Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive891

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Unprotect the Jack Tretton article[edit]

NO ACTION
Requests for page protection is thataway.  Philg88 talk 06:57, 2 July 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.

Hello I propose that the Jack Tretton article be unprotected. It was protected in June 2013 due to multiple vandalism in a single day (related to a presentation he gave) but I feel there should not be any harm in unprotecting the article now due to the fact the subject has left Sony since 2014.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 02:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

To file a request to reduce a protection, please file at WP:RPP#Current requests for reduction in protection level. Callmemirela (Talk) 02:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Richard, talk to the protecting admin Jauerback first. They're not that active so if they don't respond within a couple days, file a request at RFPP or post to my talk page. --NeilN talk to me 03:04, 2 July 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.

Repeated copyvio creation[edit]

USER BLOCKED
After the SPI case was moved to the correct casefile, the user in question (and other accounts) were blocked at SPI for Socking by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:26, 3 July 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.

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

In the past few hours, Ali qahremani has done nothing but create articles which plagiarize different sources, under titles that are only related to the article topic, in may cases topics that should be covered by existing articles. User does not respond to any messages, even when a non-template one was sent. Conservation may not be the best option. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked and asked for feedback.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In some cases, this is slightly more complicated than it appears at first blush. In some of these articles there is an indicator of the copyright problem but the duplication detector report shows no overlap. While not having confirmed this my guess is that the copied material comes from the text of the article as opposed to the abstract. In one case Oncogene virus I'm puzzled, as the attempted an article is clearly a copy of the abstract, yet the duplication detector report shows no overlap. I haven't fully investigated why but this puzzles me. However because the editor manages to include the copyright notice in the article, and in at least one case there is substantial overlap, it makes sense to stop this editor and make sure they engage in discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eyeballing it confirms the copyvio (or at least enough of a copyvio), I'd have to guess that something's gone wrong with the copyvio detection software(s). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Earwig's copy vio detector shows a 99.4 % overlap. It's actually the better tool, and I use it almost exclusively. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The new batch of articles he has created seems almost exclusively machine translations from the equivalent Persian Wikipedia articles. Per WP:MACHINETRANSLATION, these really ought to be deleted. They also have no valid sources.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 has already raised the possibility of puppetry between Ali_qahremani (contribs | filter log) and Ehsanghandchi1375 (contribs | filter log).[1] I want to add Mahdi moallemi (contribs | filter log) to that list.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Like the articles I referred to above, User:Alidezhpasand/صفحه تمرین is also a machine translation of a Persian Wikipedia article (compare: [2]). McGeddon has raised the possibility that Alidezhpasand (contribs | filter log) is an alternate account of Alidezh1559 (contribs | filter log).[3] Pages created by the latter are also based on machine translations of Persian Wikipedia (compare e.g. [4] vs. [5]). It could be a coincidence that all these accounts decided to fill Wikipedia with machine translations within the span of the same two days, but I suspect it is not.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:53, 2 July 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.

Gabbar Is Back[edit]

(non-admin closure) The page was semi-protected by User: Diannaa. Callmemirela (Talk) 15:03, 2 July 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.

Gabbar Is Back. In this page, one after one IP users are coming and inflating the box office gross. Someone do something to stop them.--Silver Samurai 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. If the problem recurs, you can also post at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Another Akshay Kumar movie Baby (2015 film) is having same problems due to an old user interested in Akshay Kumar movies. The edit is like those IP users. They come and increase the box office figures of Akshay Kumar's latest movies.--Silver Samurai 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Diannaa (talk) He is back again.--Silver Samurai 12:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected for one week. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:20, 2 July 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.

Messy redirect/BLP issue[edit]

RESOLVED
Article (later, redirect) in question deleted under WP:R3 by NeilN. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:06, 2 July 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.

This version of Daniel iwuji was tagged for speedy deletion as a hoax. However, there is an indication from the web that this is basically an attack page on a real person (a non-notable secondary school student), no doubt created by a "friend". A new editor, trying to be helpful, removed the speedy deletion and actually redirected it to Michael Essien [6] (the entirely spurious redirect added by the article's creator). Given the content in the history and BLP implications, this page should be completely deleted. Does it really have to go to RFD or can an administrator simply delete it now? Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It was the "friend" who added the redirect. Deleted as a WP:R3. --NeilN talk to me 15:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, NeilN. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 2 July 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.

Need1521 is on all cases of life (in some meaning)[edit]

Sorted. Sam Walton (talk) 12:52, 3 July 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.

I ask you stop Valenciano who acts against users, which have no any blame (91.190.115.250). Valenciano says that this user is Need1521. He violates reputation of people. Thank you! - KNIGHT5252 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC).

I find it rather ironic that the filer's only contributions are here to report Valenciano and Valenciano's talk page. Callmemirela (Talk) 23:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Quack quack.
For the record, this refers to this open sockpuppetry case, though the sockpuppetry seems to go back to at least October 2011 with the very strong likelihood that this user is banned per this previous ANI thread. This will hopefully soon be dealt with at SPI. Valenciano (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing the OP's first language isn't English, but...wow, a duck, a sock and a boomerang all in one? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:09, 3 July 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.

Gross incivility in edit summaries[edit]

USER WARNED
Bethayres warned for personal attacks. No action required beyond that.  Philg88 talk 05:08, 3 July 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.

I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Survivor (Railroad Car) on June 20. I'd previously proposed the article for deletion, though the tag was later removed. Although fairly inclusionist on railroad topics I didn't seen an obvious case for one of many private cars. The AfD was relisted on June 28. Bethayres (talk · contribs) began participating on July 1 and things went downhill immediately. The first edit implied (in the edit summary) that I was off my medication and unserious. After I affirmed that I was in fact serious and followed up on the question of notability, I received even more abuse. I had dropped what I thought was a friendly note on Bethayres' talk page, wondering what was up and suggesting moderation. The response called me "deranged" or "mentally ill".

I want to be clear that I have never, to my knowledge, interacted with this user before July 1 and to my knowledge I've done nothing to provoke or justify these responses (if such are ever justifiable). I've tried discussing with the user on the user's talk page and have left another note but I would appreciate someone uninvolved looking at the situation. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 3 July 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.

Urgent whitelist request[edit]

Unblocked and reblocked. Sam Walton (talk) 20:58, 3 July 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.

Hi,

I'm about to run a 2.5 hour training session at the University of Swansea. The IP address, 137.44.1.153 is blacklisted, at least for account creation. Please can someone whitelist it for the duration of the session? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:  Done, unblocked. Please drop me a note when I can reinstate it or if you're having any issues. Sam Walton (talk) 12:55, 3 July 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.

Editor on Pinniped[edit]

Sorted. Attacks on today's Featured Article prevented by Guy. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:07, 3 July 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.

Could an admin please look at the behaviour of a disruptive editor at the Pinniped article. they have broken 3RR there. The user also has a name which might be considered offensive.DrChrissy (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, username hidden in edit history. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 3 July 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.

Kraków[edit]

Content dispute. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along. KrakatoaKatie 23:15, 3 July 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.

