Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive754

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Suspicious editing of population figures by 46.19.99.6[edit]

Blocked by Richwales. bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 30 May 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.

The IP user 46.19.99.6 (talk · contribs) has been making a prodigious number of edits lately — mostly to population figures for ethnic Armenians and Georgians in various countries. None of these changes appear to be sourced, and I suspect they are simply random vandalism. I don't have time right now to fix the problem, but I'm reporting it here in hopes that someone else can. I've put an ANI-notice on the IP's talk page. — Richwales 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits like this, this and this change numbers from something matching the inline ref to a new number which I could charitably call "made up" or "impossible to reconcile with sources". Sometimes I wish we could semiprotect all demographics... meanwhile this change breaks an infobox whilst trying to reallocate Gao from Mali to Azawad. bobrayner (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
They've been doing it for quite a while. This edit on 7 January sneakily changed a date from 1996 to 1976. The source says 1996. Is it practical to clean up all these errors? bobrayner (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this something that could be nuked? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Their latest edits, today, seem to be a little odd but it's not actually inserting false numbers so I'm not going to demand a block or whatever. Instead of templating I've left a personal message on the talkpage.
I'm no admin, but... doesn't nuking deal with pages rather than edits? In this case they've generally made subtle tweaks to established pages. Clicking "undo" manually might work but in many cases it'll conflict with later changes by others. They've done under 200 edits. It may have to be a tedious manual job... bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Since nobody else is gullible enough to volunteer to go through the contribs list and fix any false numbers, I'll do it later today whenever I have spare time. bobrayner (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
All fixed. As well as fake demographic data, the editor also added a lot of twin cities &c although this seems to have been enabled by us having lots of overlapping flag-waving lists of twin cities which rarely bother with sources. The warnings should be sufficient; if they repeat this behaviour in future I'd argue that a swift ban is appropriate. Any other queries/comments/complaints or can we close this section? bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No sooner had I closed this, than the editor came back and added 40000 Armenians to Pakistan. Sources say no such thing; see [1] [2] [3] [4] etc. The Diaspora Ministry (yes, it exists) likes to aggrandise Armenian populations overseas but they don't even mention Pakistan. [5] [6]. I think a block would be appropriate, for a long-term pattern of adding made-up stuff to en.wikipedia, ignoring warnings. bobrayner (talk) 15:15, 30 May 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.

Block Review[edit]

A short time ago, I noticed an odd edit to to my Bot userpage marking it as "inactive". As I have (I believe) a positive history with User:Rcsprinter123, I left a rather glib comment before investigating further. While waiting for a response, I looked through their contributions, and noted a whack of similar edits using AWB to a whole bunch of Bot userpages. As this was using a semi-automated tool, I chose to block for '60 hours, in part due to the block log, but for the purpose of getting such edits to stop ASAP.

There has been no sign of an approved BRFA for these edits to bot pages, and I would be extremely willing to unblock with the condition they be reversed, and that more care is taken with future such edits (as a minimum, check both the bot AND the owner's recent contributions).

Again, I am willing to unblock with those conditions, and indeed, the editor themself has not even posted an unblock. However, extensive discussion has taken place on the editor's talkpage - and although I can agree with some points, I am not convinced that I have not done the right things to have prevented the disruption using a semi-automated tool. They are, after all, responsible for those edits.

This is not any form of retribution for the edit to my Bot - that would be childish, and irresponsible - that edit merely drew my attention to a perceived wide swath of disruption.

I of course welcome a review. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your link to "glib comment" appears to point to a diff after you blocked the editor who had edited your bot page. Where did you attempt to discuss this with the other editor? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
My bad ... fixed! Very sorry for that! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
By the way, as an AWB user myself, I know it's very easy to "ignore" an incoming talkpage message while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't. It stops you from editing until you've viewed your talkpage. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
3 minutes from "glib comment" (a WTF) to block, after he marked your bot inactive. NB, he did reply to your "glib comment", but that was ignored. No warning that the behaviour might lead to a block, no explicit request to stop the behaviour. I've stated my displeasure with this block on the talk page, as have 7 other editors. Bad block. WormTT(talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
NB, Rcsprinter has been unblocked by The Earwig WormTT(talk) 21:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
A pretty bad unblock, considering this discussion is underway. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for that, I wasn't aware that a discussion was underway. I was writing a comment on his talkpage regarding the unblock and saved it just after this discussion started. — The Earwig (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Given the fact that no one actually informed Rcsprinter that this was going on (looking at you Bwilkins), I don't think it's reasonable to assume The Earwig should have noticed this thread... WormTT(talk) 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
So, he'll be happy to fix it then :-) The jurisprudence was rather loudly proclaimed on this very board some time ago that such unblocks should not occur (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and fantastic WP:AGF Worm. Bravo. Applause. The snotty prefix to the ANI notice there was oh so classy while I'm in the middle of typing a rather long, custom notification. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right. probably over the top. just going get a cup of tea. WormTT(talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I think blocking 4 minutes after the comment you left on his page was a poor choice. I think if I was in this situation, I would have handled it a bit differently. Did you consider just asking him to stop edits like this first?--Rockfang (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
As already stated, since they were being done using AWB, I know how easy it can be to ignore such talkpage messages while AWB'ing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict) Bwilkins, chill. It's clear that you were/are upset by the marking of your bot, and I'm sure RCsprinter regrets that, but blocking him almost immediately and then defending the block the way you are here (which, at least to my eyes, is "rather pugnaciously") isn't helping. The block was questioned substantially on Rcsprinter's talk, and I think it's great that you're here for a block review rather than just looking away, but now is the time to back away a little and let uninvolved people actually discuss the block - and the subsequent unblock. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice AGF on you too :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is how wheel wars happen, folks. First, it looks like the bot tagging was likely not the best. Next, I think Bwilkins got a bit quick to block, but finally, unblocking him without first talking to Bwilkins and allowing him to undo his own block was just as hasty. The whole room seems a bit trigger happy today. Dennis Brown - © 21:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, it's highly discussed on the editor's talkpage, actually. I just disagreed (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Honstly, having viewed this from the outside I think that both you and Worm are too emotionally involved in this one. Specifically, emotional involvement-which is causing the flareup between the two of you. You are highly involved because your bot was tagged, Worm is highly involved because Rcsprinter graduated from his adoption program. At this point, I believe that what was done is done, the issues have been stated, and Earwig has resolved it. Rcsprinter has been made fully aware of problems his editing has caused and will hopefully refrain from making similar ones in the future, or seek consensus/approval first. At this point, I think the best thing to do is to drop the issue. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He had been given plenty of chance to undo his own block already (as he's just acknowledged). At any rate, I Support the unblock for the reasons already given by others here, and at more length on the editor's talkpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Wheel warring would be re-instating the block, which as far as I've seen, has not actually received any support despite the number of editors who have commented. I'm now sitting here with a cup of tea, realising that I even got my heckles up over the debacle, something I don't do very often. WormTT(talk) 21:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw the talk on the page. Without laboring the point, my previous comments still apply. Only an hour had passed, more discussion, here or there, wouldn't have brought down Wikipedia before unblocking. I just think there was too much haste all around. Ryan seems to have the best solution: moving on. Dennis Brown - © 21:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed you're probably right. I'm certainly going to step back from the situation, I don't believe I'm doing any good here. WormTT(talk) 22:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You know folks, I brought this here as a good faith review. Instead, I've been accused of being "emotionally involved" (over an edit to a user page? Seriously?) "pugnacious", otherwise insulted both here and elsewhere. Meanwhile, I've been trying to deal with other Wikipedia issues (and unrelated insults), including trying to get AWB to undo the previous edits to bot pages by the editor so that indeed, that aspect was properly dealt with. Nice good faith everyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

