Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Resolved

 – Article protected for one week by User:Beeblebrox — Gavia immer (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. History2007 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation according to Genesis was protected for 3 days, now may need several more days of protection to avoid a revert cycle. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That you would start making changes to the article after that articles protection has lapsed, only to request protection from reverts of your changes, is nothing short of disruptive behaviour. Ben (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you would know from disruption, since you're pretty good at it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Tilman has just entered the 3 revert zone, and 2 warnings have been issued to him now. Admin action is in order now, please. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his comments on the article talk page, nothing will change 7 days from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discusion has been productive. Two editors are attempting to force through the version they prefer while the discussion is still going on. That is not right. And that's why it's been protected for a week in their version. Auntie E. (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're talking about Ben and that other guy. FYI, I'm not watching that page any more because, as with the Noah's ark thing, it's an endless loop and a waste of my time. Ben is absolutely determined that the very first sentence of any Old Testament article is going to assert that the story is a pack of lies (or a "myth", as he calls it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to misuse the terms in play, that's probably for the best. --King Öomie 21:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and Ben know full well that the average citizen understands "myth" to mean "fairy tale", and that's why you're so insistent on it being in the first line of the article, to push a particular POV on the matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, creation myth applies to any religious account of creation, whether it's Norse creation myth, Greek mythology or Creation according to Genesis. Just because some people believe one is true and the others aren't, doesn't restrict us from reporting what reliable sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, to be fair, more than 75% of the world believe in some kind of Creationism, according to the demographics of religeous belief globally. To me it seems that this insistence on pushing the word "myth" in the article is a lot like poking the bear with a stick and then acting surprised when it wakes up angry. There is no need to be intentionally antagonistic. Rapier1 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly when he's focused totally on the Old Testament and pooh-poohs any question as to why he's not aggressively pursuing the same issue in other creation stories. Or not at all, actually. It's like he has an obsession with this particular creation story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the flip side, we don't see Buddhists aggressively pushing Creationism in their article, either. It's a side-effect of being an English-language, Western wiki. Given Christianity's predominance in our audience, that's going to be the contentious articles. As for not being "intentionally antagonistic", I'd say WP:NOTCENSORED. Creationism is inherently a creation myth. I can only say that I'm not pushing it to be antagonistic, but to stick to the facts. Just like the Mohammad image isn't censored, I don't see why we should back off on this issue either. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not censored. The mythology references are all over the article. It's even in the second sentence of the lead. The problem is that Ben and 1 or 2 others insist that it be in the first sentence, by itself, when it's already in the second sentence balanced with the fact that many Christians and Jews believe in it as a matter of faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [1] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [2], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [3][4] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [5] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [6] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashville^talk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )[reply]

Oh very interesting [7] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashville^talk 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank the Wikipedia admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Wikipedia as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd is currently pretty cut and dried, so I'd start by throwing out some good notability refs rather than fiddling with the text. Post 'em in the Afd if you have 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has now progressed to pretty blunt personal attacks. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, it's right there at the top of my user page. I'm more concerned about his characterizing requests for sources as "a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI". —Korath (Talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he already mentioned as much. But given his tone and other comments, looking at your user page wasn't my first instinct. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems probable to me that JWAsm is notable, even if the current people involved are too busy being conflicted to look up sources :-P . Even if the page does get deleted, I'd definitely do it without prejudice, and it would help if we point out to Spook that it's possible to ask for the original text of the article, if he wants to make a new and improved version. (We should also take some time to explain how and where to look for reliable sources :-)).

If you know that I'm an eventualist, I suppose it's redundant to mention that I'm dismayed by all this "the article needs to be perfect RIGHT NOW" attidude I see displayed these days. It leads to lots of preventable conflict, as well as much redundant effort.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, a lot of the problem has been Hutch48's terrible attitude, where all he keeps doing is insisting (often sometimes with swear words) that everyone else is incompetent and breaking the rules. And Doktorspin's continuous wikilawyering that the rules somehow don't apply in this case hasn't improved the atmosphere any. All it needs is one source - say Sourceforge recommending it as the alternative to MASM, or some nerdy but noted in field online journo saying this is going to have an impact. The information is going to be in places like that - but Hutch48 recommending the forum where he spent 48 hours trashing Wikipedia isn't helping his cause at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found via new user edits. Sabre1936 (talk · contribs) during a series of page moves has moved talk page Talk:Congregation of Sisters of St. Agnes to main space page Congregation of Sisters of Saint Agnes and needs an Administrators intervention to preserve the page histories during correction. Recommend checking the user contributions to see what has actually gone where.--blue520 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done As the user cannot actually move over existing articles, it was only a matter of fixing the cross namespace redirects. I'll leave to others the evaluation on whether this was intentional disruption. MLauba (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly just a mistake. Looie496 (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately following his request above to have the restrictions removed because he had complied with them, Levineps just removed a huge chunk of the warnings and complaints from his talk page that had led to those editing restrictions being imposed here.[8],[9],[10]. This is in clear violation of one of his restrictions, which state that he must "[n]ot remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted." postdlf (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok my bad I will revert these. I thought I could what I wanted with my talk page, I guess not.--Levineps (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that as a reasonable misunderstanding on your part, in light of the clear language of the restrictions, and the particular history of your talk page notice and complaint blanking that caused that restriction to be imposed. I'll leave it to others here to determine if this violation warrants a block; under the terms of your restrictions, it does. But at a minimum, what you've characterized as your failure to comprehend very clear and simple restrictions will obviously impact if they will ever be rescinded. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, sorry I'm not perfect. I put it back right away. If others feel the best move is to block me, then that the community's decision. I have enough faith in the community that they will see a good person made a mistake.--Levineps (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is the restriction as noted on his user page:

