Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive900

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents's Editing Conduct[edit]

Initially an AIV report, the issue seems to be bordering on "vandalism" and AGF. Moving issue to WP:ANI seems like the optimal solution, all other participants of the conversation are being pinged @R45: @The Earwig: to notify regarding new location of the discussion. Please see below for the initial WP:ANI report posed by R45 and comments following by Earwig and myself, JustBerry:

  • (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User is making disruptive edits now, and has been for 2 months on topics relating to Nikki Minaj (i.e. going through articles where refer to her as American, and changing it to Trinidadian). Several dozen edits today already that have been reverted. --  R45  talk! 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: On Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape) (diff): vandalism after final warning. User came on IRC to try to resolve the issue, did not wish to accept any advice regarding WP:Sources or WP:Consensus, i.e. talk page discussion. User:Dragonflysixtyseven attempted to resolve the dispute by removing the nationality all together, yet IP still added the disputed nationality. User excessively swearing in IRC. It should be noted that no discussion was pursued on any article talk page prior to making these changes. JustBerry (talk) 03:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @JustBerry: Some edits are/were just pure vandalism from a month ago [1][2][3] but unfortunately in areas that are less patrolled - I just spent nearly an hour going through his/her July-August edits and cleaning up articles --  R45  talk! 03:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: I started doing the same; however, I'm currently speaking with the user on IRC. The user does not wish to abide by the Wikipedia guidelines and policies we, i.e. helpers in the channels, have presented them with. The helpers have also tried to break it down for the IP editor, but the helpee doesn't seem to wish to listen. If you want, we can work on this project together off-WP:AIV. --JustBerry (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Content dispute. Remember WP:AGF and do not call good-faith edits vandalism – it is very discouraging to new editors. — Earwig talk 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: The issue is currently being resolved over IRC on an AGF basis. Withholding AIV report for now. Quite frankly, this would most likely not have been assumed had the user not come on IRC. In any event, efforts are being now to create a discussion for the content dispute on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago or on specific article talk pages, of which the former would probably be the best right now. --JustBerry (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @JustBerry: Frankly this is pure vandalism especially within the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trinidad_and_Tobago space, and I'll just leave non-T&T edits as is because this is far too time consuming to monitor and address. --  R45  talk! 04:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: A potential block would most likely fall under the category of edit warring. However, since the user proactively came onto IRC to resolve the issue, AGF can be assumed, as long as a sufficient discussion of the content dispute is done on an article talk page or WP: user talk space of some sort, i.e. WikiProjects. --JustBerry (talk) 04:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: Would you mind explaining how this is "pure vandalism"? — Earwig talk 04:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @The Earwig: This edit [4] (changing the land mass of a country) is just disruptive. This edit [5] and [6] changing the ethnic population stat, especially of "white" Trinidadian to 13% (when it is actually 1%, as per the source) would be the equivalent of editing the United States page and changing Blacks to be 50% of the population (i.e. it's ridiculous and absolutely not good faith - the ip traces to Trinidad the user would know better). Frankly if you look through the user's edit history, it's either disruptively manipulating stats, inserting Nikki Minaj into every article possible, and spinning articles to slant pro-Trinidadian (i.e. repeatedly removing references to "American" from Trinidad-Born Americans) is not good faith. There are over 100 of these similar edits. --  R45  talk! 04:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. I admit ignorance of those particular edits; I was only aware of the ones involving Nicki Minaj's nationality. That seems like a debatable subject from my uninformed view: calling her American only does seem possibly misleading due to e.g. this source; see discussion on the talk page. — Earwig talk 04:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @The Earwig: Putting "Trinidadian-American" or "Trinidad-born American" is definitely understandable. However the IP user was actively involved in removing references to American from all her album pages and other artistes [7] - seeing the trend, my assumption of good faith ended there. --  R45  talk! 04:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: @The Earwig: User:Earwig has confirmed that he is going to sleep now on IRC. Requesting another sysop to bring some closure to this report. Multiple additional diffs have been made by the user post-reporting the situation to AIV. On IRC, when asked to justify this diff, user responded "It is reffered to as that by many countries worldwide." User followed up by saying "To be honest, I don't know how to get the sources and references done to articles just yet, It's still a learning process to me." It seems like AGF doesn't seem like a bad conclusion for now; however, the IP may still need to be monitored by a few editors to make sure further content disputes/edit wars across multiple articles related to Nicky Minaj don't happen at this large scale again, as the user appears to be anxious to make edits directly to the article mainspace without sufficient (any) discussion on article talk pages. Interestingly enough, however, this seems to be a previous discussion relating to this content dispute. I'm considering moving the discussion to WP:ANI. What do you think? --JustBerry (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @Swarm: Pinging Swarm for input, most recently active sysop at ANI currently. --JustBerry (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    Just to note the user User:PositiveEM looks awfully similar to the IP users referenced above based on the edit history. --  R45  talk! 20:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: Then perhaps a resolution on proceeding to SPI needs to be made as well. --JustBerry (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
     Comment: @R45:For those reading the ANI report, it should be noted that the user was reported to WP:AIV once again for this despite last warning. No action taken yet, resolution for the editor's editing behavior should be formulated. --JustBerry (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
     Additional Comment @R45: Have you noticed any additional accounts that may possibly be linked to the user? The usage of multiple accounts is not a claimable issue for an SPI case, as users are permitted to login and logout of their accounts and edit from their IPs instead. However, if both users are disruptively editing, both users can be blocked. --JustBerry (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    I've taken a look at the users edits following a report to AIV and I've blocked them for 31 hours. To me, the edits were starting to become disruptive.--5 albert square (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    I've also looked at the PositiveEM account and I believe it is the same editor. Therefore I have changed the block and disabled logged in users using that IP. That should resolve the issue but I've also added PositiveEM to my Watchlist just in case.--5 albert square (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: @5 albert square: Thanks. I'm also not entirely sure whether there might be socks related to that account/IP - we'll have to look out for similar editing patterns for that as well. --JustBerry (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    @JustBerry: @5 albert square: Judging by the edit history between the two accounts, they did appear to be socks as the IP editor resumed editing after the user account was blocked. However it also looks like the user has stopped the disruptive edits (at least since September 16th) so perhaps he/she has decided to be a little more patient and constructive with edits going forward. --  R45  talk! 13:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
    @R45: Quite frankly, I just happen to come by the edit yesterday via STiki. Looks like 5 albert square and I will keep an eye, and I assume you will to. If something comes up, I think what would be best moving forward is pinging the main participants, so we're all in the loop. --JustBerry (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Adelelmus of Flanders[edit]

As the English article for Adelelmus of Flanders has been a stub for some time and had been suggested to merge with Bernard of Thiron from February 2015, I attempted to start the merger discussion, which was left open for some time, and I also notified both editors who had been most heavily active in the page's process. I was not aware (did not notice, really) that to merge one specifically did need input from an uninvolved editor and Midas02 evidently has strong opinions otherwise but has not contributed substantially to the article in any form to indicate an interested in the article's expansion; and in which case, the article would be less likely to be merged. I do not believe that this editor is open to rational discussion and request input on the projected merger of the stub from an administrator. Ladysif (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is confusing because there is a notice on Adelelmus of Flanders to merge the article with Bernard of Thiron and another one to merge it with Tironensian Order. So far, there is almost no discussion on either talk page (and the merge discussion should be directed to just one talk page not two) so there is no need to administrator's opinion. Merge discussions usually go on for a few weeks so it's early into this one. What this discussion needs is not an admin but some more uninvolved editors weighing in and it would help if you posted notices about the discussion on the related WikiProjects to bring more editors over to participate in the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Please delete my account"[edit]

User:Mohamed shafiq mustafa This user seeks only to have his account "deleted" ([8], [9]) and does not seem to be responding to messages at his talk page. As he has never made a constructive contribution and has seven times made a disruptive edit to WP:FAQ, I suggest we should help him by implementing the WP:VANISH procedures, i.e. deleting user subpages and renaming the account, then blocking it: Noyster (talk), 11:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:CVUT, a better place for this may be WP:MfD or WP:BN. All the best, Miniapolis 22:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another laughable tale of editors fighting to stop articles being improved[edit]

This is going nowhere slowly. Dennis Brown - 17:03, 20 September 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 other day I noticed that an article talked about someone planning to "climb the highest mountain on each of the world's 7 continents and stand on all 3 poles". What an embarrassing error! 3 poles? Everyone knows that the Earth doesn't have 3 poles. It has 2 poles, a north one and a south one. Well, OK, it has two magnetic poles as well, and people also talk sometimes about poles of inaccessibility and the pole of cold. But "all 3 poles"? The claim being made was that Everest is the third pole of the Earth. This is catastrophically wrong, so I removed it.

If this place really wanted to build an encyclopaedia, you'd be grateful for edits like that, you'd maybe even thank me for making them. But no! Building an encyclopaedia has become a tiresome distraction from the main aim of operating an absurd and arbitrary bureaucracy. So someone put the claim back, saying Rv curious removal of sourced material.

That editor then left me a series of unwelcome messages, intended only to provoke and harass: [10], [11], [12], [13]. They then began stalking my edits and serially reverting them, without ever trying to give any rational reason. This included four reverts in an hour to make an article absurdly claim that a 13 year interval between events meant that there was a 16 year cycle. [14], [15], [16], [17]

Then they left an infantile personal attack on my talk page [18]. They put it back when I removed it [19]

Were they warned not to make personal attacks? Were they warned not to edit war? Were they blocked for violating the 3RR? Of course not! Anyone with a username who attacks someone who doesn't see the need for one is exempt from these supposed rules.

Some people might still believe they are here to create an encyclopaedia. But they must be very few and far between, because this kind of pointlessly shitty behaviour is absolutely routine, and I never saw anyone warned about indulging in it. Shame on everyone who encourages it. Naturally, though, what will happen now is that I'll be attacked and insulted for complaining. (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Baiting you on your talk page was pathetic, and I've reverted it. But you have a really long history of not being able to resolve conflicts peaceably, so it is not reasonable to complain that others are not attempting to do so. I think calling Everest the third pole is stupid, but evidently it is called that (not as a piece of accurate science, but as an analogy/metaphor/whatever) in some places, so there is no need for the "I am 100% right and others are 100% wrong" approach. This whole "revert this person on sight" thing has gone all pear-shaped, of course, due to you and due to your "opponents", so I'm not going to get drawn into that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
People revert edits for no reason and then attack and insult the editor who made them. But sure, it's me that is unable to resolve things peaceably, isn't it? Now if they had suggested rewriting the text such that it was clear it was being labelled figuratively, and not referred to as if it were a fact of geography, we could have left the article in an improved state. But that's simply not what people are interested in, is it? It's nice that you removed their infantile post on my talk page but of course it doesn't help much if you don't bother to tell them clearly not to do such things and not to revert for no reason. Obviously, if they can ignore the 3RR and suffer no consequence in a case where they should obviously have been blocked, they'll do it again. (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
We get thousands of unremarked-upon IP edits a day yet you consistently appear on ANEW or RFPP, reported by editors who often don't know you're socking and have a well-deserved long term abuse report describing your habits. The fault lies with your inability to control yourself, not with others. --NeilN talk to me 17:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure. It's my fault that people revert my edits for no reason, isn't it? "socking"? No. well deserved? You're talking about that idiotic attack page I presume. It violates policy blatantly, but like so many attacks against me it's encouraged and enthusiastically used in a pathetic war against quality.
Presumably you're aware that thousands of IP edits get reverted for no reason at all every day. You do your share of it. But apparently you don't have the wit to realise that most people who take the time to correct an obviously embarrassing error like a claim that the earth has three poles and find that people restore the shit they removed for no reason probably just think "well fuck that" and never contribute again. Are you proud of forcing absurd claims into articles and then protecting them to keep them in a shit state? I suppose you must be. (talk) 03:35, 20 September 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.

Edit warring in an article[edit]

Sourced content was properly removed; it had a strongly non-neutral effect. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 20 September 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 been adding content to an article Mudar Zahran, it is negative content but supported by reliable independent sources. Mudar himself the subject of the article, did not like these additions to his wikipedia page so through his ip address (which is from the UK) constantly removed the content by falsely claiming it was 'vandalism', other users have intervened by reverting back to my added content, yet the ip address constantly ignored them and kept reverting my edits. When he ultimately failed to prevent me from re-adding the content, he seems to have hired 'User:Headhitter' (who is also miraculously from the UK) to do what he failed to do, which is remove the content... 'User:Headhitter' has removed my content, falsely claiming that it was 'vandalism' and when I pinged him on the talk page at Talk:Mudar Zahran to discuss his actions he chose to ignore me, I also left him a message on his talk page. These two claim that the sources are 'unreliable' and 'governmental' (since Mudar had problems with the government of Jordan) especially, Ammon News which is a private well respected news agency. (this is discussed in detail at Talk:Mudar Zahran ) --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User:Headhitter has been on Wikipedia since 2009 and has been actively editing with more than 20000 edits, so I strongly doubt that he was "hired" specifically for this article, though I make no comment on his activity on the article. This appears to be more of a content dispute. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@The Average Wikipedian: People with experience are more likely to be hired, also I do not think experience correlates with ethics. It is a content dispute, but his actions are inappropriate and unjustifiable. Falsely accusing me of vandalism while removing completely sourced content to serve someone's benefits, is completely unethical (along with choosing to ignore discussion). --Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Having looked at the article, I tend to support at least some of the removals by User:Headhitter. For example, I see no reason to have a lengthy quote from a primary source (with what looks like an original translation - at least all the citation links go to Arab versions) in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: I still fail to see how that gives him the right to accuse me of vandalism, along with refusing discussion. Its not original research, the source is literally saying that no one supports this man's ideology not even his father. --Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As in almost all other cases, the inclusion of a "Criticism" section in this edit has a strongly negative and not-neutral effect. Integrate the criticism into the rest of the article if you want it to stay, and please don't bother trying to integrate a family spat into a comprehensive biography until you can demonstrate that Britannica does likewise. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 20 September 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 MyTuppence‎[edit]

MyTuppence‎ blocked indef a week for abusing multiple accounts, as the block is not indef, I have given them a warning about their behavior. Keep an eye out if there appear to be anymore [socks], otherwise, we are done here. (non-admin closure) -- Orduin Discuss 19:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC) (edited 19:30, 21 September 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.

MyTuppence‎ has repeatedly removed a ref improve tag from H. Montgomery Hyde without explanation or resolution of the problem. Most of the article is clearly unsourced. After one reversion he posted a warning for improper placement of maintenance tags on my talk page. I had also placed two on his for the improper removal of tags, which he has since deleted. After a brief and frank exchange on my talk page, and at his request, I posted to him on the talk page of the article. As of this posting, he has not replied. Out of deference to 3RR I waited for a little over a day to see if he would voluntarily restore the tag or offer some defense for the repeated removal. Both events failing, I restored the tag yesterday and it was quickly removed, again without explanation. I restored it and posted a level 4 warning on his talk page. Predictably he yet again removed the tag w/o explanation last night. I really hate ANI but I am running out of options. This seems to be a clear cut case of disruptive editing given he has offered no defense for his persistent removal of the tag. The only improvement he has made is to add a single source to a handful of spots on a still highly unsourced article. Regrettably I don't have access to the kinds of sources needed to verify the extensive uncited information in the article. If perhaps someone could restore the tag and have a word or two with him it would be appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

MyTuppence has now moved on to using a blatantly false edit summaryin this situation. They still haven't responded on the talk page for the article. MarnetteD|Talk 13:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have struck the part of my post that was partially in error. T added one ref - which was helpful - but also remove the "refimprove" tag which was not. MarnetteD|Talk 13:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that Account Control, which account is less than 24 hrs old, has made one and only one edit, that being an attempt to revert MarnetteD's replacing of the ref improve tag. Hmmm... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Striking the above statement as it is factually incorrect. A closer look shows that there have been several other edits. That said, I do find it odd that a brand new account would take notice of this particular dispute. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ad Orientem I think you mean only one edit to the Hyde article (thanks for striking that part of your post) as they did make a handful of edits before that. I agree that it is on the "interesting" side but we need to AGF at this time. Especially since I missed the fact that one ref had been added. My removal of it shows that I was not thorough enough in looking at things and that error is on me. MarnetteD|Talk 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Ad Orientem your instincts were correct AC was a sock of MT. Both have been blocked by Ponyo‎ so this thread can be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:00, 21 September 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 Kraxler Repeated Incivility Citations/Warnings from Various Editors[edit]

Putting hyperbole to the side, there has been no evidence presented that substantiates the claims made by the reporting party. Report appears to be without merit. Dennis Brown - 23:53, 20 September 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.

As noted on his own Talk page, User:Kraxler has been repeatedly approached, by both veteran and new editors, concerning the content and tone of his comments, especially on AfDs, see for an overview. Can something more formal be done/filed concerning his habitual, documented incivility? SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) A link to one discussion over one (alleged) incivility (improper use of WP:BADGER) does not strike me as someone being "repeatedly approached" about "content and tone". It certainly does not constitute " habitual, documented incivility". Do you have any links to a smoking gun or even the straw that broke the camels back? There must be something that prompted you to raise the issue here, after all. Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 20 September 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.