    • I can't speak for anyone else, but I took your actions in the best of faith. That doesn't mean I would have done the same thing, on the same timetable, but I certainly didn't question your faith, or the faith of those that reverted your action. Dennis Brown - © 22:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      See also Assume the assumption of good faith (subsection: "What 'Bad Faith' Is NOT", "getting too emotionally involved in an article or discussion"). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually don't see much wrong with BWilkins' block, to be honest. It's usually the best way of getting the attention of someone making dubious edits using automation or semi-automation. Let's face it, it used to be a scramble to see who could wear the badge of "honour" for blocking Betacommand. Having said that, it's also obvious that Rcs understands the problem, so I don't think any more action is required here. Probably best to close now? Black Kite (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    I would just like to make one final comment: while I can understand blocking to get someone's attention when they are not responding to your messages, this is not the case here; Rcsprinter replied just two minutes after the original message and two minutes before he was blocked. Personally, I would have asked him to stop (which I'm sure he would have complied with) before straight-out blocking him. The "block first, ask questions later" attitude only works with users who clearly aren't here to contribute positively, and any cleanup effort saved by blocking earlier is negated by these unnecessary drama-filled discussions. Regardless, what's done is done, and I hope we can move on from here. — The Earwig (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who supported me. None of this was very fair and shouldn't have happened on a routine task. Rcsprinter (tell me stuff) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Before anyone closes this...[edit]

...I'd be curious to know if Rcsprinter123 is planning to undo any of the erroneous automated edits. 'Cause I'm still waiting for him to undo erroneous automated edits I reported to him over a month ago. 28bytes (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not certain that these current ones were erroneous, I'd be expecting him to start a discussion on the matter in the appropriate place. As for the ones you asked him to sort a month ago, I'm hoping this message might spur him on to fix them. WormTT(talk) 10:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Batman Homosexual Section[edit]

Content dispute. Discuss it on the talk page, and if that doesn't work, WP:DRN is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 30 May 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 read the article's policy and it reads no original research. I emailed DC comics and they read that Batman is not a homosexual or will never be one. That section is technically original research and there should be no original research on the article so have it removed. AnthonyTheGamer (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no claims on the Batman article (or the related Wikipedia article) that DC Comics ever intended it - it was research by others (but not WP:OR), as per the links. It's a "cultural significance' concept, that is valid for the article. That said, this is a content issue, and not a matter for Administrators (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 30 May 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.

Abuse of STiki tool[edit]

NO ACTION
Nothing needed, user seems to have a retirement notice on talk page. (non-admin closure) --Thine Antique Pen (talkcontributions) 18:25, 30 May 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.

Michael Barboz (talk · contribs) is a new user who has gotten his hands on the STiki tool, and is reverting large batches of edits as vandalism, when the majority of the edits are not vandalism. Some are honest mistakes, and some are legitimate improvements. I have tried addressing the issue, but he chose to delete my comments on his talk page rather than address them. I believe a 24-hour block to allow him to cool down and read the policies would be a good idea. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A specific example of misusing the tool is [7] where the user reverted an edit that was an actual grammar improvement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I have left a warning on their talk page; I'd rather not block just yet, but if they continue like this, I'll do it. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
i have gave up using 'STiki' for now. ~=Michael Barboz (talk) 18:01, 30 May 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.

Has anyone else lost their gadgets?[edit]

The gadgets, they do nothing!! Under discussion at VPT. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:24, 30 May 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 have no gadgets. No twinkle, nuffing. Help! Egg Centric 17:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They came back. Did anyone lose their gadgets? Face-wink.svg Egg Centric 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mine are currently nonfunctional. N419BH 18:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Me too. Additionally, Special:Gadgets doesn't show any gadgets, and the gadget check-box info in my preferences is gone. — Richwales 18:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
See village pump.--Chip123456 (talk) 18:13, 30 May 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:Archivesharer[edit]

Archivesharer (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

User is a WP:SPA and subject of a sockpuppet investigation [8]. Edits suggest conflict of interest; more importantly, user impugns actions and motives of editors with whom they disagree, accusing them of character assassination, and makes veiled threats of lawsuits, or at the least, encourages the article's subject to consider such actions. [9], [10], [11], [12]. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Editor is also guilty of crimes against English and logic. I looked at the diffs you provided and find them difficult to understand--probably because there are a few basic misunderstandings displayed in them of a complete failure to understand how this joint works. I am somewhat hesitant to block; I hope that CU evidence will have some bearing on the matter. Another admin may disagree and think that the edits by Archivesharer themselves are disruptive or threatening enough to block. Then again, if Michael de la Force is deleted the problem might go away, but there can be no SNOW keep now unless the lone dissenting vote is stricken for whatever reason. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Mostly it's WP:GRAPES--a prolonged rant of "if they take my article away then the whole place sucks." The AFD rationale is sensible, and the reaction to it is becoming more strident. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I am very close to blocking the account for the duration of the AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
        • See also the comment here, here is a team now looking at all of the remarks by editors and how things have been handled which are untrue that has been coming from the Wikipedia editors., which has not been redacted - this is clearly intended to produce a chilling effect. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
          • I have weighed in at the AfD and have tried to make the editor's layout conform to regular standards. I signed for them. I have tried to read all their comments, and strained both my Fowler muscles. They also removed some of my words at the AfD, which another editor reverted. In short, I guess I am a bit involved. Bushranger (et al.), any time you want to put a stop to this, that would be great--with a block or a premature SNOWy close of the AfD. I'd ask Moreschi, but their neutrality in closing AfDs was impugned on this very page. ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Heh. Well, I've looked things over, and I've gone ahead and closed the AfD as delete. No !votes to keep, combined with the apparent desire of the subject not to have a page, made that a fairly easy decision; I suspect the disruption from the user in question here will shortly vanish as they're an SPA. If they don't, of couse, more drastic action might need to be taken. ;) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
              • Well done, Ranger. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I go away for the evening to find DRAMA has unfolded. Thanks to all to helped deal with it. There was some seriously dubious activity (or plain trolling) coming from that account, hopefully the deletion of the article will prevent any further action being necessary. Cheers! Яehevkor 01:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • That would be nice. However, there have been persistent attempts to remove all traces of the AFD process, including erasures of user's talk pages [13], [14], and [15]. I'm hoping the SPI proceeds; even then, other accounts may still emerge with the same intent. 99.153.142.225 (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (Same user as previous 99 account) I'm asking yet again for further action re: this account and its socks, as requested both here and at SPI. The intent to expunge all remnants of the AFD discussion from user pages has no apparent boundaries. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • To continue using subject's name without their permission relating to an action which has already taken place is disingenuous; especially in the context an item supposedly “proposed” but in reality is complete. If not disingenuous, it is malicious and potentially libelous. Your community has already taken into account subject’s desire to have not be a part of or included in Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. It is clearly noted and was taken into consideration at articles for deletion. So, please respect that desire fully and remove subject’s name from the pages of Wikipedia permanently. Many of your editors prove quite poor in this matter as well. You appear a sensible editor, perhaps you could advise.