Warnings

Levineps must:

* Not remove warnings or notices from his talk page or anywhere else they are posted

I fail to see how this is a simple mistake. The wording is rather clear and concise. Personally it is too early to lift the editing restrictions. March 1 is simply too soon, especially after this mistake. I'd say he should not be allowed to reapply for 1 year starting today. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it right away, apologized for it. I think this should be one of those "live and let live." I meant no harm in the process of doing this.--Levineps (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After it was reported here right? The point is that the notice of your restrictions is rather clear and you ignored it. Since you are trying to have the restrictions lifted one would expect that you would be bending over backwards to make sure all edits are in compliance with the restrictions. You did not do that which is not good. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from this comment of his on my talk page, he apparently didn't consider it the "main restriction." postdlf (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't important, I believe that the reason I got into trouble was mainly the categories. It's an opinion, I really feel like my words have been twisted (which will happen no matter what I say). I've taken responsibility for this incident. I don't think I exactly committed the cardinal sin.--Levineps (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of the restrictions are very clear, and this is a straightforward violation of them which undermines any claim for lifting the restrictions soon.

It may be relevant that these removals followed this discussion with Levineps on my talk page, in which he was trying to persuade me to support lifting his restrictions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me not to write on your page, please stay out of my affairs. You can't have it both ways.--Levineps (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issues can be discussed here in a centralised place. Your lobbying campaign of individual editors is unnecessary, and undermines the principle of centralising discussions so that other editors do not have to follow multiple pages to track discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps latest trick is revert-warring on my talk page. Not very impressive conduct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

One revert doesn't exactly a reverting war, but good try on that one. But I would like to ask, why can't I write on your talk page?--Levineps (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, it was not one revert, it was two: [11], and [12] restoring in part a comment removed earlier. The reason I don't want you posting on my talk page is that a) if you want your restrictions lifted, discuss it at a central location (here); b) The discussion on my talk page was a waste of time, because despite your belated claims to have learnt something, you still think that the edit-warring which led to your ban was because you were "provoked". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I made one comment on that. I feel as if your prosecuting me. Fair enough with the one centralized spot. I might not agree with it, but I am willing to do it. I think you overstate some of the things I say. You always find one little thing I say and use it against me instead of focusing on my entire message. Really let's move beyond this, I think both of us have better things to do--Levineps (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levineps, I put in a lot of effort a month trying politely to engage you in dialogue, and got no response. When things eventually got to the point widespread by disruption by you, you repeatedly accused me of vandalism ... so at this point, you have ling since exhausted my good faith. If you really have turned over a new leaf, then take some time to show that that you can keep it up, and stop complaining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The transgression has been self-reversed, and therefore I don't see the merit in blocking in this instance. However the administrative response to any future transgressions would probably take into account this incident. I think Levineps would be advised to be very careful about adhering to the terms of his restrictions, and seek advice in advance if he needs clarification. Rockpocket 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the comments above, I don't believe that restrictions should be removed yet. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Wikipedia where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).

It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Further comments removed. Ucucha 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. NW (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you, Malik, threatening me with outing? Do you know who I am, or are you just guessing? It is disgusting that you are willing to go down that road. You should know better, and it does not make it look like you accidentally stumbled upon this article and nominated it for deletion as an uninterested party. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is not threatening to out you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right because he did that already. Pantherskin (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where. You can email me directly if you have evidence of this and you don't want to note it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has thankfully been deleted, see above. And the question is still unanswered by Malik what his motivation for the speedy deletion nomination of this article. An article that is very, very unlikely for him to encounter during his normal editing activities. And why he continues to harass me with template warnings on my talk page. Note to Tbsdy, the evidence was in plain view here, and emailed several uninvolved authorities already. Pantherskin (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Armynews has created Michael corleone hill and variants thereof over and over again, (see his talk page), despite repeated warnings leading up to a block this past January 1. Today he's back at it with Michael hill (army officer).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again for a month. Next time should be indef - user makes no other contributions. If anyone feels this should go straight to indef, I would have no objection. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've salted a few variations of the article name. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin User:VirtualSteve is helping the racist trouble maker and edit-warrior Inuit18 (talk · contribs) (new sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan) who has violated his 1 revert-per-day [13] but instead of blocking this sockpuppet, admin User:VirtualSteve blocked a totally new user (User:Abasin) without any warning.[14] Abasin has stated that he's behind the Netherland IP. [15] Vandal Inuit18 and admin VirtualSteve are now working to ban him just because he's Afghan. It is a good idea to remove adminship from VirtualSteve because he's abusing his admin power and helping one race over another in a dispute. He has been helping this vandal Inuit18 for a long time now.[16], [17] There is nothing wrong with people who are proud of their race but all racist people who attack others should be gathered and shot on site.

