Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760

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

Noticeboard archives


Personal insult of disruptive account[edit]

Hi. I want to complain about behavior of this account: SkytteholmarN (talk · contribs). I noticed edits of this account where he/she replaced in few places name of country Serbia with Vojvodina: [1], [2] (Vojvodina is a province of Serbia and not a country, so these edits are obviously disruptive). I notified this user on his/her talk page that these kinds of edits are not appropriate in Wikipedia (see: [3]) and this is how this user responded to me: I know that you are a serbian fascist who have killed many civils in all of this years. Vojvodina maybe is not a country right now, but it will be an Republic soon. You will see. - There is no doubt that this is disruptive account that should be blocked. PANONIAN 08:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Penwhale has warned this user about personal attacks and I have notified him about the discretionary sanctions that are in place; should he persevere, he'll be sanctioned. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


I request that an investigation into the User:Majuru account be carried out. I suspect that the person controlling this account may be operating others, though I cannot at this time link the name to other editors as I have no solid proof. However, beginning with this edit on 3 July 2012, his few contributions over the next four days were largely devoted to his purge to drive me out. When the scheme failed, the account was inactive for one full week until suddenly this edit emerges live whilst I am logged in. It was a revert of one of my contributions, however I had at that time restored it once when User:ZjarriRrethues reverted it here. Majuru's edit came whilst I was in the process of discussion with Zjarri here (Slavic names section). Seeing his revert to be a new attack following a week's absence, I made a second revert here. The wording of the summary will be explained. I posted a message to Majuru here explaining that the matter was being discussed four months previously at the request of an admin and reminded him that he had abandoned that discussion, I also invited him to return to it. Meanwhile, I proceeded to make changes to the Lorenc Antoni article in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section whereby I scattered information away from the intro throughout the article. Once more there was reverting here, and a third time here. I then made my third revert here and explained my reasoning per his earlier summary. A short time ago, Majuru - having been invited to discuss the matter both on his talk or at the earlier discussion from March 2012 - took it upon himself to make this edit. I am not for the time being able to touch any part of his contribution because I am bound by the 3RR frame. I contend that my attempts at discussion with two users and the changes I made to my own edit testify that I am not pushing for one revision and therefore not edit-warring; Majuru is evidently a disuptive user, and if his edits (coupled with refusal to take part in discussion and to ignore explanations made to him during the March discussion) do not constitute edit-warring, then I contend this is a case of WP:DE. I wish to state that my contributions have been subject to consensus reached with other users dating back to 2007 and this has been explained to Majuru - I can retrieve proof of this if required. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also correct me if I am wrong but the number of reverts by Majuru is four is it not. His second and third did not involve an intermediate edit and both were on the basis of a single edit, but because it was not picked up the first time and he returned for a second removal of text, I don't know if this counts as one or two reverts. It stands at three for certain. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

His edits are two reverts on Grand Hotel Prishtina and you have 3 reverts on Lorenc Antoni like him. Btw your comments haven't been in accordance with the decorum as you often turn even the simplest discussions into national(ist) debates(Me neither, you'd think an Albanian would live in Albania wouldn't you, etc.). As your latest edit-warring report was a final warning[4] and just about a week ago you received an ARBMAC warning[5] after being reported by Majuru, I think that the admins who dealt with you should be notified.
  • Regarding the content dispute while you knew that the naming conventions didn't support an inclusion of a Cyrillic transliteration just because the person happened to live in a country were Cyrillic was used, you reverted three times to pursue that goal. On Grand Hotel Prishtina, while I'm not at all involved, I have to remind you that the title of an organization has nothing to do with the geographic conventions policy or the title we as wikipedians use for the related location, so were I you I wouldn't continue edit-warring.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly regards Grand Hotel Prishtina, there is no issue there, I have quit that article. There was an inconsistency which needed fixing and I happened to choose the wrong option. It has now been fixed and if an admin wishes to impugn this event, I am happy to provide details but until such time, I will not enter a logistical discussion on rights and wrongs here. I see Majuru has disappeared once more and you located this needle in a haystack and wasted no time in playing the apologist for him. I suggest that admins look deeply into this. I will remind you of one thing however, the naming convention of which you prate states absolutely nothing about not including native names and you removed a piece that was inserted in April and went unchallenged for three whole months. You provided two links to WP conventions, one was based on article naming, the other on the lead. I fixed the lead per those guidelines here but your argument carried no substance on why the script should not have been included. You initially used the "birthplace" card[7] and when I explained that this was not the important factor but what mattered was the length of time he spent living in the relevant zone, you could only produce two links which do not support your claim. To that end, there is nothing WP:LAME about reporting this and especially not this. Majuru is a proven disruptive user who if left to plough on regardless will be producing more and more of this: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], this, and removal of sourced information. When it came to civilised discussion over those cases, Majuru abandoned this discussion. I accept that this is all content dispute without a wrong or a right and that is exactly why you failed to produce a valid reason to have the script removed. But you two have collectively reverted four times on a matter whereby your edits have discarded consensus. Now edit-warring with the intent of flouting consensus is not WP:LAME. On the other hand, I stand at three; you have hinted at reporting me for having violated my ARBMAC status and a final warning on edit-warring, along with me turning simple issues into nationalist debates, may I suggest you collect your citations and present this case to the admins. In the meantime, you are reminded that this section is to draw attention to the disruptive and provocative actions of Majuru. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that we need to develop an agreement between the users involved to prevent any further disruption, edit warring, or arguments. Before I continue, I will state this: I have absolutely no opinion on this particular case, or any cases related to Kosovo, the Balkans or anything at all like that. I will also remind everyone that these articles are covered by the ARBMAC discretionary sanctions. Because of the nature of this dispute, I think it would be helpful if the involved parties would abstain from editing any Kosovo related articles while we try to resolve the problem - would those involved be willing to accept that? ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 11:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes I'll stay away from them, especially as you were reasonable with me last time. Don't forget to give me the Green Light when it's all clear! This is an Amber at the moment! :) By the way, it's only right I draw your attention to this issue which is in some way related. I reverted after 33-34 hours on grounds which I explain there but Zjarri feels it is "near the knuckle". I'll leave it to you but you'll have to read the long boring thread. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (unindent)What is the problem that needs to be resolved? Evlekis and Majuru have content disputes all the time and they usually end up in reports towards each other. Of course they always resurface some time later because no policy is precise enough to deal with the issues at hand. If the problem is that there is no agreement on how to treat naming then yes that should be resolved, but it can't have definite and binding resolution on ANI, so I would suggest something much more suitable like WP:MEDCOM, where a somewhat binding and definite resolution can be achieved, which means that we won't have to come back to ANI every week because Evlekis started a User:Majuru thread and vice versa.
  • As for the content disputes themselves I believe that insisting on adding Slavic/Cyrillic transliterations of names of non-Slavic people that happened to have been born there/lived for a period etc. doesn't reflect source use and isn't supported by any naming policy. It also makes no logical sense. Nobody would consider adding a Slavic transliteration of the name of Carl Mannerheim just because he was born in the Russian empire or that of Roman von Ungern-Sternberg because he happened to be an officer of the Russian army. In a similar way insisting to add the Slavic transliteration of the name of Lorenc Antoni, who was born in Ottoman territory that would become south Slavic, is inane. It serves no purpose regarding the reader, it causes unnecessary confusion and obviously doesn't reflect the sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking that some form of dispute resolution would be a good idea too; I think WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM might be the best place to resolve the content dispute. It would be helpful to deal with some of the interaction and conduct issues first though, just to start in a good place. Perhaps all involved could agree to stay clear of Kosovo related articles until we can establish a proper dispute resolution procedure? Would that work? ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 14:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
MEDCAB is informal so I think that MEDCOM (formal) would be better. Well, Lorenc Antoni isn't exactly Kosovo-related as he wasn't born in Kosovo and was more related to Skopje's Albanian community. The topic in all cases seems to be the more precise Naming conventions of non-Slavic personalities that were born/lived in former Yugoslavia (many of the disputes are about name versions of Albanians born in Montenegro etc.) and not Kosovo related topics. We can we all agree not to get involved in such disputes or make edits that have to do with naming policies until a binding resolution is established. However, after that resolution is established every user that took part in the debates should be held accountable and sanctions should be pursued if he violates it. Users that are not aware of the resolution should be informed after their edits and be held accountable for all future edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree to the above. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Zippy's comment comes before I had a chance to make this comment. He more or less anticipated my suggestion because I too was going to suggest a "round table" dialogue, except I know the best place for this. The best thing to do would be this: I shall start an existing project page which is blank, I'll present a synopsys and then other users can put their views forward. You see, although I was working on a consensus, the accounts with whom I reached the agreements no longer edit and things can go out of date. Zjarri presented an argument above. Because this page is for admin attention, I have so far avoided mention of the content itself as that is something we must resolve among ourselves. I have inserted Russian in one place among the examples and I'd like to see how it will bode. If it gets removed, I'll take a closer look at policies elsewhere. What I would like when this project goes live is contributions from as many people as possible including Zjarri, Sulmues (whichever account he uses), Antidiskriminator, and others. Zjarri knows more Albanian editors than I do so I hope he can alert them to this discussion because it really needs a "final status" (to use a terms Kosovars are familiar with). I hope this seems a good solution. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your suggestion because I don't see the point of doing such a thing. It's informal and will get us nowhere. From my experience such attempts are always bound to fail because every user restates again and again his preestablished view and this goes on until the other users abandon the debate. A formal mediation on WP:MEDCOM will establish a framework that will be binding(which is very important). We'll all state our views(without endless debates) and then leave it up to the panel to establish a resolution.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Evlekis, I think it might be better if this was formally mediated by MedCom; they will have neutral, uninvolved people who can help you come to an agreement. ZjarriRrethues, you sum up the issue nicely, and I'll expect all involved not to edit articles related to this dispute until mediation is established (once mediation beings, I expect the mediator will establish their own ground rules). It would be good to get Majuru to comment here too, even if just to endorse the idea of mediation. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 15:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Medcom it is then. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 15:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────(edit conflict) Having said that, the mediation committee requires that other forms of dispute resolution have been exhausted, so MedCab might be a better option to start with. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 15:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that MedCab may be disestablished and they're not accepting any new cases.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ok. Go for MedCom then (and we can use something like the DRN if they don't think it's ready for them). ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you ask me, User:Evlekis is a troll, making gross jokes on Albanian political leaders (see Talk:Republic of Kosovo, on the "napkins" of Hashim Thaci, who has finally learnt to sit on the pot on his own[14]). I don't think he should be allowed to edit in those areas he is currently involved in. On the whole, he never assumes good faith, especially on content, and always tries to push his own POV, always editing before a consensus is reached. All forms of mediation are fine by me. Majuru (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Majuru, I am pleased that you are willing to consider mediation. If we are going to make this work, accusing someone of being a troll is not going to help. We need to assume that everyone is trying to improve Wikipedia, even if we personally think it looks differently. MedCom will only accept this case if everyone is willing to put aside their personal differences and work towards an agreement. Let's forget the past - ignore any previous accusations made - and try to get on with resolving this. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a request for mediation here, could all parties involved please signal their acceptance there? I suggest that, if and when the case is accepted, this thread is closed. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Bot misfunctioning[edit]