Disruption is continuing, user is now refactoring other's talk page comments to remove this name. No idea why; article's already gone. N419BH 18:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And they were already pointed to WP:RTV and stated their intention to use it. I've given them a final final warning. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And they've replied back saying the issue will not be resolved until all mention of this individual is removed from Wikipedia. N419BH 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The article was deleted, what more needs to be done? There's an AfD there sure but there's nothing defamatory in it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Apparrently all mention of this specific person needs to be removed from Wikipedia. N419BH 19:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment -- Thank you for removing the subject's name from his family's disambiguation page, etc. To be clear, what has been requested is that all referenced names and/or links on user talk pages, etc. etc., be removed as they relate to subject, contain, and/or make use and reference to subject's name. The subject has requested not to be included in Wikipedia. That request has been honored by Wikipedia already. But, numerous links and mention of subject's name clearly remain active on various pages. We know exactly where all the links are located, if that can be of assistance to the community. Thank you for your understanding and assistance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talkcontribs) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen this train coming for days. Now there's this [16], offered with a straight face, at the same time that the user says that they'd never dream of making threats. Someone, please, attend to this, because if this drags on I'll request page protection, as needed, for the pages that these accounts persist in refactoring and vandalizing. Which, oddly, only brings more attention to the subject this user is trying to expunge. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, have the refactorings, with removal of the specific AFD title, been approved? [17]. Is this necessary to protect someone's privacy? There was no problem, privacy-wise, for the months that a vanity article existed here. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply -- Don't take it as a threat 99. No threat intended. If the subject does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject should not be included in Wikipedia, right? There are no threats. It is just a team of journalists explaining their position through my account to your team of editors. The goal is to be friendly and to resolve the matter soon so that all can get on with their respective business. We are all in the same basic business; varied, yes! But, we all maintain quite similar infrastructures. Archivesharer (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. I think your and associated accounts' edits make clear that your goal is very different from those which Wikipedia attempts to adhere to. But I'm not sure what 'we' you're referring to; I think you're operating as a sockpuppet, and suspect there's but one of you causing the disruptions here, based on unhappiness over the removal of an article that was promotional in intent, and didn't approach encyclopedic or basic journalistic standards of quality. Shall we revisit the AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force? Because this ought to have ended there..... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it as a threat 99. No threat intended. If the subject does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject should not be included in Wikipedia, right? There are no threats. It is just a team of journalists explaining their position through my account to your team of editors. The goal is to be friendly and to resolve the matter soon so that all can get on with their respective business. We are all in the same basic business; varied, yes! But, we all maintain quite similar infrastructures.

    • You are entitled to your beliefs, albeit them inaccurate in this instance. I trust this debate will go on for long time to come if they cannot be resolved now. I intend to make a visit to Mr. Bacon and see what advice he may lend. He seemed to be able to resolve the matter, ultimately. That debate took more than the simple suggestion you have referred to. Archivesharer (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment -- If the subject requests not to be included in your project, why do you insist on using the subject's name? Is that encyclopedic behavior? Please do not replace my duplicated comment it was a error.
Who is Mr Bacon? Reading between the lines it sounds like some kind of veiled legal threat. And "team of journalists explaining their position through my account"? Are you saying this account is shared, as the name implies? Are you aware this is expressly forbidden per Wikipedia:Username policy#Sharing accounts? I find it ironic, that reading the original article, it was clear in least in my eyes that it was written from the perspective of someone with a conflict of interest. It's interesting now that someone with just the same conflict is now engaging in a witch hunt against the editors who tried to address the article's many issues, then see it deleted (which is apparently a deletion you agree with). No one here actually wrote that article. I can propose the AfD be blanked, as a courtesy. But to remove every mention of the subject from Wikipedia, you are not likely to see that happen. Яehevkor 20:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
User is referring to billionaire Louis Bacon suing Wikipedia re this Huffington Post story [18] titled "Billionaire Louis Bacon Wins Wikipedia Defamation Suit, Will Go After Names" and this Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-05-09/In the news article "US billionaire obtains UK court order to reveal Wikipedians' identity". *(I see that the account has now been blocked.) Shearonink (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
This is, essentially, trolling by Archivesharer. The horseshit (excuse me) about Columbia University looking into this, the references that we're associated with the Enquirer are whole-cloth delusions [19], [20]. But on they go.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


    • Reply: Not horseshit 99. Matters of fact! Do you know who the subject's wife is? Do you know where she works? Do you know who the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of LEADERS Magazine is? He was one of the two original people who took what was the New York Enquirer moved their offices to Lantana, Florida along with the late Generoso Pope. They changed the name to the National Enquirer, and subsequently made the paper the number two bestselling item in the supermarkets next to milk. He also recruited the subject directly to work for LEADERS Magazine over eighteen years ago. These are realities. They are not editorial opinions. They are facts. Wikipedia may have a few of the details, not sure. Check it out -- it is all out there, too, if you actually know where to look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talkcontribs) 20:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Archivesharer (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Simply because Mr de la Force is not notable enough for an article it does not follow that all references to him must be removed from the site. That's an especially nonsensical argument for removing the discussions which led to the article's deletion. Further attempts to remove his name would be disruptive, and should lead to a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles[edit]

