Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive896

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Ludwigpaisteman[edit]

I think we've got another "sorry, can't hear you" editor in Ludwigpaisteman (talk · contribs), a straight copyeditor with 0 talk or user talk edits. He seems to go around adding lots of unsourced or poorly sourced content to music articles, and gets reverted all over the place ([1],[2],[3],[4]). I've already dropped him a note saying, "can we talk?" but had no response. Now, if he doesn't mind having edits reverted, I guess there's not much of an issue - but I think my problem is more over articles that nobody watches anymore which have a risk of being subtly degraded and looking a little bit worse. Should we do anything or shall I go and listen to some soothing peaceful music and think happy thoughts instead? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I left him a more specific message directly requesting a response. It's possible that he just hasn't felt the need to respond since no one has asked him a direct question. He's been lighting up my watchlist for quite some time now. His edits are at least sometimes correct, albeit unsourced. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I think when, in all likelihood, the user doesn't respond a brief block may wake them up and nudge a response. Normally, I work on lesser-known bands, albums, and songs than what Ludwig is editing in, but it's still concerning that many articles on renowned musicians are potentially being degraded by unsourced material.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked for the time being. I particularly want to discuss his changes to Richard Wright as I can't find a source for the date given. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit war at Chartres article[edit]

There is clearly consensus here for a siteban of User:Aubmn. I have therefore extended their current one-month block to indefinite. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 17 August 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.

Over the past two days there has been an edit war going on at Chartres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Edit summaries also indicate possible sockpuppetry. The editors who have edited the Chartres article after 30 July are Blue Indigo (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), Whiteflagfl (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), ScrapIronIV, Europatygr, Blaue Max, Huntermiam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), KateWishing and finally myself (only to fully protect the article). FWIW, Blaue Max ScrapIronIV and KateWishing do not appear to be implicated in the war. Europatygr is also probably not involved. As I'm not feeling that confident of being able to fully investigate this myself due to off-wiki issues, I'm raising this here for action. I will notify all mentioned above and post evidence that such notification has been given. Mjroots (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The following editors have been notified of this discussion:- KateWishing, Huntermiam, Europatygr, ScrapIronIV, Whiteflagfl and Blue Indigo Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Blaue Max has also been notified. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I simply is a local from the region around, I was against focusing on the Cathedral, on foreigners and on the Royalist period; also Blue Indigo seemed doing self promotion; I was reverted, I opened a debate on the talk page with no response from Blue Indigo, I think he should be banned, as for myself I ' m logging myself out very soon because I was only interested in Chartres future and a few other edits as for Kate "mes hommages Madame".Whiteflagfl (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
There is strong evidence that Huntermiam is a sockpuppet of Whiteflagfl at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. It has been suggested that both are sockpuppets of Aubmn. I'm not familiar with that user, but at a glance, their English is broken in similar ways. Aubmn was recently subject to a complaint here with clear consensus for a topic ban, but the thread was archived without action. KateWishing (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
No evidence at all. Kate is just feeling bitter because she feels Chartres has been locked on the wrong version. So everyone must be "socking". Martin Cold Mans (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Pretty amazing that you're an editor with under 50 edits, registered yesterday, and yet you are here on ANI linking to a meta essay on the wrong version. Oh, and I'm uninvolved with the article or any of the editors. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Can an admin review this user's edit history[5][6][7] and the message spelled out on their userpage? KateWishing (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:AGF and all, it appears that we are being trolled at least in the above examples and recently created pages...and as I typed that the user was indeffed.Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Checkuser results posted at the relevant SPI.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I did edit that article yesterday: one restore after examining the merits of the contributions of the warring parties, with an encouragement for them to go to the talk page; and one minor change to a date immediately following. I don't believe that would make me involved in an edit war on this article, but I am open to correction if it is warranted. Please let me know. ScrpIronIV 19:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my belief that ScrapIronIV was not involved in the edit war. No action is warranted against him/her. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I've decided not to block BlueIndigo for edit warring. Suitable advice has been given as to dealing with a similar scenario should it happen in the future. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


A contributor with multi new accounts opened on 8 August, 12 August & 14 August, in addition to the regular account he has had for a couple of years, has been tracking me at every article I edit & automatically reverts my edits. This contributor is Aubmn.

How do I know this is the same person? An obvious sign is his handling of the English language, then the tactics he employs, disrupting one's work & provoking battles. Once he has pushed an editor to put his work back, he happily announces that you have reached the 3-revert & are thus guilty of breaching wiki rules. No need to go any further: that is Aubmn's tactic, very well calculated. Beside the war being started, the sad result is that regular contributors stop editing the article, and the article remains unfinished. The perfect example is the article on Marie Antoinette, together with its discussion page.

My problem with Aubmn began last June, but others had battles with him for months before. The problem was never resolved, and it all came to a head on 6 August, when NeilN locked the article for a few days. It has been freed since, with no further participation, however. Since the Marie Antoinette affair, Aubmn has not participated in any article, at least under that user name – nonetheless, he has been busy by using other accounts

What happened next is what is bringing the affair here: Since 12 August, every time I begin working on an article, a newly registered editor comes & reverts my work. Up to today, three (3) have done so:

Whiteflagfl – opened account 12 Aug went directly to Chartres article & reverted my work [8] of a couple of hours before. A couple of hours later, he left this message on my talk page:
Hello, one you focus to much on nobility history even not France before 1789 plus you seems doing self promotion and you seems to belong to the region.
Whiteflagfl (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2015


