Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

User:Evlekis again

Disruptive editing: insists on messing with other users' input, here [1] and here [2]. User notified [3]. Long ANI history [4]. Majuru (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Majuru is referring to these edits[5] [6]. In both cases, I provided reasoning in the edit summary. Initially, this was inserted on the wrong article. It was corrected not by me but by a mediator here. The same edit introduced the following section. Next, for one reason or another but with no explanation comes this badly placed contribution. I was only restoring it to the section titled Let's Get Started which is where it belongs. Three people discussing an issue, three statements; then discussion from the next paragraph. So as far as I can see, the only violation to have occurred was Majuru's false claim of vandalism. Concerning matters where I have been reported in the past, once again I fail to see where they come into this matter. Not only is this not related to any other but nothing has happened here to warrant admin action. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

"Messes in a stupid way" - please read WP:NPA, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think measures should be taken: he hasn't reverted himself yet. He shows no respect for other people's contribs. I'm offended. He has no business with other people's texts. Majuru (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Did he change the meaning of your text, or did he simply reformat it or move it to comply with some guideline on format? I mean, did he ADD or TAKE AWAY actual content here to make it look like you said something different? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He copy-pasted a previous (longer) version of mine, twice, after I had made some pretty normal changes to MY statement on a talkpage for mediation request. He wasn't moving it to comply with guidelines, format or anything like that. His statements might help:

• This negligible whimper by Majuru needs to go onto the talk page and not here, it is not my task to paste this text and then sign it for him.. [7]
• I have cleaned the article of the mess. Can you know paste your little "testament" onto the talk section... [8]

User:ZjarriRrethues also warned him... [9] I think we're dealing here with an arrogant! Majuru (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, you are absolutely correct. My edit was a reformatting and there was no amendment of content, nothing added and nothing substracted. Furthermore I was not the original author of the version I twice restored. Keilana copied Majuru's text from the main space into the talk section; when I saw Majuru moved it into a place it didn't belong, I replaced it. It was a good faith contribution aimed at keeping things in perspective. The so-called "warning" from Zjarri did not pertain to Majuru's edits but to something concerning a different editor. I am just baffled as to why Majuru's every edit seems to focus heavily on this comment placement rather than editing on that talk itself. A discussion is in progress and the three of us who are involved in the dispute have been discussing the matter for several days, Majuru hasn't made one contribution to that page since giving his original statement. Isn't it time to just move on? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 14:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand? Leave it as it was!!! Majuru (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Majuru, it is you who needs to familiarise himself with the conditions and practices of this website. In the first place, you do not give orders to other users with your imperitive "Leave it as it was!!!" and "Revert yourself". Every editor has a right to make amendments as and how he sees fit in the interests of the website. When I told you that it was not my task to insert your text onto the talk page I meant precisely that, I cannot sign something for you; Keilana may have done what I didn't but this is both an admin and the mediator in the affair. When you then shifted the piece to a space which appears after the ongoing discussion, it would have forced everybody including you to add comments which are sandwiched between already submitted statements. Furthermore, I played no part in conditioning the edit in the way you are not happy with it, Keilana took care of that; I was only working from a plain "Undo". Now if your wish is to tighten your sentences then you are free to do this; if your only wish is to see your old edit restored purely out of blind loyalty to this ANI position then I cannot help you, I will not make an edit I know to mess the page and confuse readers who wish to read all threads in the order they were posted. With that, I can only say that your statement - which flouted all requests by the mediator not to poke at or name other editors - correctly belongs to the place where the rest of us placed our viewpoints. You could do yourself far more favours if you accepted my good faith contribution and proceeded to engage in that discussion which you played your part in creating. Apart from this one section being discussed here, you have made no contribution to the actual discussion, yet it has been active several days now. Can I suggest you drop this purge, and stop running here every single time one of my edits interferes with yours. You need to pay attention to admins who alert you to WP:NPA and not continue to violate this convention as you have done when labelling me "arrogant" in one of your later posts, and get down to the reasons we are here; join that discussion, give everyone your views on what has been said by me and what has been said by ZjarriRrethues, and the sooner we will reach consensus. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you read: Behaviour that is unacceptable (Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions (with permissions) are described in the next section.) [10]Majuru (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Trying to recite procedure again I see. Well, for your information, I did not alter your comments. They say now what they did when you wrote them. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Here you are, the following is acceptable. Read: Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nemambrata

Nemambrata (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA created a couple days ago for the purpose of pushing a new title for the controversial Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia article. The account's behavior is combative, aggressive, and imo highly suspicious. Upon arriving here three days ago, the user immediately began pushing a distinct POV in a long-standing dispute on that article - appearing to have a pre-formed position on the subject. The user proposed an RM, and began edit-warring across no less than 13 articles to insert his preferred title into the text without consensus (see contribs). -- Director (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I kindly ask administrators to help me here. User:DIREKTOR is track and revert my changes and he do not discuss it on talk pages. Both User:DIREKTOR and User:Peacemaker67 are harras me and revert me since the moment I started to edit Wikipedia. Look this: [11]. I explained there my changes. User:DIREKTOR did not discussed anything on that talk page but he reverted my edit without any explanation. I also see that User:DIREKTOR was blocked many times because of edit warring. I discussed my changes on talk pages that I reverted but DIREKTOR did not: [12],[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMa%C4%8Dva&diff=505425273&oldid=501580892]. Yes, I did not discussed my changes on talk pages of all pages that I reverted, but problem on all these pages is more less same. I only changed barely sourced and misleading description into more accurate one and I explained why. DIREKTOR even did not explained why he revert my changes and what he think that is wrong there. Nemambrata (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It is actually 18 articles, they all relate to the history of modern-day Serbia in WWII, and the user usually uses the edit summary 'better' without discussion (on the talk page) after being reverted. When the user does edit the relevant talkpage, it is generally immediately followed by a revert on the article page, and there is no attempt to actually discuss. The sense is of an editor with one purpose, to impose their pre-registration ideas on a set of articles. As soon as another article comes to their attention they immediately add it to their list for edit warring. For example, I make this constructive edit [13] on Occupation of Serbia in World War II, bringing the article Banat (1941–1944) to their attention, and this is followed by this [[14]] edit on the Banat (1941–1944) article pushing their preferred article title for Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia which is currently under RfM discussion. The edit warring regarding this editors preferred title in the RfM ramped up immediately after they opened the discussion here [15]. I have not experienced this level of aggressive single-purpose edit-warring since I have been on WP (mainly working on WWII MILHIST Balkans articles, which isn't for the faint-hearted). I am also concerned that a lot of the same articles that this user has been edit warring on have had very recent edit warring by another obvious WP:SPA that was subsequently blocked, HuHu22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Peacemaker67 (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who is HuHu22. I was editing Wikipedia before with IP number, not with registered username. I only registered my username now to repair mistake about history of my birth town Šabac but after Peacemaker67 started to be aggressive, revert my changes and to threat me, I decided to repair mistakes in some other pages. Please see threats that Peacemaker67 sent me when I registered my username: [16]. I do not know who DIREKTOR and Peacemaker67 are and I do not understand how can they behave like this. They threat new users and revert them without any explanation.I now also see that Peacemaker67 accusing me that I am sockpuppet of some user that was blocked: [17]. I think that users of Wikipedia should cooperate in friendly way not to attack others like this. Am I wrong? Nemambrata (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me clearly state that I am not suggesting you are anyone's sockpuppet. I am suggesting that there is a lot of similar disruption occurring on the same pages all of a sudden, and you are part of that as a WP:SPA. And there is a big difference between a threat and a WP:template warning for disruptive editing. I have seen no evidence of friendly cooperation from you, and though I have attempted to explain my actions on various talkpages and used WP:RS you continue to revert my edits. Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, you say you have seen no evidence of friendly cooperation from me, but your first message to me was “Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Šabac. Your edits have been reverted or removed”. Do you say that this my edit is disruptive? I even included reference in my edit. Look that you just want to accuse users who do not think like you for disruption so that you are free to write what you want in pages. This is content dispute, not disruption. I changed page, I included reference, I discussed it on talk page. And we see here that other users also think that name that you want to impose in Wikipedia is bad and wrong. And my explanation for administrators about this content dispute is here: [18]. Please read my comment there to see what this is about. You will see that Peacemaker67 try to impose in Wikipedia an name that is barely sourced and not established in English language, against recommendation in WP:TITLE. Nemambrata (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This fella is an obvious sock or meatpuppet. An SPA account created for the sole purpose of helping his buddies, arriving on the project with ready-made POV he's edit-warring over on 18 articles. There have already been two or three users (I can't be sure I wasn't active until recently) that appeared and were blocked as socks and disruptive SPA accounts. Evidence has also been provided of serious threats, and canvassing on the Serbian Wiki (here's the latest thread on the subject). Notice, for example, how these folks all immediately point to my block log as soon as they're reported for some reason. Even a casual investigation of this person's activities should imo confirm the allegations. -- Director (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nemambrata. You removed sourced content and two inline WP:RS citations supporting the material, and replaced it with your own content (the version of the article title you have been consistently edit warring in support of) AND you placed an inline citation there from a source that was immediately identified as non-WP:RS as soon as it was mentioned on the reliable sources noticeboard. The diff you provided of your first edit here shows of all that. That is disruption, and is why I warned you.Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, yes, I am sure there is huge conspiracy of many sockpuppets against you. Perhaps evil space aliens are behind it, are they? Or maybe masons? Or world government in shadow? Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, other users also confirmed that your references are wrong. This is what User:Dicklyon say about this: “Now it's clear why all the caps in the German, official or otherwise, but there's not official name in English, so he made up a translation and capitalized it. No other book or paper that we know of uses this term. And no source has adopted his translation in the last 40+ years since he did it. Even if we adopt it, there's no reason to capitalize it, as there's no evidence that it's an official or proper name.”. This is what User:Antidiskriminator say: “No, I don't mean Hehn. He is the only source for another article's title which has serious problem with its topic and name because it is not WP:COMMONNAME”. Both users agree with my position about name that you want to push in Wikipedia. Are they sockpuppets too? Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators, this block log show that DIREKTOR is disruptive user blocked for disruptive revert warring many times. This show that he continue with that behavior because he simply reverted me with no edit summary and with no comments on talk page where I explained my changes: [19]. Nemambrata (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, forget the squabble above and please note the account's activities. He's trying to clog-up the report. Its an SPA - no question. And he is edit-warring all over the place. -- Director (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

and suddenly, after five days of ferocious editwarring, nothing for over 24 hours...

What that mean? I must edit Wikipedia every 24 hours? I have life. Nemambrata (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Could we please get an admin to look at this SPA? It is nearly the oldest report here, and the SPA continues to edit war in the 18 or so articles identified already. This has now also occurred with User:MrX here. Peacemaker67 (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP hopping indef blocked user returns to be disruptive again

See this archived thread from a month-ish ago - IP hopping possible indef blocked user

Past indef blocked user Marburg72 (talk · contribs) occasionally returns with IPs to insert WP:FRINGE and WP:HOAX material into certain articles, this being one (Walam Olum), has returned to make personal attacks on the article talkpage, [20] and then reinstated it with this IP [21] when the NPA was removed. The second IP is one of the IPs from that last bunch listed in the previous ANI report. They have now moved on to a 3rd IP with this gem [22]. Heiro 22:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

1. 166.147.120.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
2. 166.147.120.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
3. 166.147.120.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Since they are hopping within the same range, would it be possible to get a rangeblock to curtail further disruption?Heiro 22:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged all of the associated IPs with {{IPsock}} to help facilitate investigation. In the future, concerns like this can also be brought to WP:SPI. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be an open proxy. It's a tight little range but there's a lot of good edits being posted from others on the range. I am going to block the individual IPs for the weekend and open a proxy investigation. -- Dianna (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Whatever you think will help the best. Heiro 23:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The WHOIS listing for the IPs suggests they are for a wireless broadband/cell network. With this in mind, it could be possible that the IPs are dynamic. With this in mind (and given the positive edits coming from them) an extended/range block might be counterproductive, as it's entirely possible a lot of unrelated people would be affected. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That's right, Elektrik Shoos. The range is tiny, but wow, there's lots of good edits coming from there. -- Dianna (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Except for the ones that aren't. The indef blocked user has now returned to this IP range twice, jumped around the range multiple times, edit warred, inserted POV pushing false material into articles and now resorted to out of the blue personal attacks. I guess all we can do is play whack-a-mole. If the range is determined to be an Wikipedia:Open proxies, will the range be blocked then?Heiro 01:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There's been no further edits from the range since I blocked the three IPs. There's only 16 IPs in the range (Range 166.147.120.16/28). So whack-a-mole would not be as futile as you might think. If they are all open proxies, they will all likely be blocked long-term. People with user accounts who want to edit from that range will have to apply to get IP block exemption if they're all blocked as open proxies. -- Dianna (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Another one for a block please, 166.147.120.18 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), see [23], note the personal attack in the edit summary. Heiro 00:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And they are back again [24] as 166.147.120.157 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Heiro 01:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Jac16888

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good afternoon. I am here to report the administrator Jac16888 and his attitude with regards to myself. Our unfortunate exchange began today, when Jac16888 posted an unreasonably sarcastic note on my talkpage here. Now he could have just spoken in a polite tone, but he decided to forgo basic respect and begin a hostile set of communications. When I asked him what he thought was wrong about the set of tags, he replied with an even more hostile and sarcastic response here, and also here, where he claims my "career wouldn't last long here" in a thinly veiled threat, dispite my good editing record. Unfortunately, he goes on to threaten me with harrassment, as well as making a somewhat insulting comment about my editing here, before closing off with an unveiled personal attack here. It concerns me that an administrator has acted in such a hostile tone from the off, when a basic explanation of what I did wrong would have been more appropriate. Indeed, I am not adverse to correcting myself, this, and this are but two occasions where I have self reverted or accepted a mistake I have made, so it strikes me as very strange that an administrator would treat me as if I was extremely unreasonable. I'm not looking to cause trouble with this administrator, but I would like this addressed. Many thanks, Iamthemuffinman (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Your tone in the entire exchange is dismissive. There are no personal attacks or threats by Jac16888. Considering you were blocked for extreme personal attacks just 3 days ago, it is not that surprising that an admin is going to watch you. Watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG for the frivolous ANI post. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked Iamthemuffinman for this edit summary, just a few days after his last PA block. I'm off running now (in a thunderstorm, I think), so if any admin wants to change this block, have at it. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Called it--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging was excessive, Jac16888's comments in response seemed reasonable, then it all escalated for no good reason, culminating in a justified block for the personal attack. Iamthemuffinman is a good editor, but seems a bit stressed at the moment and looks to be responding to people more confrontationally than necessary. All that's needed is to take some time off, let this storm over nothing subside, and come back to editing calmly and collegially. There's no admin action needed here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I would consider muffinmans behaviour to be inappropriate in more than just this exchange, there is this lovely conversation User talk:Martijn Hoekstra#Ok based on nothing but [25], there is his comment to this new user here, this over the top reaction to being welcomed, this comment to Nyttend, and all this is just in the last few days since his previous block for personal attacks seen here--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I think we've just got an otherwise good editor who is perhaps a bit stressed right now - let's just let this block ride out and hopefully get back to improved collegiality. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the first unblock request, but they have asked again. As always, any admin to free to disagree with me with no prejudice and use their best judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I've declined the second request, and after this response to someone else's comment, I've revoked talk page access. I know we don't do "cool down" blocks, but I hope a short "shut up and stop making things worse for yourself" break might help - anyone is free to reinstate talk page access should they feel otherwise. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a cool down, but instead a reasonable reaction to prevent disruption, based on continuing behavior. Hopefully he will cool down during this period, but I didn't see that as the rationale for your refusal or mine. This is one of those times when revoking talk page access is actually doing them a favor as much as for the community, so they don't dig themselves into a hole they can't climb out of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep, you expressed my thoughts better than I did ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hate to dredge this up again, but considering muffinman has now been globally locked for cross wiki vandalism, and is most likely the culprit of this friendly message, perhaps someone might want to consider extending his block indef, IMO this is more than just a stressed out editor--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, with the account locked an indef would accomplish little, though it would make it harder for him to come back if he ever does.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, seems I'd misunderstood what a global lock is, never mind, least I learnt something new--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of uniformity, block extended to indef. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP inserting very large list into talk page for no reason, potential BLP violation

This ip Special:Contributions/84.106.26.81 is inserting this large list: [26] from User:POVbrigand/list into the Cold Fusion talk page. I've reverted it as inappropriate and a potential BLP violation but the ip is restoring it. The text also contains a personal attack: "It must be hard to work on wikipedia if you are stuborn and illterate. But just because you cant read or refuse to read doesn't mean you have some kind of point. You do understand that right?". The IP has been blocked for disruption previously: [[27]]. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm writing my reply. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That massive list is ridiculously long and definitely should have been removed. This, along with lots of BLP, NPA and OR violation leads me to believe that a very nice, long block is in store for this IP. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets start there, what is rediculous about it? 84.106.26.81 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it's extremely long. Most people just can't read something that long. See WP: TLDR. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with the length itself appearing on the talk page? We can simply use {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}; I've done this to my own comments on talk pages when I've done resource dumps. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The attitude is problematic, but...

What's the nature of the alleged BLP violations? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a list of people who are claimed to be Cold Fusion researchers. One of the people on the list and in the cold fusion article complained about being labelled as a cold fusion researcher at Cold Fusion, so it is a contentious label. The sourcing is also poor, lots of OR. I suggest people read the text before the list as well, in relation to asking someone to show that it is fraud etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I read it. In an article I would throw it out, for discussion maybe not. The unwanted inclusions, though... Link for the people disputing their inclusion, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

[28]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That text is ridiculous because it is not discussing any edits to the main article, and because it proposes an open ended discussion of the topic, which is not the intended use of talk pages. Olorinish (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you are right, we could collapse it. My problems are the NPA violations. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 23:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the text itself really, and I'm making no comments about it; the length issue is all that I plan to discuss. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Tried to collapse it, reflist doesn't collapse. Text is already available in diff form: there is no reason to post it, especially considering the BLP implications. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reflists can be collapsed; see User:Nyttend/Ohio RA for an example. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: The material on the talk page ought to be collapsed, anyone wanting to post something else on that page should not be expected to scroll down through it all. Per WP:BLP - We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources - , any contentions claims about people should be removed from an article until the matter is resolved. Note also: Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. See also: WP:LISTPEOPLE. As regards civility, just because this is written and anonymous media, there is absolutely no excuse to issue insults and it's not going o help get the job done. Both 84.106.26.81 and IRWolfie have been sparring over various issues for months. Time to give it a rest before someone does get blocked.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is a fair characterization of my editing. Bear in mind that this ip has been inactive for months, so I'm not sure what led you to that conclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Nathalia92

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nathalia92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - based on the userpage description, the user is impersonating (or at least claiming to be) the actress Nathalia Ramos. The user vandalized WP:About today, and seems to have nothing constructive in contribs.

It's been a while, and I've forgotten what the preferred procedures are in circumstances like this. Blank the page? Block the user? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Consider this final warning? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jorgath. Let's issue them a stern (but note Bitey) final warning that if they continue, they'll be blocked. Electric Catfish 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Warned user. Electric Catfish 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with the impersonation problem at the page User:Nathalia92. (Based on the quality of writing, and spamming of image links, I think we can assume it is not actually the actress that the user is claiming to be). Shouldn't the userpage be blanked, or a warning be given for that? Not sure. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that it's probably impersonation, may I ask what about the "quality of writing," one way or another, that impels you to make such an assumption? We're talking an actor, not a professional author, and there's nothing about the acting profession which confers (or doesn't) writing skill. Ravenswing 03:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say this is a terrible attempt at search engine optimization more with the user page rather than question the quality of the edits there. It probably isn't a human that wrote all that out at least there, but just a script that somehow managed to spill all that text (the repeat of her acting history over and over is what gives me the SEO theory). Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, from the Nathalia Ramos article: She confirmed via Twitter that she would not return to House of Anubis for a third season due to school related issues. → Perhaps that explains the poor, rather incoherent writing, if we were to assume this account is her :) --MuZemike 05:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I really just wanted advice on whether to blank the page completely or not (and whether it's a blocking offense or not). I'll blank it now. (I'm kinda sad that anyone would even question (and comment on) whether it might be the same person. Fwiw, I rolled eyes, and checked the actress' official twitter and an interview from the article, and it's definitely not her. Clearly literate.) -- Quiddity (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm rather sad that anyone would imagine that Wikipedia is based on unfounded speculation, rather than on observable and verified fact. Ravenswing 07:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Doniago

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I notice, because I have unfortunately crossed with this editor too, how much of a bad apple they are here. I thought WP:GF should and be the most overriding reason before making changes. But all this editor seems to do is remove material and then go onto spout rule after rule if anyone complains. Due to the inability to listen to reason or respond to a cognitive argument, they then have the temerity to start quoting WP:CIVIL when the other party invariably loses their temper.

The question I pose, is to what degree is a reference needed? Returning to this editor's wiki behaviour there is arguably no end to what references are needed. For instance, you are watching a movie and the twin towers of the NY WTO appear, as an iconic landmark, this editor is quite happy for this to be noted. However less well known locations in movies are aggressively removed with the proviso that it is unreferenced original research.

I say wait a minute. Assume good faith. But this editor seems to only allow what they know castigating and removing anything they don't like in a high-handed and officious way. I don't like this. As one of the more busy people who proudly works as an IP (I have no need for Wikipedia status or medals) who enjoys the sharing of information not the power of status, this person needs to be reigned in. More uncomfortably they state they are not administrator (which begs the question why the disambiguation) but hope to be one some day. i hope not, I really hope not. After the likes of RodHullandEmu et al (yeah I know, but I do have a sad fascination reading the ArbCom minutes - Wikipedia for too many is just a form of Internet Big Brother), you don't people like this on here.109.155.77.177 (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somewhat edit warring on Victoria Foyt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm writing because my request for edit protection on the Victoria Foyt article has been declined and there's been a sizable amount of edit warring recently from anonymous IPs. Before I explain what's going on with the article, I have to explain the history of the page. Foyt is many things, including an author. She wrote a book called Save the Pearls that came across as incredibly racist and insensitive to many, myself included. (I want to stress this because I don't want the IPs thinking that I'm doing this because I'm defending her. I'm doing this because the article needs to be neutral.) Because of this, her page was vandalized at one point and there's been some non-NPOV statements put in there. It's still not 100% neutral even now. Long story short, after receiving a fairly large backlash for what was ultimately a self-published book (Foyt started the company that publishes her book) Foyt has tried to defend herself in the paper. Since I didn't know how to sum up her quotes without appearing biased, I just included them "as is" in the article. Within the last 24 hours or so there's been an IP address that has been repeatedly removing the quotes, claiming that it's giving Foyt "a platform" to defend herself as well as saying that "If there's an honest interest in not appearing biased, one should rename the section 'critical reception' and find some positive reviews. Not quote the author defending herself. An accusation of racism shld not require a platform to say 'Nuh-uh!'." (Clearly not understanding what the whole idea of "non-biased" means.) I've tried to explain the point to the IP editor, but they seem pretty determined to remove the quotes for reasons that ultimately stem from WP:IDONTLIKEIT and a biased point of view. Now I do want to stress that I'm not accusing the SPA that came along after of being the same person, although I admit that it did raise an eyebrow. (On a side note, there have been a few people creating SPA to vandalize but again- the recent SPA that logged in doesn't seem to be vandalizing.) That user at least tried to add useful things to the page, although a lot of it fell along the lines of original research and hypothesis, as well as potential copyvio for the linking to an image from the book. I did try to keep the sentence in the article, so I'm not sure if it is still violating copyvio or not. I really would like for an admin to step in here and try to keep things from escalating and perhaps protect the article from random IPs. The edit warring and vandalism seems to mostly come in spurts, but when it happens it's usually hit pretty hard. I've given the IP a warning, but I think that someone with more authority than I have needs to deal with this now. See here for a list of the various edits done to the account and a few examples of the vandalism: [29], [30], [31], [32] Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I want to add that there's been some people PRODing the article since the initial reaction to the book under reasons that essentially boil down to them only doing so out of bad faith because they didn't like what the author wrote in her book or in the series of articles she posted afterwards. My aim with the article isn't to defend Foyt but neither is it to write it so the entire section is slanted against her without including her claims on the matter. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added the article to my watch-list and will help you monitor. -- Dianna (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks! I know that not all of the people contributing to the article are operating on bad faith and might be genuinely new to Wikipedia, but there's been enough activity that it'll probably be like this for a while. Foyt is still getting some chatter in the YA blogging world so I expect to see a few more flareups before it's finally finished for the most part.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I also have this article on my watch list. I have checked all the recent edits and I see no persistent vandalism that requires any immediate PP. TG has left appropriate messages on other editors' talk pages, and we can wait and see what develops. This report can be closed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed community ban of User:Doughnuthead

Look out for that WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Initial discussion I've copied and pasted this directly from AN, as an editor there suggested it was better to discuss the ban here. The discussion is to resume as normal and people can continue voicing their opinions.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) After noticing the extensive amount of vandalism this user has caused to the encyclopaedia, and this diff which clearly shows his persistent activity, I feel that a community ban is warranted for this long-term troll. His attacks on various editors (namely User:Boing! said Zebedee and User:thejadefalcon) are vulgar and persistent, and I feel a ban would help get the message he is not welcome here.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Dougnuthead is a sock of an indef banned user. The primary account has multiple declined unblock requests and is therefore defacto banned -- there's no benefit to WP to have a ban discussion. Nobody Ent 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Nobody Ent, as much as I see your point that no one will unblock him, a community ban would make it more 'official' that he is banned and alert other users who do not know him to know who he is. Also he is not a sock of an indef blocked user, he is the sockmaster of these 30 odd accounts. And if you look at User:XxTR1CKZzxx's talk page, you'll see the users there were considering unblocking him subject to him agreeing to conditions (which he ultimately didn't and gave away it was him). That itself perfectly warrants a ban, as far as I'm concerned.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Apparently the person behind the account is already community-banned. Why community-ban the person again? Banning yet another sock account is simply feeding the trolls dangerouspanda 11:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Which account was he banned under? 28bytes (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC) No people, Doughnuthead is e master account behind these sockpuppets. From what I can see there is no community ban linked with him or his socks anywhere at all. It would not be feeding the trolls, simply dealing with a constant pest. Cheers.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC) 28bytes, he has not been banned officially yet (although I did take the liberty of placing a banned template on his page per Nobody Ent's comment above. If anyone has an issue with this please contact me.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I don't think placing such templates based on a decision by a single non-admin is a terribly good idea. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I reverted that tag as he isn't banned, and adding that only makes it confusing. Seriously, this starts to become feeding the trolls and giving them new trophies. De fact banned means anyone that would need to know can easily see that the user should be treated as banned even if he isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Support - He has exhausted all patience with the community. With the sockpuppeter on the loose, we should put this user in its place. With that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Waste of everyone's time, and giving him the publicity he wants - just revert on sight, block and ignore. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Support - Just adding my own support, as I am the proposer of this. Also, can anyone contact Thejadefalcon about this discussion, see what his position on this is.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Strong Support - I certainly don't like the idea of non-admins slapping BANNED templates on errant users' pages either (as RBW has done), but I think this user has long since rendered himself ineffective to the project as far as positive contributions are concerned. I'm reading his talk page right now. I just shake my head at how he has abused the unblock template to no end and some of his lines like to quote unblock request #3 (denied by Peridon), "Oh my god... you are such a fool. I have much more than 17 other accounts. Theyve all been used in the exact same way but whether or not they actually exist is for your stupid checkuser to find out," is actually nothing more than hot air when someone calls BS on his promises to behave. Like he's even proud that he has a truckload of socks. Get him out of here and tell him to take a hike, because like his handle states, he really is a doughnut - got nothing in the middle. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I've suggested an edit so we don't have to do this every month or so Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Quick_question Nobody Ent 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Comment - I don't understand the point of this. He's already indefinitely blocked, so why are we having a discussion about imposing a community ban? He's technically restricted from editing, so I don't see any point in enacting a ban.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 05:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Yutsil, he has continued attacking the site and harassing other users since 2009, and continues up to the present day. It's clear that he's just not getting the message here, so a ban is appropriate to show him that he is totally not welcome here. If he stays only indeffed then he may think that we are still tolerating his actions. However a ban would show we're not putting up with him anymore, see what I mean?--RedBullWarrior (talk) 09:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I appreciate your well-meaning suggestions, but you really don't think he already knows that, and you think a formal ban will make one iota of difference to him? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I doubt it will, but the one thing it does do is make any sock edits fall under the "banned means banned" provision of the banning policy, thus making WP:RBI easier to accomplish. That is far and away the best approach to take with such cases. I wouldn't have started this conversation but since we are having it we might as well just ban him and get back to ignoring him. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with Beeblerox, we can ban him and then if he decides to start socking again he will be reverted without question under ban evasion.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Once the sock has been verified, that is. Which is no different than the sock of an indef user. Nobody Ent 11:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC) So what's the decision on Doughnuthead? It's been 2 days and there's still not a clear decision on whether to ban him or not.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC) With this appearing on AN rather than ANI, it's getting far too few responses - although consensus from the few !votes is to ban, it's hard to consider it to be representative of the community as a whole. As such, it may need at least another 24hrs dangerouspanda 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Support. Proposing his own ban? I give him 2/10 for not being completely unoriginal. Very obviously, he is here only to troll. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC) A strange twist of fate Based on Deskana's checkuser investigation, RedBullWarrior is a Doughnuthead's sock himself - blocked. Max Semenik (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I hadn't noticed that RedBullWarrior has only been registered for 2 weeks, yet knew all about Doughnuthead from long before that :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Bizarre. Let's just implement the ban he desired then. Not quite a self-block, but obviously Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHERAPY dangerouspanda 15:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) I've declined a rather bizarre unblock request ("I want to ban myself so I can forget about myself and start again", or words to that effect) and have revoked talk page access - any unblock attempts should come from the original account. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC) WTF?! RBW is another Doughnuthead sock? Oh man, well-played, but it ends here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User Removing Sourced Content and Editing Bias

• Article in question: Woman to Woman (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User in question: IT'SPAIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Background

It'spain has started an article for the upcoming album by Keshia Cole. The revision before I got involved in the article is here. Notice how the article is poorly written with few verfiable sources, unformatted references and original research. I edited the article to remove everything that was unsourced and It'spain undid the edit without any explaination here. In this edit revision by me I re-wrote the article using reliable sources and attempted to preserve as much of the original version as possible. Again this was reverted so I made a final attempt here to take on board It'spains comments and add referencing and formatting to the content s/he was trying to add as well as preserving the sourced information which i originally added to the article. I've made attempts each time either on the user's talk page and the article's talk page to address the user's supposed greivences with my revisions were as well as pointing out potential rule breaks.

Key issues

• It'spain refers to the article as "his own work"
• It'spain repeatedly reverts the article to a version with fewer sources, incorrect refernce formatting, speculation and original research.
• Its'pain claims to be personally involved in the actual album, comments on my talkpage IT'SPAIN claims to have been to business meetings about the album and therefore personally knows what information should be included regarding the album.
• It'spain is adament that the information he/she has on the article is direct from the artist and record label yet less than 50% of what is claimed is back-up by references.

Summary

In conclusion when you compare the last "correct" version of the article here against the current version that IT'SPAIN is trying to maintain I think its evident that the current version contains speculation, original research, a non-encylopedic tone of prose and poor referencing whereas the revised version is more in the spirit of wikipedia and addresses the issues at hand with the current version. I'm at a loss as to what to do next. I am particularly concerned with IT'SPAIN's apparent bias due to a "personal interest" in the page as well as clear violation of content removal for blatently not liking the content added and reasons like "I already know what's best I know everything there is about the subject". — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Lil-unique has given It'spain some warnings including unofficial friendly ones, but no official ones for edit warring or claims of ownership. It'spain is a new(ish) user with few edits and may still not be fully aware of all the policies and guidelines. The way to resolve this issue is in a less heated manner without throwing threats of blocks around - it will only fuel the fire. I think both of you should step back a bit from that article until the album is released; after all, strictly speaking an encyclopedia deals with facts and not the future, and there is absolutely no hurry. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • thanks for the comment. I agree it is a little heated. I've tried to refrain from posting a myriad of warning templates cause I could have easily done it for ownership and edit warring to but then he would have had nearly ten different warnings cause each time he/she edit they violated each of the policies. Also if you look at the user's contributions they date back to 2009 - don't think that constitutes a new user. And the user's personal page makes it clear he/she is claiming to be a music executive for Geffen Records - the label that the artist is signed to and thus a direct bias as the user would have a vested interest in editing the page in such a way that benefits himself/the artist/label's agenda, instead of reflecting what's been sourced. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a speedy delete of User:Bittergrey/CAMH_Promotion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.

Please place on the article you want to be deleted. Mdann52 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin)

---

G10.
This wiki-hounding userpage was created by now-indef blocked editor user:Bittergrey. Although gathering material just for the purpose of attacking another editor can sometimes be permitted for short periods of time preceding genuine dispute resolution, no further action was ever taken by user:Bittergrey, leaving only a prejudicial (and potentially BLP violating) page floating around WP with no owner. I'd appreciate some eyes, and I believe a speedy delete is in order.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rather stupid legal threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See [33] at Talk:Maya calendar. " guys like Dougweller need to be sued for their criminal activity of showing favoritsm to false information 5125 solar years would be 3114bc Gregorian August 12 to 2012AD Gregorian August 12 or 3114bc Dec 21 to 2012ad Dec 21. This is fact not original research. Your labeling it solar years is the false original research. THe count is 5200 tun or 13 baktun being 13 of 400 tun. Go ahead and deleted this, a jpg copy has been made, and a million dollar law suit will proceed the minute it is deleted." I'll tell 98.144.71.174 (talk · contribs) about this discussion. They've been doing little but posting nonsense to talk pages plus a bit of editing at Dating creation for over a year. Probably blockable just for their refusal to get it. Dougweller (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say its just an ordinary personal attack/libel against you rather then a threat of legal action. They don't appear to be threatening to actually sue. Monty₈₄₅ 18:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Worth a warning but I forsee a block. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 72 hours for making legal threats.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeat Vandalism at Major League Soccer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Request page protection from anons at Major League Soccer. Repeat vandalism in the last 5 minutes by multiple anon IPs. Gateman1997 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for a day. If vandalism resumes tomorrow, try WP:RFPP for a longer protection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:68.37.29.229

Firstly, IP user 68.37.29.229 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) makes edits to List of The Real Housewives of New Jersey episodes, which are reverted by Logical Fuzz (talk · contribs) due to copyright; thus, a violation of Wikipedia's copyright violation guideline. Then, he contacts Fuzz, saying that is not copyright, because its promotional. Me and Fuzz state it still violates the guidelines. Now, 68.37.29.299 goes to TBrandley (talk · contribs)'s (my) talk page, stating that it is "Non-free use". We repeated explain that "non-free use" only refers to images, as explained on the page. He keeps disagreeing with us, then starts to personally attack us. One example is "what other television show entries have been ruined by deleting content is not a personal attack". TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) then joins the conversion, noting various things [34]. He gets put on the "Admin noticeboard for Edit warning", and is blocked for two days. He, again, starts to attack us on his talk page where we left messages, stating that we have "powers" when an admin blocked him. He started editing on his user account, and was blocked on that too as he is not suppose to edit. Then, out of nowhere, after blocked, Then he makes a irrelevant edit to one of TRIJC19's pages, and says that we are the same users, and opens two "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBrandley" and "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRLIJC19", for Fuzz, TBrandley (me), and TRIJC19. I have requested checkusers to check, then end this madness. I'm very angry, honestly. A half-dozen editors all agree as of right now, according to Fuzz's conversion with an admin. Various admins got into this conversion; and now, see the top of his talk page! Here are some links to conversions/pages related to this topic (please see them): [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], etc. Thank you. TBrandley 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• OK, I'll look into it, but please (a) relax, and (b) stop making all these little tweaks to this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. Only reason is because I keep telling him, but he is failing to see the point. Thanks, TBrandley 22:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've left a strongly worded note on the IP's talk page that I hope will address this. If not, a block is in order. I've blanked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBrandley as it was incomplete, and commented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TRLIJC19 that it should be closed if no evidence is going to be presented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it's right that an SPI was opened on me, with no evidence from an IP, harming my reputation on Wikipedia. This IP needs to be dealt with. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Just noticed the case was closed. Thanks everyone for helping bring an end to this ridiculous accusation. I still feel that the IP should be dealt with. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
      • So sorry this accusation was levelled against you, but reasonable people will not take it seriously. Your reputation should survive intact. In fact, T. Canens has deleted the SPI page as "routine housekeeping". Please read the warning Floq has given on the IP talk page; if the activity resumes, I would be surprised. -- Dianna (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course I do not know how to correctly fill-out a sockpuppet investigation-most people would not. I really need to know why it would be so important to cancel it once it is started? What harm or serious waste of resource could come from letting it run its course? I have serious reasons to suspect. Most importantly being where one character claimed that they did something, (an edit)-but then I saw where that edit had been signed by the other person. Isn't the SPI-thingy what that is for? Again, how could letting it go be a bad thing?68.37.29.229 (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See here; you misread something TRL said, he did not take credit for that edit. You keep talking about "serious reasons" to suspect, but all you've ever mentioned is this one, easily explained thing. You don't get to fling unsubstantiated accusations around, which I assume is why the SPI clerk deleted that page. It's particularly galling when I see you actually sockpuppeted with User:Housewifehader just a few days ago. If an errant SPI was the only problem here, I'd be more delicate, but all you've been doing lately is disrupt. Stop it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, "most people" would know to follow the directions at WP:SPI to fill out their sockpuppet report. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really, but we clerks don't mind fixing the botched reports when needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

184.187.14.181

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:184.187.14.181 has attempted six times to define Battlement as "A pattern of structure focused of structure of actions of defensive capability." —Tamfang (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks; they edit war this silliness in spurts, with long periods of inactivity in between, so it's for 2 weeks to ensure I get their attention. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TurtleMelody

This user has been removing information that are of interest to any given reader from pages that do have popular culture information that are helpful to know as per WP:POPCULTURE. Three editors including myself (not counting ones that have warned him in the past) have told him to stop removing these information and he claimed that administrators supported his cause although he cannot name them. He has been warned so many times over the last couple years to stop removing trivia / popular culture information from articles and still does it anyways. His editing also violates WP:NOBLANKING which he removes these categories arbitrarily himself without discussing them. His talk page is quite colorful into displaying his attitude and he seems to hold utter contempt for editors that disagrees with him. ViriiK (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot name them but I have had support in the past on the talk pages of numerous articles where I blanked the fancruft and pop culture trivia. I believe I am in good faith and doing a service to Wikipedia by wiping this stuff which is frankly embarrassing to the project. You do not need every reference, passing and otherwise to Williamsburg in an article on Williamsburg. It makes the article look bad by having the largest section be the section on trivia. Maybe this differentiates Wikipedia from other encyclopedias but I know there are sane people out there who think that to include every reference Family Guy has ever made to a product, person, place, thing to be an idiotic waste of time.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I see an issue whch I cannot stand for. He conducted personal attacks on many editors, including User: 117Avenue ("Removing insane amount of detail to a horribly written article counts as disruptive? You've got some serious problems."), User: CliffC ("I have added a topic in the talk page for that article about why the reference to a cat in a bad, CGI, Hollywood movie is not relevant. You are either not listening or assuming bad faith. I will continue removing 'bad trivia' from articles. You're free to undo them but do not call them 'vandalism'. It isn't vandalism, it is quite purposeful and I believe being done for the good of Wikipedia. There are countless wikipedia articles with serious topics that have bad references to Family Guy and other stupid shows for fat, white, adolescent boys, which just happens to be the description of most Wikipedia editors, oddly enough." and, most impotantly, User: Drmies ("Sounds like someone's beating their chest and stroking their dick at the same time. It was withdrawn so I deleted it. No one else wanted the article to be deleted so the issue was settled.", "I'm an anarchist. That means 'without leaders' in Greek. I know you're probably used to people kissing your shoes, but I will not."). This was taken just from his talkpage. He then peppers users with wild accusations and theories and then hides behind WP: GOODFAITH. I cannot fathom what other atrocities this user has uttered, but I certainly won't stand for these attacks. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The following quote shows that he knows perfectly well what Wikipedia policy is on this and advocates changing the policy:

"I've been deleting these [in popular culture sections for quite some time, I feel that these add nothing to the articles and are frankly embarrassing references [...] while these references might be well-known to a certain segment of society, white, pudgy American neckbeards, they are probably quite foreign to most people in the world. My proposal, change the guidelines for trivia entries and in popular culture entries [...] Does someone want to rewrite the guidelines? I'd be very willing to help do it. As it is Wikipedia is looking pretty sad with every article seeming like an annoying college-aged dude who remembers every episode of Family Guy."[42]

Alas, instead of actually making a proposal to change our policies, he has decided to just go ahead and delete a large number of "in popular culture" sections even though he knows that doing so is against policy.

Other problematic talk page comments: [43][44][45] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content#Good and bad popular culture references lists several examples of what we want to see in "In popular culture" sections. Look carefully at the third example. Now look at This Edit. Disruptive editing doesn't get much clearer than that. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• You think so? Well, for my part, what I see at the top of WP:POPCULTURE is that it's an essay, with no force as a guideline or policy, and is no more than the opinion of its authors. As such, who is the "we" to whom you're referring? Obviously TurtleMelody has serious problems with WP:CIVIL, and the wave of egregious insults is more than enough to warrant a wake-up call block, but c'mon now. Failure to abide by the opinions of the author of the xkcd webcomic is a Wikipedia violation worthy of ANI? Seriously? Ravenswing 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• WP:ATA and WP:BRD are "only essays" too you know. Just because it's "an essay" doesn't mean it's not the standing WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is no consensus for TurtleMelody's deletions, and multiple editors have reverted them. He doesn't get to make a new policy like "no in popular culture sections allowed" without community input. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I know; I'm just sayin'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• On the other hand, does our article on Sea Breeze (cocktail) actually need to be 50% composed of practically unsourced text detailing every time a character on TV or film ordered a Sea Breeze? No, it doesn't - that's just ridiculous. Some of the others are like that as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd argue that some areas do suffer from an excess of "in popular culture" fluff (often poorly sourced or even contradictory); but that isn't a license to bulldoze everything. It's important to keep the good stuff, get rid of the bad stuff, and try to get along with other editors, no? bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• If he was being selective and discussing the edits when someone objects I would have no problem. What he has done is to decide, unilaterally, that no Wikipedia article shall have a "in popular culture" section, and proceeded to mass delete them. That hurts the encyclopedia. Plus he is uncivil. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass spamming from multiple socks

Note mass spamming from LauraBrad (talk · contribs) as well as MaryBroady (talk · contribs) and however many others. May need help with this one. -- œ^™ 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From MaryBroady) - Apologies, I was not trying to spam. I was adding reference links to a new Diocese Calendar for Catholic Diocese pages, which I thought was an appropriate link for their WIKI pages. I am very sorry for the confusion. --MaryBroady (talk) 05:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything appears to be rolled back. What do you still need help with?--Chaser (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thought there might be more than a few socks/meatpuppets here but it seems I've overreacted. Everything's rolled back, user has been informed, nothing too extensive to be fixed. -- œ^™ 04:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(From LauraBrad)Diocese Calendar References

Apologies, we are not trying to spam. Every Catholic diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on xt3.com If someone is looking for Catholic events happening in their diocese this is where they can find more information and upload their own events happening at their parishes within their diocese. There must be an appropriate place for this information? This is useful for all Catholics in that diocese also please note that all the diocese links are different and specific we are not just copying and pasting information --LauraBrad (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions i would say you are not correct. You have clearly been adding links to a calander trying to promote it. In That case, I propose a temporary block.--Kindly, Anderson - what's up? 05:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses, if they wish to do so online, is from the respective diocesan websites. There's nothing wrong with you creating a commercial central website for this - although it's farcical to imagine you could possibly keep up with the doings of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis - but you cannot promote it on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 05:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Ravenswing, The central website is called xt3.com (however it is not commercial) it has been created for WYD 2008 by a team of English and Australian Catholics and overseen by an Australian diocese. It was created as a service to all dioceses in the world. Every diocese in the world has a homepage and an events calendar on the site. Therefore a link to the specific diocese calendar on wikipedia is a useful reference for all dioceses in the world. The diocese calendars are user generated therefore priests, youth ministers, etc can upload their local events on the diocese calendar therefore it is not "farcical to imagine keeping up with the events of thousands of dioceses on an ongoing basis." (you could say the same thing about wikipedia) Your comment that "The appropriate place for parishioners to find out about events happening in their dioceses is on the respective diocesan websites." is problematic as many dioceses do not have websites, especially in rural Australia and African countries that is why we wanted to reference their diocese calendar and homepage on xt3.com on wikipedia. --LauraBrad (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the url for the Sydney Archdiocese event calendar on xt3.com http://www.xt3.com/diocese/calendar.php?dioceseId=19 it is widely used by catholic agencies and parishioners in Sydney Archdiocese, this would surely be of interest to anyone in that diocese who search for the diocese on Wikipedia?? --LauraBrad (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Laura, adding the link to a number of articles is problematic due to the rules on spamming. While it might not be "commercial" in the traditional sense, it isn't a scholarly source, but instead a blog of information for a particular organization, hence commercial in respect to our policies (ie: it is promoting itself). If there is an article on that diocese, then the link would be appropriate as a primary link, but not likely in other articles. Keep in mind the goal is to verify facts, as we are an encyclopedia, and not to just create a list of links. To everyone else here, biting isn't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. I'll add that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and only and exclusively an encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles include "encyclopedic" stuff like date of creation of the dioceses, historical buildings owned by the dioceses, and other items of what is known as "knowledge". What you want to add is not knowledge, it's information. Wikipedia is a compilation of knowledge, not a compilation of information. And Wikipedia is not a directory of links, either. Adding links to multiple pages is frowned upon, unless your website has valuable encyclopedic knowledge that is difficult to obtain from sources like books and journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request awaiting a response

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Luciferwildcat (talk · contribs)

The user has had an unblock request up for quite some time. Would an administrator have a moment to respond? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

District Court notice at User talk:Standell66

Can someone knowledgeable give any advice necessary over the statement recently added on that page? The dispute centres on the past and current membership of The Standells rock group, where I've tried to mediate over article content in the past. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reblocked with talk page access disabled for the duration of the court case, and another editor removed the material. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Why is ¶2 of The Standells#Later reformations and versions of the band even in our article in the first place? It's not independently sourced, being A-said-B-said sourced to an interview on one side and a (now missing) countersuit claim on the other. Uncle G (talk) 09:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WhiteWriter and Giant Snowman

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ganging up and promoting Serbian nationalism. Edit-warring between the two of them [46], Giant Snowman has blanketed my every edit since I joined [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] and all if you look. My point is that there is no WP:MOS rule that says a country of birth has got to be what it was when the person was born, and all Kosovan cities have two standard titles in English: Albanian and Serbian equivalent. But the majority of locals use the Albanian titles (eg. Ferizaj and not Urosevac). They have no rule book to show me and they have never got a consensus on these things, they just go and spread the Serbian names then guard them angrily. I suggest blocking of both. Kthimi në Shqipëri (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, this is almost definitely a blocked user socking to promote POV - running straight to ANI on your first day? Secondly, please read WP:MODERNPLACENAME - "Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods." There is also a long-standing consensus to do. Nationalism and POV of any kind has no place on Wikipedia. You will soon find out when this ridiculous thread is closed and your biased edits are reverted. Thirdly, you have not notified myself or WhiteWriter. GiantSnowman 10:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

O, i can say only few words.  Looks like a duck to me Should be blocked per BOOMERANG and ARBMAC restrictions. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, I told WhiteWriter in a statement on my talk page. Giant Snowman, please learn how to use Wikipedia: old names or new names are just content dispute. There is no consensus to support old names, and don't you find it provocative considering what happened in the 1990's in Kosovo? Do Kosovars want to have their names in Cyrillic and their town names in Serbian just because this all applied in Yugoslavia which is now defunct? It is just content dispute and I back my reasoning by citing the fact that English sources do use the Albanian names too so they can both be right, but a local majority use the Albanian name because they ARE Albanians, so Albanian is the better of the two for Kosovar places. The fact is you never used the talk page, you never achieved consensus, and yet you harass me by reverting my every edit. Why can't the majority name stay while we talk on talk pages? Kthimi në Shqipëri (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreferenced BLP at AFC, OTRS ticket raised for deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eddie Kathrein. I've courtesy blanked the page for the time being, but is it worth just speedying this? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hanja skirmish at Lee Areum (possibly Korean speaker needed)

I have reverted once. I would semi-protect, but I believe the IP is correct and the registered user is wrong, so semi-protection is backwards in this case.

• Lee Areum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Famitsudc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.116.215.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

I understand people sometimes use mixed Hangul and Hanja in their name and romanize differently, so I suggested it not be changed until it could be verified by citation. However, it looks like they have both found resources that support their position. Unfortunately, the resource in each case is YouTube.

Thanks,  :- ) Don 13:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)