If you file request for W:SPI investigation I gurantee you that Inuit18 will be confirmed sockpuppet of banned users User:Anoshirawan or User:Šāhzādé, User:Germany2008, User:Draco of Utopia, User:Tajik, User:Beh-nam. Please look into this matter, thanks.--Tyrone Watkinson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.61 (talk • contribs)

VirtualSteve? The sysop that originally blocked Inuit18 indefinitely? Uh-huh... LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the block of Abasin, and suggest to make it indefinite considering this obvious block evasion and the fact that this seems to be a trouble-only account. -- Atama頭 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely. Nothing to see here, very suspicious that the anon has come here with full knowledge of SPI, but does not know how to sign their name nor login under an account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ignore this nonsense YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of weeks ago I discovered not one but thirty separate articles authored by Wolfang (talk · contribs) all of which were about Spanish language voice actors (one of which was himself, the rest are his coworkers). I decided to make a batch AFD concerning these, as they are all interrelated. This was met with "close, renom all individually" and then closed as non consensus because of the mixed signals.

After this closed, I decided that the better thing to do rather than open thirty new AFD nominations was to prod tag all of them. One of the thirty was deleted by Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until Jafeluv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deprodded the other 29 and told me that because I made the first AFD, I would have to send them all to individual AFDs. I told him this was nonsense and all should be deleted (I decided against speedy deletion because they claimed notability but didn't support it). So, because of my actions and Jafeluv's there are going to be 29 more non-notable unreferenced BLPs sitting on the project for another five days after they've been sitting here for more than three years without any information added to them other than the subject spamming himself and his friends across the project. The following are the 29 AFDs.

Can something be done that does not allow these pages from remaining on the English language project any longer (none of them have pages at the Spanish Wikipedia and those that did have had those pages deleted for the same reasons they should be here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that Ryulong's description of the situation is accurate. I'd also like to note that I don't think these are quite A7 candidates, and that the articles are not new but from 2007. A few of them have already been deleted for various reasons: [18], [19], [20], [21]. Jafeluv (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that mass AfD was closed correctly - it probably should have been relisted. But the deletion process is that if WP:PROD fails, go to AfD, so it seems like that was the right thing to do, although also an annoying thing to have to do. Prodego ^talk 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My AFD came first, and after that was closed, I went to PROD as the close was "no consensus". It is a waste of time to start 30 new AFDs.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a general agreement can be arrived at that a group listing is the correct way to go (and the arguments here seem to suggest that this is so), can we simply reopen/relist the original group AfD and move on? If someone raises a specific objection (something with credible third-party sources, please!) for any single individual on the list, we can stipulate that that individual's article can be separately relisted for a new AfD. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Group nominations are handicapped when it comes to chances of success, because inevitably someone will question whether one or more of the nominated subjects is notable, and it gets cumbersome and goes into irretrievable no consensus discussion. The AfDs seem the way to go, 7 more days isn't going to do any harm. Kudos to nominator for putting in the needed work.--Milowent (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These should have just been speedy deleted. They're unreferenced resumes for non-notable people. A batch AFD would have been the second best chance. What exists now is just a bureaucratic joke that's almost beyond parody. I just had to manually cut and paste the same thing 30 times -- because the content i was dealing with in each case was identical.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when your parody is up.--Milowent (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know this isn't the correct venue, but the matter is somewhat urgent and my post on WP:RFP is being ignored for some strange reason. User:Ragusino's IP and User:PIO (with both his ever-present and apparently invincible IP "incarnations") insist on editing the House of Bunić article and its talkpage. This article, previously deleted by Dougweller due to the constant edit-warring and its lack of relevance, has recently been recreated by the banned account User:Ragusino (via his sock, User:Mljet). Since then, it has been a constant focus of sock activity and a source of conflict.

To cut to the chase, the article and its talkpage desperately need semi-protection from IP socks. Alternatively it can be deleted as a sock-created article. Regards all --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection is Ok with me. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm completely fed-up with these "invincible" Italian nationalist socks that edit Wiki continuously for months and years regardless of their ban. A long-term semi-protection would probably be safest. Nobody needs another "Dalmatian edit-war". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. I hate edit-wars. Debona.michel's input on the article (just my humble thinking) is important from here onwards. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected House of Bunić. No objection to further deletion process. Admins can look at User:Ragusino's deleted contributions to see the past names he used for this article. A similar article was speedy deleted as an A7 by Dougweller on 17 December, 2008 at House of Bunić/Bona. This would be an almost-keepable article if the sources were good and were findable in libraries. Most likely the sources say that the family *existed* and won't have much substance about what the family members did. (Which could establish notability). EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston can I edited the page. Sir Floyd (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: 70.158.235.38 recently vandalized Briarcrest Christian School. I was initially going to give the user a level-2 warning, but after looking at his/her talk page and noticing that this user had engaged in vandalism many times over the past two-and-a-half years, I decided to make it a level-4 instead. Actually, I think indef-blocking might be warranted in this case, since this user has been blocked several times the past and nonetheless continued to vandalize. Not only that, but I noticed that the user has posted this "manifesto" on his/her talk page:

Nobody likes Wikipedia. You guys suck and i will make it my lifes mision to mess up your entire website!

Wikipedia supports gay people and abortion!