Up to time article was locked, he argued every one of my edits, reverting all the time, then went at Welborn Griffith, an American Officer KIA on 16AUG44, during the battle of Chartres. Griffith's article is very short, and Whiteflagfl began removing info which he judged unnecessary, nothing more than Griffith's military awards, Légion d'honneur, etc. He then went back to the Chartres article continued hacking away details on the history of the city, reproaching me to mention too much of the nobility (!) - hard not to do when one relates the history of France, or England for that matter, or of any country of Europe, However, he does not seem to realize, or rather does not want to because it is not his purpose, that to go on working at an article, one has to be left alone & be given the time to go to the end (which is what could never happen to the article on Marie Antoinette). The situation is comparable to someone writing with a pen & having the pen taken away after every word. To top it all off, he accuses me of doing self-promotion because I had changed the date of the times of office of the mayor of Chartres, which had been left at 2008. As I told Whiteflagfl: we are in 2015. As for my doing self promotion: I am not the mayor of Chartres, I am not an elected official of Chartres. I do not work for the Chamber of Commerce of Chartres. I am not the bishop of Chartres. Even if I wanted to, I could not be elected to any office for the good reason that I am not a French citizen, although I pass easily for one because of my knowledge of the country and its language. And I am not the only foreigner in France in that position. So, that should settle the accusation of “doing self promotion”, which should be rejected.

Europatygr - opened account 08AUG, got busy & reverted at Louis XVI article, in exactly the same manner as that used by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette.
Huntermiam – opened account today, 14AUG, went directly to Chartres' article, reverting my work exactly in the same manner done previously by Aubmn at Marie Antoinette. Then came and threatened me on my talk page because he had followed every one of my moves at Wikipedia, and read what I had left at someone else's page.

One last thing: RE the accusation by Aubmn & others that I do not respond to msgs left on my talk page: I have responded to Aubmn in a rather lengthy manner on the Marie Antoinette discussion page & really do not wish to have my talk page turned into a battlefield. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing more for me to tell Aubmn and Associates.

That's about it, and it's rather long. Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


Proposed topic ban[edit]

Seems that there was quite a sockfarm going on. As all the puppets have been blocked, we now need to deal with the puppeteer. Therefore I propose that Aubmn is banned from editing the Chartres article. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Disagree only in that, as discussed below, I Support a Site Ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    • PROPOSAL WITHDRAWN, see site ban discussion immediately below this subsection. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Aubmn again... What to do?[edit]

I recently brought the topic of Aubmn (talk · contribs)'s problematic editing to this noticeboard, and that thread, which was in favor of topic banning Aubmn with regard to the Marie Antoinette article, was archived without a close as to whether the topic ban should be enacted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive895#WP:Topic ban for Aubmn. Aubmn stated that the ban was not needed because he would stop editing the article. But I knew that he'd end up WP:Socking again, and continuing with his problematic edits. And sure enough, he started doing just that, though he didn't go back to editing the Marie Antoinette article. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whiteflagfl. Surely, he would have eventually gone back to the Marie Antoinette article. And, clearly, this editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. So, for Aubmn, do we enact the previously supported topic ban, broaden the ban to certain topics, propose a site ban, or just go with an indefinite block?

WP:Pinging all the editors who supported a topic ban in the aforementioned thread: JzG (Guy), Softlavender, MrX, AlbinoFerret, NebY, Xcuref1endx and Blue Indigo. Also WP:Pinging the editors who commented in the aforementioned WP:Sockpuppet investigation: KateWishing and Ponyo (Jezebel's Ponyo). Flyer22 (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support a Site Ban for the sockmaster, who appears to be User:Aubmn. Perhaps I take the rules too seriously, but I have no tolerance for anyone who creates multiple registered accounts other than for declared legitimate purposes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Banninate. Long past time. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Site ban for all the socks and their master. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Block Sockpuppetry is never a good thing. Looks like instead of ignoring the article Aubmn put the rope around their neck and jumped up and down on the gallows trap door. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
    Without opining on the proposal here: you know how there's a discussion right now about WP:ROPE and how the metaphor is kind of inappropriately violent? Here's a good example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. They seem to disrupt any article they touch. KateWishing (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban - That trip to Monte Carlo with his/her girlfriend is long overdue. Bon voyage! - MrX 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Site ban for master and all socks, for abusing not only multiple accounts but also abusing the community's trust in the worst sort of way. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Site ban. Someone needs to trip the trap door on the gallows. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a site ban. Mjroots (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Also see the #Edit war at Chartres article section above; I hadn't seen that section before creating this one. This section can be made into a subsection of that one. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support site ban. This recent spate of clear malicious damage backed with specious arguments suggests that for many months their behaviour on Marie Antoinette was also a conscious and deliberate mockery (and I was a fool to WP:AGF). NebY (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Request closure[edit]

Per the #Aubmn again... What to do? section above, we don't need this matter be archived again without a close. Flyer22 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 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.

Thesongfan[edit]

User blocked for 31 hours by Smartse. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 22:32, 17 August 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.

Thesongfan (talk · contribs) may have some possible COI going on at Chris Janson, as this editor is scrubbing any mention of the fact that Janson was originally signed to another label, and removing other sourced content in favor of stuffing the article with name-drops of artists to whom Janson is only passingly connected at best. (Compare the diffs here). After I warned them for possible COI, they proceeded to attack me in an edit summary and accuse me of stalking. I proceeded to give them a warning against personal attacks, after which they once again removed sourced content from the article without explanation. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 02:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I know Hammer already warned him/her, but this was pretty out of line. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It is out of line. I am considering this user fully warned and may block if disruptive editing continues. Chillum 04:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, that edit summary and this one suggest that Thesongfan thinks s/he owns the article ("I'm allowing you to leave most of the content you've posted"?). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: See the above post, Thesongfan has continued their disruptive editing and is now claiming ownership of the article. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the timestamp of my comment on the timestamp of the above diff. There have been no edits since I said that, while another admin may feel differently I don't wish to block at this point. Also please take care not to get caught up in edit warring. Chillum 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It has continued so I am blocking them. SmartSE (talk) 07:55, 17 August 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.

