editors do not use edit summaries or are cryptic when they do. You can advise the editor to do so (there are templates for this sort of thing). The worst thing I see in the edit summary diffs you provide show that the editor uses "minor" when the changes are not minor (there's a template for that, too). A little more troubling is if Kkm is indeed coming back to reedit without logging in. That should be corrected if true, particularly if the edits are controversial.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that most often I don't mention edit summery but its not possible for me to mention on every single edit that I do. I also agree that there are times when I often don't log in but do make some constructive changes. Thanks!--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 04:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It's really a very good habit to always include an edit summary. How much detail you put in depends on the context. If there's any controversy at all about your edit, more detail is better. Also, marking an edit as minor is really reserved for changes that have nothing to do with the substance of the article (formatting, punctuation, things like that), and even then a brief edit summary is helpful. Finally, you should make a greater effort to log in before making any changes at all. If for some reason you can't log in, then wait to make the change until you can. When a registered user makes a change from an IP address, it looks suspicious, even if it's perfectly innocent. Besides, it adds to your edit count. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I would definitely try my best to follow you're suggestion.--Kkm010* ۩ ۞ 15:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

IP cycler[edit]

These IPs're all editing from the same location and hounding the same user's edits. They've been making multiple reverts, collectively in violation of ARBPIA's discretionary sanctions. I realize blocking any of the individual IP addresses won't accomplish anything, but maybe Admins've developed more sophisticated tools for dealing with this sort of thing.—Biosketch (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User conduct archive[edit]

Most of the entries below the table in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive (i.e. circa 2006 & before) are without context - no links to discussion or evidence, no mention of outcomes. Should they be removed, and the history be expunged? Disclosure: I'm mentioned there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Satinmaster redux[edit]

See [26] for an earlier discussion. This editor was an SPA at EUCLID (university) where his concern was accredition (the dispute was about whether Euclid is accredited, and he was disparaging a source which said it wasn't). His recent editing at The Higher Learning Commission appears to be an attempt to make a point about accrediting agencies by misrepresenting a case in which Dickinson State University was the subject of a report stating that it was a diploma mill and that THLC might sanction it. See [27], [28], [29], [30] and [31]. He's been reverted each time (except the last one which I just noticed) and warned about this on his talk page. He's obviously using this to try to discredit an accrediting agency. This edit [32] is probably also relevant to WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that his latest edit to THLC ([33]) which has an edit summary saying "added proof that HLC accredits Dickinson. Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest." says "A february 2012 audit report depicted a HLC accredited[3] institution Dickinson State University as a Diploma mill." For some reason he uses 5 sources all of which quote the same report (so one would be sufficient) and say "Dickinson State could face penalties from the State Department for violations of the federal student visa program, as well as sanctions from the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security and the Higher Learning Commission in Chicago, an accreditation agency, the report said." Note that none of his edits had mentioned that Dickinson may face sanctions from the Higher Learning Commission, all dwell on the fact that the HLC was the accrediting agency for this public state university. That doesn't seem simply an edit "Not to defame or discredit, but out of public interest". Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been watching the THLC article (now I am), but I have had the EUCLID article on my watchlist for a while, and I often battle with Satinmaster (including recently) about POV content changes he makes there (e.g., [34]). I try to avoid accusing editors of having an agenda because it's done too often at Wikipedia without any solid support, but in this particular case, Satinmaster does seem to be pushing against certain reputable agencies and pushing in favor of certain institutions.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I blocked the user indefinitely. The user has had plenty of second chances already, and s/he made multiple disruptive edits following the "final warning" I issued about 12 hours ago. --Orlady (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II[edit]

A relatively new article, until I happened on it edited pretty much solely by User:Thor0407 and (talk · contribs)(I suspect they are the same person, possibly even Lowell himself or an associate). Heavily promotional, with way too many copyright questionable photos, lists of "reviews", and dvd sales links. I removed the worst of it, fixed some formatting and tagged for a few things. The IP has reinserted, and reinserted the majority of the material. I left them messages here Curtis Lovell II and February 2012. I'm not sure I handled this very well, and am at 2 or 3rr with them myself, so am backing away. Anyone else out there with a cooler head and some time on their hands who wishes to drop in and access the situation? Heiro 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Per this [35], you are absolutley forbidden from editing anothers posts in this fashion, reply below! Heiro 06:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Photos are used with permission and verified with commons. Promo style text removed per suggestion. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

  • If they were, this "This file is missing evidence of permission. It has an author and source, but there is no proof that the author of the file agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide evidence of permission by either providing a link to a site with an explicit grant of permission that complies with the licensing policy or by forwarding email communication granting permission to
  • This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Unless permission is granted, the file can be speedy deleted seven days after this template was added (13 February 2012) and the uploader was notified." wouldn't appear on them. Heiro 06:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