I have corrected some links were Kraków has been spelled Krakow, but I have been reverted by User:Jetstreamer, because of WP:NOTBROKEN, where it reads "There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page." However, there also reads "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect.", which I have mentioned to Jetstreamer. Another user has expressed similar thoughts as I on my user talk, where this discussion can be found. I would like to ask some admin about this, since I really don't see the reason for writing Kraków as Krakow, when the page of Kraków uses diacritics. K9re11 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

K9re11, the issue here is that in "standard English", "Kraków" is generally just spelled "Krakow" – so any instances of "Krakow" are not technically "wrong". --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not a matter for ANI.--Jetstreamer Talk 17:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not a conduct dispute. Per WP:EN, "Krakow" should be more correct. The talk page for the article discussed it several times. It appears the only reason it was not changed is the people who wanted to actually follow our rules on using English were split between Krakow and Cracow, so by default it stayed where it was already. Since the whole thing is under dispute it would be premature for you to go around changing it on the rest of the encyclopedia when arguably it's the article that probably has it wrong. DreamGuy (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Content dispute, please close. Nom is either ignorant or disingenuous in portraying this as a "spelling error". In English, it is commonly spelled without the diacritical--in fact, an argument could be made that the article in _English_ WP ought to be renamed to better reflect the common spelling, in English. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:56, 3 July 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.

Vandalism at Zack Hample page[edit]

RESOLVED
Article Zack Hample semi-protected for 1 week by Guy. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 01:08, 4 July 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.

Multiple vandalism of "Zack Hample" entry by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/100.2.20.47... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Prisoner TX (talkcontribs) 22:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Semi-protected. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 3 July 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.

Disruption at Jackson, Michigan high schools[edit]

CLOSED (USER BLOCKED)
User in question was blocked for 48 hours (the block has already expired in the meantime...) for Disruptive editing by JamesBWatson. As of early July 5 (UTC), the editor in question has not edited since being blocked. It is worth noting that JamesBWatson's block should be considered a "last chance" situation, and if the user who is the subject of this report does not begin to follow policies and guidelines in their editing from now on, a much longer block (e.g. an indef block) is not only "on the table", but is the likely outcome. With that all said, closing this one. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:38, 5 July 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.

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

The above user has been brought here before by me (see links below). He has a very big WP:OWN problem with Jackson High School (Michigan) and to a lesser extent, Lumen Christi Catholic High School, the two high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence to his constant and unchecked WP:GAME and WP:IDHT have, IMO, risen to the level of WP:NOTHERE. I am asking for an indeff per NOTHERE, or lacking that, broadly construed editing restrictions on topics connected to high schools in Jackson, Michigan. Evidence follows. I leave the rest to the community.

I believe the above, along with a browse of his talk page and contributions, shows amply evidence of a WP:SPA who has no interest in conforming to the community standards for either content or civility. Thanks. Notifying him next edit John from Idegon (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary "Deleted a lot of content that was not cited similar to what John from Idegon does" seems more than a bit pointy. While much of the content was appropriately removed, there are some non-controversial bits which were blanked as well. The resulting page is left with several "place-holder" section headers needing cleanup. I'll look at that page a bit closer when I get home tonight to try to sort it out. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
And now you see the WP:DICKish behavior this user engages in regularly. Thanks to MarnetteD for reverting it. John from Idegon (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is extremely aggravating how literally every mistake I make on here you bash me. A lot of those things you're complaining about were noob mistakes. I do not how to contact other users and you refuse to help me but instead you refer to me with vulgar language such as "bub". Second, every single edit I make is reverted by John too. I say he gets off my back. JacksonViking (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at this too, John referred to my first comment on his edit page as taking out the trash. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_from_Idegon&type=revision&diff=668569410&oldid=668569387 Very unprofessionalJacksonViking (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know if you're not able to read a diff or if it's a deliberate misrepresentation of it, but all John from Idegon did in that edit, and what he referred to, was removing a duplicated section header... Thomas.W talk 08:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd lean to misrepresentation. In the prior paragraph, HE referred to me as "bub" (not at all vulgar BTW) in the diff above labeled "further user page vandalism..." and I replied "So it's not bub now?" It's just another example of GAME. John from Idegon (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Might not have been the best edit summary though. Soap 01:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you guys not even going to acknowledge the first paragraph I left here? JacksonViking (talk) 23:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

JacksonViking, has it occurred to you that the reason no one is responding to the first paragraph you left is there is nothing to respond to? There is a welcome template on the top of your talk page that has links that could answer many of your questions. There is an invitation to the Teahouse, another place you can get your questions answered. You are posting here. You have (finally) posted at the article talk page, nearly 2 years after this whole debacle started. You are posting at the AfD another editor started on an article you created. Your claims of not knowing how to communicate are disingenuous. When you do communicate, you attempt to obfuscate the problem. You for example readd a huge block of BLP violating crap that you've refused to discuss numerous times, along with a minor and unneeded change to the notable people list. I revert, and You them charge to my User page, blank the entire thing and insert a whiny complaint about me removing your change to the notable list, totally ignoring the real problem. In the process, you refer to me as "bub" a term you find offensive enough to complain here that I used it. Is it any wonder you are not getting help from other editors? John from Idegon (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
John from Idegon All I come on here to do is make edits and help educate the community of the world. You have been bullying me since I've joined by deleting all my edits regardless of their value. JacksonViking (talk) 05:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
JacksonViking continues to make unfounded and unsupported accusations against me here, is engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND discussion at Talk:Jackson High School (Michigan), and has refactored my comments here (sorry, can't seem to get the diff to paste from my phone, but it is the strikeout showing in my last entry above. If you look at the history you will see he did it and I cannot imagine a scenario where that could happen accidentally), all the while not even beginning to explain the behavior he was brought here for. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The diff showing JacksonViking refactoring your comment is here. I have reverted that change and posted a caution on their talk page. Thomas.W talk 11:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • JacksonViking, are we really going to have to block you to prevent you from continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia and to help you grasp whatever is you don't understand? That's what happens here at ANI, you know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In light of the latest, creating an article now at AfD that was primarily a copyvio (here), I would suggest that might be what needs to happen. An indef, with the requirement of accepting mentorship before an unblock can happen. John from Idegon (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay firstly, someone changed a comment I made on page and ran a mark through it like I did to the typo John made so I didn't know it was so offensive. Secondly I wish someone would give me a clear cut message about what wrongs I am performing. I have Been a huge contributor to the Jackson high school wiki and added a bio box and a picture and curriculum and alumni. JacksonViking (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • In case you aren't hearing us, vague excuses are not getting it. Who did that? where? when?
  1. An explanation for why you named a reference "Penis" is needed.
  2. An admission that you knew you were doing something wrong by using deceptive edit summaries, along with a promise not to do it again, is needed.
  3. An indication of a desire to learn how to do things right, such as requesting WP:Adoption would be a big positive step.
  4. An indication that you have up to now refused to listen and in most cases even acknowledge that there is no-one showing you malice and people have been trying to help you would be nice.
  5. A promise to quit taking things personally and throwing tantrums (such as naming references Penis).
  6. Showing some understanding that a large amount of what you have been doing has not been encyclopedic. You need to perhaps spend time editing articles that have nothing whatsoever to do with Jackson, Michigan so possibly you can develop a sense of perspective on why your additions have not been that helpful.

