Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive872

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

Noticeboard archives


Indigenous Aryans[edit]

I don't know if this is the right venue for this, but someone (an admin) needs to take a serious look at the article Indigenous Aryans. It is a fringe theory being pushed by religio-nationalists in India, but the article has grown to two or three times the size of an appropriate Wikipedia article. The theory-pushers (User:Bladesmulti in particular) have been editing so tendentiously that mainstream editors have simply been become frustrated and left. This situation and the article need some serious admin attention and a firm hand to bring the article under control. --Taivo (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Where's is your proof? And I have not extended the page[1] or written even 3 sentences. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Try the fringe theory noticeboard that seems better placed as this appears to be a content issue. Amortias (T)(C) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really. When this went to the Fringe Theory Noticeboard (it's been there before), it was again overwhelmed by the POV pushers and nothing was accomplished. It's not a content issue at all--it's a behavior and result issue. It's the kind of thing that Wikipedia is perhaps incapable of handling, but admin intervention is needed there. --Taivo (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Taivo, please. there's a RfC going on, and the opinions are quite clear that IA is fringe; wait for that RfC to close, and wait for me to cut down the size of the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely best to wait for the RfC, but this is a real issue on many articles. Fringe theory proponents are usually very devoted, often here for the single purpose of pushing their theory (I've seen a lot of it at Christ Myth Theory the past months, but there are many examples). As Taivo says, the fringe proponents often manage to cause so much discussions and fights that ultimately everybody else leaves and they get their way. Better policies for fringe theories (in general) may be needed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, because this is something that is necessaril;y both a content and a conduct issue, and even ArbCom only handles the conduct issues. There is no higher authority to keep corrdinated fringe/ideology pushes at bay.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Jeppiz, better policies on fringe theories would be very helpful. Thanks for noticing this, Joshua. I see that you have started working on keeping the size under control. --Taivo (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid I will have to disagree with the argument that Vedic People indigenism is a fringe theory. There is a legitimate question raised based on archaeological, linguistic, paleontological and generic evidences on the Aryan Migration Theory which was earlier accepted by dominant group of scholars as the Aryan Invasion Theory but changed to migration in "batches". This gradual change in the dominant view of scholars which has always been flux in history itself points to the legitimacy of the vedic indigenism argument which remains one of the postulates of the origins of vedic people. The usual attack on the Vedic Indigenism is that is it the work of so called Hindu Nationalists. This one label is used to simply discredit all the research which is done in this field. Unfortunately Wikipedia has become a battle ground for the same. The best way for wikipedia to build balanced articles is not to deny the Vedic Indigenism its due place in articles here, not as a dominant view but as another view. This is something that several historians have begun to accept I have provided a fair bit of evidence of the scholarly work done in this field Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute & Talk:Indigenous_Aryans#Oppose.Indoscope (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." [1].
  1. ^ Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0. Retrieved 28 January 2015.
According to Aklujkar, Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..[1]Indoscope (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Aklujkar, Ashok. "Letter to S Farmer" (PDF). Retrieved 29 January 2015.
Please discuss at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

General Comments on Fringe, and Specific Comments on the topic[edit]

The suggestion to discuss at the fringe theory noticeboard was a reasonable one, but was already tried a few days ago and was a complete failure, and illustrates the problem. A thread was opened on the subject of Indigenous Aryans. It promptly became disruptive, because, on the one hand, multiple editors agreed that the theory was fringe, but the proponent, User:Bladesmulti, replied to other editors at great length, essentially a filibuster. Then, because the thread became excessive, an administrator boxed the thread. A request was then posted at WP:AN to overturn the close, although a thread at WP:FTN does not have a formal close, so that the admin was not closing a discussion requiring closure, but simply boxing a disruptive thread. In the case in point, there already is an effective way to deal with the tendentious editing, and that is that this fringe theory is about the ancient history of India, and so is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions at arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBIPA. Likewise, fringe scientific theories are subject to arbitration as pseudoscience. The question that maybe should be discussed at Village pump (policy) is whether we need better policies on fringe theories in general, or whether arbitration and arbitration enforcement is a satisfactory approach in general. In this particular area, I would advise anyone who thinks that the editing is disruptive to go to arbitration enforcement under WP:ARBIPA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talkcontribs) 03:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Off wiki non-constructive editing related to the English Wikipedia[edit]

User:IvanOS has accused me on the Croatian Wikipedia that I have a sockpuppet here, which is not true without initiating checkuser request here. To "prove" their point they added following diffs: 1, 2 adding that the users who made the edits are the same person (me). They used those edits as the "evidence" that I have insulted the entire Croatian nation (!). What is less relevant, but worth mentioning is that surprisingly their reasoning was accepted by an admin there leading to my indef block there. VS6507 (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi VS6507, thanks for raising this but I'm not clear what action you'd like taken - the en-wiki admins don't have any control over actions taken on the Croatian Wikipedia, and your account is not blocked and has not been accused of sockpuppetry here. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Be glad you didn't get a warning for restoring the vandalism of the other account.[2] For those unfamiliar with Ustaše, this is like opening Germans with "also known as nazis". I will be kind and assume good faith: Maybe you thought the IP had only reverted your own edit and that reverting the IP would only restore your own edit. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, PrimeHunter, I apologise because I didn't notice that bit about "also known as ustashi".
I let admins to decide what action needs to be taken as he speculated off wiki about sockpuppetry here instead of reporting it. I give my consent for a checkuser check if someone thinks that that account might be associated with me. Valid checkuser analysis would also be useful to prove hr wiki admins that IvanOS didn't tell the truth and that my account here is clean when it comes to sockpuppetry and other negative behaviours as well. VS6507 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── VS6507 has had some problems with meatpuppetry (across different wikis) in the past - some editors here may recognise his previous accountname - so, if IvanOS suspects sockpuppetry, we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand. @IvanOS:, is there any more evidence? bobrayner (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: No, it isn't. --IvanOS 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

User: invalid RfC closure[edit]

I closed the RFC NE Ent 12:38, 2 February 2015 (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.