This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Wikipedia, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, IPs are rarely, if ever, blocked indefinitely. The IP has made one edit today, so there is no need to block right away. If they continue to vandalize, they can be reported to AIV. TNXMan 15:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He has received a last warning; the next piece of vandalism will probably get him a long block. WP:AIV is the more appropriate venue, by the way. Ucucha 15:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this user has been deleting warning templates off his/her talkpage (as can be seen in the linked edit), which means that the real number of incidents is likely far greater than just those shown on the talkpage. This user appears to have a personal mission to vandalize Wikipedia, which makes me think drastic action may be necessary to prevent further vandalism. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind, as an IP as opposed to a registered account, theres a good chance these edits are coming from a number of people. May not be a single nefarious individual. From the looks of the edits I'd guess that this is a school IP and we're seeing a number of bored students.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocates to Kiln, Mississippi. It'll be Hancock High School. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's Brett Favre.  :) 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing but vandalism since previous 3 month block expired. Indeed, nothing but vandalsim ever, since August 2007. {{Schoolblock}}ed for 6 months. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Resolved  – Page protected, everyone invited to drink tea and visualize world peace. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Eyes on Mbz1 (talk · contribs · logs) this user, please. Either they retire, or they don't. I don't know what behind-the-scenes shit went on here, but between the suicide threat, the constant retiring, and the rant on the userpage full of personal attacks I keep deleting, this situation needs attention. Again. Tan | 39 15:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't see what retirement has to do with it; the template is not some binding promise to never edit again. Several respected users have happily slapped up retirement messages and continued editing. Second, the only attention required is a lack of it. Leave it alone and it will diffuse. Maedin\talk 15:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The problem is the quite obvious personal attacks on the userpage. "expect from a heartless, merciless robot?" And, apparently we are to provide therapy for this editor and let them rant, simply because they have provided quality pictures in the past? It's Giano-itis. and the situation did NOT diffuse; in fact, the user clearly states they are going to add to their list of reasons they don't like the project. Tan | 39 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] (ec) It would have diffused, but for Jac16888's inflammatory response to Mbz's apology. Tanthalas39, if you're going to edit her talk page, would you please unprotect it too? -- Avenue (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Has this editor been problematic in the past, or is it just since they got checkusered due to Pickbothmanlol's creation of a sock named Mbz2? I would be very upset if Pickbothmanlol succeeds in his attempt to get someone blocked through no fault of their own. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] When I filed the SPI originally I made it clear that the primary objective was to, first and foremost, make sure that it was Mbz1 behind the two accounts I added and not Pickbothmanlol. I, for the most part, have apologized to Mbz1 for everything that happened, and the response I get is an indictment? —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 20:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree with Maedin here. I don't think that this situation needs attention at this point. Mbz1 is an excellent, long-term contributor to Wikipedia whose fantastic photography has greatly contributed to the quality of the encyclopedia. Sadly, she apparently decided to retire following a painful discussion at ANI yesterday. Even worse, it seems she was personally distressed by the events. I think that the shorter this thread is, the better for everyone involved. At the moment, nothing is happening. I think it is best to leave Mbz1's user page as it is, to avoid escalating the situation which, as Maedin says, will diffuse if left alone. Best, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Okay, we allow personal attacks in certain situations. It's become extraordinarily clear that this is the de facto policy here on the project. We should probably change policy, since it's descriptive. Tan | 39 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] The comment you've referred to twice now has been present on Jac's user talk since 9 o'clock last night and neither you, nor Jac himself, have bothered to remove it. If you're really not trying to inflame, you could have removed just the comments you found offensive. Maedin\talk 16:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Now that's a fair statement. Tan | 39 16:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] This user is claiming that they asked for their talk page to be deleted per RTV, they obviously haven't so their talk page needs to be restored. Sorry, I cannot see what possible justification there is for a bunch of back door discussions that result in allowing some user to be sheltered, their behaviour white washed, and then get to sit there and snipe at other users from their user page.--Crossmr (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I'm not suggesting it justifies anything, but an invasive check user was run without good evidence, in a short period of time, because she was suspected of being a sleeper sock, while being ridiculed for her poor English (which, btw, is only poor when she's upset). Didn't anyone realise that she doesn't have an SUL account and could have logged into Commons to prove her identity? Shoot first and ask questions later? Maedin\talk 16:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think everyone needs to just leave this be. Digging at it won't help. The checkuser shouldn't have been run so quickly, but there has been a lot of overreaction. A lot of the comments are making the situation worse. Sometimes what is needed is a good dose of mellowness. I don't want to single anyone out unnecessarily, and there were other people that could have done better, but I found Jac16888's comments somewhat insensitive. ++Lar: t/c 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, we might hurt their feelings. Better let the personal attacks stay. Tan | 39 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Why do you care so much? Just leave her be. How many people would have even noticed the "personal attacks" if you had not brought this up here? I think she is being overly emotional, but I can understand why she feels and reacts this way. Can you try to look at this as a human being and not just a Wikipedia admin? nableezy - 17:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] This is a case where human decency, courtesy, compassion, and common sense far, far outweigh any putative blind allegiance to guidelines that themselves have within them the realization that there are times that said guidelines do not apply. This is not a recidivist sock puppeteer, a vandal, or a troll; this is a well-meaning contributor who has had a hard life, who is very sensitive, and who has more need of the courtesy and decency with which we should be treating everyone. Admins are expected to use their common sense and judgment; if all we wanted was blind obedience to guidelines, we could have Prodego and Werdna write a few admin-bots that read filters and we could dispense with all of the maintenance roles on wikipedia. I have dealt with Mbz for over a year now here and on the commons, and while she may need to be blocked/take a forced wikibreak for her own good, treating her like a common vandal is both incorrect and indicative of a lack of compassion. I am confident enough to say that of those people in wikipedia who are aware of my work (and I have been here since 2005) I would venture that 95%+ of them will confirm that I am a stickler to wikipedia policies and guidelines under all cases, almost Lawful Neutral, if you will, but this case is one where the SPIRIT of the wikipedia weltanschauung dominates the letter of any policy (which, I reiterate allows for deviations when deemed necessary), and I am doing so. If you would like to call this an IAR, fine, but I find it disheartening when I see people treating Wikipedia like a bad case of Nomic. Always remember: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A GAME AND WIKIPEDIANS ARE NOT GAME PIECES There are real people with thoughts, emotions, and feelings behind the usernames. And when someone is not a vandal, not a sockpuppeteer, but a person with some issues, we should be working WITH them, not against them. If you have issues with my actions, I invite you to open an RfC or an RfAr, but I will continue doing my best to help the project and all of its members, as I still believe in the ideal of "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia", and not "Wikipedia: the role-playing game." -- Avi (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] What he said. People need to mellow out. If there are things Mbz1 has done that you think need fixing, ping me about it and I'll see what I can do, if you must but stop with the combativeness, please. Or I'll have to kick some butt. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] In reply to Avi, since apparently the red, bold, squared verbage applies to me. I can't begin to tell you how much I disagree with pretty much everything you said. This is how I read this conversation: Tan: "No personal attacks allowed." Everyone else: "Stop being a meanie. She's had a rough life, and you shouldn't care that they have personal attacks on their userpage. Stop treating this like a game. It's treating her like a common vandal to remove those personal attacks." Now, of course I put words in your mouth there, but that's pretty much the gist of this thread. We are apparently allowing this user to attack other editors (whether or not said editor(s) cares or not is irrelevent), simply out of... compassion? I think too many of you are letting past history or off-wiki actions influence your decisions here. Again, it's Giano-itis - if an editor has done good work, NPA is NA. Tan | 39 18:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] @Tanthalas: Actually, it was not in response to you, see my talk page I deleted the rant on her user page; is there something else of hers that I missed? She apologized to all involved on my talk page, as I protected both her user page and user talk while I am trying to work with her off-wiki. She will not be allowed to attack other users, but, over the past 12-18 months, in EnWIki and the Commons, I have seen her respond, not instigate, for what it is worth. Even if I am dead wrong on all of this, someone has to take the initiative and act more maturely and beyond the strict letter of the law. I would hope that wikipedians in positions of trust (admins, etc.) would naturally be the ones from whom to expect more. So, I believe you are mistaken in your assessment, and if I remain unclear, please let me know what else I can do alleviate misunderstandings. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, out of curiosity, if the red verbage didn't apply to me, who was your target audience? Tan | 39 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] As I said, please see my talk page, it should be obvious. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] I specifically did not name the person/people, hoping that s/he/they would understand it on his/her/their own. This goes in concert with my opinion that we need more compassion, decency, and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism and less destructive criticism and more concern for rules than (non-troll/vandal) people. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, okay. I still see no obvious target for your post other than me, but I'll take your word for it. Tan | 39 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was directed at me because I didn't agree with the way this was handled. Which obviously makes me a bad person in Avi's eyes. No one can disagree with how they've handled it or they're out to turn wikipedia into a game or have no compassion. Sorry, how could I figure out how much compassion to give in this situation when every trace of what this user did/is doing is being protected/discussed behind close doors/deleted and salted with insufficient explanation? All I could see was this: An AN/I thread on the user disappeared very early. It took me a long time to track it down since it wasn't archived properly and then removed from the archive. The users pages were deleted with edit summaries that made no sense and no further information was given. I also found that a user who claimed to be retired and got an extreme whitewashing, was setting their user page up as a soapbox to attack and snipe at other users, which was also being protected by at least one other user. All of this because of off-wiki communication. Yes you've deleted the attacks now and locked it. My questioning the logic of this situation has now resulted in a couple of bad faith assumptions on your part about me. I don't treat wikipedia as a game, that is exactly why I insist on everything being transparent instead in the shadows and then just insisting it is being "handled". If they wanted to disappear and leave wikipedia that is fine. The moment they set up their user page to snipe at other users they completely changed what they were doing here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Personal attacks, if such they are, should not be allowed to stand. But there are good ways to handle it, and bad ways. What's being called for here is more sensitivity and less abruptness. ++Lar: t/c 18:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, "they such were". There's absolutely no other way to interpret what was there; I see no need for your qualifier. As for the abruptness, I'll concede that point, and take that under advisement for future issues. Given this users history of invoking RTV and then wanting a page-long rant, complete with NPA, I saw no further need for coddling, but I could be mistaken. Tan | 39 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please give Avi the time and space to work this out. He is trying to be responsive to everyone's concerns and balance the needs and interests of everyone to the benefit of Wikipedia. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, if someone is obviously having trouble please take it easy. Fred Talk 18:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Agreed. There are no personal attacks on their current revision, clearly the editor is going through anguish. Let's leave them be. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User 'sploded and a trout to 'Julian' for his lack of patience. HalfShadow 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accept my trout and will wear it as a warning. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew de Rothschild, Stefan de Rothschild, Rothschild Estates, James Mayer de Rothschild II and Nathaniel Mayer de Rothschild need speedy deleting as part of a mass hoax. User:Womblethereof should be blocked as an SPA hoaxer. I have spent some considerable time investigating this, there is a discussion on [22]. I have email confirmation from Quinlan Private a company Rothschild Estates claims to have purchased confirming this is a definite hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason we should circumvent the already running AfD process? A hoax appears likely, but it isn't "obvious". --Smashville^talk 15:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an email from Quinlan Private to me