This deletion debate seems (to me at least) to be getting out of hand. It seems that all the arguments one way or the other are already on the table and I would recommend an early closure. There are accusations of some pretty nasty gaming and I fear that leaving the debate to run its normal course will lead to more disruption, and further deterioration of otherwise good editors' behaviour, without adding anything of value to help the closing admin make a decision. WaggersTALK 15:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that was getting out of hand. Closed, although I am sure that this will wind up at DRV. Feelings and agendas seem to be running high. Moreschi (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, the attacks on the keep voters are pretty bad in that discussion. And, yeah, it probably should go to DRV, 6 deletes to 5 keeps, with the closer's statement sounding like a vote itself? Consensus does not make. SilverserenC 18:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The vote count is irrelevant, it doesn't mean it was close; Keep or delete is on the strength of the arguments and not the count, Moreschi is correct to weigh up the arguments per WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
See WP:CLOSE: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrator's own views about what is the most appropriate policy...He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate...He is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument."
As for the closer's closing statement: "Clearly such scholarship exists, but it does not seem extensive enough to support the burden this article would place on it." The extensiveness of the scholarship was not discussed by the voters, so that means this is his opinion. "I am sceptical this could be seriously improved, particularly given the inevitable drama involved in using the traditionally geographical term "British Isles" (itself rather loaded) in a political context." Again, opinion. This is not a neutral closing decision and it is very obviously not so. And, finally, a question, does Moreschi have any connection to the British Isles debate? SilverserenC 19:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Scholarship was discussed in the AfD. The closer must weigh up to the other issues raised. IRWolfie- (talk)
Thank you for your neutral observation, Silver seren. I know little of this matter, but having read the AfD I can only thank Moreschi. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The article author and I are talking this over on my talkpage, and I think we're getting somewhere. I've expanded on my reasoning there somewhat, and we're talking about the best ways to recreate (since we both feel there is something here to be preserved and expanded upon). Based on the balance of the arguments presented I felt the ayes had the best of it, based on the very clear issues of bias and (more importantly) unclear scope that were raised. And no, I obviously have no connection to the politics of the British Isles debate, being neither an Irish nationalist (the people who really object to the term), nor an Ulster Unionist or whatever. Had I a dog in this fight, I would not have closed the AfD. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Hi. Thanks again for the discussion and explanation of your position. I'm sorry that you saw the scope as unclear; I guess my thought was, the scope would be a summary of *all* political relationships/interactions between the countries in the archipelago, focusing on the multilateral ones, and linking out to the detailed articles when necessary (e.g. like Anglo-Irish relations). In any case, I've listed for DRV (see below), so hope to hear yours and other's thoughts - and especially, if kept deleted, what might a re-born version look like that would be more acceptable? --KarlB (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Politics in the British Isles[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Politics in the British Isles. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. KarlB (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Some other topic[edit]

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE VALID COMMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archivesharer (talkcontribs) 18:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Deleting INvalid comments, however, is quite acceptable. Ravenswing 18:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Malarious being extremely rude to everyone and edit warring at template Liverpool FC[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Malarious will not stop being rude to everyone in his edit summary, he calls everyone idiots and swears, and is in an edit war over the liverpool template, also I may have lost it with him I am sorry but I couldn't tolerate his behaviour--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, outside the civility issues (calling other users "pedantic bastards", "idiot" and "twat"), it looks like User:Malarious is up to 7RR, while everyone else has stayed at 3RR or less. I think that's block-worthy right there. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Blocked for 3RR and gave a strongly worded message about civility. I feel comfortable saying this should be this user's final chance, as they have behaved this way in the past. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I was entering a 3RR report, but it was a touch tedious filling in 8 diffs for the form. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Personally I would trust his comments on how to phrase things regarding football teams.
Oh wait, Malarious? Not heard of him, sorry. As you were. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Whoosh, right over my head. o.oThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BLP violations at Alex Pierson[edit]

Can someone block this IP, or (once again) semi-protect the Alex Pierson page? The IP has been adding the same uncited allegations against this news anchor since December of last year. Should be a wholly uncontroversial request, btw, since the IP has never shown up on any talk page, i.e. this is not a content dispute. Thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done. As this is a low-profile WP:BLP subject to repeated inappropriate editing by IPs, I'm comfortable semi-protecting it indefinitely, although I'd also be fine with another admin reducing the length of semi-protection to a finite term if they prefer. MastCell Talk 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --OhioStandard (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)[edit]

Edit war going on over at Prometheus (film), an article about a new film set to hit theaters this weekend. Edit war seems to be over the inclusion of a nearly 1,000-word plot summary (WP:FILMPLOT sets limits of 400–700 words). The summary has been inserted & removed about 4 times today. I'm uninvolved (not from the article entirely, but from this dispute) & intentionally not reading it since I plan to see the film this weekend & don't want to spoil the story for myself. In my opinion, however, the constant reverting seems disruptive to the article. In my experience, when articles about new-release films like this one experience edit-warring over plot summaries, semi-protection is often invoked. Full protection is sometimes applied if the involved parties are auto-confirmed. In any case, some action should be taken to reduce the disruption. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why we can't just have an auto-protect bot that detects edit warring, reverts to the last good version other than the competing versions, and protects the page. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
just how do you expect a bot to detect what's the last good version? DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
By Assuming Direct Control... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Is this something AN/I needs to be involved with, as opposed to WP:DRN or WP:RPP? - The Bushranger One ping only 18:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Not as far as I can see. --92.6.202.54 (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:Assalatu[edit]

Assalatu blocked indef. (nac) Penyulap 00:42, 31 May 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:Assalatu a new WP:SPA added a long, unsourced section to the top of the Makera Assada article (diff = [21]) accusing the writer of "liable" (I assume he means libel) and ending in:

... is by this write up disputing the history of one Muhammadu Andi and other disparaging remarks made by the author of the fake history of Makeran Assada rock. A law suit against the author cannot be ruled out.

This text also appears on his user page. I reverted his entire addition to the article, but he has just added it back again.
I know nothing about Makera Assada, so have no idea if his claims have any truth, but his additions are clearly contrary to WP:NLT
Arjayay (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Since no one had commented about this on his talk page, except to give notice of this ANI, I have left a message. I suggest waiting a short period to see if he will fix the problem. If he edits anything other than addressing this issue, then I would block on the spot. If he doesn't reply reasonably soon, a block is likely warranted. I don't want to jump the gun, he is a new editor, but the weak threat isn't acceptable. If another admin feels other actions are needed, I will not be offended. Dennis Brown - © 15:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Please note that this message is also found in his sandbox, [22]. Dennis Brown - © 16:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I have indef blocked the user, in particular for this edit that led to an IP sock block, that appears to have been made while logged out, to avoid scrutiny. Any admin is free to review or unblock if he recants and makes it clear he has no intention of suing. Dennis Brown - © 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Endorse indef. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 30 May 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.

