Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution 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

Edits by recently blocked user 41.243.171.14‎

41.243.171.14‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has just come back from a 48-hour AN/I ban to make edits to Debi Gliori and an attack on Talk:Debi Gliori. Can you help out, please? Esowteric+Talk 21:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: "recently banned" should read "recently blocked". Lacking nicotine late in the evening, I unfortunately posted in haste. Esowteric+Talk 09:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My response on the user talk page:

"Hi, I've reverted your recent edit to Debi Gliori in which you deleted accurate and reliably sourced information from The Times with the edit summary " Editor has not even read the story, see his twitter, using an attention grabbing headline from a story you have not even read is not a NPOV." I have read the lead paragraphs to the article, as these do not require a subscription." See edit diff. The source confirms the Wiki content that the IP deleted. Esowteric+Talk 22:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has made numerous postings as a Wiki editor at The Guardian, AbsoluteWrite.com, in which he has made unfounded accusations that I am involved with an involved party of Debi Gliori's Wiki page, he has while in the forum on Wiki business outed me. He has detailed his plan to "dilute the controversy" by posting book reviews, which is what Debi Gliori asked for in her blog. He is clearly on some sort of White Knight mission on behalf of Debi Gliori and has shown a clear conflict of interest. Not to mention the unfounded accusations he has made against me. He has also been telling people on twitter that he is monitoring me, using his web server skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I find it a little strange that you should have visited my blog, my dropbox account, my web site and my twitter account. Esowteric+Talk 22:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Put the IP under your pillow and the stalker fairy will bring you a dollar! Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lightening me up. Esowteric+Talk 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I said that I would dilute the controversy, because it was becoming WP:UNDUE. Please stop twisting everything. Visit my twitter or my blog. You won't find me calling you a troll anywhere. Esowteric+Talk 22:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You are so hopelessly involved in this page, you are stalking me, and you don't even see it, you enter a thread as a Wiki editor, you then reveal where thread users can get my IP from, you then spend the next 48 hours telling everyone that you're being attacked by the dark forces of the internet. What have I done in the last 48 hours ? read your messages rallying up the forces against evil. I adopt a peaceful wait and see, you incite others against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

All I linked to was the publicly-available edit history for the article. And my username and your IP are logged and displayed every time we edit. See the end of your comment above. Anyhow, I need to go to bed now. Esowteric+Talk 23:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Wiki rules Esowteric has posted information on his user page, my usernames at 2 other sites, this information can clearly be used to help identify me and users could contact me using this information which is in violation of; "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia."

None of the information he has posted was available via my userpage and is clearly an attempt along with his numerous other communications to incite others against me WP:OUTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If User:Esowteric engaged in any outing of the IP here on the pages of Wikipedia, I have not come across it yet. Two of the IP's edits at Debi Gliori have been revision-deleted, which is usually not a good sign about the person who made the edits. The continuation of off-wiki disputes here on Wikipedia is discouraged. I've now read the contents of Debi Gliori#Controversy two or three times and am uncertain on whether it belongs in the article. I have trouble seeing the IP editor as a victim, at least if I limit my study to the visible edits by all parties here on Wikipedia. After reviewing the contents of this ANI, as well as the previous one here that involved an obvious legal threat by the IP, I suggest a longer block of the IP for disruption. The future of the Controversy section might need discussing at WP:BLP/N but that is independent of any outing issues. It's a question of relevance and of the type of material appropriate for inclusion in a BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is an interesting idea and may provide an exit strategy from this mess. See Talk:Debi Gliori for the history of the controversy section. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 10:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• The IP was blocked not "banned". See WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Esowteric has posted my usernames from two other forums on his personal talk page HERE ON WIKI, in your own rules you say this is a "personal attack" and can lead to "harm". I never gave Esowteric permission to reveal this information and he is clearly inciting others to harm me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 07:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You publicly acknowledged that this was you. I wholeheartedly apologize for any distress or harm that I have caused you, and I will learn from this lesson. However, I do not agree with you that it is "Debi Gliori and her army of fans who include J.K. Rowling" who have defamed and cyberbullied either the artist, Angus Stewart or you. Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

IP should be reblocked. GoodDay (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we let this matter settle down, please?

The "involved party", artist Angus Stewart, recognizing the damage that this has done, has recently issued a heartfelt plea for the issue to settle down. Many people, including Debi Gliori are thankful and grateful for this manly approach:

He writes on his Facebook page for "Tobermory Cat":

"[Tobermory Cat] May we close this thread please. I would rather like things to settled down. It seems my idea to follow the process of creating a celebrity cat turns out to be an extremely dangerous and damaging idea. It has caused a great deal of hurt and I want no more of it. My understanding of what is and what is not acceptable is misguided. It has been extremely hurtful to Debi and she does not deserve it. I met her once and she does not deserve to be hurt by my work. I don’t like that. I am guilty of following an idea too far - the fog came down and I forgot about where I wanted to go. The good thing is Debi's book came out and its a good book and will give more pleasure to more people than this page will do if this is the way its going. Good things can come from difficult beginnings and truly hope that is the case for Debi’s book. I need a bit of time to think about this so if possible could everyone take a bit of a deep breath. Time to think about good stuff not bad. I would really appreciate that. Sunday [3 November 2012] at 12:20am · Edited · Unlike · 4"

Please can we allow this issue to settle down? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to see, 41.243.171.14‎? No controversy section; the original allegations of copyright theft against Ms. Gliori, or the full story? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

− Yes I did acknowledge this was me on the forum, which I believe was the best response in the circumstances, but it wasn't for you to post the identifying information without asking me first, you then reposted the information on your talkpage. I am not sure how you expect other editors to contribute to the Debi Gliori page if this is how you behave when someone makes edits you don't like. Another editor thinks the whole controversy page you added should be removed, are you going to add another section to your talkpage called "Intimidation II", out them and then twitter for help? I think you need to understand that comment sections on news sites and forums are just people's opinions and not a Wiki of the facts. If people cannot voice their opinions without fear of reprisals then freedom of speech is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 11:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for free speech and the right to respond to perceived errors. Perhaps the best thing for you to do here is to tell us what your opinions are of Ms. Gliori's behaviour (specifically the copyright issue and the cyberbullying). That is, after all, the crux of the matter. You argued, for example, in removed posts at The Guardian that Ms. Gliori had stolen copyright "ideas" and that her blog post was thoroughly "passive-aggressive". Regards and apologies again, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 11:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: "Ms. Gliori's blog describes the first meeting as an epic battle. She claims he was digging into her life and lunged at her, both of which are absolute nonsense. She claims she "snapped" and that "Hugh dug his heals in" when they should have just left. She mocks the importance of Facebook in Mr. Stewart's life claiming that it's insignificant in hers. Then her official line is of a victim whose very existence is threatened by the internet. Maybe if she had stayed on topic about the idea that was or wasn't stolen instead of Mr. Stewart's character her argument would be sound. Instead she just goes to her mob of fans' lowest instincts, which is the very same accusation she makes against Mr. Stewart, both are guilty of appealing to their fans for action when they should have resolved the matter amongst themselves. It also seems that she was very hostile towards Mr. Stewart before he took any action against her. What should be noted is that this story has been made into an issue of cyber-bullying by the press and not copyright and Ms. Gliori seems, so far, quite happy to go along with this. I think that it's important to note that the current flavour of the month for the press is "Cyber-bullying" and editors should be wary of any bias in the press because of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you like to express your opinion on the copyright issue, as this is absolutely crucial to the case? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

From Talk:Debi Gliori: ""Attacked by internet troll" should fall under Godwin's Law, it's just too easy to label anything you don't like as a "troll". Is it really immoral or evil to accuse someone of theft if you believe it to be true? If a wiki page reports someone as having been viciously trolled, does that actually explain what happened ? Not really, only that the writer believed it to be immoral and disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC) " via Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The copyright issue was explained at great length at Copyright – words and images, not ideas, titles or cats and later at AbsoluteWrite, by writing professionals. Esowteric+Talk 14:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of copyright it's worth noting that the publisher/book seller/author talk as if the cat were still alive, prior to the author writing her book, the cat alive was The Tobermory Cat of Mr. Stewart. Also the author describes the cat they were going to write the book about "even has it's own Facebook page". So if the real cat was dead what other cat could they possibly be talking about. I really think that the evidence at hand shows that the publisher/book seller/author intended writing about Mr. Stewart's cat(fictional creation), and as Mr. Stewart has pointed out there were many other similarities, of his creating, that appeared in drafts by the author. The author also admitted she had to go to the island to find more about the cat, but it was dead, so it's likely she could have injected some of Mr. Stewart's creation from talking to the locals as some of Mr. Stewart's observations of the cat must have already made it into local folklore. I don't think The Tobermory cat belongs to Mr. Stewart but they have obviously used some of his fictional creation and that is why they visited Mr. Stewart in the first place. Their original claims that they only knew he was taking photos of the cat are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All we can go on is what is reported in reliable and verifiable sources. This is why I used the words "unproven allegations" (with intentional redundancy), rather than simply "allegations" (whereby mud might stick) and obviously, I could not use the words "unfounded allegations" (as Wikipedia is not a court of law). Esowteric+Talk 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If anything is said other than "Debi Gliori and Mr. Stewart are involved in a bitter copyright dispute" it would be unreliable. "Viciously attacked by internet trolls" is journalist-speak for "Don't let my career die behind this pay-wall", if you use this then we will have to start talking about troll massacres in describing other events. The word troll is now used to describe anything that offends anyone on the internet, so what she's really saying is "Viciously attacked by words they didn't like" which simplifies to "offended". Is this TMZ or Wiki ?

I also fail to understand what a cat that lived in the previous century, or two that lived in a distillery have to do with this dispute, both parties base their dispute on a cat that died recently and one's living. This is not The Tobermory Cat Wiki page is it? Why is there a discussion of other cats of the same name ? Neither of their works are based on these cats or am I missing a source because it was her army of internet fans that came up with this information after the fact and Ms Gliori makes no mention of it in the design process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Good morning! The copyright dispute depends on the artist Angus Stewart having produced a substantially original creation about a cat named "Tobermory" or "Tobermory Cat" that is copyrightable, an issue that has been extensively argued on-line by writing professionals.

The lead paragraph of the controversy section is there to provide background information to introduce the controversy section and put it in perspective, and to add counterbalance to the allegations.

It is up to the reader to then decide for himself or herself whether others might have come up with the idea of a cat called Tobermory, made him famous, or whether the actual living cat Tobermory was already well known; or whether Mr. Stewart had come up with a substantially original creation. This is much better than leading with the otherwise provocative and unexplained paragraph "In 2011–12, Debi Gliori was at the centre of a disagreement about copyright surrounding a character named "Tobermory Cat" ..." Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 09:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You may want to take this back to a POV/attack entry alleging copyright infringement against Debi Gliori, with no rebuttal, redress or counterbalance, but that is not how Wikipedia works. See first edit, later edit. The problem with words like "allegedly stole" and the selective use of citations is that mud sticks and you have to be proactive to counterbalance that. Esowteric+Talk 09:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Both parties are in a copyright dispute, nothing has been decided by a court of law, the views of Ms. Gliori's fans, fellow authors and journalists are prejudicial. They would never be used to decide what is fair elsewhere, why here at Wiki ? What do the involved parties say about the matter and forget about the rest.