Freeze Out (game show)[edit]

NAC:Content dispute addressed at third opinion. OP advised to stop forum-shopping. Continue discussion at talk page. If necessary, go to dispute resolution noticeboard or use Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 17 August 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.

There's a bit of an argument on the talk page of this regarding a critical reception section. Please advise on who is the unreasonable one of the two.--Launchballer 19:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a content dispute, with no misbehavior on anyone's part that belongs here at ANI. General Ization Talk 19:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
(A bit more) When two editors have a different interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, and both are convinced they are right, an appropriate course of action is to start an RfC, not to bring the dispute to ANI. General Ization Talk 21:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
See Third opinion. Might be useful. --Zyma (talk) 14:11, 17 August 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.

Attempt to censor Wikipedia[edit]

USER BLOCKED
(non-admin closure), Big-Endians blocked for two weeks by Acroterion. GregJackP Boomer! 22:23, 16 August 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.

[9] Roscelese is trying to remove sourced information from Reza Aslan, in which Reza supports the killing of Mummar Gaddafi, because he wants to control Reza's image.Big-Endians (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reza Aslan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Actually, you are edit warring after being blocked for edit warring. Per WP:BOOMERANG I suggest a block for user Big Endians. I invite editors to look at the editing history of the page Reza Aslan and the editing history of this editor. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I've already blocked the complainant for two weeks for edit-warring to insert BLP violations. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
And I was just getting diffs together and everything...... Thanks! Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Since the subject has been a longstanding target for BLP violations I've semi-protected indefinitely. As for Big-Endians, they're millimeters away from an indefinite block. Acroterion (talk) 22:18, 16 August 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 BLOCKED
(non-admin closure) Ininion blocked for WP:NLT by FreeRangeFrog. GregJackP Boomer! 04:22, 17 August 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 believe that a legal threat has been made against me on my talk page here. I request review by an administrator. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Teahouse thread is Cyberbullying on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like a legal threat to me, but they are clearly NOTHERE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTHERE or not, that to me is a clear attempt to create a chilling effect by mentioning "my attorney" over something that was said to them in the middle of a content discussion. Blocked. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That's something that commenters often miss, I think, that it's the intent to create a chilling effect that's important about NLT, not the actual words said. There's no magic formula. BMK (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I didn't read the diff closely enough, missed the "and my attorney" bit. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agree with BMK and FreeRangeFrog. The blocked editor clearly implied that legal action was underway, and implied further action depending on Cullen's response. Very, very improper. North of Eden (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Unquestionably, qualifies as a legal threat under Wikipedia guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

This message was clearly meant to have a chilling effect. Chillum 03:47, 17 August 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:Tehseenahmad96 biographical changes[edit]

Given previous blocks, a complete lack of communication on talk, and persistent addition of unsourced information to BLPs. I have blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 17 August 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.

Having exhausted all attempts at communicating directly with Tehseenahmad96 (talk · contribs), I am now requesting administrative assistance.

Tehseenahmad96 is a relatively new account, having registered on 14 July 2015. Since then this account has been adding unsourced material to various WP:BLP articles, going as far as to ignore and overwrite the commented remarks specifically requesting sources for the fields changed. For example: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page if there are any additional questions or concerns. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 18:47, 17 August 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:EspectrumHD[edit]

While I have given several warning since he began to edit in the Wikipedia in English, the user did not want to change their attitude, it's going to add information without references in multiple articles. In the article "Doña Bárbara" made vandalism without any reason, the user does not understand the language or simply gives same messages that are left. I hope that any admin can do something about. Thank you.--Philip J Fry (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues/Cyberbullying concerning Krull The Eternal[edit]

This user has been flaming my talk page for the past two months. After being told clearly to stop posting offensive links on my talk page. This type of behavior obviously is obnoxious and should be resolved. I'm requesting an administrator's opinion and action on this matter. If anything this is cyberbullying and holding a grudge.

Examples of this user's behavior:

  • 1 (latest incident)
  • 2 (second incident)
  • 3
  • 4

It seems the user is holding a grudge regarding a matter settled two months ago. link This user apparently feels the need to post offensive comments, whether it be on edit descriptions or talk pages. --Sciophobiaranger (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see evidence of consistent flaming but the latest post is far from being in order. Lessons from the march "Ha-ha-ha. ... Ho-ho-ho-he-he-he-hi-hi-hi." comment have not been learned. Krull_The_Eternal Please knock it off.
One possibility would be to ban Krull from initiating threads on Sciophobiaranger's TP. GregKaye 22:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

SPA User:Tdauletk removing deletion tags[edit]

The article Farleon was deleted yesterday after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farleon (2nd nomination) ended in delete. Today Tdauletk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) recreated the article (including copyvio, according to CorenSearchBot) and has removed the cpyvio tag and then twice the G4 tag. See [22]. The user has been warned on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no avail. Kraxler (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have looked after this. Just a reminder, you are supposed to notify the user when you post on this board. I have included that notification in my message. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I really forgot it. After checking the user's talk page and looking where the previous notifications went (they deleted them without answering), I got sidetracked somehow... Kraxler (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems like this is a less experienced user, likely an honest mistake. This user could use some guidance on how our inclusion and deletion policies work. Chillum 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Stacy Gunn[edit]

I closed the AfD as a WP:SNOW delete. 174.114.45.58 (talk · contribs) blocked for disruptive editing. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Article seasoned by Diannaa. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 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.