"<blanked private e-mail>"

Confirming that the claim on the website [23] is bogus. Add in the fact that there is no trace of these supposed multimillionaire heirs anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear unambiguous massive hoax with potential in using the Rothschild name to defraud on a massive scale. Wikipedia should speedy clear this one up. Polargeo (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that was totally inappropriate to post here. Tan | 39 15:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My real name is Julian by the way :) Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't Tan Polargeo (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some guys name, phone number, fax number, with a quite obvious suffix that you are not allowed to release it under GFDL? "...it may contain privileged and confidential information". Probably need an oversight on this one. Tan | 39 15:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, it was. I blanked it. What part of this didn't you read? "This email is intended for the named recipient only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately and destroy this email. You must not copy, distribute or take action in reliance upon it." Besides that, e-mails are not released under GFDL and therefore cannot be posted here without express permission by the sender. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 15:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disclaimer on the end of a private email is just standard. it is a public company I have full permission from Quinlan Private to sort this out so just becasue the disclaimer was there does not matter. I have permission to report that this is a hoax. Polargeo (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but did you have permission to post the e-mail here in it's entirety (especially with phone numbers et cetera contained within)? Summarise its contents next time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed oversight to suppress that edit. You are wrong here, Polargeo. Tan | 39 15:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed Oversight too. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am right. Give me about 5 minutes and I will post complete confirmation from the emailer that I have full right to post that email. But rather than get into this craziness will someone do something about this. Polargeo (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blank private information next time. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sort out the email, but could someone speedy those articles, or at least explain why not. We should not allow hoaxes like this to run for the full time of an AfD. Quantpole (talk)

Fully concur. As usual we are wasting time on percieved issues rather than dealing with the real problem. And please block the user while we are at it. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the user who created these articles of this discussion, per the instructions at the top of this page. – ukexpat (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. The user should however be blocked immediately. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not as if User talk:Womblethereof is not already covered in warning tags about this issue with no response thus far. Polargeo (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of that, it is common courtesy at the very least to inform a user when they are being discussed here and even more so when notification is required by the instructions on this page and in the edit notice. – ukexpat (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for taking the trouble to inform the user. They have now been blocked and informed of this. Polargeo (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Anybody who thinks that the Rothschilds are WASPS needs an education. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Arthur de Rothschild (with the specified dates, parents, and much of the ancillary information included in the deleted article) certainly existed: the hoax element of the article was giving him a wife and children when he had neither, as can be determined by consulting the standard work on the Rothschild genealogy, Le Sang des Rothschild, by Joseph Valynsele and Henri-Claude Mars, (L'Intermédiaire des Chercheurs et Curieux, 2003), p. 97. The footnote (#158, p. 161-2) contains enough information for a factual article to be written (including some interesting comments by Elisabeth de Gramont about his misanthropy), so this deletion should be taken without prejudice to its re-creation. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a hoax in the manner of this fake company, which was used to defraud Sven Goran Eriksson. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/mining/6431534/SCH---the-biggest-company-youve-never-heard-of.html