Will someone please explain to ‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that he is not entitled to close an RfC in which he has been a busy participant? I have now reverted his closure twice. He cites that there is "clear consensus", which I disagree with; opinions are very divided instead. I ask an uninvolved editor or admin close the discussion instead. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I have posted to the IP talk page confirming that, as an involved editor, he or she may not close the discussion, and that doing so again may lead to a block. I'm afraid I don't have time to make the detailed study of the rather long discussion that would be needed to close it. I hope someone with more time will do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I was the one who started the RFC, it’s run longer than a month, there has been no relevant activity for a week, and there doesn’t seem to be any question about the outcome. I asked User:Edokter to post to WP:AN if he wanted to contest this per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, rather than repeatedly reverting me; he refused (see User talk:Edokter#Your reverts). Also, he violated WP:3RR: [3] [4] [5]. Could someone explain to him that that isn’t proper behavior? — (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. You may not close a discussion in which you have been actively involved. It is totally unnecessary to invoke WP:CLOSECHALLENGE here, as the close should never have been done in the first case. It would not be at all helpful to start requiring editors to start up the cumbersome process of a discussion at an administrative noticeboard for trivial issues which can be dealt with by a simple revert of and edit which was out of process and should never have been made.
  2. Despite that, Edokter has done what you asked, namely started as discussion here about it, and you have received an answer.
  3. To say "there doesn’t seem to be any question about the outcome" makes no sense, because Edokter has questioned it. Even if you sincerely thought at the time when you first closed it that there would be no question, as soon as your closure was reverted you knew better.
  4. Linking to three reverts cannot demonstrate breaking of the so called "3 revert rule", as that rule refers to making more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    I misremembered 3RR; my apologies. But to your first and third points, WP:RFC says that participants may close a discussion, and both it and WP:CLOSE advise rather strongly against formal closure if the outcome is obvious. All indications were that the reverts were based on a belief that this was never ever ever allowed and that RFCs absolutely must run for 30 days, rather than any objections to the close itself. — (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There has also been discussion that the closure of RFCs, or of anything else requiring closure, by IP editors is discouraged because IP addresses sometimes change, making communication about closure review difficult or impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BOLD and WP:IAR are just as much policy as anything else. His judgement on consensus appears to be accurate as well. I say let it stand/ KoshVorlon Je Suis Charlie 18:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Those only hold until actions are contested, and definitely not to be used to push an issue. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realized no link to it was included, so, here was my close: [6]. In it, I claimed that there wsa not a consensus for the change (not, as User:Edokter claimed, “clear consensus”). I stand by my closing summary since I honestly don’t see how it could be interpreted any other way, but if anyone does see a clear consensus there (or some other way I was mistaken), please close it appropriately. (Or if an uninvolved editor agrees with my close enough to restore it, I wouldn’t complain about that.) Thank you. — (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That was in reference to your claim that WP:CLOSE allows closure by involved parties when there is "clear consensus". And it was exactly my objection that there was none, hence why the closure was improper. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You mean at [7]? I misspoke there; I used “consensus” as a synonym for “outcome.” You still haven’t suggested that any other outcome was plausible. And CLOSE does discourage formal closure requests where the outcome is clear. I didn’t do it on a whim; I checked project pages to make sure it was allowed. As far as I could tell, it was. Which was why it was so frustrating to have you repeatedly and bureaucratically reverting over perceived violations of “policy” found on non-policy (and non-guideline) pages that didn’t even support your objections, and then ignoring requests for clarification. Frankly, I’m getting tired of it. — (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not interested in discussing whether or not some sentence somewhere in some relevant page can be interpreted as meaning that an involved editor can sometimes close a discussion. There is no point in doing so, because nothing in any Wikipedia policy, guideline, or any other page is a firm rule that is to be taken as absolute. I have no doubt whatever that there could be circumstances where I would regard it as reasonable for an editor to close a discussion in which they have taken part. However, the following two facts remain: (1) It is almost always better not to close a discussion in which you have been highly active. (2) Once another editor has challenged a closure by an involved editor, it is clear that the closure is not uncontroversial (no matter how strongly one may feel that it should be uncontroversial, and that the editor who challenged it is being unreasonable) and the only reasonable options are either to leave it unclosed or to ask for an uninvolved editor to asses it and close it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    Then I’ll reiterate my request for exactly that to happen. — (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (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:CIR block needed[edit]

ADHZ07111989 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly created a hoax article about a later Sui dynasty (not the historical Sui dynasty, but a revival that lasted far longer) based on this alternate history Wikia. After being warned about it (repeatedly), he shows himself shifting to a singular focus in creating the article, refusing to hear out any warnings and continuing to ask people for permission and even help in creating a hoax article. When I explained what alternate history is, he cited sources about the historical Sui dynasty as if they were sources about the "later" Sui dynasty, and even sources about the Ming dynasty (which occupies the spot where the "later" Sui dynasty was supposed to be). And no, "Later Sui dynasty" is not an alternate name for the Ming dynasty.

To put this in perspective, this is like someone trying to create an article about the "second Ostrogothic empire" that occupied Germany from 962 to 1806, citing a video game Wikia and books (in their own language) either about the original Ostrogoths and the Holy Roman Empire. Either they're a troll or they're at a level of incompetence that cannot be described without violating WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)This is my argument:

Please visit the and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.

Click for ... well, things. Drmies (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention please. The references for Later Sui Empire are:


  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  *梁惠王章句上 page 6
  *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世 孫行者施為三折肱
  *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨
  *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊
  *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1
  *之 Part 葘
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.
  Hawley, Samuel (2005). The Imjin War. Japan's Sixteenth-Century Invasion of Korea and Attempt to Conquer China. Seoul: The Royal Asiatic Society, Korea Branch. pp. 195f. ISBN 89-954424-2-5.
  Turnbull, Stephen (2002). Samurai Invasion. Japan’s Korean War 1592–98. London: Cassell & Co. p. 244. ISBN 0-304-35948-3.
  Roh, Young-koo (2004). "Yi Sun-shin, an Admiral Who Became a Myth". The Review of Korean Studies 7 (3): 13.
  *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》
  *Dragon Tales: China’s History from Tang to Qing. Singapore: Singapore: Asiapac Books. 2006.

The online version of references can you read at, as follow:

  *梁惠王章句上 page 6


  *西遊記 part 朱紫國唐僧論前世 孫行者施為三折肱


  *廣韻 Part 上平聲 Bab 支 Lineage 隨


  *廣韻 part 上平聲 Domain 脂 Title 伊



孝女: 《唐書》曰:劉寂妻夏侯氏,滑州胙城人,字碎金。父長云,為鹽城縣丞,因疾喪明。碎金遂求離其夫,以終侍養。經十五年,兼事后母,以至孝聞。及父卒,毀瘠殆不勝喪,被發徒跣,負土成墳,廬於墓側,每日一食,如此者積年。貞觀中,有制表其門閭,賜以粟帛。 又曰:于敏直妻張氏,營州都督、皖城公儉之女也。數歲時父母微有疾,即觀察顏色,不離左右,晝夜省侍,宛若成人。及稍成長,恭順彌甚。適延壽公于欽明子敏直。初聞儉有疾,便即號勇自傷,期於必死。儉卒后,凶問至,號哭一慟而絕。高宗下詔,賜物百段,仍令史官編錄之。 又曰:楊紹宗妻王氏,華州華陰人也。初年三歲,所生母亡,吻繼母鞠養。至年十五,父又征遼而沒。繼母尋亦卒。王乃收所生母及繼母尸柩,并立父形像,招魂遷葬訖,又廬於墓側,陪其祖母及父墳。永徽中,詔曰:「故楊紹宗妻王氏,因心為孝,率性成道。年迫桑榆,筋力衰謝。以往在隋朝,父沒遼左,招魂遷葬,負土成墳,又葬其祖父母等,竭此老年,親加板筑。痛結晨昏,哀感行路。永言志行,嘉尚良腎攏宜標其門閭,用旌敏德。」賜物三十段、粟五十碩。 又曰:孝女賈氏,濮州鄄城人也。始年十五,其父為宗人玄基所害。其弟強仁年幼,賈氏撫育之,誓以不嫁。及強仁成童,思共報復,乃候玄基殺之,取其心肝,以祭父墓。遣強仁自列於縣,有司斷以極刑。賈詣闕自陳己為,請代強仁死。高宗哀之,特制賈氏及強仁免罪,移其家於洛陽。 又曰:汴州李氏孝女,年八歲,父卒,柩殯在堂十餘載,每日哭泣無限。及年長,母欲嫁之,遂截發自誓,請在家終養。及喪母,號毀殆至滅性。家無丈夫,自營棺槨,州里欽其至孝,送葬者千餘人。葬畢,廬於墓側,蓬頭跣足,負土成墳,手植松柏數百株。季昶列上其狀,制特表其閭,賜以粟帛。

  *《草木四》 Part 《叙牡丹》 Page 1


  *之 Part 葘


  *鬼三十五 Part 《浮梁張令》


I don't care about any fiction made from the Later Sui II Empire.