Help, please. Persistent removal of AfD and other templates, substituting copyright violation spam text instead. Speedy would be appreciated. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to add onto an archived thread, but could an admin please bring a bit of WP:SALT to this article as it's been recreated two more times. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Creation protected. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:15, 17 August 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.

Harassment by User:Brad Dyer[edit]

Well this discussion has flown off the rails and I don't see it as being capable of accomplishing anything constructive, so I'm putting it out of its misery. For archival purposes a summary of events is as follows:
  • OP blocked for one week for repeated personal attacks and use of the tools while blocked.
  • OP has been desysopped by ArbCom for tool misuse.[23] (case request)
  • Brad Dyer has been warned against making personal attacks by the original blocking administrator. Any further administrative action against this user may be performed normally. Any community discussion regarding this user may be done in a new thread, though there's no indication of that being necessary at this moment.
  • Related block review subsection will obviously stay open as long as is necessary and input regarding that issue remains welcome. Swarm 02:30, 18 August 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 few weeks ago, Brad Dyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) copied and pasted some text from The New York Times to Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries. I assumed good faith, reverted his WP:COPYVIO, and warned him about it. I thought that was the end of it.

A week later, Brad wrote at Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries that I was lying: there had been no COPYVIO. I replied, demonstrating exactly what he had copied and pasted. Again, I thought that was the end of it.

Today, Brad showed up at B'Tselem, an article he has never edited before, and reverted a relatively insignificant edit of mine (I had reverted the addition of scare quotes to the lead), claiming it was COPYVIO. On the article's Talk page, other editors have accused him of being WP:POINTy. See Talk:B'Tselem/Archives/ 1#Copyvio?

I warned Brad about harassing me, because that's what this is, and he replied that he is only doing to me what I did to him. See User talk:Brad Dyer#August 2015. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Malik's edit, removing something that was indicted as a direct quote coming from B'Tselem's page turned that quote into a statement in wikipedia's voice - and that statement was copied and pasted from B'tselem's web site. I undid that copyright violation, and asked him not to do so again, exactly as he had done to my edit a couple of weeks ago.
In response , he wrote the following on my talk page [24]- calling me an "asshole' , "fucking stupid" and "too stupid to edit Wikipedia". Can some administrator ask him to tone down the personal attacks, and if he refuses, block him for this blatant incivility? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
And he's now added the following [25] - calling me a "moron". Are administrators subject to a different set of rules re:civility than the rest of us? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You're lying, Brad. Those quotes don't appear in the sources in those paragraphs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I am not lying. Those statements appear, word for word, in B'tselm's "About page". Brad Dyer (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
All three of the phrases/words around which Dyer placed quotes appear in the cited source at http://www.btselem.org/about_btselem; the second and third in the first paragraph of the source, and the word "independent" in the fourth. General Ization Talk 22:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I can appreciate, however, why the insertion of the quotes around those phrases might have been interpreted as the use of scare quotes, even though they are in fact quotes from the source. The language used in Malik's response is troubling. General Ization Talk 22:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This (the archived version) is the page that's cited as the source. In any event, Brad is lying when he says I added the material. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The same phrases appear in the same positions in both the archived and current versions of the source. General Ization Talk 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, General Ization, I must have accidentally clicked on a different archived footnote before because that text was not on the page I saw. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Having established that , go strike your false accusations of my lying, above, and in the edit summaries. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Unless you changed your name to General Ization, sonny boy, I don't believe I was addressing you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't care who you were addressing. You've just admitted your claims are false and based on a mistake you made. Go and fix that mistake, which also violates Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. Brad Dyer (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I actually missed the edit summaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brad_Dyer&diff=prev&oldid=676581427 "suck my dick, asshole" - can someone strike that offensive personal attack, and just block him until he cools down? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

{sexually explicit personal attack removed} What'll you call me next, nigger? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) (Your belated attempt to hide your contempt for me is duly noted, Brad.[26] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC))
Any admin willing to put a stop to this? Brad Dyer (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Considering that you're the one who started it, I think it's funny that you're asking for somebody to block you, but I suppose that's your prerogative. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
The obscenities and personal attacks are yours, and yours alone. You probably have time to remove them, before you are blocked. Brad Dyer (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
As much fun as it's been, sonny boy, I'm going to bid you adieu. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Knock it the hell off, both of you. @Brad Dyer: Your reversion sure does look retaliatory. I know copyright issues are sensitive, but they're not *that* sensitive; I don't think reversion of an edit that, among others, removes quotation marks around the use of a single word is berserker-worthy. It seems obvious to me that those quotation marks signify an issue with the article whether they're in there or not, so discussion would've been a much better step. Also, please do more research when making accusations of copyvio, because you are wrong about one thing, at least: the bulk of the alleged copyvio was in fact added by a user called "Economust", back in 2013. (Incidentally, that user has been blocked for over a year and a half). Given that, it's not hard to see why Malik reacted with such hostility; accusations of copy-paste copyright violations are not usually taken lightly, and it certainly looks like you're jumping to conclusions in your haste to accuse them of wrongdoing. And remember, it is quite easy to be a brat while remaining civil on the surface: don't do that. That said: @Malik Shabazz: Your tone here is way over the line and you know it. (Especially given your revdelete of your own edit summary). C'mon, you're better than this; acting like this never helps. So: cut it out, the both of you. Writ Keeper  23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

personal attacks in edits summaries, redux[edit]

Last week I was here to note that I was the subject of a childish personal attack, made in an edit summary (see [27]). It took some prodding, but eventually the administrator behind that personal attack removed the offending edit summary.

Unfortunately, it appears to be a pattern of behavior with him. Today he's back, with a nearly identical attack - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=676582429, as well as this and this.

And since that was apparently not enough, we have this gem - [28] - "suck my dick, asshole".