Disruptive SPA[edit]

Alexander the great is greek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Can someone with more patience than I explain to this person why their childish nonsense is childish nonsense, again? I've just had to revert some annoying silliness that's really well over the line as far as WP:COMPETENCE is concerned. Alternatively kickbanning is good too...Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Done
(actually I think banning makes much more sense than reasoning with such silliness) Egg Centric 22:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I've just usernameblocked them for an unnecessarily confrontational username. -- The Anome (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
They've just asked for a username change. Can someone else have a quick chat with them about acceptable behavior first, before considering the name change? -- The Anome (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Dropped them a note. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Editor/IP reverting against consensus, refusal to communicate, potential socking[edit]

The above user and IP have performed a nearly identical edit to the above article on, by my count, ten different occasions over the last couple of weeks. These edits have been rejected and reverted by at least five different editors, myself included, because they are unsourced and non-notable/no claim of notability provided. The IP has had the reasons why the edit is not acceptable explained on the talk page, yet the same IP continues to make the same edit without discussion. This has become disruptive and it appears the IP plans to continue making the edit until something is done to prevent them from doing so.

Diffs:

Juanmramirez2012: [23] [24] [25]

99.33.2.216: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

Notification is being provided now. N419BH 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time for a block. HkCaGu (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA at Sharron Angle[edit]

Editor blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and tendentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 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:CorinnaHubbard arrive just about three days ago and has been POV-editing at Sharron Angle since then to promote the article subject's politics, edit warring with three of four editors, myself included, to keep her changes in the article. She has ignored multiple warnings and made no attempts to communicate. Block requested. There's surely 3RR violations involved, but untangling the complex set of edits for that board will take hours (or at least take me hours), and the NPOV, BLP, and general edit warring issues should be enough to act on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the same editor also deleted a bunch of sourced, but potentially unflattering, information about Angle at [33] Second Chance Program. -Dawn Bard (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe she just didn't like her name in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo, you left a 3RR warning on the 28th, but you haven't left one for her edits for today. She's already clearly breached 3RR, although there's enough POV-pushing edits to block her even without that, particularly given all the warnings scattered over her Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I did leave a warning today, focused on POV-pushing, but klutzily lefy the four tildes off, so it had no signature or time stamp. I just fixed that, thanks for pointing it out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I meant another 3RR warning, but I'm glad I could help, even if inadvertently. Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear, in my view an admin should block the user, the length of which is a matter of judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and tendentious editing. If the issues resume when the block expires, please let me or another admin know. MastCell Talk 04:02, 31 May 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.

Disruptive SPA at Sharron Angle[edit]

Editor blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and tendentious editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 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:CorinnaHubbard arrive just about three days ago and has been POV-editing at Sharron Angle since then to promote the article subject's politics, edit warring with three of four editors, myself included, to keep her changes in the article. She has ignored multiple warnings and made no attempts to communicate. Block requested. There's surely 3RR violations involved, but untangling the complex set of edits for that board will take hours (or at least take me hours), and the NPOV, BLP, and general edit warring issues should be enough to act on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that the same editor also deleted a bunch of sourced, but potentially unflattering, information about Angle at [34] Second Chance Program. -Dawn Bard (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe she just didn't like her name in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo, you left a 3RR warning on the 28th, but you haven't left one for her edits for today. She's already clearly breached 3RR, although there's enough POV-pushing edits to block her even without that, particularly given all the warnings scattered over her Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I did leave a warning today, focused on POV-pushing, but klutzily lefy the four tildes off, so it had no signature or time stamp. I just fixed that, thanks for pointing it out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually I meant another 3RR warning, but I'm glad I could help, even if inadvertently. Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear, in my view an admin should block the user, the length of which is a matter of judgment.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring and tendentious editing. If the issues resume when the block expires, please let me or another admin know. MastCell Talk 04:02, 31 May 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.

Ogdoadic Tradition[edit]

Ogdoadic Tradition has been redirected by the ever-helpful Viriditas, who found it was a duplicate of another article, so the problem has gone away. Some related articles have extra eyeballs on them. bobrayner (talk) 07:53, 31 May 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.

Requesting review of my decline of the speedy tag on Ogdoadic Tradition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article had been tagged with {{db-spam}}. I removed the tag as my view is that the article does not meet the WP:CSD#G11 criteria - it is not overtly promotional and is written from a NPOV. The user who had tagged it then appropriately proceeded to tag it with {{prod}}. I have taken no stance on the content of the article beyond stating that I do not believe it meets G11 criteria. However, on my talk page, the user has also disputed my interpretation of the article as not meeting the speedy criteria. Their view is that the article is "pure promotional fluff for a tiny group's pseudohistory."[35]

I have no issue with the article being deleted if consensus is that I misinterpreted the limited scope of G11. The user has also claimed that the article also meets WP:CSD#G3 criteria. I have no comment on that criteria at this time; if consensus supports deleting under that criteria, feel free to delete it (although I believe at this point, that discussion would be better served by going through AfD). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 01:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The article appears to be well written, using encyclopedic language and quite a few citations, which appear, at first glance, to be from reliable sources. If this is a "promotional fluff" piece, the author went to quite a lot of trouble to make it appear otherwise. Clearly, it was not a valid candidate for speedy. Ya done good. Ebikeguy (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know about that. It's promoting the Ordo Aurum Solis organization, and many of the statements are questionable. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I had glanced at the CSD, but lacked the time to think about it much. Looking more closely, I can't see how it is a hoax, either. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow how this place has changed since I last bothered to be more active. God help Wikipedia if you people can't identify an article so obviously based on involved sources and misused primary sources. I'm not about to be disruptive to make a point as I know better, but if THAT is good sourcing and clearly not promotional by consensus I could have a field day making fluff pieces for my pet interests..... which means tons of other people can AND WILL. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC) @JoeSperrazza: G3 is more than hoaxes. It is blatant and obvious misinformation as well. If you don't think an article whose sole purpose is to support the claim of a fringe esoteric group being the true transmission of an ancient occult religious lineage fits that bill... --76.180.172.75 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that it's "obviously"? Being unfamiliar with this field of study, I am not sufficiently aware of the sources to say that it's obviously misinformation, and the only reason we speedy delete something as misinformation is if it's so blatant that anyone (even people unfamiliar with the topic) can see that it's a hoax. We also don't speedy delete something as spam when it's either straight history or a non-blatant hoax. You're free to go with the PROD, and I'm definitely not going to remove it, but I see no reason to delete this article under either of the criteria you cite or under any of the other criteria. Nyttend (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well said. I just don't understand what's so obvious about the "hoax". JoeSperrazza (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am dumbstruck at how things have changed since I last bothered with deletion. I can also hardly believe that no one here is able to see the problem with the topic and sourcing but for that it's been made clear. Let me break it down:

  • The article is a telling of supposed history capstoned with the claim that a fringe esoteric group is its modern surviving heir
  • Most of the article is uncited
  • Most of the cites are to a tiny fringe group's website and occult books by its members
  • The only 2 outside sources are used to support limited claims that say nothing about the main topic
  • The writings of a 3rd century philosopher are used to support text about 14th Century activities, including extraordinary claims about the first Medici ruler