RGloucester indeffed, with little appetite for an early unblock. Mess cleaned up, noting more to see. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 20 September 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) needs a block to calm down. If you take a look at his contributions in the past 10-15, you will see that he has acted rather disruptively. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It had to be stopped, so I've blocked him indefinitely. Doesn't have be forever, etc., etc. Favonian (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what prompted that, but there is some clean up to be done. Chillum 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(ec x 2)@My name is not dave: - we don't do "calm down blocks". That doesn't mean that a block won't be forthcoming for other reasons though.
See also user talk:Mjroots#Who do you think you are? and WT:UKT#FGW to GWR for background info.. I notice that RGloucester's talk page is now linking to user talk:First Great Western, so maybe an indication of a WP:COI here. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Completely bizarre behaviour. The move of the Peron TP to the GWR TP was disruptive if only because it wasted other editors' time. Mine for a start. Good block, hopfully not for a while because- unless I am very much mistaken- he has done good work up until now? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As I read it, he's trying to make a point that because someone has (as he saw it) conducted a page move without full consensus, he should be allowed to move pages unilaterally as well. Completely endorse both the block and the indef. ‑ iridescent 18:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 CheckUser note: Technically speaking, the account does not appear to be compromised. Mike VTalk 18:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent:, that was me. The move had unanimous consensus at the time it was done, having been previously discussed at the article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I'm not defending him—if you check his history he has a long history of throwing these kind of tantrums if anyone disagrees with him. I was just explaining what his line of thinking is, as some people (including the blocking admin) seemed to be thinking this was a hijacked account. ‑ iridescent 18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
My block comment re. "compromised" was a homage to WP:AGF, or just haste – take your pick. I've reviewed the previous block history, and this rampage is a continuation of previous transgressions. Favonian (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Time for an extended "time out" then. We can do without such disruption and threats. I've now had to move protect talk:Great Western Railway (train operating company) as move protecting the article left the talk page free to be moved. I must say I was a little surprised this was able to be done, but that is likely another discussion for another venue. Mjroots (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Definitely needed the time out. He went completely off the deep end. He even moved my user page to some bizarre name related to the dispute. Frankly, I'm not sorry to see him indeffed, and would heavily advise against ever unblocking him. This is not the first time he's gone off the rails when a discussion has gone against him, as though everyone should automatically defer to his opinion, and he gets angry/bizarre when people don't (like claiming to speak for God!). This is overdue. oknazevad (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I have encountered this behavior from RGloucester in the past. I'm not sure about indefinitely blocking him, but I agree with giving him an extended "cool off/timeout" period. Dustin (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Some background here, here and here and above all here for context, as well. This is part of an established pattern, not a bolt from the blue. (Now he's blocked, expect more ravings like this from him.) ‑ iridescent 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Sadly, as other have noted this is nothing new. I blocked him for two weeks for the last freak out back in May, and was very clear with him at that time that this behavior needs to stop, permanently, and that he shouldn't expect such leniency the next time he lost control and made a ridiculous spectacle of himself. If he thinks he is right, he apparently believes that justifies any and all outrageous behavior he engages in. It saddens me to see this as he is otherwise a good contributor, but he needs a long break from Wikipedia and Wikipedia needs a long break from him. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Right; in that case, fuck it- previous qualification struck. Seems to have just been the straw that broke the camel's back and a long time but not unexpected in coming. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:12, 20 September 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.

May need to protect this British prime-minister-related article...[edit]

Article was listed (then declined) at WP:RPP. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:36, 21 September 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 National Anthem (Black Mirror) -- an episode of a British TV series, into which there is an irresistible impulse to inject a current British politician in place of the fictional one of the episode, given a current incident in the news. It's probably a good idea to protect or semiprotect it and its parent episode-list article. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dan. Requests for page protection should be made at WP:RPP. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I did... keeping all these noticeboards straight is difficult! *Dan T.* (talk) 01:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I sympathize. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 21 September 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.

HeartBD2K and clones? socks? or students?[edit]

Nothing to do here. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 23:29, 21 September 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.


Going through the edit history of some biochemistry articles I noticed a number of editors with fairly similar names:

Unclear whether they - and perhaps several others - are at all related to HeartBD2K (talk · contribs · count).

Normally I wouldn't me much concerned: these accounts could likely be editing as a part of some biochemistry course (even though it nowhere says so on their user pages) and their edits do not seem to pose unusual problems. But throughout my wiki history I have seen some unbelievable cases of meat- and sockpuppetry, so I'd very much appreciate if someone more experienced would take a look. Many thanks! kashmiri TALK 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

These could be from, which is the "NIH Center of Excellence at UCLA". Might just be a number of account from the same group, all the edits look to be constructive so far. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
In this thread HeartBD2K was told that organizations were not allowed to have user accounts, so the members of HeartBD2K created their own personal accounts. The goal of the program is to improve coverage of the mitochondrial proteome on wikipedia. I don't think this is an issue. Brianbleakley (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Nothing to worry about, then. kashmiri TALK 21:16, 21 September 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.

Steward's account?[edit]

Unfortunate error caused by a test edit. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 22 September 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 edit and this edit look like relatively harmless vandalism. But Shizhao's previous edits aren't anything like vandalism, especially if you search User talk:Shizhao for the word "steward" which occurs several times. Does this mean a vandal has compromised a steward's account? Art LaPella (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a child accessing his account. Did he forget to log out from a shared/public computer? Maybe a sysop could remotely clean his login cookie? kashmiri TALK 21:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I have left a message at his zh.wikipedia user talk page, as that seems to be his main account. He was a steward but isn't at present. BencherliteTalk 21:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
May be he can be banned temporarily if things don't get fixed from his end, atleast it will deter the person using his account.  A m i t  웃   21:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
His account isn't really the problem; the experimenting moved to a sandbox, and ended 3 hours ago. The only real issue here is embarrassment. The bigger issue is, he's still a sysop at meta, commons, and several other wikis, and a bureaucrat on a few of those. Perhaps someone on IRC wants to ping a Steward? I wonder if a WMF-wide temporary desysop/decratting is called for? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There is one thing I don't understand here, how was this, and all the rest, done with huggle? Especially since this might be a public computer, but why would there be huggle on a public computer? -- Orduin Discuss 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
I just test API edit in APIsandbox. I don't know POST test in APIsandbox will really affect the actual page. When I found out this problem, other users have rv. Sorry--Shizhao (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I have been contacted via email by user:Srtwiki who claims that they payed someone with my name and an email address similar to my username $325 to create a page. The page has apparently now been deleted and this person is not responding to their emails. There was a similar incident in June - details here - where someone claiming to be me was asking for money to reinstate a deleted page.

Srtwiki was registered today and has never edited. I doubt they will tell me what page they created, so it won't be easy finding out who it really is.

Any advice on how to deal with this would be greatly appreciated. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sarahj2107, any chance your experience resembles this set of circumstances? Tiderolls 17:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, I missed that one. There are similarities but the email I got only says "Is [I'll not post this but it's not mine] your email address? I paid $325 to Sarah Jane for my Wiki page and it has now been deleted and she hasn't been responding." So I wouldn't want to say it's definitely linked without more information. Sarahj2107 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Sarahj2107: please forward, with permission, any correspondence you have to and please ask @Srtwiki: to do the same. Thank you. Keegan (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Questionable contributions[edit]

Does anyone know what to make of Pureromblomanon's contributions? Right now, s/he has been creating articles by the minute that are presumably supposed to be about different high schools but instead all they contain are the same category with no actual article content. Normally I would file such behavior under newbie mistakes, but all the warnings, etc on his/her talk page seem to suggest that it might just be disruptive editing. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The number of speedy deletion notices on their talk page is indeed concerning, but I think the appropriate action for now is to strongly advise the user to read WP:YFA, create userspace drafts and submit to WP:AFC instead. If the user continues to create inappropriate pages following the warning then perhaps further administrative action could be entertained. For the record, I have tagged Corcuera National High School and Mabini National High School (Corcuera) all for deletion under WP:CSD#A3 (no content). (Non-administrator comment) Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I thought about directing him/her to WP:YFA too, but it looks like that was already attempted by another user last year. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
You're right, but the link was buried in Template:Welcomemenu, which has at least 60 links in it and isn't specifically about creating content. I think the best way forward would be to compose a message that specifically addresses the point that when an article is published to mainspace, it is expected to meet the standards of mainspace (making sure content is verifiable, context is established, neutral point of view, no speedy deletable content, etc.). Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I have added a message to the user's talk page. Feel free to add anything if you feel it's necessary. Mz7 (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Nah, what you added looks good. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP[edit]

Here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I just now warned the user about the no legal threats policy. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Textbook case. GABHello! 20:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For context, the same blanking came up five years ago at Talk:Tube_Challenge#Record_holder.27s_name: a SPA/socking editor claiming to be one of the record holders and demanding that their name be removed, despite being named in the Guinness Book of Records and in plenty of press coverage. They never explained why. --McGeddon (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
This user has started editing the same topics and created an article titled Andi James. The legal threats have not been repeated, but it's likely the same user now registered. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
...And has been indefinitely blocked by another admin. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • IP blocked 36 hours for making legal threats after another occurrence. Since it's an IP, I'm reluctant to long-term block for a first offence, since it might be a dynamic or gateway IP. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
It's the second IP to edit over the same content today, likely same user each time. I've added the pages to my watchlist in case the user continues disruption under a different IP (dynamic, public WiFi, or other means) - hopefully others will be watching it as well. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
The original account from 2010 is User:Palkanetoijala (with a slightly different spelling to the recent account), if any more socks emerge. --McGeddon (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
User created another account User:Palaknetoijala. I've now indef blocked this one too.--5 albert square (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Broter misrepresenting citations and pushing an Islamophobic POV[edit]

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

All of the user's edits relating to Islam have had the singular purpose of making the religion look like a religion of terrorism, particularly in trying to portray Muhammad as a bloodthirsty warlord, usually using WP:PRIMARY-based WP:OR instead of mainstream academic sources. This included starting off with an edit war at Depictions of Muhammad ([21], [22], [23]).

As can be seen on his userpage, he does plenty of work relating to Mormonism and some to Christianity, and is generally able to ignore sectarian differences there. When it comes to Islam? His only book is titled "Islamic terrorism." Do I deny that that's a thing? Obviously not. But I am no more under the delusion that it represents Islam any more than polygamy represents Mormonism.

Recently, in the article Muhammad in Islam, Broter has taken to trying to add a cherry-picked quote to present Muhammad as forcing the conversion of Abu Sufyan, next to a bunch of sourced text describing Muhammad as sparing Abu Sufyan's life. He initially tried using a primary source, at which point I explained that we require non-primary modern academic sources. He then tried citing a obviously unacceptably sectarian work. When I explained that sectarianism of any form is not allowed here, he tried citing a Muslim source, as if that was the issue.

Here's the kicker: the secondary source cited, The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, does not contain the quote it's being cited for. Search for "apostle of God" (in quotes), and none of the entries that come up begin to match the quote. It's not that the section isn't available to view. Page 227 (the cited page) is available, but doesn't even contain the words "apostle of God." The phrase "before your neck is cut off by the sword" appears no where in the book. Even the individual words 'neck' and 'sword' do not appear together in the book. I don't know whether this is because Broter is only getting his info from sectarian sources that would lie about their sources, or if it's because he's just decided to use any means necessary to present WP:THETRUTH about "the enemy," or if he doesn't understand that the quote actually has to be somewhere in the book for the citation to be valid, but the quote in question is not in that book at all. He has also added this false quotation to other articles. I'd've gone through the usual WP:DR if it wasn't for the witting or unwitting misrepresentation of sources.

Now, if someone who doesn't have a history of an Islamophobic bias wants to add modern, mainstream academic sources that discuss warfare and forced conversions carried out by Muhammad, fine by me. If Broter wants to keep working on LDS related articles, cool. But sectarianism of any sort has no place here. Broter has undeniable POV issues when it comes to Islam and/or Muhammad, and needs to back off from articles relating to either. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The same quote is on our Abu Sufyan ibn Harb page, and appears to come from [ ]. That site is used a lot on Wikipedia.[24] I suggest for someone with more knowledge about Islam and the Quran than I have to bring this to WP:RSNB. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The quote is on page 277 of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography, according to the sources, which I provided. You Ian.thomson, do not quote my sources correctly. I can not view the page 277 of this book on google books.--Broter (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The page you wrongly quoted Page 227 (not the cited page) is also not availabe on google books. So much for your search. Anyway the quote is on page 277 of this book.--Broter (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, here's page 277, which is quite visible in that link. Where's the quote? Oh, not there, either. Probably because you got it from a sectarian source. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The quote is in the book [25], there they quote the work by Dr. Buti. I changed my source only because you ,Ian.thomson, wanted a modern muslim source. A modern non-muslim source is equally valuable! If the quote is not in the muslim source in the english translation, the non-muslim source is as valuable. The first modern source called Behind the Veil: Unmasking Islam was written by a nativ arab speaker. He translated from the original arab version of The Jurisprudence of the Prophetic Biography. Probably you know the Middle East Media Research Institute, they report about speeches in the arab world which are not shown on western TV.--Broter (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I never said "cite a Muslim source," I repeatedly told you to cite a modern academic source. That you can only think in terms of "Muslim vs non-Muslim," don't seem to understand that Behind the Veil is a sectarian source, and don't seem to understand that it is sectarianism that is the problem (no matter how many times it is explained to you) are signs that you should not be editing articles relating to Islam. As I have asked you before, do you want us to start basing our articles on Mormonism on the opinions of imams? Do you want us to write the article on Joseph Smith from the perspective that he was an advocate of occultism, pedophilia, and polygamy? If not, then quit acting out the same behavior in articles on Islam. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I admit that my only source was [26] and hope that I will not be punished. The said quote is anyway removed everywhere.--Broter (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

My work on Islam was generally well received with the exception of this instance. So please do not punish me for this mistake.--Broter (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

"Overlooked" =/= "well received." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think this editor, Broter, is clearly using Wikipedia to advance extremist views in violation of WP:POVPUSH and WP:NPOV. The misuse of sources and the denial of such misuse is astounding. The inclusion of hate speech from non-reliable sources is worrying. AusLondonder (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I will grant that his work on Mormonism seems to be in line with policy. A topic ban (even if just an informal voluntary one) from articles concerning Islam or Muhammad seems more in order than a WP:NOTHERE block. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I urge the administrator who deals with this section to show mercy. This is the only incident, I am involved with. I have learned my lesson and I promise you all to behave better in the future.--Broter (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassment from User:Eightball[edit]

First I should say this is a "result" of the discussion some sections above at #User continually reverts correct edits

User:Eightball has during this continously used personal attacks and after recieving [27] this final warning. He continued making this edit calling me a "troll" and saying "I will not rest until you have been punished or banned" which is serious. At WP:ARV I was told to go here.

The editor has also called me a vandal, said to an other editor that I am insane, called me petulant baby and more.

Also he has been forumshopping on multiple places to get me blocked (harrassment), for example

This type of personal attacks, harrassment and forumshopping is not okay, I welcomce proper discusssion but when admin said "no" in the discussion he opened above he should not have gone after me. Qed237 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not personally attacked you. I firmly believe that you edit in bad faith and without any intent to improve articles or to contribute to the community. I have yet to see an administrator satisfactorily handle these complaints. Eightball (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Eightball. Any more statements like the above and this admin will block you. --NeilN talk to me 15:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Try and read info and diffs provided, you can not say that you have not made personal attacks when you have called me a "troll" and "petulant baby" and more. Those are clear personal attacks. Also several editors have not made any action to me after the discussion, so please just drop it and stop harassing me. You can not go around everywhere until you find one editor that agree with you. Qed237 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
NeilN, I'm genuinely asking: what is wrong with the above? It is in no way intended to be an attack or insulting. It is merely an observation of Qed237's pattern of editing. Eightball (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) civility is required. Personal attacks have no place on WP. The diffs show personal attacks. If there are issues with another editor bring them to a noticeboard. Dont call them names or comment on them. Stay on the topic of the article and the content. AlbinoFerret 15:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Eightball, in the little over two years Qed237 has been here, he has over 47,000 edits. If he was a vandal ("you edit in bad faith and without any intent to improve articles or to contribute to the community") he would have been blocked a long time ago. Your over-the-top rhetoric has crossed into personal attacks. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any of you have any understanding of how frustrating it is to see an editor behave in a manner that so obviously hurts the quality of specific articles, hurts new editors, and damages the wiki as a whole, and see everyone else spring to his defense simply because what he's doing technically isn't against the rules. All I'm asking is for you to look objectively at the facts, ignore wiki policies for a second (are we not capable of developing new ideas?), and truly ask yourself: are Qed237's actions in the best interest of Wikipedia? I fail to see how they possibly could be. I do not think he is intentionally saying, "Heh, I'm gonna make pages worse." But I think he, and many others, are too singularly focused on enforcing the rules exactly as they are written, without any consideration of how those same rules can be enforced in much more productive ways.
I tried approaching this directly with Qed237 and he ignored me. I tried raising this within Wikiproject Football - which seemed very reasonable to me, as it was the affected project - only for him to revert all of my posts. I tried contacting the administrators only to have my real point effectively ignored. Tell me: what do you expect me to do? I'm not simply going to sulk away and have him continue to revert people who are trying to help. Are we not all on the same team here? No one has EVER explained to me why Qed237 can't simply correct the timestamps, educate the editor, and report anyone who is a continual problem child. Why is that not the PERFECT outcome of all of this? Eightball (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I expect you to, or rather strongly suggest that you drop the stick, calm yourself, start listening, and move on, because you're facing a block for your own behavior sooner rather than later. You're not the only one on Wikipedia to ever to reach a complete impasse in a dispute, but most of us are able to let it go when our frustration gets the better of us and we start tending towards disruption. Your crusade to have Qed punished because you disagree with him is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Swarm 16:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Your crusade to have Qed punished" I am not crusading to have him punished. No punishment is necessary. He just needs to be told to stop. Eightball (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's an idea @Eightball:, why don't you stop and WP:DROPTHESTICK, then this whole conversation can be archived and forgotten about. JMHamo (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Your own words contradict that notion. Nobody agrees that such an ultimatum is warranted and it's not going to happen. You're the one being told to stop now, lest you end up blocked. Swarm 05:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Swarm, whom exactly are you talking to now? Eightball or Qed237? (Or JMHamo?) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Money says, User:Eightball... Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 09:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Fine, close this discussion, I will enforce sanity myself and fix Qed237's errors. Remember this moment when this website inevitably dies because you've run off every potential contributor. Eightball (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

a new kind of problem[edit]

User in question has retired. If they unretire, we can revisit this. If they don't plan to contribute anymore, the point is irrelevant. If they do, we can reopen the discussion. --Jayron32 16:47, 22 September 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.