Can an administrator remove these edit summaries, and have a word with the person behind them? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I just gave a 2 day block to User:Malik Shabazz for "suck my dick, asshole" and "No, you can suck it, sonny boy. What'll you call me next, nigger?".
When I made the block I had not seen the above discussion(at the time this was in its own section) and I did not know that Malik was an admin. Regardless this sort of abusive behaviour is not acceptable from anyone, especially an admin. I invite review of this block by others. Chillum 23:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but what I am actually lookign for is someone to remove the offensive edit summaries. I can't do it myself. (And, out of curiosity, why would it matter that Malik is an admin? Is there a special rule set for admins?) Brad Dyer (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
(ec)There are special rules for admins. Specifically WP:ADMIN says "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". It is important information that this person is an admin because more is expected from them. Chillum 23:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Malik being an admin has little to do with it. When I posted in the thread above, I had decided to not block anyone quite yet, because while Malik clearly blew their top, there was provocation on Brad's part. Nonetheless, blocking wasn't an unreasonable choice, so a fair block, I'd say.
For Brad: revision deletion, which is what is required to delete edit summaries, is typically reserved for only the absolute worst things, and bad as they are, I don't think those edit summaries qualify. Writ Keeper  23:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
As far as Brad goes I have no opinion as I have not read up on the underlying dispute. If there was provocation then that should be addressed. I agree the revdel is not called for as these don't rise the gross level that we normally reserve it for. Chillum 23:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Good block, Chillum. These are outrageous personal attacks, the sort that would probably be worthy of an indef in a different situation. I do wonder if an interaction ban is warranted here, given these two users' history. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It appears Malik isn't quite done with the abuse, [29]. This conduct of an administrator is completely and totally unjustified. If there was ever a case why we need community desysop procedures, this is it. Other admins should consider revoking talk page assess and lengthening the block. Winner 42 Talk to me! 00:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Noting for the record (don't seem to be able to diff this):
At 00:32, "Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) changed visibility of a revision on page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: content unhidden and edit summary unhidden ‎(Restoring the truth -- you people can ignore this is you want, I won't)" General Ization Talk 00:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
We have a community desysop procedure, it is called arbcom. I am sure arbcom will have no problem desysoping someone who calls another editor a "jewboy". Chillum 00:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Just saw what General Ization posted, looks like this desysop will be a fast one. Chillum 00:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Here he revision-deleted one of his own remarks. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Writ Keeper:Forgive me if I am misunderstanding, but Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Criteria for redaction #2 allows revision deletion for is "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Suppression, on the other hand, has a higher bar. In my opinion "suck my dick, asshole" is grossly insulting. Maybe I'm just showing my age, and the world has just gotten coarser and cruder, but that is the kind of statement which would have gotten my mouth washed out with soap at home or in school (eons ago) if I ever said anything like that. I would not think it problematic to revdelete statements of that ilk, especially if they are causing the recipient distress. -- Avi (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I will say this is very out of character for Malik, who in all of my interactions with him for years, has always been polite and level headed. I hope everything is OK with him in RL. -- Avi (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed -- Diannaa (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Me too. As I said at his talk page, I've seen him absorb some of the most vicious personal attacks imaginable with the utmost restraint and professionalism. This isn't him -- it just isn't. I also mused that his account might have been hacked, although I don't have the technical expertise to know if that's even possible. I get that anybody can lose it if pushed far enough, but Malik is absolutely the last editor I would have thought likely to do so. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I had the same thought, but if so his account was hacked a week ago [30] and the hacker has done a good job of otherwise emulating Malik's normal editing patterns (in terms of articles edited, etc.). General Ization Talk 00:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a hack; maybe his RL is under pressure and his natural patience and willpower are compromised. The statements were clear violations; it's the behavior so different from the norm which has me worried for him. -- Avi (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not appreciate a couple of relatively new editors and ANI visitors to call for Malik to be desysopped. I agree that he said some pretty bad and possibly inexcusable things, but let's not forget that Mr. Tibbs taught us a long time ago that you don't call an adult black man "boy". For some that may not be so obviously a racial insult, but it is. Besides, plenty of people here can attest to Malik's many years of service, and you don't just yank his tool because, uncharacteristically, someone got under his skin enough for him to lose his cool. Now, can we all just wait, and rush to judgment a little bit more slowly and deliberately? Drmies (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, a temporary desysop by motion of an admin who continued attack behavior through a block using the tools, is not irregular at all. I don't support a permanent removal at this time, it needs to get talked out. And the provocations need closer examination. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • That seems to me to be the best way to go. There is obviously something extraordinary happening right now, particularly given Malik's exemplary conduct for years now. This very very much seems to be some sort of aberration, possibly caused by RL events of which we might not be aware. If that is the case, then I think that it would make most sense to find out what the hell is really happening here first before taking any permanent action. John Carter (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Agree completely with Drmies. Also, RE: the "Jewboy" reference -- it should be noted that Malik is himself Jewish, and identifies as such on his home page. Not trying to make excuses for him, but that should be noted. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I would have to say that argues against Malik, not for him – as it means he has every reason to know that "jewboy" is not an acceptable mode of address under any circumstances. General Ization Talk 01:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • It also probably should be noted that broader social tensions have been rather markedly higher lately, what with the first anniversary of the Shooting of Michael Brown (in my area), all the recent violence in Baltimore, and other things. Sometimes outside events can impact the best admins, too. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the quickest was to be desysoped is to use your tools to get around a block. I would not hold out for an outcome where this editor remains an admin. Chillum 01:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Hold on. Last week he revdeleted his own dumb edit summary, realizing fully well, I have no doubt, that the summary was wrong and the revdel not entirely right but perhaps a lesser wrong, at least lessening the wrong for those without admin glasses. And now he unrevdeleted a rather insulting and angry remark. That's two things, only one of which done after he was blocked--that is not much in the great scheme of admin abuse. Sure it was wrong, but not every insult needs to be followed by a block, and not every administrative error needs to be followed by a desysopping, temporary or otherwise. And a man who has done so much for us, who's been on the receiving end of more racial abuse than most of us (I almost said "us white folk", which statistically is probably correct) can imagine, we're going to desysop him over that one thing? I sure hope not. Malik is a rock. I don't know what happened to drive him over the edge, but Malik is a rock. The project will be the poorer without him. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, it seems like a lot of people here are giving Mr. Shabazz rope because of his otherwise good behavior. Now, I'll admit that I generally haven't seen him behave this way before either, but bad behavior is bad behavior; he shouldn't just get an automatic pass. And if he is going through stressful times in his real life right now, well, maybe a wikibreak is in order. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
blocked for a week without TPA is an automatic pass? Writ Keeper  02:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to say Drmies but it is already happening: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Level_1_desysop Chillum 02:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Drmies, I know where you're coming from, but this was pretty bad. I hope the situation can be resolved and it can be returned to him later. It all is making me pretty sad at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
While I do some periodic gnoming work around the place, I do read ANI regularly and also agree that Malik is generally unflappable and clam. There is something distinctly strange going on here. Blackmane (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Swarm, with all due respect, I don't think this is either done or getting off the rails, but to appease you and the others who seem happy to close this unsavory bit, in which an admin did one single thing wrong and in hours a group of admins, ArbCom, a Steward, and the Ways and Means Committee to agree on an emergency desysop, let me just say, in the strongest possible words, that editors here do not seem to understand how deeply insulting "boy" is to a black man. I am very saddened by that, and don't rightly know what to say. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 August 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.

