Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive813

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

Noticeboard archives


Active link spammer, WP:COI editor, and WP:UAA is back logged[edit]

Resolved: Both have been blocked now. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've observed User:RMP Arts making a significant number of edits adding content like this and this, promoting the Rolex Mentor and Protégé Arts Initiative. I advised the editor, via {{uw-coi-username}} of the problematic nature of their edits (see their talk page). I received no response. I then place a second warning asking them to stop their edits [1]. Again, I have received no response and the editor continues apace. I reported the username to WP:UAA [2], along with another username (User:Rmp updates) that has performed very similar edits, though inactive since last October. However, WP:UAA is quite backlogged at the moment. I've undone all the edits constituting COI/LINKSPAM from both accounts, but the currently active account continues. I'd rather not chase them around all day. And still going. Some assistance please. Editor has been informed of this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

To: Hammersoft, I do not see the issue with the postings I am making and wish you would have given me the chance to respond instead of deleting my posts. The posts are facts and are honors these artists have been awarded, please stop deleting these posts and if you have further issues please send a message — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMP Arts (talkcontribs) 14:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I did give you a chance to respond. You ignored my requests. You have a direct WP:COI with the subject, and are link spamming. This needs to stop. The only reason it got to this level was because you ignored the {{uw-coi-username}} post on your talk page, and then ignored the second stop request on your talk page. You have had multiple chances to explain yourself. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
After seeing the RMP Arts addition to the Martin Scorsese biography I was headed over to RMP Arts' user page when I saw that Hammersoft had already tagged the user as having an inappropriate username, signifying a group account. As well, I would have gone through all of RMP Arts' contributions to discover whether the same link was being added in multiple places, but Hammersoft beat me to it. I think there is room to name the Rolex Mentor Program in certain articles on Wikipedia but the connection should be made using WP:SECONDARY sources so that the connection can be assured of being significant to the topic rather than promotional for RMP. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb: continual disruption after RfC and block[edit]

This is going nowhere already and only adds fuel to the fire. Purplebackpack, leave him alone; "Joe can earn his own blocks". You are not the right person to bring such a case, unless the only goal is to make drama. Joefromrandb's commentary on his talk page is, well, just that, commentary on his talk page, and as such we tend to give some leeway to editors making unwarranted accusations, engaging in baiting and personal attacks, and posting generally useless invective. If any of that were happening, of course. Floq et al. are big boys and can handle this well enough; they don't need you to protect their delicate ears and eyes. Also, per Bish. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2013 (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.

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs)

Joefromrandb has a history of personal attacks, profanity towards editors, and edit warring, as noted by this RfC, where a number of editors agreed that his actions were unacceptable. He ignored the RfC altogether, and continued personally attacking other editors (like with this diff). This illustrates a perennial problem with Joe: his WP:IDHT mentality. Often, rather than acknowledging wrongdoing, he proceeds to attack editors who point out bad edits on his part, sometimes profanely.

A day or two ago, Joe acted disruptively at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breeze Barton, which led to User:Floquenbeam slapping him with a 24-hour respite from editing. Joe's actions during the block exemplify his IDHT mentality and frankly warrant another block. Instead of using his talk page to appeal the blocks as is the only appropriate action when blocked, Joe uses it to attack Floquenbeam and other editors (many of whom I might add had nothing to do with the AfD or the block), and to advocate punishment of Floquenbeam for blocking him. When User:TParis, User:Ks0stm, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:Technical 13 all tried to talk him down, he attacked them as well, as part of a general tirade against admins who had the audacity to tell him he acted wrongfully (and removed his rollback after he edit-warred a year ago). These include the following diffs:

It's time for Joe's actions to stop. My proposal is the following:

  1. Joefromrandb gets hit with a two-week block, partially due to the actions that warranted the RfC, partially due to ignoring the RfC's findings, but mostly due to the tirade during his block
  2. Future personal attacks or edit warring should result in even longer blocks.
  3. One-sided interaction ban with User:Floquenbeam

pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Series of escalating blocks for Joefromrandb?
  1. Support as nom pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose unless that is what is required based on Joefromrandb's inability to get it in the interest of protecting the encyclopedia. Technical 13 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  3. Support, but oppose. Any future blocks should be a series of escalating blocks (as per standard practice, I would think), but I do not support a reblock based upon his actions during this last block. He was mad, he said a few regrettable things, but nothing that warrants re-blocking now that his original block has expired. Better to just let the fire burn itself out than add more fuel to it. Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
One-sided interaction ban with Floquenbeam?
  1. Support as nom pbp 15:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    I assume there's no need to respond to this drivel. This kid has been told by multiple users to find something to do that doesn't involve me. His obsession with me is both unfounded and creepy. Ping me if there's actually anything that needs addressing. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    @Joefromrandb: The fact that pbp is following you around doesn't absolve you of your inappropriate remarks. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  2. Oppose on the grounds that Joefromrandb remains civil to Floquenbeam. Failure to do that should simply result in a 24 hour block for each offense which may be set into place by Floq if any other capable editor would have done the same. Technical 13 (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Other comments
  • I'm curious why no one thought to revoke Joe's talk page access during his block. Anyway, yes, there's definitely a problem here, although perhaps I'd start with a week, rather than two weeks. That being said, pbp, can you explain how you encountered this behavior? You weren't involved in the offending AfD, so it seems like you're still following Joe's every move in the hopes you'll find something. Just as you point out that it looks like Joe hasn't taken the RfC to heart, perhaps you should take heed of the points during the RfC that you need to find something better to do than constantly being on the lookout for Joe's transgressions. -- tariqabjotu 16:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    To clarify, I think the next block should not be two weeks, but maybe closer to one week. However, I don't think the block is needed right now. Several experienced editors (including administrators) observed the offending exchange, and none of them seemed eager to extend or modify Joe's block. (PBP doesn't count.) If (or when) it continues, that's a different story. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Joe can earn his own blocks, PBP, please stop pushing the issue. Let someone else take Joe to task.--v/r - TP 16:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason for additional action against Joe, yet. Yes, WP:IDHT is deafening, and I feel sorry for the poor deadhorse, but easrly symptoms of deceased equine flagellation and martyrdom are not reasons for blocks...yet - oh, and no need for IB's yet either as nothing has been proven above that would require such ES&L 16:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm not all that fussed at the comments he delivered to me, but I have a thick skin. The only part that got me a little offended was his calling me "little boy" when I'm 20 years old, but that's easy for me to overlook. I'm not of the opinion that any of his comments to me were blockworthy, but I have no opinion on his comments to others since I haven't looked at them (and don't intend to). Ks0stm (TCGE) 16:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Can someone explain what Purplebackpack89 has to do with any of this? There are some pretty experienced editors aware of the posting on Joefromrandb's talk page, and I don't think any of us need any protection. Am I correct in my hunch that PBP and Joe have some long previous history? If this is just an opportunity to get a few kicks in, I'm going to be disappointed. No additional block for anything that he has said on his talk page, no interaction ban with me, and it's probably not a good idea for anyone to provide him with more helpful advice on his talk page right now. Either it will blow over, or blow up without outside help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I think PBP was instrumental in Joe's RFC/U ... well, in it's filing at least - I believe that their participation was actually one of the reasons it failed to gain traction either in the community or by the "target" ES&L 18:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • PBP needs to drop his long-standing grudge against Joe right now, and stop poking him, or it'll be an interaction ban we need to discuss next. And I join Floquenbeam in calling for everybody to stop offering advice to Joe on his page. Please go read User:Geogre/Comic. Internalize it. Bishonen | talk 19:16, 27 September 2013 (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.