Here's a new sort of problem for you. User:GregJackP and I disagreed sharply on an ongoing debate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw ‎ Immediately after that tussle he started attacking the article about me at Richard J. Jensen. He adds [citation needed] --a request for a citation--and when I respond he calls it edit warring. The rule regarding [citation needed] is this: "If you can provide a reliable source for the claim, please be bold and replace the "Citation needed" template with enough information to locate the source." there is no restriction and no edit warring. This is clearly retaliation for the Talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw. Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC) He is adding false info (eg Infobase is a major New York publisher & he falsely states it is self-published). When I revert BLP violations he threatens 3R sanctions. User:GregJackP also makes the false charge on my talk page that I originated Richard J. Jensen user:Bluedudemi wrote it. This is clearly retaliation for the talk:Requests for adminship/Montanabw. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} 02:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
how can I do that?? Rjensen (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons why I wouldn't want an article about me on Wikipedia. Anyway, you can read about diffs at Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide (and, for more advanced instructions, Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like any admin action is necessary. The AGF view is, you declared yourself as Richard Jensen on the RfA. GregJackP decided to check out the page and started questioning the cites. Since there is a COI involved, best if you indicate your views on the talk page and then que sera sera.I note that Maunus is also looking at the article so it's not just the two of you any longer. --regentspark (comment) 02:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Based on this edit, it appears Dr. Jensen has listened to reason and is at least not at the moment editing his own pagespace or resuming his warring behaviors. Let's hope in the morning he has a more balanced perspective. Thanks for your help. BusterD (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon, would you please consider removing your comment and those diffs - they have absolutely nothing to do with this ANI. The issues with the edits you've referenced have already been discussed and resolved among the parties and others. Thank you. Minor4th 00:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with MastCell, completely. And I also share their discontent with the responses here--the commentaries by the first responders is is patronizing: please stop using ANI as a sandbox where you practice at playing admin. Anyway, GregJackP has no business messing around with that article; in this case, they have less business messing around with it than Rjensen does. I forgot who is on which side in the Montanabw RfA; I know that MastCell and I are in opposite columns but in this we are in agreement. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Was skimming ANI (why would I do that??), noticed this, and thought it warranted another Official Admin Comment just to underscore the point. MastCell is entirely right. If you get into an argument with an editor who also happens to be a notable individual, hands off editing the article. I haven't caught up on the latest RfA drama but I guess I must be on one of these guys' side, and they're both right anyway. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I also want to agree here. It's a good idea to actually examine the matter before making a blind response. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
If MastCell and other admins are unhappy with the first responses to ANI threads the logical way to address that would be for them to respond sooner. While the individual no doubt meets Wikipedia's standard of notability, it's a) tacky to edit your own article and b) interesting that not a lot of people seemed interested in viewing it before he was causing a ruckus at Rfa [34] -- not sure what caused the August 03 bump. So the position here if you want your article left alone annoy the insider wiki crowd so they're disqualified from editing your article? NE Ent 11:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I generally don't respond to AN/I threads at all, anymore. I only noticed this one because it stemmed from a dispute at the RfA, which I have watchlisted since I contributed there. I was probably too harsh about the first response—I'm not in a position to cast the first stone, because my own first instincts are hardly infallible either. But this was a serious and substantive complaint: retaliatory editing of a BLP is a Real Problem, and I want to be sure that it's taken seriously. MastCell Talk 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you were too harsh and a little too hasty, which led to a dogpile here. At least one other admin above had looked at the situation and determined that there was no need for admin action and noted the COI of the OP heavily editing his own BLP. Not to mention the fact that GJP had stopped editing that article well before you arrived to finger wag. And then several more admins show up to get in their licks, including casting some less than civil aspersions: " please stop using ANI as a sandbox where you practice at playing admin.". The way GregJackP went about editing the RJensen article was pointy and inappropriate, and he deserved an admonishment perhaps -- but RJensen's edits to his own bibliography were also inappropriate and self-promoting and run afoul of many WP PAG's, And if any of you chastiers looked into the contexts that started this dust up, you'd see that RJensen was very disruptive at the RfA and presented what proved to be false (and serious) accusations against the candidate [35] in apparent retaliation for a past content dispute. At the risk of sounding a bit dramatic, this kind of thing is the reason good editors and contributors quit the project . Minor4th 16:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Errm... good editors quit the project because they make inappropriate, retaliatory edits to a BLP and then get called on it? I'm skeptical. I don't see a "dogpile" here. I see an instance where Rjensen brought a valid complaint about a serious concern, and was initially blown off ("dogpiled", even). I see no evidence that GregJackP spontaneously saw the error of his approach, so a firm response here doesn't seem out of place. I have no opinion on the real-life accusations going back and forth at the RfA, but let's be clear: there is nothing that Rjensen could do that would justify openly retaliatory editing of his Wikipedia biography. MastCell Talk 16:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed This was badgering, no less. GregJackP asked for references, Rjensen supplied references , GregJackP removed them and again asked for references. KoshVorlon 11:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Mastcell's analysis is on point, as usual. It might not be an issue, however, because GregJackP appears to have retired from the project. Obviously, there's retirement and there's retirement, but it may be that things calm down now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In my experience only about 1 in 20 "retirements" actually stick. HighInBC (was Chillum) 15:22, 22 September 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.

talk page vandalism[edit]

OP blocked for 72 hours by NeilN. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:52, 23 September 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, my respects. some user vandalizing my page. You might want to take a look at this: Only responsible administrators are kindly requested to take necessary measures. thanks NotAlpArslan (talk) 04:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, my respects. Some user by the name of Fortuna imeratrix mundi is continuing to harrass me, he first mocked me with a message which you can see here: and the described persistence via this link :
Please to take the necessary measures thank you. best honnest regards.
NotAlpArslan (talk) 08:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This editor is not here! -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, regards, he vandalized my page again, i wait for a measure :) NotAlpArslan (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
You may have a long wait. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 12:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"totally anti islam" userbox, loud quacking[edit]

NotAlpArslan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) do you think it is remotely appropriate for you to have a userbox that says "This user is totally anti islam."[36]? Wikipedia is not the place to let people know which religions your are "anti". Your very first edits indicate that you have a history here, what account did you use in the past? I am glad you came here for administrative attention. HighInBC (was Chillum) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I should probably point out incase no one's aware that NAA had created 4 reports here only 2 days ago, I think WP:ROPE is running out for this user. –Davey2010Talk 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Right, thought that name was familiar. They just signed up on the 14th. At this point I am suspecting this person has worn out the patience of the community in the past. HighInBC (was Chillum) 14:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Well he wore my patience out but then again I didn't have much patience to begin with! Face-grin.svg. –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

NotAlpArslan is blocked for 72 hours. [37] I would not be surprised if their response caused it to become an indef. --NeilN talk to me 14:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There actually has been a response here, in which NotAlpArslan seems to once again be indicating a pronounced lack of understanding of the policies and guidelines here. This unblock request, which basically just accuses NeilN of blocking him without reason, has been answered, but, if there is another one, of more or less the same nature, or if he indulges in the same sort of activity after the block is lifted, I also have a strong feeling we will be revisiting the matter of his conduct. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 22 September 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.