Related block review[edit]

I just blocked DissidentAggressor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for tapdancing on Malik's grave / talk page a second time after a warning not to; I would like that situation reviewed. It appeared clear to me, but I'd rather more eyes on it than just let it sit there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good call to block, but indef might be much. I'd say a week would've been better (which would prevent DA from commenting while Malik can't respond). Writ Keeper  02:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
If admin consensus agrees on that, anyone can reduce the block with my blessing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is a good block. I also think in this case "indef" should not mean forever. I would like to see this user make a case at ANI to be unblocked once some time has passed. Chillum 02:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It was a good block, but indefinite should not be more than a week, in my opinion. Georgewilliamherbert, with your permission, may I reduce the block length to a week? --ceradon (talkedits) 02:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I would give it a bit longer to see if consensus develops in another direction such as Chillum's, but I'm OK with either approach of those. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I reduced it to a week. If consensus turns, so be it. --ceradon (talkedits) 02:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support a week. After that, Malik can respond and discuss it fairly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Move vandalism[edit]

Seems resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:11, 18 August 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.

Willie on wheels is moving front page ITN articles. Abductive (reasoning) 03:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Which articles? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I think this was in reference to 2015 Tianjin explosions, and it looks like it's been taken care of by a couple of Admins... --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any moves on that article's logs. I think this might be about 2015 Baghdad market truck bombing (look at the logs for the article). By the way, the page-moving vandal for the Baghdad bombing article has been globally locked. CabbagePotato (talk) 05:55, 15 August 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.

Block Bella7790[edit]

Request made, request responded to, probably not fully satisfied but that's life on the pedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 18 August 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 need help with this user. I think she needs to be blocked. She is basicaly always inventing and faking information in diverse pages. Let me know what you think. She has been adviced according to her talk page several times. Anonpediann (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have forgotten to notify Bella of this discussion. I took the liberty of doing so. Zarcusian (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks i appreciate it. Anonpediann (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Blocks and bans aren't punishments; they're remedies to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. While this editor has been warned for unconstructive behavior in the past, I'm not [seeing] a sufficiently problematic history to indicate she's a disruptive editor. North of Eden (talk) 01:18, 17 August 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:NOTHERE, WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK: cleanup needed[edit]

Cleaned up, content deleted and user warned about Facebook...ishness. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 16:40, 18 August 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.

Muhammad.Taimoor.Hameed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has since March been using his userspace as a social network page, promoting his blogs etc. At some point he had the bright idea to move his user page and talk page to Wikipedia: space. I tried to revert this just now but due to intervening messages about problems with his two image uploads (one selfie, one non-selfie with an impossible public domain tag), messages had been left on both, so replacing his talk page failed. This at least needs to be cleaned up. Other action I shall leave to your discretion. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fixed. RJFJR (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So do I. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 14:12, 18 August 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.

Nrwairport (talk · contribs) and WP:NOTHERE[edit]

(non-admin closure) Nrwairport has been indefinitely blocked as a WP:NOTHERE user by Tokyogirl79 AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
And Talk page access now revoked by MaxSem. --IJBall (contribstalk) 03:52, 19 August 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'm strongly concerned about the named user's editing. To summarize, Nrwairport (talk · contribs) has attempted to deceive the community, per the below timeline:

  • Yesterday, the user tried to request adminship.
  • On that RfA, the user claimed that he had a previous account that he lost the password to, also claiming that the account has 50,000 edits and 6 years' tenure to its name.
  • When asked twice to reveal his previous account, if there is one, the user simply asserted that he has an account with that number of edits and tenure, without actually revealing it! Also, the user reacted in a hostile manner when asked (see permalinked user page § 10 and 13.

This is clearly an attempt to gain adminship early, which is characteristic of hat collecting and sockpuppetry (the user has 700 edits and knows about adminship).