Please give me permission to make it or in exchange of that please help me make the article.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already explained, those are sources about the original Sui empire, or about the Ming dynasty. User refuses to leave Tlön. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll wait for Nyttend to weigh in, but I smell a NOTHERE block coming a mile away. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Dear sir/madam Please visit the and see there at Song-Ming section it is not about era of legacy Sui it is about Later Sui II " " upsurp at the era. See about the text above.ADHZ07111989 (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are about the Ming dynasty, not Sui II. You have become confused because of alternate history fiction you cited as the only source in the original draft of your article, and are now misinterpreting sources about the Ming dynasty. That or you're trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Giving the guy one more chance: I've told him to drop the subject entirely and edit on something else if he wants to continue, and if he does anything more on this topic, he'll get the indefinite block. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I work extensively on Chinese history and culture articles, and can verify that none of the long Chinese texts ADHZ07111989 cited above has anything to do with the so-called Later Sui Empire. This person seems to be obsessed with glorifying the Yang surname. In addition to Later Sui (Yang was the imperial surname of the historical Sui dynasty), he also created the pseudohistory Dương Dynasty (An Nam) (Dương is the Vietnamese pronunciation of Yang), and Yang (state), which was a historical entity but most information he added was genealogical legend that no historian would take seriously. -Zanhe (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This user has posted a (horribly malformed) WP:DELREV request here. I didn't want to unilaterally revert it, but I honestly don't feel it's worth fixing either, since it's apparently the same extended content that this user has posted at multiple locations, including above in the collapsed section. In other words, Nyttend, it looks like your advice to drop it fell on deaf ears. --Kinu t/c 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, check the timestamps: he hasn't edited since the advice was given. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, good call. I also see that the deletion review has been dumped. Here's hoping that's the end of that. --Kinu t/c 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

user:NiranjanUltrasound - possible block evasion[edit]

NiranjanUltrasound (talk · contribs) is under an indefeinte block for spamusername, but appears to have reappeared as Tepp Niranjan (talk · contribs). File:Colordopplermagazine.jpg has been previously uploaded by iranjanUltrasound (deleted), and then has been uploaded again by Tepp Niranjan, and their content contribution seems to be there to promote Niranjan Ultrasound, so it's very likely the same person. No request was ever made for a name change under the original name -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Definite block evasion - it's the same person. I guess, you'll have to wait till an admin checks this thread and blocks them as a sockpuppet of NiranjanUltrasound (talk · contribs). --Ankit Maity «T § C» 17:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Block request[edit]


[8] Looks like a fairly blatent case of not here.A block might be in order to prevent more disruption. Amortias (T)(C) 20:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The user has only made two edits, but, I will be keeping an eye on him if it spreads. -- Orduin Discuss 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Might be worth checking deleted contributions as im sure I marked some pages for Speedy they were screwing with yesterday. Amortias (T)(C) 21:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think only his past talk page was deleted. -- Orduin Discuss 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Am going to have to slow down reviewing stuff so my memory can catch up. Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Persistent harassment, sockpuppetry, and vandalism by long-term disruptive editor[edit]

The following accounts/IP addresses are relevant to this report:

Before I get redirected to WP:SPI, I would like to clarify that 1. Yes, all found sockpuppets are currently blocked, and 2. This is more of a long-term disruption issue than one for SPI. But to get things clear, I'll need to start from the beginning:

The issue originates at The Sims Wiki on Wikia, where IP vandalized the wiki. As I am an administrator over there, I blocked the IP address from editing (see block log). One month later, the IP vandalized the wiki again, and was blocked again as a result. The user has since then tracked me down to Wikipedia, where they began vandalizing. They often leave me talk page messages asking to be unblocked from The Sims Wiki, or issue threats to create more sockpuppets if I didn't become a bureaucrat. Since then they have been creating new sockpuppet accounts on both Wikia and Wikipedia and is starting to become a real pain.

The issues on Wikia are mostly none of our business (I'll deal with those) but those on Wikipedia are becoming disruptive and annoying, and the user is continually coming back for additional harassment and trolling.

Administrator or experienced editor advice would be appreciated in resolving this situation. Thanks. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe there's no need for a SPI here (if you just want them blocked). The editing pattern and evidence is enough to support the conclusion, that they're sockpuppets of the sockmaster. I would however recommend, a CheckUser to verify the IP ranges to do an IPRangeBlock if possible, in which case a SPI is required. I am not an administrator, so I don't have the necessary powers to do anything. I recommend you do the latter to get an autoblock issued. However, if your sockpuppets are unfortunately on dynamic IP ranges or clever enough to use a VPN, then you'll have to deal with it. Then, we'll have to go with Long-term Abuse and file a report with the ISP. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Per [9], this is almost certainly user:Cmach7 who has been at it for 3 years now. Nothing new to add, just connecting this new sockfarm to an older sockfarm. Soap 23:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


Block has expired by now anyway. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2015 (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.

Would be helpful if an administrator could intervene here as it doesn't look like I'm going to get anywhere. Several names were added to the patrons list at LGBTory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), but that do not appear in any source. This may be a deliberate WP:BLP violation but I do not know enough about the individuals listed to determine if being supporters of LGBT topics might be electorally damaging to them. I reverted this, initially assuming edits were good faith and offering to include citations if they needed help. Now SleepCovo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is carrying on where the IP user left off, with similar behaviour: ignoring requests for conversation; reverting changes back to the version that matches the cited source; removing all warnings posted to their talk page; and now trying to rename the article section to get around this problem. The rename doesn't help, as it similarly fails verification for citations and is unencyclopaedic. Both accounts seem to have form for this kind of behaviour. ~Excesses~ (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edits they are claiming that these people could be LGBT, which is definetly a BLP problem if unsourced. You cant claim someone is something without sourcing it. Amortias (T)(C) 22:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


  • The original user has been blocked for BLP violations (the blocking admin said for "scurrilous allegations of living individuals" - sad that "being LGBT" is a scurrilous allegation, but I suppose even in the UK we're not there yet). However, all the names they added to the article were of those Conservatives that are openly gay or bisexual (check their articles). Of course, it is wrong (or at least unsourced) to say they were patrons of the LGBT organization, but I hardly think this was a BLP violation, simply an error on their part. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "scurrilous allegations" almost sounds like an attack, but since we permit virtually all our lists of people to leave sourcing to the articles (if at all), it is no wonder that a newby would think it perfectly fine editing in accord with practice, while technically against policy (which is less likely to have been read or understood). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be a better policy to have a no lists with people without reliable sources showing that the person belongs on such a list, without worrying about whether it's "contentious" or not; but WP prefers more content more than better sourcing. IMHO... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (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.

Copy/paste move with copyright violations[edit]

Koko the Clown finally blocked by Diannaa. I knew I was being too lenient, but it does prove that if you give some people enough rope... (Someone please do the requested histmerge). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2015 (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.