I would like some of you smart people to have a quick look at my block of Hazard-Bot (talk · contribs), which was prompted by a comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (please respond to the editor at "Orphaned non-free media (File:Jolla-Logo.jpg)" if you can) and further comments on User_talk:Hazard-SJ by another editor. It appears that the bot is tagging files that aren't orphaned (I hope I wasn't reading the time stamps wrong). But please help out: I am about to go offline for a bit and everyone knows I'm not an image wizard or a bot expert. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • As far as I can see, the bot works correctly. Two cases have been reported recently:
  1. Jolla Ltd.: Note that there are two images (an unused JPG file and a used PNG file), see my comment at WT:CSD#Orphaned non-free media (File:Jolla-Logo.jpg). The bot tagged the unused JPG file, but the uploader seems to have mixed up the JPG file with the PNG file. Nothing wrong since the tagged file really was unused.
  2. Castle Hill High School case: See User talk:Hazard-SJ#Hazardbot tagging File:CastleHillHighLogo.jpg as orphanned, it isn't? A user complained that File:CastleHillHighLogo.jpg was tagged as orphaned, but the file was orphaned when it was tagged, although it was restored (by reverting vandalism) two seconds later. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I may not have had the correct glasses on this morning. I've unblocked the bot, but I'll tell you what might have prevented my block: a quicker response from the bot owner who hasn't responded on the talk page since 27 June; Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 13 also suggests to me the owner could do a better job of communicating. Thanks Stefan, also for your response to the editor. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


confirmed by checkuser and blocked --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 16 July 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.

This account was started yesterday, made edits only to Israel-Palestine pages, knows how to use refname tags and has edit summaries looking saying rv t-banned user, I.e. knowing what a topic ban is. It looks like an obvious sock puppet but I don't know whose sock puppet and thus I don't have any evidence. I would say clearly disruptive. Could someone have a look, please. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this comment about baby-killers wasn't very helpful. Given that mediotic appears to be a popular term in Spanish and looking at the focus of the edits I guess it might be another AndresHerutJaim sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim/Archive). It would help if edits by socks to articles in the topic area triggered 1 month semi-protection. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. What happens next? Do I have enough to list it at SPI? Could someone talk me through how to do that, because the warnings are forbidding? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I've previous experience with this user, so I started a SPI. --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:32, 16 July 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 and threats from IP regarding Indian caste issues[edit]

Righteously blocked 3 months by The Blade of the Northern Lights. One article was protected a week ago, go to WP:RFPP if any others or the talk page needs it. Dennis Brown - © 20:25, 16 July 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: has a year-long history of non-constructive edits on Indian caste system articles, apparently primarily trying to bowlderise any "negative" content about his caste and insert puffery to build it up. Recently, in response to a WP:INDIA cleanup of the article Saini (a caste apparently near and dear to this IP) he flew off the handle and issued a series of insults and threats: "[other user] YOU ARE PIECE OF RACIST SHIT..I WILL FIND YOU" being key among them. Diffs here. I submit this IP shows no signs of working constructively, and these recent threats and insults are simply beyond the pale. I'm reluctant to add new warnings to his page since I'm not keen to expose my account to retaliatory abuse once he switches IPs. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months and the edit to Talk:Saini removed. I'm also toying with the idea of semiprotecting that talkpage for a little while to drive off some of the more determined but less intelligent POV warriors. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:45, 16 July 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.

Blocked editor lost password, wants to start a new account[edit]

Handled by Jayron32 as block evasion. Dennis Brown - © 20:29, 16 July 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.

Blocked editor: ShanaMarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

New editor: ShanaMarketing1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Explanation of why new account is needed: [15]

Can an admin decide how to proceed? Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 16:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for username issues, which the new account also has, so a quick trip WP:CHU is in order. Agathoclea (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The orginal user name was judged not in violation so... --NeilN talk to me 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I blocked them for block evasion, noting that the prior block reason (using wikipedia for promotion, NOT A USERNAME VIOLATION) was still unadressed. I also left a friendly note explaining why they are still not allowed to edit Wikipedia and directing them to some reading to understand Wikipedia's mission and stance on promotional activity here. I hope this resolves the issue to your satisfaction. If there's anything else I, or any other admin can do, let us know! --Jayron32 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jayron. --NeilN talk to me 17:22, 16 July 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.

Vandalism - two issues: use of Wikipedia to advertise a book and sectarism[edit]

This is already at WP:DRN and being handled there [16]. Having multiple venues open at the same time is not helpful and the complaint is too vague to determine a resolution at ANI anyway. Dennis Brown - © 20:20, 16 July 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.

Hello, I would like to report a cross-wiki vandalism (at least in the Portuguese Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia) regarding the page of the book "Autobiography of a Yogi", which is in public domain. The page uses Wikipedia as a means for advertising and promotion of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship (SRF), in detriment of other Publishers. To see what is at stake, since it gives the false impression Wikipedia sponsors SRF´s book -- a priceless institutional advertising. The article does not have a neutral point of view, suffered literally thousands of small editions by the same user - as can be verified in the View History -, and has information the editors know is wrong.

  1. The article informs that the Publisher is Self-Realization Fellowship when the correct Publisher is "The Philosophical Library - New York"
  2. It gives the ISBN of a recent Self-Realization Fellowship publication when the first edition did not have a ISBN
  3. And the spelling of the author´s name is wrong. When the book was published in 1946, the name in the cover is spelt "Paramhansa Yogananda", not Paramahansa Yogananda, with an "a" inserted. The change ocurred many years after the author´s death. SRF changed the spelling and forged the author´s signature.
These issues have been discussed in the Talk page and in the Dispute resolution noteboard. But the editors give misleading information about copyright and other matters they know are untrue. I only proposed the discussion because I did not find this Administrator´s Noticeboard before. In the Portuguese edition the editors are aware of this vandalism and are taking measures to prevent it. The trajetory of this book´s publication is controvesial. The present edition has removed all controversy and disputes leaving only SRF´s point of view. The longer the discussion lasts, the better for them, since the wrong information favors SRF. I would like an orientation, since the page needs to be edited by someone knowlegeble of book editing and Ethics in Publication. I would not dare to edit the page since my English is not proficient. Also, it is very difficult to come to a consensus when there is sectarism involved. Thank you -- Tat Sat (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC) PS The image was deleted at Wikimedia Commons. I have writen to an administrator explaining that I need it to illustrate an issue. In the meanwhile, to check what I am saying, please go to Google Search and just type "Autobiography of a Yogi". You are going to see on the right side of the resultant search, a hughe image of SRF´s present book cover and below it, "" (As soon as I solve this issue with Wikimedia Commons I will restore the image.) Thank you Tat Sat (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC
This issue is currently under discussion on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard [[17]] as well as the article talk page and a few other places. To give some historical context, Tat Sat, created two major disruptive edits [[18]] & [[19]] by reverting the page back to 3 years back and personally attacked multiple editors at various places causing the page to be locked. The subsequent warnings can be found on user's talk page [[20]]. Multiple editors suggested Tat Sat to understand wikipedia policies in regards to primary research, vandalism, and personal attacks. Instead of coming to a consensus with other editors Tat Sat continues to create issues on noticeboards. My suggestion for Tat Sat is to have patience, come to a consensus with other editors and follow wikipedia guidelines. NestedVariable (talk) 18:16, 16 July 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.


At Elance [21] there is a request for someone to write a Wikipedia article on U.S.Corrugated, which we now have a page on. User:Swdandap created the article and has been active up to five days ago. "Swdandap" is suspiciously close to "Swetha D." ([22]), the person who was accepted to write the article. Personally I feel there is a connection but further comments would be appreciated. Albacore (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Unless the article is written in violation of some policy or guideline, there is no consensus that a paid editor is doing anything wrong. Is it notable? Neutral? Properly cited? Monty845 19:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Seconding what Monty said - this certainly looks like it might be editing for pay, but that's not strictly prohibited. What is prohibited is editing poorly, whether for pay or not. At a quick look over the user's contributions, I'd say her articles have evidence of notability provided in them and are written in coherent English prose. Some of the sourcing is a bit weak and there's a word here and there that could be swapped out for neutrality, but overall I give it a "meh, no better and no worse than most of our articles". If the user's edits are problematic, or if they're editing in defiance of a block/ban/topic-ban/whatever, then we have a problem. If the sole problem here is that they may have gotten paid for making them, then it's sort of a non-issue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is not notable, and while it is probably one of the less puff-ish pieces I've seen by a PR worker, it is still a bit POV ("legacy?" and half the sources are for the awards and environmental records sections). Funny, Swetha D's page on says she's a Wikipedia article writer as part of her job description. I'd say that's well more than a connection. We do have rules against conflicts of interest. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Please review this previous ban proposal of one of the most prolific Elance spammers, and consider the lengths they will go to (falsely attributing things, misrepresenting press releases as reliable sources, inventing references, etc) in order to harm Wikipedia for their own personal gain. These articles should be treated with absolute prejudice: just because they might look OK at face value does not mean they aren't total crap. WilliamH (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a fan of guilt by association. If this particular Elance writer is falsely attributing or misrepresenting then yes, action would be needed, but I don't think the article here is that bad. Scrutinize it if you want, but don't judge it based on the misconduct of others. Monty845 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting guilt by association. I'm reminding everyone that where money is involved for some people, harming Wikipedia is an acceptable way of getting it, and that any articles created by paid editors should be closely examined. WilliamH (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There was more promotional trimming that needed to be done (so no, not neutral, not properly cited). Another thing: at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive, I read of a User:Skywagon5, now blocked and author of (now deleted) Bahamas Habitat; our Swetha D. claims to have written an article for Cameron E King--apparently this King person works for Bahamas Habitat. I wonder if anyone can run a CU, if the information is not stale, to see if there's anything there. Note that the "client" for that job is "skywagon5". Also flaunted on her page as having created is Ricardo Chávez, lest there is any doubt that the Wikipedia editor and the Elance worker are the same. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll also note the user has added spam links to various articles: [23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. Albacore (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no interest in editing corporate articles myself, but it's probably worth mentioning that this article's title itself is out-of-date. According to this (currently linked as ref 3 in the article), after U.S. Corrugated was acquired by KapStone the new subsidiary's name was changed to KapStone Container Corporation. I guess the new bosses haven't wanted to shell out for a page update. Deor (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure how many people are going to go out of their way to write very much about a company that makes cardboard boxes. The only secondary sources are likely to simply state that the company exists, and maybe it promoted a town charity or something. -- Avanu (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The diffs added by Albacore are quite damning and warrant, in my opinion, a spam ban. This is a paid editor whose prime interest is not improving the encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've just deleted Corner Travel Index (already prodded by Binksternet) as spam, and am having a look at the editor's other work. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Even after the extensive prior editing, I found I needed to give the article additional copyedits, including removal of both overlinking and elementary grammar errors. I would agree with a ban for the general good of both the encyclopedia and prospective article subjects. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Could someone please start logging these, and the associated "enabling" sites, as I perceive no difference between this and other systematic and collusion based vandalism attempts. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to draft a proposal and put it out on the Village Pump, I'd probably support it. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I would too, without any reservation whatsoever. I have spent a long time dealing with this sort of thing by many editors and sockers from Elance, and it takes hours of volunteer time to clear up the work by those who are paid to harm Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, the work of any individual advertising their services at Elance should be deleted/reverted on sight by any administrator. I would also not object to an abuse report. WilliamH (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I have proposed that a log be kept regarding poorly behaving paid editors who become subject to administrative action: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing
  • US Corrugated has enough reliable sources to be notable. And bad writing is not a policy violation. If the article needs to be cleaned up, clean it up. We have hundreds of thousands of others that also need cleanup, not to mention unsourced BLPs, articles about Myspace bands that got through NPP, etc. - Burpelson AFB 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


Speaking as an admin who's not inherently intolerant of editing for pay (I think it can, and sometimes is, done well and with good intentions for the encyclopedia), it seems that a disproportionate amount of problematic paid editing seems to come out of Elance, in particular. This actually highlights an important (to me) distinction among paid editors - there are those who are editing on behalf of the company who already pays them (many of whom seem to want to play by the rules, since it helps their employer if they don't make them look bad, and many of whom find their way to the noticeboard intended for them to engage with the community), and then there are those who are freelancing or have been hired expressly to write an article. Elance editors fall into this second group, and because their relationship to the companies is short-term and piece work, it's no skin off their nose if the article is good and meets our guidelines, or if it's terrible, just as long as it stays long enough for them to get paid. And when an Elance editor shows up here, we pretty much always seem to get the short end of the stick, much more reliably than when other types of paid editors show up. Given this - and this is just sort of taking a rough shape in my mind, so I welcome suggestions for how this could work or how to word it - I wonder if there's any traction for some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing, in particular? Not because all other paid editing is fine, but because Elance editing seems to be particularly, and quite reliably, bad in a way that other paid editing isn't always, and so if we can trim off the reliably-bad, it leaves our resources more free for dealing with the maybe-bad-we-should-probably-look-into-this. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Well said. I unreservedly support a ban of all individuals soliciting work via Elance. Whatever one's views of paid editing are, edits by Elance contractors is consistently bad, facilitates disruption (usually in the form of socks so they can try and get their spam in undetected), and is a drain of precious volunteer time: time which I would much rather see spent cleaning up articles made in good faith, instead of articles which harm the project. WilliamH (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I would support a ban for all editors found to be editing from Elance. Though I would also support if, afterwards, they apologize and say they want to go through the proper channels and noticeboard, that we let them do so. SilverserenC 20:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a ban on all editors working through Elance. The situation is out of control. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As a freelancer myself, I find putting restrictions on editors on that basis alone to be inappropriate. Your comparison between a freelancer's motivation and a full-time employee is flawed; a full-time employee has job security and a motivation to keep that job, and he could easily be driven to long-term disruption, such as repeatedly slanting an article via sneaky POV pushing in the interest of maintaining his position. That's the very worst kind of disruption we face. A freelancer, on the other hand, has only his portfolio to find new clients and maintain his paycheck. As a freelancer, it's important to make sure your work is good, both for your reputation in the community to net future jobs, and so that you actually get paid and reviewed well. If a "freelance wikipedia editor" gets blocked, or put under increased negative scrutiny, that limits or ends his ability to find work and get paid. This issue is absolutely not about "freelancer vs full-time employee"; this is about "known paid advocates and unknown". Elance is public, and so we can easily track the jobs requested and writers who pick them up, which means we're naturally going to find a number of "bad apples" coming from elance. Full-time employees paid to write here are not so public, so when they get scrutinized or blocked, it isn't tied to paid advocacy at all. This discrepancy in disruption between elance writers and other paid advocates is an illusion, due to our ability to only see one side. Furthermore, ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion. If editors are going to be blocked for something which is not currently against policy, then we need to adjust the policy, not arbitrarily decide they should be blocked here, and not tell anyone until they wind up with a big orange bar on their page. Please discuss this at the appropriate venue, and involve the whole community in the discussion. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 20:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What do you think would be the best venue for this, Jess? I can think of a couple of possibilities - VPP, WP:Paid Editing, WP:BLOCK ...probably a couple more beyond that. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
You're right that this issue isn't about "freelancer vs full-time employee". It's about the fact that a lot of spammy crap originates from Elance contractors, and my experience over the last six months dealing with them reveals that what's most important is not to make sure that their work is good, but to make sure it stays there, and if that means harming Wikipedia, that's OK for them. If they did truly care about the project's interests, then they would disclose their conflict of interests and work with us. WilliamH (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fluffernutter, I would suggest VPP or Block. VPP is probably best. Since the paid editing issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with a lot of heated opinions, advertising the discussion would probably also be appropriate.
William, I get that a lot of bad content comes from paid editing. We should block editors who consistently make bad edits whether or not they are paid, such as we did here. Blocking editors who are public about their paid editing is not the solution, nor is basing our blocking decisions on the prior behavior of other editors who happen to use the same service, or happen to not be employed full-time and hence need to find work conspicuously. If the community decides that paid editing is bad, that's fine. In the meantime, paid editing is considered acceptable, and discriminating against editors on the basis that they freelance is a bad idea.   — Jess· Δ 22:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
We block GNAA accounts rapidly, as their conduct tends to resemble one another. But lo! When a GNAA member edits in other ways, we accept them. Also, "paid editing is considered acceptable" is not the case, it is your fantasy of a contested situation. I might as well say, "Paid editors are scabs." Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
For the third time: the issue is not paid editing. The issue is that a disproportionate amount of harmful material originates from individuals soliciting via Elance. A community ban of such individuals would be an appropriate way of dealing with a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community, and that damaging Wikipedia is an acceptable means to their financial ends. WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, you are correct. It would have been better for me to say "paid editing is not considered unacceptable". We do not have a policy against it, and so outright blocking a certain portion of paid editors who may not have edited poorly would be in poor taste without first discussing it with the same community who rejected a paid editing prohibition. I did not mean to imply that everyone was for it.
William, I don't know how to express this better than I have... but I don't get the impression that you've understood me. You say you're talking about "a group of editors who demonstrate time after time that they do not wish to engage with the community". That's not true; it implies that we're discussing blocking a definite number of disruptive editors... that they are enumerable, and persistently harmful. That's not the case. We're talking about blocking editors on sight who may not have ever caused problems in the past, on the sole basis that they happen to freelance openly. This does not address the problem of disruptive editors generally, nor the problem of paid editors more specifically. It simply encourages paid editors who don't wish to be ostracized to be more discrete. You're suggesting blocking by associating, and rather than addressing the problem by targetting disruptive editors, you're simply targeting any editor you can lock on to. If that isn't more clear, then I'm probably just not capable of conveying my meaning properly. Anyway, it's a moot point if we plan to have this discussion in another venue. All the best,   — Jess· Δ 00:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Who has the energy or time to debate with a paid editor? Even an obvious support some kind of restriction for obvious cases results in a wall of text. Johnuniq (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The irony is that the community is willing to engage with paid editors. It's just that they are the ones not willing to engage with us. If they were, we would not be having this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Elance is a corrupt off-site collusion attempting to wreck V NPOV and A Free Encyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit. AN/I is a perfectly good forum to gauge consensus on such an action. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. What Fifelfoo said. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per Fifelfoo etc. Self-evidently harmful to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Just in case my above grumpy comment is not sufficiently clear. While gold might be produced from lead, and a good article might come from Elance, we have to deal with what actually happens—time wasting promotional spin. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - For the general "screw Elance with a rusty cheese grater, we're not their property" reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Of course, User:MooshiePorkFace/"Wikipedia Wizard" isn't the first banned Elance user -- see WP:BANNED#Desiphral. Another discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch#Wikipedia Bureaucrat or Admin services required in Elance. If this ban is enacted, we need a sanctions log page somewhere. MER-C 05:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    Separate to a sanction specific log for any action regarding potential Elance bans, I have also started a proposal at WP:VPR regarding logging all serious administrative actions against paid editors whose payer can be identified: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Log_of_sources_of_poor_paid_advocacy_editing. This is so that systematic patterns of off-site abuse can be diagnosed. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose As Jess says above, "ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion." If you're going to make a blanket ban on editors just because they accept an assignment from Elance, you better get a little more community involvement than the few hotheads we're seeing here. I see very little evidence, and I see a lot of inflammatory and judgemental comments. This should be at a much larger and longer discussion, and not here, unless you can start producing a system here that protects due process. Decisions at AN/I are geared toward specific threats from specific editors at specific times. You are now talking about an entire class of editor. A community-wide Request for Comment, with specific details and evidence, a specific plan (or plans) of action, with an emphasis on fairness and reason is the very least you ought to be doing. AN/I is not the place for a resolution of this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. As per Fluffernutter ,WilliamH ,Mer-C ,Fifelfoo and further many of the main editors like Wikipedia Wizardry are site banned here .There has been little positive and the negatives far above outweigh the positives and further some seek admin tools to see there articles are not deleted rather than in writingPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm all in favour of taking measures against bad edits, but I don't think there is such a strong correlation between "edits via elance" and "bad edits". Aren't we already able to apply sanctions to spammers and pov-warriors? If we are, keep on doing that. If we aren't, then we have a broader problem. bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not enough reserach/knowledge on where paid editors originate from / how good/bad they are, and banning this one particualr site seems a tad off to me. GiantSnowman 15:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • oppose We can't block people through guilt by association.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Appears to be as evidence-free a proposal as ever I've seen. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who cares if an editor gets paid, as long as the content is good? Is there any evidence that Elane editors are more problematic than similar sites?Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there's lots. Can't understand why the community won't act, but there you go. WilliamH (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe I'm just tired and/or dense, but I don't see what's actually being proposed. Deletion of articles that stem from Elance? Banning editors who create such an article, even if they've been good contributors in the past? How will this new rule be publicized, if approved? Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
A G5 ban of all those soliciting work via Elance, in light of the chronic abuse stemming from contractors based on the site. WilliamH (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Not aiming to be disrespectful, but please don't assert a position on something if you aren't aware what that something actually is.
Perhaps I misunderstood something. Do you mean CSD criterion G5? That applies to pages, not people. If you'd like to ban people who've created G5'd pages, that's not totally unreasonable, but there's no need for such a proposal to be framed in terms of one particular website. Banning people who've used a particular website on the assumption that their content work is bad, just so that ban can be used to G5 content which was created by those people but hadn't already been nominated for deletion through our usual processes, would be impressively kafkaesque. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I voted to oppose because as far as I could tell there was no clear statement, beyond "some sort of ban on Elance-bought editing," of what was being proposed; whether I personally understood the proposal is not relevant, because I am 100% confident that I am against enacting any suggestion if nobody can be sure of what is actually being suggested. And given that your clarifying statement of your the proposal doesn't completely make sense, as Bobrayner pointed out, my concerns are even stronger and my opposition is even firmer. (On the other hand, if you had pointed me to someplace I'd missed in your the proposal where it was made completely clear what people had been voting to support, I would have withdrawn my comment.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If one of my comments or the comments from those in support of the proposal are anything to go by, it is quite clear what is meant by it, and when G5 is used in such a context, is not the obtuse and stupid suggestion that we use administrative tools to delete people. And Bobrayner, if you'd checked the links I included, you would clearly see that the notion of their content work being "bad" was not merely an assumption, but self-evident. All I can say is that I am sorry the community is more willing to accept this abuse than grant the remit to deal with it. WilliamH (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I remain opposed to a proposal that I find to be vague and poorly thought-out as well as probably inappropriate for this venue. If you don't find my concerns about publication and enforcement of this restrction to be legitimate, or if you think it's foolish to oppose a proposal because one has concerns that aren't addressed, you're free to consider me an idiot, which is a right that goes for all of us. I won't be discussing my vote further. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The following claim in the first paragraph of this section is factually incorrect:

"Their relationship to the companies is short-term and piece work, it's no skin off their nose if the article is good and meets our guidelines, or if it's terrible, just as long as it stays long enough for them to get paid."

Elance contractors can get feedback up to 60 days after being paid. If a Wikipedia article is terrible and only stays long enough for them to get paid, they will get bad feedback for that article, which means lower rates and fewer customers. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see it ,am I missing something this is article done for Cameron E. King which has deleted but the feedback is good job and same is the case with most articles.The article is posted only after the customer likes the job and gives the feedback to say the author is posting it without his/her consent is wrong.This is true for all not only Wikipedia assignment ,project,coursework only after the customer likes it after that they cannot object later they can of course ask for an change in the draft done by the customer .Note if a student purchases a coursework likes it and pays after that even if he fails he cannot comeback to the site and blame the author after he can ask the author to make changes before paying the final amount but not after.It is one off after the customer likes it and pays the relationship unlike wikiexperts which do maintenance also.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Elance-generated material should absolutely be subjected to intense scrutiny, but COI editing is not proscribed under Wikipedia rules, merely strongly discouraged. Since Wikipedia is edited in large measure by anonymous screen names and "outing" their real identities and occupations is prohibited, we should not attempt to ban editors for who they are but rather to concentrate on the edits themselves. If a COI editor working on a piece because of an Elance contract produces good content, it should stand. lf they produce spam, they should have the material removed, be strongly warned, and if they repeat spammy activity should be subject to escalating blocks for disruption. Concentrate on the edits, not the editors! Carrite (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no policy against Conflict of Interest editing, and there is no consensus for one, as this recent RfC determined: WP:RFC/COI. A ban on paid editing, whether general or specific (Elance), should go through an RfC, and should be much more well thought out. It would need to answer some of the questions already raised here and in that RfC regarding: outing of Wikipedia editors; the current approach of focusing on the quality of edits and not the editor; how to police such a ban, considering our policy against outing; what to do with a high quality article that passes every Wikipedia guideline and policy, but which was paid for; if it's true, that all current Elance articles are crap, then current policies are sufficient to have them deleted. To make a long story short, I'll repeat what multiple editors above have said, "ANI is absolutely not the place to be having this discussion." First Light (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and many others. Paid editors are by definition scum. I absolutely don't understand how any genuine Wikipedian can tolerate the existence of paid editing. Employees editing their company articles are at least understandable and usually amenable to guidance but as freelancers have no interest in the longer term survival of the effluent they spew onto our pages, they are resistant to guidance and rules - Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. Roger (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I have know a number of paid editor, and none of the ones who I know could conceivably be characterised as scum, either personally or professionally. Considering that one such editor had posted before your, I consider your comment as a violation of WP:NPA. It is outrageous in any case to refer to any class of people in that fashion, even if you think their activities undesirable. But I may misjudge you, for you may have been writing satire--considering that your quoted motto is the notorious medieval slogan ordering the massacre of all the inhabitants of a city because some of them were heretics. As for the substance of the proposal, it amounts to the not very helpful process of banning the minority who happen to be easy to catch. It might be more useful to simply treat Elance as a convenient way of identifying those likely to edit unproductively. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The "Paid editors are ... scum" comment by Roger only confirms that this issue needs an RfC, with a broader spectrum of the community involved. First Light (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. It is a simple truth that paid editing (in its entirety) does more harm than good. That is why my position is a flat out total ban - no ifs, buts or maybes. The tiny bit of good material that very occasionally gets added to WP by paid editors will in any event be added by normal unpaid editing if it deserves to be here. Roger (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, there is probably a ton of good material produced by paid editors — be they company employees, PR pros, or contractors. You just only see the really terrible stuff and wrongly conclude that the tip of the iceberg is the iceberg. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm very much for getting paid, and have yet to see any convincing evidence that money would lead to more POV than, let's say, religious conviction. Although AN/I gets many eyes, if you would like to change policy on paid editing, we have a page for that. This is not it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The difference between a stereotype and a generalization is that a stereotype says something is always true, while a generalization says something is true more often than in other circumstances. If say 75% of Elancers are bad, maybe we are stereotyping them here. If 99% of Elancers are bad, we're just being practical. I think this question boils down to whether we think there are any reasonable numbers of good Elancers. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 13:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I am opposed to all paid editing. Jusdafax 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Which is fine, but that is not how current COI policy reads. Our decision-making should be based on the rule of law, not lynch mob mentality. Carrite (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Block review please[edit]

Block endorsed. Blocking admin counseled not to again use their tools in a situation in which they are involved.--Chaser (talk) 04:36, 16 July 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.

Yesterday afternoon a rather unpleasant discussion started at WP:FOOTY involving a dispute over the naming of a football competition. The discussion, which I made a couple of short comments in after it had been going for some time, effectively ended this morning as a 7–1 in favour of one name. The editor in the minority also spent some time abusing one of the editors involved. They then had a strop, deleted their user page and blanked their talk page.

This afternoon I changed several articles in line with the consensus at the WikiProject in question. The disgruntled editor then returned as (talk · contribs) and did a mass revert. I reverted to the consensus version, at which point the IP started reverting again, making it their fourth round of reverts. As I spotted them doing this, I blocked the IP for disruption. Whilst I'm aware that I'm "involved", I thought it was best to stop them in their tracks before they completed yet another round of reverting.

I've offered to unblock them if they promise to stop editing articles in question and continue with the discussion, but this offer was ignored. Anyway, I'm off to bed now, so can someone review the block and sanction me if it's felt necessary. Cheers, Number 57 22:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This request may not be entirely voluntary, see [30]. Also, the Admin. is not, as they say "involved", he is WP:INVOLVED. Leaky Caldron 22:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In the future please don't mix admin powers with editing, except in cases of emergency or egregious disruption, because it just creates controversy and needlessly long discussions. Agree? You should have reported the IP at ANI. Somebody would have jumped on it within minutes and taken care of the matter. Jehochman Talk 22:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
A textbook example of WP:INVOLVED. The IP's edits were not mere obvious vandalism and while any other admin probably would have blocked him/her that's exactly what should have happened. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
When in doubt, ask someone else. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. However, given that the logging-out-and-reverting-as-an-IP was fairly blatant, I don't see an issue here. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Unclosing this. Of course it's an issue. By their own admission Number 57 failed to properly execute their admin role per involved and should face the appropriate sanction -- which in this case is pretty much please don't do that again. Nobody Ent 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Please don't do that again - It makes life harder for admins and gives non-admins a reason to be concerned. It undermines the authority of admins if we don't follow the rules ourselves. If it isn't an emergency, just drop it here. If it is, come here directly after and keep it in full daylight. It was likely a good block, but in bad form. Dennis Brown - © 02:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There is not a benefit to continue discussing this. We all agree the admin should have asked for help instead of acting himself. Suggest we close this discussion and move on. If it happens again, go to RFC. ANI is good for resolving the block an an informal warning. We can't do more here or now. Jehochman Talk 04:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Done. Someone can re-open if they're disputing the block. There's no sense in piling on more "you did wrong" regarding the blocking admin. I'm sure they get the picture.--Chaser (talk) 04:36, 16 July 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.

Still active[edit]

There's pretty much zero doubt that Edinburgh Wanderer (whose main account is still unblocked, so it's mystifying why he resorted to editing logged out) will kick this off again when the IP block expires. Someone who isn't on his enemies list (which includes pretty much every editor at WP:FOOTY at this point) needs to make it clear to him that this isn't an acceptable manner in which to interact with the rest of the community, or else enforce that. Enough of the community's time has already been wasted trying to deal with EW's tantrums without having to jump through additional hoops like RFCU. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just need a moderator to keep those discussions on a policy basis. I looked at how those debates were going and it had devolved into personalities in conflict rather than a legitimate discussion based on sources or lack thereof. -- Avanu (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That's an endemic problem with this user, and at this point there are (to my knowledge) no active admins in that area that aren't already on EW's hate list. Hence the need for something to be done about it now, by someone outside of EW's primary editing circle. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The section dealing with the abuse of Admin privileges has been closed, prematurely in my opinion, but with sufficient opprobrium towards the Admin that they will think twice before abusing their rights in the future. If you have a legitimate complaint about the User/blocked IP it is hardly appropriate to raise it here, under the section dealing with the abusive admin. actions. Either re-open the whole section rather than adding off topic material, or go through proper process, including notifying the user that you are discussing him at ANI. Leaky Caldron 09:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no such thing as 'off topic material' at AN/I. As the subject of EW is here, discussion of EW's actions here is appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason to fragment the discussion. We need uninvolved admins to watch the affected articles and step in if things get out of hand. There was a problem. The original admin didn't handle it well. We should try to participate constructively, rather than belaboring complaints against the admin. our goal is to make things work, not to punish people. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat won't give up the fight against Barack Obama on Twitter[edit]

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs) nominated Barack Obama on Twitter and it was "No Consensus". Immediately thereafter, he tried to change the article around to what he felt would be a better topic anyways. He was reverted twice and blocked from changing the page for a few days. Then he tried to renominate the article at AFD, which was reverted. He has tried again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  • And, so? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Whilst it is generally considered to not be the greatest idea ever, there is nothing in policy to stop an article being renominated at AfD immediately when the previous one closes as "No Consensus". WP:SK only mentions "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Initially I thought there was nothing to do, but it seems the AfD is going to result in a pointless rehashing of arguments (it's already started on that way) to achieve exactly the same end as the last AfD: no-consensus. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy so why not nip it in the bud when it hasn't got a snowballs chance of going to the outcome the nom desires, at present. Deletion review exists to review past closes. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • DRV is usually only if the close was improper. Starting a new AFD after one closes as no consensus isn't always the best solution, but sometimes the 2nd one gets enough traction to get a consensus to stick. I missed the first one, and wouldn't have had the chance to participate if not for the ANI report, ironically. I don't think the act of renoming a second time after a no consensus is inherently bad faith, however. After a keep, perhaps. Dennis Brown - © 01:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Administrator Drmies[edit]

As other commenters here have noted, Drmies has offered helpful advice. Discarding the advice and focusing on the perceived brusqueness does no one any good. Regardless, brusqueness (perceived or otherwise) is not a matter for AN/I. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 16 July 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.

Yesterday I made the mistake of using a wrong CSD template. As you can see per my talk page I [31]. However this did not stop User:Drmies from insulting me on another users page. I approached user:drmies on their user talk page with what I thought was a cordial [32]. What I ended up getting was more insults and user:drmies proceeding to tell me I think. In addition to telling me I was wrong. I knew was wrong as I had put it in my talk page. But that didn't stop user:drmies from continuing to assume that I was having a rant about the correction. He followed up his thoughts on a discussion that I had started on the CSD talk page which can be seen [33]. I just don't appreciate these kinds of insults from an editor, and an admin no less. Keystoneridin (speak) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You made a mistake, Drmies commented on the mistake, explained the mistake to you and...well, that's about it. Incorrect CSD taggings happen. What you should do is read his response to your initial query, which is informative (and in my opinion, not very rude at all) and learn from the experience. This isn't an ANI problem. OohBunnies! (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Could you please be specific as to any insult. All I can see his helpful advice about where to go to find out how to do things properly. MarnetteD | Talk 17:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't actually see the insult in any of the diffs you've linked. Drmies is being blunt, but there's a vast difference between being blunt and being insulting. The closest thing I can see to anything even remotely improper is his saying that you think people would be immediately blocked for creating pages; I can't find any support for that, but it's not impossible that it was on the page that was deleted. Either way, I don't see how it's worth escalating at all. I have both his and your talk pages on my watchlist, and I can tell you that I think you could learn many things from Drmies if you allow yourself to. (I have.) And I don't mean to throw this in your face, but you do have not-altogether-infrequent problems with misapplied CSD tags, so maybe you could look at his comments with the goal of learning something from them, rather than finding an insult in them? Writ Keeper 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I linked the initial insult to the page above. It's the one where he suggests that editors take a test to nominate pages. What would this test include, "can you read?". Then the admin proceeded to tell me that I have a misfound belief that editors who create a page about themselves should be blocked. I said nothing of the sort. Just that I observed it. I knew bringing up an admin to an AN/I board would be pointless.Keystoneridin (speak) 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider that an insult; Drmies was saying that they've had so many problems with editors mis-nominating CSDs that they think there should be a test. I could probably write 50 questions for a test on CSD criteria; of which 15 would be randomly selected and presented to you, and then you'd have to answer 12 correctly. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

While Drmies certainly violated WP:CIVIL and [[WP:NPA}] nothing shall happen to him because he is an administrator and veteran editor with lots of friends. (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you say it over and over, maybe it will come true. Just because they are an administrator doesn't mean you can throw baseless accusations around and then be upset when they are uniformly cast aside and then claim the admin cabal is protecting it's own. False accusations deserve to be ignored; that's not protecting one's own, that's doing what's right.--v/r - TP 19:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm not friends with anyone on Wikipedia, I do have to say that there is NOTHING in the linked discussions that either a) violates WP:NPA, b) comes anywhere close to violating WP:CIVIL, or is in any way other than a flat-out assistance to other editor(s). There's no attacks, no name calling, no insulting of anyone's intelligence ... this appears to be a misread/reader in a bad mood this morning situation which I hope everyone will get over (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Pretty mild comment. Don't take it personally. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • And beyond that, the OP seems to have a very, very short fuse; he's taken offense at similar remarks of my own more than once, the most recent offense being the edit summary in this diff [34], and I'm beginning to think he's after saccharine sunshine along the lines of "Oh, please don't take offense because some stupid old policy impelled me to revert your edit; can you ever forgive me for being a slave to the rules?" Ravenswing 20:11, 16 July 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.

Closing follies[edit]

Here's Joe Cool, archiving this section. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:54, 17 July 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.

This fairly new (as far I as know) habit of reclosing on the cheap -- not by providing an updated summary but by merely moving the {{archivebottom}} is not a good idea. In the above discussion it appears that 28bytes closed the at 1:46 pm and TP, Bwilkins and, 134 and Ravenswing ignored the close and kept on chatting which makes them appear less cool than they are. Nobody Ent 23:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You forgot the IP too.----TP (alt) 01:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point. Corrected. Nobody Ent 01:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
(scratches his head) You're under the impression that there are regular editors who contribute on ANI to be seen as "cool?" My, that's an unusual characterization. (And, come to that, are you not ignoring the close as well, to keep on talking?) Ravenswing 05:28, 17 July 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:J86green SPA for vandalism[edit]

Obvious vandalism-only account; blocked. This isn't really an AN/I issue though; for future reports of this nature, WP:AIV is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:50, 17 July 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:J86green is a single purpose vandalism account working over Sydney social controversy articles. Given their only purpose is vandalism, could someone block them? (They've been warned and this is their response, note edit summary) (notified)Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 17 July 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.

Invalid closure[edit]

Kww fixed it here[35]. Even in the best of faith as it is here, Non-admin closures (NAC) should be limited to AFDs that are not potentially contentious. Dennis Brown - © 17:02, 15 July 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.

This non-admin close Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skeptoid_(2nd_nomination) appears invalid in that it expressively ignores the merge arguments because no-one voted delete except the nom, votewise 4 merge, 5 keep, 1 delete (nom). Can an admin look at the AfD and weigh up the consensus on merge vs keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is consensus that deletion is not the desired outcome, as such its proper to close the AfD. As there is insufficient consensus to determine if a merge is needed, discussion of that should be resumed on the article talk page, which is basically what the close says. Looks proper to me. Monty845 13:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That rationale does not say there was no consensus to merge. It does not attempt to weigh up the arguments of keep vs merge. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Closed by admin.--Chip 123456Contribs 13:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This improper non-admin closure has been overriden, and the AFD now shows the proper consensus (merge). I remain mystified why people tolerate Colonel Warden's presence.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the close. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I really don't see how you can read that discussion to contain a clear merge consensus... Monty845 13:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the keep votes didn't have policy based reasons, or didn't give any reasons to counter the merge arguments (such as the requirements of WP:WEB). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Many of the merge !votes were even weaker, the first waivered on whether there was notability of a separate article, the second changed their !vote to a keep, one just says coverage doesn't justify a separate article but doesn't explain why, and another admitted it passes WP:WEB. None cited a policy for why it should be merged despite passing the notability criteria. So it was 6 to 4 keep to merge, the keep votes had better aurguments, yet it is merge? Monty845 13:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's see: a "merge" by IRWolfie, citing lack of coverage, which an examination of the article bears out. A "merge" by S.Rich, citing lack of coverage and complete redundancy, which an examination of the article bears out. A "keep" by Belchfire that reveals that he didn't read the article, linked articles, or the nomination, so no weight can be given to that. Dustinfull's keep argument relies on the article being mentioned in blogs. Devil's Advocate reinforces the original merge nomination, and, as it does, passes examination. Sgerbic votes "keep" based on the improvement, but failed to note that the improvements were sourced to the podcast. Skeptical Raptor votes "keep", but presents no verifiable evidence as to why. Dream Focus echoes Dustinfull's flawed arguments. Otterhome supports a merge. Using any weighting, the merges outweigh the keeps by a substantial margin.—Kww(talk) 14:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
In reply to mystified why people tolerate
Wikipedia tolerates all sorts of less than perfect editors because:
  1. Written Wikipedia policies are vague and incoherent, so good faith interpretations are all over the map
  2. Written Wikipedia policies have become fossilized, so improving them is well-nigh impossible. (See WP:V)
  3. There's a shortage of decent editors
  4. There's a shortage of active administrators
  5. The Rfa process is ... standard blah blah about Rfa
  6. RFC/Us are a lot of work, frequently don't accomplish a lot, turn into mudslinging witchhunts instead of the intended/ideal community feedback and tend to make enemies out of participanting editors -- bad if there's an Rfa in the future and bad for just day to day getting along.

In this case we have a good faith non-admin close, a good faith reversion & and gf reversion of that, appropriate appeal to ANI and a good-faith closure by a qualified admin. Let's celebrate the fact the process works, close this and move on. (Three verses of Kumbaya optional). Nobody Ent 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should go get my bit back and start closing AFDs again... but I'm not sure DRV is ready for the extra work. Spartaz Humbug! 14:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The Colonel is tolerated because he does excellent content saving work that outweigh his occasionally non-standard approach to policy. I'm more concerned over the edit warring over the close. This would have been better left for an admin to reclose then for the close to be voided and then reverted back by another editor. Otherwise DRV would have been a good revising location. Spartaz Humbug! 14:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Correct (re:Colonel anyway). Kww, something similar applies to you, BTW, in response to the question why you're tolerated. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread can be closed as the issue was solved. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this particular issue has been dealt with, it should be made very clear to Colonel Warden that, given his notoriously out-of-mainstream opinion on the matter of content deletion, he should not be NACing anything remotely contentious. His previous NACs have all been fine (speedy keeps for the most part), but this is too far into the grey zone for an NAC. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:38, 15 July 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.
Since we're being pedantic, closing this section separately from the above. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:55, 17 July 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.

Bad close. WP:IAR is still a pillar. If you don't like a NAC, revert it. Nobody Ent 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:IAR is fully capable of dealing with my close here, as is the exception to everything. It doesn't apply in this particular AFD example that I can see, nor is it claimed. And I did say "should", not "must", which is at least as lenient as the actual policy. Of course, you are always free to revert any close if you feel is sufficiently flawed. Dennis Brown - © 02:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with this close, as was the consensus here among a couple of admins including this one, who will close this again. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not a close, that's an invalid refactor which changes the meaning of my comment -- by putting my remark inside a previously closed section, it makes it appear as if I was referring either to Col Warden's original Afd close or Kww's reclose, not DB's close of the thread. This is a "subsequent comment" and should be closed separately. Nobody Ent 02:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, let this run on for a few more days until it gets archived, if you are so intent on keeping the "h" in dramah. I disagree re:meaning, of course. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just how exactly did the closer decide the consensus was to merge? I'm not seeing any consensus whatsoever in the AfD. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If only he'd given a full and detailed rationale somewhere. Such as in the comment he made in this very section at the time of the close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
<snark> He'd best be careful with those full and detailed rationales, or it could be called a supervote.</snark> - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 16 July 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.


IP blocked and, if he is who he says he is, he can appeal through other means. SplashScreen (talk) 18:17, 17 July 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 got the following on my talk from an IP implying that they're Dalejenkins. The "olive branch" would be this post.

Hello. Is this the former User:Jack Merridew? You previously lent me an olive branch after my sockpuppet ban a few years ago and I'd like to admit to the following. The files below are of false rights usage. Of the ones I claimed to own myself - I did not. They where from random webpages elsewhere.

The ones were permission was given from elsewhere were uploaded in good faith, but in fact were taken from different forums, websites or even screenshots from TV and are not the property of the uploaders.

I also have no recollection of uploading this image [42]. I hope these files can be speedily deleted. (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hand-ball. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted this message in hope that my past mistakes will be rectified. Deep apologies for any inconvenience. I've not edited Wikipedia for a long time and wanted these removed to clear my conscience, especially when realising that some of the email-approved files were copy-vios. (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Since the editor is banned rather than merely blocked, he will have to go through some kind of appeal process if he expects to be allowed to edit again. Meanwhile, of course, the above IP also needs to be blocked, for violating the ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If the editor is actually trying to clean up some problems, apologise, and work towards returning to the community, blocking them might be a bit kafkaesque. (I'm not familiar with the case; maybe folk will argue that they're just here to stir drama or whatever, and I might understand a block on those terms). bobrayner (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's not "kafkaesque", it's the rules. No compromise. If the editor wants to get unbanned and fix his alleged copyright violations, there's a process to follow. Violating the ban ain't it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
And as regards clearing one's conscience, I'm reminded of this old one: A guy sends a letter to the IRS: "I underpaid my income taxes, and can't sleep at night. Enclosed is a check for $ 500, and if I still can't sleep, I'll send you the balance." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • When the community decides to ban a user, it has decided that the disruption caused by allowing that user to edit outweighs any benefit that might accrue from some constructive edits. The question "should we make exceptions when we actually like the edits the banned user is making?" has been discussed and debated repeatedly, and repeatedly there has been consensus that the answer is "no". I have blocked the IP address for a week. I will leave the copyright issue for someone else. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The caveat should be that they should have the right to edit their talkpage and request comments be made in this discussion on their behalf. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 17 July 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 VALLEYMAN25 aka FORESTMAN38[edit]

Ach, laddie, the trees, ya gotta look out for them. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 21:56, 17 July 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.

Resolved: Can't see the Forest for the Valley. Awesome FaceThe Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The account VALLEYMAN25 (talk · contribs) was created a couple of days ago. Though well-intended, VALLEYMAN25 introduced a lot of content that constituted copyright violations and I first noticed this in new articles about novels (for instance this copied from the author's website). I removed the copyrighted material and warned him [43], gave more details after he reintroduced the copyrighted text [44] and a stronger warning after he insisted [45]. It didn't stop so I tried again to reach out to him [46] and this seemed to work. He then registered an alternate account FORESTMAN38 (talk · contribs) (given the usernames and pages edited, there's no doubt that this is the same editor) and proceeded to violate copyright again [47] and I warned that account. Now he's back to editing as VALLEYMAN25 and has shifted focus to violating image copyrights despite a long list of warnings. I've never managed to get the slightest feedback from this editor and at this stage I feel he needs to be blocked and restricted to a single account since he's wasting everyone's time. Pichpich (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes, I saw some of that stuff in passing (on some basketball player's article) but didn't see an immediate need to block since I didn't see the copyvio (it was pointed out in an edit summary but I didn't check it out). I'll have a look again, since I'm just waiting on a plane. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I blocked Forestman--it is pretty obvious that the account was created to avoid scrutiny on that Friends Forever article. I am not an image expert and this is not a learning moment for me, but if Pichpich is correct and those uploads are invalid, and they were continued after warnings, then Valley should be blocked as well to prevent disruption in the near future. Thanks Pichpich. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Let me just clarify the issue with the images. It definitely starts with an honest mistake that many newbies make: uploading non-free images of living people and using them as fair use. Save for a crazy few exceptions, these cannot be used because they are always considered as replaceable by a free equivalent (since the subject is alive) and therefore fail criterion 1 in WP:NFCC. I don't fault him for this as it's a common mistake. He received automated warnings when the first few of his uploads were deleted and I also wrote a non-automated message which explained the situation in more detail. The real problem is that File:La Salle Green Archer Jun Limpot.jpg was uploaded after all these warnings and this shows that he either doesn't read his talk page, doesn't understand what's written there or doesn't care. In all three cases, the result is disruption and a waste of time for many editors. Pichpich (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
My plane is boarding so I can't follow up after your helpful clarification, but I'm sure someone else will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was about to block after reading over this, the talk page, and the contributions again--but the strangest thing seems to have happened: the block on Forestman seems to prevent Valleyman from editing! As if they would have the same IP address! But the one has no idea who the other is! Strange things are afoot, and I think we can close this. If the Valley ever owns up to having planted a Forrest, there's an offer out there. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 16 July 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.


WP:SPI is thataway. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:28, 17 July 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 am bringing here another possible sock puppet of Wikadvisor. This IP is attacking the same articles as him.--Anderson - what's up? If you believe there has been a mistake, report it on my talk page. 05:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though it's not a checkuser situation, did you try WP:SPI? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
WP:SPI is the proper venue, particularly since that is a static IP and a long term block might be worthwhile if the are the same. Dennis Brown - © 18:43, 17 July 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:Luckyeleven Sockpupet account of User:Wnnse evading blocks and threatening more block evasion (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wnnse)[edit]

Blocked. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:23, 17 July 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.

Hello everyone, just a couple of hours ago User:Luckyeleven left a note on my talk page (see this [48]) in which they said "Hi, you can give ban my all users but I can make news as I want. And you can't find them when I change my IP. ;) Love, Wnnse/Bow-bb/And others...Luckyeleven (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)". This looks like an obvious block evading threat. Both the user accounts User:Wnnse and User:Bow-bb have been confirmed socks operated by the same person who evaded their block and scrutiny after User:Wnnse was blocked on February 27, 2012 after which user account User:Bow-bb was created on February 29, 2012 as an attempt to evade the block which has now been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. The person is keen and looks determined to continuously evade their block by creating more and more new sockpuppet's from a dynamic IP range of ISP Turk Telecom in Istanbul, Turkey and also edits from a broad range of dynamic IP addresses. I therefore request the Administrator's to take the necessary action. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Obvious sock is obvious. Indef blocked. Dennis Brown - © 18:35, 17 July 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.

Homoeopathy, and user:Alice1818[edit]

User continued after warning, has now been blocked as an AE action. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 17 July 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.

Homoeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Alice1818 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Alice1818, a new contributor has for some days been attempting to correct a perceived 'bias' in our homoeopathy article, and has repetedly argued that we should include material relating to research which (supposedly) demonstrates that homoeopathic medicine can be more effective than a placebo. Other editors have repeatedly explained that WP:MEDRS policy prevents the cherry-picking of sources in this way, and that per WP:FRINGE etc, to include such material would be unsupportable. Sadly, Alice1818 has proven either unwilling to accept that such policy applies, or unable to understand it. Either way, the contributor has now moved well into Wikipedia:Tendentious editing territory - most recently by un-hatting threads closed as unproductive arguing against an overwhelming consensus, [49] and then by describing the person involved in hatting as "rude and inappropriate". [50] Frankly, I can see to reason to assume that Alice1818 will conform to expected policies and guidelines unless obliged to - and on this basis, I suggest that a time-limited block may be the most effective way to stop further disruption, and encourage the individual involved to either work within Wikipedia norms, or take their arguments to another forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a topic area covered under arbcom Discretionary Sanctions. I'm about to leave the user a warning to that effect, though this should not prevent anyone else from taking actions that are deemed appropriate in response to her behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Reality has an anti-homeopathy bias. It's totally unfair. Egg Centric 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Hell, Reality has incurable liberal, materialist and scientific biases too. Much grinding of teeth and polemic is borne of that fact. — Coren (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As the user has continued their behavior after my warning, I have blocked them indefinitely due to their battleground/tendentious activity and their apparent lack of interest in editing any topic other than the one they cannot edit constructively in. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:03, 17 July 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.

Racconish Harassment[edit]

When a WP:BOOMERANG hits your eye, after a post at AN/I...That's Amore! - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer Talk 21:52, 17 July 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.

Good evening. Yesterday evening, working on the article École nationale de l'aviation civile, I saw a strange modification :École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502421693&oldid=502384341. After rev with justifications,  Racconish and myself didn't have the same opinion. So I decided by myself to start a discussion which appears to me to be the best thing to do. Furthermore, I decided to request for help and other opinions which is always useful. Everything was good and with no reason, few minutes ago, Racconish starts doing Harassment :École_nationale_de_l%27aviation_civile&diff=502840090&oldid=502839435 which shows that he doesn't care about the article, it is just against me and also it is really against a calm, concise, and on topic discussion. Moreover, it is forbidden on Wikipedia. Even yesterday evening, I had some doubt because he posted this which he was not concerned about. It was against who was informed by myself. Yes I am blocked on French Wikipedia, it is a long time ago. I have learned a lot from my mistakes, I don't pay attention to anymore French Wikipedia (I love much more here, more friendly, more professional) and if you look on my talk page, I think things goes now better for me about how to help Wikipedia. (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see anything in here that requires administrative attention. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by posting this? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a refresh to Racconish that it is not useful to be so aggressive and "off topic". (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, to explain further, your IP address was blocked on the French Wikipedia for its edits on similar topics, which may be relevant for discussion. If you aren't comfortable with your record, then you should have behaved more nicely. You were not blocked "a long time ago" as you say, it was less than 2 months ago. Additionally, your report on (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was completely improper; if you had read the instructions on that page, you would know that reports there are only for blatant vandalism for which the user has been sufficiently warned. I fail to see any improper actions except on your part. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Look out for that boomerang. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
IP is wrong when they say they haven't been on the french WP. He's been using dozen of sock puppets in the last few months to go around his block to the point where admins there have experimented with range block to limit his damage. The last time was no later than yesterday [51] when it was plainly obvious that he was editing the same article on both wikis at the same time with his IP here and new user there (École nationale de l'aviation civile and École nationale de l'aviation civile). So I guess what he is trying to accomplish is to be blocked here too. --McSly (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at École nationale de l'aviation civile I see you have reverted twice, and a slew of other IPs (ironically from a very similar geolocations, considering the unreliability of geolocating in Western Europe) have joined you very soon after, remarkably so, and they have no other edits. And this forced the article to be semi-protected. And frankly, I'm trying to find a reason to not block you for sockpuppetry right this very moment. Unfortunately, I've failed. Blocked 1 month for abuse of mulitple accounts. Dennis Brown - © 20:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    Blocked 3 other IPs in the process. Dennis Brown - © 20:52, 17 July 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.

Heavy vandalism/spam on Lucas Rodrigues Moura da Silva[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: Bwilkins semi-protected the article.--Chaser (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed that the page Lucas Rodrigues Moura da Silva has been getting a lot of vandalism (mainly blanking and unsourced additions). I was wondering if someone could take a look at it, possibly semi-protect it; most of the vandals are IPs. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:AIV?? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I am hesitant to go to AIV because there is no clear-cut offender or even suspicion of sockpuppetry. The edits come from a wide rage of IPs. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, most of the spam involves speculation on team changes and the 2012 Summer Olympics. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, page protection would have been the better request then ... so I've done it. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:18, 17 July 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 Scatcat2009 and copyright violations[edit