But that's not all:

I propose that action should be taken from here, as the user is simply not here to build Wikipedia. Esquivalience t 03:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I concur that this user is a problem. To me the problem is not primarily the deceptions, although they are troubling. To me the problem is that his editing is harming the encyclopedia. Maybe it's a case of WP:NOTHERE (which is what I suspect); maybe it's simple incompetence. But in either case, User:Nrwairport has been adding inappropriate tags and deletion nominations to many, many pages. Examples of inappropriate deletion nominations can be found here, here, and here. These incorrect tags have resulted in inappropriate warnings to the innocent authors of the articles, a very bitey outcome. In one recent case they tagged a perfectly good article for CSD,[31], gave an inappropriate "final warning" to the author, and reported the author to AIV! [32]
    Recent tags have seemed random or even nonsensical, such as tagging these articles as "not English". [33] [34]
    They have been advised multiple times on their talk page[35] that they should not do any tagging, warning, or vandalism patrol until they learn how. They have deleted many of these warnings from their talk page, and continued their tagging and warnings. The most recent inappropriate tag [36] was about 24 hours ago. If they do any more - even one more - I believe they should be banned from curating new pages, tagging articles, and warning other users until they demonstrate competence. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) They actually claimed 500,000 edits earlier, and reduced this when they were called out on it. See [37]. They claimed on their talk page when questioned on this that they had an inactive account they had lost the password to with 500,000 edits. When I pointed out that there were only 14 accounts on the English Wikipedia that met this criteria and all listed ones were still active, they quietly changed to 50,000. See [38]. While 50,000 edits is possible, 500,000 is absurd. ~ RobTalk 04:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I should probably make clear that having started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian and having looked at Nrwairport's edits, I'm more or less certain that they aren't the same person - as I've already explained in the SPI. Cyntiamaspian has a poor grasp of English (I think their native language may be Indonesian - they edited the Indonesian Wikipedia), and seems to have very little idea what they are doing. Nrwairport is clearly a native English speaker, and shows at least some familiarity with Wikipedia processes. There are clearly reasons to be concerned about Nrwairport's editing history, but I don't think that it is wise to conflate investigations into what appear to be two different people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This user's patrolling is disasterous - little more than arbitrary clicking on the various options/criteria on the Curation Tool, not to mention all the other issues including masquerading as an admin and claiming to have 500,000 edits under an admitted previous account they refuse to publish. Please see the many messages on their talk page and the mess:age my talk page. The user is also under investigation at SPI. I venture to suggest that this is either a compromised account or plain, simple trolling. User is now largely incommunicative and has taken to selectively removing comments from their tp. For more background see user:Kudpung#Nrwairport creating problems, and User talk:GB fan#Nrwairport RfA request: comments, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyntiamaspian, and the previously deleted RfA attempt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them indefinitely for disruptive editing and as a WP:NOTHERE user. If he's a sockpuppet he can be reblocked and tagged, but offhand he's just being far too disruptive for us to leave unblocked for the time being. His seemingly random page tagging is pretty disruptive in and of itself, especially since it shows that he has little to no understanding of how notability works - nor does he seem particularly interested in learning this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:58, 18 August 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.

The user is asking for his or her rope[edit]

Although I oppose giving this deceptionist any rope except with WP:SO and a WP:CU, s/he's asking for it: User_talk:Nrwairport#August_2015_2. Esquivalience t 19:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: rope has been burnt and declined by MaxSem. Esquivalience t 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Under the circumstances, I would suggest that any unblock was conditional on this user disclosing all previous accounts, and with a warning that any repeat of the behaviour which led to the block would lead to a permanent ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • With such egregious behavior, I'd say s/he should be subject to the following if s/he wants to be unblocked:
  • A CheckUser.
  • Disclosure of his/her previous accounts after the CheckUser results, to test if s/he has any honesty left (probably not).
  • The standard offer, short-term if honest, never if dishonest.
  • I doubt that s/he would be able to get through the second step. Esquivalience t 19:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
CheckUser data is only kept for a few months if I recall correctly, so that may not work. Dustin (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Having been one of the first to query this editor's claims, [39] I am glad it seems to be over now. 220 of Borg 19:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Conduct dispute[edit]

No admin action requested or warranted. Drop the stick, please. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 18 August 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 would appreciate help with resolving one conduct related dispute. I first posted this question at WP:THIRDOPINION, but since it was not content dispute I posted it here based on this advice.

There is a disagreement in this discussion between me and Drmies. My question was:

  • Is this edit (diff) of Joy another comment which contains speculation about my ethnicity? (diff)
  1. Drmies said "My answer is no, Joy is commenting on aspects of the discussion." (diff) and "Joy is quoting from an earlier discussion, I assume, or he doesn't know how to use quotation marks. " (diff)
  2. My answer is yes. I think that Joy did write another comment with speculation about my ethnicity when he wrote "some Serbian people (including AD)"

What is correct answer to the above question: yes or no?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I would say no; Joy's mentioning the previous comment to provide context of the discusssion they linked to on Drmies's page (see Use–mention distinction). But why does this matter? Writ Keeper  19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, notified Drmies Writ Keeper  19:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't even call it "speculation about my ethnicity". Given that until 25 February you had a "This user is a native speaker of Serbian" userbox, it's fairly safe to assume your ethnicity is from somewhere in former Yugoslavia, even if you actually reside somewhere else. ‑ iridescent 19:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
At the top of this page, it says "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors."
Can you briefly state (a) the nature of the administrative intervention you would like to see take place; and (b) how, specifically the answer to your particular question bears on part (a)? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't want admin intervention but help with resolving one conduct related dispute. In first paragraph of my comment I explained that I first posted my question at WP:THIRDOPINION and moved it here based on this advice. Was it a mistake? If yes, what is the appropriate place to resolve this dispute?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:13, 18 August 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.