Ms. Gliori in her blog makes it very clear the cat the publisher wanted the story to be about "even has it's own Facebook page" and the publisher asked her to look at the FaceBook page before starting her book. That is very relevant and would be the words of Ms. Gliori on her own Wiki page. This should be included on the Wiki if you are going to use a mud tree like "viciously attacked by internet trolls" to throw at Mr. Stewart. Currently the section on controversy is the view being put forward by her fans, with next to nothing about what she actually said and what Mr. Stewart actually said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.171.14 (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section draws on reliable and verifiable sources from both "sides" which chose to publish. Ms. Gliori's blog being a primary/self-published source, the article does no more than describe the nature of the post, it does not draw any quotable content from it. Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we, therefore, invite Angus Stewart, Debi Gliori and her publisher to view and, if they see fit, comment on this thread? Esowteric+Talk 14:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue

OK, ‎TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has now removed a lot of material in the Reception section from Debi Gliori. What this does, of course, is make the Controversy over "Tobermory" section stand out like a sore thumb and I would agree that it is now WP:UNDUE, as TheRedPenOfDoom has tagged and indicated. So should the contoversy section be removed entirely, or trimmed?

If trimmed, what can we say about the controversy that will satisfy the artist who claimed "theft of his ideas" (infringement of copyright); the author and publisher who strenuously deny such allegations; and also fairly represent the regional and national press and television who have written extensively about the matter? Regards, Eric: Esowteric+Talk 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We could take out the Controversy section altogether and add the reliable sources to the Media coverage section, simply as uncommented bulleted items. However, this may not fairly represent the story. Esowteric+Talk 07:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the factually accurate lead paragraph, explaining that the cat, subject of the copyright infringement allegations was already well known. Also removed the direct quote from The Times: ", [writing that] "Gliori was viciously attacked on the internet by trolls." Esowteric+Talk 07:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Have removed the controversy section per WP:UNDUE and added bulleted list to Media reception without comment. I am concerned, however, that readers will be left with totally the wrong idea about the unproven allegations of IP theft. Anyhow, please fight this out amongst yourselves. Esowteric+Talk 08:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Jfgsloeditor

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

---

Resolved

 – Elen of the Roads has blocked Jfgsloeditor and the AfD's the user created have been CSD G5'ed. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at Jfgsloeditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their contributions, may need a CU to work out which of the MMA socks it is. Mtking ^(edits) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, do you know which this perpetrated user comes from a banned editor? ApprenticeFan ^work 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry no I don't for sure, perm one form about 3 or 4. Mtking ^(edits) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• It should be looked into, as their sole contribution to Wikipedia has been to attempt to do a lot of bad faith AfD nominations for America's Next Top Model related articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the evidence that the nominations were done in bad faith? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• First off, according the checkuser page, that tool is not to be used for fishing. So, unless you think I am some specific other editor, they don't just check accounts on hunches based on their guidelines. Second, does America's Next Top Model really need that many pages? Isn't this a serious encyclopedia? Why is not just an article about the show sufficient? We're not talking about some show with the kind of number one ratings as American Idol or something. --Jfgsloeditor (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For being highly familiar with a specific subset of the policy guidelines, being familiar with AfD nominations, and your general combativeness, I concur with MtKing in that my I hear a lot of loud quacking that probably would be best served by an admin taking the user in hand and asking some on the record questions prior to the magic pixie dust being used. Hasteur (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Aaaand, he's a sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Now there is a surprise, the Afd's he created should be CSD'ed G5 in order to WP:DENY the sock unless any of the !vote keeps really wants to keep the pages, I will nominate in an hour or two if there is no objection. Mtking ^(edits) 23:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Any objection ? Mtking ^(edits) 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, I am going to give a support indefinite ban for the editor for life. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He is de facto if not actualy de jure banned, no admin will unblock and any socks he create will be blocked. Mtking ^(edits) 09:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Cross-wiki harassment by User:Euroflux

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

---

After his recent block and my proposals to delete/rename two of his categories here, User:Euroflux is now harassing me on the Dutch, German, and Italian Wikipedias, ferreting out my real-life identity (not all that well hidden, I guess, given that I originally edited under my real name and only had my account renamed to avoid exactly this kind of behavior) and accusing me of "proven" sockpuppetry, hounding and blocking him here, destroying his work, etc. etc. Is there a central point to report this behavior, or do I have to deal with this at each WP separately? Any advice is welcome. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You can request it at each Wikipedia separately, or you can request a global block at meta:Steward requests/Global. Disclaimer: I know next to nothing about the standards for applying a global block. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I didn't know about this. Unfortunately, it's only applicable to IPs that are guilty of persistent cross-wiki spamming and/or vandalism. Thanks anyway. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on the Dutch wiki's admin page, that's about all that I can do with my limited denkraam. Guillaume, if I need to support any statement on some meta wiki, just tell me. It's time this ends. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

An admin could help by blocking User:Euroflux from editing his English Wikipedia talk page—User talk:Euroflux—where he is also carrying on this campaign. First Light (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that is an excellent suggestion. We have had too much patience with Euroflux already, it is obvious that this person just does not get the collaborative spirit of this project. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree too and, so, I have gone ahead and done the honours. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (BTW: your block even made the Italian wiki...) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Insofar he is not blocked on the Italian wiki [1]. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sysop on it.wiki, so I cannot block him, even if I think he should indeed be. But I hope someone will indef him and be done with him there too... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This thread can be closed. Guillaume2303 is now retired. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

An IP has changed hundreds of politicians' birthplaces to historically incorrect place names

Over the last few days User talk:67.49.49.195 has changed the birthplaces of hundreds of politicians (it looks like mostly Africans and Europeans) to the current place names of cities/countries/provinces/etc. which are historiclly incorrect - for example he/she changed Salva Kiir Mayardit's birth country to South Sudan which did not exist at the time. The name changes in most cases also result in the incorrect place article to be linked. These edits violate WP:MOSBIO. In many (most?) cases the articles are subject to BLP rules thus AIUI remedial action is urgent. (The editor concerned has been notified.) Roger (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've just issued a final warning. A temporary block will follow. --Tone 08:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, could someone go through the edits and revert them? --Tone 08:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some but it's too many to check at the moment. --Tone 09:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(ecx2)The IP is not responding at all to multiple attempts to get their attention - can someone please block this editor to limit the ongoing damage to WP and force him/her to attend to this attempt to discussand resolve the issue. As it is, reverting the edits is going to be a large job, I've done a few but I do actually have a life outside of WP. Roger (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the final warning posted by Tone has put the brakes on the IP's editing. Is the there an accepted method for mass reverting the edits? Roger (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, it hasn't. One week block. Mass revert makes sense, not sure how to do it, though. Bot? --Tone 09:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I started going through the contributions list but started random sampling, and I think a lot of them have been reverted by various editors chipping in, as I couldn't find one that hadn't been changed. Will check again later but well done, people. Britmax (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, still some to do. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:MASSROLLBACK might have been useful :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I was going to say that, until I encountered this user's edits to Kailash Purryag. The one I undid was obviously bad, this one was alright, and the validity of that one depepends on whether you like red links in your infoboxes (I don't care and have no reason to, so I've left it alone). Graham87 10:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• A friendly reminder that we really do need to end the ability of unregistered IPs to edit. Nothing but problems... Carrite (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gregoryat and disruptive edits

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

---

Over the last few days, User:Gregoryat has seemingly committed several offenses against Wikipedia standards and guidelines. It all starts with an article the subject created about themselve at Greg Terhune. While that isn't of itself a big issue, their behavior and actions since that point have become disruptive. From Wiki-lawyering, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3), to personal attacks, (Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5), to telling multiple experienced editors that don't understand established wiki policy (too many to list, but main issue lies at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Terhune). The user has been warned of their behavior, but the person continues to engage in bad behavior ((Warning and deleting someone else's comment at the deletion discussion). Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's been blocked for a week for operating a sockpuppet (LA Kings 23 (talk · contribs)). Favonian (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's also accused me of libel (three times at last count?), described editors as "stupid", and accused others of "gross negligence". He's been blocked for socking for a week, but given his attitude at the AfD he is clearly not here to contribute positively. I personaly would favour an indef. GiantSnowman 22:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I guess while I was putting together the list, he was blocked. So you can add sockpuppetry to the other charges in case he wants to come back. Patken4 (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note the one week block was placed based solely on my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gregoryat. If any admin would like to extend the block based on other behavioural factors then I have no problem with that. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He's clearly not here to be helpful. Those mentions of libel should be an indication for an indef don't you think? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Saying the L word doesn't automatically make a legal threat. If you delete this I'll sue you for libel is a legal threat. Editors frequently discuss whether an edit is a "copyvio," for example, but that's not a legal threat either. Nobody Ent 22:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree he hasn't made any explicit legal threats - but he is clearly not here to be constructive. GiantSnowman 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm I do see where you're coming from. I've thought about this before and I feel that if an editor is continuously using "libel", specifically referring to libel against himself, in order to intimidate other editors and skew discussion then that's probably grounds for an indefinite block. Like GS said, he's not here to help is he? Anyway, probably redundant Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't cost us much to let the block time out and see if post-block behavior improves. (I consider AGF to be a code of conduct for ourselves, not a probability assessment.) Nobody Ent 23:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching this unfold and trying to help Gregory for the last few days. The legalistic comments did not rise to the level of a legal threat or I would have blocked him myself, although I did warn him about the NLT policy since he was headed in that general direction. He also edit warred with Patken4 on his talk page but that seemed to be a newbie misunderstanding of the difference between removing a comment on an article or WP-space talk page and doing so on a user talk page so I again warned but did not block. I have to say the condescending, arrogant, know-it-all attitude of this user does not fill me with hope that they will turn around and become a productive user after the block has expired, but stranger things have happened. As I said on his talk page this whole incident is a textbook example of why it is a bad idea to create autobiographies on WP. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

And now he is removing every post by another user to his talk page, but leaving his own replies to those posts. This sort of childishness does not bode well for the future, and also would seem to contradict his claim to be a law student. (of course one of the sources he provided about himself said his undergrad major was "sports marketing" so I already had my doubts about that) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed some of his spam from my own talk page, but his behaviour towards me and the other Wikipedia editors involved in the AfD over his personal article was unbelievable - as was the totally off-topic spam about Barack Obama being, in his eyes, Kenyan (which I'm fairly sure was removed). I apologize for some of the name-calling (for want of a better word) I used towards him, it was sheer frustration at the way he was acting both towards me and other editors, but that's no real excuse and I am disappointed with myself for responding in such a manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

A pathetic individual; a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath who had a very impoverished upbringing

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

---

However wrong I may have been, did I really deserve to be called a "a pathetic individual" and "a really despicable, self-indulgent and self-deluded sociopath" who "had a very impoverished upbringing" by User:Tagishsimon? I don't understand how someone can write such things about a person he or she encountered only a day before. All of that is a result of a single, trivial dispute. At first, I did not intend to be all dramatic about this, but it occurred to me that such behaviour should not go unnoticed. Surtsicna (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, you don't, removed comment {{rpa}}.
• Both editors got into an increasing spiral of accusation and counter accusation. I'd encourage both to stop discussing and describing each other. Best way to resolve the disagreement is to get additional assistance; I'd suggest WP:DRN or WP:THIRD. Nobody Ent 22:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The actual disagreement was resolved immediately. What followed was, well, that. I'm actually ashamed of having taken part in that. Hopefully it's over. Surtsicna (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made it clear to the editor that his messages are not welcome to my talk page. He nevertheless refuses to stop writing on my talk page and has called me a "deeply flawed individual lacking in the basic common courtesies".[2] He's gone too far and I would truly appreciate being spared new insults every time I log in. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Administrator violating WP:BITE

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

---

• Nuveen Investments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nickienelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Balph Eubank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A.K.A. John Galt
• OwenX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, a newbie User:Nickienelson (well, the account was created in 2010, but has only made a few edits until recently) posted a question on my talk page about Nuveen Investments, asking for help. I had forgotten about this, but last March, I added a few problem templates to the page, among them Undue Weight and Neutrality. The editor asked me for help editing the article, and I provided some basic guidance. The editor also posted at the talk page of Administrator User:OwenX, who has some history of editing that article. Prompted by Nickienelson, I had a look at the page, and saw that fully 3/4ths of it is overloaded with a laundry list of negative claims about the company, many of them totally unsourced, some of them sourced to blogs. An unsourced negative claim about the company was in the lede itself. I deleted the negative claims because, frankly, they violate WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:V, as well as at least one of the cited sources violating WP:RS. OwenX reverted this, and did nothing else but add a source to the lede. He then responded on his talk to Nickienelson with extremely bitey language, accusing Nickienelson of being a "corporate lackey" [3], and insisting he will revert edits to the article based (paradoxically) on POV (and COI). Do we really wonder why new editors abandon Wikipedia? Here is someone asking politely at an administrator's talk page for help and was met with unbacked accusations of COI, not to mention implying that Nickienelson and I are acting in tandem to whitewash the article (same diff linked above). Can an uninvolved person please step into this, hopefully help this newbie who has just been bitten by OwenX, and restore some semblance of sanity? OwenX has been notified and I am notifying Nickienelson now. - John Galt ✉ 04:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• For better or worse, no action will or can ever be taken here against any admins. Someone will soon tell you that this is the wrong forum to complain about abusive admins, and to consider opening an RFCU. Good luck with all that, and try not to get jaded by this experience. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm already jaded, but I'm not going to keep quiet about it. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple Google search for Nickie Nelson Nuveen should make the "newby's" COI obvious Hot Stop (Edits) 04:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so you found a possible COI (I did not search as I was assuming good faith). Is that any excuse for his reference to "corporate lackeys" and violating WP:BITE? If this editor does have a COI, there is a proper response to that, and none of them involve name calling. And there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims. - John Galt ✉ 05:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• A claim is allowed to stand unsourced in the lead if it is verified later on in the article. There were problems, maybe, with undue weight, but the WSJ isn't a blog, and Barron's isn't a blog--and those were among the references you removed from the article. Having said that, I don't approve of OwenX phrasing things the way he did so quickly, but it's perhaps understandable given the name issue and the condition of the article, which you turned back into a company brochure. It's reverted, and I suggest you don't hit rollback or undo. I note also that Owen has worked on this article going back to 2008: it may well be so that further digging in the history provides background to these issues, or that Owen simply knows things we don't. Drmies (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
• Further: "there's no excuse at all for an administrator reverting an article so that it mostly consists of poorly or totally unsourced negative claims"--that's probably correct. Good thing that wasn't the case here; one might argue also that there is no excuse for an editor to remove a ton of valuable information and reliable sources from an article without much of a reason. Get to editing the article, that's what it needs. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AGF doesn't mean that you shouldn't do basic background research. You ripped an article apart based on the request of the marketing manager for that company. The article seems to cover Nuveen in proportion to its news coverage, which is heavily weighted towards discussion of its involvement with ARS. Was it perfect? No. Was your complete gutting of it anywhere near justified? No.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

We really want to encourage corporate PR folks to talk to us if they see problems, as Nelson has done, rather than just deploy people to make biased edits. In that respect OwenX did a terrible job. As for the article, well I don't care. Prodego ^talk 05:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Nickienelson's comments allude to canvassing/socking and OwenX had every right to think so because of past history. User:KHCardoza is a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of User:Nickienelson. The latter used this IP today which is the same IP that had tried edit-warring with OwenX in the past and KHCardoza made the same edit.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

AFAIC In order to request help from uninvolved Administrators an {{uninvolved}} template should be posted here, on the WP:ANI page, filling correctly all the sections:

{{ Uninvolved | type | explanation/note | answered=yes }}

as to welcome Wikipedia:UNINVOLVED#UNINVOLVED Admins to post comments on some ongoing incident.

Please note that AFAIK ALL Wikipedia ADMINistrators are volunteers, time is money and asking for help should be done only for *REAL* incidents and not for time-wasting nonsense forum-chats.

I hope that this helps.

 —  Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That template should never in a million years be used here in ANI or on AN. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Look, the admin was a bit abrasive at most while he was acting in his capacity as an editor. Maybe we should replace WP:BITE with WP:DONTBESUCHAPUSSY, since it would take care of 99% of BITE violations. Owen invoked WP:BRD as per his prerogative, and now there is an RFC on the talk page. Recommend closing this now the RFC is open, because it all boils down to being a content dispute which can be resolved in the normal way. Betty Logan (talk) 12:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I have to concur (partly) with Betty Logan. The fact that the editor who was WP:BITEY is also an admin is somewhat irrelavent: he was not using admin tools or threats of admin action during what is undoubtedly a content dispute. Indeed, they did not edit war, or violate any policy. Yes, admins are supposed to model correct behaviour - but they're also human. The hazard to Wikipedia articles when they're edited by people with such obvious COI is apparent to anyone who has read this thread or even glanced at Wikipedia as a whole - it can, indeed, be frustrating. If you want to desysop or block anyone for biting anyone (especially an editor with COI) then I do wish you good luck with that process ... start an WP:RFC/U. The real surprise is that the COI user wasn't blocked immediately - now that might have been something to actually complain about. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

User check : RobertRosen

It all started with our differing views on the reliability of a source here. I resorted to WP:RSN to seek expert advice. User:TheBlueCanoe intervened and opined that the source concerned is reliable, wikipedia per se. On reflection, I found that clauses such as WP:SPS too would apply if at all RobertRosen's views were taken seriously and I stated the same to him. RobertRosen kept spouting Wikipedia lingo such as WP:AGF and WP:RS and refused to give in to any of my points. He further went on defacing the article with edits such as this. That worried me and made me look up RobertRosen's history to check his intentions. I found instances such as this, thisand this which smeared my assumed good faith on RobertRosen. Sneakily removing sourced material with misleading edit summaries, removing sourced content falsely stating that it is unsupported : his edit history revealed such tendencies. Further check on Aruna Roy's history brought to light his other edits([4] 2 & 3) which have removed relevant and sourced material such as Aruna's featuring in Time's list of influential people. Maybe a pattern would emerge if all his contributions are scrutinized. The user keeps asking me to take it to his talk page, but I doubt if that would be worth my time and energy. Need administrator intervention. _morelMW^illiam 09:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI please. GiantSnowman 09:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should be a reliable encyclopedia sourced from authentic and non-POV sources in so far as BLP articles are concerned. So yes, I do "tend" to remove information on BLPs till they are properly sourced and re-written by editors interested in the subject. I am primarily a Wikipedia reader/user and not a Wikipedia editor. The present dispute is about personal biographical information about a living person Aruna Roy. I had repeatedly asked the complainant to take it to the ARTICLE TALK PAGE since there were only 2 editors involved. I also advised him that WP:3 is the place to go if he wanted a third opinion. Instead he has brought a content dispute to WP:ANI within the space of a few hours and without any independent editors being allowed to participate. For instance, User:TheBlueCanoe gave his opinion before I had even properly stated my case. If insisting on strict adherence to WP policies is a crime, then please dub me a SP and throw me out of WP. RobertRosen (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of any socks. I had to take it to ANI as the problem is not with this one instance, but many, as supported by the disturbing instances cited in my first post. User:TheBlueCanoe did respond after RobertRosen's reply, which still wasn't a favourable one for RobertRosen. This user has a flawed understanding of WP policies and his editing should be monitored closely to prevent him from defacing further articles. _morelMW^illiam 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad - your talk of "user check" and "patterns" threw me, I thought you were talking about socking. I'll try and have a proper look if I find time. GiantSnowman 10:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is another instance that makes me question his sound knowledge of WP policies. Controversies should be removed from a BLP article only when they form the main content, if I am not wrong. Or am I wrong? _morelMW^illiam 10:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think you (MorelMWilliam) are. You're edit warring, not using the article talk page, not responding to a good faith notice place on your talk page, and running off to noticeboards. You're escalating the situation very quickly, and posting to ANI concurrently with RSN. Digging through an editor's history to find "evidence" of past misdeeds isn't really helpful, especially when at some of the links you provide don't really hold up. For example, RobertRosen made some edits to Arindam Chaudhuri with reasonable edit summaries, which were reverted by another editor; RR did not edit war (a third editor repeated some of the trimming). This discussion should be taken to the talk page. Going to RSN to get additional viewpoints is fine, but it's more helpful to give it time to allow other editors to comment rather than going back and forth with another editor. I don't see any need for admin action here. Nobody Ent 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

@MorelMWilliam, Just FYI, what I removed on Salman Khurshid was clearly within the scope of WP:LBL. Let me also say that while I respect CONTRIBUTORS like you who add information ("WP is not a paper encyclopedia"), WP also needs those few remaining EDITORS like me who clean up afterwards. So chill and have mutual respect. RobertRosen (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC).

@Nobody WP:BLPREMOVE and WP:AVOIDVICTIM support the addition of well sourced contentious material against Salman Khurshid as they don't garner undue weight in his article. As regards the Arindham Chaudhuri link, RobertRosen deleted the entire content rather than changing it to the way supported by the source. I chose not to take things on my own hands and took it to notice boards for outsider opinion. Besides, all your concerns are that I took it to ANI and not go by talk page disputes, then a 3rd party intervention and then an another step before I get here. Look at the amount of junk that is there on WP:RSN for addition of simple and non contentious facts in an article! Most of his edits, other than today's, have something to do with people/ organisations involved in India Against Corruption movement, and I see a pattern there. His edits are usually content removal, a lot of them of a not so sound judgement. When contacted, he comes forward with wikipedia rules that don't apply. A rollback of some sort for his edits is what I see necessary, and that needs an administrator! _morelMW^illiam 12:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The Roy bio cited is SPS originally from [5] and the rmaf site is simply copying material as a copyright violation of the SPS material <g>. Pretty clear and convincing copyvio in fact, thus unuable for two separate and distinct absolute rules of Wikipedia. I did not check other issues, but that particular one should be laid to rest. Collect (talk) 12:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

All American Speakers website which has her 'bio' cited lists no author. This website sources content that are on public domain. Such as Jesse Jackson's bio copied from here. So it is not an SPS, but rather RMAF's content mirrored by All American Speakers. _morelMW^illiam 12:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In the ongoing WP:RSN discussion, RobertRosen has veered off to conspiracy theorists' territories. His key points include

• Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation is biased to further American Interests as it is administered by Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation.

• Vigil Online, a non notable think tank, authors books that are more reliable than most of the sources here that meet WP:RS.

• He is a self-styled 'door-keeper' who claims that it is because of him "that text from books from "their" side NOR "your" side get through WP's policies and into BLPs".

• He thinks because he knows many books that go "pornographic" when talking about personal details of Aruna Roy, Ramon Magsaysay Award Foundation's biography by an experienced filipino journalist Lorna Kalaw-Tirol is unreliable.

• He asks editors to read his Indian conspiracy theorists like Arundhati Roy sending me links to her criticism pieces such as this to become more 'informed'.

• He claims that the personal details of Aruna Roy supported by RMAF is contentious citing a few blogs.

It is now very clear that he subscribes to such ideologues and defaces articles with his wikilawyering. _morelMW^illiam 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

MorelMWilliam, if you describe another editor as 'defacing' an article one more time, when what you mean is 'editing it in a way I don't like' I will block you under WP:NPA. This appears to be nothing but a content dispute, and I recommend it be closed before such an outcome occurs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the roads, did you read my entire post? It is not a content dispute; this user uses his personal research and unreliable/ shifty sources to support his wikilawyering. This RobertRosen has taken over Aruna Roy and many other wiki articles related to India Against Corruption and removes well referenced content citing their differences with his own knowledge supported by unreliable sources. Here are a few instances.

• He believes(1 & 2) that Aruna Roy and Sanjit Roy were never married. However, it is supported by multiple sources such as this and this.
• I found that a different version of the text under dispute was added by an administrator Ekabhishek in 2009. The same was removed by RobertRosen in 2011 stating that version to be copied in entirety from the source.

I am tired citing instances showing his bad judgement and I wonder if the above is not defacing, then what is! _morelMW^illiam 19:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits by User talk:Carolmooredc on Russia Today

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

---

I am asking for administrative help in response to this edit by user CarolMooreDC in which the user unilaterally modified content that was agreed upon by consensus on either the relevant sub-sections on the RT talk page or through the RT section on the DNR. To justify this, the user provided the revert explanation of, “per talk return to more October 12 NPOV version worked on by several editors; updated good changes follow immediately” however in doing so the user not only removed but also subsequently failed to reinstate the content that was achieved through consensus.

As per WP:BRD, I intended to restore and modify all of the aforementioned text that was achieved through consensus, but overridden through the unilateral edits by the user CarolMooreDC, but as I’m coming off a block, I’ve decided to take this issue here first. Specifically, I draw the administrator’s attention to the following requested changes:

1. As per the RT section on the DNR, moving the Assange paragraph from the history section to the programming section. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to these lines by third-party observer User:Noleander: “Okay, since the program is still on the air, let's go with the Programming section rather than History section.” and “Does anyone object to putting the Assange/WorldTomorrow material in the Programming section? That seems like the best path.”

2. As per this edit by third-party observer User:Noleander, reinstating all the the content under the criticism and controversies section in the-then current Wikipedia version of RT. In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to the user’s opinion that, “Although those are valid and belong in the article…” However, as per the RT section on the DNR, a resolution over the name of the headings has yet to be decided upon, so I would leave the headings as shown in the current version of the Wikipedia article as they are for now

2. As the content to be hypothetically reinstated is lengthy, I draw the administrator’s attention to the relevant sub-contents that were disputed and subsequently resolved:

a. The Marcin Maczka material: in particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Okay, it sounds like there is agreement that Marcin can be used as a source. Any other issues on this one?”

b. NY Times article by S. Heyman: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this sentence by User:Noleander: “Sure, the negative information from NY Times can be used.”

c. Section for chief editor Margarita Simonyan: In particular, I draw the administrator’s attention to this paragraph between myself, User:Carolmooredc and User:Noleander: "FM Replies 4) Perhaps something like, "RT Staff Issues"? Non-loaded terms like "Staffing" or "Personnel" or "Organization" are most encyclopedic and neutral. Adding the word "Issues" into the section title prevents the section, for example, from doing something as simple as listing the key management personnel. --Noleander (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC) FM Reply 4)That could work, but only if it's under the controversies and criticism section. Putting it in such a format would strike a balance between your (a neutral heading) and my (that Simonyan's occupation and occupational background is controversial) position." Note that my suggestion has yet to be disputed.

In addition to those changes, I would like to make the administrator's aware of the type of content User:Carolmooredc has been uploading onto the RT Wikipedia page. As per this edit, the user believes that statements like, "the Kremlin is using charm, good photography and a healthy dose of sex appeal to appeal to a diverse, skeptical audience. The result is entertaining--and ineffably Russian." is appropriate for a lede for the reception section of the article.

Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Festermunk (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

For guidance on this issue I recommend editors look at this September 20th block of Festermunk for editwarring on RT (TV network). Also see this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking his talk page which contained his October 31st block for edit warring and battleground behavior on RT (TV network), as well as rejections of his block review; as well as this editor/admin revert of Festermunk blanking the talk page again. I think Festermunk needs intensive mentoring to understand Wikipedia policy on edit warring. CarolMooreDC 19:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrator's should note that the comments by CarolMooreDC do not address whether or not the content that was previously agreed on by consensus should be included in the RT talk page. The user also does not address why the user failed to re-include agreed upon content after the user's edits, in violation of WP:DGF. Administrator's should also note the comments about my past conduct are irrelevant to that what is being discussed and urge that the administrator's focus only what is being proposed for discussion. Festermunk (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your complaint is a WP:Content dispute. And anyone who reads the Dispute Resolution link, the article talk page, the article edit history, or your talk page can easily see what the problem is. I am providing information relevant to this noticeboard. I'm sure someone else will explain it to you. CarolMooreDC 20:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. It has to do with content, but more specifically it has to do with your disruptive editing given how you not only deleted but did not restore content that was already accepted via consensus. That much should've been obvious to anybody who read the original post. Festermunk (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to close this right now, since the only thing that can come out of this is an indefinite block for Festermunk for persisting, if not (yet) in edit-warring, in battleground behavior. At any rate, there is nothing here for an administrator to do in what is a content matter that needs to be dealt with on the talk page. That Festermunk would come here first is telling and does not bode well for the future, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

IP is asking to be blocked

NO, literally, I recieved a note (Look at "Block this address " ) on my talk page from an IP asking that they be blocked. I left them a warning two days ago for vandalism, and since it's a school, it's likely not the same person, but more likely a teacher or something at this same IP asking that it be blocked. Since I can't do that anyway, thought I'd pass it on to an admin. (Yes, it's the same IP asking that their IP be blocked )  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Block#Self-requested_blocks, I don't know if that's gonna happen, though I don't see why not if we can establish that that is a school, and that the message is from someone with the authority to request such a block (or in a position so that their higher ups won't find out/won't care). Ian.thomson (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a static IP registered to The Halton Board of Education, Ontario [6]. But I don't see any reason to block it right now. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal threats and User:IBobi

User:IBobi continues to edits to support the goals of his employer Internet Brands after Internet Brands has launched lawsuits against members of the Wikimedia Movement [7]. Wondering if he should be banned under the WP:NLT guideline? I would count this as an on Wiki threat [8] but it is more the real life actions that are a problem. He states his affiliation here [9] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a block on that basis. Additionally, based on his edits today, it's not the last we're going to be hearing about IBobi. If the account isn't blocked now, we need to keep an eye it. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've indef'd, given the NLT aspect. Feel free to revert me without input from me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

edit-conflictedNot sure that we should be banning any employee of a company in conflict with us per-se, even if their employer's actions off-wiki are quite despicable and they certainly are. The reference to consulting the WMF laywer might be simply a reference to their complaint that the trademark has been misused in the past by X and Y and whoever, see their lawsuit. But maybe I'm trying to AGF a little bit too much. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable too. 23:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IBobi also supported the legal threats against 8 admins on WT by a user called IBLegal. Thus he has a history of making legal threats. Can dig up the diffs if people wish to see them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting that User:Philippe has unblocked the account, in staff capacity. --Rschen7754 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Philippe clarified that this is not an office action, but a personal decision. He wants us to de-escalate the situation. The way I see it, IBobi hasn't done any actual harm yet. He can bitch all he wants that we're planning to remove the links to his website – just ignore him. If he does anything truly disruptive we can block him again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Three admins had declined unblock requests, including you. I think the situation was well in hand. Tiderolls 02:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm very much not a fan of Philippe's unblock, but for the moment, I'm willing to take a "what's done is done" attitude. IBobi (and the admin corps) have been advised that because this was an IAR unblock, not an OFFICE one, if he continues his disruptive behavior he can be reblocked without fear of (much) WMF wrath. While I wouldn't encourage any admin to do that re-blocking unilaterally if he continues (as it would technically be a violation of WP:WHEEL), I rather think that if the POV pushing/COI editing continues, the issue can be dealt with by a noticeboard thread and the block reinstated then. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With Philippe conceding in a consensus-finding-discussion that he would not oppose anyone reblocking on any ground (albeit he doesn't recommend it, of course ;-) , I figure that a block would definitely not constitute WP:WHEEL warring by any sane interpretation of that text. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

See also: #Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocking of User:IBobi for WP:NLT

IBobi (talk · contribs) is an employee of Internet Brands, a company presently suing several Wikimedia volunteers over their efforts in creating the new WMF project Wikivoyage, and countersued by the WMF as well (see [10]). However, he is still actively participating on Wikipedia discussions, arguing the company line. This seems like a clear violation of WP:NLT, and I think it would be in Wikimedia's best interest to preventively block him until the conclusion of the lawsuits. Jpatokal (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update: Just realized there is already a discussion on IBobi's talk page about being blocked for WP:NLT (and another discussion right here on WP:ANI), including a determination by WMF legal counsel that "we do not consider iBobi to be the threatening party in the NLT situation" and a reversal of a previously imposed block. However, this does not equate to the WMF saying he should not blocked, so I would still like to see a wider discussion. Jpatokal (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update 2: This edit by IBobi sounds rather a lot like a veiled legal threat. Jpatokal (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, Jani, give it a rest. We just went through this. Admins, please check my Talk page for current discussions and results prior to taking action on this spurious request. Thank you.--IBobi (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing spurious about it, idle threats are a dime a dozen but frivolous litigation that gets noted by the New York Times is crossing the line a wee bit here when it comes to WP:NLT. I have no idea why any WMF project has any templates, interwikis or outbound links of any kind to a company who does this sort of thing, but as far as your editing here the policy is clear: don't do it. K7L (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should catch up on my Talk page.

The reasons for the links and templates are pretty clear: Wikitravel is by all measures the premier travel wiki in the world, and has been for nearly a decade. There's been historical cooperation between our communities. We helped Wikipedia grow through links, and vice-versa. Fair enough?--IBobi (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This "historical cooperation" consists of you blocking any user attempting to mention Wikivoyage anywhere on your site, as well as directing frivolous litigation against volunteers here. You are also clearly operating a single-purpose account and acting with a conflict of interest which suggests you're not here to write an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not our communities IBobi. You do not represent the (original) Wikitravel community who cooperated with us. The people one would consider representative of the Wikitravel community (to wit, the (ex-) WT Admins) are no longer working with you.

Despite the above, I do note that [User:IBobi|IBobi]]'s contributions list is very very short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/IBobi . I submit that it would be a stretch to find anything there that violates Wikipedia policy.

IBobi: User:Fluffernutter gave you the standard sage advice: you're welcome to edit on en.wikipedia. However, do note that it is recommended for people stay away from topics to do with their employer or passion, as it is hard to remain neutral on those topics. In your case that means you would be wise to stay away from things to do with Internet Brands or Wikitravel.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, my primary concern is WP:NLT and any possible legal repercussions of discussions with people who are engaged in lawsuits against the WMF and its users, and my secondary concern is WP:COI. If IBobi was merely a random Wikitravel fan boy (a beast almost as mythical as the Caonima), his edits would not be bannable; but, of course, he isn't. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

RTFL(inks) would show that WMF Legal Counsel states that IBobi has made no legal threats. --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC) (But we do get that via Hearsay, I'd love to actually read a statement by WMF legal counsel themselves)

If it wouldn't constitute wheel warring, I'd definitely block here. IBobi claims to be the Community Manager of Internet Brands — that definitely sounds like a high-up position in the company. While individual officials presumably aren't parties to this case (without having looked at it, I'd guess that the main plaintiff is Internet Brands, and any other plaintiffs are presumably other corporations, not individuals), their place as company officials means that they're too close to the suit to be immune from the spirit of WP:NLT. Whether the account named IBobi has made any legal threats on-wiki isn't particularly relevant here. Of course, my argument will break down if the Community Manager be a Dilbert-type job; I'll happily retract my willingness to block if I see evidence that the Community Manager isn't a high-up official. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk about a slippery slope! If IBobi is contributing , and as long as he/she doesn't reference the legal aspects of the issue, then I don't see how we can block him/her from editing for NLT. Ibobi should just be aware that making any mention of the legal on-goings, or even the litigating company in general, puts him/her in a vulnerable situation with a very short rope. Standard WP:COI principles should apply, nothing more. Ditch ∝ 04:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem... he is not contributing in any meaningful sense and is not here to write an encyclopaedia. He is here for the single purpose of advocating for the interests of IB, a commercial for-profit, therefore WP:COI and WP:SPA. That he's here as an IB employee to advocate over three thousand {{wikitravel}} links be retained (instead of being replaced en masse by a 'bot, as everything on that site is already on Wikivoyage) indicates that his aim is to advertise his site here, a WP:ADV and WP:SPAM issue. He seems to endlessly claim to have some number of page hits, as if that in and of itself justifies a link which offers no new info to the encyclopaedia's users that isn't already available elsewhere. As such, he's editing for IB's interests, not Wikipedia's interests. WP:NLT is only part of the problem, although I won't downplay that as this is a clear violation there too. K7L (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is an entirely different discussion however. And one that frankly the WMF has brought on itself by endorsing the whole sordid WV/WT shenanigans. You do realise why that given that IB's case hinges on interference with their business, removing all the Wikitravel links would be a bad thing to do at this point? Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IB doesn't have a case. The content is the property of its authors. Read the license. The original contributors have every right to walk away and take their content elsewhere. That's the way it works. And no, Wikipedia is under no obligation to retain links promoting any external, for-profit website. What you call "interfering with their business" is called "fair competition" in the rest of the world. Deal with it instead of crying that WMF owes some random for-profit commercial site a few thousand links of free advertising (which it does not, per WP:ADV and WP:SPAM). K7L (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

At the present time the best option is probably to leave him enough rope to hang himself with. No need to be hasty. If current trends continue he'll provide plenty of justification for a block shorty.©Geni 13:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if WMF were doing exactly that... or letting this run until the opportunity arises to invoke Godwin's Law. So be it... K7L (talk) 13:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It is not really common to find a user who knows where the drama boards are but has zero contributions in the article space. At this point, Wikipedia would not lose anything if User:IBobi gets indeffed again. (It probably will not win anything, either).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This odd editing pattern isn't just on en: - a glance at meta:user talk:IBobi shows at least one complaint about this user editing other people's comments in meta: discussions on WMF taking on the Wikivoyage project - an issue in which IB has a financial stake as owner of WT's domain. Edits like this (which autonumber comments made in reponse to "oppose" votes as if they were themselves votes against the proposal) are a bit dodgy. I'm not sure how closely we watch this sort of cross-wiki activity (for instance, the question of whether policies like NLT apply there has come up) but it is worth noting. K7L (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikitravel existed first. There has been historical cooperation between Wikitravel and Wikipedia. Both sites have benefited from the other. If anyone would like to deny that the reason these links are being proposed for deletion is out of sheer malice against a 9 year old wiki that serves 250,000 travelers per day, let him or her step forward and make a case. The idea that the "new" WMF travel wiki is not a mirror but a fork is salient here; once the fork is up and running and receiving editorial contributions from WP editors, it becomes a different site, with different resources for travelers than Wikitravel. This has in fact already begun, as the (for the time being) independent site Wikivoyage has forked Wikitravel's original content and that content is being changed in situ. So, what is the justification for denying Wikipedians, and the general public they are supposed to serve, links to *both* of these unique travel sites -- one of which has built and retained said links for *years* with no mention of removing them, until its content was forked? Look to the people proposing this change for your answer. They have left a wiki they helped build; that's all well and good. But they harbor resentments about their former site and now that they have a new sandbox to play in, they want to take a shit in the old one -- no matter how many users they harm in the process. If you're supporting removing those links, that is who you're throwing your lot in with.

But I'm apparently not supposed to talk about any of this.

Whether you agree with my points or not isn't even relevant to this page. This is about an account block that was proposed by Doc James, a guy who simply does not want this *discussion* to take place, because he prefers one site over the other, for whatever his personal reasons are. If this community is going to allow stifling of *discussion* on a technicality (one that is only being taken advantage of by a very dubious interpretation of WP policies), where is the openness? Where is the philosophy of sharing? Does that go out the window because some people don't like the idea of an independent wiki that's supported by advertising? We get it. Ad-supported and donation-supported are different. Does that make a wiki's resources less beneficial to those who come there?

How many ad-supported wikis has the WMF forked lately? Ever? How many WT/WV/WMF/WP situations like this have you dealt with before? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess zero. This is new ground for all of us. It perhaps requires a new point of view. Believe me, nobody came out of this smelling like a rose. The only thing I have proposed, as respectfully as I could, is for the WP community to be able to *hear* all points of view, and decide on a course of action after being well-informed. Those who supported the formation of this fork site have consistently tried to suppress that. And they're doing it again, by suggesting this ludicrous block, and threatening to reinstate it if I have the temerity to continue the discussion anywhere on a WP talk page. Support them if you will. But I don't think it's in the best longterm interests of Wikipedia, Wikitravel, or the public they both serve.--IBobi (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia was founded in 2001, wikitravel in 2003. So your claim that "wikitravel was first" is erroneous.
• There has been historical cooperation between wikipedia and wikitravel communities. Note, however, that those who could be considered representative of the wikitravel community no longer reside at the wikitravel website. I do not believe you represent the wikitravel community. Instead of you leaving, everyone else did.
• The links in question are being shifted to point to the new location of the previously-known-as-wikitravel community. It would be unfair to point those links elsewhere.
• AFAICT we recognize only one (previously-known-as-)*travel community.
• The people who built the-wiki-previously-known-as-wikitravel hold their own copyrights. They are merely moving their content to a different location, after which the community continues as before. This is despite efforts by yourself to damage the community.
• You have been granted every chance to talk about this in appropriate forums, you were granted as much space as you wanted to put forward your position. You had time and communications capacity on your side, and you blew it spectacularly. I know this full well, I watched you do it. If you would like to request another chance, feel free, but do so in an appropriate forum. En.wikipedia is NOT an appropriate forum (or -in fact- a forum at all)
• I don't care to figure out what you're talking about wrt ad-supported or donation-supported or whatever your story of the day is. You are now typing on en.wikipedia. At large, the en.wp community couldn't care less what kinds of squabbles have been going on some insignificant little sites outside this community. Here you are required to adhere to en.wikipedia policy. No more, no less.
• I think Doc James has some very valid issues with you. I believe it would be unwise to mention those issues on this wiki, as that might lead to a block.
• On this noticeboard, the actual policies that apply here are discussed daily, sometimes hourly.
• You might think no-one came out smelling like a rose, but that is your personal reality, not the reality of hundreds of community members across wikimedia and wikitravel. What I saw was one obstinate person in particular auger in an otherwise perfectly salvageable situation, even while ignoring viable advice by many many experienced admins on their own home wiki, as well as even advice from the wikimedia community.
• The en.wp community in particular doesn't care what you have to say unless it has something to do with writing an encyclopedia on a wiki. I have personally never seen you do that before, but I'm willing to wait and see. :-)
• I support the wikipedia and previously-known-as wikitravel communities. You have (unwisely) positioned yourself as an opponent to the (now ex-)wikitravel community. The reason they are (ex-) is because you made it that way, by your own choices. I'm not sure you can reverse that choice now; but either way, it's not my problem anymore.

Short version: Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are here for any other reason other than to edit a wiki-encyclopedia, please leave. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia, you are most welcome to stay. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a debating society. Are you here to contribute? I mean, we have lots of articles needing references, lots of dead links that need fixing. Maybe write a WP:DYK... —Tom Morris (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if he's looking for an article in need of maintenance, en:'s article on Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español has been flagged {{outdated}} for a year now. EL is a fork of the Spanish-language Wikipedia which originally split in 2002 (before any version of WT existed) over concerns that Wikipedia was going to take the commercial route and plaster ads onto content (which didn't happen, we instead ended up with the Wikimedia Foundation non-profit structure). This article does need to be brought up to date, so maybe a self-proclaimed expert on travel and forks would be able to understand enough español to take a peek? K7L (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to own employers website as spam?

Just noticed this... IBobi's only mainspace edit [11] modifying the page on Mordor to add a link to a joke page on his employer's website, WT. The edit was promptly reverted, but inserting external links to some web site into articles while employed by the owners of that very web site looks a bit WP:COI and WP:SPAM to me. K7L (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite block

Given IBobi's responses in this thread, it's becoming increasingly clear that he is here on Wikipedia solely to plug Wikitravel and pursue a vendetta - a paid vendetta, even - against the community that left Wikitravel. He's shown no interest in editing on any topic other than pushing Internet Brands' POV on discussions related to Wikitravel, even when asked point-blank to do so, and he just keeps telling us that he's here to make sure The Truth (tm) gets told. I'm really not seeing any benefit to the community by letting him continue to push his job's POV (or his own, for that matter). I propose that he be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia until such time as he can commit to editing here in a non-COI/POV-pushing manner. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Really the only downside of this is that we run the risk of IBobi claiming that he's being persecuted by the community for being a dissident. Well, that would put him in the same category as plenty of other agenda-pushing timewasters. So, yeah, support plonking him on indef until he actually wants to contribute to Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:NOTHERE to help the encyclopedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Not Yet. He hasn't really *done* much of anything at all yet on this wiki, let alone something wrong: Special:Contributions/IBobi . That's kind of a requirement for a block, imo. (blocks are not preventative or preemptive) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: Blocks are not meant to be meted out as punishment, but they certainly are meant to be preventative.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Teach me to type while sleepy: I meant that blocks should be handed out for existing, current, ongoing disruptive behavior, as opposed to potential future behavior. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ADV and WP:SPA. He's operating a single-purpose account to advertise his (or his employer's) commercial business, while contributing nothing worthwhile to the objective of writing an encyclopaedia. K7L (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support doesn't do anything to benefit Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Also support making a request to the stewards to lock the account. --Rschen7754 23:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. IBobi's sole purpose here is to promote the inclusion of links to his employer's website. He is not here to build an encyclopedia, and so he should not be permitted to edit any page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The Poison

Resolved

 – Article is full-protected. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I've noticed that the name of the first song off the album The Poison is wrong. The real name is "Intro", not "Intro ... My Lifestyle". I tried to change it, but there are two users who do not stop reverting my edits without consulting. So I've been involved in an edit war. I do not want to be blocked, so I want someone to fix this. Here I leave you some references that confirm that I am right.

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]

Cristian MH (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Changed it, citing the first reference. In the future, I'd suggest WP:DRN rather than WP:ANI for content disputes. Nobody Ent 21:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Cristian MH (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Content help,anyone? It's been reverted by an IP, so if anyone would be interested in taking a look, it'd be appreciated. Nobody Ent 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I've locked it for three days so Cristian MH can stop edit warring and everyone can discuss it on the talkpage or use DRN. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued harassment of Mr.choppers by an IP

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

---

IP user 98.193.61.234 has already been reported here once for abusing Mr.choppers, with the result of the IP being blocked 3 days by Blade. I have occasionally checked on the situation and since the block's end, the IP has made two more edits [19] [20], both of them block-worthy, considering the previous circumstances. Furthermore, the second edit is also threatening, and it implies that the IP is being used a sock. After all, the IP claims to have made many edits over half a decade, but the contributions of that IP are minimal, with all but one coming in about a month's time. I'm not saying that there is anything amiss there, but it certainly is fishy. AutomaticStrikeout 22:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks, for the personal threats on Mr.choppers' talkpage. Feel free to file at SPI as well if you feel it's warranted. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Users Msc_44, Janedoeare, and Buck Owens talk page.

User:Msc 44 Added a bunch of information to the Buck Owens article. We ended up in a discussion about it at the article talk page. The user and User:Janedoeare have now repeatedly tried to remove the entire conversation claiming that some of it contains the users personal information [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] <-(as IP) and [26] <- Janedoeare. Msc 44 has not said which information they wish to have removed, despite being asked multiple times,[27] [28] and has insisted that the entire conversation be blanked. Janedoeare has left me a level 4 vandalism warning on my talk page with the latest revert. [29]

Msc_44 has been warned by multiple editors on multiple occasions to not remove other people's posts from that talk page. [30] [31] [32]

It is quite impossible for me to have outed the user in question in any way as the only information I know about them is what they have themselves posted to the article talk page. My feeling is that the information they want to suppress is from their own posts. I am quite happy to let them redact anything they've posted that they now see as sensitive, but I would rather the bulk of our conversation remain.

User:Janedoeare has been notified. [33] User:Msc 44 has been notified. [34]

-Sperril (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Could an admin please close an AfD early to prevent further strife?

See here: [35]. The conclusion seems clear (per WP:SNOW), at least as far as deletion is concerned, and the only supporter of the article now seems to be either trying to make some sort of WP:POINT, or is simply trolling. An early closure should nip this in the bud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• (as commented in the AfD) Please let's not do that -process exists for a reason. You can't read what will happen in the future, in theory it is very well possible that some other editor brings novel arguments for either side, even if I myself see it as unlikely.--Cyclopia^talk 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus there. A half dozen different merger targets have been proposed; that clearly needs more discussion to achieve consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A deletion discussion normally runs 7 days. I got my say in on day one, and have seen no reason to contribute further. Anyone averse to strife has only to step away and wait for the process to work itself out, rather than engaging in "IS NOT!" "IS TOO!" repartee. There does not appear to be unanimity for deletion, keeping or merger,as one expects to see in justification for a "snow" closure, but a sensible closing admin will see a consensus for one of the above, from the policy-based arguments thus far contributed pro and con. Let the AFD run out its allotted time. Edison (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring by multiple users on the Election article

Couldn't decide whether to put this on AN/EW or here, but it hasn't been resolved yet after I requested it elsewhere.

Multiple editors keep insisting on adding that Obama has won Florida to the article, against consensus on the talk page. I requested full protection, that hasn't happened. I'd rather not go over 3RR (which if I already have I'd like to apologize to everyone), so can an administrator go revert and then full protect the page? Thanks. United States presidential election, 2012. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN.com still has it too class to call, and I would think that's a reliable source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, and so does pretty much all other sources (FOX, NBC, ABC, you name it). That's why I'm requesting revert and full protect. The request wasn't handled at other places (RPP) so I brought it here because it continues to escalate. I can't revert or else I'll go over 3RR. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, in my opinion this is a minor issue, and it's not happening so often that it's disruptive. The number of productive edits in comparison is much larger, and full protection impedes article improvement. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but what would you suggest for editors who come across the information being readded? I know I can't revert again for at least 20 more hours or so, and if nobody else is monitoring the page, then what should be done? That's the only reason I wanted protection, because it's editors who aren't listening to talk page consensus after being told about it multiple times. There's always the Template:editprotected that anyone can use if they absoultely need to. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, Nyttend is on call, I see. Or (but I'm sure you don't want to hear me say this) you can not worry about it. It'll be called soon enough, Romney's campaign has conceded, no one believes what Wikipedia says anyway. No, don't go over 3RR, leave it to others and trust that strength comes in numbers. If if gets out of hand someone will re-ask this question, and the admins on the West Coast and in Japan will look at it afresh. Thanks for helping keep the place clean--and my apologies, on behalf of my colleagues, that your request was languishing a bit at RFPP. It's not a heavy-traffic area, as you know. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand Romney has conceded. But the news has said that there's a moderately good chance of there being a mandatory Florida recount, so why call it? I totally understand about the RFPP, no need to apologise there. I'll leave it to others, unless it gets out of hand. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that supporters of keeping Florida neutral greatly overstate the breadth of their "consensus;" there absolutely is a consensus to be careful and not call states early, but it isn't "early" after Romney has conceded. (Note: I have made 0 edits to the actual article although I support changing the article to reflect Obama winning Florida). That said, I'm fine with waiting a day as I'm quite sure that we'll see all the other news sources cited catch up and mark Florida as blue.

The comment about a recount is irrelevant, though; a mandatory recount is unlikely at this stage, and whether a recount happens or not, Wikipedia should report what the reliable sources write. (Which would mean potentially calling Florida for Obama if that's what the sources do even if the recount goes off after all.) SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend this discussion be closed; I think there's not much more to say here at present. It seems like edit warring has ceased for now. Additional arguments of whether this should change or not can go back to the talk page, not here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I recommend we lop off Florida; it looks like a penis anyway on the US map. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It is just a giant hanging chad. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Does it pass the Mull of Kintyre test?--Shirt58 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the electoral map is also posted on the United States elections, 2012 article, along with brief content about the presidential election. Thus please do not have this type of edit warring spill over to that article, or any other related page. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If the talkpage posters can't work out a reasonable compromise about that table, then it sounds to me like there is tendentious editing going on, and THAT should get intervention. An example compromise might be putting an asterisk in the table cell, pointing to an explanatory sentence giving the current numbers and saying Romney has conceded. The current state of the table is misleading IMHO. FWIW the NYT electoral map[36] says 100% of the ballots are counted and my calculation from NYT's numbers has Obama about 0.57% ahead, which is about the 0.5% level that triggers a recount in Florida. I guess it's possible some absentee or provisional ballots are still being counted, though. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Honestly, if the entire article had to be full-protected a couple of days to prevent BS (it would likely be protected at the WP:WRONGVERSION anyway) then so be it ... an encyclopedia doesn't need to have cutting edge news (if it did, my day job would be out of business!) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In any case, Auntie Beeb is saying [37] that it could be mid-day Saturday before Florida is decided. Pity they can't simply be removed from United States of America and their spot given to Puerto Rico (or the other usual "51st state" candidate, Alberta :) in the interests of restoring democracy. K7L (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, if Puerto Rico became the 51st state, Vermont would happily replace it and return Canada to its 10 province/3 territory glory (and the US back to 50 states) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When multiple reliable sources have reported that Obama won Florida, and the Romney campaign has conceded that it lost, is there really any point to claiming we have to wait for networks - for whom the story is no longer newsworthy - to call it? That's the situation found in a dispute on that page's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is necessary to wait. According to a Dutch source ([38]) it is still an unofficial result and the counting is still in progress. The Banner _talk 14:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

'Every result is an unofficial result at this point. That's what calling states means. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Google-translation of the Dutch text: Florida is, 3 days after the election, still not finished counting votes, although the camp of President Barack Obama's Thursday already declared victory. The Banner _talk 14:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is the article being reported in American newspapers some time ago. You know they're still counting ballots in Arizona, right, and yet we'vbe coloured Arizona red. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You do realize, that Arizona has been called by every major news network? No major network has called Florida for Obama: CNN, FOX, NBC/CNBC/MSNBC, ABC, and CBS. Oh, wait. All of those sources say that Florida is still uncalled. So, we can't add it, as it wouldn't be substantiated as in the other projections listed on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 21:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

States are called, as was well-demonstrated on Fox News, when the available information indicates an extremely low probability that there are enough uncounted votes to make a difference in the outcome. That's how they could call Ohio, even though it looked close. In contrast, Florida has too many votes to count yet in various places, and there's too narrow a margin, to make a high-probability call. Maybe by this time tomorrow there will be enough votes counted that it can be called. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

User: SaberToothedWhale and personal attacks, although it appears they are allowed on en.wiki

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

---

For what it's worth, I consider these personal attacks to be out of line and disruptive to editing and reading en.Wikipedia:

On an article talk page: "I'm talking about common names moron. .... Perhaps you shouldn't talk out your ass. Thank you. Good bye." [39]

In the edit summary when restoring the "moron" remark: "(Undid revision 522055685 by Fjozk (talk) i actually made a really good point, assclown.)" [40]

In response to a talk page warning for personal attacks: But he's a bitch who made a comment only a bitch would make? :) [41]

Followed by calling someone a nazi in an edit summary "RE to a nazi": "Just putting a bitch in HIS place. Do you did to be sat down too shorty? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)" [42]

If this isallowed, encouraged, ignored, I'll be glad to go there. -Fjozk (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• who told you it was "allowed"? Or did you just expect random patrolling admin to find it? If you bring it here and no admins addres, then start your "it must be allowed" routine. Doing it pre-emptively just looks whiney. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Calling me whiney, way to enhance the situation. WP:NPA tells me it is allowed. All the other warning templates have policies behind them. NPA says to ignore it or discuss it with the editor calling you (or someone, hard to tell in this case) a nazi. That's absurd. They're name calling because they can't engage. -Fjozk (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Niteshift! Always nice to hear your voice of reason here. The blind are leading the blind, it seems--but one of them won't be doing it on-wiki for the next 31 hours. Fjozk, settle down, will you? Carry on, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I am settled down. I've found thousands of articles full of nothing but junk science; and, on top of that a great new article by a student, not en.Wiki style, except for all the important things (real content, no junk science). Wanna take bets on how long it takes to get rid of him? Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 05:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies has blocked the problem user for harassment and personal attacks. Admin action taken, case closed. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

---

Per WP:BITE I think it's preferable to politely ask the person to tone down the invective rather than blocking right away, and in the case of a potentially good contributor, it's worth the trouble. I've had good luck trying to do that on some other occasions. I left a note on the blocked person's talkpage after the fact, but I don't know if it will help. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The blocked editor was Saber Toothed Whale, the one being reported. He has been editing since May, so WP:BITE doesn't really apply when you've had a bunch of edits over 6 months. Or maybe you thought the reporting party was blocked, which would mean you started commenting (and pointing fingers) without reading the whole problem. So which was it? Are you misinterpreting policy or just under-informed? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Anti-British rhetoric from IP

I've just noticed that this IP, 117.212.54.48 today appears to have started going on a streak of pages making apparently insulting references to religions and to the UK (even seeming to think that he's the antichrist). I'm not sure if this needs action or not but it certainly can't be productive. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

AIV might have been a better venue for this... I've given the IP editor a {{uw-vandal4im}} warning; if he vandalises a page again, I or another admin will descend with a blockbat. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

An IP from the same range 117.199.98.51 with same style went on a similar spree in July. Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks and harassing by User:IndianBio

Respected Wikipedians,I want to inform you that User:IndianBio is harassing me and doing personal attacks to me.he reverts my edits from article In My City.I want to say I'm responsible for this article,I had done maximum edit,I had added references,sections.That user only did little bit correction and he didn't contributed single word,he never did added reference except 1 which he did after I said.He don't know about Songs Wikiproject and he edits song article.I told him there is no need to add reference in single infobox bit he didn't listen to me.There I did everything to me ,I contributed maximum to the article and he calls me fancruft,I added everything within tefrence.please block this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pks1142 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I fear a certain Australian hunting implement may be approaching at speed... I see no evidence of personal attacks by User:IndianBio, in fact, I see evidence of him repeatedly trying to explain to you why your edits are inappropriate. I also see evidence of edit-warring by both parties, and a total lack of communication on the article's talkpage (though you've both ranted unconstructively at each other on your respective talkpages). As such, I'm applying full protection to the article for a short while, to halt the edit war - discuss it on the talkpage (ask for a third opinion if necessary) and provide, via a civilly worded argument, the case for including your edits. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm responsible for this article" - No you're not. You might have created it, but once you hit "Save", anything you write can be changed at will. In this case, IndianBio has identified you referencing content to Digital Spy (a suspicious source in itself), and reverted it as being unverifiable, which he has a perfect right to do. In response, you said "need to checkup your eyes", which is not particularly civil. This is little more than a content dispute, and from my eyes, it looks like you are more in the wrong. Take your grievances to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't mean that,that is mine but all I wanted to say that I contributed most to each word,he never did,he should have friendly with me.but he's not.Also,if it's about reference ,I wrote about his eyes because it is clearly written that she will release her album through Island Records in Uk and elsewhere(only USA through interscope and India through Universal,India) that why because it is rfrenced.you can check.(Pks1142 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

It doesn't matter how much you contribute - you still can't dictate what other users do if they follow policy. I've quadrupled the size of articles taking them to WP:GAN, but if another editor wants to do minor copyediting and tagging sources, they can. The very fact you say "she will (my emphasis) release her album" is a problem - it might be too soon to include that information. You can't say the album will be released - perhaps the record company will go bankrupt? Anyway, none of this requires any administrator intervention - like I said, take it to the article's talk page. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There has been some personal insults by this user. Check the edit summaries of the article. I was gonna post it to ANI thread myself with the differences, but I will leave it to another chance being given to Pks1142. To Pks1142, cool down, and try to understand why edits are being removed when you still feel they are right. Wikipedia's policies cannot be violated and in cases like these they fail a range of policies like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we should sort out our problems and let's make Wikipedia a far better place.Edit the articles with friendly and politely.What's say User:IndianBio.(Pks1142 (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC))

Nice attempt to duck the WP:BOOMERANG (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

User Kraxler using abusive language and deleting talk page information

User:Kraxler calls my edits "shit" and me "insane" and an "imbecile" and that I am "fucking up articles on Wikipedia" at Talk:Stephen H. Wendover and in the edit summaries in the article space. See a previous ANI here over him calling me "mentally retarded" and "half-illiterate". He is also removing my additions to the talk page. Otherwise he is an excellent editor adding lots of biographies and doing excellent research on deserving people from history. The problem arises when we both end up editing the same article. We both work in the area of biography and New York, so now twice we have encountered each other. I show respect for his opinions but he is abusive when I edit an article that he has created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll disagree that this is merely when you both edit the same articles: an interaction ban certainly won't fix behaviours of calling anyone illiterate or retarded. The overall behaviour is enough that IMHO it's time to block - this level of filth directed at another editor is wholly unacceptable. I'm not as concerned about them calling your edits "shit" (although that's uncivil) - it's the direct NPA's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• To be fair he called me "half-illiterate". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You should have notified Kraxler about this discussion. I have now done that and I have now left him [Kraxler] a 4im warning too. Anyhow, I'm not opposed to an immediate block regarding the nature of his comments. De728631 (talk) 15:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I notified him at 11:20 with this edit and gave him a 3RR warning for removing my talk page comments again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't sign those (at least originally)... and they were meshed together (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just added the templates. I see they both run together and I added a header so they stand out a bit better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As a contrast see how at User talk:Road Wizard where there is interaction with mutual respect to improve the same Stephen H. Wendover article. There is no name calling or intimidation, even as we question each other's information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I requested Kraxler tone it down on the 7th. I think he toned the language down a bit - I hadn't realised he was deleting half of RAN's talkpage edits as well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I can have a second opinion on what started the rude comments. I was editing the article by converting the references that are a list of external references and changing them to in-line citations so that each fact was now tied to a specific reference. Here is his original article and and here is the reformatted version. I also add {{no footnotes}} to articles I am editing but have not made the switch yet, so I can find the ones that need to converted to in-line citations. Does anyone have an opinion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Block for Festermunk

Festermunk (talk · contribs), fresh off a one-week block for edit-warring and with a bit of a reputation to uphold, is doing the same old same old on RT (TV network). This user just can't seem to get enough, and that article is enough of a mess already (look at the talk page, if you are constipated). Anyways, my finger was on the block button, but since I made a couple edits to the article and placed a note on the talk page, and since Festermunk strikes me as a bit of a wiki lawyer, perhaps one of you lot can have a look and take--what I consider to be--the appropriate action. See also Bbb23's warning and the comments of other admins (declining various unblock requests, all of which denied that Festermunk did anything wrong) on the pre-blanked version of their talk page. This user is not here to contribute positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't know what I am doing wrong. I'm currently discussing the changes I would like to see reinstated on RT on the talk page as referred to by you and user Bbb23 and doing so in a much less combative manner. If that isn't an example of, "contributing positively and in accordance with our guidelines for proper editing behavior" I don't know what is. Festermunk (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

And that response is precisely why I'm asking what I'm asking. It's either incompetence or ignorance--an editor comes back from a block for edit-warring and goes right on edit-warring, as the history of RT clearly indicates: I rest my case. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the lead issue was already established by consensus in the talk page so in reverting the lead I was only doing what is stated as per Wikipedia guidelines. However, as soon as another editor reverted my edits, I immediately put a stop to what I'm doing (and will not revert it barring consensus on this issue) I haven't yet got around to discussing that issue, but will do so after I'm done what I am doing. Festermunk (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI I was about to save this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Festermunk_reported_by_User:Carolmooredc_.28Result:_.29 when happened upon this, so added the link to this discussion. Since Festermunk already has been warned he will be permanently blocked for edit warring if he is blocked for it a 3rd time on this article for it, I think the Edit Warring complaint takes precedent. Whatever... CarolMooreDC 18:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Festermunk. My only interaction with Festermunk has been administrative. After the discussion Drmies and I had with Festermunk on my and Drmies's talk pages, I am disappointed, although unfortunately not surprised, that they didn't heed our advice on how NOT to get blocked. Festermunk has had several blocks of increasing lengths. However, Festermunk has proven to be remarkably impervious to statements by other editors. After the most recent one-week block, I specifically warned Festermunk at WP:ANEW that a resumption of their misbehavior might lead to an indefinite block. I agree with Drmies that there's a bit (actually, more than just a bit) of wikilawyering in this user, so I expect some rather strident unblock requests, but I don't see this editor as an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of POV-pushing and racism at Tipperary Hill

Yesterday, an anonymous user posted a rant on the Tipperary Hill talk page, making accusations of POV-pushing and racism in the article's Green over red section. I reverted the edit, and warned the user not to use the talk page as a forum. Today, the anon. reinstated his rant and expanded it to include numerous comments directed at me. He also added an NPOV tag to the article. I reverted again. My concern is that this has the potential to turn into an edit-war, and I hope to stop that before it begins. The anon. mentioned that this was featured on Reddit in the last day or two, but I don't know that this necessarily means the article will get more traffic.

I see no NPOV issues here. The section in question is factual and referenced, and it does not push a pro-Irish position. It simply states what happened. The anon. offers no actual evidence of POV, only that we "aggrandize and point of view push blatent racism and pathologically insane behaviour" by even discussing this issue. This seems to be a simple case of I don't like it, to which I would respond: Too bad. At any rate, I want to hear what other editors have to say. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This guy's spelling (and style) reminds me of a previous banned user, but he wasn't based in Australia (the WHOIS info on the IP is that it belongs to Telstra). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Geolocate says "confirmed proxy server"

I've been investigating some odd edits to an article on my watchlist when I came across the fact that three similar IPs all say in the Geolocate data that they are "confirmed proxy servers" and also "Static IPs", which is particularly odd considering that it is very obvious that the same individual is operating from behind the IP addresses but 3 of them are in use (two in use within minutes of the other). The IPs in question are:

• 67.142.168.22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 67.142.168.27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

In addition to the edits on the page I'm keeping track of (and recently my decision to prune it of plot summary was met with more reverts), I saw large contributions by the IPs to Thomas the Tank Engine pages, which raises a red flag for a previous banned user but I'm not exactly sure which one. So these edits and the fact that the IPs are being reported as proxies are why I'm bringing this up for review.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a possibility that they are open proxies they can be listed at WP:OPP for confirmation. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While that is useful, there's also the fact that the IPs contribute to many animation themed pages and there were several long term problem users who do the same. I am not familiar with any particulars but this may be a way to get the word out.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong and co - just letting you know I'm watching this page. Best, --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, whats up? I was just mulling over the talk pages and contribs of those three IPs. I personally believe that they are all the same person, but of course my opinion is unwarranted. In any case, it appears to be that the user willingly makes edits in good faith. However, perhaps those edits do not follow our general guidelines - it is through this he has become frustrated as seen on his talk page. We should consider fast-tracking this issue over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention. What do you guys think? --Ecstacy ^Xtcy3 23:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Awkward editor

Could someone take a look at Yummy Dunn (talk · contribs) please? There is an on-going problem at St Austell about the size of the section on Freemasonry in the town. A discussion is underway on the talk page, to which he contributes in fits and starts. He has accused other editors of vandalism and prejudice, while repeatedly ignoring BRD, and exercising ownership to the extent of demanding that discussion about the article takes place on his own talk page. I'm fed up to the back teeth, and I suspect the other editors involved are too. Anyone uninvolved fancy taking a look? Many thanks. I'll point him here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• There is a previous ANI thread about him (under his old username) [here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I echo these concerns too. He needs to drop the battleground attitude and the accusations and open up into civil dialogue, which I tried to, ahem, "guide" him too via mentioning it wasn't very masonic to make unfounded accusations (lol). I try to keep my head out of heated arguments on Wikipedia these days, but this one is becoming strenuous due to bad faith and a lack of communication. It doesn't have to be this way at all. (Ooo! Monkey's on the TV!) --Τασουλα (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He is repeating exactly the same edits (ethnicity changes and free masons) for which he was brought to ANI last time. That is additional to the reference from Duncan Hill so that is now three ANI references including this one. He responsse to Duncan on his talk page says it all ----Snowded ^TALK 00:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

List of terrorist incidents in London

Hi, I would appreciate an Admin's assistance at List of terrorist incidents in London. This article name was changed today to List of militant attacks in London. There was a nonconclusive discussion on this over two year ago which petered out and no change took place. Then today an editor has made the change without starting a new discussion but just tagging on to the dead disucssion with a comment "excellent idea" See here. The new title is not appropriate in my view as it does not describe the content accurately and is out of line with similar and related articles. Unfortunately a subsequent edit has been done so I cannot undo myself. Please could an Admin do the required "Undos" and then if needed we can have a proper discussion about the merits or otherwise of a new article name. Thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Returned to original title and move protected. There was no edit to the redirect so you could have moved it yourself. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Harrassment by User:Niteshift36, egged on by Admin:

It is impossible for a user to understand the bureaucracy of rules that is Wikipedia, and wading into the cesspool in order to correct something that Wikipedia is sending all over the web, bad science articles in DYK seems worth doing, but these gangs of social networking daddy-scolders are so overdone.

I have repeatedly told User:Niteshift36 to stop posting on my talk page. I finally went to his talk page and told him to stop. He did not stop. He posted again. I have reverted it as vandalism, unread, which it is, and which his comments have earned. Now he is simply harassing me. It's time for him to stop. Past time. Like the usual cesspool of drive-by scoldings on Wikipedia, nothing he is doing is about creating an encyclopedia. He was encouraged in his actions by Admin:Drmies congratulating him for his drive-by post to my AN/I post about a user calling other users assholes and nazis.

A little less friends hanging out and a lot more editing would stop the cesspool of bad science that en.Wikipedia is spreading through cyber space. Since it is apparent that Niteshift36 has no intention of stopping posting on my talk page; since his edits to my talk page are harassment and nothing else, and in contrast to contributing he is interfering with my editing and correcting science articles harassing me, I request an admin stop him from editing my talk page.

-Fjozk (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment Given what Fjozk had to say awhile back when I reported them here for battleground behavior, it will be interesting to hear how Drmies and Niteshift36 respond to their "whining subpoena." Until something is done about Fjozk, they are going to wind up here again and again. AutomaticStrikeout 01:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of this report, Niteshift has said he will stop posting to Fjozk's talk page and trusts Fjozk will reciprocate. Nothing more to do here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he didn't stop posting on my talk page; I told him to stop multiple times; he continued to post; I posted a stop on his talk page; he continued to post on my talk page. I am not posting anything on his talk page other than the notice to stop posting mine and the required AN/I notice. -Fjozk (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Actually sunshine, you never told me to stop posting on your page until your last little rant," isn't a promise of anything, it's just more harassment. And, per instructions, I put this in a new section. -Fjozk (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new section, but given your persistence, I'm reopening. I'm concerned that this will WP:BOOMERANG as you are not only complaining about Niteshift but about Drmies, generally about admins, and about Wikipedia. What administrative action do you want here at ANI? I won't even ask what you want to accomplish at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it will boomerang. I'm both a content editor and an expert, highly despised persons on en.wiki. I also correct copy vios in DYK and point out the crappy science all over Wikipedia while correcting it. Not a chance in hell this won't boomerang or I won't forever be engaged in being bullied by Niteshift, AutomaticStrikeout and all their buddies. And, did you revert because of my persistence or because I accused you of a COI in regards to Drmies? Heck, we want AutomaticStrikeout to get more opportunities to beat me over the head with his hammer also. I request an uninvolved admin tell Niteshift36 to stay off of my talk page. Really, I have no interest in his, and I am not the one posting on his after being told 4 times to stop. -Fjozk (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I didn't even see your absurd post to my talk page about my alleged conflict arising out of my "relationship" with Drmies. If the only uninvolved admins are those who aren't friends with Drmies, you'll have a very small subset of "uninvolved" admins. You're being silly.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just eliminate the ones he nominated for adminship. Tit for tat. -Fjozk (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The good doctor is of the XX persuasion, as it were. I'd suggest you adjust your pronouns accordingly. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a bully, you are. That is why this is likely to boomerang. AutomaticStrikeout 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you're the bully; you come here to post, and you will take every opportunity as long as I am on Wikipedia to wish that I fail; because I had the audacity to speak against your friend. And that's what bullies do, they get their friends and gang up. There are even comments about this at the admin you recently nominated. You use WP:AGF as a hammer. You enflamed the situation at the post about the edit conflict, and you are here now to provoke me, no other reason. It's harassment, it's bullying; it's not the least about editing the encyclopedia. -Fjozk (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't own your talk page. You can't respond to what someone posts on your page and then selectively remove the comments when he replies [43] (you even asked him a question). Either remove the entire section or allow him to post. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, IRWolfie, but you're wrong. If Fjozk hadn't reverted you, I would have. With very limited exceptions, every editor has control over their own talk page. Moreover, your reversion unnecessarily adds to this little drama.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't even have any meaning, IRWolfie. I reverted what I consider vandalism, continued harassment of me by an editor told not to post on my talk page. I will not be leaving posts by a harasser on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And yet you restored posts by niteshift to your talk page that I (admittedly inadvisably) removed [44]. Do you not think it would be best to remove them? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, what ever are you doing here? -Fjozk (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Wow. That which was wrong with the previous ANI thread is one of the things that's wrong with this one. In the previous one, complainant comes and cries loudly about how we admins are letting people talk badly, when of course we only know they're talking badly when we're told. That was, in fact, the thrust of Niteshift's response (the "whiney" excluded--but I challenge you to find a better word for the tone of Fjozk's complaint). And here we go again. I got little more to say, because every word is probably a personal attack to this editor, but if anything sounds like playing the victim, this is it. Oh, by the way, Fjozk, I granted you your request, didn't I--yeah, you're welcome! Drmies (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• From their talk page, section from October: "Following Dennis's links and discussions elsewhere, it appears he fully supports the battlefield mentality". That's Dennis Brown. Dennis Brown--the man who couldn't find a battlefield mentality if he was riding with Napoleon toward Waterloo. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

And, you then egged on Niteshift, congratulating him for getting a drive-by in, emoboldening him to come to my talk page and continue with his "whiney" remark. And, apparently, your friend Bbb23 just shared his post on your talk page, so continuing there also. AutomaticStrikeout is my mentor when it comes to AN/I posts, and I think my tone is on a part with his battleground mentality post. And, yeah, Dennis Brown, you should check out his contributions to ArbCom while he was making his remarks on my talk page. Maybe you can find something there. I think I judged him rightly. -Fjozk (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

404 edits and you think you know us. Tell you what, you are a quick learner in many ways, though I wonder if an account with so little verified experience here should be making article quality assessments, for instance. It's easy to find fault with me, I admit (yet I notice you still haven't thanked me for responding to your lengthy, combative, and unattractively formatted request), but it's pretty difficult to find fault with Bbb23 and Dennis Brown so quickly--unless one is looking for conflict. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I did thank you.[45] That's what this is about, that you think I didn't thank you? Wow. -Fjozk (talk) 02:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Given what you had to say about my ANI post way back when, I find it amusing that you consider me to be a mentor (not that I really think you meant it). Still, when everybody else is against you, what do think that indicates? AutomaticStrikeout 01:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Just in whineyness. And, everyone isn't against me, just people who aren't editing articles, and not all of them, either. Most of them aren't as interested in me as you are. -Fjozk (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why exactly did you remove my post? This is not your talk page. AutomaticStrikeout 02:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably just an edit conflict. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing for me to defend here. The complainer's original poster's actions and persistant victim complex speak volumes. He argues with those who offer to help him, claims everyone is attacking him and seems to have some very unrealistic notions about what admins are supposed to do. Besides, this is really more of a WQA issue than ANI. This is a waste of time. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately WQA was done away with some time ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't know they actually did it. If I drank a shot every time the OP posts "egged" (in one form or another) or "drive-by" on a Wikipedia page in the past 8 hours, I'd be bordering on alcohol poisoning by now. It's a broken record. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone fire ahead with a boomerang? The initial filing alone was effectively boomerang worthy, and the response Fjozk has been giving to every respondent here has continued on that trend. From his talk page all I see are assumptions of bad faith against numerous editors (and even Dennis, although i don't know how that is possible). IRWolfie- (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • So, harassment is allowed? Seems that my original post, that Niteshift had to make fun of and accusing me of whining for, was correct. Thanks. And, Niteshift will be allowed to harass me on my talk page. So, Niteshift, see, I was right. -Fjozk (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• If that helps you sleep or makes you go away, then I won't burst your bubble. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Hmm, so you're not staying off my talk page, you're just finding new venues for harassment and comments. Maybe Drmies will give you another piwo for this one. -Fjozk (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what you might think, just because you supposedly can kick a respected good-faith editor like IRWolfie off your talk page, that doesn't mean you have any control over their posts at ANI. AutomaticStrikeout 02:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Who kicked IRWolfie off of my talk page? Thanks for establishing you're here on your own vendetta and don't even know what this thread is about. -Fjozk (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You did. Right here. And I know perfectly well what this thread is about, you found another user or two that you can't get along with. AutomaticStrikeout 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad. I did. I can't say I don't get along with him, though, as I still have no idea what he's talking about. Maybe I can take your example and develop long term grudge, but, unfortunately, I probably won't even remember his name. So, it seems pointless for him to post on my talk page. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, you do have a point. I have been holding a grudge and for that I apologize. AutomaticStrikeout 02:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If you stop holding the grudge, I fully accept your apology. -Fjozk (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• This has all the earmarks of a trolling sock. My suggestion is that unless an admin wants to take action against Fjozk, the best response is silence. Barring something extraordinary, I'm done here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes, I must be a sock, because I don't like being bullied. I'm surprised the accusation took so long. Post the whine at whatever the sock puppet page is, rather than just making the accusation against someone who already accused you of a COI. -Fjozk (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)