And they are now at 4rr[36] and have blanked image deletion warnings[37] from the article talk page. Heiro 07:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think sources may have been misused too. That "Modern-day Houdini" thing cited a news article which doesn't include the phrase; googling for it (with Lovell's name, to filter out the various other people who also claim to be modern-day houdinis) returns lots of results, all apparently written by (or copied from) Lovell or a publicist. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a platform for self-promotion. However, I'm not sure that this is a case for AN/I right now... bobrayner (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Curtis Lovell II did send all the proper permission and copyright to the email, so what is the problem. All the text is original and photos, property of Curtis Lovell II. Curtis Lovell II (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that other than having it attributed to you, the text in the article can be deleted, changed, etc by anyone? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) This article has a number of problems, not the least of which it's being tag-teamed by a host of anon IPs and SPAs. They are repeatedly edit warring to insert a sentence claiming that CBS News referred to the subject as "the next Houdini", however the reference provided is a bare URL to the subject's own website. The anon IPs claim the video for this broadcast "was" on his website but the link is now dead. In any case, as this is a BLP, statements by CBS News can't be sourced by links to the subject's own website. I have requested semi-protection at RPP to put a stop to this. Night Ranger (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem user[edit]

Indef applied. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:10, 20 February 2012 (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.

Okay, I think we've got some trolling here. BrandonSkyPimenta (talk · contribs) has, since November:

  • Created the nonsense article BlahBlahBla, then taken it to WP:REFUND with a reason of "I love this page so much!"
  • Created the mega-short article Xicn which was redirected.
  • Filed a RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BrandonSkyPimenta) that smacks of vandalism ("What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?" "BlahBlahBia was not a good page, so it was deleted.")
  • Warned me of the TFD discussion for {{NOT}}, even though I filed that TFD myself

I'm not seeing anything good from this editor at all. It's clear that they're only here to vandalize and act like a child, not to build a project. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume you're in the process of notifying that user of this thread, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 06:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
He already has... Eagles 24/7 (C) 07:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Although it gets a little lost between notices. Dru of Id (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we shouldn't just indeff him now? I see that his reference at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Xicn is a book on Wikipedia which says anyone can edit Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No, which is why I'm blocking him now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (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.

New user problems - NPA; copyright violations[edit]

Northiran (talk · contribs)

I recently went through Northiran's list of created articles and discovered that most had to be tagged for deletion (mostly due to being copyright violations). In response, Northiran recreated most of the articles again (which I have done my best to deal with), and vandalized my user page. Can an admin look into this please? I think there's needs to be two things done:

  1. A temporary block so that the user's contributions can be cleaned up without them being quickly re-created, and
  2. A cleanup of the user's contributions to look for copyright violations. (I did try this originally at WP:CCI#Northiran but was told it was rather trivial for CCI, which makes sense. In any event, ANI is probably the more appropriate forum after the vandalizing in reply to being called out on copyright violations.)

Thanks. Singularity42 (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some specific examples:

Singularity42 (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've left a note and will AGF for now, but if it continues, please let us know. Thanks, GiantSnowman 16:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Turns out it was a sock of User:پارسا آملی. Given the number of additional accounts, for which most of the edits are copyvios, I have renewed my request at WP:CCI#Northiran. Singularity42 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'd just noticed that. GiantSnowman 17:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Harrison[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.

Resolved: Blocked indef by Reaper Eternal. Revdeletions also done. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some user named User:Elizabeth Harrison has been removing the speedy deletion template in Elizabeth Kylie Harrison. Could some admin block this person? M'encarta (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some revdel is required at [38]. →Στc. 20:16, 20 February 2012 (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.

User:GoodDay - topic ban request[edit]

Problematic stable IPs editing on prehistoric animal articles[edit]

Blocks imposed. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:29, 21 February 2012 (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.

I would like to request an extended block for four related stable IPs (all four advised of this action):

These four IPs have been employed by the same user over several months (as far back as August 26, 2011) for a long series of almost unremittingly problematic edits; out of about 125 live edits over 5 and a half months, I've found less than a half-dozen that were useful. Since the beginning of the year, the best this user has managed was to add a picture of a fish. The user appears to have an obsession with various Late Triassic and Early Jurassic geological formations of North America, particularly the McCoy Brook Formation. The majority of his/her edits have been to misrepresent various prehistoric animals as having been found in their pet formations. Other types of problematic edits include wholesale hijacking of articles, installing hoax animals on 2011 in paleontology and 2012 in paleontology, and creating talk pages for articles that do not exist as a way to sidestep the restriction of IP editors from creating articles in mainspace (see for example yesterday's Talk:Ammospondylus, which consisted of text borrowed from Talk:Anchisaurus with a couple of words changed). Often their edits are a patchwork of text borrowed from other articles; this may be a result of limited English (see for example the clearly machine-translated "With these remains, it is likely that "Merosaurus" gender ceases to be a cripple, and his remains are very few Europeans" from yesterday), but it also serves to camouflage the edits as legitimate. The only thing keeping this editor from wider misinformation is the fact they can't create new pages; this editor created at least six hoax articles on WP:ES (Acceraptor, Adaphaumas, Antarctohadros, Arquax, Glacialivenator, and Lycovenator). Each of the three 212.170.92 IPs has several warnings about these edits from various users, but has never responded. This type of disruptive editing is particularly insidious because if a reader does not have some familiarity with the rock units and animals involved, the edits do not look suspicious. I did not bring this up sooner because I thought that if I improved the McCoy Brook Formation faunal list, the editor might leave off, but their edits over the past few days have proven me wrong. Because of the stability of the IPs, I think an extended block would be useful (at least more useful than for the typical IP). J. Spencer (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The editing patterns from are wider than the other three (perhaps a school or office?) However, all of them resolve to Spain and are confirmed by geolocate as static, so I've soft-blocked them all for a month. If disruption resumes perhaps article protection might be worth considering instead. Hope this helps, EyeSerenetalk 13:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! Yes, is the odd one of the four. I was interpreting it as the editor occasionally traveling to a second location. I'm not sure how much article protection would help, given that a substantial number of the edits are to similar but unpredictable articles, and one of the common targets (2012 in paleontology) has excellent IP editors that we wouldn't want to cut off. J. Spencer (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
That would definitely be something we don't want to hinder then. In that case, now we've set the precedent, I think future problems can be reported to AIV (or you can drop me a note, but AIV will probably be quicker!) Best, EyeSerenetalk 08:52, 21 February 2012 (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.

Harassing messages from User:Milowent[edit]

NYY51 has been indef'd for disruptive editing and pointy AfD creation even as this and the topic-ban discussion were going on. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 21 February 2012 (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.

I don't recall interacting with Milowent anywhere in article space, so I don't know how I attracted his ire, but he has repeatedly left harassing messages on my talk page even after I reverted the previous ones.

This editor is engaged in harassment and wikihounding. He's been around for several years and knows the rules. His talk page shows that this is not isolated. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like that big a deal to me. Milowent is clearly a little peeved at some of your recent editing activity, which could appear to some (and I don't necessarily mean me) as having a somewhat anti-progressive focus. If it becomes really bothersome, perhaps WP:RFC/U is the place to go. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that your most recent AfD nominations seem to be trending in overwhelming keep directions, I can understand why he might be irate at the nominator. Not to mention that you seem to be focusing significantly on LGBT topics. Add to that the userboxes on your page and I can see how someone would take the nominations in a negative direction. And i'm not saying that there's anything wrong with your userboxes, just that when those subjects and LGBT topics are combined in a social setting, it's never anything good. So I can understand Milo's thought process. SilverserenC 19:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
So if this behavior is understandable, I have a list of editors I have a beef with for the same reasons that I'm considering harassing in a similar manner. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope some attention is given to NYyankee51's current editing pattern, focused exclusively on LGBT topics and consisting of edits like this. Individually, the edits might be defensible, but taken collectively it looks like quite a POV campaign, particularly when it comes from someone who has a userbox on his user page expressing support for the notion that marriage is for straight people only (he's quite welcome to that view, of course -- but it makes one wonder whether his intention is to improve those articles). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that people who identify themselves as homosexual cannot edit LGBT articles? Of course not. Double standard. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What matters is the nature of the edits. Some of what you are doing is fine -- but spilling tags all over the place (in a topic area where you clearly have a strong opinion that clashes with the values of the organizations) raises questions. For instance: instead of tag-spamming and large-scale deletions, why not add sources to support the material instead? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Because there is no reliably sourced supporting material. If you find some, add it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The pace of your editing, across dozens of different LGTB articles, makes it pretty obvious that you aren't looking for any. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you find RSs, add them and I won't remove them. Otherwise, I'm going to continue. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:EW, WP:POINT, WP:BEFORE. Sources have to exist to establish notability. They do not have to be on an article's page. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This is absurd. I spend hours cleaning up blatant unencyclopedic material in articles in a topic area that Milowent likes, so he's allowed to harass me on my talk page? This is absolutely ridiculous. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed my userboxes so they can't be used against me. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well actually that's too late now - since by now it is very difficult to assume that you are not ideologically motivated in your deletion campaign. For example it does not seem that you have in fact made a search for sources before nominating some of these topics for deletion. It took me about two seconds on google books to find both books and article treating the New York Metropolitan Church quite prominently. A political agenda may be OK if it doesn't seem to interfere with the neutral judgment of notability and will to find sources also for topics you dislike. I think your recent edithistory tells a history that may put that balancedness into doubt. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)See WP:BURDEN. See also the "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources." that appears on the edit screen. Nobody Ent 20:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
@NYyankees51 Have you explicitly request Milowent stay off you talk page? Nobody Ent 20:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I believed it was implied. I just made an explicit request here. NYyankees51 (