No one is out to get you. ALl anyone here cares about is the quality of the encyclopedia. If you are interested in contributing to a quality encyclopedia, by all means, stick around. If your only interest is adding what you want without restriction to articles relating to Jackson, then perhaps you should spend a few bucks and start a website. John from Idegon (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Naming the reference Penis was because I figured there was no harm since no one can see it and the reference needed a unique name that helped differentiate it from the dozens of other things on the page JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC) JacksonViking (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If the above is not enough for some kind administrator to use his buttons, perhaps the conversation on my talk page will help. Or maybe this. Or this, where he reinstated s copyvio, removed a BLP citations needed tag an just to put some whip cream on top of it, added a good article template (to a sub stub at AfD) . The conversation on my talk page is making me think we have a CIR scenario here, but either th st or nothere, it needs someone to swing the mop. John from Idegon (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not reintroduce copyvio. I paraphrased the entire substance of the article. Willis is also a freshmen not a junior and he says he wants to study to be an attorney in college. JacksonViking (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you added the Good Article template. Here I removed it. My apologies, Barek removed the reference needed tag, I am guessing on the theory that as a completely unreferenced BLP, it was probably a bit redundant. Here you inserted the uttterly false and impossible piece of info that as a freshman, he was majoring in law. According to the conversation on my talk page, you deduced this from his statements that he enjoyed law and wanted to be a lawyer. Again, I have to apologize, you had properly paraphrased the source on the bit on the recruitment violation. I am not going to restore this to the article however, because it is much more about MSU than Mr. Willis. I am sorry for these errors, Jackson. However, hopefully you can learn something here. I honestly admitted I made them and stated what I was doing to correct them, which in this case is nothing, because they are either already handled or don't need handling. When you make an acceptable edit followed by two bad ones, sometimes the good gets tossed with the bad.
For the adminstrators: My action in reverting the non-copyvio are regrettable and I should not have done them. However, his conversation here and above on the subject of naming a reference "Penis" support the undeniable conclusion that either he is extreamly disruptive (making WP:DICKish edits and lying about them) and hence WP:NOTHERE or he is grossly incompetent and WP:CIR. The two articles he has created recently that are both at AfD also support this conclusion (Khari Willis and Michael Funkhouser. The discussions at the respective AfD's and talk pages for those articles are also informative to this conclusion). In either case, I am asking for some action. A quick scan of his talk shows this is not a personal issue with me about him. I am far from the only editor that has tried to get him to see the errors of his ways. This has gone on long enough. John from Idegon (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I accept your apology and forgive your mistakes. JacksonViking (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Before I discovered this discussion, I had already decided to block JacksonViking for a short time, because of persistently replacing article content which is supported by sources with content which is unsupported by any sources I can find, often directly contradicted by reliable sources, and in some cases adding false "references" which do not support his edits. Reading the above discussion, and realising that the problems are far more extensive than those I knew about, I wondered whether to block for much longer instead. However, for the present I have decided to give him every chance to improve, so I have blocked for just 48 hours, and posted a fairly long block message to his talk page, trying to encourage him to change. However, I regard that as a minimum block, in view of the extensive history of problems, at least some of which look as though they may not be good-faith mistakes. If he does not benefit from the second chance I have given him, I do not think a jump directly from a 48 hour block up to an indefinite one would be unreasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 2 July 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.

CHAND ALIi[edit]

This looks to be all sorted after NeilN pointed this user in a helpful direction... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:13, 3 July 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.

CHAND ALIi appears to self-identify as a child and has posted personal information at the bottom of SAARC a regional Hope. Per WP:CHILD, an admin may want to remove it. The article also seems to contain much copy-pasta.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagged under CSD#A10 as a duplicate of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, and NeilN deleted it. KrakatoaKatie 23:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Directed editor towards Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. --NeilN talk to me 23:22, 1 July 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.

Disruptive editing by Joshua Jonathan[edit]

NO ACTION
This is a content/style dispute that does not require admin intervention at this stage. As Abecedare suggests, these matters can be discussed on the appropriate article talk page.  Philg88 talk
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.

Joshua Jonathan is indulging in disruptive editing at the following talk page: [Page]. The modus operandi is to move comments he had already made in one section of the talk page (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism--Joshua has now deleted this section header) to another section of the talk page (Shankara and Buddhism). His own comments and also my own comments are also freely placed in a new section('Headers') in the talk page that he has created. A previous section header (Shankara's Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism) with his comments and also my comments has been removed by Joshua as i mentioned. All this is resulting in confusion. I have tried to impress upon him the need to retain content that has already been written in one section of the talk page and not create confusion by moving content in the talk page from one section to another section, removing section headers, placing old content (of his posts and also my posts) in newly created section headers, etc. but he is not prepared to listen to me. Soham321 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The only way i could impress upon Joshua not to play around on the talk page moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers, placing edits from a section to a newly created section was to revert his edits where he was doing this. This seems to have made him very angry going by his comments in the edit summary of the talk page where he reverts me, and also his comments in the talk page. Soham321 (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Talk:Adi_Shankara#Headers, User_talk:Soham321#July_2015 and User_talk:Soham321#Talk_page_conduct. Soham321 is highly disruptive, removing my talkpage comments twice. Abecedare already intervened, obviously without result. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Summary of events:
  • Soham made some recent edits to Adi Shankara.
  • User:Joshua Jonathan and I both had some concerns about the edits, and we almost simultaneously started talk page discussion on the topic.
  • After a short while, Jonathan (using common-sense IMO) merged the two talkpage sections on the exact same topic, w/o deleting any content.
  • Soham responded by not only undoing Joshua's merger but also deleting Joshua's subsequent replies, not once but twice!
Frankly this is all very silly, and I hope that this ANI is closed with editors told to simply get back to discussing the article content, and not get lost in discussing how the discussion sections are organized on the article talkpage. No admin action should be needed, unless Soham's disruption and needless escalation continues. Abecedare (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am unable to participate in the talk page if edits are moved around freely from one section to another, section headers are removed, and edits in an older section (in this case, my edits and also Jonathan's edits) are placed in a newly created section header. I appreciate the fact that Abecedare--who has also been commenting on the talk page--has participated in this discussion. My understanding though is that majority does not constitute consensus in some cases. And this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the height of WP:IRONY. Soham321 doesn't even know how to indent. I don't know how many times @Ogress: and I had to correct his indentation. He would combine his post with other editors, despite explanations not to do so.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)What Victoria is accusing me of doing is making a post in the way i am making right now. It is true that i have done this occasionally (not always). But there is a big difference between this, and moving edits from one section to another, removing section headers and placing edits (in this case, my edits and also Joshua's edits) written in a particular section into a newly created section. As i mentioned earlier, majority does not constitute consensus in some cases, and it is my belief that this is one such case. Soham321 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow Soham321, just did it on this ANI page! He just jammed his comment into mine. Soham321 engages in the most disruptive editing of any editor I have encountered on Wikipedia.VictoriaGraysonTalk 06:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I have to say that when I was on Talk:Caste system in India, Soham321 made many comments that were just jammed up against the previous comment and had to be manually separated by someone else, such as here I request he stop jamming his replies, earlier I ask he indent, earlier than that I ask he stop with text shenanigans. Ogress smash! 06:55, 2 July 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.

User:RoverTheBendInSussex[edit]

I've protected the article for a week. The alternative was to block User:RoverTheBendInSussex for edit-warring (at least four reverts in the last 24 hours). Now, all of you get to the talk page and discuss the issues. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 4 July 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.