Whore of Babylon[edit]

Whore of Babylon semi-protected for a month and Great Whore of Babylon speedily deleted and redirected with WP:SALT. (non-admin closure) — JJMC89(T·E·C) 21:05, 18 August 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 semi-protect the Whore of Babylon article? We've got multiple socks of blocked User:Biblestudyprof edit-warring badly-sourced, NPOV-violating, editorialising content into the article. I've asked at WP:RFPP, but it seems to be backlogged, and the sooner this nonsense is stopped, the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please - I started an SPI on this issue, edit warring going on with one master and six socks so far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Biblestudyprof#18_August_2015 ScrpIronIV 19:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done, semiprotected for a month. Nakon 19:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We now have a POV-fork article created at Great Whore of Babylon - I suggest that speedy deletion and salting is appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done, redirected and SALTed. Nakon 19:53, 18 August 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.

Helpchat[edit]

No good deed goes unpunished. I've tried to edit this new article into acceptable condition, and the creator continues to add non notable employees and external links to the body. Ignores my warnings, and rather than plaster this with templates and edit war, I'd really appreciate some other eyes and minds here. Thank you, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 00:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be little evidence that the company meets our notability guidelines - the sources are little more than announcements of what it intends to do. AfD would seem the logical solution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
If you think I was too quick to remove the speedy template, I'd be happy to have the action reversed. But an AfD will work as well. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Whether it meets the strict speedy deletion criteria might be open to question - AfDs look at the broader guidelines. I have posted a comment on the talk page, and placed a notability template on the article. It will probably be best to see how the article creator reacts before proceeding further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Much appreciated. 2601:188:0:ABE6:5D65:637D:D70A:E45F (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The presence of "references" is probably enough to save this from CSD A7, but I don't think anything will save it from an AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Repeated recreation of a copyvio[edit]

User:Mr. Nah has repeatedly recreated Draft:Pop Music: An overview and a history of a legend of Bangladesh after it has been speedy deleted for copyright violation. I'm afraid this SPA is impervious to the multiple warnings on their talk page that a block may result from their behaviour. There doesn't seem to be any indication to deleting admins to show that a page has been speedied multiple times. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I will look aflter this. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Maltin Kant and continued inappropriate page creation[edit]

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

User keeps creating WP:COPYVIO pages, behavioral evidence is strong that Kant is a sock, and CU wasn't against it. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Blocked, purely on the grounds that one copyvio is understandable, but the cavalcade we see here is too much. No opinion either way on the socking. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
  • I might agree that this is a little over the top for a more dynamic IP, but this is part of a /24 with a similarly patchy record. For example [40], [41] [42], [43], [44] and [45] together with good edits such as [46]. I would suggest that it might be worth considering a range block. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikihounding by MSJapan[edit]

Editor MSJapan has followed my every move since I disagreed with his opinion on the AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somewhere in America (album), to which he also replied with a personal attack, stating that I did not have the experience required to give my opininon on an AfD debate, which is also an example of WP:BITE (which he acknowledged, but did anyway).

Following my pointing out that he had committed this WP:BITE, he then moved to my talk page, where he thinly-veiled another indirect personal attack on me with, I quote, "instead of calling you "a disruptive single-purpose account who has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner."", followed by various other derogatory statements regarding my edit history. He then proceeded to claim that my pointing out he had committed BITE-ing was a personal attack and mentioned that I was apparently a "disruptive editor". Next, he referenced his earlier passive-aggressive attack by saying "it's very likely the initial comment I didn't make is correct.".

After this, he nominated all of my files for upload for speedy deletion claiming that they were improperly licensed (which they are not), despite me noting that I would provide permission upon request, thus not giving me a chance to do so.

Lastly, he has listed me as a conflict of interest in order to have a page of mine removed, disregarding the fact that an AfD discussion was already in place about said article. Furthermore, I have since been listed for an SPI, despite the fact that I have no relation to the user in question besides that we commented on the same AfD debate with moderately similar viewpoints. This is the only basis for said SPI.

This is a blatant case of Wikihounding, not least because all these events have taken places within two days.Flobberz (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's get one thing out of the way: "All these events have taken place within two days" because Flobberz has only been here for two days. This is the diff in question: [47]. As you can see, there is a misunderstanding of policies here, and I responded such because an editor who is here for three days (at the time), has less than 50 edits (at the time), maintains that Wikipedia's notability guidelines are unrealistic, and focuses editing on one article certainly has an opinion that needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially with the contention that was already present in the AfD.
Flobberz' response was to grab a snapshot of a WP policy, make it into a graphic and then upload it back to WP to be used in an AfD comment. That file was CSDed because of a) the misuse of WP as personal file storage and b) because the license was given as "PD because Wikipedia." This made me curious as to the user's contribs in general; I wondered if I would find a pattern. Well, I did. Every file I CSDed in that batch indicated that the uploaded website screenshots were "free files from someone else, and permission will be provided if asked." See here for an example; the others are the same. Website screenshots are not "free from other people", and we do not upload first and get permission later, especially when one screenshot is a game and not the IP of the website.
He also accused someone else of PA [48] here in another clearly contentious AfD. He clearly waded right into the middle of it and created an issue. I weighed in because someone asked for the opinion of a more experienced editor, and there didn't appear to be a clear consensus as of yet. A decade and 15000 edits should be good enough to be experienced, I thought, so I did the same thing as I did elsewhere, which is to review sources and give an opinion. I might have found it while looking for other stuff, but how I found it doesn't preclude me giving an opinion, especially because I didn't even interact with Flobberz there.
I'd also note some tendentious editing by Flobberz on FreeWorldGroup: