Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive947

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

Noticeboard archives


User:DLM45's edit requests for Dennis L. Montgomery[edit]

User:DLM45 has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. Nothing more needs to be done at the moment. Neutralitytalk 07:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:DLM45 has been making repetitious edit requests for the semi-protected article for Dennis L. Montgomery; the edit requests start here. The repetitious requests, for the most part, fail the basic requirements for an edit request, i.e., specifying the requested edit ("change X to Y"), a reliable source to justify the request, etc. --Weazie (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Since the user continued despite your protest on their talkpage, Weazie, I have warned them to stop, on pain of blocking, and pointed out that they will be autoconfirmed in a couple of days and thus be able to edit the article themselves. Now why doesn't the prospect of that fill me with joy... oh, yes. The initials of the account, in relation to the name of the subject of the article, worry me. If it's the same person, we'll be obliged to ask them to request editing on the talkpage even after they're autoconfirmed, see WP:AUTO#IFEXIST. Well, let's jump that hurdle when we come to it. Bishonen | talk 23:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Bishonen, thanks for issuing the warning. I (and others) share your concern regarding a conflict of interest. I also have sockpuppet concerns about this account. I fear once this account autoconfirms, it will quickly escalate into an edit war. --Weazie (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I looked at the article history, Weazie, and it's pretty obvious where your sock suspicions lie. Unfortunately the editing done by those accounts is just too old to be CheckUser'd. Never mind; if there's disruption of the article, we don't need to prove sockhood to sanction it. Feel free to report on my page if you think this editor is a problem once they're autoconfirmed. Of course we must also be considerate of the interests of the subject of the article, per WP:BLP. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
User:DLM45 was blocked for being a sockpuppet. Thanks again for the help. --Weazie (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Good work, Weazie. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 24 February 2017 (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.


Ethanbas (talk · contribs) is warned, for the absolute last time, to discontinue their disruptive editing. If Ethanbas makes another edit in violation of any conduct policy on this site, they will be blocked from editing indefinitely and without further warning. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:25, 25 February 2017 (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.

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

[1], [2] - Wikipedia:Civility: Incivility and or a threat against another person;

[3], [4], [5] - Wikipedia:Civility: trolling, incivility;

[6], [7] - Wikipedia:Civility: Incivility "Vandal", "doesn't speak English", "Possible paid Russian propagandist". Censorship?

See also Edit warring. TaaniOk (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 Administrator note: Both users blocked 24 hours for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment: Ethanbas is heading straight for a site-ban if he continues along this route one step further. He has been serially warned by, for example, Patar knight [8], Bishonen [9], Doug Weller [10], [11], Johnuniq [12], Kudpung [13], [14], and myself [15]; in addition to an astonishing array and number of other warnings on his talk-page [16] for someone who has only been here one year and only made 2,000 edits. Evidently he can't take a hint, or his handlers can't control him. Either way, he is rapidly and determinedly approaching net negative, and his next step will very likely be out the door. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Beeblebrox might not have been aware of all the other issues surrounding Ethanbas. If I had been aware of this latest issue after already warning him that he was 'within a whisker of being blocked', I would have blocked him for a lot longer. The next time he puts a foot wrong it will be an indeff (from me. at least). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sigh. I have major issues with some of Ethan's content creation, but had hoped after the last round with Kudpung he would have cleaned up his behavior towards other editors. I would support giving him a final warning letting him know that after this block expires if he sneezes in the wrong direction he can be indeffed without warning. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is his last chance. I'll certain block him if he carries on this way, but I think someone who hasn't warned him should do so this time. Doug Weller talk 16:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Nah, Doug, how about someone who hasn't blocked him doing it now? A lot of admin + experienced user time has already been wasted trying to rein in this user, to no apparent effect. I warned him for serious attacks and threats, and got this response. I don't think we need wait for the 24-hour block to expire and then another 'sneeze'. Per the commentary above, and, as Softlavender says, all the warnings on the user's page, it's time for an indef. I've done the deed. Bishonen | talk 19:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Thanks. Probably the best solution. Doug Weller talk 19:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • For the record, I didn't look deeply into this user's behavior but I did see a lot of other problems recorded on their talk page and their behavior was obviously indicative of someone who is either unwilling or unable to follow best practices here. Thee edit warring was so obvious, and so obviously needed to stop, that I just blocked both to accomplish that, but I'm fine with this too as this was obviously the direction the user was heading anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Indef block revoked. Yes, it's obviously what he's heading for, but when I placed the block notice, I realized that Ethanbas hadn't been alerted to this thread at all. Probably because both he and the OP were blocked for 24 hours by Beeblebrox a few minutes later. That's not an ideal situation, so I've undone the indef. Could somebody give him a really strong warning instead, please? Bishonen | talk 20:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC).
Yeah, I guess in light of that you didn't have much choice. These two users were reporting each other in so many different places that proper notification of this particular thread seem to have got lost in the shuffle. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, if he's not going to be indeffed at the moment, can someone please place a strongly worded Final warning on his talk page? That final warning should include any sort of B.S. on his part, including but not restricted to: incivility; personal attacks; aspersions; edit-warring; disruptive editing; creating short or unreferenced stubs; arguing with admins or experienced users; and templating editors. Softlavender (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: Well, I think this edit just now, following his statement above, is classic B.S.: posting a non-existent (redlink) article in his "Articles I've created" list. Evidently he just can't help himself from trolling. Kudpung, TonyBallioni, Doug Weller, Bishonen, Beeblebrox? -- Softlavender (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2017 (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.

Blackstache continues to add link to a site that ignores copyright of proper copyright holders on the Lichfield Gospels page[edit]

Issue is not ripe for this noticeboard. Editors should carefully read the WP:COPYLINK policy and then bring the issue to the attention of Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard if desired. Neutralitytalk 07:24, 25 February 2017 (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.

Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material, just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to CC BY-SA or open-source content.

I have tried to talk through issues of this site with Blackstache, but he is not acting as if an objective editor. First, he started by referring to comments on the talk page (of Lichfield Gospels) by PseudoAristarchus. These comments were off subject and ignored Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For instance, PseudoAristarchus claimed that "Wikipedia is not a courtroom" and Lichfield Cathedral could take the issue up in one if they didn't like the site. The whole post is rather bizarre and aggressive and significantly ignores Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Blackstache appears to have gone through all of the training modules. Therefore, it is odd that he would refer to these off-subject comments by PseudoAristarchus as reliable evidence. Furthermore, Blackstache has only added this one link in the 8 months that he has been an editor. If I remember correctly, PseudoAristarchus has only added this link and information to the Lichfield Gospels page that contradicts linked and reliable sources.

On the Talk page, I have directed the conversation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines about copyright and contributory copyright infringement. Blackstache, however, claims that external links have a "lower bar." I've quoted and linked to Wikipedia policy and guidelines about copyright and external links, quoting the copyright section. He has not responded.

Furthermore, Blackstache will not respond to the contract that I link to between the University of Kentucky and Lichfield Cathedral. It grants Creative Commons licensing for the images from the digitisation of "the manuscripts." It makes no mention of secondary materials. The link that Blackstache put up and that I took down goes to these secondary materials and erroneously claims CC rights. The contract can be found at I took a screenshot of it. I can supply them if it is helpful

Ignoring this posted contract, Blackstache countered with Readme files. These Readme files are written by someone named Blackwell (not listed in the Chronicle of Higher Education article and not listed as part of the imaging team for the Lichfield project). The files claim the copyright holder of these past images is Lichfield Cathedral. However, research shows that this is not true. For instance, copyright for the 1962 images is held by the Courtauld Institute of Art.

Blackstache is not operating like an objective editor. She or he has not responded to the evidence and link I presented for the contract. He or she quickly reported me on this board. She or he ignores or tries to rewrite Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In eight months, his or her only attempt at editing is to add this one link. I appreciate you taking a look at this editor. Wilshire01 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Wilshire01, this noticeboard is not for content disputes, which is what you complaint really is even though you don't realize it. Please take the problem issues to the dispute resolution board, or request a third opinion or mediation. Both of you are brand-new editors with less than 200 edits and need guidance. Also note that if you continue to post walls of text (as you have here and on the article's talk page), no one is going to pay attention to you.

Lastly, if you ever have actual cause to make a filing here at ANI, you need to provide WP:DIFFs of evidence instead of walls of text; you need to link the names of the editor(s) and article(s) you are talking about, and you need to notify any editors you are reporting, on their talk page, about the report (see the notice in read at the top of this page). Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • By the way, Drmies, could you take a look at the article in question, keep an eye on it, and restrain the edit-warring? (I see you have edited it in the past.) Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2017 (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.

Questionable blocks by Fram[edit]

The community has endorsed the blocks; no need to drag out discussion further. If either of the two users concerns wishes to appeal, they may do so. See Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Neutralitytalk 07:03, 25 February 2017 (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 concerned that Fram (talk · contribs) has recently blocked Cassianto (talk · contribs) and Singora (talk · contribs) for a month each for incivility and personal attacks. While I can't really condone the language used, I think this level of blocking is unwarranted and really does need a community review to determine whether it is appropriate or not. I have previously banged heads with Fram when he felt that telling another editor to "fuck off" was acceptable (and for this reason I have not undertaken the usual first step of a one-to-one conversation on their talk page), so I am going to stay out of the debate and request everyone else makes a decision. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I haven't followed the Cassianto situation, so I can't judge whether the 1 month block was appropriate. But regarding Singora, it's hard to criticise it when this is the response. Reyk YO! 10:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure given Cassianto and Singora's individual block history (not history with each other) how you could justify less than 1 month at this point for either. Cassianto was blocked for a week only in January for personal attacks (which was lifted by Ritchie after 2 days) and Singora was block in September for a week for personal attacks, with previous month-long blocks. Escalating blocks for repeat behaviour are standard. If this was a first offence this would be overkill. At this stage if anything 1 month is being leniant. If admins keep ending blocks for incivility/personal attacks early its no suprise repeat offenders keep offending. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse block of Singora only, Cassianto's block should have been rescinded or commuted to a much shorter one at the very least for reasons repeatedly noted on Cass' own talk page. Singora, however, summarily earned their 1 month block for gravedancing on Cassianto's talkpage. I really think that Fram's block of Singora was more of a "you can have one as well for being [insert descriptor here], of equal duration too" rather than simply "you're being uncivil, 1 month block". I.e., 1 month was not an arbitrary decision, it was very much calculated I think. I could be wrong though. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the time to request a block review of the Cassianto block was 3.5 weeks ago, when it was merited. Instead, people just whined and sniped at Fram either on Cassianto's TP or Fram's TP. In terms of the grave-dancing block, I don't really have an opinion, since grave-dancing is pretty low and the response to the block was utterly vulgar. I don't know that this thread is going to get much traction, since Cassianto has retired (which he has done in the past) and that block was, as I said, 3.5 weeks ago and nobody requested a block review even though many claimed to object to it (and objected to the length of it). Softlavender (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both per reason given and the gravedancing mentioned above. Also agree with Softlavender: way too late. Kleuske (talk) 10:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse block of Singora only and suggest an indefinite ban for consistent personal attacks and his general odious nature.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both I agree wholeheartedly with Only in death. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both, for Singora too short imho. Lectonar (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both. Cassianto has now had twelve separate blocks in just over two years, generally for personal attacks. I'd strongly suggest to Cassianto that the next block would be indefinite; most editors with this history would have already hit the indefinite mark. I'd probably have gone for a shorter block (two weeks) on Singora, but the reaction would most certainly warrant the same warning (next block will be indefinite) to that user, too. Shortening the block now would be a move in the wrong direction. While I am endorsing both blocks, I do think Ritchie333 was justified in raising them for discussion. --Yamla (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both actions by Fram per policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment Cassianto was blocked for a comment he didn't make, but simply restored. The comment was made by someone else. There was no warning re: the restoration-just the block. We hope (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Without re-litigating, editors are responsible for all their edits, including reverts. Where an editor reinstates material - they are considered to have looked at it and endorsed it. This is the same for content, for edits made by banned/blocked users that are reinstated, for non-content as well as article edits etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this. What you say is true for mainspace content, but not for talk pages. Editors might legitimately restore a reverted edit because they believed the revert to be inappropriate. That does not mean they are somehow now responsible for, or endorse, or in any way approve of the restored content. Paul August 15:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Editors are responsible for all their edits in all spaces. If an editor reverts an edit that has been removed, they are responsible for replacing the content. If they do not agree with it, they should not be replacing it. If they revert back a BLP violation or personal attack, they are responsible for the personal attack or BLP violating being visible regardless of who orginated it. It may be mitigating circumstances to a newbie, but not for experienced editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So if someone reverted your edit above (say because they disagreed with you) and I restored it, because I didn't think such a revert was appropriate, that would imply that I agreed with what you wrote??? Paul August 19:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this would drag out on here long before anyone came to a "consensus" to unblock Cassianto, who's block expires in a few days. The other one might be a bit hard, but I don't know the details, or care that much either. Neither user's block logs shower them with glory though. Maybe both users should have used the unblock request too. Harsh. Smarsh. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 14:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that since neither editor requested unblock, but instead either accepted it, replied with a personal attack, or re-retired, and since no one at the time requested a block review of the Cassianto block, this thread is pretty much moot. Especially when by this time it is evident that the filer has some sort of personal issue with the blocker (and vice versa, from what I've seen). Maybe a better thing would be for these two admins to stay out of each other's hair and refrain from commenting on each other's admin actions. Softlavender (talk) 05:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both. This is especially egregious and singularly disgusting. GABgab 16:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...someone blocks you for making personal attacks, so you personally attack them. No way is that ever gonna backfire. TimothyJosephWood 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Imagine if that's how it worked! Drmies (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well this is fun. This by Singora is among the most asinine comments I've seen in a long time (from a "real" editor--not counting trolls and racists), and the talk page comment they made in response to the ANI notification was reason enough for me to revoke talk page access. I do not know if simply revoking talk page access without lengthening the block will increase the size of my tiny penis, but I'll be glad to report back. As for Cassianto, well, they've made such comments before and they've been blocked for it before, but a month is pretty long and I feel bad for them that they had this unseemly gravedancer come by. Fram, would you settle for a "unblock: time served", out of the collective kindness of your heart and mine? After all the blocking we've done on this project, we surely have huge cocks, and nothing left to prove. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm definitely seeing some potential here for Adminship is not a method for penis enlargement. TimothyJosephWood 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I would have changed it to an indef block for that remark, as opposed to just revoking the talk page, but I'll defer for now, despite my massive girth. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse block of Singora only - They should've been indeffed for their remarks alone. –Davey2010Talk 20:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Endorse both blocks, recommend ban for Singora. As noted above, it would have been ideal to review Cassianto's block back when it was originally handed down. At any rate, the user has retired, and based on their track record I see no reason for ending the block early. As for Singora, their grave-dancing post was only their third edit of 2017, and it strikes me as rather illogical that they would taunt someone else for repeatedly retiring when they are also not consistently active. That, combined with the juvenile response to Fram's justified block, suggests to me that Singora should be banned as they are no longer here to create an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2017 (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]

Blocked for three months. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2017 (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.

Another talk page legal threat from User: ("wikipedia is not allowed to under law to print anything with my name from this moment on and note that is a threat of legal action"), apparently block evasion by User:Palkanetoijala. --McGeddon (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

It's another "Yeah, whatever" legal threat but it fails WP:NLT.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I thought he was blocked by someone on the helpdesk yesterday? - X201 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Found it - X201 (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Tube challenge right? TBH, I dont know why we just cant remove their name. Its not as if it is vital, given they operated as a partnership it can easily be rephrased as 'So and so and partner'. They are a completely non-notable individual otherwise, they are not a public figure, and essentially their only achivement is being able to run quite fast from tube to tube. While wikipedia does not respond to legal threats (and this person's threats are indeed, laughable) there is nothing preventing us from not publishing someones name who doesnt rate an article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
A couple of years ago this user was trying to cut a strange plea bargain with Wikipedia, demanding that the article include James's (then-unsourced) 2015 fastest time, and that if we didn't, we weren't allowed to mention James's name as a past record holder either. I'm not sure what his reason is now.
I don't think it's ever been confirmed that the person removing the name is actually James; this could be somebody who wants to remove a rival's name from the article. All attempts to contact the user through private email seem to have ended in more legal threats. --McGeddon (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
As regards your rival thought. Having done some quick research into Tube challenge yesterday, it does seem like there's a bit of animosity between some of the parties involved in the challenge. - X201 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME applies here, but Guinness World Records is a reliable source and Wikipedia cannot have a blanket ban on mentioning people who are named in it. If there are concerns, they should be raised without making legal threats.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Not just Guinness, there are news reports which name him explicitly *used as sources in the article* so even if we did as a courtesy remove it from the prose, it would still be viewable in the references. I am just pointing out there is nothing really preventing us from doing it. Its really not a big deal. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Definitely a blockable legal threat, and the 31 hours may not be long enough, although he's probably an IP-hopper. As to mentioning what he allege to be his name, he should take up his argument with the sources for that name. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Why is he/she making legal threats in the first place? From what I have read he is claiming to be the subject of the content he is named in? Has he been told to email Wikimedia about this issue? ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
What, you don't think it makes sense to do a meaningless stunt designed to attract attention, and then sue when it attracts attention? In any event, a block has already been issued fo rblock evasion. It seems clea their legal threats are without merit, if there is some basis that's up to the Foundation lawyers to deal with. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox: Prima facie it looks like it could be frivolous however, I would simply say that however annoying it seems to be the best course would be to tell him to email legal and if he continues with his epilogue then it would be a good reason to block for disruption. By the looks of it, editors have already tried to reason with him but I am not all that sure. Like I said, perhaps he is angry legitimately otherwise he might be a complete troll but sometimes the best way to deal with them is to say “go to legal” if they keep on... ignore then block, that’s how I would approach it at least. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Beeblebrox: With this said, the person is operating sockpuppets and disruptively editing the article in question which doesn’t seem like the rationale thing someone would do if they had access to a lawyer and a genuine legal concern. After having noted these I think you are right, seems like it’s a troll really. It’s strange what people do on Wikipedia beeble, and I don’t know half of it but apparently I have just learnt people will do all sorts. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment: From what I read of his threat to take legal action he seems to be dismayed that what he claims is his name is being used in an article. I’d think the best way to deal with it is tell him to email [[17]] with his complaint so they can deal with it if need be. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 22:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh, yeah, Andi. He has been threatening to sue Wikipedia for a couple of years now under the claim that he has a "copyright" on his name. It originally started when he repeatedly tried to "publish" an unofficial record to the article, but was reverted by several editors do to verifiability. He has been fuming about it ever since. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Is a longer block justified, or is he an IP-hopper anyway so it wouldn't matter? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      • I just extended it to three months about ten minutes ago. --NeilN talk to me 03:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      • In the past, he would just hop to a new IP. Not much you can really do beyond WP:RBI. —Farix (t | c) 04:17, 25 February 2017 (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.

Reversion of an edit[edit]

Wrong venue. This is a content dispute. See WP:DR for suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I edited the other day, and User:Codename Lisa reverted the whole thing, with the comment

Reverted poor writing. The worst part was bringing an "although" after a "however".

So I put back my version with the comment

If you think my writing is poor, then improve it instead of reverting. But there's nothing wrong with "However, although". "However" introduces a contrast to what came before, and "although" introduces a clause which is slightly contrary to what follows.

Now she has reverted me again, saying

The first time I reverted it, it was good faith blunder. Now, I am reverting deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness.

I would like a third opinion. I think my reply was polite and to the point, and doesn't deserve to be called "deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Eric, it's not for ANI, but it's related to grammar and stuff and I enjoy that, so I'll give you a second opinion: "However, although" is fine. For example, this and this, that's fine writing. However, your "actually" in that last sentence is, hmm, well, not pretty (and almost editorial), and I generally disapprove of "This was because". Codename Lisa, "Now, I am reverting deliberate vandalism born of stubbornness" was completely uncalled for. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (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.

Request for ban of user Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

We generally don't ban people when they're actually correct. And especially not due to reports that contain multiple factual inaccuracies. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (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 requested for Piriczki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to be banned previously and he has been warned but yet continues to edit disruptively. As stated before, he has no regard for facts or citations of verifiable sources. Every time I ask him to provide a source for his edits he replies with "Fake news, very unfair" or "Unfair" without justifying his claims of me posting fake news. As suggested by Wikipedia Administrators, I have complained on this page before and am doing so again, I have tried to discuss it personally with him on his talk page but he has refused to comply and deleted my requests for him to behave in an orderly fashion. I am the only one who is actually willing to discuss this issue as he does not wish to do so. He also shows signs of editing page to suit his liking and shows a tremendous amount of bias when it comes to edits. His talk page too is full of complaints from other users. I further state that he has also removed the warning from Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from his talk page. I say that I have not engaged in edit warring with him as I have been warned not to do so again but he continues to try and undermine all that is good here at Wikipedia. I further state that on the current page we are having a dispute over, List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I have cited verifiable sources for all my edits like the RIAA and he has failed to do so on multiple occasions and claims that I am posting fake news. I sincerely request that someone look into this situation carefully and have him banned as he is completely and utterly non-compliant with other users and does what he wishes without giving any justification for his actions. Thank You.

Link to his talk page : User talk:Piriczki (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Page we are currently having a dispute over : List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),

Talk page of the page we are having a dispute over : Talk:List of best-selling albums by year in the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Lord NnNn (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Actually, Piriczki has stated multiple reliable sources on the talk page, and you've ignored him completely and changed the article to an incorrect state through your misunderstanding of the source you used (you used a RIAA link which shows total all time sales of an album, not those for a particular year, 1992 in this case). I've changed the article in line with the reliable sources that Piriczki showed. As well as those claims being incorrect, I don't see his talkpage being "full of complaints" nor any "tremendous amounts of bias" in his edits. In other words, practially all of your complaint is incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2017 (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 page harassment after warning by JordanGero[edit]

JordanGero (talk · contribs) is formally warned to discontinue their harassment of GregJackP. If they do not adhere to this warning they will be blocked from editing, without further warning. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could someone tell JordanGero (talk · contribs) to stay the hell off of my talk page?

After he left a wall of BS text here, he was told, albeit not as clearly as I should have, to stay away. He returned today and left another wall of BS, here. At that point I warned him to stay off of my page, here, so of course he returns with yet more BS here.

Those have been his only edits since May 28, 2016. I don't contribute anymore, but I still get notices from my talk page, and would just as soon not hear from assholes. GregJackP Boomer! 01:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Warning issued. GregJackP On which note, it is important that everyone remain WP:CIVIL when interacting with one another. This is especially true during disagreements. I note a distinct shortfall in that civility all around in this case. Please consider this a formal caution. Your RETIRED notice does not exempt you from the rules of polite behavior around here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This user (GregJackP) had made racist commentary in a previous discussion between us (here). I am specifically referencing his racist statement "your people tried to exterminate my people" (which is an attempt to stigmatize on the basis of race) and his fallacious accusations of "historical revisionism" (the closest I came to "historical revisionism" was mistaking Lord Amherst, a high-ranking officer in the British Army, for a lieutenant). This form of racism is arguably one of the most noxious examples of the weaponization of victimization, and it is not to be tolerated in civil discourse because of its extremely detrimental effect on race relations and general ethical integrity.
After I spoke to him about this on his talk page, he deleted my comments and called me a moron, claiming that he was "retired". I explained to him that being "retired" does not immunize him from legitimate criticism, and subsequently asked him to cease posting on my own talk page or replying to me on his, and if so, I would no longer communicate with him. Now he opens up this incident report, calling my comments "BS" and continuing to deflect from his sickening racist statements and to rely on the fact that he no longer contributes to Wikipedia (i.e., he is "retired") to immunize him from critique over such statements. This kind of behavior is contrary to numerous policies in effect regarding editing on Wikipedia. There was absolutely no need for this incident report: my last post on his talk page made it clear that I would no longer post on his page, as long as he did not reply to me on my page or on his page. Additionally, though not determinative, his argument that he keeps receiving notices from his talk page is unpersuasive for two reasons: 1) I was only replying to him because he continues to reply to me; and 2) he can easily disable notifications if he likes. Presently, given that this user has not replied to my last post on his talk page, I have no reason to continue a conversation with him, whether on my talk page or his.
More substantively, I formally request an apology from this user for attempting to stigmatize me on the basis of my race (which he does not actually know, but has assumed that I am of European decent) with the statement "your people tried to exterminate my people". Apparently, this user is of Native American descent, and believes that I am of European descent. Not only is the substance of his statement one that is historically contested (I won't get into that here), but it represents a cherry-picking of history and a generalizing of all those of European heritage, regardless if they had any direct or indirect involvement with the conquest of the New World, under that selected and isolated historical banner, which a most disturbing and skewed worldview. I explained to this user that I could have very easily made statements about how "his people" engaged in savage practices of human sacrifice, brutal tribalism, and primitive rituals, spending most of their miserable lives trying to survive, and that he now gets to enjoy the comforts of modern society, including having a lifespan 2-3 times what it used to be and easy access to medical care, mostly due to the technological and social advances that are were largely the product of white people. But I did not and would not make such statements because I am not a racist prick who stigmatizes people on the basis of race by cherry-picking only those historical events that serve my prejudices, only to evaluate them through the lens of modern-day ethics and use such evaluation to override the individuality of people simply because they look one way or the other. I have NO RIGHT to do this, and neither does this user have the RIGHT to stigmatize ME on the basis of MY race, and then not only falsely accuse me of "historical revisionism", but use his status as a minority as a SHIELD to IMMUNIZE HIM from his RACIST STATEMENTS. NOT FUCKING OK.
I repeat: I formally request an apology from this user for attempting to stigmatize me on the basis of my race. Thank you. JordanGero (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Not going to happen; that's not how Wikipedia works: apologies cannot be demanded or insisted upon. The comment was 1.5 years ago (and the editor has long since retired from Wikipedia). The other user has been warned, and I will re-warn him: GregJackP, if you make any further comments similar to this [18], your retirement is going to be formalized in a way you probably do not wish it to be. Now, JordanGero, stay off of GregJackP's talkpage as he has requested, or else you will end up blocked from editing. WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop posting walls of text here; move on please. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
If it was 1.5 years ago, what even brought it up today? El_C 09:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
That, my friend, is a most excellent question, especially since it is a regurgitation of this: [19]. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2017 (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.

Death threat[edit]

Blocked for one week for threat.
(non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Giangkiefer came to my attention at the Teahouse, where another editor warned them about personal attacks. Looking at their recent edit history, I noticed this gem of an edit summary: "‎I created 'Súbeme La Radio', someone move my article and I will kill that person". Please, would an administrator take some firm action here? Thank you very much. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked the user for one week for that generic threat and personal attack. El_C 06:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the righteous block, El C. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 25 February 2017 (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.


Ah, mystery solved. Thanks for catching that. El_C 14:44, 25 February 2017 (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 probably the wrong forum, but an article DWRY-FM has just been created and I have several recollections in the past of such articles being created by block evading socks of a persistent sock puppeteer. Not being an admin, I don't have ready access to the background, but it would be good if someone with knowledge could give this a once over. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   10:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing anything. El_C 11:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Velella and El C: Thanks for reporting Velella. There's a LTA, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bertrand101, out there that constantly creates hoax articles on fake Philippine radio stations. Given that all the sources in this article were dead links or led to pages with no mention of DWRY-FM, I've deleted the article and indeffed the creator. --NeilN talk to me 14:38, 25 February 2017 (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.

Request for Admin attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Bride[edit]

Article deleted at AfD. Lyrda, don't summarize views in a discussion you are involved in. That's what admins and other experienced closers are for. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2017 (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.

Greetings all, apologies for posting this here - if it's not the appropriate venue then please feel free to direct me to the correct one. Anyway, can an uninvolved Admin please take a look at this AfD discussion? The behaviour of Lyrda (who is apparently an editor with a Conflict of Interest, here solely to promote Kristina Pimenova - a non-notable model/actress) has crossed the line from belligerence to all-out disruption and forum-shopping to push their point of view, burying legitimate comments in the AfD with nebulous, irrelevant, repetitive "I can't hear you"-style walls of text. If someone could hat, or collapse, the stuff that has no policy-based bearing on the discussion - which I'll openly admit may include my grumpy responses - then that may encourage more participants. Notified Lyrda of this discussion here Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 11:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

IMHO we have enough participants, with input from the RS Noticeboard added (a user familiar with films, which Exemplo347 is not). What we do need is structure, which the proposer failed to provide and was therefore provided by me. Not a single user, Exemplo347, who keeps repeating the same minority view in every thread and keeps personally attacking the creator of the article. Lyrda (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lyrda: Can you supply evidence of these personal attacks, I'm not seeing anything there. Amortias (T)(C) 12:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I've also collapsed an off topic discussion about the reliability of sources. Changing consensus on what is and isn't a WP:RS inst a discussion for an AFD. Amortias (T)(C) 12:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Amortias: It's been uncollapsed (is that a word?) here. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You collapsed several people's views, so I undid your edit. Furthermore, the reliability of sources is essential for notability and should therefore be discussed. It is not a vote. Lyrda (talk) 13:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
The afd is a discussion on how the article does/doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion as currently set, it shouldn't be a general forum for discussion on if the policy is correct or not, this should be taken to a RFC or discussed at the RS noticeboard. Amortias (T)(C) 13:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Your best bet at this point would be to copy the article to a text file on your PC, so you can restore it intact when (or if) the film in question meets notability standards. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I have a reasonably wide experience of AfD discussions but here's a question that hasn't occurred to me before: is it really appropriate for one participant in a dicussion to summarise the views of other participants? I'm not asking only about this discussion, but from a more general perspective. My own view is that no, it shouldn't be done in an AfD, it's the job of the reviewing administrator to read each participant's arguments as phrased by that person, and any ambiguity has to be interpreted by the admin, not go through an additional layer of interpretation by a third party. Posting to an AfD is (for me) usualy a balance between being too terse and potentially ambiguous, and posting a wall of text that nobody will read. As a result, my posts will always be much more simplified than my actual opinion, and so for somebody else to post a simplification of that post may very well result in something that's not at all representative for what I think. Just my POV of course, and there is nothing in WP:DISCUSSAFD that I can see about paraphrasing other people's views. Am I completely off base? I can understand the wish of anybody with a tidy mind to want to make a tidy summary, I just don't think it actually helps the discussion, especially not if it's done while the discussion is still ongoing... --bonadea contributions talk 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally I've never seen it done before, and I find it to be particularly disingenuous - it's not as if I don't make my opinions crystal clear, is it? Exemplo347 (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts) Of course, although I'm aware that it's always subjective. I did not particularly appreciate the comments listed below.

There are other concerns regarding this user as well, such as removing current talk from their talkpage.[20][21] Lyrda (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to be summarizing others' views (which is a questionable thing to do) you should at least group them by "Keep" and "Delete" rather than throwing them together. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, it's not a vote. I prefer a structured approach, where independence, reliability and significance are discussed in that order, before participants give their final judgement. Lyrda (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
You should delete that summarization, then. It's redundant and possibly misleading. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If anyone feels that I've made personal attacks, speak up now. The edits provided above are pretty routine commentary - I'm particularly confused by the one about canvassing, as Lyrda had made a similar comment about other editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with Afds[edit]

What we have in this deletion discussion is a division between two camps.

  1. Users familiar with deletions, quick to arrive, quick to vote but hesitant to elaborate or discuss, impatient.
  2. Users familiar with the content (here: films), slow to arrive, prepared to take time, patient, ready to provide arguments for their point of view.

I've since looked at other deletion discussions and it strikes me that most are structured as a vote, i.e. for the convenience of the first group. That is not very helpful to the second group of users. Lyrda (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD as delete. --NeilN talk to me 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

That deals with the issue, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks NeilN. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how you can conclude that consensus had been formed, but you have the buttons. It certainly doesn't deal with Exemplo347's behaviour, which if left unaddressed is bound to continue. Lyrda (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Lyrda: It's easy to avoid that behavior. Don't summarize other editors' views in a discussion you are heavily involved in. If you do, and there are objections, strike or collapse the summary. --NeilN talk to me 14:28, 25 February 2017 (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.

Undoing an inappropriate user page move[edit]

Page moved back to its correct location. Amortias (T)(C) 14:30, 25 February 2017 (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.

On Feb 15 User:Jorgemataemancipation moved his/her user-page to Wikipedia:Dr. Simon E. Mills, see diff here. Clearly, that move is inappropriate, but I cannot undo it now, since in the meantime the user-page User:Jorgemataemancipation has been made into a redirect to an article space page Dr. Simon E. Mills. I request that an admin clean this up (presumably the redirect needs to be deleted first). Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They'd moved User talk:Jorgemataemancipation rather than User:Jorgemataemancipation to Wikipedia:Dr. Simon E. Mills. I've moved it back and suppressed the redirect. Amortias (T)(C) 14:27, 25 February 2017 (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.

Jamesoban Advertisement only account[edit]

User Jamesoban informed by NeilN of WP:COI guidelines. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 17:21, 25 February 2017 (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.

Notification to other users involved as witnesses: @Boneymau: @Eggishorn: @RHaworth:

Seems to be a promotion only account. Has created several advertisement only articles which are taking people’s time to try and deal with.

Needs a block so advertising content can be speedy deleted without keep going back to AfD and wasting people’s time.

ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Of their articles created, there are two already deleted as spam and one that is an enlarged version of one of the deleted articles that I've nominated for AfD. Not a good look, I agree. In contrast, their other contributions are mostly small changes to theater articles almost entirely about musical theater in the UK. It looks like the account of somebody that is a theater fan or who works in the UK musical scene. I believe a block is inappropriate at this time, because here's no evidence they have been counseled on article creation. As a project, article creation is an often-bewildering experience for inexperienced editors, and what is considered acceptable and what is not is scattered in manifold different areas. The current AfD article, for example is not a copy vio and appears to be the editor's own, if exhaustive, plot summary. They appear to be trying to re-create an article and address the reasons that was eliminated. Also, they have edited on a total of 7 days spread out over less than a year and a half and last touched the project in July, 2015. This is hardly an active issue that needs swift admin action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
They last edited about twenty days ago. That deleted article also referenced Kouban Productions so we may have something of a COI issue here. I've left a COI message on their talk page. --NeilN talk to me 15:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: You raised good and balanced points above which I will take into my future editing as an experience learnt. You’re right, it can be daunting for new editors to create new articles. The only thing I would personally say about this which gives more weight of being bad faith over good faith edits seems to be this users apparent extended knowledge at the use of tables, templates and such. This provides me a reasonable suspicion that the user knows enough of what he is doing to be able to know that his work is advertising. Furthermore, one of the articles that has been nominated for deletion ages ago was re-created by him recently despite the fact it had previously been deleted from Wikipedia for advertising. With this said, what you mentioned is noted and perhaps I should have been less hasty to request a ban. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 15:54, 25 February 2017 (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) Handled. Kleuske (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2017 (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.

Persistent disruptive unsourced, unexplained edits, ignoring multiple warnings. See Ghost in the Shell (1995 film) and Pink Floyd – The Wall and others. - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Blocked, 48 hours. Primefac (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanx, - Mlpearc (open channel) 20:24, 25 February 2017 (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.

Thomas Campbell (Australian politician) - Triptothecottage referral re: copyright investigation[edit]

This issue is now being dealt with off-wiki through OTRS -- Samtar talk · contribs 11:27, 26 February 2017 (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 Admin,

Please refer below discussions re: Triptothecottage referring information provided by me on my gg grandfather for copyright investigation.


bwsg70 (aka Brendan Garner)

re: Thomas Campbell (Australian politician)

Hello Triptothecottage,

The edit in question which prompted you to contact me was a hyper link to the town of Westport, Mayo, Ireland being the birthplace of my gg grandmother, Mary Campbell (nee Hanley). Further, re: copyright, if you noticed I provided information to the Qld Parliament in the first instance re: my gg grandfather, Thomas Campbell, and therefore it does not or should not fall within the definition of breach (of Wiki copyright). Accordingly, it would be greatly appreciated if you lift the current status of Thomas's Wiki page (eg. it is blocked or the like).

Thank you. Kind regards,

bwsg70 25/2/2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwsg70 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   @Bwsg70: Please explain the situation at this page. An administrator will asses the situation from here. Unfortunately, it is often very difficult to tell who the owner of the copyright is. In this case, I have sent it for investigation because it may be the case that only some of the material is copyright. Please ask if you have any more questions. Triptothecottage (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
   Template:Triptothecottage That's a tad authoritarian, this is my original work, indeed a significant increase on the original brief, which I have, as indicated, provided to the Qld Parliament. There was no need for you to interject in the first instance and send it for investigation if you carried out some basic checks. Very disappointing. I write not merely from a historical standpoint as per my history undergrad from university, but more precisely based on core evidence. Again, very disappointing that you decided to interject without some basic checks and asking. Perhaps this is why you step on toes and thus issues become messy when they don't have to in the first instance. Please revert the page to its initial status.
   Template:Triptothecottage Incidentally, the onus should not be on me to explain myself further via an additional process as instigated by you. Common sense surely must prevail. All the best. Regards, bwsg70 (aka Brendan Garner, that is if you actually wish to check the Qld Parliament link).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwsg70 (talkcontribs) 13:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC) 
What would like us to do? Please don't just copy conversations; try to be concise. Are you able to prove that you provided the content to the site? El_C 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
This is straightforward. The content of the article is closely similar to that of the Queensland Parliament biography, and Triptothecottage was absolutely right to blank it and list it at WP:CP. However much we'd like to, we can't simply accept an editor's word for copyright ownership – we have no way of knowing if an editor is the person he/she claims to be, or of knowing for certain whether an editor is telling the truth (unfortunately, not quite everybody always does!). We don't apply "common sense" to apparent copyright violations, we apply our copyright policy.
Bwsg70, all that's needed for this to be resolved and for the article to be restored is for Brendan Garner to email us permission for the text, as explained at WP:CONSENT. Once you've done that, you should receive an automated reply with a long number beginning "2017" – that is your OTRS ticket number. If you post that number on the talk-page of the article, I'll look for your email, process the permission, and restore the article. It shouldn't take more than a few days.
I do see that all this may seem authoritarian or indeed unnecessary. But it's for the protection of authors' copyrights as well as the integrity of Wikipedia. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

talk Wow, I can see why so many people get frustrated with Wiki...well it isn't really a is a perplexing process with absolutely no common sense. I am unsure how I can confirm or provide proof - my original uni Email account (eg. undergrad) from the time wherein I forwarded 2 briefs is no longer in place - I have since returned to uni for post grad studies and the uni Email system has changed, thus I don't have access to the original Email's, which I forwarded quite some time ago. I am Brendan Garner. I am unsure how to send you an Email. I prepared 2 briefs, one for the Qld Parliament, which they have acknowledged as a footnote on the bottom of their link whilst the second brief was provided to ANU (Australian National University) for their ADB (Australian Dictionary of Biography). My brief has passed both academic tests - Qld Parliament published and ADB is pending. Again, I am unsure how to Email you, however, I am Brendan Garner and give permission to myself to publish this information on Wiki's perplexing process web site. As Triptothecottage indicated "An administrator will asses the situation from here", surely I have provided sufficient information for you to lift the ban, which Triptothecottage put in place. If it assists as I would like this unnecessary alleged copyright issue resolved in a timely manner, I can provide you with my current uni Email address. Bwsg70 Footnote: I have, just now, forwarded an Email from my uni Email account to Wiki's generic Email address and it has been received, Ticket#: 2017022510014681. Unsure where to paste this on the talk section of the article so I have pasted it at the top where Triptothecottage started this whole unnecessary drama. I shouldn't have to go to this extent over an issue such as this. Still perplexed and shaking my head at Wiki. Bwsg70

Sorry, but copyright claims need verification—simply taking someone's word for it is not enough. Hopefully, you are able to demonstrate you are, indeed, the contributor. El_C 05:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This thread is already about as long as the article itself. The OP can solve this very simply by just paraphrasing his own work. EEng 05:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

El_C I repeat, it is not a copyright claim as I am the author as per my initial brief provided to the Qld Parliament, which again is provided as a reference by them in the link. I can now see why my history lecturers at uni laugh at Wiki and I can't believe what I have had to do to confirm this silly process. Again, Email has been sent as per ref. 2017022510014681 and I await confirmation that Triptothecottage's silly decision is reversed. Bwsg70

@Bwsg70: Please understand that I have no personal issues with you or your work. Yes, the copyright policy is a little tedious and complicated, but it exists to protect the original work of authors such as yourself. It is always better to have these things out in the open than hanging around with lingering suspicion. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Brendan. I'll try and make this concise. I'll also put this on your userpage, with some further expansion.
1. Who holds the copyright to the Campbell, Mr Thomas Joseph webpage?
The Parliament of Queensland does. At the bottom left of the web-page is "Copyright © 2011 All rights reserved". Here is that website's copyright notice.
2. Why is there a copyright investigation going on?
Because Wikipedia must not include text that is subject to copyright.

You may perhaps recognise the Shirt58 image on my user page as UQ colours. When I lived in Brisbane, I actually studied at QUT.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Shirt58, Wiki is a joke and again I can only reiterate why professionals such as historians and academics generally are of the view that Wiki is considered inappropriate, particularly research, writing and using it as a reference base. YOU CAN ATTEMPT TO BE AS CONCISE AS YOU WANT, BUT I WROTE THE BRIEF, IT IS MY INFORMATION, IT IS BASED ON MY RESEARCH AND COLLATION OF CORE EVIDENCE OVER THE LAST 5 TO 10 YEARS. WHAT A DISAPPOINTING JOURNEY AND OUTCOME, HOWEVER, I WAS WARNED BY PROFESSIONALS. THE IRONIC TWIST, I FOUND MY ORIGINAL BRIEF SUBMITTED TO THE QLD PARLIAMENT, THE VERSION PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEB SITE IS WORD FOR WORD. Bwsg70 —Preceding undated comment added 11:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bwsg70: An email has been sent to you today with the next steps you need to take - please read it carefully and respond to it. Thank you. -- Samtar talk · contribs 11:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Samtar, if you actually read the above trail you would have noted that I have already. I'm a tad over this silly debate. The Administrator will either lift the ban put in place by Triptothecottage or they won't. I'm not interested in any further discussions as I should have listened to my lecturer. Bwsg70

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.

New account forum-shopping some kind of I-P complaint[edit]

ארינמל (talk · contribs)

As I pointed out here the account is almost certainly in violation of an ArbCom sanction, but do I really need to figure out how to open an AE report on this issue? Does anyone else know how to do it? Or how to warn the account that the General Prohibition exists?

Is it even a technical requirement to report violations of the General Prohibition on AE rather than here? I really don't know, and I've got something of a headache at the moment so I don't have the energy to figure it out for myself.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I closed the discussion at RSN, at the very least. Also gave the user a DS/alert. El_C 10:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems like the right move. And thank you for notifying the account of the ARBPIA sanctions as well. I think we might be done here, unless the account does something stupid. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't really understand what violation I've committed. Validating the reliability of said data is certainly relevant to the purpose of Wikipedia, and I was in line with the standards of behavior and the policies as far as I can tell. Kind regards --ארינמל (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
@ארינמל: I sympathize. Arbitration Committee sanctions can sometimes be somewhat impenetrable, which is why my own commeng above was so confused. Put simply, accounts with less than 500 edits and less than a month since their first edit are not allowed make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict except on article talk pages. Your first edit, therefore, was acceptable, but posting the same thing on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard was not. At least as far as I understand it. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Looking for broader community input[edit]

Good evening ladies and gentlemen.
There has been a recent discussion on my talk page which I would appreciate if you could go take a look at (User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi#Second eye..) for the full picture. But in summary, we have User:MilenaGlebova1989 who has created 154 short articles on individual Yoga positions (or 'asanas'). Winged Blades of Godric and Cyphoidbomb are doubtful they are notable, are poorly sourced- mostly WP:PRIMARY- and ought to be redirected to our List of asanas article. There being so many qualifies them, I suggest, for this single, centralised discussion to take place.
So in the interest of wider discussion, in appreciation of the benefits that 'the intervention of administrators and experienced editors' can bring (and hoping someone will know of a means of mass-redirecting if that is indeed the conclusion), here we are. No particular administrative action is requested- except, again, if there are tools available to redirect en masse- although it is probably worth noting that if this had been replied to, something could have been worked out earlier and we may not have to be here now. Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Redirect - As I noted on Fortuna's talk page, if this were a single article, I would have redirected to the List of asanas article on the basis that independent notability had not been properly established, but given that we're talking about 154 or so cookie-cutter stubs, it seems a massive undertaking to perform without discussion--and frankly, without help. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect--As the iniator of the discussion, I find zero-notability in these standgalone stubs and propose an en-masse redirect to List of asanas. Winged Blades Godric 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Creative commons says: "The 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike allows contributions to be licensed under under a “Creative Commons Compatible License,” defined to mean licenses approved by CC as essentially equivalent to the 3.0 Attribution-ShareAlike license. To date, CC has not approved any other licenses as compatible. However, CC will develop a compatibility process shortly following launch of the 4.0 licenses."[23] Also see:[24]. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect, absolutely. Having spot checked a dozen of the articles I didn't find a single one that did more than mention the name of the pose, as well as some WP:NOTHOWTO violating advice and a list of titles (with links for refs) of books that describe it - no indication of notability, and the articles look like spam magnets for various publications that mention them. It may even be the case that they were created in order to name-drop the author of the book and website that the images were taken from, given that all the images appear to have the same source - the same user has created articles about both the author and the book, in addition to all the asanas. (If so, we should be grateful that there are only 154 articles, given that the book apparently lists more than 2000 of them...) --bonadea contributions talk 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good note about the spam potential, Bonadea. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks very much Bonadea: does this kind of thing increase google hits, or something, d'you think? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it is likely that some SEO people believe that it does, anyway - I have very little idea of how google's rankings work, but spamming the name of a person or product to various pages is something I see happen occasionally. That's not a reason in itself to delete the pages I guess, but it makes my spam spider senses go all tingly... --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is very clearly a content issue, not a behavioural one, even down to the manner in which the OP has formulated the matter here. While I think it is advisable to seek outside perspectives, unless there is an implication of an underlying behavioural problem (and Fortuna has made no indication of such here), then this is just not the forum for this. I'd suggest WP:RfC, WP:VPP, WP:CD, and possibly WP:AfD (or some combination thereof) as potential appropriate forums for holding a straw poll or otherwise soliciting perspectives on the content. If the implication of this discussion were that MilenaGlebova1989 is likely to deviate from consensus on this matter, or otherwise behave disruptively, that's another matter, but Fortuna has explicitly stated that no particular administrative action is being sought. If it's just a matter of getting someone with more expansive tools to do the redirects en masse, that can be accomplished by making that request at AN (or of an admin directly) after a consensus on the content issue is reached at an appropriate forum, but ANI is not the place to host a content strawpoll itself. Snow let's rap 21:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The OP ws posting on behalf of others, including an aministrator. In fact, it is 154 content disputes but only *one* incident :) Cheers, O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 17:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that it's totally pragmatic to host one discussion on this matter, but ANI is just not the place for content discussions, for numerous reasons. If there's a behavioural issue that you'd like to raise in clear terms, this is the place to discuss that matter (but not the related content issues). Otherwise, I think you'll find that WP:AfD routinely hosts discussions for deleting/redirecting large numbers of articles all linked by a common nucleus of a single author or issue (See WP:BUNDLE). Snow let's rap 18:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Collaborate Lots of good work and sourcing research went into those articles, which are collectively about a significant encyclopedic topic. Rather than a sweeping replacement with redirects, perhaps the contributor would like to help merge some groups of them into a more comprehensive set of bigger articles. "List of asanas" is very underdocumented by comparison. I don't see serious issues with leaving most of them as-is (a few specific ones are bogus/spammy or need rewriting).

    In any case, we should be encouraging this new and hard-working content contributor to keep writing up this info, and just switch to a different format than making 100s of tiny separate articles. Wiping it all out is a terrible way to do that. I don't see any contributions from Milena in that discussion on Fortuna's user talk, either. Added: what, is some redirection operation under way right now? (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Followup comment: attention-getting block MilenaGlebova1989 appears to have never responded to any post on her user talk page, and may not even know that she has one. I think doing a pile of mechanical redirects in that situation is not nice. It's probably better to resort to an "attention-getting block", urging the person to discuss the situation with the articles. The talk message and log entry should both be written with understanding, rather than using templates or boilerplate. (talk) 06:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I only did 40 of the redirects, but I checked each one of those and there was no unique and salvageable content there. They all followed the exact same format: there was a brief introduction which duplicated what was already in List of asanas (which is where the articles were redirected), there was some medical advice and allegations about medical benefits/dangers which violated both WP:HOWTO and WP:MEDICAL, and there was what amounted to a list of spam, in the form of books that mentioned the asana in question (with various and other inappropriate links). There was almost no actual reliable sources, but several less than reliable ones. It sucks to have one's hard work reverted, but since the article's creator has not responded for over a month despite several attempts to engage her in conversation, it is difficult to see what else could be done. (The user created an archive for her talk page back in December, so she is definitely aware that it exists, and she has edited since the conversation started.) The medical advice and the commercial spam would have had to go even if the articles had not been redirected. --bonadea contributions talk 14:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mexicali IP range (177.239.*) abuse[edit]

The currently unblocked ranges have been rangeblocked for one month by NinjaRobotPirate. (non-admin closure) Softlavender (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2017 (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 stumbled upon some long term abuse (about 7 months) from an IP subnet. A number of IPs in this range have been blocked for disruptive editing. The editing patterns are the same. See below for details. Expand table to see IPs and details.

My question is (1) can/should the most recent IP be blocked and (2) should I set up a specially titled SPI for this user since they have used a named account yet?

Habit: editing on cartoon and video game related pages. Copy-pastes the page or section name into the edit summary. Adds tons of categories, especially "cancelled" categories and ones related to international broadcast channels.

Example edits: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]

ISP: Cablemas Telecomunicaciones SA de CV

IP address Date Number edits Geolocation Notes (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 17 June - 21 July 2016 109 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 01:16, 5 October 2016 by Drmies for 72 hours
Blocked on 23:33, 3 October 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 30 July - 11 August 2016 19 Mexicali, MX (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 20-28 August 2016 8 Mexicali, MX (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 1-5 October 2016 11 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 01:16, 5 October 2016 by Drmies for 72 hours
Blocked on 23:33, 3 October 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 5-6 November 2016 20 Mexicali, MX (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 12-13 November 2016 21 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 04:03, 13 November 2016 by Materialscientist for 24 hours (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 15 November - 4 December 2016 77 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 23:23, 4 December 2016 by Widr for 3 months
Blocked on 17:27, 20 November 2016 by Favonian for 2 weeks
Blocked on 16:42, 16 November 2016 by RickinBaltimore for 72 hours
Blocked on 04:38, 15 November 2016 by Materialscientist for 31 hours (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 8-12 February 2017 48 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 23:17, 12 February 2017 by Ad Orientem for 1 week
Blocked on 08:49, 12 February 2017 by Materialscientist for 1 week
Blocked on 04:19, 9 February 2017 by Oshwah for 31 hours (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 16-18 February 2017 23 Mexicali, MX Blocked on 05:16, 18 February 2017 by Coffee for 3 months (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 22-24 February 2017 16 Mexicali, MX

EvergreenFir (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I wouldn't open an SPI case. The IP editor seems to be making tons of disruptive edits and has been blocked repeatedly. There are a few lengthy blocks that are still active, so I'll do a month-long range block of From looking over the range contribs, this is the only person on that range. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you! Much appreciated. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (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.

String of non-coincidental Boilerplate Recentist edits[edit]

Likely false alarm with respect to the original subjects of the thread. Quis separabit is formally warned about making POINTY edits. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2017 (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.

Change Agent43, Dmoses816, and SpartanJoe are two of a group of editors who have been adding boilerplate text which violates, at minimum, both UNDUE and recentism. Appears to be part of a circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign, reporting campaigns of harassment by like minded individuals who have been targeting Republican congresspersons over the last few weeks and claiming the politicians are refusing to meet with their constituents at "town halls". Almost identical articles, edit summaries, references, etc. More usernames may be added. Unclear if any sockpuppetry going on. Dmoses816 warned by other editors regarding editwarring re same. Quis separabit? 16:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Specific articles, diffs and examples might be needed before an administrator will take action, in my experience at least, Rms. DarkKnight2149 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm taking a look, but yeah diffs and more specific evidence with links is generally expected at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem, @Darkknight2149 -- OK, done: see the following ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]). Quis separabit? 16:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the diffs. I also took a quick look at their contrib logs. I'm not convinced that this is socking, although it is possible. But it does smell like some kind of orchestrated campaign to insert political WP:POV material into articles. If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's more likely a case of WP:MEAT. I also agree that most of these edits are a breach of WP:DUE and RECENTISM. To my mind they certainly fail the ten year test. I'm going to kick this over to SPI and see what they have to say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me. Both Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe created their accounts almost immediately after Dmoses816 was reverted and warned, in order to make the specific (and very similar) edits to similar articles. See [39], [40], [41]. DarkKnight2149 16:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
"almost immediately"? Dmoses816 edited Rodney Frelinghuysen on 13 February, bickered with Toddst1 about his edit on the same day (including some templates on Dmoses816's talk page), and hasn't been back to edit since. Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both registered accounts (roughly 12 hours apart) on 24 February, and edited articles on three different politicians, none of them Frelinghuysen. It's difficult to see the point of created multiple sock accounts when there isn't a block to evade and neither sock is editing the original article.
Change Agent43 and SpartanJoe both edited the article on Mike Bishop (politician) (indeed, that was the only article SpartanJoe edited). The two added content regarding different protests, on different dates, citing different news sources. I still can't figure out a motivation for sock/meatpuppetry here, since Change Agent43's edits to Mike Bishop hadn't been reverted, and Change Agent43 hadn't received any talk page messages, at the time that SpartanJoe's account was created. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Read "almost immediately" as "only a matter of days". And regardless of whether Rms is right or wrong, I see where they are coming from with these accusations and they weren't editing in WP:BADFAITH, so I believe that sanctions against them would be unnecessary. This case has been brought to WP:SPI, so it might be time to carry this discussion over there. DarkKnight2149 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
@Darkknight2149: Actually, I kind of fell down on the job here in that I didn't look at the complainant's edits until after the Checkuser result came in. Based on the edit that Rms125a/Quis made immediately after his posts here (the same type of edit he decries as recentist propaganda, but to a Democrat's article instead of a Republican's; see my comment below) I don't think the presumption of good faith remains appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Taking a quick peek at the contributions, I have to admit that I'm having a very difficult time substantiating's (Quis separabit's) assertion of a "coordinated propaganda campaign". That sort of over-the-top accusation is very inappropriate; making unsubstantiated accusations of that sort may lead to sanctions against the complaining editor.
Contrary to RMS125a/Quis' report, Change Agent43 (talk · contribs), Dmoses816 (talk · contribs), and SpartanJoe (talk · contribs) appear to be using entirely different references, edit summaries, and article text from each other.
  • Change Agent edited the articles on Fred Upton, Dean Heller, and Mike Bishop (politician). Some of the wording between the three edits was similar, presumably because the incidents discussed were also similar (see below). To call the diffs "boilerplate" is really a reach, however: [42], [43], [44].
  • Dmoses816 edited the article on Rodney Frelinghuysen.
  • SpartanJoe edited Mike Bishop (politician) about 12 hours after Change Agent43 did (no intervening edits) but there's no reason to believe that the two accounts are related, and there would have been no reason for there to be sock or meatpuppetry there.
All three editors added references to news stories about Republican politicians cancelling or avoiding "town hall" discussions with their constituents, presumably over fears of confrontation regarding President Trump's (mis)behavior and/or proposals to repeal the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) or cut back other social programs. The story itself (Republicans hiding from their constituents over unpopular policies/scandals) has received a fair bit of press in the last few weeks, so it seems relatively unsurprising that editors would independently be adding references to it. Whether mention of the town hall problem clears the hurdle of WP:DUE is a content dispute for the article talk pages, not (yet) a user conduct issue. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...And the magic wiki pixie dust has come back as unlikely and/or unrelated for all three. Can we please not jump to 'grand political propaganda conspiracy' the next time a couple of different editors report something critical about Republicans? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected then. I can't speak for anyone else but, even though I believed that this was a sock or meat situation, I was always aware that there was a possibility of the otherwise. DarkKnight2149 18:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your investigating. I believed something untoward and synchronized was occurring so I reported it. I guess I was wrong. Sorry to have wasted your time. @Darkknight2149: sorry if I put you in a difficult situation. Quis separabit? 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If you have concerns, there's no harm in asking for assistance, and there's no need to apologize for that.
There is harm in falsely accusing other editors of being part of a "circular politically coordinated propaganda campaign", engaged in "campaigns of harassment", when you have no meaningful evidence to support such an assertion. The mere existence of two or three editors who hold different political views from your own is not evidence of conspiracy. Where you ought to have made your apology is to the editors you smeared with a false accusation, and about whom you made a report containing a grossly misleading description of their edits.
Further, the type of edits that those other editors made and which you reverted – claiming that they represented undue WP:RECENTISM and propaganda – are on exactly the same type of claims (politicians avoiding their constituents at 'town hall' meetings) that you inserted into the article on Claire McCaskill (a Democratic senator): [45]. (For my fellow admins keeping score, Rms125a/Quis' Claire McCaskill edit came fourteen minutes after posting his complaint to start this thread, and was his very first edit after opening this discussion thanking us for investigating his complaint here.) So, are you just being WP:POINTy with your edit to McCaskill's article, or were you abusing AN/I and Wikipedia's dispute resolution process when you opened a spurious complaint against the other editors in order to punish them for their political views? (Okay, now you can apologize for wasting our time with your political gamesmanship.) TenOfAllTrades(