If putting it out there like that doesn't make it clear as crystal then nothing will. --76.180.172.75 (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Having only had a minute to look at this, I am leaning towards agreement with the IP. There does appear to be some funny business going on here with the sources and the topic as a coatrack for an organization. Unfortunately, neither this noticeboard nor the prod tag are an appropriate way to deal with the problem. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that "hoax" is not a helpful label with fringey stuff like this; it's very hard for us to distinguish between (a) outlandish fringey things made up by the editor, and (b) outlandish fringey things which an editor actually believes in - only the former is truly a hoax, but both are content problems which we need to get rid of. Anyway, apart from the hoaxiness, the text has a rather promotional feel (which is often a hallmark of an editor who came here to spread The Truth). Llewellyn Worldwide looks a little promotional too. bobrayner (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Llewellyn Worldwide is run by Carl L. Weschcke, a former "grand master" of Ordo Aurum Solis [36]. --92.4.177.142 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
From The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, a book published by Llewellyn Worldwide:

In actuality, no trace of a self-identified Ogdoadic Tradition can be found anywhere in the history of Western occultism and philosophy before the publication of the first Aurum Solis book... Like many other "traditions" described in occult writings, it is almost certainly the product of retrospective recruitment common in occult history.

--Shirt58 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the problem is that the IP believes this is a hoax... however it sounds more like a modern organization that exists, but is making a dubious claim as to its historical longevity. That's not so much a hoax as bending the facts to suit their purposes (which is not uncommon with new "ancient" religions). It's also not promotional in tone. Neither G3 nor G11 apply here, but it probably wouldn't survive an AfD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:22, 30 May 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.

99.231.172.215 - disruptive edits related to Asia[edit]

Unresolved: IP blocked for 2 months by The Blade of the Northern Lights, now unblocked by MuZemike; Caderousse blocked as a sockpuppet of Echigo mole in reponse to a CU

This IP was blocked for a month by Elockid for disruptive editing and as the returning ip sock of an (unidentified) banned editor. He has now resumed editing making edits similar to those that precipitated the first block. He left this message on Jimbo's talk page [37] and had this to say about Elockid on his own talk page.[38] The Blade of the Northern Lights already commented on Jimbo's talk page about his disruptive editing.[39] Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be quite right. Apart from the minor matter that the first diff should be [this, the IP in question was blocked by Elockid for "block evasion", although I can see no reason to suspect that and no message was left on the IP talk page. I presume Elockid wrote the wrong reason into the block log -- perhaps like Northern lights and Mathsci he disagreed with some of the editor's contributions. Mathsci also seems confused about the difference between blocked and banned, there is no reason to believe that the IP is a banned user either. Perhaps Mathsci should take the usual route to deal with his content dispute with this editor -- the instructions at the top of this page may help him. Caderousse (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between a legitimate content dispute and an obvious attempt to foist an Indian hagiography onto us. Accordingly, I'm blocking the IP for 2 months. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Caderousse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an account created in April 2009, was unused until 2012, when it created a stub on the church where I've already said on WP that I play the organ. It is now trolling here. Elockid is an experienced checkuser and often blocks without listing the puppetmaster. Anyway, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 06:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
My suspicions that this is Echigo mole are confirmed by these edits[40][41] to Beyond Vaudeville which just repeat edits that the community banned editor Echigo mole made as an ipsock [42] 94.197.232.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) having trolled about me on an arbitrator's page with this edit.[43] Mathsci (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
@Caderousse: my block reason was intended. I have very strong suspicion to believe that the IP is a banned user. For me, the heavy POV pushing through edit warring, the MO, and the racist comments were pretty much a dead giveaway to who this sockpuppeteer is. Elockid (Talk) 12:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked[edit]

The IP appealed his block. His appeal was denied by Boing! said Zebedee and Slakr. But MuZemike then unblocked the IP. Mathsci (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pen Fight[edit]

A new article has appeared with the title Pen Fight. There was an old article by that title which was deleted last year (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pen Fight). Could an administrator please check the deleted history to see whether this one is substantially similar enough to warrant a {{db-repost}}? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It still lacks reliable secondary sources and is essentially no improvement on the last version (if anything, there's even more original research this time), so I've tagged it without deleting it to get another pair of eyes on it. BencherliteTalk 09:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Possible paid advocacy/socking[edit]

Classified ad here shows potential for paid editing for author Jon Gordon. The job was awarded to an Elance contractor. Today (the 27th of May) an article was created forJon Gordon by an account that was created on the same day. Well written but I'm not sure meets notability. Also, the Elance contractor has completed Wikipedia jobs as late as June 23rd 2011, but the account that created the article for Jon Gordon is new. Maybe abusing more than one account? Editor has been notified of discussion. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Note This Elance contractor was also hired to write an article for Sahpreem A. King. Evidence hereLawrenceDuncan (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've seen several conversations on paid editing, but there is no consensus that it violates any policy here. I don't like it, but I don't run the place, so not sure what we can do at ANI. If you suspect sockpuppeting (which admittedly, looks like an interesting possibility), WP:SPI would be the venue to connect those two via a Checkuser, and ask for a check for sleepers. Dennis Brown - © 01:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If the articles are compliant with Wikipedia policies or the mercenary is actively seeking help making their articles compliant, there need be no action taken. If neither, the articles should be deleted and the mercenary dealt with. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 21:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well-written articles on subjects not previously covered? Oh noes! The Garbage Skow (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Aren't they required to disclose the COI? I'm fine with the person being paid, but my understanding is that they have to disclose this obvious conflict of interest. (Obviously, if he's also a sockpuppet, that's another matter entirely)JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I know editors are only encouraged to disclose a COI. Fair assessments. Appreciate the input. I will not post COI related issues here in the future. and based on Elance evidence, I will request a SPI. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ahhh, you are correct. It's just "advisable to disclose your employer on your userpage so that others will be aware that you may exhibit a bias."JoelWhy (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, that what's happenning here is that an established editor is doing paid editing under alternative accounts. As I understand it, paid editing is currently allowed, but frowned on by many. Failure to disclose a conflict of interest is discouraged, but also allowed. Using multiple accounts is not necessarily either sock puppetry or forbidden. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry does not specifically settle the question of whether the use of multiple accounts to manage conflict of interest or paid editing counts as sock puppetry. The only relevant item under "inappropriate uses" is "avoiding scrutiny". One might assume that the established editor is using alternative accounts in order to avoid tarring their main account with the opprobrium of paid editing, and using separate accounts to prevent other editors from detecting a pattern in contributions. They might simply be using the alternative accounts to track the work done for different customers, but that in itself would not be a barrier to disclosure. Under "legitimate uses" (which "avoiding scrutiny" specifically defers to), the only applicable section is "privacy", which is aimed at preventing Wikipedia editing from having real-life consequences. Here, the hypothetical paid editor might be trying to prevent their real life employment from affecting their Wikipedia reputation.
In summary, while the information above does suggest that multiple accounts are being used, I think you need to establish that they're likely being used inappropriately before calling for an SPI. Bovlb (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that this archived SPI involving the paid editor in question suggests inappropriate use of multiple accounts. LawrenceDuncan (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that link. So for articles recently created by that suite of accounts we appear to have Jon Gordon, Sahpreem A. King, Laura Stack, Dianna Booher, and National Speakers Association. All of the articles seems well enough written given the reliable information available, although some are arguably of marginal notability under our current guidelines. Laura Stack was deleted for lack of notability. The multiple accounts removed the COI tag from that article, giving the appearance of broader support. If they're the same user then that's clear socking. The SPI checkuser concluded they were unrelated, but HelloAnnyong blocked the socks anyway "Per behavioral evidence". In particular, the main account Bamanh27 was never blocked and the creation of a new account is therefore not block evasion. Bamanh27 has not edited since 2011-07-18, so there is no new "broad support" socking. SunLover77 appears to be refraining from removing COI tags and is also making improvements to other articles.
So it seems that this user has learnt from the past and is now making a good faith effort to work with us, balancing the good of the encyclopedia against the desires of their employers. That's a good result, isn't it? Of course it would be better if the editor declared their interest (maybe a "started as paid article" template on the talk page), but I can understand editors wanting to avoid knee-jerk reactions (paid → delete & ban). Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Paid editing is a completely slippery slope - remember, these guys' goal isn't truly to improve Wikipedia, it's to further their own interests. I have seen items cited to a source where the contention is absent, citations presented as newspaper citations when they are actually press releases in the comments section of newspaper, and even completely fabricated references - all for the sake of sneaking it past new page patrollers and those at AFC, harming Wikipedia in the process. These articles should be treated with extreme prejudice - their creators not interested in Wikipedia, they're interested in that pay-cheque, and abusing a charity project funded by donations and supported by volunteers is fair game for getting it. WilliamH (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking back at CheckUser logs, the master was probably using a rented server IP, and so does the recent sock, which has been blocked. This is definitely not someone intending to contribute in good faith, this is someone quite keen to evade scrutiny from who they really are, in my eyes. Protection of an established real-life account per the privacy argument could be reached by contacting functionaries, but to my knowledge this has not been done, so once again, this is dishonesty to the community in my opinion. I repeat my recommendation that all their edits, articles and references are closely examined. WilliamH (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • It looks like a new sock may have been created by the blocked editor after SunLover77 was blocked.These changes have been made to the Jon Gordon article. Could this be block evasion? LawrenceDuncan (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Definitely. Blocked. WilliamH (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure[edit]