Continuous vandalism on Template:Islamism in South Asia[edit]

User:Handyunits is constantly putting original research in the template's Events and controversies section where there are no references or citation in corresponding articles to support the edits and even without leaving any notes on the template's talk page. Such similar problem was solved for {{Hindu Nationalism}}'s Events and controversies but an edit war is going on for the template {{Islamism in South Asia}}. The user has been warned on his talk page but he has also reverted that. I'm seeking to resolve this issue. Thank you!--Benfold (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I have full-protected the template for 1 week. Both Handyunits and Benfold were edit warring. Also, Benfold: Please don't label the actions of other edits in a content dispute as vandalism, it does not help the situation. Monty845 17:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Benfold, I agree with your assessment above but, in future, seek admin help (at [[WP:RFPP] or here) rather than edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting and i apologize for labeling content disputes as vandalism but this is because the user showed no interest to discuss the matter in the template's talk page and keep reverting since a tfd closed. Dear RegentsPark, thanks for the suggestions. I'll keep that in mind if such situation occurs in future. Thanks again to both of you.--Benfold (talk) 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

uncivil/NPA at Huey P. Newton[edit]

I have had trouble figuring out what to do about recent comments that are, in my view, clearly uncivil (if not personal attacks, as i interpret them to be) and not substantially about improving the article at Talk:Huey P. Newton, by Pokey5945.

Because this article, and the discussion there, figured so heavily in my recent ARBCOM case, I am unsure of how to proceed. I certainly want to keep the discussion there on-topic and as strictly about improving the article as can be managed, since NOTFORUM and personal attacks have been an issue there in the past.

If anyone can take a look, I would really appreciate it. I am inclined to re-collapse the uncivil comments, but do not want to do so before soliciting other opinion. -- UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also clarify that I'm not sure how to deal with comments that are in part about the article and in part attacks on other editors. i am loath to cut someone's comment up into sections, but perhaps sometimes this is warranted? -- UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I went to that Talk Page looking for a long, feisty debate but I just see a few comments of disagreement. Is there more than has been deleted? Because it seems like an ordinary content dispute, judging by what's posted there now. Liz Read! Talk! 18:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Right now it's just a couple of assertions that other editors (I presume me among them) are POVPUSHers, etc. It's pretty minor by most standards, but that has also blown up pretty severely in the past, so I am eager (perhaps overeager, given my history, which is why i was soliciting comment) to keep the place civil. And, well, it has an impact when anyone asking a question gets sniping at other editors in response. -- UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It is pretty minor, but Pokey5945's comments are pretty useless and sound very hollow. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC at List of new religious movements[edit]

Is there any chance of a ruling or closure on the RfC and extended debate at talk:List of new religious movements? The narrow issue is whether the sources justify the inclusion of Landmark Worldwide in this list, and the wider issue is whether there is any merit in defining the term 'New religious movement' in some specialised sense, or whether the phrase should simply be interpreted to mean what the everyday meaning of the words suggests. Thanks DaveApter (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo of bacon camp s.f. logo.jpg mislicensed, still fair use?[edit]

The image File:Photo of bacon camp s.f. logo.jpg was (IMHO) almost certainly mislicensed by the original Flickr photographer, since it's a straightforward reproduction of artwork I would assume (in the absence of further evidence) they do not own the copyright to?

In your opinion, would the image still be usable under "fair user" criteria in the Bacon mania article (where it was originally put)? Ubcule (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The photographer has licensed the photo by a free license, but as a non-de minimis photo of a copyright logo, it is clearly a derivative work of the logo's creator, and makes the photo non-free. The license should be a non-free one, and in light of that, the logo of an event that is discussed only in one paragraph is not necessary for understanding the topic, and thus should be nominated for deletion. (Things like these can be brought up at WP:NFCR as it is not an immediate admin incident to be dealt with.) --MASEM (t) 18:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback (and for bringing NFCR to my attention). Yes, I knew it wasn't free, I just wanted to confirm whether it was still acceptable for free use- you made quite clear why it isn't. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Out of scope use of user / talk page[edit]

I would like to know what to do about editors who use their user talk page for things other than the usual.

two examples are Joemeservy (talk · contribs), who apparently uses his talk page for article development. Nathanbennett (talk · contribs) appears to use his user page in the same way. Nathanbennett is recent, but Joemeservy has been doing this since April 2012.

Both are linked from Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. Advice please.--Auric talk 23:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Depends. Joemeservvy is easy, since it was truly article experimenting, and I moved it to a sandbox, filling the new talk page with an ANI notice (!). The Nathan user page looks like copies of real articles, and typically editors choose to go the MfD route, citing WP:FAKEARTICLE for instance. That's what I would do. It's 300,000 kilobytes of wasted electricity. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Will do.--Auric talk 00:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Angry reaction to my looking through edit history and fixing problems[edit]

I have been looking through the edit history of IP editor (IP registered to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC) because I saw some problems with the editor's contributions at Max Weber. I reverted some of this editor's work, and I fixed other entries as I saw fit. This editor started today to go through my various contributions to revert me out of spite rather than for the improvement of the encyclopedia.

One of the places where this issue is being discussed at User talk:ItsZippy. User:ItsZippy thought my reversion and revert/fix were appropriate.

Am I off base here? Should I have refrained from going through this editor's contributions to see what other problems were being put into the encyclopedia? I do not want to WP:Hound this editor off the project, but I want to make sure that contributions are useful, relevant and high quality. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Were the edits sufficiently egregious to warrant excision, or might discussion have had a reasonable result? If they verged on vandalism - then by all means remove them. If they are simply of questionable value in your opinion, then usually discussion is likely to cause less rancor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether these particular reverts were justified. But I do know if you repeatedly revert another Editor's work, you're likely to get a negative reaction. Especially if your Edit Summaries were not informative or, worse yet, completely omitted. Bottom line? You could be very well be right, but a reaction is fairly predictable. Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've had some engagement with this user in the past - a couple of weeks ago he was making some changes to Irenaean theodicy and Augustinian theodicy. Another user and I felt that, although the concerns he raised were valid, the edits he made were not helpful - in the end we discussed it with him here and he was very amenable to the consensus making process. I was slightly concerned yesterday when he asked me to protect the pages to maintain the version that we'd agreed on two weeks ago, but I think that was more down to a misunderstanding of how consensus works, rather than any maliciousness. In this case, I think discussion with the user will be very effective - he seems very willing to listen and learn. He has the potential to become a useful editor here, provided are supportive and encouraging to him. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 09:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also notified the user of this discussion, something you ought to have done yourself. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 09:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying the IP editor. I was under the misapprehension that IP editors could see through WP:Notifications that they had been mentioned. Binksternet (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It says clearly at the top of this page and right above the edit box that you must notify the editor, ip or registered user; a talk page notification is required, not a reliance upon wp notifications. --(AfadsBad (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC))
We're getting off track here, but the notice at the top of the editing window says "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." It does not say that there is only one way to achieve notification. That's what I was looking at when I was creating this topic. Of course the top of this ANI page, in normal reading mode, says the user's talk page must be used, so there is a disconnect between the two versions. Binksternet (talk) 13:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The specific direction to tell an editor on their talk page was added by Bishonen in June, a little over three months ago. Little changes of that nature are probably missed by a lot of people who have been coming to the same noticeboard for years. I know I missed it until today. Binksternet (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I see they don't say the same thing. However, I think registered users can turn off the notifications, so it should best say talk page in both locations. Yes, off track, but thanks for the reply. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