But then it couldn't have been used on anyone more than the most vulnerable pensioners etc, since anyone with suspicions can contact one of the family's real banks. It's more likely the fictitious blogger "Stefan de Rothschild" made the fake websites to promote himself, no doubt partly so that he could produce citations for his biography on wikipedia. 86.26.0.25 (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name Stefan rings a bell - I wonder if this is our old friend Stefan Roberts, a serial hoaxer who began as heir presumptive to various titles, progressed to being Viscount St Pierre complete with fake London Gazette page to show that his old man had been created an earl, and then became a hedge-fund billionaire. His "Roberts Investment Group" website was very like this "Rothschild Estates" one - glossy-looking but shallow with little solid information and no checkable contact details like address or phone number, only email. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly correct. Remarkable that two people should not only share a first name, but look so similar in photos on their social networking profiles. I must say, this is rather amusing. He's put a lot more work into this one then when he was pretending to be Lord Jersey's cousin and so forth, and judging from his Twitter feed, he has a lot of people believing he's jet-setting in Davos. Choess (talk) 04:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is Stefan Roberts again - this "Baron Stefan de Rothschild" also has a father called Andrew, also was made a director of the family business while still in his teens, and, the clincher, has the same birth date - 2 July 1992. See his pictures here and here. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the most amazing, one .. a Washington Post article ... -- The Rothschild Estates has pledged $2.5 million. This is a company that we could find no record of it existing apart from the hoax website , so whoever it is had managed to get that posted on a major publication, imo it was a major deception that was uncovered, not just a few artcles here, that was just more affirmation of existence that would aid the deception. Have a look at the website of the fictitious Rothschild Estates that pledged 2 and a half million dollars to Haiti it was professionally done Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the other website Rothschild Arts huge potential to fraud. Polargeo (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved here from WP:AN#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing
On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion
Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g., [24] [25] [26] etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about [the rule on canvassing], so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using {{notavote}} instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard or remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than jumping to conclusions simply because they suited him, and flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. User:DJ Clayworth posted on Talk:List of suicides to agree that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that admins need to do anything here yet. I don't see where dispute resolution has been tried, as yet, and a board like WP:WQA or WP:3O should be a first stop before coming to ANI and "demanding satisfaction" in the form of sanctions against fellow editors. Why not try to work things out in a civil manner rather than "running to mommy" as soon as things don't go your way. Seriously, the shrill tone of this entire thread does not bode well towards a reasonable resolution, nor does it appear that there is anything remotely blockable here by any party to this dispute, and it would be nice to keep it that way. --Jayron32 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see the issue here. Nightscream asked a few people to comment on a sourcing issue. So far as I can tell, he asked people who had commented on these issues in the past because they were familiar with them. That's not what's meant by canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Floquenbeam is a little slow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the helperbots are down at AIV; anyone know who to contact? I think Chillum runs one, but I really have to go now and want to punt this to someone else. I've been working it pretty solidly for the last hour. The backlogged notice isn't going to go up until the bots revive, so a few extra eyes to delete reports of already blocked editors, stale or incorrect reports, etc. would be cool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there aren't any objections to a non-admin helping out, I don't see a reason I can't keep an eye on it to help you out too; let the admins do the work that requires an admin. Popups is pretty good at identifying blocked users, so I see no reason this should take too much of my time. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the bots stop working it's almost always because someone has screwed with the header.[27] Fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – 3RR report taken care of --Smashville^talk 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a report pending at WP:ANEW but the edit war is continuing, could an administrator please close the report and determine what action needs to be taken. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Someone has some WP:OWN issues. Blocked for 24 hours. --Smashville^talk 22:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone seen this? Some noxious banned editor seems to be vandalising a philosophy article as some kind of prank. Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new article. It's being sourced. Looks like good work to me. Let him edit away. If and when he switches from creating content to making some sort of point, action can be taken then. Meanwhile, perhaps don't call people "noxious" even if you happen to disagree with them. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted, but all the same this looks suspiciously like User:Peter_Damian, public enemy number 1 (second to Gregory Kohs) of Wikipedia. He was recently blocked for this account. Isn't there something about 'banned means banned'. Are you saying that the quality of contributions could possibly outweigh a community ban? Rupert of the New Age (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tad omphaloskeptic, are we? Both now blocked as Damian socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think omphaloskeptic would indicate suspicion of or disbelief in one's navel. Is that what is meant? Or is navel gazing from the blocked editor being suggested. Sorry, these fancy words are unfamiliar to me. Oh wait, because Rupert is also the same editor? So one is the navel of the other? And he's indicating suspicion of himself? Or is it being suggested that raising suspicion of his own sock account is meant to raise suspicion in his own navel. I'm very confused. Will someone check out my question on the article talk page of the article that was created about eternity? I don't understand the lead. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regularly feel skeptical about my navel. Should I get help? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least you HAVE a navel. I have it on good authority that, like Satan, PD and GK do not. At least that's the impression one gets reading some stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know not of past dramas, but seems like he misses Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of curiosity, what happens now with the article newly created by one of these banned socks, Eternity of the world? Bielle (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this will help? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the emperor is wearing nothing but socks, and yet no one seems to care due to general fascination with his navel, can we all agree that a good article is worth a wink to a blind man? Steveozone (talk) 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well certainly a A Nod Is as Good as a Wink... to a Blind Horse. We all know that. Carptrash (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh...not what I had in mind, but I too wonder if the article is a go-er. Steveozone (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gone. Fram (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as within policy. However, (copied from article talk) I've restored this article and the talk. It was properly deleted under WP:CSD#G5 by User:Fram as work of a banned editor, but after review of the material, I am willing to stand behind the edits. Also, a review of the history will show edits by others that I deem "substantial" enough to qualify, although Fram may not have felt that way. ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The User:204.253.82.210 has vandalised the iPad article 3 times in 6 minutes, can they be blocked please? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done - in b4 "take it to AIV" Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user is engaging in conduct that is harmful to the project. Not only did he create Intelligent Europe, an article that was deleted with unanimous consent (with the only "keep" votes coming from himself and what could be his sockpuppets), but he keeps re-adding junk to European Research Area and European Research Council ([28] and [29] are the versions from which he is reverting). His failure to understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a repository for EU policy memos lies at the heart of the matter. What might be the best way forward? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that explaining it to him at User talk:Technologist9 might help. I don't see anything there nor has he been invited to discuss things at the articles talk pages. And I see you forgot to notify him of this section. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An anon has recently edited a talk page, threatening to 'sue' anyone who removes content he has just added. I'm not entirely sure how to approach this, though I will not overlook it, and am requesting some admin assistance. Connormah (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user was warned and has been blocked, User talk:71.173.84.78#Final warning. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, are we going to do anything else here?--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have something else in mind?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For an ironic twist, you could add to the warning that if he talks about suits again, he'll hear from your lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substitute tailor for lawyer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Enough needling. We should close this thread. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got money to burn just take him to court for the pain and suffering caused by being an idiot on WP. But then I suppose we'd have to ban you as well, it would make for an interesting test case though and an epic one if you won. raseaC^{talk to me} 14:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something up with this user. First, I just noticed in his talk page history that he removed all his talk page messages (except the welcome message) from a revert. Secondly, I made a couple edits to Template:Uw-voablock yesterday; he reverted them w/o a specific reason today. I restored mine about half an hour after that. I don't know what's going on with this user; I'm not bold enough to ask on their talk page, so I'm bringing this up here. Maybe they're a sock puppet? Schfifty3 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you notified this user of this thread?--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive gone and notified this user. But YOU should have done so after making this thread.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for that. I had to attend something after I posted this thread. Schfifty3 01:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has been blocked mistakenly, supposedly as a sock of MascotGuy, by J.delanoy, in the past. It has since been rversed. Maybe ask him for a CheckUser? Connormah (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in, I've posted what I regard as a very nice talk page message which was again removed like this user does with all talk page comments. I know Wikipedia isn't a social network and that people with excellent content contributions, but this guy steps out of all bounds. If you look at his edit history, it appears to be consisting solely of reverting other user's changes without any comment or summary whatsoever. User:Krator (t c) 02:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from blanking his talk page, has he been disruptive on any other area of Wikipedia? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I've initially wanted to talk to him about was biting newbies. He reverted a new editor twice, calling good-faith (but badly formatted) first-time edits vandalism and spam, and then reverting the new user's questions about those reversals on his talk page as vandalism. The new user then came to WT:VG, which is where I picked this up. This isn't anything I would normally be really angry about, except that he doesn't seem to acknowledge that this is a bad thing to do. He's a bit trigger happy on the vandalism button, that's all I think. Take a look at the guy's talk page and there's just a stream of people going "hey, what's up, I don't understand what you're doing" and this guy reverting it. User:Krator (t c) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the one he marked as spam and vandalism while I was Huggling. I thought it seemed odd, but, not being familiar with the topic, I decided to let it drop, presuming there was consensus on the talk page or something. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I came to file a report and discovered that a thread is already open. He reverted a number of Ikip (talk · contribs)'s edits to user talk pages [30] with the edit summary "Arbitration enforcement: Spamming user talk pages.". Aside from the fact that he's not a admin or an arbcom clerk, I also can't find any arbcom decision that Ikip violated in his messages. Also, I checked his contribs and this does not seem to be a new user. Tim Song (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black#Ikip_warned. But that doesn't say anything about enforcement by revert. I have reverted User:Baseball1015's deletion of this "invitation" from my talk page, and asked him not to remove content from my talk page. DES ^(talk) 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, their userpage has been U1 speedied four times in the last month. But regarding the above, there are six different users asking them to not delete messages from usertalk pages. And, if I recall correctly, there was no consensus that Ikip's message was inappropriate, so the arbitration enforcement claim is nonsense. I think it would be best if Baseball1015 would come here and offer some sort of explanation. —DoRD (?) (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only talk page contributions the guy has made are strange reversals ([31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]) and the only ever non-blanking comments he's made on his own talk page are "Whatever" [37] and this. Somehow I have little faith he will chime in here. User:Krator (t c) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Please block the Paella article to anonymous users.