I have a somewhat complicated situation that I could use some help resolving. User:Notahelix, a new editor, contributed an article Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure, a topic which is of legitimate historical interest but would be considered a fringe theory today. The article has NPOV and COI issues which are extensive but fixable. However, when other editors and I began to edit the article to fix the NPOV issues, Notahelix responded on the article talk page with incivil remarks and personal attacks. Furthermore, he seems to have misunderstood Wikipedia's copyright policies on submissions, as he has tried to remove the article's text and is now making borderline legal threats. I have done my best to be civil and explain our policies to him, but this has not helped and I would like help from editors more experienced with this sort of situation. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't remotely know enough about the subject matter to really get involved, but I will say that Ohiostandard has left a very helpful comment on the editor's talk page, and suggest that we try to use the very same talk page to resolve this. The editor doesn't understand the policy here and is obviously livid at the moment. Dealing with it here is probably not the best solution (although bringing it here was fine). I would ask for one or two more to work with him on his talk page and try to resolve the issues, particularly of civility, in a calm, rational way. He has never been blocked, started here just a few days ago, so lets be careful to not WP:BITE the newcomer, yet we still need to address the incivility. Dennis Brown - © 22:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I just removed a link from his userpage to the article in question. I also note that he redirects to User talk:Voice of 5-23 without providing a multiple account rational on either, which is problematic. It appears our friend has a great many misunderstandings of policy here. Dennis Brown - © 22:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor was advised to change his username, on the ground that User:Notahelix was promotional, and he put through a request to do so. Perhaps due to a misunderstanding he re-created the User:Notahelix account later on 23 May and went on using that one. So now he is the owner of two accounts. So long as he remains logged in as Notahelix, he is probably not seeing messages left at User talk:Voice of 5-23. I have undone the talk page redirect so that messages can once again be left at User talk:Notahelix, and left a new notice for his other account. EdJohnston (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • He did reply to a comment here [44] so he was aware of at least some of the messages, and since his talk page redirected to that talk page, I'm guessing he did see the messages. Now what about the incivility? I guess we wait and see if your new message gets his attention. Dennis Brown - © 01:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Notahelix has clarified on the article talk page that he was somehow unaware that contributing to Wikipedia involved irrevocably granting Creative Commons/GFDL licenses for it. He's mad that his article is being changed and is demanding that it be removed. Is this an appropriate demand? To whom should he make his case? Should I advise him to start an AfD, or is one of the other noticeboards the appropriate venue? Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 01:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not an appropriate demand. In between the edit window and the save page button is the clear statement: By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.. It is literally impossible to miss. If he somehow did, there's no reasonable way it could be made any clearer; that's just how the cookie crumbles. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
We might be able to WP:CSD#G7 it, and honestly I don't think we'd be losing much. T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The number of edits by User:Antony-22 make G7 inapplicable. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and AFD would likely keep it. I think we have answered the question regarding suitability if he is unwilling to contribute under CC, as he appears to have a great misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is not. I've also removed the redirect from the Voice user page to the article for cross space linking. 2nd time I've had to do this. Dennis Brown - © 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • My gut instinct is telling me to delete this (or stubify, whatever), and let Antony (or someone else) rebuild something neutral should they so wish. Notahelix doesn't seem like the type who can be easily reasoned with, and I think the article will need a complete rewrite from scratch if it's going to vaguely conform with policy. Per Notahelix's posts on the talkpage, such a rewrite is obviously going to cause huge drama, and he clearly regrets posting his little thesis here in the first place. I think the minimal-drama course of action is actually to delete, while making it clear to him that we retain the copyright should anyone wish to use parts of it later. None of the CSD criteria really apply, so this would be something of an IAR use of admin buttons, but if people are OK with this I'll go ahead and do it. Moreschi (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • We retain the license, not the copyright, but otherwise agreed. CSD or not, this whole thing is best treated with WP:TNT. T. Canens (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The encyclopedia won't explode if this article has to be sent to AfD instead of being speedily deleted. While the editor's attitude leaves much to be desired, the content of the article is not without interest. Somebody neutral could conceivably clean it up and include a few sentences about this issue somewhere in another article. An AfD might facilitate that. The discussion at Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure shows a hint of progress. If any of the material is rewritten and kept, there is a chance that this editor's work will not be mentioned in the result, but that's how content normally evolves. If he is the actual person whose work is prominently mentioned in the article, he is published but not cited a whole lot. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
He does seemed to have humbled himself a bit with his last comment, so I'd like to see how this plays out a little longer. It's possible that he won't want it deleted. I'm willing to edit it to bring it up to standard; I've already had a pass at the first half of the article, which is about the notable historical work, and the second half which focuses on the more recent fringe work is probably going to mostly disappear. If it is deleted, though, I'm unlikely to have the time to rewrite it from scratch anytime soon. I think the best course right now would be to explain to him what happens if his article stays up, and get a clear answer back on whether he wants it deleted (which may or may not happen, and may involve either AfD or IAR). Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 17:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── So much for humble. I've warned him on the article talk page about NPA. I'm afraid this is just going to devolve into another "specialist who insists they don't have to follow the rules" issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've given them a warning on their talk page, too. I was tempted to just go ahead and block becasue it's becoming more and more obvious he's WP:NOTHERE, but I want to give him one last chance to have Ohiostandard's latest commentary, maybe, just maybe, take root. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Bad time to discover we lack a policy or essay named WP:POMPOUS... Dennis Brown - © 22:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable. I think by now we've given him enough chances. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Voice hasn't responded yet. Discussion has moved on to reliability of the sources. I expect a bit of a backlash once we start hacking out the non-RS bits of the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
... aaaand there's the other shoe. At least he's not making personal attacks, but very aggressive in an WP:OWN manner. Trying to talk him down myself... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Marking resolved for now, Voice has elected to leave the page since he can't have his way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 01:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, it's not resolved yet. He has stated his intent to stop reading the talk page but explicitly stated his continued intent to edit the article. And he's spamming his website too in that screed. Block time? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear that the idea of "consensus" means nothing to him, and he has made it clear he won't communicate and will only edit without consideration of others discussion. This is a bad case of WP:NOTHERE combined with WP:HEAR. Regretfully, I endorse Bushranger's conclusions. Dennis Brown - © 02:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Not yet; until he starts edit warring on the page it's too early for a block. Nobody Ent 02:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Is he ..actively violating.. WP policies and guidelines? IIRC, blocks are not punitive, but it looks like that might be the reason being used. Collect (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't conclude that at all. I assumed he was going to wait until he started back disruptive editing by the tone of this comment, and has simply given up on the editor ever understanding or caring what Wikipedia is. Otherwise, Bush would have just blocked him, which he didn't do. If the editor goes back to disruptive editing, I do endorse simply blocking him as it is certain that talking doesn't work and the editor has clearly indicated he won't talk anyway. Dennis Brown - © 12:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Bobbyshiwo[edit]