A user editing as both Koko Nigel and 175.XXXXXXX copy/paste moved Melanophryniscus stelznerni to Melanophryniscus stelzneri. (As near as I can tell, the new name is correct.) Additionally, the editor has copy/pasted text from sources in numerous instances. As a result, we need a copy/paste move cleanup and a revert to the January 15, 2015 version. Once that is completed, normal editing can work out whether this is about Melanophryniscus stelzneri or Melanophryniscus dorsalis, I guess. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the previous name you wanted to point us at was Melanophryniscus stelzerni , not Melanophryniscus stelznerni . David Biddulph (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This user is a problem who focuses on adding "keeping in captivity" non-encyclopedic and unsourced information to reptile articles; see AN archive. The actions look minor but the copyvios are persistent and when pressed, the bogus edits are extreme—the deleted Salamanders as pets was a blatant hoax at one stage (the text was copied with bogus changes from here). Two edits at the user's talk were very dubious: diff and diff. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The user was previously blocked for a variety of problems and many of those continue. I gave them a final warning before coming here. As to whether or not more needs to be done at the moment, I am not !voting. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Another copyvio. They are up at AI/V.- SummerPhD (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The editor in question has been indefed. The copy/paste move remains. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it will need a history merge, which I have never done. If you could tag it for expert attention using the templates provided at Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging, I would appreciate it. Tired now, logging off. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2015 (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.
I've performed the history merge. Graham87 08:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia offer corporate, real estate, hiring, banking and legal advice now? (Note: the neutrality of the wording of this very question is questioned)[edit]

NAC: There is consensus that there was no violation requiring admin attention. Discussion is underway at the Reference Desk tal page on how to deal with various sorts of questionable questions. No action needed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2015 (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.

Immediately after the swift closure of the discussion above on medical advice forbidden as professional advice by our disclaimer: "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area" we have a new thread requesting advice on setting up a new business venue, including the OP asking about, among other things: "finding providers for various [services,] maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir[ing] contractors to build/modify the space, [and] complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)"

I have removed this question on the basis of the above decision that we do not give advice in contravention to our disclaimer. [10]

Nevertheless, both the OP, and now Jayron32 diff have seen fit to reopen this discussion. Do we provide corporate, real estate, and legal advice, or don't we? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

(after EC) Your phrasing of the question is misleading--it tends to lead the reader to form the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute. You're mischaracterizing both the nature of my posting and the issue being disputed here. I did NOT request advice of any kind. The text you (Medeis) quoted is about what I expected a business executive would have to address when starting an office at a new location. I did not say I needed to address those issues, and I most definitely did not solicit advice on dealing with issues of those kinds. I invite anyone reading this to refer to my origin posting to read it in its entirety, in context. Given the absence of even a hint of an actual existing situation in which advice is needed, and in the total absence of any particulars about that non-existent situation, there's nothing for anyone to offer advice on.
What I asked about was how business executives acquire the needed expertise to handle the tasks that I expect needed to be handled. A possible relevant answer could be: many MBA programs include a course on managing the practical logistics of setting up an office, so many MBAs actually are educated in that subject. Another possible relevant answer could be: there's actually a consulting industry that addresses this need, the services offered are generally known by the names ABC or XYZ. Still another possible relevant answer could be: this is actually not as hard as you think; it's like house hunting, only a little harder. If someone could start with a local commercial real estate broker, the broker should be able to tell the client what other professionals to pull in for the project. None of these answers, I submit, amounts to offering (regulated) professional service.
I don't claim to be very familiar with Wikipedia's policies, but on the surface of it, it only seems to prohibit offering of medical and legal advice (and, I assume, advice whose dispensation is regulated by law.) In your edit to the original thread, you made a blanker comment calling my question "request for advice and speculation", without justification. When challenged to justify why my question supposedly violated Wikipedia policies, you just deleted the question. I am open to be shown wrong, but you never provided anything that amounted to an explanation of why my question supposedly violated Wikipedia policies. -- (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Before Medeis started this discussion, I already had started a discussion at WT:RD and notified Medeis of that discussion. I have no horse in this race, and have no opinion as to the status of the post. I'm not sure why Medeis needs to have this discussion in two venues, especially since the discussion already exists in the more appropriate one. This is the last statement I will make on this matter, as I really don't care one way or the other, I just don't like to see unilateral decisions made for matters which are not clear-cut vandalism, trolling, or inappropriate medical/legal advice. Before medeis deleted the discussion, there was already people who noted it wasn't inappropriate in their opinion, and didn't cross the line. Where reasonable people disagree, one of those in the disagreement shouldn't act unilaterally. Status quo should remain until consensus is reached. If people do eventually agree something is inappropriate, then someone can take action. Otherwise, as I already have noted, I don't see why Medeis feels the need to hold this discussion in two places. --Jayron32 02:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I had started writing this report before I received Jayron's notice. Given there's no horse in this race, I am curious why Jayron accuses me of forum shopping. Given the time stamp of this edit advising the OP to see the decision above, before Jayron's thread in its edit summary, I find the accusation of forum shopping baseless.
I suspect Jayron may have innocently been ignorant of today's decision on not giving professional advice when it's medical, given he apparently did not read @Knowledgekid87:'s closure with advice to head the disclaimer above. Perhaps @Jayron32: will revert his re-opening of the thread given the discussion here? μηδείς (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said (and this is really my last comment) When the discussion at WT:RD plays out and people have had a chance to comment, decisions can be made. Otherwise, I don't really care. --Jayron32 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
There was no, and I emphasize no, request for advice of any sort (much less professional advice) in my question. Any policy against offering professional advice is irrelevant to the issue discussion here. -- (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Medeis has misunderstood the RD question. The OP is *not* asking for legal advice etc. He is asking where a start-up with limited resources and experience could find such services, amongst others. That's a totally reasonable RD question. There is no ANI issue here and the proper place to review Medeis's actions is the thread at WT:RD. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a request for professional advice of the kind the RD guidelines prohibit. There is no fault requiring administrator intervention here. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
We have already seen that at the RD talk page, the majority are for a lawless free for all, and even suggest that editors who obey the RD and WP policies on those desks should be discouraged from editing. The OP's question is as blatant a request for legal and finacial and other licensed professional advice as one can imagine:

"finding providers for various [services,] maybe banking, legal, & accounting as well...hir[ing] contractors to build/modify the space, [and] complying with applicable laws (permits, inspections, registrations, certifications, various filings)".

If Jayron, doesn't want to address this here, that's fine, but it is being addressed, and we need eyes not involved with the violations that go on at the ref desks continually to police the desk, if the regulars cannot do so themselves. This is for the long term benefit of the RD itself, since eventually such advice is going to end up causing trouble for people who actually ask questions within its guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Medeis: Stop quoting what I wrote out of context and stop mis-characterizing my request NOW! Your repeated acts of distorting what I said are outrageous and totally unacceptable. I invite anyone interested in this discussion NOT to take what Medeis (a.k.a. μηδείς) wrote in the above at face value, and read the original question posted on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk to form their own opinion. I'm confident that any reasonable reader will find what Medeis wrote in the above to be a gross distortion of what I wrote. -- (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. There was no hint of a request for advice on banking, legal, accounting, or any of those other matters. The question (here it is again [11]) was, in a certain context, who would and how would they know about these things. Quite a different question, and quite unobjectionable in terms of any disclaimers, liability, or practicing-something-without-a-license concerns. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree that Medeis's interpretation of the IP's question is completely off base. The IP editor raised points that would have to be considered but expanded on how a party tasked with this duty would be able to accomplish this. This is in no way seeking advice in any of the categories Medeis mentioned. This should be closed. Blackmane (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (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.

