Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mistress Selina Kyle (talk | contribs) at 07:40, 6 February 2012 (→Paedophile POV-pushing mass-sockpuppeeteer: Thanks :)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

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

    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.

    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


    See [1]. 'Unless this matter is attended to swiftly by the appropriate "authorities" at Wikipedia, the matter will have to go to court'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef blocked, talk page warning left. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Any suggestions as to what we do regarding the 'opinion' left on the talk page? Given that we don't know who posted it, I wonder if we should delete it as a possible copyright violation ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Either delete it or hat it. If the latter, make a note that it is merely an opinion of a single barrister. We have ample refs indicating the official position of the HOL, and until they (or the British courts) change their mind, this barrister's opinion is no more valid than mine or yours. Manning (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Far from the first time they've posted this on the talk page and made similar legal threats. They've been directed to where they can direct their complaints before. RBI is probably the best bet as they continue this. Ravensfire (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with the deletion. I don't think hatting is enough. The barrister's position may be online, and perhaps they gave permission for the poster to republish it in some form, there's a fair chance they didn't give them permission to release it under the CC-BY-SA licence though. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a comment, but should we really be indeffing a shared IP address registered to the largest ISP in the UK? Or is there some evidence that this is an open proxy or someone's static IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've raised the same concern at User talk:Tom Morris#Arkell v. Pressdram, eh?. It's a dynamic IP and the user responsible, who has been at it for six years (!), has used various other IPs from the same ISP and others - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mofb. It's certain that he will be back from a different IP as he has previously said explicitly that he will simply return from another IP if he is blocked. Previous IPs from this range have been blocked for 48 hours rather than indefinitely, to reduce the potential collateral damage, and I've suggested that this block should be reduced accordingly. The blocking admin has said this is sensible but so far nobody has acted on it. Prioryman (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Ironholds did reduce the block earlier. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted, so the link that Andy gives is now useless; if you're an admin, you can view the content here. I strongly suspect that British court judgements are Crown Copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just trivia, but I think the 2005 ruling on UK Crown Copyright waives all royalites and "requiring a specific licence or approval" to publish anything held under UK Crown Copyright. (This however excludes images, scans of the original publications and certain "withheld" documents.) Manning (talk) 04:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify - my original comment regarding copyright concerned the 'opinion' that Monckton seems to have paid his legal representative to hold (or at least claim to hold). We've no way to ascertain that this is copyright-free. Then again, there is no particular reason to assume it is genuine, even in the sense that it was necessarily written by whoever is purported to be the original source. In any case, it is the 'opinion' of someone or other, and of no more validity than anyone else's, unless and until a court says otherwise. The next time I see waffle like this on the talk page, I'll delete it as unverified, and as such of no relevance to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there should be any real doubt it is genuine, to say you're a member of the house of Lords when most sources don't agree is one thing. To make up the words of a lawyer (i.e. someone who for professional reasons as much as anything is liable to sue) is another. I have no comment on who tried to publish it on wikipedia, but the advice has been published elsewhere, under the name of the lawyer (barrister) who it's easy to find is a real person and appears to have been sent to the Lord Speaker and chairperson of the Privileges Committee. It therefore seems fairly implausible it's not really something originating from said lawyer. This doesn't mean the barrister has given permission for it to be republished under the CC-BY-SA and GFDL, nor does it mean it has any relevance. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    While we're here, can we discuss what to do about the IP editor? This is not the first time this article has faced legal threats from an IP editor. In fact, there have been a whole series of such threats from IP editors, several identifying as Monckton himself, going all the way back to 2006 when his original account, Mofb (talk · contribs), was blocked for making legal threats. I have recently been tagging them as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mofb to keep them all together. There has been substantial disruption to the article as the IP editors all have common behavioural characteristics: deletion of material that he/they dislike; addition of unreferenced or unreliably sourced material (including false and probably libelous claims about others on at least two occasions); edit-warring; legal threats against Wikipedia and individual editors; no attempt to discuss wholesale changes; possible copyright violations (as in this case). There is no reason to believe that this won't continue, as one of the most recent IP socks said only last month, "If this IP address is blocked, we shall move to another IP address." [2]

    Monckton has been advised on several occasions of dispute resolution procedures and Wikipedia's policies on conflicts of interest, legal threats, reliable sourcing etc. There have been at least two OTRS tickets that I know of, both of which have been worked through, and Jimbo himself has been involved. However, the person behind the IP socks clearly wants to WP:OWN the article without input from others. I think it's fair to say that he appears to have no interest whatsoever in working constructively with the community. Frankly he has been shown an amazing amount of forbearance and IP socks have been allowed to edit (for a time at least) despite the master account being blocked indefinitely. After six years though, you really have to say "enough is enough". I suggest that future IP socks should be blocked on sight - if this individual wants any further contact with Wikipedia he should do it through OTRS. What do the rest of you think? Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup. I suggest we put a note on the talk page to the effect that we will only communicate with anyone purporting to be Monckton or his legal representatives via WP:OTRS, and that any talk page postings, article edits, or other material posted on Wikipedia through any other means claiming to represent him will be deleted on sight, unread. If he wants to pursue Wikipedia through the courts, he can of course try, but we have no obligation to permit him to post his questionable 'legal opinions', and nor do we have any obligation to assist him in his battles to acquire a seat in the House of Lords. (And as a purely personal opinion, even if I wasn't opposed to this particular house of unearned privilege on principle, Monckton's monumental arrogance would surely be justification enough for wishing to see the back of this relic of past stupidities...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it worth SP'ing the talk page as well? Not generally done, but a quick scan suggests it might be merited here, due to the amount of IP driveby happening. Manning (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't normally recommend that, but if the aim is to force the litigious IP editor to go through OTRS, that could be worth doing. Prioryman (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike has now semi'd the talk page so unless there's any other business, I think we're done here. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Androzaniamy

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

    Following the above ANI discussion which did not result in anything (but contains many, many diffs of disruption/incompetence), I am re-opening a thread about this user following further disruption and incompetence. While the previous discussion was opened, User:Wikipelli offered to adopt Androzaniamy on her talk page ([3]), to which Androzaniamy declined ([4]) citing her desire to adopt another user instead, among other things. This response (and edit summary) to comments in an AfD discussion also support my above assessment of Androzaniamy's behavior. 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly are you objecting to, please? That she doesn't want to be adopted? Surely that's not mandatory. Or that she believes in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules? I rather hope most of us do, actually. --GRuban (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous thread contains more information. Overall I see a general lack of competence with this user and the refusal to listen to advice by others. The refusal of adoption further supports that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's just that I really wanted to adopt, I never meant to upset anyone. I'm really sorry. If Wikipelli was really upsett about me saying no I will accept his request. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your denial of adoption is not the reason for this thread. The denial just backs up my perception that you refuse to listen to others and become defensive when others tell you you're doing something wrong. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    When? You have not provided any proof! PLEASE stop calling me names. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have proof here and at the previous thread, and I am not in violation of WP:NPA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see any here and I would rather not look at the other page due to bad language posted on there. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Then please refrain from asking for evidence when it is clearly here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the other thread with contains the links and diffs of evidence, there is no profanity or bad language there. Heiro 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What is did notice in those diffs though was you refactoring other editors posts every time they pointed you to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Please don't mess with others editors posts, see here Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments.Heiro 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay was only pointed out once, actually. Androzaniamy edit-warred to remove "CRAP" from the shortcut (first removal, second removal). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not. The message to Wikipelli is the only thing I think you mean and I have even apologised if I offended anyone. No other proof is on here. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To anyone reviewing this matter, the above comment is exactly what I am talking about. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW.... so this can be taken off the table.. I couldn't be less offended that my offer was rejected :) Just sayin' Wikipelli Talk 22:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    How? Please explain as I am very confused. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment There are obvious competence issues here, ranging from the above-referenced censoring of links to this commonly-linked-to Wikiproject piece (I'm not showing the name of the piece because I don't want to poke the ANI subject :) to oddly paranoid reactions to people doing things like dropping a Welcome template on her talkpage or offering to adopt her (both frankly kind actions were greeted with thinly-veiled threats to report the users for vandalism). I can't really comment on much more than this, but this editor's behavior is certainly strange, and in certain cases arguably disruptive. That said, no opinion on whether some kind of admin action is warranted. A shame that the editor at issue took so poorly to an offer of adoption; the editor at issue is plainly interested in improving the encyclopedia and making good faith contributions. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to seem cold-hearted here, but given this editor's insistence on changing others' posts to censor, and in doing, break wikilinks, their inability to comprehend rather clear complaints about behavior, and worse of all their intention to adopt another editor (and thus spread this problem) I think this editor may be too dangerous to be allowed to participate at Wikipedia any further. While I believe their intentions are good, the disruption they are causing is not, and I don't see any way that disruption can ever be prevented short of a block. -- Atama頭 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. She could be a poster child for that policy. "We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility." She has been editing since December 29, 2011, barely a month. She's created several useful articles in that time: Hacker T. Dog, Stacked (TV film), and Hacker Time; if the most disruptive thing she's done is argue to defend her articles and user talk page, that's hardly a net negative to the encyclopedia. Give her a break. --GRuban (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "if the most disruptive thing she's done is defend her articles and user talk page, well, there are worse crimes, aren't there?" Oh, I'd agree. But they aren't. Have you read this thread? Editing other editors' comments for purposes of censorship is not allowed, period. If these were newbie mistakes I'd understand. But they aren't. They come about from obstinance. This behavior has been pointed out multiple times and ignored. Let me ask you then, what are we supposed to do here? Kindness and patience don't work. How do you make someone listen and understand? What tools do we have that will resolve this situation? Keep in mind, I've helped many new people, people with COI issues, I've acted as a mediator a number of times. I'm always in favor of guiding people and talking things out. But this is like trying to have a conversation with a person who can't understand what you're saying... As they're smashing holes in your walls with a hammer (with the best of intentions). If your suggestion is to pretend she's not doing anything wrong, sorry, that's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 22:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @GRuban: I don't see her running away. In fact, she even once posted that she was leaving, yet came back to write something else. Calabe1992 22:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with GRuban here. I've had interactions with this editor and, to put it mildly, she is, um, challenging, to say the least. But I didn't know the first time an ANI discussion was started and I don't know now what the goal here is? Block? I think the editor is, at times, misguided, obstinant, argumentative, and without a basic understanding of policies and the collaborative nature of the project but I don't see that she's done anything to warrant even a block at this time. Edits have been reverted, discussions (I'm describing them charitably here) are started, but... I'm feeling misguided passion is still passion and should be encouraged and developed. Hence my attempts at adopting the user (one of which I did very poorly, I'm afraid). My suggestion is not to engage in the seemingly endless back and forth with the editor. If she refuses guidance, so be it. When she goes off the reservation she can be reverted and warned. Eventually one of two things will happen: she'll get the message and improve or she'll accrue enough warnings to be blocked. Right now, I think that we're piling on and picking a scab when we should just say, "here's why that's out of policy" and move on. Wikipelli Talk 22:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to take any action myself. But mark my words, unless she has an epiphany at some point this isn't going to end well. I'm not sure what else can be done when neither warnings nor advice are effective. It's a very bad sign that absolutely nobody has anything to suggest aside from a block. And a shame, too. -- Atama頭 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you know, maybe the best solution is to keep it simple. She has engaged in blockable behavior (and yes, repeatedly editing others' comments without justification is blockable behavior). Maybe the best thing is to offer formal warnings, and when those warnings are ignored, issue out blocks as we would to anyone else. I guess when you get down to it, it doesn't really matter if warnings are understood. The behavior is still continuing, and the disruption is the same. -- Atama頭 22:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with GRuban and Wikipelli. I too have had interactions with the editor in question. She has responded well to my advice, though not always followed it to the letter. This editor's incompetence is, in my opinion, more naivety due to lack of experience than any malevolence. She needs support, advice and guidance. The welcome template is good for experienced readers but still full of Wikispeak. She admitted to not understanding it. Also, on looking round Wikipedia talk pages, which she has obviously been doing, there are some awful examples of rudeness and argumentative behaviour. OK, if there is no change of behaviour a block could be appropriate but can we first try telling this user what is acceptable (in simple plain English) rather than being negative.--Harkey (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pointless complaining again. Three days after your last time posting a case here [5] you start a new one for the same thing. You insult someone for making new articles you don't believe should exist, but as someone pointed out to you last time, consensus in the AFD so far says many agree they should be kept. This editor felt "crap" was a swear word and shouldn't be on Wikipedia. A simple mistake. Some families do teach their children that is a swear word. That issue should be renamed Other Things Exist instead of the insulting word "crap" being used to refer to other people's articles. And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain. And why would refusing to be "adopted" be a point against her? If a stranger offered to "adopt" me, I'd find it rather creepy myself. Eagle seems to be doing some wrong too such as removing part of an AFD post quoting a well known rule of Wikipedia [6] claiming it was a copyvio, instead of just pointing out she should link to where she got that from. Dream Focus 22:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "And if someone post something on your talk page after you removed it, you have a right to complain." Androzaniamy told the user who added a WELCOME template to her talk page that if they added it again, they would be reported to AIV. This is the kind of behavior that is acceptable here? Removing "swear words," even if bad ones (i.e. the F-bomb) after being told not to do so in violation of WP:TPG, is unacceptable. Regarding your comment about adoption, Androzaniamy does not believe the adoption offer was "creepy," as she was trying to adopt another user herself. You want to see rude comments? Here, here, and here. And these comments were made before my supposed "rude" comments toward these user. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was joking about the 'creepy' part. I always felt it rather condescending to tell someone they don't know what they are doing and you want to "adopt" them though. I don't see any of the three things you just linked to as a problem. Did the person remove it again after it was explained to them properly? Seems like just a misunderstanding to me. You can in fact report someone for refusing to stop placing the same thing on your talk page after you already removed it. Dream Focus 00:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the user's behavior, I think education would be preferable to blocking, at least for now. Androzaniamy, if you're listening, I strongly urge you to reconsider adoption; based on your account's age and current circumstances, I don't think it's a good idea for you to adopt anyone right now anyway. It would greatly benefit you, and the alternative is WP:ROPE as far as I'm concerned. Let's not do that. If you really don't want to be adopted, you should at least spend some quality time with the various policies and guidelines people have linked you to. If you don't understand something, come to the help desk and ask! Don't assume that our policies will cater to your wants/needs: they won't. And ignore all rules isn't carte blanche to do what you want, btw. One other thing: I tried to review the user's talk page history, and none of you people know how to use edit summaries, it seems. --NYKevin @102, i.e. 01:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to clarify something that I think some people are missing: the user says xe doesn't want to be adopted because xe wants to adopt someone else. That is, this user thinks that not only do xe not need help, but that xe is so well-versed in Wikipedia that xe is ready to dispense advice to others. While I agree that blocking is premature, Androzaniamy cannot be allowed to mentor anyone, and Androzniamy needs to start taking into account the concerns of other editors, because Wikipedia is a rule based project, and a collaborative one. WP:IAR does not mean "I get to override any rule I don't like"...it actually says something more like "if an action is obviously agreeable to the entire community, do it even if a rule prevents it." In the case of keeping or deleting articles, the majority of the community tends to believe that deletion discussion mostly get things right, and that WP:GNG does apply in the majority of situations. Please, please, most everyone here really is trying to help you... Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a rather lengthy ramble on their talk page, which will hopefully reassure them that the administrator corps is not out to get them. Perhaps gentle nudges from another, relatively new, editor who is not a highly seasoned veteran may prove to be the support that will guide them in the right direction. Blackmane (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure this is not the response you were looking for. "Oh, and the other link still had a swear word in it so I did not read it." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI for those watching this discussion, Androzaniamy posted this message on her talk page (and spammed it across others' talk pages as well) in which she attempts to address the concerns raised here. Unfortunately, there still appears to be a disconnect in regards to what the problems actually are, especially with the line "[I will] [c]ontinue being polite and competent." Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eagles24/7, what do you want to happen as a result of this discussion? I still don't understand. I was a recipient of the message, too. I didn't consider it 'spam' and, no matter whether the editor follows through or not, took it as a good faith message. I'm not going to slam her for that. My response to her message? Ok, let's move on. I thought Blackmane's message was excellent and I think the gist of this discussion is, let's put our efforts into guidance rather than picking at it. It's really time to move forward. Wikipelli Talk 18:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What do I want from this discussion? A block, a mandatory mentorship/adoption, or a change in behavior. I don't see a change in behavior and adoption has been refused. If we continue to promote this behavior in editors, they will see that they can do whatever they want as long as they claim they are acting in good faith. There is no doubt this editor is acting in good faith, but the problems with her behavior will never be corrected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As multiple people have said, she's not blockable right now. Why don't you come back when she's done something seriously bad, if you really think it will come to that? --NYKevin @895, i.e. 20:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

    Since this is her first trip to AN/I let's assume that she'll get the gist of it and stop her behavior. At this point she's been warned and her account has drawn the attention of multiple editors so she'll be on a somewhat tight rope. If she does it again we can block. One thing I am concerned about though is her refusal to read posts that have swear words. Swearing is a huge part of the English fucking language and she's gonna have to get used to it :). The presence of a swear word is not justification not to listen to the concerns of other editors and whether intended or not, that type of response is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality - collaboration means that sometimes you work with editors who think and act differently, being okay with this is required to contribute here. Noformation Talk 00:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be part of the language but it isn't compulsory. Using swearing to make a point looks a bit silly. Tigerboy1966  00:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Um.... yeah... I think being afraid to see the word c*ap is oversensitive, but I have to disagree with the contention that swearing is a "huge part of the English f-ing language". I find the F-bomb offensive and, while I'll still read posts that have it, I absolutely don't think it's necessary or appropriate in this forum. Plus, you've pretty much guaranteed that the editor in question will never read this discussion again. While we might condone the use of it, can't we be sensitive to the fact that the involved editor is offended by it? Pushing civility here :( Wikipelli Talk 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No I don't think so. She joined our community, not the other way around. We don't accommodate the preferences of every individual editor who arrives here and wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. We have a culture, and whether or not it's right swearing is a part of this culture. Offense is a totally subjective concept and things that don't offend you might put others into a rage - the people that rage over things that don't bother others too much are generally not welcome here. Noformation Talk 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ashoka

    I'm concerned about recent edits on the topic of the former Indian emperor Ashoka. It involves cut and paste moves and POV page moves. Consequently, some of the relevant article titles have changed but I'll try to explain this as clearly as I can.

    To begin with, User:Avaloan copied and pasted material from Ashoka to Ashoka the Great. As it was unexplained and as it was a cut and paste job, I reverted and notified the user. Incidentally, I know we're not supposed to template the regulars but, even though Avaloan's account is older than mine, I figured that as their account has so few edits and considering the nature of the contested edit, a template would't be inappropriate. Nonetheless, the advice and information about cut and paste moves appears to have been dismissed off hand.

    Moving on, though, Avaloan has responded by moving Ashoka to Emperor Ashoka The Great. The basis for such a move, as explained in their edit summary, is blatant POV-pushing.

    I admit I'm not sure how to proceed here. A revert of some sort seems in order. Discussing it with Avaloan seems sensible but, regardless of the outcome, I doubt Avaloan would know how to fix a non-consensual page move; and I know I don't. Can an admin please look into this.

    Thank you. ClaretAsh 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue has been fixed by myself. Avaloan 07:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, the issue was caused by yourself and is still extant. ClaretAsh 07:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It certainly doesn't appear to be 'fixed' - quite the opposite. Avaloan's tendency to label significant edits as minor is also of concern. Colonel Tom 08:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit summaries such as these sure look like POVpushing. Avaloan, revert yourself and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved the article back to Ashoka The political title is definitely wrong per WP:Article titles, and the "the Great" is POV, unless the vast majority of reliable sourced refer to him in this way. If Avaloan would like to discuss a merger, the correct next step is to start a discussion at Talk:Ashoka, but I advise Avaloan to read WP:Article titles and WP:NPOV first. I'll watch both articles for future changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for following up. Now we just have to decide on whether the title should be Ashoka or Aśoka ;-) ClaretAsh 09:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Avalaon just moved it again ([7]). I've warned the editor that further moves may result in a block; alternatively, someone else may want to move protect the article. It may well be that Avalaon is correct that the name should be changed, but we need a discussion first on the article talk page with valid reasons backed up by WP:RS, not just xyr feeling that the current name slights the long dead emperor. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, he just moved it again. Since I expressed an opinion above, somebody might argue that I'm WP:INVOLVED. Could someone else please move it back, then move protect the article? Xe's also showed up on my talk page, and is actually refusing to give an argument in favor of xyr preferred name--see User Talk:Qwyrxian#Ashoka. I have no problem w/him discussing the issue and trying to gain consensus--but this is not how we do controversial moves. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    is there no administrator here who can put it back to it's default name which is Ashoka.a pov pusher has changed it again.accusing administrators of bias.Pernoctator (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Done, page back at Ashoka and protected from non-admin moves for one week, pending discussion. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked User:Avaloan after he tried yet another copy-and-paste move. This [8] is his response. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk page access revoked, arbcom email left for user. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Cluestick needed for repeated BLP violation

    The was a recent deletion discussion for Jocelyn Wildenstein, an article so poorly sourced that it includes "Five-Star Baby Name Advisor: The Smart New Way to Name Your Baby" as a reference for the subject's fame. This article had been deleted on the grounds that the subject was only known for one thing (namely extensive plastic surgery), but was recently resurrected by User:Stvfetterly. During the second deletion discussion I noticed that Stvfetterly had placed a picture of a Siberian tiger next to the subject's name in a list on their user page of articles created. I removed the image and told them that I had done so because it was a clear violation of WP:BLP. Stvfetterly has replaced the image. Can someone please give Stvfetterly a gentle tap with the cluestick? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there some background we should be aware of? I don't see how that image is a BLP violation. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Jocelyn Wildenstein has had extensive cosmetic surgery to her face[26] over the years, creating a "very unnatural appearance"[27] intended to elicit a more catlike look.[28] " Bulwersator (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing how that's a BLP on Stvfetterly's user page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully someone who actually has a cluestick will see the issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you search her name in Google Images before talking --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware of what she looks like - that doesn't mean that putting an image of a Siberian tiger next to her name is acceptable. You should probably re-read WP:BLP of you think it is. Editors who are not familiar with her appearance can consult this high-quality source (tagline: "CELEBRITY PLASTIC SURGERY, NEWS, GOSSIP") used in our article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still not seeing how this is a BLP violation. Can you please explain explicitly why this is bad? Keep in mind, I tend to be pretty strict about BLP, but I fail to see how this is either damaging to the subject or offensive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My desire to not be an overbearing admin policing the minutiae of everyone's userpage is conflicting with my desire to not allow someone to mock another person on his user page. What would have been wonderful is if someone had asked Stvfetterly to remove it himself, but now that his back is up I doubt that's going to happen (still, Stvfetterly, if you're reading this, please remove the image). If he doesn't, I guess I'd lean towards saying it should go. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey all . . . can someone explain why this is a BLP violation? I read the BLP information and don't see anything that applies. From what I can see, this Carbuncle guy seemd to just be angry that he couldn't get the page I was working on deleted and is trying to find some way to retaliate. I'm not trying to mock Ms. Wildenstein. There's no free image of her. Her plastic surgery was done to in an effort to make herself look more like a cat, and she was pleased with the results. She went to considerable trouble, pain, and effort to make herself look that way . . . it doesn't make sense that referring to her as cat-like/using a picture of a cat would be offensive. It should also be noted that when Carbuncle decided to edit my user page without comment, I asked him to discuss it on my talk page (Articles for deletion/Jocelyn Wildenstein. He chose not to do so, but rather to bring up this ANI. He seems much more interested in beating me with a 'cluestick' than caring about the image.
    If you look at other images I have on the page (like the one for Defense Soap when there's no image available I like to grab something that reminds me of the subject (in the case of defense soap I grabbed an image that looked like a white bar of soap). The user page is primarily viewed by me, and having images makes it easier to locate articles that I'm working on.
    Regarding the 'poorly sourced' sourced article that was mentioned . . . perhaps someone could introduce Carbuncle to the other 24 sources listed in the Jocelyn Wildenstein article. --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit familiar with this as the admin who closed the AfD. I recommend that all involved stop this tempest in a teapot and go do something useful. Delicious carbuncle, placing a tiger's image next to this person's name is, in my opinion, a silly and tasteless thing to do in these circumstances; nonetheless it does not violate WP:BLP because it makes no false statement of fact about the person nor does it insult or otherwise attack her. This is completely not worthy of an ANI thread. Stvfetterly, if other editors are in good faith offended by something inconsequential you do, the sensible and collegial thing to do on your part would be to stop doing it and move on. I see no need for an admin action here.  Sandstein  21:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll get around to contesting your closure when I have more time, but there's no reason for that Tiger image to linger there any longer than necessary. Would it be a violation of WP:BLP if an editor put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg on their user page next to a link to Barack Obama? Would it be a violation of WP:NPA if I put File:Chimpanzee-Head.jpg next to a link to User:Stvfetterly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both would be rude, but not really BLP violations without more explicit motive behind it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a valid comparison though. Aside from the racial overtones of linking a black person to a primate, Barack Obama hasn't spent his life going from plastic surgeon to plastic surgeon in order to make himself look more like a chimpanzee.--Stvfetterly (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of the racial overtones. I chose the example quite deliberately to make it clear why actions such as yours are a BLP violation (sometimes people here have trouble extrapolating from specific situations). I suspect that Wildenstein ended up with "cat-like" features by virtue of typically bad plastic surgery, not as the result of any desire of her own, although I'm sure you can offer some source suggesting otherwise. The fact that you believe a living person looks -- or rather, looked, since she appears to have had some new procedures done -- like a cat does not not give you license to make that comparison with images. Labelling my removal of the image as "vandalism" is a bit petty, don't you think? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You suspect wrong. There was no botched surgery, she really intended to look like that. The article already had a source saying that it was deliberate, I added two more that quote the husband. Of those two, one has Jocelyn saying that she kept making operations to fix this and that. I haven't seen any sourced statements stating that this was a result of botched surgery. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wildenstein's appearance has been described as catlike, as in the manner of this Siberian Tiger
    This is a cat, too...
    ...as is this. Which one is the "catlike" that she's aspiring to look like? Only an RS knows for sure.

    Since BLP applies across all wikispaces, and since based on the above there's no real perception of a BLP problem here, I'm assuming that it'll be OK for me to add the image and caption shown at right to the article Jocelyn Wildenstein. Right? Or am I missing something? Herostratus (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say no, it's not alright, because the choice of an image of a tiger to illustrate "catlike" is actually an interpretation of what that means, and, as such, requires a citation from a reliable source. "Catlike" can mean many things, it does not necessarily mean "like a tiger", it could mean "like a jaguar" or even "like a sphynx". The choice of a tiger to illustrate the expression is analysis or interpretation, and without a citation from an RS, it's OR and not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    However, someone is perfectly fine in choosing to use such an illustration on their own userpage, where OR doesn't apply, and it's not a BLP violation to do as such. SilverserenC 22:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find my self in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Silver Seren.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, because I do think it is a BLP violation. Without knowing, via a reliable sourece, just what it is she is trying to achieve, what she means by "catlike", ascribing one specific vision of what it means to her anywhere on Wikipedia seems to me to be a clear-cut BLP violation, since we are stating as fact what we don't actually know is a fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, someone is ascribing their own opinion on their userpage. And we can be pretty sure it's tiger, RS or not. It wouldn't be that hard to find a source saying tiger. SilverserenC 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and since when have we allowed potentially derogatory opinions about public people on user pages? That goes far beyond their purpose, it seems to me.

    Why are "we" pretty sure it's a tiger? I've looked at her pictures, and I don't see anything particualrly tiger-like about he looks, as opposed to panther-like, or cheetah-like or sphynx-like. (In fact, the sphynx appears to me to be the closest analogy.) And if it's so easy to find a source, why doesn't someone find one and settle this question? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It is your opinion that it is derogatory. Stv has already explained above that he didn't mean it to be as such and a number of people agree that it is not.
    And considering that Tiger Woman is one of her monikers after all. See here, here, and here. Tiger Lady also seems to be a fairly common name for her. SilverserenC 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's my opinion that it's potentially derogatory. We can't know for certain, so we do not publish stuff like that unless it is solidly supported by citations from rock-solid reliable sources With BLP, we err on the side of caution.

    And are you saying that she uses "Tiger Woman" to describe herself? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We err on caution in articles. But if someone isn't making an outright derogatory statement on their userpage, but is using an image to represent someone that reflects their nickname, since we don't have an actual image on the subject, it is not a BLP violation.
    And you're not going to find a quote for or against from her on the subject, so that question is pointless. SilverserenC 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP policy applies across the entirety Wikipedia. Clearly, we're not going to agree here, so I'll sum up my position and then stand down: with BLP, OR, RS, and user page concerns about this, I see no upside to allowing such "opinions" on userpages, and little downside in disallowing them. There is no guarantee of freedom of expression here, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in connecting her name to a unrelated picture, and very little of project value in allow potentially derogatory personal opinions on user pages. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to note that we are talking about a mere juxtaposition of a picture and a name here. No text is making any connection between the picture and her looks and even if it were it is doubtful it would be a blp violation. What precedent are we setting here? I have a skull on my userpage and the names of several politicians? Is that a problem? Is it perhaps an veiled threat? I think that we don't need to invent problems to take care of - there are enough actual problems to take care of. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, we're going to stand on faux-naivite here? "No, really, I put up a picture and put her name on it but I wasn't making a suggestion that those two totally disparate thing are in any way connected, because I didn't write it down." Please, really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This thread is WP:LAME and should be closed. Pointing out that something obviously looks like something else, especially with no malice aforethought, should not be considered a BLP violation. Noformation Talk 00:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    "Something"? Try "someone", and a living someone at that. What's "lame" here is making fun of celebrities for no particular good reason. Until we get a citation that says she calls herself "Tiger Woman" or is attempting to make herself look like a tiger, it's a BLP violation, and shouldn't be anywhere in the encyclopedia. Our user pages aren't blogs, onto which we can throw any old opinion we care to share with the world. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I did not mean to insinuate that she is merely a "thing." My vagueness was vague intentionally so as to confer the general concept, not specifically referenced to the subject of the article. As far as making fun of her goes...sorry she kind of brought that on herself, it truly is funny (though also sad). Some people do things that are universally ridiculed, it's disengenuous to ignore it for the sake of civility when it's simply a joke (or in this case just an illustration) on a user page. Article space is one thing, but this is something we should all just chuckle over. With that said, I'm now part of a WP:LAME discussion and by the transitive property I am now lame, so I will be backing out before I get any lamer :). Noformation Talk 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The BLP policy is a malignant tumor that grows more disruptive to Wikipedia every month. Going after this userpage image has nothing to do with encyclopedic reliability or any conceivable lawsuit; it's just trashing an editor for recreation. BLP from the beginning has been an insult to every principle of Wikipedia. It may be that Wikipedia, like many people with cancer, can survive only by dying and perhaps sprouting anew from some forgotten seed. Wnt (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    compromised account

    Resolved
     – Misclick by Cyberpower678, well intentioned misunderstanding of Cyberpower's mistake by Toddst1. All good

    It appears that cyberpower678 (talk · contribs) has been compromised as evidenced in this edit. I've indeffed the account but it should be unblocked if the owner can be verified. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems a bit quick on the block. No other recent edits seem odd. I'd assume mistaken twinkle use, not compromised account...but oh well. --Onorem♠Dil 16:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Isn't it extremely likely that it was just a Twinkle misclick? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that this is most likely a misclick. Without questioning the block, which I believe was placed in good faith, I do think a better message should be appended to the user talkpage advising them of the action and their recourse. My76Strat (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Likewise, I see no evidence of being compromised -- note the consistent edit summary style with caps and period/full stop -- no other questionable edits. I think it was a TW misclick. Antandrus (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope I'm wrong. Verifying it should be easy - s/he has a Committed identity: d8347437a55b70605d7858449ad11597f773f581. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we block admins as compromised accounts if they accidentally block themselves? The answer is no, and Cyberpower678 should not have been blocked. Twinkle needs to be improved so that users cannot accidentally report themselves to AIV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    cyberpower678 has posted an unblock request that should be considered expeditiously. My76Strat (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle usually does prevent you from reporting yourself to AIV. This may have been some sort of bug or glitch. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an interesting Catch-22 here: reporting a non-vandal to AIV is vandalism, so therefore by reporting himself he is vandalizing. But reporting a vandal to AIV is not vandalism... Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A good-faith report to AIV is not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's true. I've had a few reports declined myself. I guess what I should have written was "reporting someone who is clearly not a vandal..." Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Il223334234

    (section previously titled "FIFA move")

    I hope I am in the right place. A recent RM gave no consensus for moving FIFA from its existing page, closed 28 January. On 4 February a user moved the page diff to International Federation of Association Football against consensus and I am unable to move it back. This is a top importance page for WP:Football and it is important to be at the right place. Thank you. Cloudz679 08:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty obvious from the talk page that there was no consensus to move the article to anything, but it was done anyway. It was moved back. (Not by myself, but I would have done so.) -- Atama頭 08:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved it back and left a note to the editor who was responsible for the move. —Dark 08:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I also left the editor a notice about this discussion, as noted at the top of this page you should have done so yourself, it is required. Thank you. -- Atama頭 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC) This was meant for Cloudz679 of course. -- Atama頭 08:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fluttershy appeal

    The following ban appeal was posted by User:Fluttershy on his talk page. I am forwarding it per request, and I have no opinion in the matter.

    Hello.
    I'm aware that it's usually preferred in the community for someone to appeal a block or ban after a period of time since the last action made by the user, but you never know since anyone can revoke talk page access at anytime, so I'm taking advantage of that opportunity. I just want to make it clear to everyone that I am Pickbothmanlol. Specifically, I am a person who has constantly disrupted numerous wikis for several years, including the English version of Wikipedia. Since 2010, I have evaded a community-placed ban by using this account, thinking that I could get away from my past without consequence. It took me a long time to realize that, but I know now that nobody can get away and stay away with consequence. I got myself into this whole mess because of my immaturity and intent to disrupt the purpose of this project, but I want to make it clear that it is no longer my intent.
    This account was never intended to be a fresh start, but as a dump account to solely create one article. I don't even remember why I bothered doing it, because I knew the account was going to be blocked and the article deleted. That article happened to be deleted, but the account remained unblocked for well over since October of 2010. Ironically, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic was just introduced in the same year, but I never really got into the show until the end of the first season. I then started to edit My Little Pony articles for well over the remainder of my time being unblocked. After getting Friendship is Magic to good article status, I felt like I didn't only just contributed to something, but that I saw the benefit in helping to improve a piece of work, rather than ruin it. This inspired me to create the MLP WikiProject for My Little Pony related content. Of course, I never entirely abandoned trolling sites on Wikia, most notably being the True Capitalist Wiki. But something was missing after about two or more attacks on the True Capitalist Wiki. The joy I originally had by trolling wikis just wasn't there anymore.
    Now, this might seem like a really weird thing to use as justification, but I want to credit the show My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic for reforming myself. I want to credit an administrator by the name of User:Masem for helping me return the favor for this show by getting it to GA status, and I wouldn't mind having Masem as a mentor if I am ever unbanned. I'm ready to give back to the community of Wikipedia as a reformed editor, and not a troll. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 20:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The appeal itself is located at User talk:Fluttershy. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that some background is needed. In late January 2012, which is still very recent, I helped exposed Fluttershy as a sockpuppet of Pickbothmanlol during a sockpuppetry investigation. Fluttershy is now open about being Pickbothmanlol. It should be noted that Pickbothmanlol is currently community banned: Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Pickbothmanlol, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive622#Pickbothmanlol_ban_proposal. My goal during the SPI case was to prevent Fluttershy from hiding his past as a vandal from the community and to prevent the issue from being swept under the rug. If the community wishes to lift Pickbothmanlol's community ban and to allow Fluttershy back into the community, I'll be fine with that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should also be noted that Fluttershy is a member of the "Bill Waggoner Crew", who have a troll history with several online communities, prompting his "raids" on the TCR wiki. I've reverted several cases of his friends' vandalism here already. User:SweetieBelleMLP 22:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments – On 21 November 2009, PBML was unblocked (block log) and given another chance after being indefinitely blocked for blatant disruption; he was then reblocked 5 days later.
    On 5 December 2009, PBML was unblocked and given another chance; he was reblocked 2 days later.
    After excessive socking, PBML was banned by community consensus on 26 June 2010. To date, PBML has abused 58 sock puppets and possibly 38 more.
    To say the least, there needs to be a community consensus to unban and unblock if one is considered. --MuZemike 22:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=473656630&oldid=473640059 – I have a few questions for ArbCom: How long did ArbCom know about the Fluttershy-Pickbothmanlol connection? Did they investigate? If ArbCom had an investigation, what were their findings / conclusions? Did ArbCom contact Fluttershy and ask, "Are you Pickbothmanlol"? If that question was posed, did Fluttershy confirm being Pickbothmanlol, or did he deny it? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We received an email regarding a possible connection and acknowledged receipt, but did not investigate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll copy over what I've put on the Arb page. I've gone back through our records. On 10 December 2011 someone sent us a clipping from an IRC log, in which a user with the handle Rainbow-Dash-EN said that they were Pickbothmanlol. The person sending it said they were now using the handle Fluttershy-EN, on a different IP. I will put my hands up and say as far as I was concerned I couldn't do anything but acknowledge it, because I'm not hot on the technical stuff and never use the IRC channel. It should have been punted to the Checkusers to follow up, but it fell through the cracks in the volume of other stuff that we get emailed to us. So a cock up (if you'll excuse the phrase), certainly no one was giving Pickbothmanlol permission to edit, no matter which pony he named himself after. I still recall his last two 'returns'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I strongly oppose lifting this ban. The best I think we should do is to give this person the "standard offer" - do nothing for 6 months -- no socking, no disruption, no editing via IPs, no nothing -- so we have actual proof of being "reformed", and not simply a bald assertion, and the community will then reconsider the ban. Until that happens, definitely not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - This user is showing... well... signs of desperation. The talk page messages do not inspire me with a terrible amount of confidence that the user has changed, and while I'm not sure what to make of the last thread (trying to convince us of his/her reformation by donating three dollars to the WMF), it, combined with the rest of the user's postings, leaves me rather nervous. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I do not see this individual being able to contribute constructively...ever. My respect for BMK's judgement would modify my opinion to the point where I could defer to their position. Tiderolls 00:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support with editing limited to MLP:FIM and "internet culture" closely construed; and related process; with mentoring; for six months. I've checked Fluttershy's edits, and I believe that their intention with regards to Wikipedia is to produce encyclopaedic content in relation to MLP:FIM and "internet culture" closely construed. If they're mentored we can observe their edits, and if they are problematic (last six months indicates this isn't likely) then we can ban them readily. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Sorry, neither the part of me that usually says "unblock, reblocks are cheap", or even the part of me that would usually want to toss some rope, can overcome the sheer amount of disruption caused, and the unconvincing nature of the appeal. Begoon talk 00:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. Appeal not credible. "Reformed from a life of trolling by MLP"? Really? The "IRC regular" who Fluttershy is trying to protect is almost certainly Zalgo (talk · contribs), who is currently the subject of heavy sanctions himself and who regularly protects troll/sock accounts of whom he's aware. Identifying to him is not exactly owning up to one's actions, on IRC or elsewhere. Fluttershy claims the editor in question was Δ. If Pickbothmanlol wants to be unbanned, the Standard Offer is open to him in the same way it is to any other banned user. Backdoors, sneaking in to create "just one article", and generally gleefully trolling until caught are not the way to do it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose absolutely no reason to let this person back in.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose Kill it. kill it with fire. Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fake - This is pure bullshit and you're all being trolled. There's been a bunch of nonsense going on with socks and My Little Pony for at least a couple weeks now, there have been threads at AN/I already. Fluttershy isn't PBMLOL any more than Jimbo is. The ban appeal is trolling. This thread should be closed and Fluttershy ought to be blocked for disruption. Night Ranger (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose (disclosure: I'm the blocking admin). Let the outcome be decided on not words, but actions - in this case, pursuance of the standard offer. I must also add that Night Ranger is mistaken that this isn't PBML. WilliamH (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose User is invited to try "Standard Offer" or BASC. Hasteur (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. See WP:Standard offer. -- œ™ 03:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pattern of disruption by User:HuskyMoon at Phillipe Kahn

    Editor HuskyMoon has repeatedly changed the sourced 1952 birth year to 1962 at Phillipe Kahn without explanation. The following are all since 22 Apr 2011: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

    The editor also removed {{POV}} and {{Like resume}} tags: [17] and has been removing other editors comments on the article talk page at Talk:Philippe Kahn: [18] [19] to be fair, the stuff from the beginning of the talk page probably didn't belong there in the first place, but the discussion in the "Checking Neutrality" section was also removed.

    Another editor has expressed suspicion that "he is either Kahn himself or someone closely associated with Kahn". Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like this has caused google to return "Best guess for Philippe Kahn Date of birth is March 16, 1962" when searching on "philippe kahn born". Google is basing that on Wikipedia, Wikimedia, and answers.com (which is citing Wikipedia as the source). I just went and changed it at Category:Philippe Kahn on commons, but it looks like the problem has cascaded. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the correct date of birth, I will warn the user not to remove cited material without explanation, to engage in discussion on the talk page and not to abide by talk page guidelines. --RA (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Hopefully one of us will eventually get them to understand. Any idea if Google and answers.com will eventually correct themselves if the Wikipedia and Wikimedia dates stays stable? Mojoworker (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:31Julho1985 crazy fan

    User rival fan club [20]. Decreasing with false matches: Clube Atlético Paranaense . -- Veloster (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that since 31Julho1985 initially changed the date and scoreline, you reverted once (there were three edits by each of you, but it was really just one each), then reverted Eeeekster twice when Eeekster reinstated 31Julho1985's edit, then reverted 31Julho1985 three more times. 6 reverts in 30 hours sounds like a trip to WP:3RRN is in order. I'd suggest not reverting again, and trying to discuss the issue on the talk page (which hasn't happened yet). I've also notified User:31Julho1985 of this discussion. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 02:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I do support their rival. But the matchs are not by any means false. Just check ANY respectful book or research about CAP and you'll learn that the first match (friendly) was against Universal FC and CAP won 4-2. CAP's 2-0 victory agaist Coritiba was not a competitive match simply because a 30 minute game does not qualify as such. I even referenced a page of CAP's supporters which was and still is endorsed by the club itself. I suggest you to do your research before accusing me. --31Julho1985 (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:31Julho1985 person who cheers or applauds Coritiba club, team antagonistic Clube Atlético Paranaense. your intention to diminish, reduce article Veloster (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Veloster

    Started an edit war on Clube Atlético Paranaense. Refuses to discuss the subject, ignores completely reliable sources, made false accusations and personally offended me. --31Julho1985 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Veloster has been blocked for edit warring. —Dark 08:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User Page of User:VodkaChronic

    I've been looking for the right policy and noticeboard to address this, but have not had any luck. Please look at the content at User:VodkaChronic and determine if it is appropriate. It seems like it is not but I'm not sure under which policy or guideline it is not. If another venue is more appropriate for this question, please point me in that direction. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm pretty sure WP:NPA might cover it, given the obviously intended context. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another admin deleted the speedy deletion nomination and all the content was restored[21], plus some additional content attempting to discredit another editor. It really does not seem appropriate for these comments about another editor to be allowed on a person's user page. 72Dino (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've informed user:JamesBWatson, the declining admin. Also, I think this is a pretty clear cut NPA case, but speedy having been declined, I'm taking it to MFD. Nah, too soon for MFD I'd like the user to at least read ANI thread first. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, user:VodkaChronic hirself was not notified. I've notified hir. ~Crazytales (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Failure to assume good faith by User:AndyTheGrump, repeated uncivil behaviour and personal attacks

    Nothing here warrants admin intervention. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:AndyTheGrump in this edit diff [22] failed to abide by basic Wikipedia Etiquette policy to assume good faith and has groundlessly attacked me for soapboxing - I am not promoting or selling anything - the claim is groundless. AndyTheGrump has aggressively ordered me to abandon my discussion - AndyTheGrump is not an administrator and has no right to order me to cease my discussion. Perhaps the name indicates her/his behaviour - but this abusive aggressive behaviour has happened again and again. The administrator User:Kudpung reported AndyTheGrump for an egregious personal attack on me earlier on another issue, and informed me of his reporting it before I was aware of that attack, see here: [23]. The User:Collect, if I am not mistaken, has stated on that earlier report that AndyTheGrump has repeatedly been uncivil to multiple users. The report was never addressed because it was pushed into the archives and no one looked at it. I have specifically sought to avoid discussion with this user since the last attack by the user, but the user entered another discussion on a completely different subject, and the first posting was a negative condemnation of something I posted - AndyTheGrump automatically assumed bad faith on my part and attacked me on groundless claims of soapboxing, and ordering me to leave the discussion. These are all violations of WP:CIVIL. This user has been reported in the past and thus far refuses to amend her/his behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please take your soapbox elsewhere. Announcing to all and sundry that your opinions are fact is soapboxing. And asking you to take them elsewhere is a request, not an order - though of course an admin may choose to give such orders. If you don't like people disagreeing with your opinions, don't post them on Wikipedia... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec):Reading the entry to which AndyTheGrump was responding, it looks like you were soap-boxing, arguing a political position rather than focusing on changes to the article. ----Snowded TALK 07:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @R-41: Please read Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WQA may possibly be the appropriate forum.--Shirt58 (talk) 08:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is not. Von Restorff (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that my suggestion was not correct. While possibly a well-intentioned mistake, it is still a mistake on my part. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter, we love you. Von Restorff (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll remove material there that is currently unsourced that could be considered soapbox - I was not intending to promote a cause or advertise anything though - read through the context of the discussion and earlier ones involving the same users and the context would be understood - I was responding to claims made earlier about socialism by one of the user User:Somedifferentstuff in the discussion and of material in previous related discussions. I may be wrong, but I do not see how any of the five criteria for soapboxing apply to what I wrote. Now, this is more than just a minor issue with AndyTheGrump. This uncivil behaviour of assuming bad faith and going into vitriolic aggressive behaviour has happened repeatedly. The administrator User:Kudpung reported AndyTheGrump for an egregious personal attack on me - before I was aware of it, I learned about it when Kudpung informed me of the attack. At the discussion of the report, User:Collect stated that he/she has known AndyTheGrump for some time and that he has behaved in an uncivil manner repeatedly to users. If I recall correctly, Kudpung suggested a block on AndyTheGrump for certain articles - it is in this page's archives. Nevertheless, AndyTheGrump has failed to abide by WP:CIVIL and has behaved in an uncivil manner including personal attacks against multiple users, including myself. The automatic assumption of bad faith by AndyTheGrump is an example of his uncivil and aggressive behaviour that has not ceased even though administrators have told him to cease this.--R-41 (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think there is a case then you need to supply a full set of diffs to support. Making generic accusations here could be a mistake. If you keep any political pages under watch you will know that Collect and AndyTheGrump are generally on opposed sides of debates and any opinion expressed by Collect has in consequence to be taken with a pinch of salt. You were soap boxing, so its not uncivil to point it out. soapboxing is a disruptive behaviour on contentious articles. You also need to be a little more robust on politically contentious articles. Running here with a complaint about another editor, not fully supported by references and in circumstances where your own behaviour can be questioned is not good news. It looks like you are trying to use ANI to win a political point by attacking another editor. Pots and kettles come to mind ----Snowded TALK 08:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And to add to that, though (like may others ;-) ), I've had disagreements with Collect, we can also engage in civilised discourse - or even friendly banter - on occasion. We've even been known to agree with each other, once in a while. If he spouts nonsense, I'll tell him so, and I'll expect him to do the same for me. That's politics. If you find this difficult to handle, you may well prefer to go elsewhere (a suggestion, not an order). AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)And a quick check over edit histories shows other examples such as these which also demonstrate soap boxing around the same ideological stance. ----Snowded TALK 08:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This report has no merit as the diff shows a comment that is entirely suitable for a noticeboard such as at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Socialism. R-41 included "The legitimacy of socialism is in crisis" (bold in original) in a comment that is 100% personal opinion (that can be ok, in moderation, on a noticeboard, but of course is not a basis for resolving a dispute about article content). Andy responded with a mild comment that included "Please take your soapbox elsewhere." If people are going to participate in an NPOV discussion about socialism (ongoing for three weeks), and they express personal opinions about the legitimacy of socialism, they should not object to such a response. The other points in the report are about matters that have been dealt with in the past, and which do not alter the fact that the reported comments are satisfactory. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement "the legitimacy of socialism is in crisis" referred to the situation after the 1970s era of stagflation and the end of the Cold War and onward where socialism was strongly criticized by neoliberal critics for being flawed - it was a crisis for socialists and economic interventionists like Keynesians because they had to revise their views on state intervention in response to the neoliberal critique - meaning the collapse of legitimacy for state socialism - acknowledged by by many people including Third Way proponent and British PM Tony Blair and anti-Third Way socialist Robert Corfe among many others, it was not me screaming that the sky was falling - it was me addressing what happened from the 1970s onward, I could find sources for this. If I'm verbose, I apologize - I am a university student trained to explain in detail points that I make for seminars - I provided referenced material for points I added it does not seem like violation of the five criteria to me - which criteria did I violate? - I did not intend to anyway. But back on point, he could have politely addressed this to me and asked me to remove it, which he did not - he assumed bad faith and condemned me. You have to understand the history of this user, AndyTheGrump has violated WP:CIVIL again and again. It was addressed by the administrator Kudpung with evidence given by User:Collect. I reported immediately because I know from expereince with this user that the discussion would descend into him essentially accusing me of lying, being deceitful, duplicitous, etc. It has happened in every argument I and others have had the misfortune of getting into with him. I saw the beginning and I reported - if I could pull up the old block discussion addressed by Kudpung and Collect that was archived without any resolution - I could demonstrate that this uncivil behaviour has happened repeatedly.--R-41 (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to provide a diff for your assertion that the editor has in the past "essentially accusing me of lying, being deceitful, duplicitous, etc." or you need to withdraw it with apologies. It seems from what you have said so far that the WP:AGF failure is yours and may merit examination ----Snowded TALK 08:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @R-41: Before you continue, please read WP:BOOMERANG. I recommend focusing your attention elsewhere. Von Restorff (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please wait before casting judgement, and please listen. The user AndyTheGrump was reported by the administrator User:Kudpung for calling me an "a**hole" on a public discussion at Talk:East Germany. I would need to look through the archives of this noticeboard to find it. Talk:East Germany is where most of the aggressive behaviour has occurred to multiple users - I grew frustrated and got snarky - but I left the discussion and have striven to avoid arguments with this user. User:Collect has known AndyTheGrump for some time - has agreed with him on some things and not on others - Collect has stated on that noticeboard, if I am not mistaken, that AndyTheGrump has behaved in an uncivil manner to multiple users. I would need to look through the archives to find it but here is the diff of the administrator Kudpung informing me that he reported it here [24].--R-41 (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that's right. You called me an asshole, and later I did the same thing. With hindsight, we were both assholes... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, like others pointed out above, you are complaining about someone's behavior without any evidence and your own behavior has not been perfect. That is why I recommend focusing your attention elsewhere. I am hereby asking both of you to be polite. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologized immediately afterwards to Andy and reported myself and Andy for our violations of WP:CIVIL then. Here is my report on Andy and myself violating WP:CIVIL: [25]. Look, I get the feeling that I am being the one primarily judged for mistakes, while AndyTheGrump has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL - was reported by an administrator Kudpung, and gets away with it. I feel like my concerns are not been addressed seriously here, and I want to talk with some upper level administrators about this, because I have contributed much work based on scholarly sources here, helped resolve edit warring and if I am going to be treated like I am the criminal here for mistakes while another user's repeated uncivil behaviour is ignored I may consider retiring from Wikipedia for good because I get the sense that my addressed concern here is not being taken seriously at all.--R-41 (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What are upper level administrators? Please read WP:DIVA and this page. I am going to quote user Salvio: "My advice would be to just walk away for a couple of hours, brew a cup of tea and come back when you're calmer". Von Restorff (talk) 09:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the report by an administrator, Kudpung, who took AndyTheGrump's violations of WP:CIVIL seriously: [26]. No, I DON'T think I am more important or "superior" than other users, as WP:DIVA states, I am informing you that I am not a vandal or a regular edit warrior. Upper-level administrator - meaning someone who has been around for a while - or someone who designed the administrative system of Wikipedia. I am just asking to be taken seriously - is that too much to ask? You can criticize me for dumb mistakes I've made - I don't think I'm superior to anyone. But why has the original issue of this topic not been addressed and that all the attention has been turned to investigating everything about me? Please read the administrator Kudpung's report: [27]. The issue was never resolved and is still left open, and Kudpung went on break.--R-41 (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your report has been seriously considered by at least some of us. The fact that the responses are not what you wanted is related to two things: the incident reported is not uncivil (or if it were, it would be a very minor incivility); and, your comment could reasonably be described as soapboxing (unsourced opinion with an unclear connection to the issue to be resolved). Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an incredible amount of experience here on Wikipedia. I am taking you very seriously. I am telling you and Andy both to be polite to each other. It is not unusual for the person who visits WP:ANI first to be scrutinized. Von Restorff (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where does your "incredible amount of experience here on Wikipedia" come from? Certainly, not under this account.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I bought it in a garage sale. Von Restorff (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have looked at the diff which the OP complains of, and I don't believe it meets the threshold for any kind of administrator intervention. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kim Dent-Brown! Should we close this now? Von Restorff (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attack by 61.217.24.132

    61.217.20.132 (also 61.217.20.4) wrote "racism is an international crime" in an edit summary[28] as if I am a racist, although there is no such grounds. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My advice would be to ignore it, he/she did not name any names. Von Restorff (talk) 09:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice would be to challenge the drive-by to cite a source for the claim that "racism is an international crime." :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Probable sock on a proxy server.

    IP sock of user:Chaosname, using a proxy server to edit.As As 114.45.58.45 he has edit warred on this article, as User:Heonsi[29] the same. Anyone like to block the proxy? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ELs to www.uk-tourist-attractions.co.uk

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

    The user seems to have the single purpose of adding wp:ELs to articles.

    The links seem to be to www.uk-tourist-attractions.co.uk [30], whose site says not uk-tourist-attractions.co.uk but uk-hotel-accommodation.co.uk and prominently but not exclusively lists nearby hotels.

    It seems that www.uk-tourist-attractions.co.uk might be a mask for www.uk-hotel-accommodation.co.uk ?

    I'm not familiar with wp:SPAMLINK policy to know what to do. Advice sought - or if an admin. acts I'll follow & learn. I've not alerted the user, just in case it transpires that there's no need.

    Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems Dirk Beetstra T C has sorted this, by reverting all the user's EL additions & giving the user guidance as to anti-spamming policy.

    So thanks, Beetstra. Trafford09 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Skier Dude

    User Davykamanzi

    Davykamanzi (talk · contribs)'s userpage is basically an autobiography, created after a main space article he wrote about himself was deleted a year and a half ago or more. He's 14 and we wouldn't allow some of the statements to remain unsourced in a BLP in any case. I could take it to MfD but if I remember correctly, and I'm not sure I do, we can take other action now given his age. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I had talked to OhioStandard, who I believe is an administrator, on my user talk after I created my userpage in 2010 and I told him the reason for which I made my userpage look like an autobiography. Davykamanzi (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He's an experienced editor but not an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His user page is clearly a WP:FAKEARTICLE and should be deleted. What does his age (in 2010 or now) have to do with anything? Given some previous discussions about pornography, I thought we were age-impervious.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    His age means that some of the level of detail in the WP:FAKEARTICLE (i.e. the combination of exact birthdate, full name, and the school he attends) makes that information possible candidates for oversight. It's sometimes better to consult the oversight team about that by private email before posting here about the other issues, but here we are. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an age threshold that is spelled out somewhere?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I'm aware of, no. (Other than I assume it's highly unlikely an oversighter would take such action if the person were 18 or over, of course.) 14 is a bit borderline - there are certainly 15 year olds who include their birthdate or school name on their userpage and no-one bothers much. Equally there are 11 and 12 year olds who state their age in years, but not the exact birthdate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • mmm .. I'm not sure about the spirit of "fake article", perhaps WP:YOUNG and WP:CHILDPROTECT are more what we're looking at here. Davykamanzi, it looks like you're doing some fine work here on a large number of articles, so please don't be discouraged if this does get deleted. It's not meant as an insult to you; but there are some really dangerous people out there in the real world, and posting any of your "real life" information on the Internet can have some very dangerous consequences. Also, various places in the world have laws put in place to protect minors. (depending on where, that could be anyone under 18, 21, or whatever - depending on "where") I think a lot of people are just trying to protect you, so no matter what - please keep working - you're doing some great work for someone so young. (and young isn't meant as an insult - it's just that anyone under 50 is young to me. :)) not sure where the "pornography" issue is in play here — Ched :  ?  18:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pornography is not an issue. I was referring to another discussion about another editor (15 years old, I think) who wanted to be part of the pornography project, and the whole issue of age and Wikipedia was tossed around, that's all. I still think it's a WP:FAKEARTICLE, but I don't want to discourage any editor who makes otherwise worthwhile contributions from staying here just because they fail to grasp that even their user page has restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ahhhh .. ok - gotcha. I thought at first he had some nudes or something posted somewhere. Now that you mention it, yea .. I do think I remember some discussion along those lines .. but was long ago, and my memory ain't what it used to be. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Odinia

    Odinia (talk · contribs) made a lengthy edit to Germanic neopaganism which was a copyvio. I reverted it and Odinia responded with an edit containing a (not very serious) legal threat. She repeated the threat in a request for my recall on my admin recall page. I warned her about the NLT policy. She has since made a second edit repeating the threat and making a lot of assertions which probably don't belong on a talk page. Could someone please have a look and see if any admin action is warranted? Will notify her of this discussion momentarily. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    My god, I had to read through that incredibly obnoxious diatribe just to get to the "not very serious" legal threat at the end. And just before lunch, too.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Threat repeated in a further talk page contribution but by this time it's not the legal threats really but the likely disruption that is worrying me. I don't like to see new editors put off by the process here but perhaps this case is an exception. However I am too close to this and will not take any action myself. I won't reply further on her talk page as this does not seem to be helping. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yuk. I've commented there on the legal threat issue. What a rant! I did end up saying that most of us don't share her bigotry, I couldn't just let her tirade go unchallenged. Let's face it, if she continues to edit she's almost certainly going to end up blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling another editor "a nasty piece of work" is just about as clear a violation of WP:NPA as you're ever likely to see. Malleus Fatuorum 22:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure he wasn't commenting on their edits and not on them as a person? Heiro 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, quite sure, given the idiomatic nature of that phrase; it's invariably used to refer to people, not literally "work". Malleus Fatuorum 22:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Kim that the almost certain disruption is a bigger problem than the legal threat, which tallies with Doug's comment that a block is almost inevitable - just a question of when.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the time will, in my opinion, come at the next similar edit. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's two editors who don't like my comments (one on my talk page). I'm not sure NPA is really meant to protect comments like hers, and it's a bit ironic that Malleus has chimed in on my comment rather than the editor. I'm normally one of the most civil editors around and don't like personal attacks, but her homophobic anti-Semitic rant was too much for me to ignore. I guess I'll invoke WP:IAR and WP:COMMMON - or am I supposed to apologise to her? First they came…Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided maybe I should actually read what WP:NPA, which is of course policy, not just a guideline, says. It turns out that the nutshell version reads "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." So I'm right thinking that IRA and commonsense are relevant here. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the Grump that I am, I'd probably have told this contributor to take their Onanism Odinism elsewhere long ago, and while I admire your restraint, I feel that it is unlikely to be productive. (I'd not recommend calling in the IRA just yet though - try WP:IAR first ;) ).AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Chesire FM Limited Incident

    The IP Address 109.150.141.52 has posted a comment to my talk page threatening Wikipedia for a legal issue regarding the article Cheshire FM. I would like an administrator to step in and review this claim and take in on from here. User_talk:Michaelzeng7#Cheshire_FM_Limited is my talk page. Thank you so much. ---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left the IP a message about WP:NLT. I'm adding the article to my watch list. There may have been some information which went too far per Wikipedia's privacy guidelines, so there could need to be some oversighting here. —C.Fred (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revdel'd the edits that included the personal information. Number 57 23:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cybercobra & User:Ism schism

    User:Cybercobra & User:Ism schism have been engaging in behavior that seems to be a clear case of wikihounding (as per Wikipedia:Harassment). I have no idea why they seem to have fixated upon me, but they are both following me to all of the various articles I have been on and spearheading attacks on said pages. One of the calls for deletions was quickly and summarily dismissed, but this did not deter them from attacking. They have also taken to erasing relevant exchanges and incriminating information. An example of this is where CyberCobra realized that 2/3rds of his TODO list was focused on me (after I pointed this out to him), so he erased all references to that regards from his TODO list and refilled it with new things... meanwhile erasing our entire exchange for a third time.

    Curiously, the timing and tag-team nature of these two users strikes me as odd. They may be sockpuppets of each other, or perhaps they are just friends who both have nothing better to do with their time than target people like myself for harassment.

    I really don't have the time or energy to deal with this situation, and it has made my experience of editing here rather unpleasant. [note, that this is part of the definition of wikihounding]. Whether their claims about the articles they have put up for deletion are true or not, the policy is that editors should be careful not to edit or attack multiple postings by the same author to avoid the propriety of stalking or hounding. It seems only fair to me that these two users retract their abusive preoccupation with me and my posts, and leave any problems with these articles to other editors and administrators.

    The articles in question include Water Charity, JahSun, Omnientheism, the relevant Talk pages, all relevant User pages etc. Water Charity is an international water aid organization that I co-founded and am CEO of, with projects completed in 70 nations, large sums of money raised, and plenty of media coverage. There are other colleagues of ours in hydro-philanthropy that warrant articles despite being active in less than 1/3rd of the countries we are. The idea that WC is not notable enough for Wikipedia seems impossible to me, but at the moment, I don't have the time to fight with these guys. I have 2 companies to run, and can't hope to emerge victorious in edit wars with two people who seem to have all day to mess around here.

    Any help on this issue would be greatly appreciated. JahSun (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I just looked at the relevant article/talk pages/AFDs etc., and it seems clear to me that the problem is as Cybercobra describes. JahSun, unless you can comply with the WP:GNG, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, then your edits will not be accepted by any editor. Most importantly, it seems, you have failed to supply reliable sources for the 2 articles at AFD. Without such, their deletion is pretty much inevitable. I see no harassment here - rather I see many attempts to help you by pointing you in the right direction, by both the editors you have named, and attempts to explain the policies and guidelines here. You have, in my opinon, been less than receptive to good help and advice freely offered. I do understand, though, that when you first begin to edit here, there is a lot of information to absorb, which can be confusing. Unfortunately, your choice to edit articles about subjects with which you have a close involvement is an extra factor, and means that you also need to read and take into account everything at WP:COI too. Begoon talk 23:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) [adding that I see you have now provided some additional references - so striking that part - apologies] Begoon talk[reply]
    JahSun, while I appreciate that having all your contributions crawled over can feel like hounding, there is a good reason why this happens. When a fairly new editor starts making edits or begins new articles which arouse disquiet, it's often the case that all their contributions get scrutinised. I'm afraid it does look like yours may be an account with some issues with conflict of interest and not all your articles or edits are well sourced. I don't see anything in the edits you complain of to warrant administrator attention, I'm afraid. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The removal of the Afd tag [31] shows that this editor has not given sufficient time and effort to work according to WP policy, much less work with WP:RS and WP:BLP. Also, since the editor is attempting to create an article about himself, inherent conflicts of interest are abundant. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice the history of ANI and Sockpuppetry calls

    In User:Cybercobra's archive which he so kindly placed here, a history of ANI complaints and charges of sockpuppetry can be found. It seems that I am not only not the first person to be subjected to abuse from this user, but the latest in a very long line. You can read here in this user's archive of at least 2 recent cases where he has been accused of sockpuppetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybercobra/Archive_1#Sockpuppetry_case A number of other edits in his talk page are also burying complaints leveled against him, and he prides himself on being a so-called BOLD editor who doesn't care about communication, but just acts first according to his interests, many of which seem like COIs with the subject matter. He is a programmer of some skill it seems, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was able to bury more of these calls where we can't find them. This is merely Archive_1, I wonder how many other archives full of complaints he might have simply erased or is not sharing...

    In the end, I don't care if my pages are taken down. The idea that they might need some help and assistance from other users more familiar with Wikipedia protocol than I, is not hard to imagine. However, instead of being constructive, these two have taken it upon themselves to hound and attack without any really constructive criticism. Any advice or criticism they have given has come after they already initiated Deletion precedings, and amounted to a lot of snide tit-for-tat and revisionism. They have operated like a tag team duo, which makes me wonder if they are not sockpuppets or at least friends who find this kind of thing amusing.

    The fact that one of their calls for deletion was dismissed outright, I think they might not be the most impartial editors to handle the articles in question. I call that all of their influence on the articles be revoked and to let the natural course run with whatever fresh editors feel the need to pick up the torch... if any. Even in spite of their historical revisionism, it is clear that they have an unhealthy obsession with me and my organization. I may have engaged in some self-promotion (not realizing that it is a crime), but this is because we are an all-volunteer organization who doesn't have an army of people paid to do stuff like this on the sly.

    JahSun, you keep telling us you are too busy to have to deal with these proposed deletions. Yet somehow you find time to write long, long arguments at the deletion proposal pages as well as people's talk pages, and even to file Administrator Noticeboard complaints. If you would just spend one-tenth of that time finding and posting links to a few reliable sources about this charity and about you, you could make this whole controversy go away. You keep insisting there are hundreds of articles about you and your charity, and you drop the names of major sources (Newsweek etc.) you say have published them. Just take the time to find them, post links in your articles and in the deletion discussion, and presto! All the "delete" votes incuding mine would get changed to "keep" and you could go back to your offline activities. That's all we need - to SEE the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which you claim exists. But note the the definition of reliable sources. They must be independent, fact-checking publications such as newspapers. So far you have not been able to come up with a single one, and that is what will probably cause your articles to be deleted. Telling us how important you are, and how unfairly you think you are being treated, is getting you nowhere. I remain open to keeping these articles, if you can just show us the sources you claim are there. MelanieN (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Are people allowed to put penis pictures on their userpage and fake the media wiki interface?

    Is this allowed [32]? How about faking the orange message bar on your userpage [33]? Night Ranger (talk) 01:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, it is not. I have just removed both the images and the orange bar; should they appear again, feel free to report them to me and I'll gladly protect those userpages. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the hate- and Osama was awesome-stuff equally offensive. At least it's soapboxy... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no. Nor should they stuff beans up their nose. NewbyG ( talk) 01:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I agree entirely, but for those you have to go to WP:MFD I'm afraid... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) FYI Salvio, the orange bar has already been removed in the past and he just put it back later [34]. Night Ranger (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? MFD the entire userpage? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I stupidly assumed those were real userboxes... Right now I'm off to bed, so I can't properly follow up on this. I'll let another passing admin deal with them – or I'll remove them tomorrow myself. Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the top of this page says:

    You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

    . is there a reason i was not notified? -badmachine 03:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they forgot. Any reason you had a few dozen cocks on your user page? Drmies (talk) 03:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because "you" weren't the subject. Your userpage was. English 101. Night Ranger (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    the reason they were there is that i love penises, especially that one, and was unaware that they are not allowed on userpages. i see them in articles, so i didnt think that userpages were any different. i have been linked to the policy now, and have found a suitable replacement. regarding Night Ranger's nasty comment, sounds like hair splitting to me. also, not bothering to notify me of your sockpuppetry accusation smacks of cowardice. -badmachine 04:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, content guidelines for userspace are far stricter than article space, where we can show almost any kind of sexual or violent content. I think Orestes' modestly is sufficient though, so you're probably ok for now. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    for now? i dont want any more problems from Night Ranger, is there a definitive policy on this? -badmachine 04:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have to ask for a policy to force you to stop doing something that others are asking you to stop, it means you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you insist, WP:UP states that you may not have "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". --Jayron32 04:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    but nobody asked me to stop. there were fifty dicks (very hot ones btw) on my page, but someone linked me to the policy, i read it, and replaced it with art. but there are boobies in it so i thought i would ask. i'm giving up... if someone objects to orestes being on my page they can whine about it here and im sure it will be removed. this shit is clogging up my watchlist. -badmachine 04:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any problem with Orestes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks. frankly i dont know how you guys keep up with these pages. my watchlist was literally too damn long for me to use. -badmachine 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In my remark "for now" meant "as long as this revision of your page is up". BTW, good luck bringing Friendship is Magic to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    at Talk:Pteromerhanophobia, use of such friendly words as "libel", "slander", "defamation", "must apologize", etc, see talk page linked earlier and the header of this diff. They are not outright threats, but they sure seem like chilling legalese to me. Thoughts? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you CharlieEchoTango. My intentions are NOT to initiate any legal action. I am actually very happy that you have put this here. Someone, needs to review this topic. The Fear of Flying is a VERY real subject, and an accurate article needs to be written. Thank you again for bringing this to the forefront.--Mt6617 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I also replied to Mt6617 (talk · contribs) on my talk page about accusations of "slander / libel" ... I did not take them as legal threats at this point (and I'm the one to whom they were directed), but I did post a warning to them on my talk page to be more careful with such misguided accusations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mt6617 posted a phone number on the article talk page. I've redacted it, but can someone please revdel or oversight (whichever is appropriate) the revisions which include the number? It first appears here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He or she was upset, but it's mainly because they're new and aren't familiar with guidelines. They were acting in good faith and I've managed to calm them down and gave some advice. Night Ranger (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder how much cognitive dissonance is caused by people coming here answering the siren call that "Anyone can edit", only to find that, because we're now a middle-aged project (by Internet standards) and no longer the blank slate we started out as, there are actually rules, procedures and structures that have evolved which need to be taken into account when editing, and one can't simply pop in and do whatever one wants. I understand that the WMF is worried about continuing to attract new users (when they really should be more concerned about holding on to long-term editors who contribute material of better quality), but perhaps they might think about moderating the air of laissez-faire they project, and give newcomers a more realistic view of what they're going to experience.

    Just a thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there any fixing people who equate "anyone can edit" with "you can do whatever you want"? (not referring to this situation, just in general) Someguy1221 (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (A bit off-topic, so subject removal) I recently advised a user that the slogan/motto "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is not suffixed with "constructively" due to our basic assumption of good faith. Why would one come here to intentionally cause harm? If one's naiveté/lack of social awareness/immaturity allows them to act on the premise that Wikipedia is a mêlée, that their burden to bear...not ours. Tiderolls 07:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be enough to say "the encyclpedia anyone can contribute to" or "the encycylopedia anyone can improve." Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, someone brought it to my attention that a legal threat is posted on Wikipedia's Village Pump page by PaoloNapolitano (talk · contribs) against our website Wikipedia Review — Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Review_-_libel.3F ... I looked up WP:LEGALTHREAT and reporting the comment here, as per what people said it'd unlikely work out very well for anyone trying to take down an internet watchdog, but it does count as a threat per the rules (I'd also comment if the discussion were not closed that the attack claiming we supported SOPA was totally false and the comment was warning the public that it would return, there's a thread bashing on SOPA in Politics that goes on for several pages for crying out loud) ---Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You seriously shouldn't be wanting to go there Selina. Suggest closing this with a trout. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. Wikipedia Review is an 'internet watchdog', is it? Yeah right.. Grow up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether Wikipedia Review is an "internet watchdog" or "the worst site on the internet" is irrelevant. The policy forbids making legal threats, period.VolunteerMarek 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one who pointed it out on WR. Given that a lot of people who post on WR (including admins, current and former Arbs, etc.) also post on/edit Wikipedia, calling for a libel lawsuit to be launched against WR DOES IN FACT constitute a LEGAL THREAT which is explicitly forbidden by WP:LEGAL. Or hell, if the poster threatened a libel suit against "some completely unrelated website called xyz" that would still be a violation of WP:LEGAL. In those circumstances standard procedure is that the person making the legal threat gets indef banned until they retract the threat.
    Now, I totally understand that a lot of Wikipedians don't like WR. But that's irrelevant. The policy doesn't say "it's okay to make legal threats against websites which we don't like, just don't make legal threats against websites we like". It says DON'T MAKE LEGAL THREATS. And that's what an accusation of libel - combined with an explicit call for a lawsuit (!!!!!! - how much clearer can that get????) is.
    Of course, I have enough common sense to realize that Paolo in what he wrote above was being just stupid, either out of too much Wikipedia-is-teh-awesome-and-sue-anyone-who-says-otherwise kind of zealotry, or out of some desire to kiss the abstract-collective ass of WMF/Wikipedia, or some combination of both. And so, despite the fact that I've seen people get indeffed for much weaker kinds of legal threats I don't think that AT THIS POINT they should be indeffed blocked (though seriously, if there was any kind of consistency to policy enforcement he would have gotten blocked when the threat first appeared). Just warned, trout slapped and the legal threat should be removed and rev-deleted per standard procedure in such cases.VolunteerMarek 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Something to keep in mind: one reason that we don't allow legal threats is because it can be legally problematic for wikipedia to have an editor who is suing us be in contact with us in any way but through our lawyers. This is a very common practice in the US, wherein when a party is part of a lawsuit they will only communicate about that lawsuit through their lawyers. Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Wikipedia and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, though Selina might want to stop communicating with the user for the sake of her site. The second reason we forbid legal threats is due to the chilling effect it can have, but on wikipedia. I haven't read the diffs and background here so I cannot comment as to whether this threat effects WP, but effecting the WR is not our business.

    With that said, unless the user is causing a chilling effect, there is not necessarily a cause to block the user whether or not he retracts, though if he continued to push the point it would probably move into WP:TE and WP:CIVIL violations. That's my take on the matter as a TV lawyer. Noformation Talk 06:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually no, or at least not exactly. That may be "one reason" but it is not the "only reason". The WP:LEGAL policy states:
    If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. You should instead contact the person or people involved directly, by email or through any other contact methods the user provides. If your issue involves Wikipedia itself, you should contact Wikipedia's parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. Do not issue legal threats on Wikipedia pages.
    and
    While you may sue in a court of law, Wikipedia is not the place for legal disputes. Making legal threats is uncivil and causes a number of serious problems:
    • It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles.
    • It creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith.
    • We have had bad experiences with users who have made legal threats in the past. By making legal threats, you may damage your reputation on Wikipedia.
    And it is simply not true that Legal threats against WR have nothing to do with Wikipedia and so this policy doesn't apply in that context, - that's about as wrong headed reading of the policy as I've seen in my 6 years here. The policy doesn't just prohibit making legal threats AGAINST Wikipedia, but making legal threats ON Wikipedia, against whomever. And yes, making legal threats against non-Wikipedia entities is usually dealt with via an indef block. If Joe threatens to sue Sue for libel on Wikipedia, that's a indef block right there, whether or not Sue edits wikipedia or not.VolunteerMarek 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia and the WMF have no legal connection to Wikipedia Review, and a legal threat against WR has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia or the Foundation. It certainly doesn't qualify under WP:NLT, unless we're going to expand the penumbra of our policies to anything and everything that's vaguely related to us, in which case, let's include Wikia, and Conservapeida and anywhere else our editors might contribute. Perhaps we should block anyone who makes a legal threat anywhere on the Internet, on the theory that one of our editors might read it and be disinclined to edit afterwards.

    No, l et WR deal with it in whatever way they want to, it's got nothing to do with us. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again (how many times does this have to be repeated before it sinks in?) - the policy doesn't say it's okay to make threats against entities who "have no legal connection to WMF", it says NOT TO MAKE LEGAL THREATS, period. *I* have no legal connection to WMF. But if someone were to make a legal threat against me on Wikipedia it would certainly qualify under WP:NLT and the person in question would be indef blocked. Same thing here. Please learn a policy before commenting on it.VolunteerMarek

    Brigitte Gabriel

    I'm on my way to bed, but I noticed that User:BrigitteGabriel has made this edit to Brigitte Gabriel. I think the edit summary could be construed as a legal threat, but given the nature of the situation I think it should be handled delicately by someone with more time tonight. I have gone ahead and placed a COI tag on the article. --Daniel 06:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    She doesn't get a notification? 76.118.180.210 (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps moot in this case. I don't think it's a legal threat as she was referring to the source, not an editor. But I've blocked her anyway "because the username, BrigitteGabriel, matches the name of a well-known, living person." She can email OTRS and prove who she is and get unblocked. I also gave her a COI welcome template. This may become a matter for WP:COIN later on. Dougweller (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Paedophile POV-pushing mass-sockpuppeeteer

    Paedophile POV-pusher bragging about sockpuppeting... See Talk:Child sexual abuse#POV-check. Possibly related to the Haiduc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) crew that people previously saw organising on NAMBLA forums who are permanantly banned (background)... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Noformation just made a helpful post saying it is a returning one called Cataconia (talk · contribs · block log · arb · SPI confirmed) and said that Child Sexual Abuse, Pedophilia and Rind et al controversy need to be semiprotected then saw I had already made a post, thought I should add that in case it helps --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked someguy to semi on his talk page but he didn't agree that the effort was concentrated. He suggested WP:RFPP but I'm feeling pretty lazy right now. Awesome catch, btw, what ever your rep might have been in the past stuff like this definitely helps erase it :). Noformation Talk 07:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thanks --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 07:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They are already indefinitely semi-protected, they were before Noformation made his post. No comments on the returning vandal/sock-puppet. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, how did User:JuiceJuhola edit the pages if they are semi'd? Account was created yesterday. Noformation Talk 07:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He edited talk, not the pages. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor causing vandalism

    Resolved

    User:Typhoonwikihelper's talk page says, "My computer is now being attack by a Trojan Horse.please be noted that i am not doing the Vandalism".[35] He has awarded himself a few barnstars, posting a discussion thread beginning "I hate you" on the talk page of The Last Angry Man[36], and removed his barnstars.[37] Could an administrator please block the account until the editor can resolve the problem. TFD (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd pending assurances the editor is ready to make constructive edits. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 07:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A trojan horse that makes your computer perform disruptive edits to Wikipedia? Suuuure. Especially given his not-exactly-stellar performance here in the two weeks he's had an account. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=475357695"