This user repeatedly manipulates the UKIP page to conform to his own pro-UKIP biased views, each time I have added reliably sourced information to this page he has removed it mostly without reading though on my first edit he appeared to skim-read the source thus missing or ignoring the relevant information even when I had pointed out in the reference which part of the Guardian article it came from. The reason given for the edit reversals is that it does not conform to his own view. I also noticed on the talk page that I am not the only user to have noticed his unhelpful editing; user:Midnightblueowl, who also mentions on the talk page that the user I am reporting is an open 'kipper, found the user in question to have removed the term "radical right populist" in description of the party despite sources demarcating a clear consensus among political scientists that the term was an appropriate descriptor. The same happen to me when I attempted to add such things as "social conservatism" and "anti-immigrationism" to the ideology section with reliable sources categorically stating that this was UKIP ideology even despite party denial of the term "social conservatism", I also attempted to amend the party's political position to "right-wing to far-right" with I reliable source stating clearly that UKIP's policies were far-right.

I urge you to consider action against this user for his repeated disruptive and biased, non-objective editing and edit-warring. I have attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the matter through opening a dialogue on the user's talk page, however he chose to ignore my message despite have come online since (reverting unjustly even more edits to the UKIP page).

In case you note that I was previously blocked after I mistakenly reported a user, I recognise that that was the result of a callous and unthinking vendetta on my part and have since apologised to the user whom I had reported that time. I hope it does not affect my reporting of this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talkcontribs) 00:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Without direct evidence (in other words, diffs to support your accusations), you are quite possibly looking at another block. To accuse an editor of misdeeds without evidence is a form of personal attack. This is stated without any research into the merits of the complaint, just as a procedural note. John from Idegon (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:What are diffs? I do not understand the jargon of wikipedians. Sorry. There might have an explanation of sorts on the complaint edit page but it is incomprehensible to us mere mortals, for we speak not the sacred tongue of the wikipedians. To non-wikipedians the lengthy paragraph above in which I describe the problems from the user faced by me and another user would be seen as an explanation. Do not discredit it simply because I have used real words and not obfuscated abbreviation and symbols which require ridiculous lengths if time to be spent reading soporific articles to penetrate in even a facile manner. Wikipedians, eh? Sorry, bit of a rant there. No offence intended, just got a bit annoyed due to my non-comprehension of what to wiki users is an explanation. In good faith, I thank you for taking the time to reply. Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Refer to Help:Diff. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Here are the requested "diffs", hope they are what you were looking for-https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669854368, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669845847, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669769045, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/669852754. Now user:bondegezou and user:snowed have also come up against this bloke.
Kind regards, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh
1- One of the users attempting to edit UKIP's twitter page to list them falsely as "Far-Right" using a random 2 line comment in a tabloid newspaper (the Guardian) is a self admitted "Communist", "Pro-EU", Pro-UK joining the Euro" and pro-Welsh Independence. It is obvious from the vandalism on the page that this user has posted that they are anti-UKIP and allowing their bias to effect what they edit the page to. These actions have been takinjg place over multiple page with biased sources and can be viewed on the History page of the UKIP page. This user has also declined to properly discuss such edits, and no mutual conclusion to edit the page to include said information has been drawn. The user has however continued to repeatidly edit and remove "undo's" to his/her vandalism and continues to vandalise the page with inaccurate and poorly sourced information.
The attempts to categorise UKIP as Far-Right should be deemed vandalism and removed when edited. This by User: Snowded who has jointly persued with damage of the page.
2- User:Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh has also attempted to add references from the Guardian as valid proof of UKIP's standing politically, and has expressed clear bias in communication with me on my User page which can be viewed to the admins satisfaction. This user has threatened me with reporting should I attempt to edit inaccurate claims that he/she has posted, as party ideologies and also backing up the claim UKIP are Far-Right, which is factually inaccurate and a politically motivated and biased claim.
Comments such as "It's anti-immigrationist policies" - Of which UKIP have none in reality. "strong sense of nationalism" - UKIP don't believe or have ever expressed an opinion of superiority over other countries. But most startlingly obvious is "opposition to co-operation other countries (E.U. (which myself would like Britain to leave) and intervention in struggling foreign countries are both opposed staunchly by the party)." - UKIP oppose the transfer of legislation and further expansionism by the EU. That is in no way Nationalistic, but does express a pretty obvious exposed bias against UKIP seeing as they don't oppose European cooperation or assisting countries.
This user has also let other bias slip with further comments desperately trying to link UKIP to the Far Right French National Front, and Britain First also (viewable on my talk page). Both parties have been barred from partnering or having former members join UKIP as a Party. In reality they are proscribed. It is pretty obvious their is an agenda at play here. Especially when you take note of the random dropping in of the "Nazi party" in mention and referring to UKIP supporters as "Kippers". An attempt at false labeling randomly dropped into discussion that I find personally offensive.
I also further to this believe this user should be reported for making false allegations and threatening Wikipedia users on their talk pages (again can be viewed on my talk page).
When this user posts comments on talk pages such as "Edit the UKIP page in a biased way again and I shall have to report you, leading probably to a block or ban." after editing unreliable info that hasn't been discussed on the talk page, action should really be taken.
As I said to this user on his/her talk page. If I was a biased UKIP supporter, I would have edited the Wikipedia page to read that UKIP are a center-right party. Something I really believe. But the most reliable source that has been added to the page made reference that UKIP were a "Right Wing Party". This source being removed without reason. That source being a Norwegian Political book discussing politics in the Nordic Countries of Europe.
I respect this reference and left it as it is. Main consensus is that UKIP are a Right Wing party, and so editing UKIP as Far Right is wrong. As is labeling "Nationalistic" and or "anti-Immigration", which they are not.
I understand evidence needs to be given. As someone who isn't hugely technologically savvy on Wikipedia all I can do is direct admin to my talk page where I have been threatened for trying to remove false information and also suggest admin look at the edit history of the UKIP pages for the mislabeling and false information posted on said article. User talk:RoverTheBendInSussex 02:42, 5 July 2015 (GMT)
I can see you are stubborn RoverTheBendInSussex! Good on you for sticking to your views so firmly! However, UKIP support massive and in my view completely unjustified reduction of immigration, this is anti-immigrationist, for the term is not limited to those who oppose all immigration, though I think Farage would happily ban it outright. UKIP opposed gay marriage - socially conservative, prioritising British workers over foreign ones - British Nationalism. Just because you dislike those terms does not mean they shouldn't be used, possibly you are a disillusioned labour voter? In this case, terms such as socially conservative would probably not be descriptive of your personal political views but they are descriptive of Farage's (a former Tory) and thus the party he dominates. More over, many, many non-UKIP supporters (you were offended by 'kipper so I shall not use it, sorry) would agree they are far-right and some UKIP supporters have gone on to join far-right groups (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-33149621), Farage and UKIP itself supported an E.U. bill to fund some of the far-right political parties (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/27/ukip-far-right) and open far-rightists have advocated them (Nick Griffin (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/former-bnp-leader-nick-griffin-says-hell-vote-ukip-9893376.html) and Britain First (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vote-ukip-say-farright-group-britain-first-10126389.html) have both advocated voting UKIP, though Griffin could be ignored as I reckon this was just to spite the BNP after his recent sacking). Use of nazi was to show that I was not unjustly comparing UKIP to them, not all on the far-right are nazis (though I am certainly not an apologist for any far-right political views), though you seem to have construed it as meaning the opposite, in which case I am deeply sorry for the confusion. It is not a non-objective vandalism. Though I would never do it again, I have vandalised a wiki page before and let me assure you I go ridiculously over the top. Had this been a vandalism you would have at the very least found the terms Neo-nazi and fascist in the ideology section, which were not there and I would not have both to source them or revert the edits after they had been deleted, rightly in the case of actual vandalism. I used far-right not randomly and I assure you it was not political bias and that the edit was merely representative of my findings after an internet search. I assure you no vandalism was intended or offence on your part. I apologise, I didn't mean to threaten you I merely felt I ought to warn you of what I or another of the four users, mention in previous comments, you have disrupted might do if you continued in this vein.
If the guardian is not a valid source, I don't know what is, for the guardian is the source give in the example on the help page! Is there any point in editing Wikipedia if, even with appropriate sources from the site suggested by wiki itself, edit will invariably be deleted.
This is not a personal vendetta against the user I have accused and I apologise if it came across as such. I merely think that his removing of sourced info suggests bias. For diffs see my previous comments
You criticise user:snowded, however it should be noted that they have a barn star for maintaining a "neutral and balanced" viewpoint in their edits. Ignore me if you want to, be list to user:snowded for he seems a laudable wiki-user and is in the same predicament as me. Please do not besmirch their name as he has done nothing wrong.
Thanks for your time, Gothaparduskerialldrapolatkh (talk) 02:35, 4 July 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.