User:Bink on the Max Weber Talk page is trying to block an Admin report I am trying to prepare there by doing section deletes every time I try to pull the materials together. He is apparently upset that there is agreement between my edit there with User:Petrus (Petrus wants some added strengthened citations which is good with me) and is oddly trying to block this report being made and the edit itself being posted. Last Friday he requested Admin protection against posting the otherwise agreed upon format for the edit (misrepresenting that a 3rd editor was involved by not mentioning him) at the same time I was requesting Admin help. His Admin report got serviced first, not knowing that there was an agreement edit about to be posted, and his Admin protected the page without knowing this. I waited 2 hrs for my Admin to arrive without his/her arrival. My request is that there is an agreement between two users about posting the edit against a single disgruntled user who seems upset that the agreement about mods with another User is not in his favor. I would like to post the agreement edit (with any mods for cites as needed) for the constructive benefit of the Max Weber page. Max Weber was a trained attorney and this appears to be a situation of a Music major (User:Bink) having his feelings hurt and still wanting to have influence outside of his field. It seems odd that this full history was not posted by him here. He has also been posting an agenda against all anonIP-Users in a picture/poster campaign on his User page and on the Max Weber Talk page which is Conta User:Jimbo and contra-Reagle which must be seen to be believed. He is presently at 14RR on the Max Weber page and appears intent on setting a record. Odd that he mentions none of this here in the above exchange. (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a basket full of misconceptions brought forward by IP 209 in the post above. I have no wish to stop 209 from making an "Admin report", whatever that means. (I guess it is simply a complaint about me brought to admin attention, which 209 has now achieved.) The text I have deleted at Talk:Max Weber three times [3][4][5] was a copy/paste repetition of two previous talk page entries, one by Special:Contributions/ (which is the same IP person as 209 but at a different computer) and User:Piotrus. There is never any need to repeat somebody's talk page entry in the same thread—in fact it is detrimental to have so much text on the page.
The idea is incorrect that there are two competing admins, one for me and one for 209. I had no idea User:Mark Arsten would step forward and semi-protect the Max Weber page when I asked for some help at WP:RPP on 20 September.
209 apparently thinks that Piotrus agreed to a proposed text addition on the talk page. The specific entry by Piotrus said that he was in favor of adding the proposed text only if it contained better references, and "hopefully incorporate Interpretations of Weber's liberalism from see also directly into the body" which Piotrus said was important for the article's development. In response 209 composed some text and added it to the article prior to polling everybody on the talk page, that is, prior to getting my take on it. 209 said on the talk page, "By agreement per above discussion", even though it was only Piotrus so far, and even though Piotrus gave only conditional agreement, with not all the conditions met.
This IP editor has repeatedly accused me of pushing an agenda against IP editors, simply because of a photo taken of me by Wikimedia Foundation product manager Fabrice Florin, the photo being my response to Fabrice's question of what improvement would I like made to Wikipedia. My response was to think immediately of IP vandalism. The photo shows my (quixotic) wish that Wikipedia would make a very big change and require user registration, a very unlikely step which would eliminate IP vandalism in one step. (I spend a lot of time dealing with IP vandalism.) Of course a secondary effect of such a change would be that constructive IP editors such as 209 would have to register a username, but they would not be stopped from contributing. Our friend 209 represents this stance as a personal attack, which of course it isn't.
209 needs to realize that disputed text under active discussion on the article talk page needs to gain consensus before being moved into the article. It is a group effort rather than a win by whoever is the most insistent or pushy. Binksternet (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Some more OT: Hi all, about my change to the "notify the editor under discussion" note at the top of the page three months ago.[6] I do think my version is an improvement, but in any case, of course the note on the page and the edit notice ought to say the same thing. I don't do edit notices [shudders at the memory of when User:Writ Keeper kindly tried to explain it to me], so would somebody like to change the edit notice please? Or, I suppose, otherwise make them the same. At WP:AN too, please. Bishonen | talk 08:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I've changed the wording of the edit notice to match what the header says, per the request. Cheers, all! Writ Keeper  16:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Beats trying to explain stuff to me, doesn't it? Don't teach 'shonen to fish — she'll starve to death. Just give her lots of fish. :-) Bishonen | talk 17:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC).

I have never been anywhere interesting in my life[edit]

NAC: Re-closed. Still, nothing for admins to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2013 (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.

Or if I have, I don't have any photos of it.

So why are you asking me every bleeding page I am on Mr. Jimbo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This is why you shouldn't edit Wikipedia while intoxicated, kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoonMetropolis (talkcontribs) 02:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Mr Moon didn't mention it, but you've forgotten to notify Mr Jimbo of this discussion. (I would do it for you, but I haven't edited his talk page in seven years and don't plan to start now.) Just copy and paste {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=I have never been anywhere interesting in my life}}.Mr Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, someone closed this, but what silly advice. The IP's getting a standard header message that you and I can turn off in our preferences because we have user accounts. Yeah, the IP deserved to be blocked for their vandalism, but couldn't someone have been less WP:BITEY and actually commented on the substance? ES&L 12:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Is that what this was about? I really didn't get anything out of the OP's bizarre, incoherent posting.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
...and you're still being bitey? If you don't have the ability to read the request when it's posted, maybe you'd best not make smartarsed replies on an admin noticeboard in the future. Their message was very coherent - to all but you. Suggesting it was "bizarre...incoherent" is extremely uncivil ES&L 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I picked up on the issue right away as well since I see the banner on mobile even when logged in. Technical 13 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2013 (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.

Wikistalking and Wikhounding by User:Cavann[edit]

This user has lately filed two non-actionable AN3 reports against me [7] [8] in the last 3 days, he has falsely accused me of making racist comments [9] (when I ask him what is racist about my comment, he is unable to answer [10]), and has lately taken to following my edits [11] and reverting to spite me [12]. In this instance he reverted an edit of mine from well over a month ago. Can someone tell this guy to back off? The false accusation of racism is by itself blockable. Athenean (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I did not revert to "spite you." Get over yourself. I have edited similar articles before [13] and I wasn't the only one concerned about you blanking an entire section [14]. Your comment was irrelevant and offensive.Cavann (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Cavann's revert of [15] Athenean's removal of sourced content[16] relates to a dispute about whether the publication concerned was retracted. Have two two editors discussed this point before bringing it to ANI?
  2. Athenean's contested comment[17] could be read as being subtly provocative, by implying that objectors to this viewpoint are "nationalist"; they may disagree on many grounds, and it is unhelpful to presume motive. Athenean should take more care in phrasing contributions to sensitive racial topics
  3. Cavann's accusation of racism[18] is a blatant assumption of bad faith. I hope that Cavann will withdraw it
Both of you, please can you try to sort this out between yourselves? I see nothing actionable at this stage, just two editors who need to a) practice WP:BRD, and b) be more careful about how they write and more tolerant of what they read. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that may require admin attention is Athenian's potential sockpuppet behaviour with the single purpose IP to circumvent 3rr [19] Cavann (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a clear wp:own behaviour by Cavann in another article (Turkish People) the last months. Actually the activity of the specific user became more extreme after a topic-banned wp:spa DragonTiger23 informed him that he should adopt a more extreme national agenda [[20]].Alexikoua (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
"extreme national agenda" is funny coming from you. Apply WP:NPA Cavann (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It's weird someone defends a permanently topic banned wp:spa account after his restriction was imposed some months ago. Off course wp:npa is irrelevant in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to be cleaning up the WP:AIV properly. is something wrong?  A m i t  웃   18:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Still no bot edits, for nearly a day now. I have posted a message on the bot operator's talk page. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust denial trolling[edit]

See the contributions for (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). [21] and [22] pretty much say it all. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 20:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for 31 hours.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CFredkin removing referenced content and making political edits[edit]

I saw that CFredkin was removing huge sections from Martin Heinrich (here) and Mark Warner (here) saying they were unreferenced when they clearly weren't. I inquired on CFredkin's talk page and CFredkin said the links were broken which is very different than "unsourced". Some simply had a random space in the URL which was easy enough to fix, some needed archive links and others worked just fine yet he removed them anyway. I fixed the space issue and added archiveurls for the dead links.

I noticed that CFredkin had earlier made a load of edits to Joe Donnelly removing information. Here is a grouping of 15 edits that all claim to "Remove unsourced content" and you will see it is all referenced. Some are indeed dead, others (like this link and this and this) work just fine yet CFredkin removed them as "unsourced" anyway.

After finding archiveurls for Martine Heinrich and readding all that information, CFredkin turned around and removed a referenced sentence claiming "There is no mention of the Act in the source" yet the first sentence of the source says Today U.S. Representative Martin Heinrich (D-NM) cosponsored the Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act.

On Bill Nelson there is another example of claiming "Remove unsourced content" when it is very much referenced. What CFredkin did do was removed something referenced and add in "commonly called ObamaCare or the Affordable Care Act" which is something CFredkin likes to do in articles (here, here and here) In fact, other edits seem to be just adding who voted to restore funding to "obamacare" (here, here, here, here and here among others)

I told CFredkin "It is every editor's responsibility to make the encyclopedia better, not simply to strip things out he/she doesn't like." and CFredkin replied "Where does it say that?" Does a policy really need to be created to explicitly noted that editors should try to improve articles? When another editor asked him to stop blanking content, CFredkin simply deleted it without reply something I know CFredkin is entitled to do but this shows I am not the only one who is noticing this behavior. That editor, DD2K, mentioned use of socks and repeated editing without talk page consensus so this may be a bigger problem.

All of these articles are Democrats and coupled with the need to add "obamacare" to articles there may be a politcal point being made here. Anarcham (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And as I was writing this, CFredkin added an unreferenced addition to Jeanne Shaheen. It may very well be true, but on CFredkin's talk page he or she stated both " But I will remove anything that's not properly sourced" and "My point is that I am making articles better by ensuring that any content is accurately sourced." Since it seems to be OK for CFredkin to add unsourced content it makes the previous edits seem even more political motivated. Anarcham (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this editor is that they make POV edits to articles using original research (1,2,3,4,5) in a negative manner on issues the editor believes is negative. And then goes around on many of the same articles removing sourced material that is positive to the BLP subjects(1,2,3,4). There is an obvious attempt to make mass changes to articles without any Talk page discussion, in an obvious POV manner. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Propose to ban User:Hasteur[edit]

Nothing to see here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Eh, no, never. Of course. Worthless complaint. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2013 (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:Hasteur edited other's comment in RFC diff:[23] replacing it with {{collapse top}} box with highlighted text.
  • This highlighted text is not relevant to the original comment, but it repeats the point expressed by the same User:Hasteur earlier in the same RFC.
  • Being pointed to this, he just undid the comment he does not like. diff:[24]. (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • IP appears to be very familiar with the rules of wikipedia. IP declined to notify me as required by this boards rules. IP edited my statement long since entered into the collective knowledge with respect to this RfC. I reverted the IP address citing It's exceedingly poor form to edit others comments... Please feel free to quote, but DO NOT edit other people's comments. IP tendentiously (and with WP:POINT obviously in mind) changed my comments so that when I reverted they could call the previous tendentious editing by yet another IP address who was listing other sites that used the archiving service. Per WP:TPO it is granted to collapse content when the content is not relevant to the topic at hand, which I assert that a blanket list of other sites that have used at least once is. IP should beware the WP:BOOMERANG that they have already invoked for coming to this board with unclean hands and for also disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point in what appears to be an orchestrated effort by individuals external to the Wikipedia community. IP has not presented evidence commensurate with the opening of a ban proposal. I therefore propose that the IP's complaint be dismissed with prejudice and for the duration of the RfC that the page be semi-protected to prevent astroturfed viewpoints from further disrupting the consensus building exercise. Hasteur (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • IP has also proceeded to edit war with another editor, EuroCarGT, as to the interpretation of the disputed diff and the applicable policies therein ([25]). It is suprisingly curious that this is now the 3rd or 4th IP that has sprung up that voices a very rigorous defense of I reiterate my statement that Any action designed to improve en.Wikipedia's disposition to should be met with guarded hostility. Hasteur (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2013 (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:Lowercase sigmabot II is malfunctioning[edit]

No significant malfunctions being suffered by the bot. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 28 September 2013 (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.

Look at what Lowercase is doing: ! Adding more and more sandbox templates! Ban him befroe the entire wikipedia becomes a sandbox template crowd! . Wanabeadnim (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You and your IP are edit warring—with a robot—in a sandbox. Kafka could have used it in a play about the futility of human existence. Favonian (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Malfunctioning? The bot's JOB is to ensure the top line remains in the sandbox. Looks like it's working just fine, thank you ES&L 12:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) I would say it looks like a minor malfunction at best. There should be one header, not two. Have you attempted to contact the bot owner? Technical 13 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. I'll get to it. Σσς(Sigma) 22:28, 28 September 2013 (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.
Apparently it only malfunctions on toolserver. No idea why, though. Σσς(Sigma) 00:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IP anon editor failing to stop making changes on an article, despite being reverted by several editors[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

On the surface this is just a simple content dispute, but this anon ip is obviously on the negative side of consensus. The anon has been reverted by no less than four separate editors in the past five days. Deciding to edit war than to accept that there is very little consensus for these edits. The anon has been informally warned in edit summaries that if he/she continues to edit war, the ip address could be blocked. Even the single editor who supports the ip also warned the ip not to edit war or there may be a block. The ip is not respecting WP:BRD, thinking that the article should reflect his/her version while the discussion is going on. I ask for a block for edit warring and failing to respect WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.--JOJ Hutton 00:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry JOJ, but I think ANI should be for more intellectually challenging stuff. I don't get paid my ridiculous salary for simple cases of edit warring--that's what Bbb23 was hired for. Drmies (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • It's about time you got off your high horse and did something useful. BTW, Ponyo, bless her, left a cheese burger on my talk page because of my ridiculous salary. Why don't you have a bite?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • While you lazy bums just stood around and argued, I actually did something about it. The people they hire as admins these days...:-) Both pages semiprotected for a week. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, uh, I did block the IP for edit-warring... The note below by AussieLegend is interesting. It doesn't alter the case for the block on the IP (given the number of editors who reverted, for instance), but it does indicate that something needs to be done, and it does not reflect well on Jojhutton. What that something is is, perhaps unfortunately, outside the scope of ANI. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • For the record, this isn't just a "simple case of edit warring" and the consensus that Jojhutton is claiming isn't really consensus at all. There was a long-standing consensus, but Jojhutton and two other editors decided to overturn it in the space of a few hours then refused to discuss when it went to DRN. Comments by uninvolved editors at a subsequent RfC demonstrated the alleged consensus wasn't as strong as Jojhutton and friends claimed, although they ignored it. The IP is definitely edit-warring, and there is evidence in his edit summaries that he has misinterpreted WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO but Jojhutton should know better. Jojhutton has been reverting the IP, even when the IP added a source supporting his claim. Instead of discussing the matter on the talk page, Jojhutton has just warned the IP, citing the supposed consensus. Even now, Jojhutton doesn't want to discuss.[26] There's edit-warring here on both sides, from an IP who doesn't know our procedures and an experienced editor who should know better. --AussieLegend () 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeated copyvio...[edit]

We've been having an issue with Mmay2's repeated use of copyrighted material from other sites; examples include:

It has been raised on their talk page, but without any response, and the copyright violations have continued. As noted here, there seem to be some wider editing issues as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You may also wish to start a thread at WP:CCI. Looks like a competence block is necessary as well, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
CCI would be a very good idea. Mmay2 has never posted to any talk page, never responded to any warnings. Thus I've blocked indefinitely - of course, if the editor can show that we can be sure there will be no more copyvio, any Admin can unblock. There's far too many editors like this around, and I'm guessing most don't get found. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doug. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mmay2. Could someone please enact Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested#Plot summary copyvios to reduce the likelihood of this happening in the future? MER-C 03:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

See the third post here. The thread is not fragmented, in fact, I did not reply. I could not understand what they are trying to say. Few months ago, when I went to Wikiversity to request admin's attention towards a long pending deletion discussion, he asked me support him at Wikiversity and promised to delete my requested pages "Request for custodianship", I did not support him (actually I opposed), previous two discussions: User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#Talkback_message_from_Draubb and User_talk:Titodutta/Archive_30#What_is_wrong.3F. And today's discussion was the immediate next discussion. --TitoDutta 22:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No one likes being ignored. I'll talk to him, you delete the comment that bothers you, and we're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Six hours? Cripes, if not getting a reply in six hours is cause for a personal attack then Wikipedia's going to hell faster than I thought it was. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Rollback or other attention may be appropriate: User:AS92813 (I am editing via a mobile device, I normally copy/paste tildes to generate Talk: signature but none are provided when editing this page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've undone one edit and left them a welcome message especially regarding using sources and participating in AfD. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

User:AS92813 is engaging in sockpuppetry through the use of multiple IPs on Major League Baseball rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), could an admin please deal with it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Instaurare violating topic ban again[edit]

After having it clearly pointed out to him only a month and a half ago that he is still topic-banned from LGBT subjects, he has added a shooting at an anti-LGBT group, evidently motivated by their anti-LGBT positions, to Domestic terrorism in the United States: here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:11, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning, rather than a block, in spirit of AGF. GiantSnowman 15:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I would have thought that the whole big discussion last month was clear enough. This isn't ignorance of the restriction, it's Instaurare trying to see how many times he can violate it without being blocked. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If that was the case then there would have been more than one borderline edit. GiantSnowman 15:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone clarify to me the boundaries of the topic ban? I thought this was outside its reach. Instaurare (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure; the topic ban applies to ALL LGBT articles broadly construed. This means that even if it is close to the topic then it is within the scope of the topic ban. ANY discussion at ANY venue about a LGBT-related subject is also within the scope of the topic ban. Any future breaches of this topic ban WILL lead to blocks. Are we clear? PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The Domestic terrorism in the United States is not an LGBT article, is it?. That's where I'm confused. Instaurare (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
No, but "a shooting at an anti-LGBT group" on Domestic terrorism in the United States is a "LGBT-related subject" and, therfore, within the scope of the topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Does it extend so far as to prohibit editing articles of LGBT persons about any subject? Like could I edit Tammy Baldwin about health care? Instaurare (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The topic ban DOES extend to the above example. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Even if it has nothing to do with her sexuality? Instaurare (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The way to get a topic ban lifted (or not extended when it reaches its best-by date) is simple: when in doubt, don't. If you feel the need to ask, at all, run away, run away. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just afraid of making an honest mistake and getting blocked for it. Instaurare (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Since you've already made "honest mistakes" that violated your ban at least twice, you could just be careful and responsible instead of reckless in the future. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
That's the point, I haven't been reckless. Instaurare (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
AGF is not a suicide pact; multiple editors believe your edits were reckless instead of WP:BOLD. Take more care. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

disruptive editing by Harirajmohanhrm[edit]

he has been warned numerous times about removing content from Indian musicians, films, and actors. he has even added articles to WP:GA without any review or nom. he is removing entire sections from articles that have passed GA, PR, and FA. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 07:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


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

A couple of days ago this editor began a series of edits that involved the removal of articles from 'from' categories.

  • Billy Mayfair, he removed[33] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale.
  • Aaron Watkins, he removed[34] Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona even though the article says he resides there. Edit summary- residence not notable
  • Mike McCullough (golfer), he removed[35] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' from this golfer's article even though his article says he resides in Scottsdale. His edit summary- 'Not from Arizona enough to be put in that states's golfers cat'. As I pointed out[36], as long ago as 1979 it has been reported[37] that McCullough lives in Scottsdale.
  • Amanda Blumenherst he removed[38] 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona' even though the Blumenherst article clearly says she was born in Scottsdale and still resides there.
  • Aaron Watkins (golfer) he removed[39] 'Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona' even though the article says he resides in Mesa. His edit summary- Current residence not notable.
  • April Steiner Bennett he removed[40] 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona' with the edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place. Edit summary- Not notable for being born in a place
  • Misty Hyman Almost the same as Blumenherst, he removed[41] 'Sportspeople from Mesa' and replaced it with 'Sportspeople from Phoenix' even though the article says she was born in Mesa.
  • Julie Dusanko he removed[42] Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and replaced it with People from Scottsdale Arizona though Ms. Dusanko is a former professional baseball player.
  • Michelle Estill he removed[43] both Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona and People from Gilbert Arizona even though the article says she was born in Scottsdale and lives in Gilbert.
  • Martin Laird he removed[44] Sportspeople from Scottsdale even though the article says it is his residence. Edit summary- No from Scottsdale.
  • Mina Harigae he removed[45] both Golfers from Arizona and Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona when the article says Ms. Harigae resides in Mesa.

There's at least another 8-12 of these edits, but I stopped with these. All the above edits have been reverted by me or another editor. IMHO a few of this editor's edits, Michelle Estill for instance, border on vandalism.

Clearly there is something wrong. He removes categories because the person who he thinks their only connection to the town was that they were born there but in other cases removes categories because he feels residence isn't notable. That seems totally contradictory.

Consensus has long been that athletes aren't from a town that they are represent through being a sports team member from that location unless the athlete is from the town.(For example Babe Ruth or Lou Gehrig aren't Sportspeople from the Bronx because they played for the New York Yankees) A sports athlete is therefore a Sportspeople from somewhere else than the place they take part in their sport.

Johnpacklambert, aka JPL from this point forward, shortly after having some of the golfer edits reverted started CFDs for both 'Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona[46]' and 'Sportspeople from Scottsdale Arizona[47]' along with other occupation categories for Scottsdale.

I think the CFDs are a bad faith attempt to get around the reversions. These sportspeople categories are clearly well populated and the people are from there. Both The Sportspeople from Scottsdale and Sportspeople from Mesa CFDs he proposes merging articles into the generic 'Sportspeople from Arizona' category even though the person is from Scottsdale or Mesa. JPL has tried moving people into Sportspeople categories that are patently incorrect, namely with Blumenherst and Hyman. Note that JPL also removed people wrongly from these categories and then CFD the categories. At another CFD[48] not too long ago, several editors were bothered by JPL removing articles from categories that were up for CFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talkcontribs) 13:50, 26 September 2013

