Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688

An odd request for my death

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

This user has an unexplained desire to put Jimmy Hoffa's age, if alive in the infobox on his article. [1][2][3]. Since that's not how things are usually handled in an infobox, I've been deleting it. Now please take a look at the edit summary of that last diff. I hope someone can, uh, help him to understand that this is not how we do things here. The block button might get that through to him. It really asks too much of the grownups to have to put up with someone who behaves like a truculent adolescent. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The third diff should have been.[4] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, oops, thank you for the correction. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've indeffed. The "go and die" edit summary is unacceptable by itself, and an overall review does not reflect a user with an interest in serious editing. To any reviewing administrator, please check the deleted contributions as well as the others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I love his declaration on his talkpage - "As i am new here i am vying to become an admin, i hope to use not abuse my power as an administrator, thank you, I will do my best to be constructive, thank you" - absolutely incredible. GiantSnowman 00:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've revoked Talk page access for continuing abuse -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Get ready for some socking... GiantSnowman 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously though, points for creativity. I mean "go die in a hole masterbating to a fuzzy caterpiller", aside from the spelling errors, is one of the funniest 'threats' I've ever seen. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It pales next to this:[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm partial to [6], myself. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Howard Da Silva made a good Ben Franklin, didn't he? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC))

I do have to give him credit for a certain panache. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where a bizarre, out-of-left-field word-picture tells us more than we probably want or need to know about the guy's own private life. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I am astonished that this person, as the very first edit that he ever did applied for adminship. So what is his other user name? Because I do not believe that anyone does that as their first edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP user issues

I waited to do this, but I would like to report an IP user. First, let me admit that I did engage in an edit war with this person at Charlie Dent's page. However, I realize this is counter-productive, so I requested a page protect to end the war. I then sought third party mediation for the issue. The issue is over a section of the article in which the IP user has attempted to add very long information attacking the Paul Ryan budget plan (The Path to Prosperity). I attempted to inject balance into the summary (as this is an encyclopedic article and not a blog), and the user kept adding citations from editorial pages and such attacking the plan. I attempted to explain that the article is about Rep. Dent and not the bill, and I was adding the wikilink to the bill's page so that users could see more about the debate there, but the IP user has continued to engage in a partisan-fueled discourse.

The third-party mediator confirmed what I had thought. However, the IP user has refused to concede any such points. I belive the tone of the user's diatribe on the articles talk page speaks for itself--this is clearly someone who does not like the bill, nor the subject of the article. What finally pushed me to turn to administrators was the user's attempt to add the controversial language to Lou Barletta's page. I accept that the edit warring was wrong, and that is why I have followed proper channels. However, I believe it is clear that this user has no interest in maintaining neutrality and encyclopedic tone. Also, it should be noted that the user is now using multiple IP addresses to engage in heavyhanded editing for which a consensus does not exist.

Here are the IP's in question: here and here and here.

I would appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Thank you. EATC (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Interesting note...all three IPs are from the same ISP, and all three geolocate to the same area, two to the same city. Do I hear some quacking in the distance? In any case, I've taken the liberty of posting the requisite ANI notice on each of the IP's talk pages. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for adding requisite notices to the talk pages, Alan. That slipped my mind. Also, I believe those cities are in Rep. Dent's district (maybe Lou Barletta's), furthering my belief that this is an angry constituent venting frustrations. I'm all for democratic involvement, but not by adding weasel words and editorializing language to what should be a neutral, encyclopedic source. EATC (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated on the Talk page for Dent, I think it has been EATC who is engaging in aggressive editorializing. The tendency of his edits has been to blunt or obscure what is most remarkable about a political position taken by Dent. They clearly are partisan POV.

In fact, I document how EATC has inserted several specific Republican talking points into his edits, whose purpose when created and circulated by the GOP was to soften or deflect criticism of what is obviously a highly controversial and consequential plan to terminate Medicare. They are rhetorical, in other words, rather than factual.

My own edits have presented the relevant facts - the controversy - and as much as possible avoided the Dem vs Rep rhetorical wars. Such argumentation as I included (under pressure from EATC's insistence on inserting talking points), I have marked as argument as distinct from fact (or factual findings by CBO). EATC complains that I kept upping the ante. What I was actually doing was trying to nail down the specifics that he was working hard to obscure and palliate. My original edit to the Dent page was fairly brief. It was EATC's editorial war that gradually inflated it.

There's no point in including a mention of this vote on any congressman's page unless the discussion makes clear what is controversial or noteworthy about the plan. That is what I did.

Don't understand the reference to quacking, nor why it matters who I am and what my alleged motives are. I've provided relevant factual info that users would wish to consult. Not my problem that Republican partisans would prefer not to have this info brought forward.

If my IP addresses differ, it would be due to my internet provider. I'm using the very same computer and internet connection for these edits. This is bizarre conspiracy stuff EATC.

Fwiw, I am indeed a resident of Dent's district (with friends in Barletta's). I don't work for their opponents nor for the Dems. And I'm highly amused by EATC's repeated bloviating about "both sides", as if the only "sides" that exist are GOP and Dem talking points. For me, there are facts and then there are partisan as well as various other kinds of assertions...not just 2 sides. Thus EATC's complaints boil down to wounded partisanship. I note that he/she might have added facts about the bill or about Medicare, to help justify the GOP plan or just provide further context, but EATC preferred to insert (disputed) Republican arguments.

I think the version I put up at Barletta's page (he does claim he's proud of this vote as "courageous", so what the heck is EATC complaining about?) is somewhat better than what I posted at Dent's. Why is the second post an issue, anyway? Both men took a controversial position that users will want to know about.

I'm frankly amazed that anybody would maintain that a vote to terminate Medicare, of all things, is something so trivial that to discuss it in any detail in this encyclopedia requires special justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, EATC: Here's a measure of your blindness to your own partisanship. I didn't include a single editorial citation (despite your repeated insistence to the contrary). My cites all come from major news outlets: NPR, Bloomberg, LA Times, US News & World Report. For "balance", you cited the famously partisan Weekly Standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, much of this just makes my point for me. An unhappy constituent has decided to take to an online wiki-encyclopedia to vent frustrations by writing very one-sided diatribes. Apart from the dubious impartiality of NPR and the fact that the LA Times piece in question is an op-ed (my quote from the weekly standard was from Ryan himself, not an op-ed, that was one source of many that quotes him), the point remains that this article is about Charlie Dent. By including the wiki link to the article, any user can go to the article written exclusively about the legislation to learn about the debate. I assert that the IP user is providing undue weight to one of many controversial votes cast in the career of any member of Congress, and is attempting to stuff the summary with weasel-words and other attempts to reframe the debate, which is seen commonly on this site. At least, apperantly unlike the IP user, I will admit that edit warring (I have no idea what the referenced "editorial war" refers to) was unproductive, though, of course, it takes two to Tango. I will, however, await and will accept whatever admins prescribe. Any charges of "wounded partisanship" are, of course, unfounded. I have edited this site for over four years; I did not simply show up one day and start writing unbalanced content about my representative because they cast a vote I did not like. Nonetheless, I am happy to leave the discussion here. The IP user or users (never heard of IP addresses jumping around like that, but whatever) is/are certainly entitled to his/her/their opinion(s). I believe this content is biased, Coatracking, Undue Weight; he/she/they disagree. I'm happy to see what admins have to say about the issue. EATC (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks to me like the outside opinion nailed it...WP:COATRACKing and giving WP:UNDUE weight to a non-neutral position. If there's more detailed discussion to be had on the Ryan Plan, direct the reader to the Ryan Plan article. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I invite EATC to identify any factually inaccurate statements in my edits, rhetorical flourishes, or for that matter the claimed "weasel words". So far EATC has failed to point to anything specific that is objectionable.

And if EATC can identify balance that is lacking, why not add factual statements that provide balance - rather than deleting my factual statements and substituting his own talking points?

EATC doesn't seem to understand the difference between a columnist and an op-ed writer. Columnists typically are held the same factual standard that govern news stories.

I do have to wonder why EATC, after initially larding up Dent's page with GOP talking points, now instead is so determined to have the minimum possible info visible there. Certainly is amusing to see that his own obviously partisan motives are quite simply beyond reproach, whereas my alleged venting of frustrations as some kind of miserable constituent utterly disqualifies me from adding content (at least such content as EATC would prefer to exclude).

As for undue weight, huh? Seriously, huh? This was a vote to abolish Medicare for crying out loud. Dent positions himself as a moderate centrist who generally bucks his party on extremist positions. His page makes a huge deal of his supposed centrism. The Medicare vote is a significant counter-example. Silly to pretend otherwise...or maybe EATC doesn't actually understand much about Dent's public image.

Anyway, my original edit was only about 3 sentences long. Then EATC came lumbering in with his talking points and editorial warring, inflated the section repeatedly...and voila, ends up complaining that it's too lengthy. Ridiculous partisanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the decision of the editor brought in for mediation. Here's the Cliffs Notes(tm) version: that material does NOT belong in the article. Put in a link to The Path to Prosperity if someone wants to show what the vote was on. Beyond that, it's unencyclopedic, WP:COATRACKing, and gives undue WP:WEIGHT to one side of the equation. Keep it factual and verifiable, or don't keep it. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Shame, an obviously foolish decision. No more space to be devoted to a vote to abolish Medicare, than to Dent's vote on the utterly trivial Terri Schiavo affair? Shows why wikipedia pages on politicians are generally such propagandistic drivel. I don't think you know what coatracking really is. As for your sneers, Alan, bet you can't back them up. What in my edit was either non-factual or non-verifiable? Yeah, don't knock yourself out looking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd advise extreme caution here. You're on the ragged edge of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with your "sneers" comment above. Between that and your clear non-neutral approach to editing the article, you may be getting a bit more attention than you'd like. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What is it?

What is it?

Monopoly of Germans? Demand to be taken into account and these of views: See. Пуанкаре (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Text of articles at the English-language Wikipedia is expected to conform to the standards of the English-language Wikipedia. We have no control over the Russian-language wikipedia, and the standards for articles THERE have no bearing on the content of articles HERE. Other than that, I am not sure what you are asking administrators to do here; we have no control over what goes on at ru.wikipedia, nor does what goes on over there have any bearing on article content here. I have no idea what you want administrators to do here. --Jayron32 04:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. Noticed that different members. I put the template {{POV}}. But clean. What should do? Take into account the need not ru.wiki, and arguments, theories listed there. Пуанкаре (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What you should do is start a discussion at the article's talk page. This isn't the place to have the discussion. You need to be detailed in your objections to the article. So far, near as I can tell, you've only left us with a diff of someone removing the POV template, and a link to a bad machine translation of the same article at ru.wikipedia. No one has any idea what your objection to the article is. Instead of coming here to complain, what you should be doing is leaving details at the article talk page about what exactly is the problem with the article. So far, no one knows why you think the article isn't neutral. If you need an outside opinion on the situation, you could also ask for help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. But there is nothing here for administrators to do. You're going to have to work it out on the article talk page through civil discussion. --Jayron32 05:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Off-subject a bit, the Russian user's page is all in Russian, which I'm not sure is kosher on the English wikipedia. Also, his name transliterates as Poincare, should one care. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:UP says nothing about the language in which you write on your userpage. Anyway, the source page (http://traditio.ru/wiki/Отрицание_теории_относительности) is a Mediawiki website, but it's obviously not the same as ru.wikipedia.org. Note that traditio.ru is on our blacklist for some reason. Nyttend (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

IP edit warring and with personal attacks

Resolved

 – Blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor (74.232.27.81 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)) was blocked yesterday for edit warring on Antenna TV. After the block expired today, user added speculative, unsourced info on WXIA-TV. Currently, the IP is at 3 reverts, so still technically on the "right" side of the bright line, but after being informed of the importance of sourcing, made a lovely personal attack against me on xyr talk page [7]. After being warned by me against both edit-warring and WP:NPA, the user added a second personal attack, [8]. The diff also indicates that the editor is unwilling to edit collaboratively. Could we perchance give the user some more time off to reconsider if Wikipedia is the right place for xem? Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I have given them a week off. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet unblock review

On 8 March, I blocked Mjs2010 for incompetence, copyright violation, and personal attacks. Sandstein declined and unblock request later that day. On 13 March, the account B.Davis2003 was created, and edited until 15 April, when MuZemike blocked it as a confirmed sockpuppet of Mjs2010 (see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjs2010) Later that day, JamesBWatson declined an unblock request. Today there was another unblock request, that at best, only superficially addressed the reasons for the original block, and failed to discuss at all the copyright violations. Nick-D (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) granted this unblock request without consulting any of the four previously involved admins, and when asked about this unblock, and asked to reverse his unblock for discussion, has declined. I'd like to see this unblock reviewed by other parties. Courcelles 03:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

• Despite the fact that I had declined an earlier unblock request, I do see that there is an arguable case for unblocking. However, I do not see that there is a case for unilateral unblocking without consultation or discussion. In fact I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed. There is no way that this unblock could be seen as clear cut and uncontroversial, and for one admin to take unilateral action against the clear consensus of several other admins without even an attempt to discuss it was not appropriate in this case. JamesBWatson (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

If any of this person's accounts were to be unblocked it would only be the original one: Mjs2010. That said, the English composition and comprehension skills of the editor are not at encyclopedia level. There is no compelling reason to bring this editor back after socking. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Courcelles for notifying me of this (though I would add to his or her chronology of events that I also declined an unblock request from this editor yesterday, explaining the conditions they needed to meet to be unblocked). As I stated on my talk page, when reviewing this editor's actions (in both accounts) I came to the view that the problems with their editing were being driven by youth and inexperience rather than outright malice. As they had nominated the account they wished to use and given a reasonably detailed commitment to stick to the rules I couldn't see any grounds to continue the block. When agreeing to the unblock I told the editor that they would probably be re-blocked without warning if they broke their commitment, however, and watchlisted their talk page so that I could respond to any further complaints the editor received. As such, I think that the unblock is justified on the grounds that the editor deserves a final chance, though I wouldn't be at all bothered if other admins come to a different conclusion. I'm also happy to take a trout for not discussing this with Courcelles first as well. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this getting all so confusing, if you want me to use my old account and then appeal for an unblock on that account, I will, I just need to find my password for the old account, as I have misplaced it. Courcelles, I repeat, I have noted and expressed my remorse now for the issues surrounding both my accounts on my copyright warnings and personal attacks, and have complied with everything i've been told since. Please admin, if you could tell me what would be preferred, and If you could please, take time look at my contributes to wikipedia on my new account, and know that I have supplied sources and remained calm in edit wars. B.Davis2003 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Unarchived, as someone moved this from AN without retimestamping two hours ago. Courcelles 10:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is as follows: Unilaterally undoing an administrator action, without prior discussion with (and, normally, consent of) the blocking administrator is not only impolite and uncollegial, but also a misuse of administrator tools, because it arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator, disrupts administrative processes and (in the case of unblocks) may enable continued disruption of Wikipedia. We need to recognize that our own judgment is just as likely to be wrong as that of our colleagues. Administrators should therefore respect the decisions of other administrators, even if they themselves would have made a different decision. They should only undo the admin actions of others with their consent, or after a community discussion that resulted in consensus to overturn the action. Administrators who unilateraterally undo admin actions for no compelling reason, as Nick-D did here, should be desysopped for disruption if they do so repeatedly. Conversely, and for the same reasons, administrators should not normally take unilateral administrator actions after a colleague has already reviewed the matter and come to the conclusion that no action is necessary.  Sandstein  11:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I have already criticised the unblock, I actually think that Sandstein is being too harsh. Nick-D did not simply arbitrarily undo another administrator's action, as the situation had changed. The issue had been discussed on B.Davis2003's talk page, and B.Davis2003 had made undertakings not to do the same again. Consequently Nick-D was not retrying the same case as Courcelles had already judged, but assessing a different question from the question that Courcelles had already assessed, and even from the ones that I and Nick-D himself had assessed in considering previous unblock requests. Consequently I see "arbitrarily substitutes one's own judgment for that of the blocking administrator" as an unfair description, as it was one's own judgement of a different question than the blocking administrator had judged. I do think that, in a case where several admins had supported a block (on one or other of the user's accounts) it is usually a mistake to unilaterally make the decision that the situation has changed enough to justify a change in judgement, but I cannot agree with the very strong terms in which Sandstein has condemned it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Concur with JamesBWatson. If nobody is able to act on an unblock except with the blocking admin's permission, why even have unblock requests that go into a queue at all? I am certainly no soft heart when it comes to reviewing unblock requests, and at the same time I trust the rest of you to unblock people that I have blocked. I am not infallible. Syrthiss (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, all administrators are able to unblock users. The question is under which circumstances they should do so. The reason we have an unblock request system is that it allows uninvolved users to voice their opinion on the block, and if they come to a consensus conclusion that the block is wrong, the blocking admin (or if need be another admin) will lift the block. There are also some circumstances where unilateral unblocks are unproblematic, such as when the blocker is no longer active or if there has been a very obvious error. But where unblocking is a matter of judgment, the unblocker's judgment is just as likely to be wrong as the blocker's. For this reason, and also out of simple collegiality, other admins should defer to the judgment of the first admin who has examined a case, unless consensus tells us that this judgment is wrong.  Sandstein  15:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think than if the situation changes, and it arguably did in this case, then there is no need to wait on the unblock. I don't think this unblock was a case of the unblocking admin disagreeing with your call (in fact his first unblock decline says he agreed with it). I think waiting for the blocking admin could, in many cases, delay an unblock where unblocking is clearly acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's comments are rather over the top. I agree with James' summation and Syrthiss' comments. As I've said above, if other admins disagree with my judgement to unblock here I've got no problems at all with it being overturned - I welcome scrutiny of my blocks and unblocks (and, from memory, I've had one block overturned and this is my first unblock which might be overturned in three and a bit years as a reasonably active admin, which I think is a pretty good record and hardly warrants the kind of comments Sandstein has posted here). Nick-D (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) To be fair to Sandstein he is currently involved in a case where an issue of this nature is being evaluated. I do not know what the norms are here for admins and blocking but I'm usually impressed with Sandstein's judgment and hope all parties can reduce this event to a non-issue. Lambanog (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's view here is thankfully not in accordance with current practice or policy. Admins do not require consensus to revert an admin action, wheel-warring is considered to begin when a revert is reverted without discussion. We have to allow some degree of flexibility in these matters. Fences&Windows 02:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

• On the "abuse of admin tools" issue: Sandstein's take on this seems far more aggressive than current practice. It would cause a certain amount of paralysis if gaining consensus or permission from the blocking admin were required in order to avoid threats of desysopping. I realize Sandstein qualified this with "...if they do so repeatedly", but since there's no reason to think it is a recurring pattern, mentioning this seems about as collegial as, well, unblocking without discussion.
• On not checking with the blocking admin or previous admins who declined to unblock: That probably would have been wise, if for no other reason than to avoid causing others to feel slighted, and also because they might have more knowledge that the unblocking admin doesn't know about. Borderline trout-worthy, but since Nick offered to self-trout, that seems a reasonable response.
• On unilaterally unblocking after previous unblocks are declined (in general): I think this can be OK, but depends on the particular circumstances. If circumstances change, or conditions are set and agreed to, it seems reasonable not to require agreement, even if it is recommended. If the user is unblocked and there is consensus to reblock, that can be determined here. Reblocks are easy.
• On this particular unblock: Seems OK. Nick-D engaged with the editor, set some conditions, and will watch the editor for any further trouble. If he'd checked with Courcelles first, I imagine Nick might have mentioned the copyright issue too, but it's been made clear to the editor now. Reblocks are easy.

I suggest allowing the user to remain unblocked, on whichever account they prefer, making it clear this is a last chance.--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I am broadly in agreement with Floquenbeam, though I would personally go for "trout-worthy" rather than "borderline trout-worthy". Since Nick-D has accepted the troutworthiness of the incident, and since there seems to be a general consensus that consultation would have been a good idea, but no support for Sandstein's more uncompromising position, I suggest we consider the incident closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can compromise, and say that it was on the borderline between borderline trout-worthy and trout-worthy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I'm not sure whether it quite reaches that borderline. I think it may be only borderline for doing so. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Self Promotion by Spurkait

Hi, I would like to bring into notice the Additions and Contributions by the User Spurkait (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please check all the Contributions by the User [9]. All are Aimed at promoting a company called Nettech.

1) The Page of this Company Nettech [10] looks like a Marketing brochure thanks to all his his contributions to the page [11].

2) Many general keyword based Pages are being redirected to this company's page, thanks to the user. Example: Summer Training [12], Winter Training [13], Certificate in Network Management [14]

3) He has modified the Pages of Premiere Educational Colleges/Universities of India and made references to the company. Example: [15], [16], [17], [18]

Kindly look into the matter.

Sonakshi87 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried to communicate with Spurkait, give warnings, etc? I see nothing on their Talk page since 2007. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No I did not. Considering he was blocked previously for Advertisement and he is doing it again. -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And a closer look shows that Spurkait hasn't edited since January, and the changes to the Nettech article seem reasonable. The redirects, redirecting unspecific English phrases (eg "Winter training" and "Summer training") were promotional, so I've removed hose - alll you needed to done here was tag the redirects for speedy deletion, rather than report them here. You are free to remove the material that you consider to be promotional from the colleges/education articles yourself (which were added as long ago as 2009) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the Information added on the Page is added by Spurkait. I am quite sure he is an employee/owner of the company [Refer to all the images uploaded. Different locations and time, mentioned as own work]. Wouldn't this be a problem against Wikipedia's NPOV Policy? I understand I can modify most of the stuff. The reason why I am reporting it is to see if the user can be blocked since he has been editing other articles and promoted his company multiple times. Check some of the articles I have linked above, his additions have been removed a few times and he adds them again. [19] -- Sonakshi87 (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, seeing as he hasn't edited since January, a preventative block would be pretty hard to justify now, 3 months on. And the additions to those educational articles are from as long ago as October 2009. I'd think the best approach now is to revert his additions, and then keep an eye on him - and we can take further action if he comes back and does it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and shortened Nettech some. But the entire timeline and photo gallery should probably go too, really, and most of the references. There is still some promotional bloat. At least there isn't a "we" telling the story now... Bishonen | talk 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC).

Thanks you Bishonen & Boing! said Zebedee! - Sonakshi87 (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:CORP anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple non-English essay articles on same topic—I smell a class assignment

• Wikitagalog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PANGKASARIANG PAGKAKAKILANLAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've stumbled across these two articles this morning, created by separate new accounts, both written in Tagalog. Running the text through Google Translate, they both appear to be essays on the topic of gender identity.

My hunch is that there's a class assignment (possibly at Southern Miss, based on this version of the first article), and essays are getting posted to Wikipedia. I think the creators of these two pages are acting in good faith but just posting to the wrong place. I hope the instructor hasn't told the class to post the essays here (though I can't rule that out).

My hunch is also that there will be more of these today. —C.Fred (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you find the teacher out and contact him? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left messages on the two article creators' talk pages (plus a Google Translation to Tagalog of the message) but haven't gotten a reply. —C.Fred (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The version of Wikitagalog ([20]) pointed out by C.Fred is specifically a translation of http://voicelab9.wordpress.com/non-western-cultural-norms/gender-roles-within-the-philippines/ . -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the remainder of the situation, I deleted it as copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Problematic edits

• 75.194.32.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (29-30 March)
• 75.194.206.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30 March)
• 75.213.146.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (30-31 March)
• 75.194.217.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (31 March)
• 75.213.164.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (6 April)
• 75.194.159.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (8-9 April)
• 75.213.152.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (9 April)
• 69.98.84.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (14 April)
• 75.251.6.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (18 April)

An IP-hopping editor has been making what seem to be problematic edits involving voice-cast credits for animated films and TV programs. The edits may or may not rise to the level of vandalism, but any one of them that I've looked into I've been unable to verify using standard sources such as IMDB. I've left messages on the talk pages of several of the IPs, but either because they don't see the messages (because of the dynamic IP address) or because they are ignoring them, there's been no response. Articles involved include Pat Buttram, Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series), Shining Time Station, Thomas and Friends and the articles of other actors involved, and they have been reverted by numerous editors, including myself.

I'm not sure how to proceed. I turn to the admin corps for assistance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

All the above IPs notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have also left notices for other editors who have interacted (or attempted to interact) with the above IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start on dealing with this problem, but much more remains to be done. I have semiprotected Shining Time Station, Pat Buttram and Yu-Gi-Oh! (2000 TV series) for three weeks. I am reluctant to do the same to Thomas and Friends because there is a huge amount of IP editing to that article, and I would not like the amount of collateral damage. That is assuming that there is not a large proportion of vandalism in the IP editing. If that is so then the article should be semiprotected. I have not checked for lack of time, so someone else may like to look at it. There are numerous other articles affected, but I have not checked them all to see how much of a problem there is on each one (again because of lack of time), so perhaps someone else would like to do that too. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Given this edit, brought to my attention by Doc9871, I've added 75.213.146.101 to the list above, and The Little Engine That Could (2011 film) and Firebreather (film) should also be added to the list of articles affected which should be semi-protected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Added another IP based on the diff above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Notified the two new IPs. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Other articles: Adventures from the Book of Virtues, Michael Dorn Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Given edits such as this, it's now clear to me that this editor's contributions are essentially creative vandalism. They should probably be reverted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I wiped out the "Additional Cast" lists from AFTBOV as completely unsourced. It is vandalism, it's certainly "creative" and it causes massive headaches when they "cross-reference" these fake roles onto living actor's filmographies (as well as onto actors' who have been dead far longer than even possible for them to have lent their voices). Aside from you, me and a few others who have helped: this looks like a cricket-chirper of a thread. Annoying and childish behavior from a budding young troll/trolls. Doc talk 09:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• I have now looked back at Thomas and Friends in more detail. It is clear that all or nearly all of the IP editing is either vandalism or at least highly questionable unsourced editing, so I no longer have such concerns about collateral damage, and I have semiprotected it after all. I have also done the same to The Little Engine That Could (2011 film), Firebreather (film), Adventures from the Book of Virtues and Michael Dorn. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added various related articles to my watch list, as I'm sure others have, so hopefully we'll see the next attack as it happens and be able to revert the edits before they get too embedded in the articles. Thanks much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you James and BMK! MarnetteD (talk · contribs) also helped ferret out some of the bad edits from the earlier incident, and I see that BMK has made them aware of this thread. Several others have helped a lot as well, and it's good to know there's a handle on this. Cheers :> Doc talk 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Duck of someone banned/blocked?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Iridescent for abusing multiple accounts

Temporaire1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• If any Admins is reading this, please take note that the abovementioned user has made 26 tendentious edits within the span of 10 minutes, all done without any explanation given whatsoever. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)