Legal Threat[edit]

User Com2mass has been blocked indefinitely by Orange Mike for making legal threats. De728631 (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clear legal threat here. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like they've already been blocked. --Golbez (talk) 19:05, 4 July 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.

User talk:Wademastersonro1[edit]

Already done, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 20:49, 4 July 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.

Can someone please remove talk page access from this latest sock - see abuse at talk page. Mr Potto (talk) 20:44, 4 July 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.

Richard Silverstein[edit]

No has the right of Free Speech as an editor at Wikipedia, however, we generally do not sanction editors for exercising that right when they are writing their own blogs or articles that aren't associated with Wikipedia. What someone does on their own blog is not within our domain, literally and figuratively speaking. Dennis Brown - 23:51, 4 July 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.

Background[edit]

User:Richards1052 has identified himself as Richard Silverstein, the blogger behind Tikun Olam (blog).

Recently, an article named Avera Mengistu was published by User:רדיומן based on an article by Silverstein. It was nominated for deletion by me and all uninvolved editors nominated it for deletion. Silverstein admitted רדיומן is his source.

In addition I filed sockpuppet investigation since I believed at the time both רדיומן and Richards1052 were used by the same person but later updated that I found out רדיומן is very active on Hebrew WP so I'm less suspicious.

Last, a BLP noticeboard inquiry was opened in which I didn't participate.

The talk page of the article had some discussion but it was deleted with the articles.

In all those discussions Silverstein showed little understanding of WP policies such an WP:RS and WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL with comments such as Wikipedia would want an article based on such knowledge and then anyone who had a hand in removing it will be seen as having done a disservice to Wikipedia.

Attack[edit]

On July 1st, Silverstein [published an article named "The Poison Pill of Israeli, and Wikipedia Censorship". In which he provide my username (which I guess is in the public space) but also tell lies about the process the brought to the deletion of the article some of which misrepresent in negative false light the whole WP community.

  1. He talks about 'groups' of editors where no such thing happened.
  2. He claims there is 'internal pro-Israel Wikipedia discussion groups'.
  3. He claims 'pro-Israel elements working within Wikipedia achieved... censorship'.
  4. He ends with 'Fools like these cheapen Wikipedia and betray its mission'.
  5. More false accusation repeats from WP discussions which can be found in the discussions I linked above.

I have left 2 messages to Silverstein on his blog. The first pointing out 'inaccuracies' in his report and a second, asking him to remove this incorrect/misleading information or I'll complain. (Messages can't be seen since he moderates comments). He responded in a tweet "Israeli who succeeded in getting Wikipedia to delete article on disappeared Ethiopian, Avera Mengistu threatens 2 haul me B4 Wiki committee."

I would like to ask admins to contact him and demand the removal of these false accusations against myself and the community. Further refresh of WP policies is probably in place as well. Kigelim (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

comments[edit]

  • If you are asking Wikipedia admins to contact a Wikipedia user about something he wrote and published off-Wiki, it's extremely unlikely that would happen. If Richards1052 does something untoward on-Wiki that's behavioral and not a content dispute, that's their baliwick, but (in general) what people do off-Wiki, and what opinions they express there, is not something they would normally get involved in -- nor, I suspect, would the intervention of Wikipedia admins change Silverstein's opinion about what happened. BMK (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what BMK wrote. We're not going to take action because you're butthurt over what a Wikipedia editor wrote about you in his blog.
But you, Kigelim, have a lot of nerve coming here to complain. You're a single-purpose account who is only here to harass Silverstein. You should read WP:BOOMERANG and WP:NOTHERE. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Malik, I'm not very active and yes' after this shenanigan I put some focus on the article and Silverstein. This has nothing to do with the subject. In all the discussions I treated him with the utmost respect and I expect the same back.
If admins feel it is not of their interest, fine. I'm not making the rules. But he clearly uses WP for his own purposes which you have warn him in the past yourself. If you feel using WP to spread his 'speculations', not accept uninvolved editors decision and then present WP as an Israeli puppet is acceptable, that is fine with me.
BTW, the same articles was deleted from Arabic WP as well. Kigelim (talk) 23:05, 4 July 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.

User with the username of a living celebrity[edit]

RESOLVED
Dangelorussell softblocked.  Philg88 talk 05:38, 4 July 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.

The user Dangelorussell's username is the same as that of D'Angelo Russell, a recent NBA draft pick. Per the username policy, I believe that this user should be username-blocked unless they really are D'Angelo Russell and they have proof for it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Soft-blocked. A guy saved by Jesus, probably a better place for this type of report is WP:UAA. --NeilN talk to me 03:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that noticeboard. Thank you, I will remember that for future reference. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 04:13, 4 July 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.

TheGracefulSlick[edit]

Closing. CrazyAces489 has purportedly retired. Compare the thread "Revenge nomination" below. This report, too, looks rather like retaliation. Bishonen | talk 10:00, 4 July 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.

Requesting an WP:IBAN on this individual. He had promised another Admin he would stop interacting with me, but still shows up in multiple places that I go to. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

And you promised to adhere to policy, which you continue to fail at doing, even though you know it was a part of the agreement. I was merely noting that you were, again, failing to uphold policy which is why there is an AN/I about you above. Our "agreement" was I would not edit your articles and you wouldn't edit mine, which I have upheld. I only edited an AN/I about you because I had valuable info to the discussion and I mentioned it to Tokyogirl79 because she was the admin who set up the "agreement". This should be closed immediately and someone needs to finally take care of CA's purposeful failure to comply with others users and policies.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. One place is not "multiple".TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I am back here on this account is that TheGracefulslick harrassed me on my new user account. [7] I even left a letter on wikipedia notifying people on it. I simply don't want any interaction with him as I stated here. [8] If I wasn't outted by Phrese and TheGracefulSlick I wouldn't have all these issues. I simply want to try and create articles to expand wikipedia. I don't think its going to happen . There is a strong lack of black editors on wikipedia and I believe for very good reason. Certain behavior is tolerated and the buddy system is in strong effect and some articles are tolerated while others are heavily scrutinized. I took a break and went somewhere else and was outed and stalked. I came back and it was worse. If I do come back, I would like this IBAN to be in place. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your articles are the issue! They are poorly written, poorly sourced, and unnotable. People keep telling you this! Since, CA announced another "retirement" to avoid impending punishment I suggest this AN/I be closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:26, 4 July 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.

Personal attack from RGloucester[edit]

Nothing actionable here just as there was nothing actionable in the thread that was archived. You can ask Arb but it will be declined.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:33, 4 July 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.

RGloucester (talk · contribs) told me to go to hell ("twice") and accused me of stalking him [9]. I already reported RGloucester for their ongoing incivility and disruptive behavior last week and nothing was done about it - the case was moved to archive. (I added the attack at the archive as it was not closed, but was informed everything moved to archive are abandoned, so I started a new report here). RGloucester's bullying and WP:BATTLEGROUND over everything is harmful to Wikipedia. Should this be brought to arbitration or can this be properly handled at ANI? Thank you. МандичкаYO 😜 04:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, how fun. It was a joke, and a reference. If you'd prefer if I were to go to Hades, I shall be happy to. Damn me to Hades, twice. Now that I've been damned to Hades twice, would you please stop spreading falsities at every turn? It must be fun, I imagine, but I haven't the patience or time to continue dealing with fellow Hadesians. RGloucester 04:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks claimed to be jokes are still personal attacks. I also take offense at your statement accusing me of "spreading falsities at every turn" since I certainly do not. МандичкаYO 😜 04:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Spare me, please. I wonder what money is in muckraking, pray tell? Oh! How foolish of me! Money, muckraking?! The money of ego, stuff of argent wrought! A common stuff, the stuff of kings! In this age, one of leering, there isn't much, but constant peering...a mucking...a raking...a sacking of the muck, a packing of the muck! Muck, muck! To market with muck, for sale and for let, sold for tuppence, not much left of 'commin'sense', that's the world you've brought. RGloucester 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey nonny, nonny and such. This is not the first time RGloucester has been excessively abrasive in an AfD. Jokes are all well and good but these types of outbursts tend to happen more when you are disagreed with which makes them less "jokey" in my eyes. Chillum 04:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I beg of you, great Chillum, delete both me and that essay, for the sake of the encylopaedia. The administrative scythe must reap the weeds of my produce. Will you join me in Hades? RGloucester 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh geez, just close this and move along. Before Monty shows up bitching about shaving his beard. Or before we have to deal with da xiang bao za shi de la du zi. GregJackP Boomer! 05:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, one consolation is that if you do go to hell, and he's stalking you, then he'll be there too. >:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:28, 4 July 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.

What the hell[edit]

USERS BLOCKED
IP users both blocked (the first for 1 year(!), the second for 1 month) for Vandalism by Jackmcbarn. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:13, 5 July 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.

is going on at articles like Bulgarian parliamentary election, 1899? I just get a mostly red screen with "nice meme" in black text. This isn't the only article where I'm seeing this. Something similar happened other day, as reported at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#THE STRANGEST THING IS HAPPENING TO ME!. Number 57 14:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Template vandalism of Module:Dynkin by User:120.50.54.81, who was previously blocked for being a proxy. Likely to be User:Keastes who invoked Module:Dynkin from a lot of unrelated templates. Suggest block. - hahnchen 14:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support block. Yikes. GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, a block sounds like a good idea. Number 57 14:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
partially my fault, haven't edited sence the 12th of May, asking on IRC if there is anything i should do other than revert the stuff that wasnt me. kthxbai Keastes know thyself 14:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I put in a request at RPP to protect the affected templates with the most transclusions and a request at AIV to block you as a compromised account, though you seem to be back in control now. Conifer (talk) 15:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
fine by me, seeing as AFAIK WP does not have a "logout all sessions" button. kthxbai Keastes know thyself 15:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I blocked the account for a week. We can take more drastic action if the problem resumes at that point (user has changed their password). -- Diannaa (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I think that 116.86.134.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the same person. I caught and fixed some of their actions a few days ago (warned, but not blocked by me). The technique is similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 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.

Douglas Todd AfD[edit]

Can a few admins have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Todd? There seem to be an awful lot of strong opinions on the debate, which in itself is not necessarily an issue, but the proliferation of redlinked users and IPs leads me to wonder if there's a sock farm at work here. (I haven't pinged anyone aside from the two obvious main protagonists, Stuart lyster (talk · contribs) and 142.59.217.7 (talk · contribs) because I'm not complaining about any specific editor, rather just the general progression of the debate, but please advise if I should). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I've tagged it with {{notavote}} although that is of questionable value. Socking is a real possibility, but hard to tell without CU with so few edits. Dennis Brown - 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I have seen AFDs get semi-protected, but not under this situation. Has to be pretty extreme. Like serious vandalism, or when 4chan comes to town, trolling. Dennis Brown - 13:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it could be meatpuppetry. The IPs look to be from Vancouver Telus and Verizon in Fredericksburg, Virginia. Unless he's crossing over the US/Canada border with the international data plan to beat all data plans, it's probably not the same guy. But the closing admin can take all that into account. KrakatoaKatie 14:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, these are static broadband IPs. You'd need CU to see which one could be the Stuart Iyster account. That last SPA !vote looks suspicious too. KrakatoaKatie 14:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I certainly get the impression that people were off-wiki canvassed there, I just don't know where from. The personal attacks don't help. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Having spent a little time sussing things out, it looks like this is a messy canvass involving mostly Canadian single-purpose editors, most for keep, a couple against. There is probably a discussion about this debate somewhere on the internets. Aside from the non-standard "Do Not Delete" language, it seems at a glance that most of these are different accounts opining about a widely-read religious columnist in a large Canadian newspaper. I'd advise Ritchie333 to step back and let nature take its course, as I don't see sources that will get this article over the GNG bar. I do question the need to delete such an article, but then again I do have a soft spot for journalist biographies, which are notoriously hard to source out. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

User: Stemoc[edit]

After continually being reverted by this user, I've decided that it would be best to take this to the Administrator noticeboard. Over the past several months, the user Stemoc has continually reverted my edits, for the sole reason of being disruptive. I think their latest statement made in an edit summary clearly states that they do not wish to act in a civil manner, and simply wish to violate Wikipedia policy outlined at WP:HOUNDING. The edit summary stated "UNDO long-term cross wiki vandal POV pusher whop uses the wiki for "self promotion"." This has continually been his reason, no matter the situation, in this case it was the addition of a different photo on the Donald Trump article which is non-controversial. (Note: There was a previous discussion at 3RR where it was agreed that I would not add photos that have already been uploaded for the sole reason of having my name in the title of the image, which I have ceased from doing. I have not broken this warning so that should not be part of this discussion.) But regardless, the user still seems to want to continue to revert my edits across several different projects, and was told to stop previously.

In a calm, measured response to a comment I left on his talk page, part of his response was to "stop acting like a pompous cry baby.." His edit summary here also indicates his unwillingness to act in a civil manner, and simply to be disruptive and revert edits without discussion. Quoting directly from WP:Wikihounding, "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." As recent as a few moments ago, the user began participating in a discussion I created in order to gain a consensus on which image would be best at Jeb Bush. The user then personally attacked me stating "its Not a Communist regime either so we won't keep using your poor images all the time" to a comment I left in a related section where people began voting, despite policy that states Wikipedia is not a democracy. In that discussion, it was found that a different image was best to use, and I did not revert or try to disrupt that decision.

The user has had similar complaints left on his talk page, after he told another user to "get glasses" when trying to add a photo he uploaded in this instance. Here is part of the exchange...

If that isn't a case against WP:Civility then I don't know what is. He has been warned for his uncivil behavior several times already, and yet they just ignore it and begin writing in uppercase and attempting shame others from editing. It also seems that he is doing the same thing that he accuses me of, as he is adding his own uploaded images to articles, without any sort of discussion, whether controversial or not, and most of the time without a reason given in his edit summary. I highly suggest reviewing his edit history, and his talk page.

Other violations that I believe he has made are outlined at WP:Disruptive editing, in response to this comment after I reverted him for reverting me because I made the edit, "Either follow our policies or LEAVE". That statement alone violates #6, which states "Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles." I would also argue he is acting in a tendentious manner based on his recent edits alone.

Again, if this isn't a case of someone overstepping the line of civility, engaging in disruptive editing, campaigning to drive away productive contributors, and intentionally hounding someone's specific edits, then I don't know what is.

Here are links to edits where the user has reverted me in a hounding manner. [10] [11] [12][13][14][15][16] [17] [18] [19]

Calibrador (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Expect an accusational response from the user being reported saying that I'm adding my own photos as self promotion. This is not the case, and is not a violation of any policy anyway. As of recent, I have made sure to include clear edit summaries stating why I am changing a specific image, and created discussions in order to come to a consensus on which image would be preferred. Stemoc is simply acting in a disruptive manner no matter what discussion takes place, and no matter what my edit summary reasoning was for changing a specific image. Calibrador (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Before I begin, please remember that User:Calibrador was previously known as Gage Skidmore and he changed his name yesterday just so that he can knowingly continue to enforce his images into articles without setting off any alarm bells..Infact, just before changing his name, his last few edits involved enforcing his own images into articles and right after usurpation, he continues to do the same. The use has over the years continually used wikipedia for WP:SELFPROMOTION to an extent of removing better images for his own poor ones just so that he can use wikipedia to promote himself financially. The Quote he linked above was to another editor that is available on my talk page and it has already been solved "amicably" but he has linked it here trying to make people think that my comment was targeted at him..... I'm not in the habit of REMOVING other people's comments about him removing other images and replacing them with his.. He even threatened me on Wikimedia Commons to not upload his images from flickr which are under a free licence and as per Commons policy can be uploaded for use on wikipedia...The user has a long history of violation WP:COI and just by going through the users contribution history here, it will all be made clear. I'm NOT Hounding the user as he claims, I just found his "vandalism" unbearable and decided to take action by reverting them as he refuses to follow policies in regards to discussing his changes. Its either HIS images be USED on those articles or NO IMAGES and he will blatantly revert anyone else who decides to use a less controversial or better image...WP:CIVIL goes both ways and if admins refuse to warn and discipline this user who has previously been reported here in May, then this will be ongoing. The user is abusing our Terms of Use as was discussed in May on my talk page. He may not be a paid editor but he is using Wikipedia for Financial gain and that is against one of our policies as photographers get paid for the use of their images as tou can see here and quote

If wikimedia blatantly allows someone to use the site to serve their personal monetary gain then this is not a place I want to be...I have been fighting Spammers and vandals across wikimedia since 2007 and users like him are the worst as they can usually get away with it..........oh and ofcourse you are Gage, do NOT deny it cause whats worse than violators are those that blatantly lie about it--Stemoc 13:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to destroy my character, you are getting very close to libel with your false accusations. I have never made a penny from my involvement with Wikipedia. Your response also screams a great level of paranoia. Calibrador (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
False accusation?, you accuse me of WP:HOUNDing you and when i point out that you are using WIKIPEDIA for your own personal MONETARY gain, I'm destroying your character?. You Intentionally enforce your images so that you can tell your "clients" about you work using Wikipedia as a reference for your OWN personal and monetary gain and when users remove your pics and replace or update it with one that is BETTER, you revert them cause you want ONLY your images with you name at the END of every image name because you are a humanitarian and you love wikipedia and you are helping the wiki out of the goodness of your heart?, is thats what you are telling me?....Never made a a penny, who do you think uses all the images that get added to wikipedia?, newsites and other websites and I won't be surprised if they pay you for the use of the images, oh and lets not forget, free publicity..Just admit it and stop lying please....--Stemoc 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
None of what you just wrote is true, I suggest you just stop please. Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Also I'd suggest acting more Civil instead of using Caps lock to imply shouting on the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Stemoc, it's not clear to me how Calibrador is financially benefiting from Wikipedia. You link to his Flickr bio it doesn't refer to Wikipedia at all. And then you reference an article where not only is Wikipedia not mentioned but it states he posts all of his photos to Flickr under a Creative Commons license, making them available free of charge as long as he’s credited. and only charges for-profit publications for his work.
I can see how you could make an argument that Calibrador prefers using photos he has taken over other photos but you haven't presented evidence that he is financially benefiting from donating his photos to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
That is how publicity works Liz, let put it this way, his images get noticed, he gets called up by someone famous and they ask him to do a 'photoshoot" for which he gets paid and at the same time he has to insure he gets noticed, Flickr is now ranked 130 odd but Wikipedia is STILL one of the top 10 websites in the world, so where are you more likely to get noticed?..Previously, when adding image a to articles, he used to add his name into the captions in infoboxes as well..just search through his edits in 2014 and you will find it which is how i actually noticed him in the first place..--Stemoc 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I never did that, and I have never booked a photo shoot with anyone. How many times do you have to be told to stop making false accusations? Calibrador (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned it on my talk page many times that i use Caps and Bold for "emphasis" only on certain words, I'm not "Shouting"..and also why would you even accept what i said is fact because if it is , and I know it is, it means you have been violating our policies for years and have been getting away with it and you got your named changed just so that its not directly seen as a WP:COI which it is.Note: I havea shitty internet conenct adn moving to https has MADE IT WORSE so i cannot reply here anymore, i have already had 16 edit conflicts on this thread, please take anything else regarding me to to my talk page..I'm unable to post on pages larger than 150kbs (my net speed on enwiki is about 8kbps)--Stemoc 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You also used caps on your talk page once because someone "needs to get glasses." Calibrador (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • A month ago I reported Gage Calibrador at ANEW [20] so I'm not the only one to have an issue although since that report I've simply given up with the image-removal as I knew one way or another I'd end up being blocked, I still believe Gage Calibrador is using the image-titles as a way to promote himself. –Davey2010Talk 14:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Since that discussion, I have agreed to use edit summaries, discuss, and come to a consensus when changing an image is seen as controversial. Calibrador (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • That's great but the image thing is still an issue - No one would have an issue with your uploads if you just uploaded them as say "X at X.jpg" but surely you can see adding your name on the end of every image you upload does come across as self promotion and people are bound to have an issue with that. –Davey2010Talk 14:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would note that I do not even link to my Flickr when I upload my own photos, like when others upload my images. If anything Stemoc is the one promoting my photos. Calibrador (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm NOT promoting your images, I'm giving you "attribution" which is according to Commons policy regarding image uploads, so this is "attribution" as I have not only uploaded one of your images but given you credit as well as added the image to your private category, there is no need for me to do that but i do it nevertheless cause i go by the rules and follow the policies, you don't...your image uploads are always promotional--Stemoc 15:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Calibrador, you are adding photos with file names such as "William Lee Golden by Gage Skidmore.jpg". If you are a professional photographer, I think such file names are advertising your work. Many professional do contribute some of their images to WP, and in a sense it may be a form of advertising , because they are attributed in the meta data--but we have always regarded this as not just permissible, but a good incentive to get some high quality images. However, putting your professional identity in the file name does not seem like a good idea. I do not work all that much with images,and I do not know if it is against our rules for images, but I personally think that it certainly should be. If you want to avoid accusations of promotionalism, you might want to go back and rename them. DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me first say that e might have gone a bit off-track. However, having your name in the file name is not against any policies or guidelines (ot terms for that metter). If I wanted I could name a file "File:X at Y (thank you C0mpany Z for this great event).jpg" and intentionally advertise, but that alone isn't proof of any wrongdoing. (In the Creative Commons terms however there is a clause about "titles of works" and that they should be used. If the creator wishes they be names one way...)
Back to the issue at hand regarding if Cometstyles Stemoc is violating multiple policies on civility, I would say that this is a clear case. Even if the edits are somehow justified, they are HOUNDing in nature. This should not be acceptable. (There should be a clause like this in 3RR regarding reverting over multiple articles...) (tJosve05a (c) 04:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Its Ok to do that to a few image but that uploader has added more than 8000 images with that byline, just do a simple "by Gage Skidmore" on commons if you don't believe me. This is PROMOTIONAL. When someone adds an article about themselves or add links to their private websites, they are straightaway reverted, warned and in severr cases BLOCKED for spamming..this is one form of spamming..we may have different rules for articles and images but they both have the same outcome...The problem isn't the use of "by Gage Skidmore" tag in all his images, the problem is intentionally replacing other better and current images with his own on MAJOR article to boost his own stand and even without discussion as one user pointed above about the lack of using 'edit summaries'. Josve05, you are aware of my involvement in cross-wiki related spamming and vandalism and there isn't a day where i do NOT delete spamming on the 2 wikis i have adminship on....I see this as "blatant promotional/spamming" and though my involvement on enwikipedia has been limited since i returned (my own choosing), I will NOT turn a blind eye to it cause you may not see it as such but its blatant abuse of our policies....and again, reverting someone who keeps violating our policies does not make me a "Wiki HOUNDER"..I'm reverting what i see as blatant vandalism..the user has even gone to an extent of getting his name changed to make it easier to add his images without anyone pointing fingers..it would be nice if admins did their job as this user has been brought to this board now 3 times over the last 2 months and still has not faced any consequences to this actions...--Stemoc 14:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a case of "everyone but myself" is at fault, and I'm a "social warrior" for trying to save Wikipedia from something that is not against the rules, and I'll keep link WP:Selfpromotion, even though none of what is mentioned on that page applies. Could an admin please weigh in on this situation so that falsehoods aren't spread again? Calibrador (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The self promotion policy may see to be only related for articles but it applies to everything on wikimedia, self PROMOTION is self promotion, either your promote yourself, your company, your interests or your stuff, its Promotion and by deliberately removing other people images with yours IS self promotion...Do I need to make this any more clear?..--Stemoc 15:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I would note that Stemoc is also currently reported at 3RR for reverting one of the articles five times within a 24 hour span. They were also warned by an admin for harassment. Calibrador (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

and more lies, I was neither "warned " by an admin (toonlucas22 is not an admin) but it was a mistake on his part as he was not aware of this thread nor the previous identity of Calibrador and on the 3RR one which Gage Skidmore linked above...and also, I have not violated 3RRand nor do I intend too..--Stemoc 15:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I never said I'm an admin. I just came as an uninvolved editor. --TL22 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That part was my mistake, I thought he was an admin. I do have to correct the false statement that was made about 3RR, though, as Stemoc reverted an article to their version five times in a row, within (approximately) a 24 hour span. It was just slightly outside the window, but still applies. Calibrador (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

─────── Yikes! Bbb23 just brought the hammer down on both Stemoc and Calibrador for 24 hours at WP:ANEW... I'm guessing this one can (and probably should) be closed now. --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to keep this open until Stemoc and Calibrador return from their 24 hour blocks. I'd like to hear some proposals, as there's potentially an issue with Calibrador's behaviour, and in turn there's definitely an issue with Stemoc's behaviour. It would be good to get it sorted out with the minimum of fuss, rather than just closing this thread and having a repeat with either Stemoc or another user raising similar complaints in the next few days and weeks. I'd think the sensible suggestion here would be that Calibrador is either restricted from removing an existing image from a page and replacing it with an image he has taken/uploaded himself unless discussion has taken place prior to the switching of images, and consensus is in favour of the change, or there's a 1RR restriction, so he can make the switch without discussion, but if it's reverted, it needs to be discussed before the edit can be reinstated. If a page lacks an image, then Calibrador can add any image he so wishes. It's important to say at this time that we do appreciate the time and effort he puts into taking and uploading photographs BUT other photographers, both professional and amateur do exactly the same, and in the interests of fairness, we want to see good images from a wide range of different photographers being used on the project, this in turn encourages image contributions from other photographers. Every photographer who takes good images should have an expectation of their images being used by another project and that their images will be chosen fairly, without bias, and on the merit of the photograph and its content, composition and appropriateness for the article. Calibrador's behaviour isn't really allowing that to happen right now. Nick (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It is, he is trying to keep his talk page clean so that paying clients don't ask about his block, anyways thanks for pointing out the previous discussion involving him JustDaFax, maybe I should have pointed this out at the very top of the thread and saved myself a lot of time, the admin in that discussion EdJohnston warned him not to re-offend, and he did....many times actually..I'm tired of this cause I did not come back after retiring just so that I get involved in MORE wikidrama, I have no issue with this, I just do not like POV pushers regardless of who they might be ...I hope an admin comes with a solution soon which will stop this from happening again..--Stemoc 00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Umm Stemoc I mentioned the report right above so I'm not sure how you missed it Face-grin.svg, That said even if it was mentioned right up the top it wouldn't made a blind bit of difference unfortunately . –Davey2010Talk 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Say, Davey2010 could you ping those editors mentioned in your report, that had issues with Cali/Gage? They are likely not aware of this ANI complaint that is now in a state of WP:BOOMERANG and may well shed some light on why they had concerns. Thanks. Jusdafax 07:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Jusdafax - That's actually a good idea ... Should've done that sooner as anything's worth a shot tbh, MrX, Spartan7W, Lady Lotus, Dwpaul. –Davey2010Talk 09:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed sanctions for Calilibrador[edit]

  • Agree, completely, with Nick's suggestion. It seems to be the most sensible and fair solution. I would be more in favour of the 1RR suggestion; it's not prohibitively restrictive (and doesn't discourage further contributions), but it reigns in any excessive promotional behaviour and forces him to seek consensus with other editors if they take issue with his revisions. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef block for Calibrador - Quinto, that type of sanction is only effective if Cali/Gage sees the continuing errors of his ways, and acts on them. He's been warned repeatedly to no avail, even reverting the block message on his Talk page when warned not to. Stemoc is likely right, Cali/Gage has deep reasons for his Talk page scrubbage. I say indef the character, at least until we get a serious commitment to reform that he can be held to. He's been gaming the system here for too long and shows no intention of stopping. Jusdafax 01:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Indef Calibrador - I'm probably not going to be liked for this but the editor has caused enough problems and I think the 1RR won't solve anything at all, We could go down the 1RR route but he'd end up being reported at ANEW and then it'll be this discussion all over again and he'd end up being blocked - Once unblocked we'll be doing it all over again. Indef seems a better and wiser idea IMHO. –Davey2010