I don't expect JPL to reply for about 5 hours, but there's some discussion between these two editors at User talk:Johnpacklambert giving his rationale for some of these edits. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It should also be noted that JPL has been submitting a large number of categories for deletion. It appears based on conversations that he feels less is more in relation to categories. He recently submitted several regarding military awards where he stated he wanted to eliminate all military award categories except maybe the Medal of Honor ones. This seems excessive and counter to being helpful to Wikipedia. (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is hardly JPL's first rodeo. A cursory examination of his talk page will reveal numerous notices for edit-warring to add or remove categories against consensus. His use of CFD borders on OWNership. Frankly, categorization would be better off without JPL pbp 15:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Response I was under the impression that we had determined that the mere place of birth is not notable for a person. I am sure I have read that in the guidelines somewhere. I found it. It is the opening line in the place section of Wikipedia:Categorization of people. "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." So I think the guidelines are on my side in that case. In other cases, I will admit that some of these edits might not have been the best. Still, I question categorizing people by a place where they only have temporary residence there. On the issue of nominating categories for deletion. I am trying to implement an at least possible interpretation of WP:OC#Award. There is no rule against nominating lots of categories for deletion. I am trying to follow procedures in doing so. Clearly there are categories that we do not want, some of the military award categories were deleted. This seems to be a case of just attack John for doing anything you don't like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Considering the guideline in categorization of people, and considering that all the connection that Estill's article asserts to Scottsdale is that she was born there, I find it very hard to understand how we can justify categorizing her as from that place. It is definitely not justified to call it "bordering on vandalism". It is a removal built around a lack of any in-article assertion of a connection beyond birth, and the guideline on categorizing people by place suggests that in general people should not be categorized by where they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment' You also removed Estill being from Gilbert Arizona when that's her residence. Why? The possible vandalism part is that and your moving Misty Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix when there isn't a single mention of Phoenix in her article and the same for Amanda Blumenherst who you moved to Sportspeople from Phoenix in place of Scottsdale when her article says she is both born and resident of there....William 16:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The central principal of Wikipedia is verifiability. Categorization must be verified. We only put people in categories that they verifiably belong in. Thus, it would seem that if place of birth is not notable to the individual that one needs something else to put the people in a place category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment. Verifiability, Really? This article[49] comes up on the first page of a google search containing the words Michelle Estill and Scottsdale....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment Well, I have explained my view on people being categorized based merely on birth. The residence issue is much trickier. At least one case the only mention was that the person died in Scottsdale. Does it make sense to call someone Category:Actors from Scottsdale when they were not from Scottsdale when they were an actor? However lets look at some cases. Category:Brigham Young University alumni is not a sub-category of Category:People from Provo, Utah although alumni of BYU in almost all cases resided for some time in Provo. With the residents of Scottsdale, many maintain 2 or 3 residences. Are we really going to put everyone who keeps a vacation home in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina in Category:People from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Being from somewhere is a complex, hard to define issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Vandalism is not the right term. Both people were moved to Phoenix because the text places their formative life in Phoenix by placing them in high schools there. "Vandalism" is not the right term. I am really annoyed by the accusatory nature of this. I will admit that I made some unwise choices. That is a scary thing, because it seems some other editors want to punish and ban anyone who makes choices that they do not like. My basic theory is we should categorize people by the defining aspects of them. I was wrong. I admit it. Will this help. I doubt it, since at least one of the users here has maintained a determination to punish me for 10 months or more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Your moving to Hyman to Sportspeople from Phoenix totally contradicts your explanation. The word Phoenix does not appear anywhere in her article. As for Blumenherst, she is clearly identified as a resident of Scottsdale and you moved her to Phoenix because she went to school there. At best you have an argument for putting her both not removing her from Scottsdale entirely. Doing so makes it a case of vandalism....William 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The claim the CfDs are "bad faith attempts to get around the reversions" makes no sense at all in any way. 1-the CfDs were all started before the reversion. 2-CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions. If one thinks a category is being misused, but others persist on still using it in that way, one possible response would be to start a CfD. That is not really what is going on here, but do we really want to classify that as bad faith. CfD is a place meant to discuss categorization policy, so to call going there "bad faith" in most cases makes no sense. 3-It is just plain not making sense. I have presented the view that people born in a place lack a personally defining connection to the place, thus we should not categorize by that. If I am wrong, and we have a general consensus to categorize by place of birth, we should change the language of Wikipedia:Categorization of people in the "by place" section to say "people should almost always be in categories for the place they were born". Either we need to conform our practice to our guidelines or conform our guidelines to our practice. Yes, the result of the CfDs if they happen will not be the removal of people from being categorized as being from Scottsdale, so I do not achieve the result of my edit by the CfD, so calling it an attempt to achieve the same result does not make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe I did or did not face some reversion before starting the CfD. However, I can tell you that I intended to start the motion on Scottsdale before I even looked at one article on a golfer. I had already started general nominations that included Category:Sportspeoeple from Modesto, California for example. This whole motion seems to violate the basic principal of assuming good faith. At a basic level, I in good faith believed that people who just reside in a place to play golf are no more connected with a place than those who reside there to play football. Or should we put Ziggy Ansah in Category:Sportspeople from Detroit, Michigan?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There is another issue that is at play here, that needs to be addressed. It is not clear if Category:Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona is meant to only cover the boundaries of the city, or if we are using Phoenix in the sense of the greater metro area, and if Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona should be a sub-cat of the Phoenix one. Closely related to that, is the question if an actress grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, assuming we keep the categories for actors from those three places, should she be in Category:Actresses from Queens, New York, Cateogry:Actresses from Brooklyn and Category:Actresses from the Bronx or should we just make it simple and put her in Category:Actresses from New York City. I think, realistically, we should go with the later course. I think the balance between category clutter or the one hand, with the other having the competing interests of category completeness, category useability and category relevance on the other, would suggest this decision. You can disagree with me, but it is a reasoned idea. The one issue that goes against my view is the view that Category:Actresses from Queens, New York should include every actress who ever lived in Queens. However is that really the best way to do such categories. Well, maybe it is if we have them, which is maybe why we don't want them. However, I think someone who grew up in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx is best described with the general appellation of New York City and not the three more specific apellations. I think with such high level of movement they become from the place as a whole. In the same way, someone who grew up at 10 military bases in 10 states is not really accurately described as from any of those places. Having known many people who grew up in the military and who when asked "where are you from" respond "no where", I think actually usage supports my understanding here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Verifiability means that unsourced statements in articles are removed. It is not the duty of editors to look for sources to statements that other editors have made. It is the duty of those introducing the statements into the article to include those sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Seemingly compulsory pointless bold bit JPL likes to edit categories and gets upset when people disagree with his editing. Some people don't like that, and they get upset too. Is there something ANI can do about that? I've seen it here many times, yet Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert says "There is not even a hint of a consensus that there is even a problem to be resolved here". Am I missing something? Or is it just something we have to put up with having here, like "Neighbours" at 5.30 used to be - annoying but unavoidable? Begoontalk 18:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Probably nothing that ANI can do, alas. There are behavioural issues but a quick look at the RfC suggests that while a lot of people are upset there is indeed no real consensus. JPL has a tendency to swamp discussions with umpteen consecutive comments etc, as in this thread. It ties everyone in knots and I wonder if perhaps a bit more thought before making a comment, adjusting a category or nominating something at CfD might go a long way to easing the issues? FWIW, I, too, have become very frustrated with JPL of late but in part is coincides with my thoughts about the CfD system: the fact that he is so familiar with it and yet even recently has had to be reminded to notify people of discussions is a particular niggle. Perhaps just try a bit harder to be more accommodating and perhaps try to answer more of the points raised on your user talk page, JPL? - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This complaint is a-not about CfD, it is about editing categories. It seems this has now become a "pick on everything John does" section. Also, when I don't explain my reasoning in depth enough people attack me for not stating clearly and precisely why I think what I do. I did notify the creator of at least a lot of the most relevant categories, and even asked him to stop creating such categories until we can come to an agreement on which ones we really need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • JPL, do you have any idea how to nest talk page comments? I didn't, btw, say that this complaint was about CfD. I was merely enquiring whether if you were to spend a bit more time cogitating before doing something then whether that might avoid some of the issues being raised. But no worries, if you're going to carry on doing what you do then that is your choice and doubtless someone will open another RfC in due course. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Separate the issues. Unfortunately, this discussion is conflating two different questions. The question of whether individual articles belong in any given category which exists is a separate one from whether that category should exist at all.
    JPL is quite within his rights to nominate any category for deletion, unless the intent is purely disruptive, or it is a tendentious attempt to re-open an issue which is already settled. However, it is quite wrong of JPL to write that "CfD is a totally logical way to respond to reversions". That is not the purpose of deletion discussions, and those CFDs have been disrupted by the separate argument over reversions.
    Similarly, this ANI thread is disrupted by arguments which belong at CFD. (Disclosure: I support the removal of these categories, but not the drama which has surrounded them, or the rambling, TLDR and off-the-point contributions JPL has made to the CFDs, such as these off-topic posts[50] today).
    Yesterday I supported discussing the specific categories at CFD[51], but at this point I think that they are too contaminated by the the off-topic chatter. So I suggest the relevant CFDs should be closed, pending an RFC on the question of people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
    As to the contested edits to individual articles, this clearly needs some centralised discussion. JPL needs a warning not to use CFD in this way, and also for the disruptive way he has pursued this disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment I think BHG is totally not understanding how I am using CfD. This is really frustrating. The reasons for the CfDs have nothing to do with what articles are in them in this case. They are built around a belief that the intersection of being a sportsperson and being from a specific suburb of Phoenix is not notable. To kill the CfDs because of other comments on them would just discorage comments. There needs to be somewhere where the rules of categorization can be discussed. This whole process is frustrating. Especially since my point clearly shows that the directive is on my side, and we do not in general categorize by place of birth. If that directive is not how we do things, than it needs to change. But it is clearly unfair to try and punish me for having a view on this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment Let me try this one more time. The claims about my motivation in creating the CfD are false. I intended to create the CfD on Category:Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona before I made any edits to any categories. When I actually created it is not at all relevant to this issue. I did not, let me repreat, did not create it, as a reaction to any reverting of any edit on my part. I created it because I do not think that the intersection of suburb of Mesa and occupation, at least in the case of sportspeople is notable. That is my view, and that is the key question at the CfD.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • ...JPL, please indent your comments/replies here. Failing to do so makes the discussion nearly impossible to read (and continuing to do so after being requested to do so has been found disruptive in the past). I have done so here; please do so yourself in the future. Also, please stop placing Comment before each of your posts, AN/I is all about comments and it only makes things even harder to read. I honestly find all of the above nearly impossible to comprehend because of these two issues. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Sorry. This whole discussion is very frustrating to me. The initial attack seems to largely be based on my 1-following what appears to be the guideline of Wikiepdia:Categorization of people under the place section. 2-a result of my hesitancy to accept that residence means "being from there", at least initially prompted by the fact some people had 2 residences listed. I have admitted I was probably too quick to remove people based on residence. I am not convinced I was too quick in removing anyone based on accident of birth, even in the vases where further evidence has been brought forth to show residence past birth. Why my second view, because we categorize not by what is, but by what is verified, and until articles have statements in them that indicate a categorization is appropriate, the categorization should not occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talkcontribs) 23:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
        • JPL, you have enough editing experience to know how to address different types of issue.
          if you disagree with individual reversions, try discussion with the other editor(s). If there is an unresolved disagreement about what constitutes "from", then open a centralised discussion at WT:CAT ... but that is a separate issue from how "people from" intersects with people by occupation, which is the only issue which belongs at a CFD about people-by-occupation-and-place categories.
          You are using these CFDs to discuss an question which arises at a higher level of the category tree; that is a misuse of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
          • The discussion of specific cases involved in the category was not started by me but by User:WilliamJE. If you want to criticize someone for bringing up specific cases in a CfD, then shouldn't you criticize him. Why should I let back and let someone claim "John is doing wrong removals from the category" when Wikiepdia:Categorzation of people clearly says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual". You act like I brought up individual cases, that was another user. It is unfair to blame me, and to threaten me with punishment when it was another user who engaged in such. Why should I let false claims of a consensus stand?John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
            • Ok, maybe I did start the discussion in the case of Scottsdale, but it seemed evident to me that the existence of lots of people in the category who only maintained residence in that location part of the year was problematic. This whole process has become very frustrating. If CfD has low participation, one should look at the talk page for Wikipedia:Categozation of people. Until I just made a comment there, no one had commented since last june.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Misty Hyman's article says she graduated from a specific high school in Phoenix. That to me says she is from Phoenix. I may be wrong, but the claim that there is nothing in the article connecting her to Phoenix is not accurate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I have now added a clearer indication that Misty Hyman's high school was in Phoenix. However the article already mentioned Paradise Valley, Arizona. Paradise Valley has a complex relationship with Phoenix, with most institutions identified as being say Paradise Valley Community College actually being within the boundaries of Phoenix, and we do not have Category:People from Parasies Valley, Arizona. Classifying people who are from Paradise Valley as from Phoenix may or may not be an agreed on course of action, but it is not an issue worth bringing up here. Especially since This issue, and most of these other issues were never brought up on my talk page. This all feels like a blindsiding attack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • On the issue of Mike McCullough being brought up here this seems totally out of line. All the article had was a mention that at some point McCullough was a resident of Scottsdale. That was not even in the main text, but in a side info box. True, User:WilliamJE has found by doing some sort of google search an article that mentions McCullough lived in Scottsdale in 1979. Does the article link to that source or incorporate the finds of that source into the article even now? Not when I last looked. Categorization should follow the text of an article. People do not have some special pass that allows them to add categorizes because somewhere, somehow they know they apply. They need to add categories that are based in the text of the article. This is a logical minimum requirement for categories. The proper response to removal of people when their articles do not have any in the article support that they have lived in a place long enough to be from there is to place it in the article. I could not know that McCullough had lived in Scottsdale for 34 years because it was not incorporated in his article, and the fact that WilliamJE has to use an old newspaper search to demonstrate this suggests it is not a commonly mentioned thing in McCullough's biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think User:WilliamJE should have someone tell him to tone down his attacks. His accusation "it was vandalism" and "John Pack Lambert knew it was wrong and still did it" are just not justified. He seems to have gone beyond acceptable behavior in attacking me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • What I find most disturbing is the note "your dead wrong" left on my talkpage. Such notes are inherently uncivil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Why am I accused of "getting upset" when it is another user who said "categorization would be better off without John Pack Lambert". Such downright rudeness is really unjustified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment It's safe to say that JPL and I disagree a lot at CfD. He frequently wants to delete categories that I think are valid, useful and serve a purpose in a larger context of categorization. But we manage to co-exist at CfD.
My complaint about JPL at CfD though is that he often doesn't notify the creators of categories and the relevant WikiProjects that the categories are being debated and might be deleted, merged or renamed. I know this because I often follow-up and post notifications on Talk Pages where I think the Editor(s) might have a stake in the outcome (whether the view is "pro" or "con"). Admittedly, about half of the time, the creator is no longer active, so no notification of the creator is called for. But, on the other hand, I think that if Category:African-American players of American football category is up for deletion, the discussion would benefit from hearing from Editors who write about African-Americans and those who write about football. Is this a useful category? Is it biased? Or is it part of a larger structure of categories about African-American athletes?
It's likely that JPL will say my concern is a separate issue from the one brought up in this complaint. But the larger question is how CfD includes or excludes Editors from the conversation of what happens to Wikipedia categories. Yes, there are guidelines on how categorization should be done but there is also the taxonomy of categories that WikiProjects work to put together. Categories aren't important in themselves and shouldn't be reified, they are a tool that organizes articles in order to help Readers find what they are looking for. They are partly navigational tools. The people who have a deep knowledge of Indian actresses or military honors or Muslim comedians should be invited to participate in the CfD process about those topics and be welcomed, not discouraged, from giving their input.
Yes, regulars like JPL who has been active at CfD for years know the guidelines backward and forward. Often I find his logic correct but the outcome wrong because we have to also consider how deleting categories impacts people who write articles about these subjects, whether the way categories should be corresponds with how categories work or function in practice. And that's why we often differ on decisions at CfD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, my first point would be that this is not really about CfD at all, it is a complaint about edits to specific articles. My second point is that I did notify the creator of Category:Muslim comedians that the category was up for deletion. On the other hand, with Category:21st-century Indian film actresses it was largely a follow up to the discussion of Category:20th-century Indian film actresses, and the person (someone other than me) who started that discussion (which I stayed out of, because I really am conflicted about such categories), did not notify the creator (the same as the creator of the 21st-century category), so it is clearly that I am not by any means the only user who starts CfD's without notifying the creator, so why do people want to single me out for it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
In hindsight, now that I've had a day to reflect, I can see that my comments above are more suitable for a RfC on the topic of notifications and not here. I won't strike it out but I can see it was out-of-place in this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert and categorization of dogs[edit]

Out of scope for ANI. There is no way an admin is going to decide if dogs (or other animals) should be in (or removed from) any given category. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I noticed that Johnpacklambert has removed a bunch of categories from the Rin Tin Tin article, apparently taking the view that a dog cannot be an actor, that a dog cannot have a nationality. The same tack was taken by Johnpacklambert at Ace the Wonder Dog, that a dog cannot be an actor. I would like to ask the community whether they would allow a famous dog to be categorized by place or as an actor. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

JPL may not be trying to disrupt Wikipedia, but it's abundantly clear that his edits are having that effect. As for the dogs, if an animal can be an actor (which seems to be accepted), then an animal should be able to be a "serial actor", a contract player, an American actor, etc. And why would an article about a male dog be excluded from Category:Male dogs? --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
This `is not an ANI issue, and shouldn't be here. But since you asked: Category:Actors is a sub-category of Category:People by occupation.
Do Binksternet you and Orlady Category:Dogs to be a subcat of Category:People?
If not, then don't categorise individual dogs as people.
(Somebody should move this sub-thread to WT:CAT.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
@BrownHairedGirl:: Category:Animal actors has been a subcategory of Category:Actors for nearly 7 years. With that kind of precedent, unilateral efforts to take individual canine actors out of "actors" categories look like disruption. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Orlady, specific cases like this aren't really the purview of AN/I (as I understand it). Similar decisions are made daily at WP:CFD. The question I'm left with after reading your comment is a) how to publicize discussions about categories like Category:Animal actors when they are proposed for deletion, merging or renaming and b) how to get people who care and know about the categories & subject taxonomy to participate in the debate.
To be honest, CfD, even more so than AfD, has a relatively small group of people who weigh in with their opinions about the fate of categories that are being challenged. It would be great if there was a "sorting" system, similar to what occurs at AfD, so that different WikiProjects would be automatically informed if a related category was up for discussion. Right now, I think CfD could stand to improve their notification system but that is really a proposal for a separate RfC.
As for adding or removing individual categories to an article or to a subcategories, any Editor has that ability. And like with any edit, any other Editor has the right to revert that decision and discuss the proposed change on the article or category Talk Page. Liz Read! Talk! 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that until we sort out the problems with categorizing people by place (and probably occupation) we are likely to have arguments. An RfC seems the only solution. People move around, some more than others. Someone might graduate from high school only having spent 2 years in that area. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
BrownHairedGirl, the example you give is exactly why I hate dealing with categories. The false supposition is that Category:Actors should only include human actors because it is a subcategory of "people by occupation". That is a mistaken conclusion—the category of actors can never be a complete subset of human occupations if animals can be actors, which is clearly the case. The set of "actors" is larger than "human actors", though you would never know it by looking at categories on Wikipedia. I think the fact that a category is technically a subcategory of a parent category should not restrict the first category from including elements outside of the purview of the parent category. The more blindered, narrow interpretation is apparently being followed on Wikipedia. The whole field of Wikipedia categories makes me crazy because of nonsense such as this, and because of the embarrassing male v female occupation dispute which started with "American novelists" v "American women novelists", and centered on the activity of Johnpacklambert. Makes me wanna scream. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
They're dogs, why the hell should we care if they are listed as "20th century American actors" or just referred to as "animal actors"? It seems rather silly to me for them to be included alongside human actors.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. It's nonsense to list them aside humans. And 'acting' isn't the correct word for dogs. Dogs are trained - 'trick trained' - to perform in certain ways by people (I know people who do this), and what they do isn't what I would consider acting. Maybe 'performing', but not acting. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Entirely agree. Dogs aren't actors, and dogs do not have nationalities either. People have nationalities. A dog may live in a country, and it may be owned by somebody who has the nationality of that country, but the dog does not have a nationality. Fut.Perf. 05:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Dogs are actors. Bears too. "Performing" vs. "Acting". Ever seen a John Wayne movie? ;) Doc talk 05:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Those arguing that dogs can be actors have taken Suspension of disbelief too far. The dogs are doing tricks. They haven't read the script. They're not interpreting a character from it. Cute and clever they may be, but they're not actors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
How do we deal with Bart the bear if he was not an actual "actor"? IMDB credits him in various ways ("The bear", etc.). But that animal is undeniably credited as an actor. Can O' Worms? Meh. Doc talk 07:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
We tend not to regard IMDB as a terribly reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Regardless: Bart the bear was an actor. He was a single animal, and he performed under different credits. Should animal actors be as overcategorized as human actors? Probably not. Can an animal be considered an "actor"? Yes. Doc talk 08:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The thespian status of canines causes the taxonomy of Wikipedia categories to collapse. Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I just looked up Acting. It tells me "Acting requires a wide range of skills, including vocal projection, clarity of speech, physical expressivity, emotional facility, a well-developed imagination, and the ability to interpret drama. Acting also often demands an ability to employ dialects, accents and body language, improvisation, observation and emulation, mime, and stage combat." There's an awful lot of those things that dogs don't do. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
A credited role in a film goes to an "actor". If a dog goes uncredited, it's "scenery". When an actor goes uncredited, it's still an actor. Now when a dog is credited - it's an "actor" for all intents and purposes. Doc talk 08:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
To "act" means to "perform an assumed role". The concept entails a conscious activity of pretending. No animal ever pretends to be something other than itself. An animal may "appear" in a film, or maybe it may "perform" in it, but it doesn't "act" a role. Fut.Perf. 08:33, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If we want to get philosophical we can, but we shouldn't do it here. My incisor teeth indicate that I am an animal myself (at least a vestigial one). Some dogs are actually considered humans under the law: killing a K9 police dog is likely to earn a "murder of a police officer" charge. Overcategorization of animal actors? Hell, no. Disregarding animals like Bart as actors because they are animals? No way! Doc talk 08:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
This is getting into a pretty far-fetched tangent here, but just for the record: this thing about police dogs is a rather ridiculous urban legend. The law can impose heavy penalties on killing police dogs, but even in a place with a legal system as baroque as that of the US the law cannot magically define dogs to be humans. People who kill police dogs are not charged with murder, but with cruelty to animals. Police dogs are no more people than dogs used in movies are. Fut.Perf. 12:45, 28 September 2013 (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.

Report of a "Legal threat"[edit]

apparently under WP:NLT i should report that (talk · contribs) wrote this " If you continue doing the same , we can also report the case to Cyber Crime Cell in New Delhi , India . They will hunt you down . Keep this warning in mind . " on my talk page.

based on the timing, my guess is that it was User:Shivamevolution had logged out to make that edit before he created User:Prakharveedang as another sock puppet to reupload the same copyright image to commons that had been deleted when Shivamevolution claimed that he had sourced the image from his blog. but thats just a guess. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what 'legal threats' you're talking about here, but the other user is not a sock puppet of mine, if that is what you are implying. You may ask an admin to investigate the same if you think it's necessary, but it'll just be a waste of time and energy. --Shivamevolution (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added more details about the "threat" above. You may also wish to go to Wikimedia Commons and explain your lack of socking there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I had blocked Shivamevolution for sock/meat puppetry before, and this falls very close to the earlier pattern, while the two users may be different, they operate only to embellish one article. The new user is clearly a sock of one of the older groups (there were two groups according to SPI and the linkage between the two groups was inconclusive). Also, the post on RedPen's page follows from this post earlier by Shivamevolution, so there's at least some collusion involved. I'll be away from computer for a while, so I can not respond quickly to any queries. —SpacemanSpiff 14:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, now an SPI is unnecessary, the first Commons image was uploaded by Shivamevolution, the second one by Prakharveerdang and now sourced to a flickr account of the earlier sock. So irrespective of technical evidence, this is editing in a group. —SpacemanSpiff 14:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for the legal threat, and will leave it to someone else to sort out the socking question. Monty845 15:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked both Shivamevolution and Prakharveedang indefinitely. The collusion, disruption, and deceit are fairly obvious to me. In keeping with the outcome of the sock puppet investigation itself, no user has been tagged.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps this user is back as (talk · contribs · WHOIS). That account just left another complaint at User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom which they signed as "Wikipedia Editor", just like the blocked IP did [52]. Both IPs are registered to an ISP in New Delhi. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Revdel required[edit]

I've spotted something that needs revdel'ing for BLP reasons but do not want to post the diff here. Can an willing admin stick their name below - I'll email the diff to you. Ta. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

- Sitush (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

IP User Continuing to Ignore WP:SOURCE[edit