Serious violation of WP:NPOV on Italian Fascism article by User:Boeing720 who regularly edits there[edit]

NAC: All parties are admonished to read the dispute resolution policy. It will tell them to discuss NPOV edits on the article talk page, and, if that discussion fails, to follow one of various dispute resolution procedures described in the policy. Only after dispute resolution procedures fail is it time to report tendentious editing to ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2015 (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:Boeing720 inserted the following text into the Italian Fascism article by a source that if it says what it says is highly unreliable as it has a very strong POV and then that is followed by a sentence with no source that is a rant condemning the ideology: "Italian Fascism as an ideology was poorly or just partly thought through, new laws didn't necessarily become introduced in reality. It has further been described as being much of a fraud in its nature"[1]. Compared to Nazism and Stalinism there were not very much "Facsism" about it behind it's pompous leader. Hence, and by time, especially during the Second World War, it became "eaten" by the more targeted and much more rabid Nazism through military rather than diplomatical channels.

Here is the link for that showing Boeing720 inserting that:

- Note that when inserting that text, Boeing says in the comment section explaining the edit, the following: "Little ideology behind its pompous leader. Little or only partly thought through. Was "eaten" by the nazists during WW2."

I consider this to be within Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and I am concerned about this behaviour continuing and escalating on the topic of Italian Fascism and topics surrounding Fascism in general, given the intensity of Boeing720's stance towards the topic if this attitude by the user to the topic continues. I have attempted to explain to the user in previous edits of why other edits of theirs were inaccurate however I do not believe that they even considered what I said.

This matter needs to be addressed by administrators in my opinion because I am not confident that the user will listen to me.-- (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that those are not especially good edits, but if no one has reverted them or raised the issue with the user, it does not rise to being a matter for ANI yet. You should try discussing the issue with the user. Only if he persistently edits disruptively will ANI need to be involved - ANI can't be your first resort before you've even talked to the guy. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ The Consice History of World History, Edited by John Bowles 1958, 1971, Chapter 20, Part VI, by John V Plamenatz

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 is changing the templates of blocked socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne to admin templates. Needs a block and possible CU. KonveyorBelt 23:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Add 2602:306:CFBE:D540:7CA3:E1C5:9B8D:9107 (talk · contribs) to make it easier for admins responding this to check the IPs edits. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. I'll leave this thread open for a CU. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
CUs won't tie named accounts to IPs unless the abuse is beyond the pale. This doesn't smack of beyond-the-pale abuse to me. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 01:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
True, but they can block them with {{checkuserblock-account}} without mentioning the connection to us. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Another IPv6 editor was attempting to edit on the same subjects as these blocked socks earlier, and got blocked for it. Still, nice to know AT&T now support IPv6. Every little helps. Can we rangeblock IPv6 ranges yet? -- The Anome (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it appears we can: I see that 2602:306:CFBE:D540:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked. However, many (most?) IPv6 ISPs are allocating more than a /64 per customer; a /48 is recommended, some are using /56s, and issuing only a /64 is generally deprecated. Can we block on wider boundaries if needed, eg 2602:306:CFBE:0:0:0:0:0/48? -- The Anome (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
By the way, edit filter 425, which attempts to match the editing patterns of this long-term sockmaster, is now active. -- The Anome (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom Ruen warring with gross incivility[edit]

Tomruen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) started warring at Star polygon and generally throwing etiquette to the wall:

Tom has, among other things:

I dropped a warning on his talk page but he brushed it off: both here.

He is a highly experienced editor with a ten-year userbox on his user page, but nevertheless in his discussions he is professing ignorance of so much etiquette that it beggars belief. His justification for warring was that he didn't even know what BRD was. But having had it pointed out, that has not stopped him. He has very profuse output and it is hard to floow his edits or it would be easier to let this pass, but we are bumping into each other a lot and things can't go on like this.

I was going to request a short topic ban to bring him back to reality. But then he accused me of lying so I'd like to Request a short editing block for his gross incivility. [Updated as below. 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)] — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I will try to be available for questions over my behavior. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On the last charge, I consider repeating false information as lying given I already counterered on talk, but I offered confusion as my explanation for Steelpillow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)'s rude accusation.
  1. I added 30 unique images [12].
  2. Steelpillow reverted, cutting to 0 [13].
  3. I restored, compromised, added back 13. [14]
  4. Steelpillow reverted, cutting to 0 [15].
  5. I restored, and attempted to merge better with text, split into two tables for convex and star polygons, and ended with 18 [16].
  6. Another editor, Double sharp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) tried a compromise for SteelPillow, recombined the tables down to 12[17] and then tried 8 [18].
  7. I added 4 NEW image upon request by DoubleSharp [19], and explained on talk [20] and [21] and offered my opinion that 8 is to small.
  8. Double sharp attempted a compromise, reduced 12 to 8 again, removing 2 old images, and leaving 2 new images from the set he requested. [22]
So when Steelpillow FALSELY claims "a third editor cut the gallery down drastically and Tom has since added images back in again without discussion." it is reasonable to call that accusation as lying by confusion. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Tom's reply is the one that is confused. After DoubleSharp cut the list to 8 but suggested two more, I suggested that one would be enough [23]. Tom saw fit to ignore the conversation at this point and add several more. We know that was without consensus because DoubleSharp reduced them again. There is neither confusion nor lie in the account I give above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
We're in agreement. 4>2 and 4>1, and my enthusiastic 4 images were delicately remerged with the selection of other 8, all without the aid of my inability to choose. So we can both be grateful for DoubleSharp's expert pruning skills. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This is simply a content dispute, and the OP's accusations -- such as "Modified a comment of mine" -- which was actually just sticking a helpful section tag in a wikilink, do not hold up to scrutiny. WP:BRD is not a policy which which to beat other editors, and, as noted, Tomruen has not been blindly reverting but rather offering compromise number of images. On the other hand, "lying by confusion" isn't justified -- "inaccurate" is probably a better description. I encourage Tomruen and Steelpillow to dial it down a notch and note / appreciate DoubleSharp's good work in working towards a compromise, and any other editor who wishes to help reach consensus to participate in the talk page discussion. NE Ent 17:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An up-front accusation that I am lying, repeated here for luck, cannot be dismissed as a mere content dispute. It is a flagrant breach of WP:CIVIL. Nor is my account as inaccurate as Tom would have you believe - see my reply above. "Modified a comment of mine" - I am glad that you agree with my own assessment that it was in itself "no big deal", but why hold that against me? Did you not read on? Meanwhile, I have thanked DoubleSharp once or twice already, how many more times are needed? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom Ruen may be a long-term editor who has contributed a lot of very nice images and a lot of content to the project, and has a lot of expertise to share, but it's also the case that a lot of his long-term editing (mostly on articles related to polyhedra) is problematic: throwing huge vaguely-related image galleries on them that dwarf the rest of the article (see WP:NOTGALLERY and WP:BALANCE), using nonstandard nomenclature, adding content that appears to be original research, not giving any inline sources for the content he adds, and then tacking on "references" sections that are copied-and-pasted verbatim across hundreds of articles, and that list whole books without page numbers that, on closer examination, do not include any content on the specific subjects of the articles they are supposed to be references for. It has caused many of our polyhedron-related articles to be problematic. I don't know that this specific content dispute is worth the attention of ANI, and I don't want to push him away from the project, but I do wish he'd get more serious about only adding content that is fully on-topic and can be properly sourced. After having gotten into discussions with him on this issue before that ended up generating more heat than light I don't know what the best way to get some change is. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

After many years walking round the edges I recently decided to try standing up to him. He is not used to this and has had trouble dealing with it. So here we are at ANI. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a block because the allegation of lying, first, violates the principle of assume good faith, and, second, violates the principle of no personal attacks. It is true that this is primarily a content dispute, but it is a content dispute compounded by the conduct issue of the accusation of lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    Robert, please tell me what you need from me. I have no personal conflict against Steelpillow, only the false facts he was repeating. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
(This got archived at this point bcause of inaction. The accusation of lying remains on the project discussion page, neither redacted nor apologised for. Will somebody please do something about this? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC))
Even if User:Steelpillow was reporting false facts, to call the incorrect report of facts "lying" is a personal attack and a violation of the principle of assuming good faith. If you, User:Tomruen, have never ever made a factual mistake, then perhaps you don't understand that very occasionally editors try to report facts correctly and make mistakes. If you indeed have no personal conflict with Steelpillow, then I suggest that you strike all of the accusations of lying. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll gladly remove the accusation (if it helps). From now on I will simply say "This is false" to false accusations, and repeat it as necessary on every repeated false accusation. Here's my attempted correction, [24], keeping my original rude reply striked, so it's clear I was the one who is overreacting. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I am happy to accept Tom's withdrawal, and I am sure we are both capable of sorting out any remaining content dispute between us. For my part, I also withdraw my request for an editing block. As far as I am concerned, this can now be closed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


I have posted this in his talk page after he deleted ExpertScape page and stated" "speedy deletes are just like that".

==An Observation== Reading your posted census on your home page, it appears that you have deleted Wikipedia pages 5,000 times more than you have ever created any Wikipedia article. You have blocked and re-blocked users 2,000 times more than unblocking the users. How about the label "wiki-nator" for you, nothing sarcastic, just a neutral suggestion. S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

S.Burntout123 (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the noticeboard? Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 04:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this directed towards @Nyttend:? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not; you can find it at User_talk:Bbb23#An_Observation. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Not any more you can't. I removed it. You can, of course, look at the edit history if you're burning (no pun intended) to see it.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree too then that I don't know why it is here on the noticeboard or what positive things can come from it in any case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The post was about the recent deletions by [Bbb23]. I am told that some of Bbb23's today's deletions are being discussed here. I shared the mere fact that this editor has deleted articles 5,000 times more than he/she has created articles, and Bbb23 has blocked 2,000 more people than unblocked people. These data are posted on his/her talk page as the only data about this editor. I wonder if such a high ratio of delete to create can allow somebody to qualify for the privilege of being an "editor". If mentioning these data are considered inappropriate, then I am truly sorry and have learned something new. On the other hand, I, a random, low-tier user, am posing a serious questions to our astute editors and their unrestricted right to "speedy delete" hours (to days to months) of people's work. I look forward to be educated and to a healthy discussion (without hopefully being deleted speedily). Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Looks like the OP is pissed off about the deletion of Expertscape for lack of a credible assertion of notability, but fails to point out that the article has been deleted three times before, only one of those times by Bbb23. BMK (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

To shed light on the incident and to request astute editors to kindly review, Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process. I asked Bbb23 to allow a period of healthy discussion and review but Bbb23 deleted the page without any discussion and only minutes after tagging it under "speedy deletion". Upon requesting the opportunity to review, Bbb23 asserted: "No, speedy deletes are just that, speedy. They don't require a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)" In my opinion, and I may be wrong, "speedy deletes are just speedy deletes" would not qualify the action and may misrepresent the true spirit of "collaborative" nature of Wikipedia. Bbb23 deleted the article on "ExpertScape" despite contest to start a discussion and evaluation with due process and despite the request to allow a healthy period of review and discussion. Honestly I have no idea who or what runs the ExpertScape, and I am not even sure if this is a company or enterprise or autopilot web operation. I feel (and happy to discuss if I am not deleted or blocked) that "notability" is met here, since the nationally renowned medical centers and USA based medical schools refer to ExpertScape rankings. If so the Wikipedia is warranted to have a neutral reference about this. One would benefit from seeing an informative article that is not promotional but indeed critical and questions certain angles such as source of funding and other limits. The article was deleted only once before, it was then recreated after months of work and stayed on Wikipedia for several months until today where 2 editors deleted it within minutes of each other. I sincerely request a review and discussion not only on Template:ExpertScape but also on the fundamental question of the status of "editor" if one has deleted 5,000 times more than created articles. S.Burntout123 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you actually requested a deletion review of the speedy deletion? —C.Fred (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I looked at the deleted article, and it looks like we haven't lost anything except some badly-supported promotional puffery. We're not here to host an ad for a website. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, C.Fred, and yes, I have filed "Requests for Undeletion" according to a great editor and await next step. I do not agree with TeonA... this is not promotional at all. If my original posting was promotional, then please go ahead and edit. It takes a lot of time and effort to edit and amend and improve, while it is more convenient to "just delete". As WP editors you have great responsibility which is beyond and above "delete". Look forward to a better and more tolerant world than discrediting and deleting the articles of low-tier users. Give us a chance to discuss and educate than calling something "badly-supported promotional puffery". Thank you all for your important contributions and editing efforts. S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Four admins in the last year have a different opinion of the article from yours: the three that deleted it, and TenOfAllTrades above. Since you have a vested interest in the article being in Wikipedia, and they only have a vested interest in following Wikipedia policies, I'm rather inclined to think that they are correct, and you are not.

By the way, what's your connection to the company? BMK (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The user is confusing WP:DRV with WP:REFUND. He's been to the latter. Indeed, he's posted at least part of the article there, so we're still hosting an ad for the website. I realize you're all focused on whether the article should or should not have been deleted, but I'd pay just a little more attention to the user's conduct as the issue of the deletion doesn't even belong on this noticeboard except the user's claims that I've abused my powers because I deleted an article without due process and discussion, which, of course, is patent nonsense in the context of a speedy delete. I'm going off-wiki and I'll let those of you who are more patient than I deal with this as you will.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
May I ask to please not attack users. It is disruptive to accuse a user: <<<"so we're still hosting an ad for the website">>>. If there is any ad anywhere, then please go ahead and remove anything that sounds promotional, so that this discussion can remain focused on the fundamental 2 questions: (1) Speedy deletion of the article. (2) The qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 time more than he/she contributed to "editing" WP articles (and these are the data that Bbb23 has posted on his/her page, please visit Bbb23 home page). I truly look forward to be educated here and have immense respect for hardworking WP editors who contribute immensely in this treasure.S.Burntout123 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
So, it's OK for you to attack Bbb23 by calling him the "Wiki-nator", but when he points out your conduct problems, that's somehow not allowed? I think not.

So, you socked in 2011 as User:Burntout1234, what's your relationship to User:Europeisme, who created the deleted article Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, a copy of which has been in your user space since 2010, despite your failing to work on it -- the only reason that deleted articles should be in userspace -- since 2011, despite your stated intention to do so in 2013. What is the relationship between this article and Expertscape? And, again, what is your relation to Expertscape? BMK (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if it was the most appropriate time to attack me and my contributions and to delete my other works and projects. I truly feel harassed and ask for protection during this sensitive time asking that the focus on my fundamental questions about the legitimacy of certain editors are not diverted by going after my page. This reminds us of the IRS suddenly auditing 6 years of tax records when one has dares to question the government's actions in Vietnam. I have absolutely no relationship with ExpertScape and have no idea who these people you have listed are. I hope that we are not experiencing McCarthyism. Is this really the price a low-tier user has to pay for questioning the qualification of an editor who has deleted 5,000 more than contributing to articles? S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I had sent this editor to WP:UNDELETE under the impression they are "a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion [or] under speedy deletion criteria". They also handle userfication so it could be submitted through AfC which I thought would be better for this kind of editor and article. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 07:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I truly feel harassed by several editors here and ask for support and protection and the right to ask the fundamental questions about editors who delete 5,000 times more than contributing to article. Hope the low-tier users are not supposed to stop questioning the editors as a contingency to survive. S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You come here bitching and calling names, then complain about being harassed -- and in the complaint repeat the attack you started with. Beauty.

As noted on your talk page, I have nominated User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus – a deleted article which was userfied to your userspace 4 1/2 3 1/2 years ago – for deleton, as you have had plenty of time to work it into an acceptable article and have not done so. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus, and you can make your arguments there.

In the meantime, I suggest that an univolved admin might like to consider blocking Burntout123 for a short period of time if he repeats his attack on Bbb23 again. BMK (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again I am asking for help and protection against intensified harassment and attacks by certain editors. BMK just deleted my userified project with this message on his talk page: "Bullshit, you can't save the article by adding some crap you dug up in 5 second of Googling. BMK (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)"S.Burntout123 (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you added this one sentence to the article: "Since then over 50 papers have mentioned the term according to Google Scholar including in recent publications in New England Journal of Medicine in 2013, and there have been over 500 citations of the publications on burnt-out diabetes." and called it a "new version". BMK (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just deleted User:Burntout123/sandbox, a userspace copy of the article that was created with the AGF-destroying edit summary "Expertscape doppelgaenger as back-up for future deletions". I think it's pretty clear by now that this user isn't here for any reason other than to promote this website. —Cryptic 08:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly the harassment has continued by these certain editors, while supportive and balanced editors do not appear to feel comfortable to say anything. The original questions have been overshadowed, and instead the low-tier users and their home page have been attacked and vandalized. I ask the true WP editors to protect the low-tier users against further attacks and public accusations and harassment. If a user dares to question the legitimacy of the editors who delete much more than contributing to WP, it is not professional to suggest to "block him for a short period" to teach the user a lesson. The very foundation of WP comes into question which such approaches, similar to the time when a government justify torture. Hope we control our emotions and biases and remain focused on the original questions: Can an editor be legitimate if he/she deletes thousands of times more than contributing to articles? Is the fundamental act of asking this question the reason to be blocked and to be harassed? S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Admins mostly carry out the tasks requested by least as much janitor compared to the judge+executioner you presume it to be. I recommend you focus on what you actually want done and use diffs and other details of specific actions rather than than raising vague raw data claims (Lies, damned lies, and statistics). By policy, blocks are preventive not punitive--if you appear to be disrupting wikipedia, you'll be blocked so that the rest of us can get back to writing an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of destroying AGF, there's this gem: User:Burntout123/Neovandalism. Looks like the axe has been on the grind for a long time. --Kinu t/c 09:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Neovandalism article – yet another userfied deleted article in Burntout123's user space – see this AN/I thread. BMK (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Snow deleted at AfD. BMK (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Are you going after the user and auditing the last 6 years of his/her tax return because he/she dared to question the government actions in Vietnam? Am I suddenly running out of time? Given these circumstances, I hereby request 4 weeks of protection to update and complete my userified projects, while requesting that they not be touched or deleted during this period including ExpertScape, Diabetes and Neovandalism. I truly ask that I and my pages be protected during this period of time. I am happy to stop further posting during this time. S.Burntout123 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I won't respond to the nonsensical part of your comment, but I will point out that you've been here over 3.5 years and your attitude in most of your non-article edits is pretty much the same as it was in your first edit. Perhaps you should take a step back and consider whether it's not us, but you... and then determine whether a collaborative project such as Wikipedia is the right one for you. --Kinu t/c 09:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One week is the standard for XfD. That should be plenty of time to find even a bare handful of actual reliable sources to support notability and prove an article/topic is minimally viable. One week, on top of however many previous years... DMacks (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and will do. Can I ask that the deleted projects and pages be placed back for this period and nothing else be changed or deleted while we interrupt all postings and discussions by all parties for one week? I appreciate 7 days of protection and pieace and kindly ask others also to stop. Thank youS.Burntout123 (talk) 09:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, you can request that, but I doubt your request will be honored.

Regarding this user's behavior, reading this version of C.Fred's talk page from 2011 is very illuminating, especially when read in conjunction with this version of Burntout123's talk page from the same period. BMK (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just store your prospective article on your PC and upload it when you think it's ready. Then there's no time limit. You can take 20 years to finish if you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the google cache of the Expertscape article and agree that the article is spam. I haven't examined the user's other contributions enough to call for a block, but the signs I've seen point that way. (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed on the User's talk page and things are moving in the right direction. Can someone please help the user understand how to copy/paste his local articles onto his PC and how to apply for a WP:REFUND for Expertscape. I'll be offline for several hours. Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I'm not certain how this could be considered "the right direction". --Kinu t/c 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the discussion on his talk page, not his venting on his userpage, which I didn't see. If you think the user needs a WP:CIR block, propose it. Otherwise, I suggest that de-escalation (which the user has responded to favorably, in agreeing to most of my points) is better than a continued recriminations. If someone could invest a little time in helping to calm things down and help the user, that would be great. If every user responded to criticism on ANI by having a lightbulb go off above their head and then they reply clearly with "mea culpa" and a plan for improvement, we'd have a very different environment here than we know we have. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Since he's still asking fpr special immunity from normal Wikipedia processes, I'm not sure that you're really getting through to him at all. Considering that his behavior has been typical since the very beginning of the account, it's possible that you're tilting at windmills. BMK (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps so. I do believe if we can get him a userfied copy of Expertscape and if someone can help him figure out to copy the source for "Burned out diabetes", this issue would cease consuming people's time, for now. I admit, it is a good possibility there will be a problem in the future, but I WP:AGF that there might not be. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Burntout has requested I restore the Expertscape page to draft space, an offer I made on WP:REFUND, [25], before noticing the ANI discussion and reverting myself, [26]. Would anyone object to this? (My search suggests the subject is possibly notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Putting in draft space seems ok to me. It's probably preferable to user space for various reasons. I still think it's a spammy article, but maybe it can be cleaned up and notability established. Separately, I did a little bit of web search and burnt-out diabetes seems to actually be a thing. I have no idea what condition the deleted article is in. Burntout123, note that the amount of Wikipedia bureaucracy surrounding articles on medical topics is even worse than for most other topics besides BLP's. See WP:MEDRS for info on how you'll have to write and source your article. (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I certainly object to it. Numerous editors have commented that the subject does not seem notable, the editor involved appears to have a COI in regard to the subject (although he denies it), and the editor's past track record is that userfied articles (the previous version of draft articles) stay in his userspace for years without being substantially modified. One userfied article that he "worked on" in the past few days -- an article which had been deleted a number of times -- was recently rejected at AfC, and another was deleted at AfD. I have no confidence whatsoever that this editor (or really anybody else) will be able to bring Draft:Expertscape to the status of an acceptable mainspace article. Therefore, I urge ThaddeusB not to move the deleted article to Draftspace. BMK (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Would putting it in userspace render it visible to Google searches? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Not if it has {{user draft}}, {{user sandbox}}, or some other template that adds the noindex magic word to it. —Cryptic 11:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm dubious too, after the edit summary on User:Burntout123/sandbox. I'd only be willing to acquiesce to userfication or a move into draftspace if A) it gets one of the AFC templates so we can speedy delete it with a minimum of fuss after he abandons it for six months, and B) you're willing take responsibility for dealing with him if he prematurely moves it into mainspace himself. —Cryptic 11:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering the history of the article, I protected against recreation. But that is no reason why it cannot be restored by any admin and moved to draft space. It will then need admin action to move it back, not just an AfC approval, but that's a fairly usual way to proceed in these cases. I've moved a number of improved AfCs to mainspace over protection under this sort of circumstance DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made Burnt a conditional offer, User talk:Burntout123#Offer, in which I take responsibility for mentoring him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

David Adam Kess[edit]

NAC: Editor in question indeffed by User:Diannaa for copyvio and competency issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2015 (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.

David Adam Kess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may appear to be a good faith editor but is lacking competence, especially in financial topics. David Adam Kess has decreased the quality of every finance article he edited by adding irrelevant, off-topic content, adding useless and redundant citations often copy-pasted from the on-topic articles, and messing up the edit histories with his irrelevant spam of code fragments and characters.

For example, there is a book about high-frequency trading that I am familiar with, Flash Boys. In this article, David Adam Kess messed up the section headings by adding "3.1 Impact, Desribing Dark Pools" and "3.2 Impact, Desribing High Frequency Trading". Think about this for a second: The impact of a book is that two other topics, dark pools and high-frequency trading are described? Nevermind the typo and improper capitalization in both headings, a consequence of the user's copy-pasting, often cross-pasting the same irrelevant text into multiple articles.

Edits like these are typical for his contributions to finance articles. Notice the prose: "Desribing Dark pools is described in amazing detail in the book, writer Michael Lewis describes how when a Pension fund (...)" As usual, David Adam Kess also added the same text to this article and who knows how many others. Some of this text was actually copy-pasted from the high-frequency trading article. I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail. It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kristina451: do you think the problem is attributable to ESL, or something more than that? This noticeboard has a habit of failing to take action when it comes to issues like this, so if you can be more specific (and very brief) about the exact nature of the problem, using only one or two examples, you might get a better response. Then again, given the horrible track record of this board, they might not do anything. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems well-intentioned but most of what has been added is completely without citation or verification and much of it is in broken English with spelling and grammatical errors. I've reverted the addition of a couple of sections to articles. Unless there is a commitment to slow down, check edits, source edits and communicate to resolve issues, a block is needed to prevent further damage. Should certainly be unblocked if such a commitment is forthcoming but for now we need to tourniquet and cauterise (unfortunately). Stlwart111 23:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, and I thought about Viriditas' question, so here is another (article) example. I first explained the issues in detail on his talk page. When David Adam Kess made another off-topic insertion, I removed it with a descriptive edit summary. He added it back, and more. I then tagged a few of the issues. David Adam Kess responded not by addressing any of them, but by adding more off-topic and irrelevant text to the same article. I appreciate the few reverts by Stalwart111. It turns out David Adam Kess edited half a dozen finance articles and to get them back in shape, it may be faster to take the revision before he edited them and restore the edits by others. Kristina451 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Can you now explain the reaction of the user when you brought these edits to his attention? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I brought previous edits to his attention, before he made the linked insertions. I remember our talk page conversation back then as pleasant and polite. It did not have the intended effect, the insertions of irrelevant content continued. Kristina451 (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
It would help to link to selected discussions here. Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This talk page section. Kristina451 (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

hello and good afternoon

completely without citation or verification, this is not true, i got to get back to my real job

i have been working on how to describe HFT in plain english and have a little issue

instead of working out the grammar, i got a note in the hisotry section

Reverting addition of section with broken English.

for me, this is odd because why delete everything, instead of fixing the englis message by

Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (59,155 byadtes) (-550)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 645231766 by (talk): Reverting addition of section with broken English. (TW)) (undo | thank)

this is a complex topic HFT, High-frequency_trading and should be in plain, easy to read english!

and not deleted without an effort to fix!

have a nice day !

have a nice day

it is very important to describe this in detail

this was deleted and should be in wikipedia

-- David Adam Kesstalk / 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

the same rapid delete with the same bogus ref. Reverting addition of section with broken English.

when you look at the code, it is in basic english!

(cur | prev) 23:48, 2 February 2015‎ Stalwart111 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,747 bytes) (-375)‎ . . (Reverted to revision 645241697 by Gragre123 (talk): Reverting addition of section with broken English. (TW)) (undo | thank)

Algorithmic_trading and High-farequency_trading

are very complex and the stock market is not like it was years ago, and this kind of info must be in plain english for anyone to understand

in response,

I brought up previous issues on the user's talk page to no avail. It has actually worsened since then and would take me many hours to clean up the mess inflicted. Kristina451 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

you make me laugh, you can revert my edits like Stalwart111.... a good laugh!

-- David Adam Kesstalk / 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

the proff is in the pudding, just look at the edits of Kristina451 (talk)

01:20, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+203)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply) 00:58, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+338)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+982)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
21:44, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+350)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎ANI: new section)
21:43, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,905)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: new section)
15:03, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-119)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (unsourced and ambiguous)
15:00, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-15)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (removing senseless section heading)
14:28, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-350)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (→‎Control: removing text that was senselessly copy-pasted from section "types of hot money")
14:19, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging as off-topic, and the on-topic article pump and dump makes no reference to dark pools)
14:11, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging weasel words, original research)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3,318)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749301 by David Adam Kess (talk) inserted section has nothing to do with hot money)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749415 by David Adam Kess (talk))
22:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (clarification)
22:50, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+393)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
18:41, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,115)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
17:18, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+220)‎ . . User talk:Kristina451 ‎ (→‎good afternoon Kristina451,: reply)
16:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+907)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
15:46, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,132)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: new section)
18:38, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+127)‎ . . Virtu Financial ‎ (→‎Trading activity: some clarifications)
17:54, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-309)‎ . . Virtu Financial ‎ (→‎Investigations: redundant citation)
15:40, 5 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,593)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (reverting the removal of relevant reviews)

she just stalks me !

look at what i edit and update!

have a nice day stalker !

-- David Adam Kesstalk / 2nd of February 2015 (UTC)

wikipeida stalker Kristina451[edit]

[I moved this here from a separate section below. BMK (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)]


why are you stalking me, i can see your edits and you add nothing, but you go after everything i add

just look at your history, i have reported you the administration, this is just crazy!

just look at your history section, who do you work for in finance and why are you taking out data from wikipedia!

from december, you just go after what i put in!

01:20, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+203)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
00:58, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+338)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
00:29, 3 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+982)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: reply)
21:44, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+350)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎ANI: new section)
21:43, 2 February 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,905)‎ . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ‎ (→‎David Adam Kess: new section)
15:03, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-119)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (unsourced and ambiguous)
15:00, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-15)‎ . . Flash Boys ‎ (removing senseless section heading)
14:28, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-350)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (→‎Control: removing text that was senselessly copy-pasted from section "types of hot money")
14:19, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging as off-topic, and the on-topic article pump and dump makes no reference to dark pools)
14:11, 15 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+80)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (tagging weasel words, original research)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-3,318)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749301 by David Adam Kess (talk) inserted section has nothing to do with hot money)
00:58, 5 January 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Hot money ‎ (Undid revision 640749415 by David Adam Kess (talk))
22:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+41)‎ . . Dark liquidity ‎ (clarification)
22:50, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+393)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
18:41, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,115)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
17:18, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+220)‎ . . User talk:Kristina451 ‎ (→‎good afternoon Kristina451,: reply)
16:58, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+907)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: reply)
15:46, 28 December 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,132)‎ . . User talk:David Adam Kess ‎ (→‎Your recent edits: new section)

Cheers. --David Adam Kess ] Yes?

  • Oh my. I'm sure Mr. Kess means well, but that's not always enough. Or in Wiki-speak, WP:CIR.