Three anonymous users have made an identical, erroneous change several times over the past few days. Since the edits are identical, I strongly suspect the that only one person is making these edits.

The problem is as follows: There are four citations that state the word "paella" is a Catalan word. However, users 81.37.179.51, 193.144.127.13 and 79.146.36.125 have removed the citations and edited the article repeatedly to say paella is a Valencian word:

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

I attempted to warn user 193.144.127.13 yesterday that I would report his behavior if he made the same edit again:

[44]

The warning did no good. I scanned the article today to find the same edit had occurred.

[45]

Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFPP submitted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Paella_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. In the future, things like this should go to WP:RFPP Frmatt (talk) 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi'd three days. Re-request if they keep coming back. Malinaccier (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, you guys work fast. Thanks! Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOPS! Thanks for catching that my full should've been semi! Frmatt (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and a fracas is brewing at his article. Let's cut this one off quick, please?? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now I have jumped in, 'cause, what the heck. Carptrash (talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the fracas exactly? Sad to say that Zinn's death is now obviously confirmed, so no problems with premature changes to the article or anything (perhaps there were earlier), and from what I can tell there does not seem to be severe edit warring going on. Is there a need for a specific admin action here, beyond keeping an eye on the article for awhile (which is probably a good idea)? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like something that probably should have been posted to WP:BLPN instead. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not always all that clear about what goes where, to whom in the wikibureaucracy. But Zinn's People's History of the United States is getting a lot of editing and undoing too. Or should this be posted elsewhere too? Carptrash (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Zinn is NOT a living person, so would not they (WP:BLPN) just send me somewhere else? Carptrash (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BLP also tends to apply to recently deceased people. Dying doesn't immediately remove all of the notability rules. --Golbez (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think BLPN is the right place for this, however I'm still not quite clear what you are asking for. When well-known people pass away, usually articles about them get edited pretty heavily. There's nothing wrong with heavy editing (and even some undoing), so long as it does not devolve into all-out edit warring. If that happens you can report individual editors who are edit warring to WP:AN3, or if necessary you can request page protection. If there's something else specific you are looking for administrators to do please state it, otherwise if it's just a general "heads up" to keep an eye out on Zinn's page I would definitely echo that, but in that case there's no need for admin action. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I just panicked. That's why I don't do this sort of thing often. I saw edits and undos from an editor who been blocked from that article before and maybe from the book article too and just seemed that something was in order. Thanks for looking into it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlosar45 (talk · contribs) User is not a persistent vandal, but he is a persistent adder of unsourced material. He has been warned on numerous occasions for creating unsourced/OR articles or adding unsourced/OR material to articles. I posted a lengthy, detailed warning on his talk page ten days ago.[46] Soon after this he received two more warnings, one of which was a final.[47][48] He stopped posting for ten days and his first effort on his return was the addition of more unsourced OR,[49] followed by the creation of yet another unsourced/OR stub, the only contents of which is "Guest on 2011". This editor is clearly ignoring the clear and detailed messages he is being given. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I'd really hate to block a newbie for seemingly trying too hard.. however Wikipedia:Competence is required and maybe a short-term block would get their attention.. -- œ^™ 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was archived by the reporting user, thus presumably it's resolved or being handled elsewhere. NJA (t/c) 15:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reported this as a vandal only account. The AIV board removed the file w/o a block. I'm not sure if it was in eror but I AM SURE this is a blockable account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]