Bobbyshiwo (talk · contribs)

I think Bobbyshiwo may be inserting lots of advertising into articles, most contributions are along those lines, and there are a few warnings now. I have asked Bobbyshiwo to explain here, although, the editor has not spoken to anyone else that I can see. Penyulap 09:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Where are the diffs showing the steps in DR you've taken so far?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Not sure there is a dispute as such, I'm happy to consider it as 'content' if you like and dismiss the matter from my attention as such. I can't see the problem disappearing though, but someone else can bring it up as content or take action as they please. Penyulap 12:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Stalker account[edit]

I'd appreciate it if someone would take care of Ywreuv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), an account which apparently exists largely or entirely for reverting my edits. User has been warned and removed the warning. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas has given him a final, final warning. If he does it again I'll block him indef pronto. Moreschi (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I wish, though, that Viriditas would have been more formal in their warning. This account has other problems, soapboxing not being the least of them. One wonders if their POV is not a kind of conversion therapy, given the user's user page, but I guess that's neither here nor there. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about it being some sort of homebrew conversion therapy but it certainly is a textbook illustration of reaction formation. Fortunately for the rest of us, WP is not the place to be acting out the fundamental dysfunctions within one's psyche. Thanks Viriditas and Moreschi for addressing this with speed and strength. ~Autumnal Monk~ talk 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Having read the user page several times now, I'm having a hard time believing it. It really does sound like a role-playing account. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Or the editor could genuinely mean what he says, which is quite possible. That being said, I echo Drmies - it's not so much that you could have been more formal in your warning, it'd be tough to be less formal. I can't imagine anyone taking that to be an official warning from an admin so much as Roscelese calling in the thugs for an attempt at intimidation. Ravenswing 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I consider myself fairly proficient in recognizing user behavior on Wikipedia, and nothing about this user page rings true. I think it is obvious that this a throwaway account used to harass Roscelese. The user does not require a more formal warning, they require an indefinite block for disruption. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, please. This account is so obviously taking the mickey. Definitely calls for a WP:NOTHERE block without need for any other pleasantries at all. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The reverts were primarily two months ago - there is no sign of actively reverting one person - and the reverts were reasonably confined to one main topic arrea, which means that the number of reverts of Roscelese might be totally random in any event, and not aimed principally at annoying him. WP:BITE may apply here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I've blocked the account indefinitely. This account was clearly created to follow and revert Roscelese and/or a small group of other editors. The last reverts were just a few days ago. This is a case of obvious trolling and should not require editors to fill out form 36(c), subsection 4 in triplicate. MastCell Talk 17:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Correction: I noticed that Ywreuv (talk · contribs) most recently followed Roscelese to the article Priscilla K. Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I've edited in the past few days. I'm not going to block the Ywreuv account myself, since that overlap raises the issue of involvement, but the rest of my comment stands. I would encourage us to deal expeditiously with what I think we all recognize as obvious trolling. (See [45] for an illustration of what I think is intuitively obvious, namely that this account is dedicated to following and reverting another editor's work). MastCell Talk 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

user:samuraiantiqueworld and false claims of outing[edit]

Nobody Ent 17:11, 2 June 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 noticed this user being quite rude ("Chedzilla go bye bye now, adults at work here.!!!!") to another and left them this note which included my pointing them at the username policy, as their user page clearly identifies them as "The owners of samuraiantiqueworld", which would be
They promptly reverted my note, citing WP:OUTING, which it is not. I also called it absurd and left them a formal warning, which they also removed stating "With your history you should know better. Better read it WP:OUTING". I'm fka User:Jack Merridew. I have never before seen this user, yet in a matter of minutes they know my history. This leads me to believe that this is someone I have encountered before under some other name. Given the issues in play in that thread and in their recent editing, I'm thinking this is User:ItsLassieTime. They've also just warned me on my talk page and seem to have pasted the whole outing policy there ;)

Bumping this to ANI since I've been accused of OUTING. Will notify the user next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Notified them, and they removed that, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"Running To Mommy" without a SPI, and yet with an identical thread on UAA? It happens to the best of us, I guess. Any decent diffs to tie this account to ILT or one of their many socks? Behaviorally, of course, since the CU evidence is wicked stale...