Kantar Media Philippines[edit]

this is an ordinary content dispute. Please use the page at Talk:Kantar Media Philippines to discuss your concerns, and if you reach an impasse, try dispute resolution methods. There doesn't even appear to be any attempt at a conversation at the talk page yet.--Jayron32 16:50, 22 September 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 am writing to report a massive editing of data in an that is misleading people today. This is about Kantar Media Philippines, a TAM provider in the Philippines. Some people edited the article and make it appear to be affiliated or is a subsidiary of ABS-CBN, a leading media outfit in the country. Kantar Media Philippines is an Independent media research company. By making it appear to be affiliated to ABS-CBN, the lone media outfit subscribed to their TV Ratings, it demolishes the independence and name of the media research company.

There were no proofs or whatsoever to prove the claim that it is affiliated to ABS-CBN. This violates the rule that content should be verifiable. As for the proof that Kantar is not an affiliate, this is the link of a complete set of information regarding the conglomerate ABS-CBN and its subsidiaries. This is a public document provided by ABS-CBN.

Now, I am requesting for the article to be protected indefinitely as it is being edited at any time and used for misleading people in the Philippines. This also demolishes the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of dependable and relevant facts. PS: I don't know how to request for the protection of the article as it looks very technical. I hope someone can help me on this. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Escudero (talkcontribs) 16:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this a content dispute? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 16:43, 22 September 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.

administrative action needed[edit]

Resolved. blocked by DESiegel -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:13, 22 September 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 with a mop do the needful? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 22 September 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.


(non-admin closure) Oversighted Rev/del'd as needed. GABHello! 20:02, 22 September 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.

Does this need oversighting? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't know if it does, but I did it, and another instance on their own talk page. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced it does, but if it did, it should not be posted here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit has been deleted and cannot be viewed. This discussion should be closed. F117IS (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I will say that n general, if something might need oversight, posting about it at WP:ANI is the wrong approach. I will also say that if a competent adult chooses to post his or her email address or other contact info on a very public page, there is no rule against it. I myself post my legal name and image on my user page, along with other information which would easily enable a google search to find my full contact info. DES (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind eh Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 20:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Zurich00swiss is probably a minor; see the bottom of [38]. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Exactly Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure there's other places to post, and it shouldn't be here, but everyone also knows that this is the place to get attention quickly. In fact, I didn't even see the post, really--I saw the diff go by on Recent Changes, clicked on it, and did what I did. It can't get much quicker than that. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 23 September 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.

IP, legal threats, etc[edit]

(non-admin closure) Done. GABHello! 22:16, 22 September 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.

Anyone care to remove Talk Page access from this interesting IP editor? [39] and [40] ScrpIronIV 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, it was already done while I was writing this - Thanks! ScrpIronIV 20:57, 22 September 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.

Self proclaimed banned editor WP:SOCKing[edit]

Resolved. blocked by User:Ponyo-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:06, 22 September 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.

Self proclaimed socks of banned editor. Please block as necessary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Resolved

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.

Behavioral review, self-invoked[edit]

Opening unnecessary ANI threads intervention is poor behavior. NE Ent 01:51, 23 September 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 folks, long-time listener, first-time caller. Can some wikipedians please cast their wiki-eyeballs upon User: (aka myself -- I always edit as an anon -- never as a non-IP-username), especially on the Talk:Jacob_Barnett page?

  p.s. Ask that you *specifically* focus on any behavioral issues, you may see, however small, with that specific anon-editor *only* ...please-n-thank-you. All editors currently active on that article-talk are long-haul contributors, so I ask for this intentionally very narrow scope, in my request, and intentionally provide just no diffs, save the recent edit-history of said talkpage,[41] wherein you will see my dozen-or-so contributions (namely [42][43][44]^[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]), which began as of 14 September 2015‎. Best, (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To me, this requests looks like you're trying to win a content dispute by framing it as a "self-invoked behavioral review". If the editors on the talk page think your behavior is disruptive, I'm sure they're more than capable of discussing it with you, and then notifying an admin or filing a noticeboard report if necessary. Until that happens, this is purely a content dispute, which this board does not deal with, since admins have no special remit regarding content. BMK (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This is an honest request, BMK: if I've crossed any behavioral lines, or even toe'd them, I honestly want to know. I don't think I have, but if I have, I'd prefer to correct it immediately. What I'm trying to do is get some uninvolved eyeballs to look at my own edits, and call out my perceived behavioral-policy-violations. If there are any, I'm happy to have them corrected. If there aren't any, then I'd like that to be the end of this request. I have never taken anyone to AN/I before, and decided that it was better to take myself to AN/I, which requires a single diff, than somebody else. I did not come to this decision lightly. I am posting here, in the good faith belief that my suggestion of a self-invoked behavioral review, is exactly the best way to handle the situation. There *is* certainly a content-dispute, no question. It is about a week old now (from my just-arrived perspective), and I will be seeking WP:RSN or WP:BLPN about said content-dispute, as appropriate. But I believe it will improve the talkpage-atmosphere, if either I am set straight by some admins about what I'm doing wrong, or I am not set straight because I'm not doing anything wrong. I am not asking any admins to help with the content-dispute, I've edited mainspace on this article exactly once so far (reverting an edit from March which has not been re-reverted so far), and I think the sources (and RSN/BLPN/DR/etc) are quite sufficiently plain-jane. Besides